# comment

text:
<p><em>And we are witnesses of these things</em>- Reading carefully, Peter says that he is a witness not only of the resurrection, but of the fact that Jesus is now at God’s right hand and from that position of power has enabled forgiveness. How could Peter be a witness to <em>that</em>? For he hadn't been up to Heaven to check. Quite simply, he knew the extent of his own forgiveness. And so he therefore knew that truly, Jesus had ascended and was there in a position of influence upon Almighty God, to enable forgiveness. His own cleansed conscience was the proof that his belief in the Lord's ascension was belief in something true. And yet we ask: does our belief that Christ ascended really have this effect upon us? </p><p>Luke concludes by recording how the Lord reminded His men that they were “witnesses” (24:48); and throughout Acts, they repeatedly describe themselves as witnesses to Him (<em><a href='B:510 1:8'>Act 1:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 1:22'>Act 1:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:32'>Act 2:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 3:15'>Act 3:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:32'>Act 5:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:39'>Act 10:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:41'>Act 10:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:31'>Act 13:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 22:15'>Act 22:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 22:20'>Act 22:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:16'>Act 26:16</a></em>). This is quite some emphasis. This Christ-centeredness should also fill our self-perception; that we are witnesses to the Lord out of our own personal experience of Him. They were witnesses that Christ <em>is</em> on God’s right hand, that He really <em>is</em> a Saviour and source of forgiveness (5:32); because they were self-evidently results of that forgiveness and that salvation. They couldn’t be ‘witnesses’ to those things in any legal, concrete way; for apart from them and their very beings, there was no literal evidence. They hadn’t been to Heaven and seen Him; they had no document that said they were forgiven. They were the witnesses in themselves. This even went to the extent of the Acts record saying that converts were both added to the ecclesia, and also added to Christ. He <em>was</em> His ecclesia; they were, and we are, His body in this world:&nbsp;</p><p>We are “witnesses [on account of our being] in him” (<em><a href='B:510 5:32'>Act 5:32</a></em> RVmg:). We are His epistle to men and women; His words of expression consist in our lives and characters (<em><a href='B:540 3:3'>2Co 3:3</a></em>).</p><p><em>And so is the Holy Spirit, which God has given to those that obey Him</em></p><p>- see on 5:29 <em>We must obey God rather than men</em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>But they, when they heard this, were cut to the heart and decided to kill them</em>- They had been reminded that the Lord Jesus was now giving repentance to Israel; He was working in the hearts of Jewish people to bring them to repentance. And they were resisting. No wonder they were cut to the very bone of their conscience. The same word is used of how they were again "cut to the heart" by Stephen's appeal to them (<em><a href='B:510 7:54'>Act 7:54</a></em>). And they responded the same way- they desired to liquidate the messenger, to destroy the channel of the message. But the message remained. To be twice "cut in half", as the Greek means, would have left them psychologically shattered. They either repented, or became murderous in their hatred of the preachers. </p>


text:
<p><em>But a Pharisee in the council</em></p><p>- see on :17 <em>The Sadducees</em>.</p><p><em>Named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in honour by all the people, stood up and gave orders to put the men outside for a little while</em>- Paul had been his student. Yet Paul differed from him regarding the Christians, for he was for persecuting and destroying them rather than following his teacher's advice of leaving them alone (:38). This difference with the respected Gamaliel was surely one of the many goads in Paul's conscience that was intended to lead him to accept Jesus as Christ. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: You men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men</em></p><p>- see on 5:39 <em>You might be found to be fighting against God</em>. There is a repeated theme of local authorities being nervous about punishing the Christians (19:36; 22:26; <em><a href='B:470 27:19'>Mat 27:19</a></em>). And this was in an age where conscience was not well developed, and there was little justice nor fear of prosecuting people on insufficient evidence. There was simply a sense that somehow God was in all this; and the insistent persecution of the Lord and His people was therefore carried out against all the pricks of conscience, with Saul of Tarsus being the parade example. There is often likewise an undefined sense in our contemporaries that we are somehow of God.</p>


text:
<p><em>For before these days Theudas</em>- The two examples chosen are of charismatic men who attracted followers. Gamaliel is saying that these men should be compared to Jesus of Nazareth, and their followers to His disciples who were now under trial. Gamaliel therefore perceived that the disciples were following a leader- it was that obvious. But the leader was nowhere to be seen. Gamaliel is therefore admitting the possibility that Jesus may have risen from the dead and therefore had attracted followers. The fact he did not close off that possibility completely, and even the Sadducees who denied a resurrection agreed with him (:40,17), is all evidence enough of how the consciences of them all were being pricked. We would rather expect the Sadducees to have responded: 'Well yes, those men were visible men here on earth who attracted a following, but these disciples of Jesus are following a man who doesn't exist, seeing we killed Him and the dead do not rise'. But even they whose advertised position was that there could be no resurrection of anyone... went along with the reasoning and did not make the logical comeback on it. Such was the pressure upon the consciences of these men. No wonder Paul and some of them gave in to it, in accepting that indeed, Jesus had risen.</p><p><em>Rose up</em>- The same word used of the resurrection of the Lord. Again, note that Gamaliel is not closing off the possibility that Jesus of Nazareth had risen; he is saying that others 'rose up' but in time, came to nothing; and so as far as he was concerned, the jury was still out as to whether Jesus had risen or not. The force of his logic was enough to make the Sadducees, who denied any resurrection, agree with him (:40). And his loyal student Paul was provided with yet another goad in his conscience concerning Christ- for his respected teacher was telling him that it was best to not rule out the possibility that Jesus had risen.</p><p><em>Claiming to be somebody</em>- Luke uses the same words in describing the accusation that the Lord claimed to be the Christ (<em><a href='B:490 23:2'>Luk 23:2</a></em>). The similarities are clearly being drawn between the Lord, and these two false leaders.</p><p><em>And a number of men, about four hundred, joined him</em>- This clearly echoes <em><a href='B:510 4:4'>Act 4:4</a></em>: "The number of the men [the same Greek words are used] was about five thousand". </p><p><em>He was killed</em>- Same word used about the slaying of the Lord Jesus.</p><p><em>And all who followed him </em>- The language used of those persuaded by the cause of Jesus.</p><p><em>Were dispersed and came to nothing</em>- In contrast to the stress in Acts upon the unity of the Christians.</p>


text:
<p><em>After this man, there rose up</em></p><p>- see on :36 <em>Rose up</em>.</p><p><em>Judas of Galilee, in the days of the census</em>- Jesus of Galilee also 'appeared' in the days of the census, as only Luke records. Gamaliel is drawing similarities between these men and Jesus- and leaving the verdict open for the time being, as to whether He had really 'arisen' and whether following Him was the right thing to do.</p><p><em>And drew away some of the people after him</em>- Exactly as the Jews claimed Jesus had done. The Greek translated "drew away" is used again by Gamaliel in the next verse: "Keep away from [s:w. "drew away"] these men". He may be implying that their interest in these men and their invisible Master was in fact leading them to follow Him, to be drawn away after Him. This was an astute psychological observation; he perceived the process going on within his pupil Saul of Tarsus, and he was absolutely correct.</p><p><em>He also perished and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered abroad</em>- This was exactly what happened to the rank and file followers (<em><a href='B:510 8:1'>Act 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 8:4'>Act 8:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 11:19'>Act 11:19</a></em>). But <em><a href='B:510 8:1'>Act 8:1</a></em> records that when Saul's persecution led to the 'scattering abroad' of the disciples, the apostles did <em>not </em>scatter. And it was the apostles who were under judgment and are the reference of Gamaliel at this point. Saul was desperately seeking to prove his teacher Gamaliel correct by consciously seeking to scatter the followers of Jesus; but he did not succeed in scattering the apostles. And Gamaliel had reasoned that if this did not happen, then this whole thing was likely of God. The way the apostles didn’t scatter was therefore another goad in Saul's conscience.</p>


text:
<p><em>And now I say to you, Keep away from these men and leave them alone</em></p><p>- see on :37 <em>Drew away some of the people after him</em>. </p><p><em>For if this counsel or this work is of men</em>- Gamaliel's reasoning made a deep impression on Paul; for years later he uses the same word in saying that he declared the "counsel of God" (<em><a href='B:510 20:27'>Act 20:27</a></em>). Gamaliel had reasoned that this "counsel" was either of God or man; and clearly it was of God. And Paul recognizes this by alluding to his teacher's words. The unusual position of Gamaliel, therefore, was surely a goad in Saul's conscience. Saul would have carefully noted and thought about his words. Luke has used the same idea in describing the "counsel and deed" of the Jewish Sanhedrin in condemning the Lord to death (<em><a href='B:490 23:51'>Luk 23:51</a></em>). Gamaliel is now addressing the Sanhedrin... and so he may be suggesting that the 'counsel and work' of the Sanhedrin is being compared against the 'counsel and work' of the apostles, and only time will tell who is of God and who of man. Again, we must note that Gamaliel is open to persuasion that the Sanhedrin may be wrong; he does not condemn the apostles, rather does he urge leaving them alone and leaving time to judge. This very significant position would have irked and concerned Paul deeply, and developed his conscience for Christ. On the basis upon which Gamaliel reasons, I personally would consider it likely that he converted to Christianity. Whilst this appears impossible to prove, it is [incidentally] the position held within the Eastern Orthodox Christian tradition, where he is revered as a saint. "According to Photius, he was baptized by Saint Peter and Saint John, together with his son Abibo (or Abibas, Abibus) and Nicodemus. The Clementine Literature suggested that he maintained secrecy about the conversion and continued to be a member of the Sanhedrin for the purpose of covertly assisting his fellow Christians".</p><p><em>It will fail</em>- The same Greek word translated "overthrow" in :39. Gamaliel had surely heard the Lord's prediction of the overthrow [s:w:] of the temple and the Judaism of His day (<em><a href='B:490 21:6'>Luk 21:6</a></em>). Again, Gamaliel is heightening the stakes- either Christianity will be overthrown, or the temple will indeed be overthrown as the Lord Jesus had predicted. This heightening of the stakes, and leaving the verdict open, was psychologically a path towards conversion to Christianity. And Paul was goaded down that path, as I suspect Gamaliel himself was.</p>


text:
<p><em>But if it is of God, you will not be able</em>- Gamaliel summarized the issue as being whether it was Judaism or Christianity which was of God or of men. I have mentioned already that Gamaliel is leaving the question open, rather than condemning the Christians; and that this was something which would have deeply exercised the conscience of his pupil Saul. The way Gamaliel's words deeply entered Paul's consciousness and conscience is reflected by the way in which he later alludes to those words. The choice between being of God or man is reflected in <em><a href='B:520 2:29'>Rom 2:29</a></em>, where Paul reasons that a true Jew has commendation "not of men but of God". This is framed in exactly the terms Gamaliel uses here. This phrase "of God" is very widely used by John in his Gospel and letters, e.g. "We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies in wickedness" (<em><a href='B:690 5:19'>1Jn 5:19</a></em>). John of course was one of the apostles referred to by Gamaliel; and John too would have heard these words of Gamaliel, and was triumphing in the fact that things had worked out to show that indeed, Christianity was "of God". </p><p><em>To overthrow them</em></p><p>- see on :38 <em>It will fail.</em></p><p><em>You might be found to be fighting against God</em>- Paul would have heard these words, and struggled with them, seeing they came from his respected teacher. He would have realized that indeed he was fighting with God- or as the Lord put it, kicking against the goads. The allusion is surely to Jacob, whose fighting with God in the form of an Angel is therefore read here in a negative light. These "men of Israel", descendants of Jacob / Israel, were not to be followers of Jacob in his negative aspects.</p>


text:
<p><em>They took his advice</em>- It was unusual for Sadducees to take advice from a Pharisee in this way. See on :17 <em>The Sadducees</em>. The sense that these men might in fact be of God was very strong. Again, the Lord was working on their consciences in an attempt to save even them. </p><p><em>And when they had called in the apostles, they beat them and charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go</em>- The same word used about the beating of the Lord, probably at the same hands (<em><a href='B:490 22:63'>Luk 22:63</a></em>). Paul uses the same word about how he 'beat' the Christians "in every synagogue", and that surely included in Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:510 22:19'>Act 22:19</a></em>). His anger at the attitude of his teacher Gamaliel would have been given full vent in beating the Christians. Perhaps Paul even whipped Peter at this time. For Paul was Gamaliel's former pupil and was present in Jerusalem at this time. This would explain his deep respect for Peter and what appears to be a desire to follow Peter's ministry, in witnessing to the Jews, rather than in developing his own ministry to the Gentiles as the Lord intended. See my comments throughout Acts 20 for more on this. It also makes the more wonderful Peter's reference to Paul as his "beloved brother" (<em><a href='B:680 3:15'>2Pe 3:15</a></em>). </p><p><em>But Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord</em>- The commendation of Paul's mission by the Antioch brethren could suggest that they took Paul's side in the dispute. But despite being seen as having done the right thing by conservative brethren, Paul's later allusions to the incident suggest he later realized that he had done wrong, and the approbation of his brethren didn’t make it right before God.</p>


text:
<p><em>They therefore departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonour for the Name</em>- We get the picture of them walking out from those sour faces ['presence'], singing and rejoicing. The Sanhedrin had commanded that they be beaten- so when we read of them departing from the Sanhedrin, this was in order to be beaten. And they went to that beating rejoicing. If indeed Saul was one of those who did the beating [see above], and his involvement in the stoning of Stephen makes it likely he was, then this would have been a sight which stayed with him for life. And it would exactly explain why when Paul was beaten at Philippi, he went to prison and sang hymns in the cell. He had probably seen the apostles going to their beating with joy and rejoicing. And he was determined to emulate those fine brethren, especially considering that he himself had been the one who frequently administered such beatings / floggings to Christians (22:19).</p><p>There are about 70 references to there being joy of faith amongst the early brethren. It was undoubtedly a characteristic of the community, despite the moral and doctrinal failures amongst them, the turning back to the world, the physical hardship of life, and direct persecution from the authorities. There was a joy of faith in conversion and in beholding it (<em><a href='B:510 2:41'>Act 2:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:46'>Act 2:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 3:8'>Act 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:41'>Act 5:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 8:8'>Act 8:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:52'>Act 13:52</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 15:3'>Act 15:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 1:6'>1Th 1:6</a></em>). Letters to new converts like the Philippians reflect this theme of joy, even though it was written from prison. Paul and Silas could sing in prison. The earlier brethren rejoiced that&nbsp;they were counted worthy to suffer shame for Jesus’ sake (<em><a href='B:510 5:41'>Act 5:41</a></em>). Paul rejoiced daily in the fact the Corinthians had been baptized (<em><a href='B:530 15:31'>1Co 15:31</a></em>). Many a photo taken at baptism reflects this same joy amongst us today. Sower and reaper rejoice together (<em><a href='B:500 4:36'>Joh 4:36</a></em>). To hold on to the Truth was described as holding on to the rejoicing of the hope unto the end (<em><a href='B:650 3:6'>Heb 3:6</a></em>). &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 2:46'>Act 2:46</a></em>.</p><p><em>And every day, in the temple and at home</em>- The Sanhedrin were clearly powerless to stop them. But the question arises as to why they felt so powerless? They had twice rebuked them and threatened them... And we wonder whether their lack of power in this case was related to the strange power of conscience which they all had working within them- that in fact, these Christian men were right and they were wrong. Seriously wrong.</p><p><em>They did not cease to teach and to preach Jesus as the Christ</em>- Perhaps the emphasis is on the word "not". They did not cease as they were asked to in :41. </p>


text:
<p><em>Now in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose- </em>Luke records how the converts were repeatedly “multiplied” (<em><a href='B:510 6:1'>Act 6:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 6:7'>Act 6:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 9:31'>Act 9:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 12:24'>Act 12:24</a></em>), using the very word for the ‘multiplying’ of Abraham’s seed as the stars (<em><a href='B:510 7:17'>Act 7:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 6:14'>Heb 6:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 11:12'>Heb 11:12</a></em>). Every baptism he saw as the triumphant fulfilment of the promises to Abraham, even though many of those who ‘multiplied’ later turned away. The same word is used again of the multiplying of the new Israel in 6:7, and Stephen surely alludes to this in saying that when Israel "multiplied" in Egypt (<em><a href='B:510 7:17'>Act 7:17</a></em> s:w:), then persecution arose. He is likening the Jewish leadership, with all their strict piety, to Pharaoh. And Saul noticed this point, and on repentance, makes the same point in Romans- that the hardening of the hearts of the Egyptians was as the hardening of Israel's hearts. Paul so often alludes to the reasoning of Stephen in his speech. </p><p><em>A murmuring amongst the Greek speaking Jews against the Hebrews, because their widows were- </em>This word is used in later appeals for believers not to murmur (e.g. <em><a href='B:530 10:10'>1Co 10:10</a></em>). It is murmuring between believers, quiet comments and negative insinuations, which so often stops the powerful advance of the Lord's cause. There were dirty politics in the church. The Greek speaking Jews and the Hebrew speaking Jews within the ecclesia started arguing over welfare payments in Acts 6. It was the old tension- the liberals against the orthodox, with the orthodox unwilling to give much of the welfare collection to those they perceived as more liberal. This squabble was tackled by Stephen, and the record then goes on to describe his murder, almost implying that it was Judaist Christians within the synagogues who set him up for this. After all, there was big money involved- Jews were used to paying 10 or 20% of their wealth to the temple, and if this was now going to the ecclesia, with thousands baptized, there could well have arisen a power struggle over who controlled it. It could well be that the division between Paul and John Mark was over this matter; after they had baptized the first Gentile in Cyprus, Sergius Paulus, John Mark went back to the Jerusalem ecclesia (<em><a href='B:510 13:13'>Act 13:13</a></em>). <em><a href='B:510 15:38'>Act 15:38</a></em> RV speaks of how he “withdrew from them from Pamphylia”, hinting at spiritual reasons for his withdrawal. It must also be remembered that Christianity was a new, unregistered religion in the Roman empire, increasingly subject to persecution and discrimination. Judaism was registered and tolerated. It was so much easier to remain under the synagogue umbrella, to deny the radical demands of the Lord Jesus, and to accept Him half-heartedly, in Name but not in reality. &nbsp;</p><p><em>Neglected in- </em><em><a href='B:510 6:1'>Act 6:1</a></em> makes the point that aid to the poor widows was cut off or impaired, because the other believers were arguing amongst themselves. It would appear that the Hebrew Christians went to the temple daily (<em><a href='B:510 2:46'>Act 2:46</a></em>), whereas the Greek widows wouldn't have done (<em><a href='B:510 7:48-49'>Act 7:48-49</a></em>). So the common theological disagreement about how far the Jewish Law should influence Christian life- resulted in old and needy ladies in the ecclesia suffering. This discrimination would suggest that there was strong dislike of even a whiff of Gentile influence, even amongst the leaders of the church. To accept Gentiles was going to be a very radical thing for them.</p><p><em>The daily distribution- </em><em><a href='B:510 6:1'>Act 6:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:44'>Act 2:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:34'>Act 4:34</a></em> imply there were large numbers of very poor people in the church. The Jerusalem ecclesia is an example of how rich and poor were united together. There were clearly wealthy members- Simon of Cyrene owned a farm (<em><a href='B:480 15:21'>Mar 15:21</a></em>). Barnabas sold lands (<em><a href='B:510 4:36'>Act 4:36</a></em>). Ananias and Sapphira had land. And then there were the middle class. Mary owned a house in Jerusalem and had at least one servant (<em><a href='B:510 12:12-17'>Act 12:12-17</a></em>). Levi was a tax collector wealthy enough to throw a large banquet, implying he had a large home (<em><a href='B:480 2:13-17'>Mar 2:13-17</a></em>). James and John had a fishing business in Galilee that employed day labourers. And then there were the poor. The Lord Jesus and the apostles healed the beggars and diseased, who presumably became members of the church. James the Lord’s brother was presumably a carpenter, poor like the Lord was. And yet he was the leader of the early church. Unlike many other religious movements, early Christianity drew its members from right across society; and one of the poorest was their leading light! This unity, as we have so often said, would have been their biggest single advertisement. And yet the Acts record artlessly says so little about social or economic class distinctions- precisely because they were not important. Any uninspired writer would have made great capital of this phenomenal feature of the early church.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the twelve summoned</em>- The appointment of a successor to Judas was therefore apparently acceptable. But it has to be noted that "the twelve" as a group play no further significant role in Luke's account of the early church.</p><p><em>The full number of the disciples to them</em>- Literally, 'the multitude', a reference to how the coverts had multiplied (:1 s:w:). </p><p><em>And said, It is not fitting that we should</em>- The same Greek word translated "pleased" in :5. The attitude of the twelve matched that of the crowd of converts.</p><p><em>Forsake the teaching of the word</em>- The Greek says just "the word of God", but from :4 it is clear that we are required to read in an ellipsis. God’s word is here put for the teaching of it. If God has spoken, and we accept the Bible as His word, then we are thereby obligated to speak it forth (cp. <em><a href='B:370 3:8'>Amo 3:8</a></em>). The twelve were very sensitive to the way in which administrative issues and addressing petty divisions can hinder the proclamation of God’s word; and time and again, this has sadly happened in communities since. But they refused to be side-tracked.</p><p><em>And instead handle finances</em>- Gk. 'serve at tables'. The reference could be to literally serving food. But the Greek for 'tables' is also translated 'bank' with allusion to the tables of bankers. Whichever translation we prefer, the point is that they considered that their teaching of the word was far more important than any practical issue relating to welfare. So often, missions become so focused upon the provision of welfare that the teaching of the word is side-lined; the discussion and energy is all about how and what kind of food to provide in a soup kitchen, rather than teaching the word to the folks who come along. The utter primacy of the teaching of God’s word is here clearly established.</p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore, brothers, choose from among you seven men- </em><em><a href='B:660 1:27'>Jas 1:27</a></em> may allude here. James defines the essence of Christianity as ‘visiting’ the fatherless and widows. But the Greek word occurs also in <em><a href='B:510 6:3'>Act 6:3</a></em>, translated ‘to look / search out’. We are to actually search out others’ needs, go to them, imagine what they might be in need of and supply it- rather than waiting to be confronted by those needs. It was of course exactly in this sense that God ‘visited’ us in the gift of His Son. </p><p><em>Of good repute</em>- The qualifications here are alluded to later in the New Testament with regard to who should be appointed to serve in the churches. The early church was not therefore seen as a historical anomaly, a once off phenomenon, but rather a detailed role model for all future churches. </p><p><em>Full of the Spirit and of wisdom</em>- Bezalel and his helpers who constructed the tabernacle are likewise described (<em><a href='B:20 28:3'>Exo 28:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 31:3'>Exo 31:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 35:31'>Exo 35:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 35:35'>Exo 35:35</a></em>). The allusion is intended to teach that it was the community of Christian believers, the people, who were now the new tabernacle or temple (cp. <em><a href='B:110 7:14'>1Ki 7:14</a></em>) which the Lord was now constructing. Stephen went to his death for upholding this belief.</p><p><em>Whom we will appoint to this duty</em>- There were no democratic elections. The multitude, the mass of believers, were to somehow come up with seven candidates, and the apostles 'appointed' them, presumably by their Spirit gifts confirming the choices. </p>


text:
<p><em>But we will continue earnestly in prayer</em>- These are the very words used about the believers generally continuing in prayer (<em><a href='B:510 1:14'>Act 1:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:42'>Act 2:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:46'>Act 2:46</a></em>). This is true leadership- the style of prayer of the leadership was copied by their converts. We must ask whether our elders are setting such patterns in prayer life.</p><p>The early elders of the Christian church decided that they were spending too much time on practical matters with the result that they weren't finding enough time for prayer (:4). And so they made a major re-arrangement to enable them to devote more time to prayer. Let this point sink in: so important was prayer in the early community that the seven deacons had to make arrangements for the practical running of the ecclesia so that they could give themselves more time for prayer; prayerfulness was more important than petty administration. Husbands and wives abstained from sex for short periods so as to more powerfully pray individually (<em><a href='B:530 7:5'>1Co 7:5</a></em>).</p><p><em>And in the service of the word- </em>A phrase used in contemporary literature to describe how the synagogue minister made pupils memorize Scripture texts. See on <em><a href='B:510 20:35'>Act 20:35</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p><em>And the decision pleased the whole crowd; and they chose Stephen, a man</em>- “Decision” is Gk. <em>logos</em>, translated "word" at the end of :4. The idea may be that the word preached and taught guided the multitude in choosing the seven.</p><p><em>Full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus a proselyte of Antioch- </em>The Greek can equally mean 'filled by faith'. Faith to some extent is a gift from God. The amount of faith in Stephen seems related to the extent of the miracles he did (:8); which would suggest his fullness of faith was on his own account, and also shows that the doing of miracles was related to faith in those doing them.</p><p>These names are all Greek. But it was common for Jews to have both Hebrew and Greek names, so we shouldn't too quickly conclude that the appointed brethren were all Greek speakers; that would have hardly been wise in the resolving a dispute between Greek and Hebrew speaking Jewish believers.</p>


text:
<p><em>They set them before the apostles, and when they had prayed, they laid their hands upon them</em></p><p>- see on :3 <em>We will appoint</em>. Laying on of hands speaks of the passing on of Spirit abilities or blessing from one who possesses them to another (8:17; 9:17; 13:3; <em><a href='B:610 4:14'>1Ti 4:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 5:22'>1Ti 5:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 1:6'>2Ti 1:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 27:18'>Num 27:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 34:9'>Deu 34:9</a></em>). The apostles who had Spirit gifts to do work they judged they had no time to do therefore passed them on to the deacons. But they prayed first. The idea is not that they had some power which they gave to others. They prayed- and God gave the power to the deacons. For the Father and Son are the source of such spiritual gifts. There is therefore no power in the believers of themselves; hence prayer occurs together with the idea of laying on hands in most of the references listed above.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the word of God increased-</em> Again, God’s word is put for the preaching of it (:4); such is the imperative within His word to preach it. The apostles had given a conscious focus upon preaching God’s word and giving this work utter supremacy over welfare and administrative issues (see on :2). Now this was rewarded. "Increased" is an allusion to the parables of the mustard seed and the sower, where the sown seed of the word 'increases' (<em><a href='B:470 13:32'>Mat 13:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 4:8'>Mar 4:8</a></em>). This begs the question as to how that seed would grow further after this initial good response.</p><p><em>And the number of the disciples</em>- These regular updates about numbers suggest that some kind of record was kept of the numbers baptized. </p><p><em>Multiplied greatly in Jerusalem</em>- The large number of converts in Jerusalem laid the basis for the Jerusalem ecclesia, although they kept meeting in the temple initially. Nearly all these converts, being from Jerusalem, would have seen and heard the Lord preaching previously- and rejected Him. We must ever remember that those who hear our message and apparently reject it may very well respond later. </p><p><em>And a great many of the priests</em>- This was a wonderful fruit to the Lord's endless efforts for these types. In the last six months, the Scribes and Pharisees repeatedly tried to trick the Lord. But He took the time to answer their questions, seeking to lead them to understanding and repentance- and His denunciations of them were probably softly and imploringly spoken, still seeking for the inevitability of future judgment to lead them to repentance. As the Son of God, walking freely in His Father’s house, Jesus didn’t have to pay the temple tax (<em><a href='B:470 17:26-27'>Mat 17:26-27</a></em>). He could have insisted that He didn’t need to pay it, He could have stood up for what was right and true. But doing this can often be selfish, a defence of self rather than a seeking for the Father’s glory. And so He told Peter that “lest we should offend them”, He would pay it. He was so hopeful for their salvation one day that He was worried about offending these wretched men, who weren’t fit to breathe the same air that He did. We would have given up with them; but He worried about offending what potential faith they might have. Even at the end of His ministry, He still sought to convert them. He reasoned with them, using carefully prepared Old Testament allusions in the hope they would understand them, when we would almost certainly either have given up, or would just be gritting our teeth, trying to be patient with them because we didn’t want to sin…but He was full of a genuine, unpretended desire for their salvation. And earlier in His ministry, He had told the cured leper to tell no other man but go and offer for his cleansing, in order to make a witness to the priests. All three synoptics record this, as if it made a special impression on everyone (<em><a href='B:470 8:4'>Mat 8:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 1:44'>Mar 1:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 5:14'>Luk 5:14</a></em>). It could be that the Lord is using an idiom when He told the leper to tell nobody: ‘Go and make a witness <em>first and foremost</em> to the priests as opposed to anybody else’. Such was His zeal for their salvation. And the fact that “a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith” shows how this apparently hope-against-hope desire of the Lord for the conversion of His enemies somehow came true.</p><p>The Lord's example is to be ours; He spoke of not making the Orthodox Jews stumble by not paying the tribute; yet He goes on to say that one must beware lest we make the little ones who believe, to stumble (<em><a href='B:470 17:27'>Mat 17:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:6'>Mat 18:6</a></em>). Is it not that He saw in Orthodox Jewry the beginnings of faith…a faith which was to come to fruition when a great company of priests were later obedient to the faith in Him? None of us would have had that sensitivity, that hopefulness, that seeking spirit. It is truly a challenge to us. </p><p><em>Were obedient to the faith</em>- This is ambiguous- it could mean obedience as response to faith, in which case it may refer to baptism; or it could mean obedience to the set of propositions which define the one faith. Because doctrine and practice are linked, the Gospel is something to which man must be obedient- it isn't merely a set of academic propositions. It results in "the obedience of faith” (<em><a href='B:520 1:5'>Rom 1:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 16:26'>Rom 16:26</a></em>). Probably the greatest temptation for all of us, in all stages of our spiritual career, is to be like Israel of old: to <em>know</em> the Faith, on an abstract, surface level, but not to really <em>believe</em> it in our hearts, and therefore not to act in the way God intends. Paul was aware of this difference; he spoke of us as those who believe <em>and</em> know the Truth (<em><a href='B:610 4:3'>1Ti 4:3</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And Stephen, full of grace and power</em>- Or, "Full of faith" (AV). See on :5 <em>Full of faith</em>. “Grace”, <em>charis</em>, is so often associated with the gift of the Spirit. And this is the same “grace” in essence promised to all in Christ. Grace is a major New Testament theme, and it is deeply associated with the gift of the Spirit. This is a central part of the Christian experience which we cannot deny by simply assuming it refers solely to the miraculous manifestations of the Spirit experienced in the first century.</p>


text:
<p><em>Then there arose some from what is called the Synagogue of the Freedmen</em>- These were probably Jews [or their children] who had been taken to Rome as slaves and then been made free on the basis that they were Jews. They were therefore very sensitive to any possible problem with Rome and anything which meant that they were to cease identifying as Jews and identify instead as something else, in this case, the followers of the Lord Jesus and citizens of His invisible Kingdom. Opposition to the Gospel is often from those who perceive, even subconsciously, that they have something to lose, or that their historical positions will have to be rejected.</p><p><em>(Cyrenians, Alexandrians, and those from Cilicia and Asia), disputing with Stephen</em>- Cilicia is where Paul was from. One wonders if he was involved in some way with these people.</p>


text:
<p><em>They were not able to withstand</em>- A clear fulfilment of the Lord's prediction in the Olivet prophecy: "I will give you the words and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to withstand or to contradict" (<em><a href='B:490 21:15'>Luk 21:15</a></em>). The preceding context of <em><a href='B:490 21:12'>Luk 21:12</a></em> is relevant to what had just happened to the disciples: "They shall lay their hands on you and shall persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, bringing you before kings and governors for my name's sake". The Olivet prophecy of 'the last days' could therefore have come true in the first century- it didn’t, because the preconditions for the Lord's return were not fulfilled, particularly with respect to Israel's repentance. </p><p><em>The wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke</em>- This is one of a series of connections between the sufferings of Stephen and those of the Lord Jesus:</p><table><tr><td></p><p>The Lord Jesus<br/><em><a href='B:510 2:22'>Act 2:22</a></em><br/><em><a href='B:490 4:22'>Luk 4:22</a></em><br/><em><a href='B:480 12:13'>Mar 12:13</a></em><br/><em><a href='B:490 20:20'>Luk 20:20</a></em><br/><em><a href='B:470 26:59'>Mat 26:59</a></em><br/><em><a href='B:470 26:61'>Mat 26:61</a></em><br/><em><a href='B:470 26:65'>Mat 26:65</a></em><br/><em><a href='B:480 15:20'>Mar 15:20</a></em><br/><em><a href='B:480 14:62'>Mar 14:62</a></em> </td><td>Stephen<br/><em><a href='B:510 6:8'>Act 6:8</a></em><br/><em><a href='B:510 6:10'>Act 6:10</a></em><br/><em><a href='B:510 6:11'>Act 6:11</a></em><br/><em><a href='B:510 6:12'>Act 6:12</a></em><br/><em><a href='B:510 6:13'>Act 6:13</a></em><br/><em><a href='B:510 6:14'>Act 6:14</a></em><br/><em><a href='B:510 6:11'>Act 6:11</a></em><br/><em><a href='B:510 7:57-58'>Act 7:57-58</a></em><br/><em><a href='B:510 7:56'>Act 7:56</a></em></td><td></td></tr></table>&nbsp;<p>They couldn't resist the spirit by which Stephen spoke (Acts 6:10), yet he says they resisted the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51). This is the miserable position of all who refuse to the good news of the Kingdom. There was a similar situation at the time of the exile. God "poured out My Spirit on the house of Israel" (Ez. 39:28,29). The Spirit was poured out upon the dry bones, but they refused to come to life and stand up and return to Zion. They resisted the Holy Spirit. Salvation again 'came near' in the first century and again they refused. But they were resisting that which cannot be resisted. </p>


text:
<p><em>Then they secretly induced men to say</em>- The record of what they did is clearly alluding to how Jezebel set up men to falsely accuse Naboth of blasphemy (<em><a href='B:110 21:10'>1Ki 21:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 21:13'>1Ki 21:13</a></em>). Later in the book of Revelation, Jezebel appears to be the basis for the description of the Jerusalem temple and its associated Judaism and apostate Jewish Christianity. </p><p><em>We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God</em>- This is parallel with "blasphemous words against this holy place and the law" (:13). They had made 'God' equal the temple and the law. The external trappings of their religion, even the ultimately true religion, had become as a god to them. We can so easily do the same. </p>


text:
<p><em>And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes and came upon him and</em>- The first reference in Acts to the masses being poisoned against the Christians. Again we see how fickle people are.</p><p><em>Seized him, and brought him into the council</em>- This again is the language of the Olivet prophecy about the situation in the 'last days' (same words used in <em><a href='B:480 13:11'>Mar 13:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 21:12'>Luk 21:12</a></em>). The prediction there was that when they were "brought" to councils etc:, they should not worry what they were to say, because the Spirit would teach them what to say. We can therefore view Stephen's speech in Acts 7 as not premeditated but directly inspired by the Spirit in response to his having been "brought" into the council.</p>


text:
<p><em>And set up false witnesses, who said: This man does not cease to speak</em>- Their case was based around the fact that the Christians had been asked to refrain / cease (<em><a href='B:510 5:28'>Act 5:28</a></em>) but Stephen had ignored this. The continued case against the disciples was in defiance of Gamaliel's advice; and he was seen as one of Judaism's most revered ideologues, even during his lifetime. The council had initially agreed with his advice (5:40). This strange going against his advice after agreeing on it, to the point of one of Gamaliel's star pupils orchestrating the stoning to death of Stephen, was and is psychologically noteworthy. There was a power of irrational fear and anger at work, which was clearly rooted in a subconscious recognition that in fact, they were wrong and the Christians were correct. Saul was finally honest and owned up; but it would seem that many others of his peer group spent their rest of their miserable, bitter days kicking against the goads of their conscience. And so it can be today; the anger of religious people is never ameliorated in time, because it is rooted in a fundamental wrong turning in their thinking, and they lack the humility to admit it. And this accounts for the masses of bitter, self-righteous religious folks who go to their deathbeds upholding positions and truths over some curious quirk of thinking, or regarding separation from some supposed false teacher, all because they cannot allow a Damascus road to happen; all because their pride is too great to let them admit that they were wrong.</p><p><em>Blasphemous words against this holy place and the law</em></p><p>- see on :11. Paul was doubtless deeply involved in setting up Stephen's condemnation. And it is no mere coincidence that he was accused in the same city of Jerusalem of profaning "this holy place" (<em><a href='B:510 21:28'>Act 21:28</a></em> s:w:). This is not mere poetic justice, what goes around coming around. Rather was this one of many Divinely arranged echoes of Stephen's sufferings in the life of Paul- for Paul's education and spiritual maturity. For after all, he and Stephen shall live eternally together.</p>


text:
<p><em>For we have heard him say, that this</em> <em>Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place</em>- The same word used in the accusation against the Lord that He intended to destroy the temple (<em><a href='B:470 26:61'>Mat 26:61</a></em>). The Lord's trial was only recent history; it should have been apparent to those men that they were repeating exactly the same pattern of events and accusations against Stephen as they had done against Jesus of Nazareth. And surely they must have feared, albeit unspokenly, that likewise their best efforts to silence the strange power behind these men would also come to nothing. The accusation in a sense was true, because the same word is used by the Lord in the Olivet prophecy, speaking of how the Jerusalem temple was to be 'destroyed' [AV "thrown down"]; and the commander of the armies of judgment was the Lord Jesus, according to other teachings. </p><p><em>And shall change the customs which Moses delivered to us</em>- Paul was later accused of teaching Jews not to walk after the "customs" delivered to Moses (<em><a href='B:510 21:21'>Act 21:21</a></em> s:w:). Again, Paul was being led to fellowship with Stephen; just as we are brought to understand the feelings and positions of those whom we have hurt in previous years.</p>


text:
<p>See on <em><a href='B:510 7:22'>Act 7:22</a></em>.</p><p><em>And all that sat in the council, fastening their eyes on him</em>- The same word is used of Stephen's eyes fastened upon his Lord in Heaven (<em><a href='B:510 7:55'>Act 7:55</a></em>). When we too are the focus of others' hate, or even if that is how it feels or appears; we are to in turn focus upon the Lord above who sees and knows all. </p><p><em>Saw his face as if it had been the face of an angel</em>- Within Judaism, seeing the face of an Angel was felt to be inappropriate for sinful man, and likely to lead to death. Hence <em><a href='B:70 6:22'>Jdg 6:22</a></em>: "Gideon saw that he was the angel of Yahweh, and Gideon said, Alas, Lord Yahweh! I have seen the angel of Yahweh face to face!". The implication may be that they felt most unworthy; and they had to drown that sense of guilt by an ever deeper obsession with legalism and casuistry. And their anger understandably grew the greater, even unto death, as they were in the presence of this manifestation of God’s glory. The obvious image is of Moses, whose face shone with the glory of the Angel, before an Israel who condemned him. And so these men, the leaders of Israel, were as it were looking upon Moses and condemning him. For there is no reason to think that the glory just shone momentarily from the face of Stephen; rather is the implication that as those committee men sat there in their seats, they were beholding the glory shining from Stephen's face throughout. And hence he begins his defence by speaking of "the God of glory"- that same glory shining from him- and emphasizes Israel's rejection of Moses.</p><p>Saul, Paul and Stephen<br/>As well as John the Baptist, it would seem that Stephen likewise had a deep impact upon Paul. Stephen’s condemnation had been because he had reminded the Jews of the fact “Heaven is my throne and earth is my footstool” and therefore the temple was not ultimately relevant (<em><a href='B:510 7:48-49'>Act 7:48-49</a></em>). Yet only a few brief years later, Paul was using the very same words and logic on Mars Hill in Athens. It has been observed that Hebrews particularly has enough conscious points of contact with Stephen’s words that it would seem that the author was very familiar with Stephen’s words:<br/>Acts&nbsp;[Stephen]&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Hebrews<br/>7:2,55&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1:1-3; 2:10<br/>7:2-5&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;11:8<br/>7:2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;11:1-31<br/>7:9-36&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3:16; 11:21,22<br/>7:38&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 11:1-29 cf. 4:1-3<br/>7:46&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 9:11,24 cp. <em><a href='B:290 66:1-2'>Isa 66:1-2</a></em><br/>7:39-43,52&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 3:7-12<br/>6:14&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ch. 1-6&nbsp; <br/>Stephen’s speech (and perhaps other, unrecorded words of Stephen) became imprinted upon Paul’s mind and consciousness. In writing to the brethren he had once persecuted, both consciously and unconsciously Paul was reflecting Stephen’s words. A clear example is found in the way Stephen describes Israel as “thrusting” Moses away from them (<em><a href='B:510 7:39'>Act 7:39</a></em>); and Paul is the only other person in the New Testament to use this same Greek word- to describe how although Israel thrust God away from them, yet God did not thrust [AV “cast away”] His people from Himself (<em><a href='B:520 11:1-2'>Rom 11:1-2</a></em>). The even unconscious influence of Stephen upon Paul is reflected in the way he speaks of himself as “born… brought up… educated” (<em><a href='B:510 22:2-3'>Act 22:2-3</a></em>)- using the very terms Stephen uses in Acts 7 about Moses. See on <em><a href='B:510 7:43'>Act 7:43</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the high priest said: Are these things so?</em>- The "things" were the accusations of blasphemy against the temple and Mosaic law. Actually Stephen doesn't comment on those issues directly, although he does develop the theme that God has relationships with people in any place, and doesn't require a temple for that fellowship with man. Rather is Stephen's focus upon Israel's historical rejections of the Lord's prototypes; and it was this which led to the explosion of bad conscience anger which led to Stephen's death. But his murder was therefore not related to the "things" of which he was initially accused.  It could be said that Stephen could have made a fair case that he in fact was innocent of what he was accused of. But he doesn't. Instead he purposefully appeals to their conscience regarding the Lord Jesus, and the bankruptcy of their conception of 'holy space'. And it was that witness which cost him his life, as it provoked the lynching which took place. He gave his life, therefore, in an attempt to save their eternal lives. And it worked, at least with Paul. But he achieved that by going on the spiritually offensive rather than being on the defensive to save his own skin. Thus in :42,43 he will quote Amos 5 concerning Israel's idolatry in the wilderness, and accuse the torah observant Jerusalem Jews of doing just the same. He clearly wanted their salvation, and knew that in the case of the hardened religiously self-righteous, shock tactics and direct, penetrating accusation were all that might work. </p><p>
We note that Acts 4-7 contain three trials- with worsening outcomes [threats, then flogging, and now stoning to death]. This is then followed by Saul's persecutions- as if things got progressively worse for the church, and then Saul was converted.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said: Brothers and fathers, listen- </em>Stephen did not consider the Jews to be somehow not his brethren. This open approach to fellowship with the Jews, despite their misunderstandings and misbelief and aggression, is surely a challenge to all who insist on rigid lines of fellowship demarcation.</p><p><em>The God of glory</em></p><p>- see on 6:15<em>. </em>In his famous final speech, Stephen evidently had humming in his mind the theme of the glory of God. He begins by saying that “The God of glory appeared…”. God heard that speech, and read his mind. And responded in an appropriate way- for to give Stephen final strength to face death, God made His glory appear to Stephen (<em><a href='B:510 7:55'>Act 7:55</a></em>). And so it can be for us- although it all depends what we have humming in our hearts. The context of Stephen's speech is his defence against the accusation that he was blaspheming the temple. The Jews considered that God’s glory was uniquely located within that building; even though there is no evidence that the shekinah glory was visible at that time. Stephen's response is that God’s glory was apparent to Abraham in Gentile Mesopotamia, outside even the limits of the land promised to Abraham. There is the implication in the language of 'appearance' that Abraham had some kind of a vision of the cherubim glory of Yahweh, although Genesis is silent about that. Gen. 12:7 LXX says that "the Lord appeared to Abraham" but Stephen seems to understand this as a full manifestation of the "God of glory", a theophany which visibly displayed God's glory outside of the land of Israel and the temple. That's Stephen's point. This is all in answer to the accusation that Stephen along with "this Jesus" was planning to destroy the temple. They effectively equated God with His temple: "We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God... This man does not cease to speak blasphemous words against this holy place and the law" (Acts 6:11,13). God was made equal to the external trappings of religion. And so many make this mistake. Stephen's response is to demonstrate that God works and fellowships outside of religion and 'sacred space'. The same religiosity is seen today in those who deny the possibility of being an 'out of church Christian', who fret about things like self baptism, taking communion alone etc.</p><p><em>Appeared to our father Abraham</em>- Stephen was not merely witnessing against these men. He was appealing for their repentance, and does so by building bridges over what was common ground- in this case, having Abraham as their common father. See on 7:19 <em>Our race... our fathers </em>and 7:26 <em>Gentlemen:.</em>.</p><p><em>Before he dwelt in Haran</em></p><p>- see on :4.</p>


text:
<p><em>And said to him, Leave your land and your kindred</em>- Pointedly omitting mention of "your father’s house". <em><a href='B:10 12:1'>Gen 12:1</a></em> records that the Lord had told Abram to leave his country, kindred <em>and</em> his father’s house, but goes on to say that "So Abram departed" from <em>Haran</em> "as the Lord had spoken unto him" (<em><a href='B:10 12:4'>Gen 12:4</a></em>). The implication is that the command which he was given in Ur, was repeated to him in Haran, with the additional information that he must now also leave "your father’s house". Stephen is making the point that Abraham's 'obedience' was counted to him by grace; righteousness was imputed to him, when he had a shaky start in his faithfulness. For he left because his father’s family also left... not because he actually was obedient to the Divine call. </p><p><em>And go into</em>- Gk. 'come here into'; as if God was already there in Canaan. </p><p><em>The land which I shall show you</em>- According to <em><a href='B:650 11:8'>Heb 11:8</a></em>, Abraham embarked on the journey not knowing or [Gk:] 'understanding' where he was going. Accurate knowledge of the literal details of the Kingdom whither we are headed is not therefore the issue here; rather is it simple faith in response to God’s calling. This is what is required at the start of the journey; for Abraham is held up as the pattern for us all. Only later was Abraham 'shown' the land. The same word is used of how the devil of the Lord's own thoughts / temptations 'showed' Him the future Kingdom of God on earth (<em><a href='B:470 4:8'>Mat 4:8</a></em>). Revelation of Divine truth is therefore progressive; after some time leading the disciples, the Lord then 'shewed' them the details of His sufferings (<em><a href='B:470 16:21'>Mat 16:21</a></em> s:w:), and after His resurrection 'shewed' Peter more details (<em><a href='B:510 10:28'>Act 10:28</a></em> s:w:) and 'shewed' latter day events to His followers (<em><a href='B:730 1:1'>Rev 1:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 4:1'>Rev 4:1</a></em> s:w:). Indeed there are seven references in the visions of Revelation to believers being 'shewn' things. Even the Father's 'shewing' of things to His Son was progressive (<em><a href='B:500 5:20'>Joh 5:20</a></em>). We are not, therefore, to require of those just beginning their journey a comprehensive grasp of the things which have been 'shewn' to us who have been on the road of faith for some time already.</p>


text:
<p><em>Then he left the land of the Chaldeans and dwelt in Haran</em>- Stephen begins by pointing out that the father of Israel, Abraham, was himself weak in faith in response to the promises. He was asked to leave his family and homeland in Mesopotamia- but he didn’t. His father took him and emigrated from Ur. And only when his father died did Abram move on further. According to Jewish tradition, Abraham was 23 years in Haran. "From thence...<em> God</em> removed him into (Canaan)" (<em><a href='B:510 7:4'>Act 7:4</a></em> R:V:). But if God had <em>forced </em>him to be "removed”, Abram's response to the promises would not be held up for us as the great example of faith which it is. The call of Abram is an essay in partial response being confirmed by God. <em>God</em> removed him through repeating the promises to Abram in Haran, and the providential fact that Terah died there. The fact that Abram "dwelt" in Haran, despite his call to leave, with his kindred and father’s house shows a slow reaction to the command to leave those things and go to the unknown land, which by now Abram must have guessed was Canaan- or at least, he would have realized that Canaan was en route to it. </p><p><em>And from there, when his father was dead</em>- Instead of doing as he was told and breaking with his father and immediate family, Abraham was only obedient by default. His father died, and he moved on. And there is historical evidence that there was war at the time and many left Haran in any case due to push factors; rather than Abraham being obedient to the simple words of God. The weakness of Abraham is emphasized, as is that of the patriarchs and others amongst the founding fathers. The idea is that it is simply not the case that God's people dwell in His land and worship at His temple, and are therefore acceptable with Him. God's people are weak, and in desperate need of His grace and forgiveness- which is only to be found in the Lord Jesus. Thus Stephen focuses upon the weaker side of Moses in :23, saying that he fled Egypt from fear; whereas Heb. 11:27 says he feld not fearing the wrath of the king. Faith and fear can co-exist in a believer; but Stephen focuses upon the fear in Moses. Stephen really wanted to make this point; for he was answering the accusation that he had blasphemed Moses. Instead of denying this to save his own skin, and painting Moses in stellar terms- he instead shows how he wants the Jews to come to repentance. And so he emphasizes the human, weaker side of Moses- in the hope they will be humbled and thereby enabled to look honestly at their own weaknesses, and repent. </p><p><em>God sent him into this land, wherein you now dwell</em>- The Greek word is only used once again in the New Testament, and again by Stephen, in speaking of how God 'carried away' apostate Israel into captivity (<em><a href='B:510 7:43'>Act 7:43</a></em>). The connection may imply that Abraham was not at his strongest when God carried him away into Canaan. Whatever, the point is surely clear enough that Abraham did not go of his own freewill obedience to Canaan, in response to God’s clear command to him. Rather did God’s grace as it were pick him up and take him there. This was an Old Testament example of God’s Spirit working in the lives of His people to bring about their obedience; and it was that same gift of the Spirit which Peter offered to Israel at this time, speaking of how God would give them not only forgiveness but also even repentance itself- a mental attitude.</p>


text:
<p><em>And He gave him no inheritance in it, no, not enough to set his foot on it, and He promised that He would give it to him in possession and to his seed after him, when he had no child</em>- The Jews were therefore wrong in thinking that their dwelling in Palestine was some kind of fulfilment of the promises to Abraham. For God keeps His promises, and Abraham must therefore be resurrected to receive the inheritance in the Kingdom when it is established on earth at the Lord's return. He didn’t get anything in this life, because he had to even buy a plot of land in which to bury Sarah.</p>


text:
<p><em>And</em> <em>God spoke in this way</em>- Because Stephen is changing the pronouns of the original quotation, and also summarizing the essence of what God was saying. Here we have an example of how extra words and verbal devices had to be used in the absence of anything like square brackets. But Stephen is also mixing quotation with interpretation, as was and is the Jewish way of using Scripture.</p><p><em>That his seed should live in a strange land, and that they would bring them into bondage and</em>- Remember that Stephen is seeking to demonstrate that God’s presence is independent of sacred spaces such as the temple or land of Israel. <em><a href='B:650 11:9'>Heb 11:9</a></em> surely alludes here by saying that Abraham "went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land" (ESV). These are the same Greek words translated "strange land". For Abraham, the land of Israel was as a foreign land. And here Stephen speaks of Egypt as a strange / foreign land. The confusion is because in a sense, whilst the land is inherited by Abraham, the whole earth is a foreign land to God’s people- including the geographical territory of Israel.</p><p><em>Treat them badly</em>- The same word as in :19. But this is the term which is used about how the Jews abused the Christian preachers (<em><a href='B:510 12:1'>Act 12:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 14:2'>Act 14:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 18:10'>Act 18:10</a></em>). What the Jews were doing to Stephen put them in the position of the Gentile Egyptians, persecuting the true Israel of God.</p><p><em>Four hundred years</em>- The idea is that it would be unreasonable to suggest that God had no fellowship with anyone amongst His people for such a s long period as four hundred years. And yet they were away from the supposed sacred space of the land promised to Abraham.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the nation to which they shall be in bondage will I judge, said God-</em> This is added because Stephen appears to be summarizing the essence of God’s word rather than making verbatim quotation.</p><p><em>And after that shall they come out and serve Me in this place</em>- This is neither a quotation from the Hebrew [Masoretic] text nor from the standard version of the Septuagint. The text of <em><a href='B:10 15:14'>Gen 15:14</a></em> reads: "Afterward they will come out with great wealth". Apparently Stephen is alluding to <em><a href='B:20 3:12'>Exo 3:12</a></em>: "When you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall serve God on this mountain". Perhaps this is why the 'quotation' is introduced by the otherwise strange comment that "God spoke in this way" (:6). The essence of what Stephen understood God to say is quoted as if it is actual quotation. This kind of thing is common in Rabbinic exegesis. And yet why does Stephen change "this mountain", of Sinai, to "this place", a phrase commonly understood to refer to the temple? The point was that God could be served on a mountain, outside of Palestine, just as much as in the Jerusalem temple. For debate about the temple is the context of the whole speech.</p>


text:
<p><em>And He gave him the covenant of circumcision; and so Abraham begat Isaac and circumcised him on the eighth day, and Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob the twelve patriarchs</em>- Covenant relationship with God doesn't depend upon sacred space, temples, holy land etc.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the patriarchs, moved with jealousy against Joseph</em>- Stephen is clearly presenting Joseph as a type of the Lord. And Luke has recently used the same word to describe how it was jealousy which led the Sanhedrin and Jewish leadership to oppose the Christians (<em><a href='B:510 5:17'>Act 5:17</a></em>). </p><p><em>Sold him</em>- Just as the Lord was 'sold' for 30 pieces of silver.</p><p><em>Into Egypt</em>- This is one of a number of aspersions that the Judaism of Stephen's day was no better than Gentile Egypt, the persecutor of God’s true Israel. Or it could be that we are to see the brothers as representing the Jews, and the selling or 'handing over' of Joseph into Egypt speaks of how they handed the Lord over to the Gentiles.</p><p><em>But God was with him</em>- God being <em>meta </em>Joseph is an echo of 'Emmanuel', God with [<em>meta</em>] us (<em><a href='B:470 1:23'>Mat 1:23</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:500 3:2'>Joh 3:2</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And delivered him out of all his afflictions</em>- The same word used of how the brothers experienced "affliction" during the famine (:11), which brought them eventually to repentance concerning Joseph. God likewise works in our lives, so that we realize first-hand the results of our actions against others. Those who shun and disfellowship and misuse others so often end up having the same done to them; not because God operates some measure-for-measure system of judgment, but rather because He seeks our spiritual growth and sensitivity towards others. What the Jews did to Jesus they were to experience themselves, in essence, in order that they might identify with Him and realize what they had done to Him by feeling it themselves- and repent. But sadly, the Jews of the first century did not respond, even in the afflictions of the Jewish war. Yet Stephen clearly saw Joseph as representative of himself; for he says that Joseph had been given "wisdom", just as Stephen had been. Stephen's hope was that his afflictions at the hands of the Jews would lead to their repentance, and his closing words reflect that hope for them. He had clearly learned deeply from his Lord's example on the cross.</p><p><em>And gave him favour and wisdom</em>- The same words used by Luke about the Lord (<em><a href='B:490 2:52'>Luk 2:52</a></em>). Stephen is clearly presenting Joseph as a type of Christ, and also seeing in Joseph a representation of himself, who was likewise given grace and wisdom. Perhaps this was how Stephen's thought process developed; seeing similarities between himself and Joseph, to whom wisdom was also given, and who was also abused by his brethren; and then realizing that Joseph was a type of the Lord's sufferings. And thereby Stephen was led to the realization that the Lord in His sufferings and death was truly his representative. The idea is "grace and wisdom", alluding to Gen. 39:21 LXX where Joseph was given grace before the jailor; but that experience of grace prepared him for the grace of being made governor over Egypt.</p><p><em>Before Pharaoh king of Egypt; and he made him governor over Egypt</em>- The Lord is described with the same word, as "Governor" (<em><a href='B:470 2:6'>Mat 2:6</a></em>). Joseph's exaltation was therefore typical of the Lord's. </p><p><em>And all his house</em>- A term used about God’s house in <em><a href='B:650 3:2'>Heb 3:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 3:5'>Heb 3:5</a></em>, which the Lord Jesus is now "over". The multiple similarities in phrasing between Hebrews and Stephen's speech have led some to suggest Stephen as the author of Hebrews, especially as it appears to be addressed to the Jerusalem ecclesia, or is perhaps a transcript of a sermon given there. </p>


text:
<p><em>Now there came a famine over all Egypt and Canaan, and great affliction; and our fathers found no sustenance</em>- Note the focus on these two areas. The entire region was affected, according to Genesis; for peoples from all surrounding nations [not just Canaan] came to Egypt to buy corn. The intention may be to parallel Egypt and Canaan because of the theme Stephen is developing, that there is no holy land or place; and Israel is as Egypt. See on 7:6; 7:7 <em>After that shall they come out and serve Me in this place</em> and 7:9 <em>Into Egypt</em>. </p>


text:
<p><em>But when Jacob heard that there was grain in Egypt, he sent our fathers the first time</em>- The laboured emphasis upon Joseph being recognized only the <em>second</em> time is to demonstrate that the Lord Jesus would be recognized by the children of Jacob / Israel the second time. We might be able to reason back from this type and conclude that the first time the brothers came to Egypt, they were intended to repent of their sin and recognize Joseph; but their lack of repentance meant that their eyes were as it were closed from perceiving him. The similarity with the Lord Jesus and Israel is of course acute.</p>


text:
<p><em>And at the second time- </em>The Messiahship of Jesus of Nazareth is hard to explicitly prove from the Old Testament, without recourse to typology. Even Isaiah 53 describes the sufferings of Hezekiah, who was typical of Jesus. Thus Stephen’s defence of his belief in the Messiahship of Jesus rests largely on typology – e.g. the fact that Joseph/Jesus was rejected by his brethren at first (<em><a href='B:510 7:13'>Act 7:13</a></em>).</p><p><em>Joseph was made known to his brothers- </em>Quoting <em><a href='B:10 45:1'>Gen 45:1</a></em> L.<XX/p><p><em>And Joseph's race became manifest to Pharaoh</em>- Joseph had first been introduced to Pharaoh as a Hebrew (<em><a href='B:10 41:12'>Gen 41:12</a></em>). But what the term "Hebrew" meant to Egyptians isn't clear; it could mean just 'one from beyond'. The "race" of Joseph presumably refers to the fact he was one of Jacob's sons; and the Jacob family had already become famous as far as Egypt. Yet Joseph had concealed his connection to that family. It may have partly been because of shame at their behaviour, and their disadvertisment for all the Godly principles which Joseph believed in. Or it may be that because God had performed a psychological miracle on Joseph in making him 'forget his father’s house' (<em><a href='B:10 41:51'>Gen 41:51</a></em>), he simply did not identify himself as from the Jacob family. Stephen may be making the point that when Joseph, like the Lord Jesus, was recognized by his brethren, he was at the same time recognized by the Gentile world likewise for who he really was. And the same will be true at the latter day repentance of Israel; <em><a href='B:520 11:15'>Rom 11:15</a></em> comes to mind: "For if the casting away of them is the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?". </p><p>Perhaps this continues Stephen's theme of demonstrating that the fathers of Israel were themselves weak in faith. Two of the greatest types of the Lord's mediatory work are Esther and Joseph. Esther was perhaps ashamed to reveal that she was a Jewess because of her people's behaviour, but given their desperate need she did reveal it in order to plead with the King for their salvation. And only when Joseph really had to use his influence to save his brethren did “Joseph's race become manifest unto Pharaoh" (<em><a href='B:510 7:13'>Act 7:13</a></em> RV). Does the Lord experience the same sort of embarrassment mixed with an urgent sense of our desperation, in His present mediation for us?</p>


text:
<p><em>And Joseph sent and called to himself Jacob his father and all his extended family</em>- Stephen has been developing Joseph as a type of the Lord Jesus. He sees significance, therefore, in Joseph-Jesus 'sending', <em>apostello</em>, as it were, by the means of apostles; and thus calling Jacob and his brothers to himself. Even in the last minutes of his life, Stephen saw himself as part of this desperate appeal of Joseph-Jesus to the children of Israel. We all have a great example in Stephen's desire to 'call to Jesus' even his persecutors. </p><p><em>Seventy five people</em>- The Hebrew text at <em><a href='B:10 46:26'>Gen 46:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 1:5'>Exo 1:5</a></em> and <em><a href='B:50 10:22'>Deu 10:22</a></em> has '70'. But the LXX has 75. The difference is because some extra sons of Joseph's children Ephraim and Manasseh are recorded in the LXX; they are listed in <em><a href='B:130 7:14-21'>1Ch 7:14-21</a></em>: Ashriel, Machir, Zelophehad, Peresh, sons of Manasseh; and Shuthelah, son of Ephraim. Joseph's sons were all half Egyptian; his wife was the daughter of a pagan Egyptian priest. Stephen may be reminding the Jews that their fierce claims to ethnic purity were a nonsense; because the very early fathers of the Jewish people were not ethnically pure, but mixed with Gentile blood from the start. Another possibility is that we have 66 people recorded in <em><a href='B:10 46:8-26'>Gen 46:8-26</a></em>; but if we include the wives of Jacob's sons, we have 75. I calculate nine wives on the basis that Joseph's wife was already in Egypt; and the wives of Judah and Simeon were dead. So we may have here an encouragement to see the value of women, as equally counted amongst the 'founding fathers'. Or the 66 people may need to have the nine sons of Joseph added to them; these are mentioned only in the LXX of <em><a href='B:10 46:27'>Gen 46:27</a></em> "And the sons of Joseph born in Egypt were nine souls".</p>


text:
<p><em>And Jacob went down into Egypt</em>- Stephen is developing the point that holy land or sacred space is not required for fellowship with God. Hence the Jewish obsession with the temple space was inappropriate.</p><p><em>And he died, he and our fathers</em>- <em><a href='B:510 2:5'>Act 2:5</a></em> has recorded that there were large numbers of Jews from the diaspora who had come to live permanently at Jerusalem in order to die there; and many of them had been baptized. Stephen is making the point that the Jewish fathers themselves died outside the territory of the land promised to Abraham. Clearly those early Jewish Christians were still struggling with the idea that holy space was no longer to be seen so literally, but was now centred in the person and activity of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they were carried back to Shechem, and laid</em>- The focus is very much upon their bodies, because the final fulfilment of the promises to Abraham involved a bodily resurrection of these men in order to eternally inherit the land promised to them.</p><p><em>In the tomb that Abraham bought for a price in silver from the sons of Hamor in Shechem</em>- The following possibilities have been suggested: "(1) Abraham bought a cave and field in which it stood (<em><a href='B:10 23:17'>Gen 23:17</a></em>). (2) Abraham bought another sepulchre, but it is not stated that he bought the field in which it stood (<em><a href='B:510 7:15-16'>Act 7:15-16</a></em>). (3) Years later, Jacob bought a parcel of ground (<em><a href='B:60 24:32'>Jos 24:32</a></em>) or a parcel of a field (<em><a href='B:10 33:19'>Gen 33:19</a></em>). This was, in all probability, the very field in which Abraham's second sepulchre stood, as this field once belonged to the same owners though they may have been miles apart". We note that despite the shameful behaviour of Jacob’s sons to Hamor, God brought about some degree of reconciliation. This gives hope to all who feel stuck, perhaps by their own fault or that of their brethren and relatives, in situations where reconciliation appears impossible.</p>


text:
<p><em>But as the time of the fulfilment of the promise which God made to Abraham drew near, the people grew</em>- The Greek says simply “the time of the promise” drawing near- putting ‘the promise’ for ‘the fulfilment of the promise’, so sure are God’s promises of fulfilment. <br/>The promises to Abraham received their major primary fulfilment at the Exodus. Seeing that their ultimate fulfilment will be at the second coming, it follows that the deliverance of Israel from Egypt was typical of this. Or we can read this as meaning that the Abrahamic promises had their potential fulfilment at this time, involving a resurrection to eternal inheritance of the land- but Israel failed to meet the preconditions, and so their fulfilment was reinterpreted and rescheduled, just as was to happen as a result of their rejection of the Lord Jesus.</p><p><em>And multiplied in Egypt</em></p><p>- see on 6:1 <em>Multiplying</em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>Until there arose another king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph</em>- Just as the Jews did not know the Lord in crucifying Him (<em><a href='B:490 23:34'>Luk 23:34</a></em> s:w:).</p>


text:
<p><em>The same dealt craftily with our race</em>- Again Stephen is seeking to bridge build with his audience by stressing what they had in common; see on :2 <em>Our father Abraham</em>.</p><p><em>And ill-treated our fathers</em>- In fulfilment of the prediction mentioned in :6, where the same Greek word is translated "treat them badly". Luke uses the word of how the Christians were persecuted by the Jews (<em><a href='B:510 12:1'>Act 12:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 14:2'>Act 14:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 18:10'>Act 18:10</a></em>). Again the Jews are being likened to the pagan Egyptians. </p><p><em>Casting out their babies so that they might not live</em>- As the Jews cast out the 'baby' Christian converts from the synagogues. But the command of Pharaoh was that the people themselves should cast their baby boys into the Nile; the abuse of the Hebrews was in that they were made to cast their own babies into the river; the Greek grammar here supports this. See on :21.</p>


text:
<p><em>At this time Moses was born, and was exceeding fair; and he was nourished three months in his father’s house</em>- The word is only used in <em><a href='B:650 11:23'>Heb 11:23</a></em>, also about Moses. It means just that- handsome, good. The idea that it means 'fair towards God' is speculation, and at best interpretation rather than translation. It seems a wilful twist of the Greek <em>asteios </em>, a word related to <em>astu</em>, a city, and meaning literally 'urbane'. Twisting <em>teos</em> ['God'] into <em>asteios </em>is just not permissible; and if we are to read 'fair to God' then quite simply the Greek would be different. It seems to be the equivalent of <em><a href='B:20 2:2'>Exo 2:2</a></em>, where Jochebed noticed Moses was "a goodly child", the Hebrew <em>tob</em> meaning no more than 'good' or 'nice' and with no hint of 'to God'.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he was cast out</em>- A related word to that used in :19 "casting out their babies so that they might not live"; see note there. The picture here presented is of Jochebed being technically obedient to the commandment to cast her baby into the river; by gently laying the child in an ark in the river. And it seems that no sooner had she done so, committing the baby to God’s care, along walked Pharaoh's daughter and picked him up out of the water. Stephen describes the ‘putting out’ of Moses with the same word used in the LXX for what happened to Israel (<em><a href='B:330 16:5'>Eze 16:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 2:3'>Exo 2:3</a></em> LXX). Moses is set up as example and representative of his people Israel. Israel is likened in <em><a href='B:330 16:5'>Eze 16:5</a></em> to a child rejected at birth, but miraculously found and cared for, and brought up with every pampered blessing. Just as Moses was. </p><p><em>Pharaoh's daughter took him up</em>- She called him 'Moses' because she had drawn him out of the water (<em><a href='B:20 2:10'>Exo 2:10</a></em>). But the Hebrew <em>mashah</em>, 'drawn out', is used in the sense of deliverance. And this is from whence <em>Mosheh </em>['Moses'; the same consonants are in both words]. Indeed, the idea of being drawn out of waters means just that (<em><a href='B:230 18:16'>Psa 18:16</a></em>). So we are to imagine the baby about to drown, and the princess saving his life. </p><p><em>And nourished him as her own son</em>- Moses would therefore have been next in line to the throne; and he gave up all that for the sake of trying to save a bunch of down and outs who didn’t appreciate him anyway.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians- </em>Moses and Daniel were in such a similar situation; Daniel appears to have slipped away into the shadows whenever he was promoted to greatness in Babylon, and surely he took inspiration from Moses. There are similarities intended to be discerned between our lives and those of others; and we are to respond. Paul says he was "<em>taught</em> according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers" (<em><a href='B:510 22:3'>Act 22:3</a></em>) by Gamaliel, receiving the highest wisdom possible in the Jewish world; but he uses the same word as Stephen in <em><a href='B:510 7:22'>Act 7:22</a></em>, describing how Moses was <em>"learned</em>" in all the wisdom of Egypt. Paul perceived his Jerusalem education as equivalent to that received by Moses in Egypt; he saw the very doyen of Judaism as no better than pagan Egypt. And Stephen [through his allusions] likewise had several times suggested that Judaism was no better than paganism. This speech had a huge effect on Paul, even though Stephen would not have noticed anything at the time.</p><p><em>“</em>The wisdom” is Gk. <em>sophia</em>. The same word is used in the construction which is translated "dealt craftily" in :19; the wisdom of Egypt was to persecute the Hebrews.</p><p><em>And he was mighty in his words and works</em>- The very phrase used by Luke about the Lord (<em><a href='B:490 24:19'>Luk 24:19</a></em>). If Moses was indeed handsome (see on :20) and also mighty in words and works, he really would have been very eligible as the next Pharaoh, being the Pharaoh's adopted grandson. Moses really did despise so much worldly advantage for the sake of the far less glamorous calling of God. "Mighty in his words and works" is very much the language which has been used to describe Stephen himself in 6:8-10. Stephen took comfort from the rejection of Moses, and saw himself in Moses' experiences. This is how we too can make Biblical history a living word to us. Indeed, the Biblical examples which Stephen selects include Joseph who were rejected by the children of Israel despite his "wisdom" (:10), and Moses who also had "wisdom" [of the Egyptians] but was rejected by Israel- and wisdom was the great characteristic of Stephen (6:10). The way God made Stephen's face to shine as if he were an Angel (6:15) is effectively showing how God confirms Stephen in feeling as Moses; for the Angel's glory shone off the face of Moses too (<em><a href='B:20 34:29'>Exo 34:29</a></em>).</p><p>"I am not eloquent (mg. a man of words) ... I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue" (<em><a href='B:20 4:10'>Exo 4:10</a></em>); this is how Moses felt he would be perceived, although actually he was formally quite fluent when in the court of Pharaoh (<em><a href='B:510 7:22'>Act 7:22</a></em>). Paul would have remembered Stephen saying how Moses was formerly full of worldly <em>wisdom</em> and "mighty in words". Paul felt that he too had been through Moses' experience- once mighty in words as the rising star of the Jewish world, but now like Moses he had left all that behind in order to try to save a new Israel from Judaism and paganism.</p>


text:
<p><em>But when he was nearly forty years old- </em>It is worth trying to visualize the scene when Moses was “full forty years old” (AV). It would make a fine movie. The Greek phrase could refer to Moses’ birthday, and one is tempted to speculate that it had been arranged that when Moses was 40, he would become Pharaoh. <em><a href='B:650 11:24'>Heb 11:24</a></em> says that he refused and chose- the Greek tense implying a one off choice- to suffer affliction with God’s people. It is tempting to imagine Moses at the ceremony when he should have been declared as Pharaoh, the most powerful man in his world… standing up and saying, to a suddenly hushed audience, voice cracking with shame and stress and yet some sort of proud relief that he was doing the right thing: “I, whom you know in Egyptian as Meses, am Moshe, yes, Moshe the Jew; and I decline to be Pharaoh”. Imagine his foster mother’s pain and anger. And then in the end, the wonderful honour would have been given to another man, who became Pharaoh. Perhaps he or his son was the one to whom Moses was to come, 40 years later. After a nervous breakdown, stuttering, speaking with a thick accent, clearly having forgotten Egyptian… walking through the mansions of glory, along the corridors of power, to meet that man, to whom he had given the throne 40 years earlier:&nbsp;</p><p><em>It came into his heart</em>- God clearly moved Moses to deliver Israel. We see here yet another example of how God can operate directly upon the hearts of men, giving ideas, motivation and even repentance.</p><p><em>To visit his brothers the children of Israel</em>- 'Visit' is a Hebraism for identifying with, and also saving. It is through the Lord's representative sacrifice that God ultimately visited and saved His people. <em><a href='B:20 4:31'>Exo 4:31</a></em> is clear that <em>God</em> visited His people at this time; yet He was strongly manifested in Moses, so that what Moses did and desired to do was a manifestation of God. It is Luke who has recorded already how the work of the Lord Jesus was God’s visiting of His people (<em><a href='B:490 1:68'>Luk 1:68</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:78'>Luk 1:78</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:16'>Luk 7:16</a></em>); and he later speaks of how God visited the Gentiles through the work of Peter (<em><a href='B:510 15:14'>Act 15:14</a></em>). So often, the words of Stephen are alluded to later by Paul, who would have watched and listened with eagle intensity to Stephen's words here- and on his conversion, sought to live in the spirit and reasoning of the man he murdered. Paul uses Stephen's phrase here when he speaks of his decision to go 'visit his brothers' where he had previously preached and suffered (<em><a href='B:510 15:36'>Act 15:36</a></em>). Such a decision was at great personal risk; for he had faced death and persecution in those cities. His brave desire to return was perhaps motivated by Moses' brave decision to visit his brothers, at the cost of losing all things in his secular life and endangering his life. But the thought of following Moses in this was first stimulated by Stephen talking about it. And this is how our lives also work out; we may hear a brother talking about a Bible character like Moses, and it later inspires us in a radical, significant life decision. </p><p>"When Moses <em>was grown</em>, he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens... when he was <em>full forty years old</em> it came into his heart to visit his brethren... by faith Moses, <em>when he was come to years</em>, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter" (<em><a href='B:20 2:11'>Exo 2:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:23'>Act 7:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 11:24'>Heb 11:24</a></em>). The implication seems to be that Moses reached a certain point of maturity, of readiness, and then he went to his brethren. " …[Moses] <em>refused</em> to be called the son of Pharaoh... <em>choosing </em>rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming the <em>reproach of Christ</em> greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompense of the reward" (<em><a href='B:650 11:24-28'>Heb 11:24-28</a></em>). Moses could have been the next Pharaoh; according to Josephus, he was the commander of the Egyptian army. But he walked away from the possibility of being the riches man on earth, he "refused" it, because he valued "the reproach of Christ" and the recompense of the Kingdom to be <em>greater</em> riches. Yet what did he know about the sufferings of Christ? Presumably he had worked out from the promises of the seed in Eden and to the fathers that the future Saviour must be reproached and rejected; and he saw that his own life experience could have a close association with that of this unknown future Saviour who would surely come. And therefore, it seems, Moses counted the honour and wonder of this greater that the riches of Egypt. Both Paul and Moses rejected mammon for things which are abstract and intellectual (in the strict sense): the <em>excellency</em> of the understanding of the Lord Jesus Christ and His cross, and the Kingdom this would enable. Living when we do, with perhaps a greater knowledge of the Lord's victory and excellency, our motivation ought to be even stronger. </p>


text:
<p><em>And seeing one of them suffer wrong, he defended him, and avenged him that was oppressed</em>- It was God who delivered Israel from their Egyptian oppressors (<em><a href='B:90 10:18'>1Sa 10:18</a></em>); but He did so through Moses. Yet Israel would only be oppressed by Gentiles if they were disobedient to the covenant (<em><a href='B:50 28:29'>Deu 28:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:33'>Deu 28:33</a></em>, and the word is often used about their punishments at Gentile hands during the period of the judges). But despite that, the God of all grace through Moses avenged His people who were justly suffering for their sins. Stephen is seeking to remove from Israel any sense of national pride at their Exodus from Egypt, and instead see it as a parade example of God’s pure grace through the raising up of a Saviour in Moses, who looked ahead to Messiah. And yet the profound truth was that it was through the 'oppression' of that Messianic Suffering Servant on the cross that Israel's salvation would be enabled (<em><a href='B:290 53:7'>Isa 53:7</a></em>). And no wonder then that the brief summary of the Gospel in <em><a href='B:510 10:38'>Act 10:38</a></em> uses the word to summarize the work of the Lord Jesus as delivering the oppressed. Stephen, or the Lord speaking through Stephen, was appealing to the audience on all levels. There were many Rabbinic-trained minds there like Saul's, who thought constantly on the level of Scriptural allusion, type and antitype. And these words of Stephen, spoken in perhaps his last minutes of mortal life, succeeded in converting at least Saul. </p><p><em>Striking the Egyptian</em>- The same word used of how the Jews 'smote' the Lord with death (<em><a href='B:470 26:31'>Mat 26:31</a></em>). The point is being developed, as with the language of 'oppression', that it was through the Lord's smiting that He smote the oppressors of His people.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he supposed that his brothers understood</em>- "Supposed" translates <em>nomizo</em>, connected to the noun <em>nomos</em>, 'law'. The Law of Moses ought to have brought Israel to perceive the Lord Jesus as their Saviour; but for whatever reason, they failed to make that connection. </p><p><em>That God by his hand was giving them deliverance</em>- Moses' hand. But God had told Moses at the bush: "I will stretch out <em>My hand</em>, and smite Egypt…." . Moses had yet to learn the meaning of God manifestation through men; Stephen is bringing out the weakness of the fathers, even Moses.</p><p><em>But they understood not</em>- Another phrase of Stephen's that stuck in Paul's mind to the end of his days; for on arrival in Rome he lamented that the Jews "understood not" (<em><a href='B:510 28:26'>Act 28:26</a></em> s:w:). Stephen's speech is a superb example of powerful preaching that left ideas and words in the minds of his hearers that remained for decades afterwards. The Lord had many times lamented that Israel "understood not"; we can therefore infer that Israel could have accepted Moses' deliverance the first time. But they thrust him away from them, and there was a 40 year hiatus in the plan of Israel's redemption. This was reflected in Israel's rejection of the Lord Jesus and then the possibility arising around AD70 for them to accept Him again. It seems from the New Testament that the apostles clearly hoped for that; but again they refused the possibility, and another, longer hiatus has been interposed. </p>


text:
<p><em>And the following day he appeared to two of them</em> <em>- </em>God sent Moses to be their saviour, pointing forward to His sending of the Lord Jesus to redeem us. Moses came to Israel and "shewed (Greek <em>'optomai</em>') himself" to them (<em><a href='B:510 7:26'>Act 7:26</a></em>). Yet <em>'optomai' </em>really means to gaze at, to watch a spectacle. He came to his people, and gazed at them as they fought among themselves, spiritually and emotionally destroyed by the oppression of Egypt. He invited them to likewise gaze upon him as their saviour. This surely prefigures our Lord's consideration of our sinful state. As he grew up in Nazareth he would have thought on this a lot. The same word for “appeared” is used of the Lord's appearances after His resurrection, specifically to the 'two' on the road to Emmaus. Luke has used the word in <em><a href='B:510 1:3'>Act 1:3</a></em> of how the Lord 'appeared' after His resurrection for 40 days. And it is the same word used of how the risen Lord appeared to Saul soon afterwards (<em><a href='B:510 9:17'>Act 9:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:16'>Act 26:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:8'>1Co 15:8</a></em>). Surely Saul made the connection. </p><p><em>As they were fighting</em>- 'Striving'. The same word is used of how the Jews strove amongst themselves over the issue of Jesus as Messiah (<em><a href='B:500 6:52'>Joh 6:52</a></em>). The same striving was going on within the consciences of men like Saul and Gamaliel who were listening to Stephen. </p><p><em>And tried to reconcile them</em>- Paul grasped the point, for in his later letters he writes much of how the Lord's work and the outcome of His death was fundamentally the ministry of reconciliation between persons. To glorify, create and perpetuate division between brethren is to miss the point of the Lord's work.</p><p><em>Saying, Gentlemen, you are brothers</em>- Literally, 'men'. They were not to be mere men in their relationship with each other, they were to remember that they were brothers and act accordingly. See on :28. Several times Stephen has appealed to the fact that he and the Jews were brothers, with common ancestry; see on 7:2 <em>Our father Abraham</em>. But just as the point was lost on Israel at the time of Moses, so it was in Stephen's day; for they stoned him all the same.</p><p><em>Why do you injure each other?</em>- The same word has just been used of how the Egyptian injured the Israelite (s:w. "suffer wrong"). By oppressing and injuring our brethren, we are acting as Egypt. This was a finely reasoned appeal to Stephen's brethren not to treat him likewise. And given the kind of minds listening to him, continually accustomed to such a way of reasoning from Biblical words and precedents, the appeal would have struck home. Especially with Saul.</p>


text:
<p><em>But he that did his neighbour wrong</em>- The same word as "injure" in :26; see note there.</p><p><em>Thrust him away</em>- This incident was typical of Israel's attitude to Moses in the wilderness years (:39 s:w:). And again, the listening, angry Paul was deeply impressed by the logic. He got the point, that Moses was a type of the Lord Jesus; and he uses the same word in saying that Israel had thrust away the Gospel of Christ (<em><a href='B:510 13:46'>Act 13:46</a></em>), although he also marvels at how although they had done this, God had not 'thrust away' His people Israel (<em><a href='B:520 11:1-2'>Rom 11:1-2</a></em>). God has not treated them as they treated Him through their rejection of Moses and Jesus, who manifested Him.</p><p><em>Saying, Who made you a ruler and a judge over us?</em>- Again there was the question of authority. This was a big issue with the Jews of the first century in their criticisms of both the Lord and His preachers. Stephen is demonstrating that it was this concern with authority which had led Israel to initially reject Moses. The Lord Jesus of course is described with the same words, as the ultimate ruler (<em><a href='B:730 1:5'>Rev 1:5</a></em>) and judge. Luke clearly connects with these words by being the only evangelist to record the Lord's comment: "Who made me a judge or a divider over you?" (<em><a href='B:490 12:14'>Luk 12:14</a></em>). The answer was, 'God'. The parallels were clearly being developed by Stephen between Moses and the Lord Jesus, and they would not have been lost upon his audience.</p>


text:
<p><em>Would you kill me</em>- Moses had made no threat at all. He had come to save his brethren, not kill them. Later, Israel liked to suppose that Moses and God Himself were some kind of psychopaths who had led them out of Egypt intentionally to murder them in the desert. Legion feared the Lord had come to torment rather than save him (<em><a href='B:470 8:29'>Mat 8:29</a></em>). The disciples feared that the Lord didn’t care that they perished in the storm (<em><a href='B:480 4:38'>Mar 4:38</a></em>). Here we have a psychological phenomenon; the saviour is feared to be a destroyer by those he seeks to save. This has been observed from various angles in many studies and observations. The reason is that the group to be saved do not believe that the saviour can save them; and they justify that disbelief by thinking that actually, they are correct in disbelieving him- because actually, he is a deceiver and wishes to kill them. This is why strong opposites of reaction are produced by the challenge to faith which there is in the person of Jesus and in the Gospel. It is why messengers of that Gospel and of Jesus are so strongly slandered by those who disbelieve that Gospel. It is why nobody can stand on some passive middle ground when they encounter the Lord. Here too is the explanation for Saul's manic reaction against the Lord, and then such a strong reaction the other way. The very way we are wired means that we respond to salvation either in trust, or in strong reaction the other way. In our witnessing to men and women, we often meet the claim that folks are undecided or indifferent. However politely stated, that is in fact an excuse for unbelief.</p><p><em>As you killed the Egyptian yesterday?</em>- The Hebrew assumed that Moses was going to treat him too as he would an Egyptian. The Hebrew had failed to realize the unique identity of himself as a Hebrew and not as a mere man. See on :26 <em>Gentlemen, you are brothers</em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Moses fled at this saying and went to live in the land of Midian</em>- <em><a href='B:20 2:14'>Exo 2:14</a></em> says that "Moses was afraid, and said, Surely this thing is known". But <em><a href='B:650 11:27'>Heb 11:27</a></em> gives a different perspective: "By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the anger of the king. For he endured...". See on <em><a href='B:650 11:27'>Heb 11:27</a></em>. It seems that Moses had at best a mixture of motives, or motives that changed over time; yet God sees through his human fear, and discerns an element of calm faith within Moses as he left Egypt:&nbsp;Moses is described as having "endurance" at the time he fled from Egypt (<em><a href='B:650 11:27'>Heb 11:27</a></em>), even though in the short term his faith failed him at the time and he fled in fear (<em><a href='B:20 2:14-15'>Exo 2:14-15</a></em>). Yet God counted him as having that basic ability to endure, even to endure through his own failure and weakness:&nbsp;<em>This</em>&nbsp;is what God looks at, rather than our day-to-day acts of sin and righteousness:&nbsp;Stephen emphasizes the weakness of Moses to seek to lead his audience away from national pride and an idolizing of Moses; he wished them to see the prophet greater than Moses, Jesus the Messiah, as indeed greater than Moses. In Judaism, there was and still is a tendency to perceive Moses as the acme of spirituality, far greater than Messiah.</p><p><em>Where he begat two sons</em>- Neither of whom did he circumcise; and their mother was a non-Israelite. Such a person would have been excluded from the synagogues by Moses' spiritual descendants. Again, Stephen is portraying the weaker side of Moses in order to lead his listeners to a position where they sought the greater than Moses.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when forty years were fulfilled</em>- The language of 'fulfilment' suggests that God planned the 40 years ahead of time. The suggestion seems to be that God gave them this period as a punishment- for not accepting Moses the first time. Stephen and the early apostles appear to have had the idea that likewise, a 40 year period was being given to Israel to repent after their rejection of the Lord. But even when that was fulfilled, they still refused to repent. The idea of years being fulfilled is using the words used in the LXX for the 70 years judgment upon Judah which was fulfilled (<em><a href='B:140 36:21-22'>2Ch 36:21-22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 25:12'>Jer 25:12</a></em>). This confirms us in understanding this period as a judgment upon Israel; their sufferings in Egypt were prolonged by their refusal to accept Moses' deliverance.</p><p><em>An angel appeared to him</em> <em>in the wilderness of Mount Sinai</em>- The point being once more that sacred space is not only in the temple nor only in the territory of the land of Israel. The wilderness where Moses kept sheep for 40 years was also the same area where he shepherded Israel for the next 40 years. 40 years is a long time; during it, Moses went from being a handsome young man, next in line for the throne, eloquent in words and works... to a man broken by 40 years of manual work in the cruel desert, stuttering, having forgotten Egyptian, needing a spokesman. And then, he was ready for God to use as the greatest leader of His people apart from the Lord. Monotonous experience over decades can be used by the Father to prepare us for another stage of life; whilst we cannot attach specific meaning to event at the time it happens, we can rest assured that there is meaning to event, even if it takes 40 years to realize it.</p><p><em>In a flame of fire</em>- The appearance of the Spirit as flames of fire on the heads of the apostles thereby connected them to Moses; and the Jewish opposition to them made those learned religious men no better than the Egyptians.</p><p><em>In a bush</em>- It is Luke who uses this word in recording how the Lord made the point that figs and grapes, the classic symbols of Israel under blessing, do not come from such thorny bushes (<em><a href='B:490 6:44'>Luk 6:44</a></em>). But it was there, in that context and negative associations, that Yahweh revealed Himself as Israel's saviour through Moses. And He had done the same in the Lord Jesus whom Israel now likewise despised.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight; and as he drew near to observe</em>- “Wondered” translates a Greek word which is often used in a negative sense concerning people lacking faith and insight when they should have had it. Another reference to Moses in weakness, preparing the way for presenting Jesus as Messiah as the greater than Moses.</p><p><em>There came the voice of the Lord</em>- Actually of an Angel (:30). But the Angel was spoken of as if it were God, in that it was speaking God’s voice. In this lies the basis for a correct understanding of the highly exalted nature of the Lord Jesus; not God Himself in a Trinitarian sense, but the supreme manifestation of Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob</em>- The Angel spoke those words; and it would be fair to say that in reality, the patriarchs conceived of God in terms of His Angel. Jacob is quite clear about this in <em><a href='B:10 48:15-16'>Gen 48:15-16</a></em>.</p><p><em>And Moses trembled and dared not look</em>- This is in intentional contrast to the way in which he later spoke face to face with the Angel, as a man speaks with his friend (<em><a href='B:20 33:11'>Exo 33:11</a></em>); and with how he had the ambition to ask to see God’s own glory (<em><a href='B:20 33:20'>Exo 33:20</a></em>). The point is that Moses grew spiritually in closeness to the Angel who manifested the Father. And it was such growth in relation to the Lord Jesus which Stephen was urging. See on :34 <em>Come</em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the Lord said to him, Take off the shoes from your feet</em>- Stephen says that this request came <em>after</em> God had introduced Himself as the God of Abraham etc. (:32). But the order is apparently different in <em><a href='B:20 3:5-6'>Exo 3:5-6</a></em>: "Take your sandals off from your feet, for the place you are standing on is holy ground.<br/>Moreover he said, I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob". It could be that the "he said" is to be understood as 'He <em>had </em>said'. But another alternative is that Stephen was inspired to understand that God introduced Himself twice to Moses; and the first time Moses didn’t comprehend it. This would fit with Stephen's point that Joseph was made known to his brethren the <em>second </em>time; and Moses likewise was accepted by Israel the second time he came to them. And now Stephen would be saying that Moses himself only grasped the manifestation of God in the Angel at the second time. All this of course was prodding the Jewish conscience about their rejection of their Messiah the first time; but at His second appearing, the 'second time'... they will accept Him. </p><p><em>For the place upon which you stand is holy ground</em>- Literally, in the Greek, 'the holy land', the phrase beloved of Jews to describe Israel. Stephen was speaking in the context of arguing that the temple was no longer required for worship, house meetings were just as valid; and so he makes the point that a spot of scrubland in the Sinai desert was just as much the holy land as the territory of Palestine and the temple mount itself.</p>


text:
<p><em>I have surely seen the affliction of My people that is in Egypt, and have heard their groaning, and I have come down to deliver them; and now</em>- Their groaning was heard by God as a prayer; He sees situations as prayer. Otherwise, if prayer is simply words, then those who are better able to verbalize would have more powerful prayers. But ability to verbalize isn't the necessary thing in order for God to hear prayer.</p><p><em>Come, I will send you into Egypt</em>- Gk. 'come here'. The Angel in the bush invited Moses to come closer to Him, whereas Moses "dared not look" (:32). It was his own intimacy to God which would be the basis of Israel's salvation; hence the paradox of "Come [here], I will send you [away] into Egypt". As noted on :32 <em>Moses trembled and dared not look, </em>Moses grew in relationship and intimacy with that Angel, just as he grew in ability to save Israel.</p>


text:
<p><em>This Moses- </em>Israel hated him, they thrust him from them (<em><a href='B:510 7:39'>Act 7:39</a></em>); due to their provocation he failed to enter the land. He had done so much for them, yet they bitterly rejected him- "this Moses", as they called him (<em><a href='B:20 32:1'>Exo 32:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 32:23'>Exo 32:23</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:510 7:35'>Act 7:35</a></em>). But when God wanted to destroy them and make of Moses a great nation, he pleaded for them with such intensity that he achieved what few prayerful men have: a change (not just a delay in outworking) in God’s categorically stated intention.</p><p><em>Whom they refused, saying: Who made you a ruler and a judge?- </em>The same word used of Israel's denial or refusing of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:510 3:13-14'>Act 3:13-14</a></em>). The loneliness of Moses as a type of Christ in showing this kind of&nbsp;love must surely represent that of our Lord. They went to a height which was generally beyond the appreciation of the men among whom they lived. The Spirit seems to highlight the loneliness of Moses by saying that at the same time as Moses <em>refused</em> to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, Israel <em>refused</em> him (the same Greek word is used; <em><a href='B:650 11:24'>Heb 11:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:35'>Act 7:35</a></em>). He was rejected by both the world and God’s people: for 40 long years. As Israel envied Moses for spiritual reasons (<em><a href='B:230 106:16'>Psa 106:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:9'>Act 7:9</a></em>), so they did Christ (<em><a href='B:470 27:18'>Mat 27:18</a></em>), after the pattern of the brothers' spiritual envy of Joseph (<em><a href='B:10 37:11'>Gen 37:11</a></em>). Spiritual envy leading to persecution is quite a common feature in Biblical history (Job, Jeremiah, Paul…). And it isn't absent from the Christian experience either. &nbsp;</p><p><em>Him God sent to be both a ruler and a deliverer, by the hand of the angel that appeared to him in the bush</em>- "Ruler and judge" becomes "ruler and deliverer". God fundamentally and essentially wishes to deliver / save rather than to judge. Although Israel rejected Moses as their ruler and deliverer, "the same did God send <em>to be</em> a ruler and a deliverer". They didn’t want to be saved from Egypt through Moses, and yet God did save them from Egypt through Moses. Israel at that time were exactly like us; while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us, we were redeemed in prospect from a world we didn’t want to leave. We were saved- and are saved- almost in spite of ourselves. That we were predestined to such great salvation is one of redemption's finest mysteries:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>This man led them out</em>- The grammar here might suggest that the completed 'leading out' was after the 40 years journey, and the AV reflects that. Our path in spiritual life is likewise a leading of us out of Egypt; it is not all achieved at the moment of&nbsp;crossing the Red Sea / baptism. The lead up to the Red Sea crossing was just as much a part of the leading out process. This is why separation from the world and unto the things of the Kingdom is an essential part of our salvation process. And it's why that process will involve progressive disillusion and bad experience with the world.</p><p>"He brought them out, after that he had shewed wonders and signs... in the wilderness forty years" (AV); yet <em><a href='B:20 12:41'>Exo 12:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 33:1'>Exo 33:1</a></em> say that the bringing out of Israel was at the Red Sea. These two 'bringings out' of Egypt (the flesh) are experienced by us, firstly at baptism, and secondly in actually entering the Kingdom at the second coming. Our bringing out from the Kingdom of darkness into the sphere of God’s rulership only occurs in prospect at baptism and must be confirmed at the end of our wilderness wandering. </p><p><em>Having done wonders and signs in Egypt and at the Red Sea and in the wilderness for forty years</em>- This confirms that the 'leading out' was both from Egypt and at the end of the wilderness journeys. The wonders done at the exodus were in essence done throughout the 40 years. Thus the cloud in which they were baptized at the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:530 10:1'>1Co 10:1</a></em>) continued with them for 40 years. Their baptism in this sense was ongoing, and this idea is repeated in the discourse on baptism in Romans 6. </p>


text:
<p><em>This is the Moses who said to the children of Israel</em>- Implying 'Moses would have believed in Jesus as Messiah if he were here today'.</p><p><em>A prophet like me shall God raise up to you from among your brothers</em> - A clear statement of the Lord's humanity. As the Passover lamb had to be taken out from among the flock, so the Messiah was taken out from amongst His brothers. And Stephen has just stressed that Moses was a man ("This man...", :36). Messiah was to like him. Yet there was an initial possible fulfilment of this prophecy in Aaron, whom Moses was told would be his prophet (<em><a href='B:20 7:1'>Exo 7:1</a></em>), and who was literally one of Moses' brothers. Aaron could have been the Messiah figure, but failed. Again we are introduced to the idea of conditional prophecy; which was highly relevant to Israel at that time. If they accepted Jesus as Messiah, then prophecies would be fulfilled- but if they did not, then those prophecies would have another and more difficult [for Israel] outworking.</p>


text:
<p><em>This is he that was in the congregation in the wilderness- </em>The ecclesia, the church. We find Moses as a type of Christ also presented as representative of Israel, and therefore able to completely sympathise with them in their physical afflictions and spiritual weaknesses. Thus the Spirit says (in the context of presenting Moses as a type of Christ) that Moses was "<em>in</em> (not "with") the ecclesia in the wilderness", stressing the way in which he was in their midst rather than distanced from them:&nbsp;The Lord Jesus is portrayed in Acts as very much "in" the church, active and present just as much as Moses was. Paul's later reasoning in 1 Corinthians 10 about the church in the wilderness is yet another example of how the reasoning of Stephen remained with him over the years, and he developed the ideas.</p><p><em>With the angel- </em><em><a href='B:510 7:38'>Act 7:38</a></em> (especially the Diaglott translation) speaks as if the Angel was physically present with Moses on the journey, and was as much in the congregation as Moses was: "He (Moses) was in the church in the wilderness with the Angel which spake to him in the Mount Sina and with our fathers". In passing, this implies that it was the same Angel (Michael) who gave the promises to Abraham, who gave the Law, and who went with them through the wilderness. Truly He is the Angel connected with Israel! Stephen's point was that like the Angel in the wilderness, the Lord Jesus was no less 'in' the early church although mostly invisible.</p><p><em>That spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers</em>- But their 'fathers' didn’t want the Angel to speak with them directly, and wanted Moses alone to meet God on Sinai. This was the stock they were descended from; and it was no pedigree to be proud of. Stephen is implying that the descendants of those 'fathers' were likewise not willing to listen to the voice of God; or as Hebrews puts it, they turned away from Him who spoke from Heaven (<em><a href='B:650 12:25'>Heb 12:25</a></em> - Hebrews might have been written by Stephen). </p><p><em>Who received living words to give to us</em>- God’s word is unlike any human word; it has the ability to speak to subsequent generations directly in their context. In this sense, the words given to Moses were also given to Stephen's generation, and spoke to them of Jesus. Just as the record of Jacob's wrestling with the Angel is God speaking to us today (<em><a href='B:350 12:4'>Hos 12:4</a></em>). Moses trembled and Sinai shook and the people fled when they heard God’s word. "God’s voice was heard at Sinai: the same voice spoke in the Psalmist's words. But the appeal stands written in Scripture and therefore Paul can say that "Today" is a time with limits, but it was yet "today" when the Hebrews was written and Paul repeats the word of the Psalmist as God’s voice to the Hebrews of his day. It is significant that Paul immediately adds that "the word of God is living and powerful". The words he quoted were no dead message but God’s living voice… The exhortation "My son, despise not the chastening of the Lord" was God speaking "unto you", says Paul to the Hebrews. Is it less so to sons of any generation?" [John Carter, <em>Delight In God’s Law</em>, pp. 232,233]. <em><a href='B:650 12:5'>Heb 12:5</a></em> alludes to this idea of a living word by speaking of an Old Testament passage as 'reasoning' (R:V:) with us. The Lord Jesus spoke of how the spiritual man is to live by every word which proceeds (present tense) from the mouth of God (<em><a href='B:470 4:4'>Mat 4:4</a></em>); as if He perceived God’s words written in the book of Deuteronomy to be "proceeding" from God’s very mouth in an ongoing sense. Moses speaks of how God says to each dying man "Return, you children of men" (<em><a href='B:230 90:3'>Psa 90:3</a></em>)- as if Moses understood to speak the words of <em><a href='B:10 3:19'>Gen 3:19</a></em> to every man who dies. Likewise the Lord spoke as if the Jews of His day ought to be&nbsp;<em>hearing</em> Moses and the prophets speaking to them in urgent warning (<em><a href='B:490 16:31'>Luk 16:31</a></em>); yet despite studying their words syllable by syllable, the Jews didn’t in fact perceive it was a living word speaking to them directly and urgently. Abel, through the account of him in Scripture, "is yet spoken of" (<em><a href='B:650 11:4'>Heb 11:4</a></em> AVmg:). Isaiah was prophesying directly to the hypocrites of the first century, according to the Lord in <em><a href='B:480 7:6'>Mar 7:6</a></em> RV. There is an active quality to the words we read on the pages of our Bibles. The passage in the scrolls that said "I am the God of Abraham" was "spoken unto <em>you</em> by God”, Jesus told first century Israel (<em><a href='B:470 22:31'>Mat 22:31</a></em>). Note in passing how demanding He was- expecting them to figure from that statement and usage of the present tense that God considered Abraham effectively still alive, although he was dead, and would therefore resurrect him. Although God spoke to Moses alone in the mount, Moses stresses that actually God "spake unto <em>you</em> in the mount out of the midst of the fire". The word of God to His scribes really is, to the same gripping, terrifying degree, His direct word to us (<em><a href='B:50 4:36'>Deu 4:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 5:33'>Deu 5:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 10:4'>Deu 10:4</a></em>). This explains why David repeatedly refers to the miracle at the Red Sea as if this had affected him personally, to the extent that he could ecstatically rejoice because of it. When <em><a href='B:50 11:4'>Deu 11:4</a></em> speaks of how "the Lord has destroyed [the Egyptians] unto this day", it sounds as if we are to understand each victory and achievement of God as somehow ongoing right down to our own day and our own lives and experience. Thus <em><a href='B:230 114:5-6'>Psa 114:5-6</a></em> RV describes the Red Sea as even now fleeing before God’s people. And thus because of the records of God’s past activities, we should be motivated in our decisions now. </p>


text:
<p><em>Our fathers would not be obedient to him- </em>The early church was "obedient to the faith" (<em><a href='B:510 6:7'>Act 6:7</a></em> s:w:). Again Stephen is demonstrating the weakness of 'our fathers', whom the Jews were so proud of.</p><p><em>But thrust him from them and turned back in their hearts to Egypt</em>- Stephen stresses the way in which Moses was rejected by Israel as a type of Christ. At age 40, Moses was "thrust away" by one of the Hebrews; and on the wilderness journey the Jews "thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt" (<em><a href='B:510 7:27'>Act 7:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:35'>Act 7:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:39'>Act 7:39</a></em>). This suggests that there was far more antagonism between Moses and Israel than we gather from the Old Testament record- after the pattern of Israel's treatment of Jesus. It would seem from <em><a href='B:510 7:39'>Act 7:39</a></em> that after the golden calf incident, the majority of Israel cold shouldered Moses; their hearts, their thinking, was back in Egypt, reminiscing about Egyptian food... Once the point sank in that they were not going to enter the land, these feelings must have turned into bitter resentment. They were probably unaware of how Moses had been willing to offer his eternal destiny for their salvation; they would not have entered into the intensity of Moses' prayers for their salvation. The record seems to place Moses and "the people" in juxtaposition around 100 times (e.g. <em><a href='B:20 15:24'>Exo 15:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 17:2-3'>Exo 17:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 32:1'>Exo 32:1</a></em> NIV; <em><a href='B:40 16:41'>Num 16:41</a></em> NIV; 20:2,3; 21:5). They accused Moses of being a cruel cult leader, bent on leading them out into the desert to kill them and steal their wealth from them (<em><a href='B:40 16:13-14'>Num 16:13-14</a></em>)- when in fact Moses was delivering them from the house of bondage, and was willing to lay down his own salvation for theirs. The way Moses submerged his own pain is superb; both of their rejection of him and of God’s rejection of him from entering the Kingdom.</p><p>“Turned back” suggests an anti 'conversion', which is how the word is elsewhere translated. We meet the word again in :42, where in response to this turning back, God in response likewise turned back from Israel. There is a mutuality in response between God and man, and yet overarching that there is also His grace and continued enthusiasm to save even those who turn away from His offer.</p>


text:
<p><em>Saying unto Aaron</em>- Their desire for the golden calf was part of their mental return to Egypt; it was surely an Egyptian idol deity.</p><p><em>Make us gods</em>- They made a singular calf, but understood it as a plurality; a many-in-one god. This is classic paganism, and is reflected in the false doctrine of the Trinity to this day.</p><p><em>That shall go before us</em>- The constant, visible presence of the cloud and fire leading them failed to register. Visible miracles seem to have little effect in bringing people to spirituality. They wanted to be led back to Egypt and needed a leader through the trackless waste to get back there. Yet they had leadership going before them through the desert towards the promised land. Clearly, people choose a form of leadership which they perceive will lead them to where they themselves want to go. If the Bible and the living word of the Lord Jesus are our chosen guides, then we are to follow wherever they lead, rather than choosing leadership which takes us where we ourselves would wish to go in the short term. So many struggles over church leadership today come simply back to this.</p><p><em>As for this Moses, who led us out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him-</em> Their concern was that the trackless desert required a guide. They wilfully chose to ignore the fire and cloud leading them, and chose instead to focus on the man who was their leader. This happens today; people excuse not following God’s word and Spirit direction because of their issues with the human leadership. Luke may be making a connection with the way he uses the same word for 'led out' in speaking of how after His resurrection, the Lord led His people as far as Bethany and then ascended to Heaven, becoming their invisible leader (<em><a href='B:490 24:50'>Luk 24:50</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And they made a calf in those days</em>- The days Moses was in the mount.</p><p><em>And brought a sacrifice to the idol and rejoiced in the works of their hands</em>- A phrase used about idols several times; :43 stresses that they "made" the idols. Trust in our own works is therefore a form of idolatry; Stephen is saying that although the Jews were strictly against idols, their justification by works was a form of idolatry, just as it can be today. The doing of works becomes an addiction and a form of justification rather than simple faith in Christ. They "rejoiced" in what they had made, whereas earlier at the Exodus they had rejoiced in God’s grace of salvation towards them.</p>


text:
<p><em>But God turned and gave them up to serve the host of heaven</em>- On their journey to Canaan, the Israelites worshipped idols. Because of this, "God turned, and gave them up (over) to worship the host of heaven... I gave them up to the hardness of their hearts" (<em><a href='B:510 7:42'>Act 7:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 81:12'>Psa 81:12</a></em> AVmg:). God reached a stage where He actually encouraged Israel to worship idols; He confirmed them in their rejection of Him. And throughout their history, He encouraged them in their idolatry (<em><a href='B:330 20:39'>Eze 20:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:370 4:4'>Amo 4:4</a></em>). God will confirm us today in whichever way we chose to go. See on :39 <em>Turned back</em>.</p><p>“Gave them up to serve” implies that God held them back from worshipping the idols they had carried with them. But then He withdrew this psychological restraint. This is evidence enough that God is able to work in the hearts of men in order to hold them back from sinning, as He did even with gentile Abimelech. This is one of the many functions of His Holy Spirit; their behaviour is specifically described in :51 as resisting the Holy Spirit. </p><p><em>As it is written in the book of the prophets: Did you offer to me slain beasts and sacrifices for forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel?- </em>Stephen pointed out, by the inflection which he gave to his OT quotations, that Israel's service of God was meaningless because at the same time they worshipped their idols: "<em>Have you offered</em> to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness?". This was a rhetorical question. They offered the sacrifices, but actually they didn’t. And what is the difference between "slain beasts" and “sacrifices"? Aren't sacrifices only slain beasts? The point is that the animals they gave were only slain beasts; nothing more, not real offerings, not real, acceptable sacrifice. "They sacrifice flesh for the sacrifices of mine offerings, and eat it; but the Lord accepteth it not" (<em><a href='B:350 8:13'>Hos 8:13</a></em>). And likewise we can dress up our devotions with the appearance of real sacrifice when there is nothing there at all.</p>


text:
<p><em>You took up the tabernacle of Moloch- </em>Ezekiel 20 describes how Israel took the idols of Egypt with them through the Red Sea; indeed, they lugged a whole pagan tabernacle system with them through the wilderness, in addition to the true tabernacle (:43,44). This of course is a warning to us who were as it were baptized also at the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:530 10:1'>1Co 10:1</a></em>). Are we carrying two tabernacle systems with us [or more] on our wilderness journey?&nbsp; </p><p><em>And the star of the god Remphan, figures which you made to worship</em></p><p>- see on :41 <em>The works of their hands</em>. These were in contrast to the "figure" of the tabernacle (:44). It was an anti-tabernacle which they carried, just as all false religion is a fake imitation of the true and just as the anti-Christ is not a person so much against Christ (although he is that), but a fake imitation of Him.</p><p><em>And I will carry you away- </em>As they had carried their idols. There is a mutuality between God and man in how God responds to human sin.</p><p><em>Beyond Babylon</em>- Paul’s relationship with Stephen becomes even more acute when we reflect upon how Stephen says that Israel were taken into judgment to <em>Babylon</em>. He is quoting here from <em><a href='B:370 5:26'>Amo 5:26</a></em>, which in both the LXX and Masoretic text says that Israel were to go “to Damascus”. Why does Stephen purposefully change “Damascus” to “Babylon”? Was it not because he knew there were many Christians in Damascus, and he didn’t want to speak of ‘going to Damascus’ as a figure for condemnation? And yet <em>straight afterwards</em> we are reading that Saul ‘went to <em>Damascus</em>’ to persecute and kill the Christians there. It’s as if Saul was so infuriated by Stephen’s subtle change that he wanted to prove him wrong; he would ‘go to Damascus’ and not be condemned, rather he would condemn the Christians there, and make it <em>their</em> place of judgment. This suggestion may seem farfetched. But we have to remember the Pharisaic way of reasoning and thinking. Every phrase of Scripture was so valuable to them, and major life decisions would be made over one nuance of the text or interpretation of it. No wonder that in later life, Paul alludes to his dear friend Stephen so much. What a joy it will be to see them meet up in the Kingdom. </p>


text:
<p><em>Our fathers had the tabernacle of the testimony in the wilderness, even as He who spoke to Moses</em>- The contrast is with the tabernacle of Moloch which they also carried with them. The "testimony" implies an evidence, a witness. There was no such witness in the false tabernacle. This is the word commonly used for the testimony or witness of the early preachers (<em><a href='B:510 4:33'>Act 4:33</a></em> and often in Paul's letters). This testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus was ignored by the Jews of Stephen's day just as Israel in the wilderness preferred the witness of Moloch's tabernacle which was in fact not a witness at all, for it was a silent assembly of materials and nothing more. The hint was that this was all the Jerusalem temple now amounted to, for the Lord had left that house desolate; the glory had departed from it. To draw a parallel between the Jerusalem temple and the tabernacle of Moloch was a radical thing to do. No wonder Saul and his colleagues were cut to the heart and beside themselves with anger.</p><p><em>Appointed</em>- The tabernacle of Moloch was not "appointed" by God. Saul was paying attention to every word; for the Lord then appeared to him and "appointed" <em>him</em> to do the work of <em>His </em>tabernacle (<em><a href='B:510 22:10'>Act 22:10</a></em> s:w:). And by doing so the Lord was inviting Paul [and all of us] to see Moses not as an icon to be worshipped from a respectful distance, but as a realistic pattern for our own path.</p><p><em>That he should make it according to the figure that he had seen</em></p><p>- see on :43 <em>Figures which you made</em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>Which also our fathers, in their turn</em>, <em>brought into the land with Joshua</em>- Joshua is the same Hebrew word as 'Jesus'. Joshua-Jesus and the "fathers" brought in the tabernacle into the place previously possessed by Gentiles. I suggest that the tabernacle now referred to people, God’s dwelling place. The Lord used the same word, so Luke alone records, of how those previously excluded from the temple were to be 'brought in' by Him and His servants (<em><a href='B:490 14:21'>Luk 14:21</a></em>). The 'fathers' therefore equate with the servants of Jesus; the tabernacle is the new system of worship. Paul was later accused of bringing in Gentiles to the temple (<em><a href='B:510 21:28-29'>Act 21:28-29</a></em> s:w:). As the "fathers" along with Joshua-Jesus brought the tabernacle into the holy space of the land of Israel, so the early Jewish Christians along with the active Lord Jesus were to bring Gentile converts into the new holy space- not a literal space, but the temple of God’s invisible church and spiritual temple. It was all just too much for the listening Judaists. That those fishermen believers-in-Jesus could be equivalent to the "fathers", that the crucified Jesus was as the historical Joshua, that the Gentiles were as the ark, that holy space no longer counted... it was all too much. The intensity and depth of Stephen's allusions were increasing as he progressed in his apparently innocent recounting of Israel's history. And when men are spiritually and intellectually cornered, they descend to personal attacks, in this case to the extent of throwing Roman law to the winds and picking up stones to stone Stephen to death with.</p><p><em>When they received possession of the nations that God thrust out before the presence of our fathers</em>- Stephen has just drawn a parallel between the early Jewish Christian preachers, many of them illiterate manual workers, and the "fathers" at the time of Joshua-Jesus. And now he says that the Gentiles were cast out before them; the implication was that the Judaist elders were no better than the Gentile inhabitants of Canaan, who were now being cast out of the holy space. The Lord had literally cast out such persons from the holy space of the temple. Saul's conscience was badly goaded at this point; but the point was not lost on him. For in the years of his repentance, he wrote of how just as Gentile Hagar was "cast out", so Judaism had been cast out from God’s true family (<em><a href='B:550 4:30'>Gal 4:30</a></em>). </p><p><em>To the days of David</em>- At first blush, a strange detail to add; that the process of casting out the Gentile tribes from the land was only completed by David, many generations later. The "fathers" hadn't done the job; they were not the peerless elders Judaism liked to imagine. And it was David, a clear type of Messiah, whose "son" was to be Messiah, who actually completed the job. The Lord Jesus was likewise doing the same- completing the job of casting the Judaists out of God’s holy space because He had redefined that holy space.</p>


text:
<p><em>Who found favour in the sight of God</em>- The grace he found was in that he was given the honour of being the 'father' of Messiah; the Messianic promises of <em><a href='B:100 7:12-14'>2Sa 7:12-14</a></em> were given to David. Luke forces the point home by using the very same words as to how Mary "found favour in the sight of God" (<em><a href='B:490 1:30'>Luk 1:30</a></em>), and was chosen to be the woman through whom the Messianic promise to David came true. </p><p><em>And asked to find a habitation for the God of Jacob</em>- David’s desire to "find" a temple for God was matched by how he "found" (s:w:) grace with God. As we learn in 2 Samuel 7, God turned around that desire to 'find' something for Him by saying that He would 'find' something for David, namely the Son of God, the Jewish Messiah, being directly a "son of David". Stephen is setting up the position that all the argument about the temple as holy place was deeply and Biblically misplaced; because God wanted to give Israel His Son, rather than have a temple. And the Judaists were back in the initially mistaken mindset of David, focusing on the physical temple rather than the spiritual house centred in God’s Son, the true temple. Stephen clearly read negatively Solomon's insistence on building a physical temple. </p>


text:
<p><em>But it was Solomon who built Him a house</em>- Stephen was accused by the Jews of blaspheming the temple. In reply, he gives a potted history of Israel, emphasizing how the faithful were constantly on the move rather than being settled in one physical place. He was subtly digging at the Jewish insistence that the temple was where God lived. In this context, he refers to Solomon's building of the temple in a negative light. He says that David tried to find a <em>tabernacle </em>for God, "<em>But</em>&nbsp;Solomon built him an <em>house</em>. <em>Howbeit</em>&nbsp;the most High dwelleth <em>not</em>&nbsp;in temples made with hands; as says the prophet, Heaven is my throne... what house will you build me?". This cannot mean 'God no longer dwells in the temple as He used to before Christ's death', because the reason given is that the prophet Isaiah says that God cannot live in houses. This reason was true in Isaiah's time, before the time of Christ. It would seem that Stephen is politely saying: 'Solomon made this mistake of thinking that God can be limited to a physical building. You're making just the same mistake'. And he goes on to make a comment which could well allude to this: "You do always resist the Holy Spirit: as your fathers (including Solomon) did, so do you" (<em><a href='B:510 7:51'>Act 7:51</a></em>). Further evidence that Stephen saw Solomon's building of the temple in a negative light is provided by the link between <em><a href='B:510 7:41'>Act 7:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:48'>Act 7:48</a></em>: "They made a calf... and rejoiced in <em>the works of their own hands</em>... howbeit the Most High dwells not in temples <em>made with hands</em>”. The word "made" is stressed in the record of Solomon's building the temple (<em><a href='B:140 3:8'>2Ch 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 3:10'>2Ch 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 3:14-16'>2Ch 3:14-16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 4:1-2'>2Ch 4:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 4:6-9'>2Ch 4:6-9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 4:14'>2Ch 4:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 4:18-19'>2Ch 4:18-19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 4:21'>2Ch 4:21</a></em>). The work of the temple was very much produced by men's <em>hands</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:140 2:7-8'>2Ch 2:7-8</a></em>). Things made with hands refers to idols in several Old Testament passages (e.g. <em><a href='B:290 2:8'>Isa 2:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 17:8'>Isa 17:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 31:7'>Isa 31:7</a></em>). Significantly, Solomon's temple is described as being made with hands in <em><a href='B:130 29:5'>1Ch 29:5</a></em>. And it may be significant that the words of <em><a href='B:290 66:1-2'>Isa 66:1-2</a></em> concerning God not living in temples are quoted by Paul with reference to pagan temples in <em><a href='B:510 17:24'>Act 17:24</a></em>, and concerning the temple in Jerusalem by Stephen. The building of the temple became an idol to Solomon. Human motives get terribly mixed.</p>


text:
<p><em>However</em>- Stephen read Solomon's building of the temple negatively; see on :47. It was even an example of resisting the Holy Spirit (:51). </p><p><em>The most high dwells not in houses made with hands</em>- Note that it was God’s clearly expressed wish that He should <em>not</em> live in a physical house (<em><a href='B:100 7:12-16'>2Sa 7:12-16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:48'>Act 7:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 17:24'>Act 17:24</a></em>). Yet He accommodated Himself to human weakness in wanting a physical house in which to worship Him; He came and lived (in a sense) in just such a house. In the same way, He did not wish Israel to have a system of human kingship; but when they insisted upon it, He worked with them through it. Just as He does with our wrong decisions.</p><p><em>As said the prophet</em>- Again the quotation from <em><a href='B:290 66:1-2'>Isa 66:1-2</a></em> is not exact but a summary of God’s intended sense, quotation mixed with interpretation, as was the habit of Jewish rabbinic interpreters. But the context of Isaiah 66 is of God’s final message to Judah, telling them that now God is not interested in their rebuilding of Solomon's temple, because as the sun began to go down on the prophets, He was now going to focus upon relationship with individuals rather than a formal temple presence. </p>


text:
<p><em>The Heaven is My throne</em></p><p>- see on :48 <em>As said the prophet</em>. </p><p><em>And the earth a footstool for my feet</em>- As noted on <em><a href='B:510 2:35'>Act 2:35</a></em>, God’s footstool is the place where He is to be worshipped. His worshippers on earth are therefore in view here, and not the literal planet earth in a geographical sense. God wanted hearts as His footstool, not anything physical. </p><p><em>What manner of house will you build Me? says the Lord; or what is the place of My rest?</em>- This is a rhetorical question. The sense is not 'You cannot build Me a house'; rather is it a question- what kind of house do you think I want? And the answer was: A dwelling place in hearts who believe in God’s Son. Likewise "what is the place of My rest?" is rhetorical. The <em>topos</em> or holy space is not the Jerusalem temple nor the land of Israel; it is in the hearts of believers in God’s Son. Hebrews 4, whether written by Paul or Stephen, surely alludes to this point by using the same word for "rest" in describing how Christians are entering the "rest" but Judaism is as Israel fallen in the wilderness, who did not enter into the rest promised.</p>


text:
<p><em>Did not My hand make all these things?</em>- God lives in what He "makes", and not in temples made by human hands (:48). Through the agency of the Spirt, God was and is preparing human hearts to be His 'making'. Paul repeats this reasoning in <em><a href='B:510 17:24'>Act 17:24</a></em> and <em><a href='B:540 5:1'>2Co 5:1</a></em>; Stephen's very last words before his death struck home and reaped a great harvest in the heart of that angry man called Saul who was listening. And whoever wrote Hebrews, be it Paul or Stephen, says precisely the same (<em><a href='B:650 9:11'>Heb 9:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 9:24'>Heb 9:24</a></em>). The similarities between Hebrews and Stephen's speech are many, and they are not just verbal similarities. It's as if Stephen's thoughts have been developed further. I would therefore suggest that Hebrews is not Stephen's letter; it appears to be a further development of his last words. The appropriate author, although we cannot be dogmatic, would seem to me to be Saul / Paul. The verbal similarities have led some to assume it must be Stephen; but it makes more sense to me to realize that this was written by someone who had memorized and developed Stephen's speech throughout his life. And Paul is to me the compelling candidate.</p>


text:
<p><em>You stiffnecked- </em>The reference is to how God wished to destroy a "stiffnecked" Israel and make of Moses another people of God (<em><a href='B:20 32:9'>Exo 32:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 33:3'>Exo 33:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 33:5'>Exo 33:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 34:9'>Exo 34:9</a></em>). The message contained in that one word "stiffnecked" was lengthy and powerful. The only other time we read of being stiffnecked and uncircumcised in the same verse is in <em><a href='B:50 10:16'>Deu 10:16</a></em>; and again there is the point made that circumcision is of the heart more than the flesh: "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiff-necked". This was an appeal to Israel. Stephen's allusion shows that he was not merely imprecating against the Judaists who surrounded him. He was appealing to them to change, so that they might enter the land of God’s Kingdom. His hopefulness, up to his last words in this world, is amazing. His passion to save at least some of those hard hearts paid off, with the conversion of the worst of them, Saul, to become one of the Lord's greatest servants. See on "hearts and ears" below. "Stiffnecked" is formed from the word <em>sklero</em>, "hard". The Lord uses just that word in telling Saul that it is "hard" for him to kick against the goads. A stubborn ox is literally stiffnecked. The Lord saw that this whole reasoning about being stiffnecked and uncircumcised had struck home in Saul's heart. And so He continues the allusion in further appealing to him. He does the same likewise with us in life and the encounters with verses in His written word which He leads us to.</p><p><em>And uncircumcised</em>- To call the circumcised Jews uncircumcised, when circumcision was for them the sign of Divine covenant, was just too much. Stephen is now making explicit what he has been saying earlier by way of allusion and implication- they were no more than Gentiles. And again, the listening, fuming Saul was deeply touched; for later he writes of how circumcision is a matter of the heart and not of the flesh; indeed, this is quite a theme with Paul (<em><a href='B:520 2:28-29'>Rom 2:28-29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 2:11'>Eph 2:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 3:3'>Phi 3:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 2:11'>Col 2:11</a></em>). Each time he thought and wrote about it, he would've remembered how the dying Stephen had made this point, and how furious he had been to hear it. We see in Paul's references to circumcision how he had not only taken note of Stephen's words, but had taken the reasoning further. Seeing Hebrews is so full of reference to Stephen's words <em>and developments of his reasoning</em>, it seems to me that Paul is the likely author; and the letter is addressed to Hebrews, perhaps to the Jerusalem ecclesia, who would have known Stephen. </p><p><em>In heart and ears</em>- They "stopped their ears" (:57). They refused the appeal Stephen was making to circumcise their hearts and ears, even at that late stage. Circumcision was to be not only of the heart, but of the ears. Circumcision of ears may seem a strange idea, at first blush. Stephen is saying that the sign of covenant relationship with God is how we hear; as his Lord had taught, "Take heed how you hear" (<em><a href='B:490 8:18'>Luk 8:18</a></em>; again, it is Luke who records this). The circumcised ear will hear God’s word; and the relevance of this otherwise throw away word "ears" is in that Stephen has been appealing to the Jews from the basis of Israel's well known history. He was asking them to hear that familiar Scripture with circumcised ears; and they refused. At least, right then at that moment they did.</p><p><em>You do always- </em>This could just mean 'earnestly, strongly'. But the idea of regular resistance to the Holy Spirit could refer to their refusal to hear the real Spirit of God’s word as they regularly read it and encountered the incidents from Israel's history in their Bible study. For the Holy Spirit was the agency behind the writing of the Bible. See above on "hearts and ears".</p><p><em>Resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you</em></p><p>- see on :42 <em>Gave them up to serve. </em>The allusion is to <em><a href='B:290 63:10'>Isa 63:10</a></em> LXX: "But they disobeyed, and provoked his Holy Spirit: so he turned to be an enemy, he himself contended against them". This resistance of the Spirit as we read the word of the Spirit, refusing to see the points the Lord is making to us, can be our failure too. The Jews were so proud of being descendants of the "fathers". But as demonstrated throughout this commentary, Stephen has been pointing out the weakness of the Jewish fathers, and he appeals to them to now have a different Father- God. </p>


text:
<p><em>Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute?</em>- Stephen here and in :51 speaks of "your fathers" whereas earlier in his address he spoke repeatedly of "<em>our</em> fathers" (<em><a href='B:510 7:2'>Act 7:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:11-12'>Act 7:11-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:15'>Act 7:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:19'>Act 7:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:38-39'>Act 7:38-39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:44-45'>Act 7:44-45</a></em>). But having tried to build that bridge between himself and his audience, by speaking of their common ancestry, he now makes the appeal for radical change- to disown what those fathers <em>did</em>. Saul, who was intently listening, was guilty of persecuting the Christians (<em><a href='B:510 22:4'>Act 22:4</a></em> s:w:). And the Lord continues Stephen's appeal to him by asking him on the Damascus road: "Why do you persecute Me?" (<em><a href='B:510 9:4-5'>Act 9:4-5</a></em> s:w:). Note that every prophet was persecuted- even if we don't read about (e.g. Jonah- although maybe it was Jewish persecution which disinclined him to preach to Gentiles).</p><p><em>And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One</em>- Peter had used the same word in <em><a href='B:510 3:18'>Act 3:18</a></em>: "The things which God foretold [s:w:] by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ should suffer, He thus fulfilled". Stephen may be taking this further in suggesting that the reason they killed such prophets was because the message of a suffering, dead Messiah was so deeply unacceptable to the Jews. Stephen is demonstrating that the Jews' implacable hatred of Jesus of Nazareth was therefore seamlessly in line with the attitude of an Israel whom God had rejected. The message of Christ crucified cannot be received dispassionately; it forces a reaction, either of humbled acceptance, or anger, even passive anger, but all the same anger- because the human conscience has been touched in a way nothing else can touch it. And that anger is directed at the one who brings the message, for he or she is the human face of Jesus to them. It is Luke alone who records how the Lord Jesus on the cross was "the just [one]" (<em><a href='B:490 23:47'>Luk 23:47</a></em> s:w:). </p><p><em>Of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers</em>- Judas the singular betrayer was an embodiment of all the Jewish opposition. I suggest this is the key to understanding how the 'satan' or adversary of Jewish opposition entered into Judas. I develop this theme further in 'The Jewish Satan' in <em>The Real Devil</em>. The Jews doubtless rationalized the Lord's death by feeling that the Romans had done it. But the early preachers repeatedly lay the blame for it upon the Jews; hence Stephen says that they had each one murdered their Messiah; for he speaks of "murderers" in the plural. This demonstrates that 'going along' with a seriously wrong position can be counted by God as actually performing the crime. </p>


text:
<p><em>You who received the law as it was ordained by angels</em>- That Angels gave the Law is clear from <em><a href='B:50 33:2'>Deu 33:2</a></em> LXX; <em><a href='B:230 68:17'>Psa 68:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:19'>Gal 3:19</a></em> and <em><a href='B:650 2:2'>Heb 2:2</a></em>. But why mention it? Perhaps because the listening Jews were seeing Stephen's face as if were an Angel (<em><a href='B:510 6:15'>Act 6:15</a></em>). As Israel turned away from the law given by Angels, so they were turning away from the new covenant being presented to them by an Angel.</p><p><em>And did not keep it</em>- That Jewish audience were convinced they were obedient to Torah. To be told they were not, because they didn’t accept their own Messiah... was the last straw. For the argument here is that to reject Jesus as Messiah was to break the Mosaic law; for obedience to that law was intended to bring people to Messiah. Note that the Mosaic law was designed to bring people to Christ not so much through studying the various types of Christ it contains, but through practically seeking to obey it. That process would bring people to accept Jesus as the Christ; but the fact they didn’t meant they had not properly kept it. Paul was influenced by these words of Stephen when he wrote that the circumcised do not keep the law [s:w:, <em><a href='B:550 6:13'>Gal 6:13</a></em>]. </p>


text:
<p><em>Now when they heard these things, they were cut to the heart</em></p><p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 5:33'>Act 5:33</a></em> "Cut to the heart".</p><p><em>And they ground their teeth at him- </em>The Greek is literally 'they were ripped through their hearts'. This is the power of the argument for Christ to touch human hearts.  The same term is used for how the Sanhedrin were ripped in their hearts by Peter's defence (Acts 5:13). Such language must surely connect with the oft repeated description of the rejected gnashing their teeth at the judgment (<em><a href='B:470 8:12'>Mat 8:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:42'>Mat 13:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 13:50'>Mat 13:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:13'>Mat 22:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:51'>Mat 24:51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:30'>Mat 25:30</a></em>); as if those Jews acted out their own rejection by their attitude to the word in this life. Judgment is ongoing now, in its essence. As Stephen's enemies "gnashed on him with their teeth", his Biblical mind would therefore have raced to <em><a href='B:220 16:9'>Job 16:9</a></em>, describing the behaviour of the wicked towards the faithful: "He tears me in his wrath, who hates me: he gnashes upon me with his teeth". The context goes on: "Now, behold, my witness is in heaven and my record is on high" (v. 19). Surely Stephen had thought ahead to this, for as his enemies gnashed their teeth against him, "he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God" (<em><a href='B:510 7:56'>Act 7:56</a></em>). He looked up to Heaven and saw His witness, faithful and true, standing there as he expected. </p>


text:
<p><em>But he, being full of the Holy Spirit- </em>This is twice earlier stated of Stephen (<em><a href='B:510 6:3'>Act 6:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 6:5'>Act 6:5</a></em>). Those passages suggest this was a permanent characteristic of Stephen (as <em><a href='B:510 11:24'>Act 11:24</a></em> "a good man and full of the Holy Spirit"). So whilst this phrase could mean that Stephen was given a special gift or revelation of the Holy Spirit in his time of final crisis and death, it could also mean that it was because of his Spirit filled life that he saw visibly what he had previously only seen by faith- his Lord Jesus standing at God’s right hand in Heaven. Likewise if we live a spiritual life, hour by hour, then that same Spirit is powerfully available to us in our times of crises. The idea may be that they "resisted the Holy Spirit" (:51) insofar as the Spirit was in Stephen- and they resisted his argument. They were 'killing the prophets' in killing Stephen. </p><p><em>Looked up earnestly into heaven</em></p><p>- see on 6:15 <em>Fastening their eyes on him</em>. Paul uses the same term for "looked up earnestly into..." in 2 Cor. 3:13: "Moses, who put a veil upon his face so the children of Israel could not gaze to see the outcome of that [glory] which was fading away". The Jewish elders could not see the glory which Stephen saw; and Paul had been standing amongst them. Time and again, he alludes to the events of Stephen's death to demonstrate that Stephen's witness had been effective and his prayer had been heard- at least for him. </p><p><em>And saw the glory of God</em>- This made Stephen equal to the revered prophets like Elijah, Moses and Ezekiel who had seen such visions of the cherubim and beheld the shekinah glory. What was so desperately and obviously absent from the Jerusalem temple was just this- the shekinah glory. It was what the Jews so earnestly wished they could see there. But God’s presence and fellowship was simply not with them. But Stephen now saw it- and not in the holy space of the temple's holy place either. Perhaps this was to connect with how Stephen claims that the God of glory appeared to Abraham (:2)- something stated only by Stephen. Stephen was thereby connected with Abraham, modelling the seed of Abraham in faith in Jesus and Hope of the Kingdom. The glory of God was shining from Stephen's face at this point, for he had the face of an Angel at this time. Just as it shone from the Lord's face when He was arrested to be slain. </p><p><em>And Jesus</em>- It is normal in the New Testament to describe the risen Jesus with some title, such as "<em>the Lord</em> Jesus". The simple "Jesus" directs attention to His humanity; and Stephen reflects this by referring to Him as "the son of man" (:56). The Lord's humanity was a great encouragement for Stephen in his most desperate human need, just as it is for us. This is a powerful practical outcome of understanding that the Lord was of our human nature and not "very God". I have observed that whenever the humanity of the Lord is spoken of, His highly exalted status is often juxtaposed with it. So many proof texts misused by Trinitarians are located right next to the clearest statements of the Lord's humanity. And so the reference to "the son of man" is not merely a statement of His humanity, but is an allusion to the Daniel 7 vision of the "son of man" coming in judgment in the clouds of Heaven (as Stephen saw Him in the "glory of God"). </p><p><em>Standing on the right hand of God; and he said- </em>In his time of dying, Stephen saw the Lord Jesus <em>standing </em>at the right hand of God (<em><a href='B:510 7:55'>Act 7:55</a></em>). But about 13 times in the New Testament, the point is made that the Lord <em>sits</em> there, unlike the Mosaic priests who <em>stood</em> (<em><a href='B:650 10:12'>Heb 10:12</a></em>). The Lord Jesus was passionately feeling for Stephen; and He just as emotionally and passionately feels for us in our struggles. This alone should lift us out of the mire of mediocrity. Prayer will have meaning and power. It won’t just be the repetitious conscience-salver it can descend into. Many of those 13 NT references to the Lord being seated at the right hand of God are in Hebrews; and this again encourages us to see Hebrews as Paul's deeper reflections upon Stephen's speech. This would especially be the case if the Jews in the council actually saw something of what Stephen saw.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 2:33-36'>Act 2:33-36</a></em>.</p><p><em>Look, I see the heavens opened</em>- The implication is that if they lifted their eyes, they too could see what Stephen was seeing. It was a desperate appeal for their repentance in his final seconds. He so wanted them to see the Lord Jesus as he saw Him. Stephen's passion for the conversion of his enemies is simply matchless. They refused- rather like the earlier elders of Israel were invited to witness the theophany of God coming down on Sinai, but refused; asking Moses to go alone and hear and see it. </p><p><em>And the Son of man</em></p><p>- see on :59,60 and :55 <em>Jesus</em>. Perhaps this was the fulfilment of the Lord's words to the Sanhedrin in Mk. 14:62: "you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power".</p><p><em>Standing on the right hand of God- </em>Perhaps this was the fulfilment of the Lord's words to the Sanhedrin in Mk. 14:62: "you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power". The allusion could be to a witness or judge standing. As the human judge condemned Stephen- presumably by standing up to condemn him as usually happened in law courts (<em><a href='B:510 7:56'>Act 7:56</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:290 3:13'>Isa 3:13</a></em>)- the Lord Jesus stands up in the court of Heaven as intercessor for Stephen. And this happens time and again in our lives, as and when and if we suffer the abuse of human condemnation and misjudgement. Although condemned by an earthly court, he confidently makes his appeal before the court of Heaven (<em><a href='B:510 7:56'>Act 7:56</a></em>). Doubtless he was further inspired by the basic truth that whoever confesses the Lord Jesus before men, He will confess him before the angels in the court of Heaven (<em><a href='B:490 12:8'>Luk 12:8</a></em>).</p><p>Hebrews- and I have suggested this letter is Paul's extended reflections upon Stephen's speech- invites us to see Christ as <em>sitting</em> there in Heaven [this is mentioned about 13 times in Hebrews], unlike the nervous High Priests of old on their annual entry into the Holiest <em>standing. </em>The fact Stephen saw the Lord <em>standing</em> at God’s right hand suggests that He arose from His usual position, caught up, as it were, in the passion of mediation for His suffering servant. Robert Roberts began his life of Christ in <em>Nazareth Revisited</em> with the simple statement that "Christ is real". Indeed He is real in our lives, actively passionate for us, just as He was for Stephen. And we must ask with the German pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in his final writings at the time of death in a Nazi prison: "Who is Christ for us today?". Perhaps this was the fulfilment of the Lord's words to the Sanhedrin in Mk. 14:62: "you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power". Another possibility is that the "Son of man" in "Heaven" recalls the language of  Dan. 7 of 'the Son of Man coming in the clouds of Heaven', i.e. His second coming. The "son of man... coming in great glory" (Lk. 21:27) is what Stephen saw at this point. For he saw "the son of man" in "great glory". Stephen sees the Lord standing, not sitting, as if He is about to return. Because effectively for every believer, the moment of death is for us the time of the Lord's return. For death is unconsciousness, a sleep, and the next waking moment will be the Lord's return.</p>


text:
<p><em>But</em>- I suggest this means that they ignored Stephen's appeal to 'behold' the vision of the risen Lord which he was seeing. The power and reality of the Lord Jesus was subsumed beneath a wave of legalism and anger at injured positions and the desperate desire to deny that... they might just have been wrong. And so the real Christ has been obscured, it seems to me, to so many angry legalists, even Christian ones. </p><p><em>They cried out with a loud voice</em>- Not, as we might expect grammatically, 'with loud voices' in the plural. They were united, and that unity is stated later in the verse- they "rushed upon him with one accord". Just as Pilate and Herod, and the warring Jewish factions, were united in the condemnation of the Lord Jesus. Their unity, and crying out with a loud voice as the Lord did on the cross, all makes them a kind of anti-Christ, a synagogue of satan. The very words are used of how Stephen "cried with a loud voice" (:60). They were no longer merely folks who held a different theological view; their conscious rejection of God’s appeal in Christ made them an utterly false system which merited only complete destruction.</p><p><em>And stopped their ears</em></p><p>- see on :51 <em>Heart and ears</em>. They were fulfilling Stephen's words, that they were "uncircumcised in ears" (:51). Putting their hands on their ears demonstated this. </p><p><em>And rushed upon him with one accord</em>- The very same words used of how the Jews did the same to Paul and his brethren (<em><a href='B:510 19:29'>Act 19:29</a></em>). This means that what Saul and his then brethren did to Stephen, was done to Paul. He came to realize how it felt. And the Lord leads us to the same realization, not to punish us, but to lead us to self-understanding and eternal unity with our brethren whom we have hurt. It is so that we may understand each other, and understand ourselves within the context of others and the effect we have had upon them. This explains why Stephen's speech is so often alluded to by Paul; and why he opens his own defence speeches with allusion to how Stephen opened his.</p><p>
The allusion is to the punishment of someone convicted of idolatry (Dt. 13:9,10), whereby “the hand of all the people” was to be upon the offender. And yet in :42,43, Stephen has accused them of idolatry. This is a classic case of psychological transference- they knew they were guilty of idolatry, and so they transfered that guilt onto Stephen, and punished him for it. Just like a church elder feeling guilty of having an affair then heavily punishes a church member for having an affair. This is more than hypocrisy; it arises because of the human tendency to transfer personal guilt, rather than humbly admit it and let the Lord Jesus deal with it.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they threw him out of the city and stoned him</em>- The very words used by Luke about the Lord's experience at the hands of His own brethren in Nazareth (<em><a href='B:490 4:29'>Luk 4:29</a></em>) and of how the Son is thrown out of the vineyard and killed in <em><a href='B:490 20:15'>Luk 20:15</a></em>. Baptism identifies us with the Lord's death, and thereby His sufferings become replicated in all of us who are in Him. Stephen quotes his Lord's dying words as his own dying words, reflecting his grasp of what was going on- he was indeed sharing his Lord's sufferings with which he had willingly identified throughout his life in Him. So the 'throwing out of the city' was arranged by God to stimulate Stephen to see the similarities between him and his Lord, just as such events are brought into our lives, clearly beyond our control. But then we must use our own freewill to develop that identification, and Stephen does this by quoting the Lord's dying words as he himself died. Although the stoning of Stephen was clearly done in hot blood and with no regard to local law nor to Biblical law, the Jews still wanted to show obedience to the principle of stoning the condemned outside the camp. I have repeatedly drawn attention to the similarities between Acts 7 and Hebrews, which I suggest is Paul's reflection upon Stephen's words and example, and presented initially to the Jerusalem ecclesia. The appeal to go forth with the Lord Jesus "without the camp" (<em><a href='B:650 13:13'>Heb 13:13</a></em>) surely continues this impression; we are to be followers of Stephen insofar as he was of the Lord Jesus. If indeed 'St. Stephen's gate' in Jerusalem is correctly located where Stephen was taken through to his death, he would have been dragged over the Kedron and through the garden of Gethsemane, thus encouraging his willing identification with his Lord's final sufferings. See on :60 <em>knelt down</em>. </p><p>
All this happened at the behest of Saul. But he too was to be cast out of a city to be slain- and yet survived, or maybe was resurrected (Acts 14:29). This was to enable him to feel what he had done to Stephen. Not simply because 'what goes around comes around'; but to enable him to enter into Stephen's feelings, to prepare them for eternal fellowship in the Kingdom. 
</p><p><em>And the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul</em>- "At the feet" is a phrase elsewhere used in the context to imply that the people there are subservient to the person (Acts 4:35,37; 5:1). The implication is surely that Paul was responsible for the stoning, or facilitated it in practice. Paul later was stoned unto death (<em><a href='B:510 14:5'>Act 14:5</a></em>), and through this he learnt how his actions to Stephen had actually felt. This was far more than a poetic justice for the sake of it; it was to enable Paul to understand himself and the meaning of his own positions and actions. The Lord works likewise in our education. There is another allusion from Hebrews here- we are surrounded by a great crowd of "witnesses" and should therefore 'lay down' everything that impedes us from doing the Lord's work (<em><a href='B:650 12:1'>Heb 12:1</a></em>). These are the same Greek words as used here about the witnesses who laid down their clothes. Paul had been one of those witnesses. The laying aside of garments recalls Aaron's death on Mount Hor, and there may be the hint that they were now resigning their priesthood and spiritually dying, outside the promised land.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they stoned Stephen- </em>Stephen's death sentence was against Pharisaic principles; and it was a studied rejection of the more gentle, tolerant attitude taught by Gamaliel, Paul's early mentor ("though I distribute all my belonging to feed the poor..." in <em><a href='B:530 13:3'>1Co 13:3</a></em> is Paul virtually quoting Gamaliel- he clearly was aware of his stance). People like Paul who come from strict, authoritarian backgrounds can have a tendency to anger, and yet in Paul there seems also to have operated an inferiority complex, a longing for power, and a repressed inner guilt. </p><p>As he called upon the Lord-</p><p> The impact upon Saul must have been psychologically colossal, for he then goes out to kill and persecute all who called on the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 9:14,21 s.w.). The Lord Jesus was working with Saul's conscience; for when He confronts Saul on the Damascus Road, He uses the same words to invite Saul also to 'call upon himself the name of the Lord Jesus' (Acts 22:16). </p><p><em>As he called upon the Lord- </em>The impact upon Saul must have been psychologically colossal, for he then goes out to kill and persecute all who called on the name of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:510 9:14'>Act 9:14</a></em> s:w:). The Lord Jesus was working with Saul's conscience; for when He confronts Saul on the Damascus Road, He uses the same words to invite Saul also to 'call upon himself the name of the Lord Jesus' (<em><a href='B:510 22:16'>Act 22:16</a></em>). </p><p><em>Saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit</em>- I have suggested in my commentary on Hebrews that Hebrews was originally a transcript of a sermon at the breaking of bread meeting at the Jerusalem church, turned into written form. That audience would have known Stephen well. Hebrews is full of allusions to Stephen's speech, and my suggestion is that it was not Stephen writing to his own church before his death, but rather Paul expanding upon Stephen's speech. As the bitterly angry Saul, keenly listening to Stephen and grasping his every allusion, he would have felt the goads of Scripture sticking into his conscience. He remembered every word, and after his conversion, he took Stephen's thoughts further. Hebrews, I suggest, is his development of Stephen's words and ideas. The historical characters mentioned by Stephen are also mentioned by Paul in Hebrews 11. Paul draws his sermon in Hebrews towards a conclusion by speaking of how we as Christians have come into association with "the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable hosts of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborns, who are enrolled in heaven; and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect" (<em><a href='B:650 12:22-23'>Heb 12:22-23</a></em>). It seems to me certain that Paul had Stephen in mind at this point, a clearly 'just man', who had asked the Lord Jesus in Heaven to receive his spirit, as one of "the spirits of just men made perfect", and whose name as a martyr was for sure "enrolled in Heaven". </p><p>Realizing, sensing how he was living out the sufferings of his Lord... all this really motivated Stephen; when he asked for forgiveness for his tormentors and asked for his spirit to be received (7:59,60), he was so evidently reflecting the words of the Lord in His time of final agony and spiritual and physical extension. It is Luke who brings out the similarity (<em><a href='B:490 23:34'>Luk 23:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:46'>Luk 23:46</a></em>). He died in prayer for his enemies, crying out with a loud voice, commending his spirit to Jesus as Jesus commended His to the Father... He saw the similarities between his sufferings and those of the Lord; and therefore he went ahead and let the spirit of the Lord Jesus live in him. In addressing the Lord Jesus as "Son of Man" (:56), Stephen is the only person outside the Gospels to use the phrase. Perhaps it was because in the time of his sufferings, Stephen felt especially keenly the comfort of the Lord's humanity and the representative nature of His sacrifice. He personalized those words of the Lord which he already well knew, and made them his own. This is the intended end point for each of us- to know the spirit of Christ in His time of dying. It's just that we each have different paths to lead us there.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he knelt down-</em>Luke uses these very words of how the Lord knelt and prayed in Gethsemane, a stone's throw distant (<em><a href='B:490 22:41'>Luk 22:41</a></em>). Clearly he is making the connection between the Lord and Stephen, who was stoned to death and thereby a stone’s throw distant. ho was stoned to death and thereby a stone’s throw distant. Stephen is consciously trying to imitate the Lord Jesus in His time of dying, hence his request for the sins of his murderers to be  forgiven. I have suggested that Stephen was dragged through Gethsemane on his way to the stoning</p><p>- see on 7:58 <em>They threw him out of the city</em>. The Lord brought this to Stephen's mind, and he did his part in responding by imitating his Lord there in Gethsemane. Kneeling down, literally 'bending the knee', is the language of worship. Stephen died in worship of his Lord, whose death and last sufferings he had now come to know and identify with. By keeling down instead of lying in a self-protective position, he was giving his body maximum exposure to the stones. Like his Lord on the cross, His devotion resulted in his physical sufferings being shorter than otherwise would have been the case. I have explained elsewhere that the Lord's refusal to press back on the <em>sedile</em> of the crucifixion pole hastened His death. Almost all Stephen's sufferings and words have some issue in Paul's experiences; some similarities were brought about by the Lord's hand in his life, others were a result of him consciously imitating Stephen. Luke uses precisely the same Greek words to record how Paul knelt down and prayed in <em><a href='B:510 20:36'>Act 20:36</a></em>. Consciously or unconsciously, Paul was again imitating his hero and entering his experiences which Paul had brought upon him.</p><p><em>And cried with a loud voice</em></p><p>- see on :57 <em>cried with a loud voice</em>.</p><p><em>Lord, do not charge them with this sin-</em> The sins of the wicked are written down against them, to be discussed with them at the judgment. “Charge them not with this sin” certainly sounds as if Stephen expected that individual actions of human sin will be raised with them at the day of judgment. And yet the wonder of it all, is that our prayers now for our enemies can result in their not being charged with those sins. We are in that sense called to do the work of the advocate, to reflect the saving mediatorial work of the Lord Jesus in our prayer life right now. Our prayers for others really can have an effect upon what will be raised with them at the judgment- for that’s what Stephen prayed for in his time of dying. And are we to think that his wonderful prayer went unanswered? He prayed with a loud voice so that they would all hear- for they were standing a stone's throw away from him, and there would've been much noise from their screaming and the thud of stones. He died in the hope that his obtaining of forgiveness for them would result in their repentance. And it worked wonderfully, at least in the case of Saul. As Saul wasn't throwing the stones nor gathering them, his attention would have naturally been fixed upon the person and words of Stephen. He was consciously modelling himself upon the Lord in His time of dying: "Father, forgive them..." (Lk. 23:43). Likewise "receive my spirit" (:59) is quoting another of the Lord's last sayings from the cross, in turn quoting from Ps. 31:5 LXX “Into your hand I commit my spirit”. His kneeling to pray may likewise be consciously following the Lord's kneeling in Gethsemane in prayer before His death (Lk. 22:41). We note that his very last words were not concerned with his personal salvation; but rather with that of others. Indeed, of men who appeared absolutely opposed or disinterested in the Lord Jesus. We see here not simply his paramount love of others, but a tacit reflection of his own personal confidence in salvation. "Receive my spirit" perhaps equates to Nehemiah's "Remember me for good for all I have done"; a confident handing over of our lives to the Lord Jesus, who loves us beyond death and our own unconsciousness. It is normal for men in death situations to beg for personal forgiveness and acceptance from God; but Stephen is so secure in his personal relationship with the Father and Son that his last words were for others, not himself. It is also noteworthy that 1 Kings 8 had offered forgiveness to Israel if they prayed towards the temple- and the destruction and spiritual bankruptcy of the temple is in view here. Stephen shows them for all time that the temple is not the magic source of forgiveness- but rather faith in the Lord Jesus. </p><p><em>And when he had said this, he fell asleep</em>- This suggests that he died as an act of the will; he said his last words and died. In this we see another striking similarity with the Lord's death; He too made His last sayings, begging for Israel's forgiveness, and breathed His last. The impression we get is that like the Lord, Stephen's total desire was for Israel's repentance. And he died with that desire, falling asleep when he knew he had done what he could. </p><p>There should be no chapter break- Acts 8:1 about Saul should follow straight on from here.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Saul approved of his execution- </em>Paul warned the Romans that those who “have pleasure” in (Gk. ‘to feel gratified with’) sinful people will be punished just as much as those who commit the sins (<em><a href='B:520 1:32'>Rom 1:32</a></em>). But he uses the very word used here for his own ‘consenting’ or 'approving' the death of Stephen; standing there in consent, although not throwing a stone (<em><a href='B:510 8:1'>Act 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 22:20'>Act 22:20</a></em>). He realized that only by grace had that major sin of his been forgiven; and in that spirit of humility and self-perception of himself, as a serious sinner saved by grace alone, did he appeal to his brethren to consider their ways. &nbsp;‘Feeling gratified with’ such sins as are in this list is what the entertainment industry is so full of. We can’t watch, read and listen to this kind of thing by choice without in some sense being vicariously involved in it- and this seems to be exactly what Paul has in mind when he warns that those who feel gratified in those sins shall share in their judgment. This is a sober warning, relevant, powerful and cutting to our generation far more than any other. For given the internet and media, we can so easily feel gratified in others’ sins:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And there arose on that day</em>- Clear evidence that Stephen's speech was the psychological motivator for the anger now unleashed within Saul and his companions.</p><p><em>A great persecution against the church which was in Jerusalem, and except the apostles, they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria- </em>Luke uses the word for ‘Diaspora’ to describe how the brethren were “scattered abroad” (<em><a href='B:510 8:1'>Act 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 8:4'>Act 8:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 11:19'>Act 11:19</a></em>); he saw this persecution as turning them into the new Israel. The entire membership of the Jerusalem ecclesia was scattered; the way we read of them numbering thousands by the time of <em><a href='B:510 21:20'>Act 21:20</a></em> suggests that to avoid persecution those who remained reconciled themselves with the temple, becoming a sect of Judaism, presumably with the tithe and temple tax going to the temple rather than to the ecclesia. These “thousands” of Acts 21 were probably largely converted since the persecution that arose after the death of Stephen. The original Jerusalem ecclesia had gone and preached to the Gentiles (<em><a href='B:510 11:19-20'>Act 11:19-20</a></em>), which wasn’t what the later Jerusalem ecclesia supported. Indeed, <em><a href='B:510 11:22'>Act 11:22</a></em> goes straight on to record that the Jerusalem ecclesia sent representatives to find out what was going on. In order to escape further persecution, the Jerusalem ecclesia threw in their lot with the temple and orthodox Judaism. Finally Paul wrote to the Jerusalem ecclesia, as recorded in Hebrews. He sorrows that they fail to see the supremacy of Christ over Moses, and that despite initially enduring such persecution and loss of their goods (during the early persecutions), they had lost their real faith in Christ. The fact they weren’t <em>then </em>being persecuted indicates they had reconciled with the temple. They needed to hold on, to keep the joy of faith they once had, rather than become hard hearted, judgmental, works-centred. But they didn’t listen.</p><p>When the Romans began persecuting the early church, only the leaders were seized, while crowds of obvious Christians went unpunished. This was perhaps because paganism was utterly dependent on its elite, and most cults could easily be destroyed from the top. This explains a few Bible puzzles- why devout men could carry Stephen to burial and yet be unharmed; why the apostles could remain in Jerusalem [they were seen as unlearned and ignorant fishermen] whilst the others in the Jerusalem ecclesia had to flee (e.g. the great company of priests who became obedient to the faith). And yet Christianity spread yet further. Josephus (<em>Antiquities </em>18:63-64) expresses surprise that the “tribe of Christians” [indicating their unity] had not disappeared after the death of their founder, “the [so-called] Christ”. Unlike other religions, the faith of the followers was not in the leaders- if the organization and leaders were taken away, would our church continue? The early church did- and flourished. We must beware lest our system of elders and organizations doesn’t take away our individual commitment to preach and personally care for people, and especially for the brotherhood. First century&nbsp;Christianity was a mass movement, rooted in a highly committed rank and file; and therefore it had the advantage of the best of all marketing techniques: person-to-person influence. This in the end is how we can preach far more effectively than through mass meetings or organized campaigns [not that I am saying not to hold these]. </p>


text:
<p><em>And devout men buried Stephen</em>- A term only used of the "devout men" living in Jerusalem who were baptized by Peter and who formed the Jerusalem ecclesia (<em><a href='B:510 2:5'>Act 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:25'>Luk 2:25</a></em>). These men had emigrated to live in Jerusalem in their retirement. To now have to flee was significant for them. Presumably some of them remained, and it was of these "devout men" that some bravely identified with Stephen in order to claim and bury his corpse.</p><p><em>And made great lamentation over him</em>- Luke uses the word about the lamentation made over the Lord at His death (<em><a href='B:490 23:27'>Luk 23:27</a></em>). As demonstrated throughout the commentary on the end of chapter 7, Stephen's death was modelled consciously upon the Lord's death. And the mourners surely recognized that, therefore mourning for Stephen as they did for the Lord.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 26:10-11'>Act 26:10-11</a></em>.<em><br/>But Saul treated the church shamefully, entering into every house</em>- “The church” is paralleled with “every house” [church]: “Saul laid waste the church, entering into every house”. That’s a very significant parallel. Those house churches in sum were the church of Christ in Jerusalem; the ecclesia met in house churches but gathered together in the temple, the only place big enough to hold them all. The same thing happened at Rome and Corinth, where there seem to have been various house churches which met together occasionally for larger gatherings. </p><p><em>Dragging out men and women and putting them into prison</em>- Paul was himself dragged to his death by the crowd (<em><a href='B:510 14:19'>Act 14:19</a></em> s:w:). He was being made to realize what he had done to others; and this is how the Lord seeks to educate us, not simply bring about 'measure for measure' in our lives for the sake of it.</p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore those who were scattered-</em> Gk. 'the diaspora'. They were diaspora Jews who had come back from their dispersion to live in Jerusalem. But now they were again a diaspora, but of the Jerusalem church.</p><p><em>Went about preaching the word</em>- <em><a href='B:510 11:19'>Act 11:19</a></em> informs us that these brethren went as far as Phenice and Cyprus preaching the word. Most of the Jerusalem church were comprised of the 'devout men' from throughout the Roman world who had come to end their days at Jerusalem, and now had been baptized into Christ by Peter. It's logical to assume that Saul's persecution prompted them to return home- and thus the Gospel spread.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Philip went down- </em>This is how any journey from Jerusalem was described. Travellers went 'up' to Jerusalem and thence 'went down'. </p><p><em>To the city of Samaria and proclaimed to them the Christ</em>- Defined in :12 as the things about His Name and His Father's Kingdom. This term 'preached Christ' is clearly parallel to the statement that they 'evangelized the <em>logos</em>' (:4). The essential word / <em>logos</em> of God was seen to be the Lord Jesus personally. This indeed is how John began his preaching of the Gospel, as transcripted in the gospel of John. </p>


text:
<p><em>And the crowds, when they heard and saw the signs which he did, gave heed- </em>The same word is twice used about how previously they had 'given heed' to Simon (:10,11). Illiterate people inevitably follow human teachers, and the record here is therefore psychologically credible. They had once had Simon as their teacher, but now they gave their minds and attention to Philip. We note that Lydia likewise 'gave heed' to the Gospel message, but her heart was opened by the Lord so that she did this (16:14). That mental desire to open the mind to the message is therefore ultimately given by the Lord and is part of His calling of people. The people had given attention to Simon because he apparently did miracles, but when they saw far more credible miracles done by Philip, they believed him. This was one reason why the power to perform miracles was given in the first century- they were necessary to grab the attention of illiterate people who previously had paid attention to whoever did the most compelling miracles. This was, after all, the only criteria for credibility which the illiterate masses had. There was no written word which could be read to them, for the New Testament was not written. See on :23. The miracles were therefore a message; for they were heard as well as seen. The miraculous Spirit gifts and miracles were clearly a specific thing at a specific time- to back up the preaching of the Gospel in the first century. </p><p><em>With one accord to the things that were spoken by Philip- </em>There was evidently a crowd mentality- every person in the crowd had the same mindset towards Philip's preaching at that moment. Now it seems to me that we would likely judge such momentary, mass response as mere passing emotion. But God is more positive- the record which He inspired counts it to them as real belief, just as the "crowd" who followed the Lord are credited with faith, even though soon afterwards they were doubting Him. That indicates to me not only the hopefulness of God for human response to His grace, but also His willingness to accept people. </p>


text:
<p><em>For from many of those that had unclean spirits, the unclean spirits came out, crying with a loud voice- </em>The Eastern (Aramaic) text reads: “Many who were mentally afflicted cried out”. This is because, according to George Lamsa, ““Unclean spirits” is an Aramaic term used to describe lunatics”. It should be noted that Lamsa was a native Aramaic speaker with a fine understanding of Aramaic terms. He grew up in a remote part of Kurdistan which had maintained the Aramaic language almost unchanged since the time of Jesus. It’s significant that Lamsa’s extensive writings indicate that he failed to see in the teachings of Jesus and Paul any support for the popular conception of the Devil and demons– he insisted that the Semitic and Aramaic terms used by them have been misunderstood by Western readers and misused in order to lend support for their conceptions of a personal Devil and demons. We need to ask <em>who</em> cried with a loud voice. The 'spirits', or the sick person? The person, surely. But the record says the 'spirits' cried. We are intended therefore to read 'spirits' as referring to the sick persons; just as John's invitation to 'test the spirits' (<em><a href='B:690 4:1'>1Jn 4:1</a></em>) means 'test what these teachers are teaching', rather than asking us to grab hold of 'spirits' out of the ether and test them. </p><p><em>And many that were paralyzed or lame were healed</em>- This balances the first part of the verse, which speaks of 'unclean spirits' departing. The idea seems to be that there was major healing, of both mental and physical illness. The healing of such persons is described in the very language used of the Lord's healings of the same categories (<em><a href='B:470 15:30'>Mat 15:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 21:14'>Mat 21:14</a></em>). As Luke begins Acts by saying, He began such work, and His representatives continued it; as we do in essence to this day.</p>


text:
<p><em>And there was much joy in that city- </em>One gets the impression from the second century writings that the joy dropped out of Christianity; and yet the joy of the converts, and the urgent need to retain that first joy of conversion, is a major theme in the NT (e.g. <em><a href='B:510 8:8'>Act 8:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:52'>Act 13:52</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 15:3'>Act 15:3</a></em>). This strange joy must have been a major factor in confirming the Gospel as authentic. The very phrase "great joy" is used about the result of the Lord's resurrection (<em><a href='B:470 28:8'>Mat 28:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 24:52'>Luk 24:52</a></em>); the miracles being done were enabled by His glorification, and were in essence <em>His </em>action in the world, performed through His followers. Whilst we do not possess the miraculous gifts today, He is in principle operating in the same way today, through we who are in Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>But there was a certain man Simon by name, who previously used sorcery in that city</em>- Exactly the same phrase is used in introducing Ananias in <em><a href='B:510 5:1'>Act 5:1</a></em>. And the context is identical- after dramatic developments in the Lord's work, there was human failure from an individual. And so things are to this day in His work. </p><p><em>And amazed the people of Samaria</em>- The same word used of how Simon himself was "amazed" (:13). He was made to realize how others had been made to feel by his <em>false</em> claims; just as Paul was made to realize and share the feelings of those whom he had persecuted. This is all part of the Lord's education of those He seeks to save, and He works like that to this day.</p><p><em>Boasting that he himself was somebody great</em>- Here we see the difference between the apostolic style of healing, and that of magicians. He claimed his powers were invested in himself, to the point that he gave the impression that "This man is the great power of God" (:10 AV). The apostles repeatedly claimed that what they were doing was not of themselves, but was the result of the risen Lord working through them. We too must be careful here; whatever truths we share with others, whatever we do for others, is all the Lord working through us; it is not of ourselves. Our aim is to be tools for His working and operation, rather than building up any personal respect or following for ourselves. And so much Christian leadership has miserably failed at this point.</p>


text:
<p><em>To him they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying</em></p><p>- see on 8:6<em> Gave heed</em>.</p><p><em>This man has that power of God which is called Great</em>- AV is better: "This man is the great power of God". See on :9. </p>


text:
<p><em>And they gave heed to him</em></p><p>- see on 8:6<em> Gave heed</em>.</p><p><em>Because for a long time he had amazed them with his sorceries</em>- Illiterate people are inevitably going to be impressed by the miraculous, and this was why the early preaching of the Gospel was backed up by visible miracles. But as Robert Roberts put it, there was "an economy of miracle". The Lord could have done far more than He did by way of miracles. But in this case in Samaria, all that was necessary was to budge the psychological stranglehold which Simon magus had over the people.</p>


text:
<p><em>But when they believed Philip as he was preaching- </em>It is helpful to read Luke and Acts following straight on. It is evident that Luke saw the apostles as continuing the work of preaching that Jesus personally performed. One of the most evident connections is the way in which Luke ten times uses the word <em>euaggelizo</em> to describe the Lord’s witness; it occurs only one other time in the other Gospels. And yet Luke uses the word 15 times in Acts to describe the witness of the apostles. He clearly saw them as continuing the <em>evangelion</em> of Jesus. As Jesus preached the Gospel of the Kingdom as He walked around Israel in the late 20s of the first century (<em><a href='B:490 4:43'>Luk 4:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:1'>Luk 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:11'>Luk 9:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 16:16'>Luk 16:16</a></em>), so His men continued the very same witness (<em><a href='B:510 8:12'>Act 8:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 19:8'>Act 19:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 20:25'>Act 20:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 28:23'>Act 28:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 28:31'>Act 28:31</a></em>). </p><p><em>The things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ</em>- “The kingdom of God’s sake” (<em><a href='B:490 18:29'>Luk 18:29</a></em>) is paralleled with the sake of the Name of Christ by the account in <em><a href='B:470 19:29'>Mat 19:29</a></em>. The things of the Name and the things of the Kingdom were therefore not two different things, rather were they different ways of referring to the same realities.</p><p><em>Both men and women were baptized</em>- When the Samaritans believe the things Philip preached, they were immediately baptized. Baptism is seen as part and parcel of belief. The Lord’s words that whoever believes-and-is-baptized shall be saved (<em><a href='B:480 16:16'>Mar 16:16</a></em>) are surely being alluded to; for He too put baptism as part of initial belief in the news about Him. The impression is clearly given that baptism followed immediately upon belief and is part of believing. It therefore follows that once somebody confesses their faith in the Lord, they should immediately be baptized into Him. Any delay in this is due to an unspoken perception that <em>de facto</em> baptism is an entry rite into a human group, and all the club rules of that group must be learnt and adhered to first. But in the New Testament, baptism was the natural outcome of faith. </p><p>“Men and women” is noted because religion tended to be the preserve of men; the critics of early Christianity mocked the way that it was so attractive to women. Yet the call of Christ was no hobby level religion; it was a radical offer of salvation to humanity, women included.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 2:42'>Act 2:42</a></em>.</p><p><em>And Simon also himself believed, and being baptized, he continued with Philip; and seeing signs and great miracles done, he was amazed- </em>It was probably clear that Simon's motivation was less than sincere, but they still baptized him. Simon appears to have been an onlooker at the baptisms of <em><a href='B:510 8:12'>Act 8:12</a></em>, and “himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip” (<em><a href='B:510 8:13'>Act 8:13</a></em>). Here we see again how belief and baptism were so closely connected. We see here another fulfilment of the great commission of <em><a href='B:470 28:19-20'>Mat 28:19-20</a></em> - the basic Gospel was to be preached, people baptized, and then they were taught further. This seems the sense of how the convert Simon “continued with Philip”, for to ‘continue with’ someone was an idiom for being a student of them (<em><a href='B:470 15:32'>Mat 15:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:31'>Joh 8:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:42'>Act 2:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 14:22'>Act 14:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 15:35'>Act 15:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 18:11'>Act 18:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 19:10'>Act 19:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 1:25'>Phi 1:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:23'>Col 1:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 4:16'>1Ti 4:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 3:14'>2Ti 3:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 2:19'>1Jn 2:19</a></em>). In Simon’s case, one gets the feeling that his motives for baptism were likely almost visibly suspect from the start; he saw the opportunity for financial gain. But that was no reason to not baptize him. We can never know the motives of those who seek baptism. Over the course of a few thousand baptisms I have arrived at the simple conclusion that it’s so often those who appear to be so well motivated, so brimming with knowledge and zeal, who don’t stay the course. And it’s those whose motivation would appear suspect- getting baptized because the boyfriend is baptized and from an established family of believers, or from the apparent motive of material benefit- who despite many traumas and difficulties in their lives, endure to the end. And it is endurance to the end which is of the essence. Simon’s baptism should surely sink for all time the ‘forbidding of water’ to people because we doubt their motives. We barely know our own motives, so how can we pronounce with confidence upon the motives of other hearts, to the point of denying them baptism? For <em>Amazed </em>see on :9 <em>Amazed the people of Samaria</em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now when the apostles that were at Jerusalem</em>- According to 8:1 the majority of the Jerusalem church had scattered, and only the apostles remained there. It was therefore quite a sacrifice to send away Peter and John, who were surely amongst the leadership seeing they had been in the Lord's inner circle. But this was the importance they attached to missionary work and strengthening new converts. </p><p><em>Heard that Samaria had received the word of God</em>, <em>they sent Peter and John to them</em>- This is the same phrase as used in the parable of the sower, about the ground which receives the word but then ceases to respond well (<em><a href='B:490 8:13'>Luk 8:13</a></em>). They so believed that parable that they sacrificed Peter and John to go and try to strengthen those who had responded, lest they fall away. They knew full well from the parable that those who initially respond are prone to fall away, and they took proactive initiative in order to try to stop this happening. Our reading of Scripture must not be left on a mere level of correctly interpreting it; we are thereby empowered and required to go out and do things in response.</p>


text:
<p><em>Who came down and prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit</em>- I have argued on :14 <em>Received the word of God</em> that the motive for the visit was in order to strengthen the new believers against falling away. What those converts desperately needed was internal strength against temptation, so that their receiving the word would result in bringing forth fruit rather than them becoming one of the types of bad ground in the sower parable. And this was exactly why the apostles made the effort they did to go there and pray for them, placing their hands upon them, so that the Holy Spirit would be given them. There was likely a visible, external evidence of the receipt of the Spirit, but this is not actually mentioned here. The receipt of the Holy Spirit is described in :20 as "the gift of God". This is surely the same gift as referred to in Acts 2 - the power of righteousness, of spiritual help and power. We note that the apostles had to make effort so that others could receive this gift, and they prayed for them to receive it. In this we see the power of third party prayer and efforts for others' spiritual strengthening. There is a power available to us all which in some cases is dependent upon the freewill efforts of our fellow brethren. This is the ultimate motivation to travel, worry about and pray for the spiritual strengthening of our brethren.</p>


text:
<p><em>For as yet it had not fallen upon them</em>- The idea of the Greek word translated 'fallen' is to seize; the language is surely more relevant to a mental seizure than anything physical. And this, I suggest, is the essence of the Holy Spirit gift- a mental, psychological invasion of the willingly opened mind of the believer. </p><p><em>These had only been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus</em>- This continues the differentiation made in <em><a href='B:500 3:3-5'>Joh 3:3-5</a></em> between birth of water, and of the Spirit. Baptism alone will not save us; there must be spiritual regeneration afterwards. This was taken so seriously that Peter and John were sent to the new converts to help them towards achieving this. We must note the danger of perceiving baptism as an end in itself, the final point reached after mastering a set of doctrine. It is only a beginning, and the essence is of the Spirit. </p>


text:
<p><em>Then they laid their hands on them- </em>We must remember that very many times, 'laying hands on' is a Hebraism for seizing someone. Admittedly, the Greek word used for such violent seizure is different to that used for laying hands on someone for healing or blessing. But the idea is the same, and it seems that there developed this specific technical term in the early church for 'laying hands on' in order to bless. We have just read that the Holy Spirit had not yet fallen upon, or seized [Gk:] these new converts; and so the apostles 'laid their hands upon' them so that the Holy Spirit would seize them. Whilst the words are not the same, the idea clearly is. The laying on of hands was therefore a visible reflection of the Spirit's seizure of the willing recipient. I noted on :16 that this language and imagery of 'seizure' is more appropriate to the Spirit as a mental, psychological force. This, I suggest, is what is in view, more than the ability to perform miracles. Such miraculous manifestations were indeed seen, but these were to demonstrate the power of the mental energy of transformation that had now been made available to the convert. </p><p><em>And they received the Holy Spirit</em>- They received God’s word (:14), but not the Holy Spirit. The primitive equation of word and spirit made by some, speaking of the so-called 'spirit-word', is therefore unrealistic. We read of the Holy Spirit being 'given' by the ascended Lord (<em><a href='B:500 7:39'>Joh 7:39</a></em>), but it appears that this gift was still mediated through the prayers and efforts of other believers, and the willingness of the recipient to receive it. For it is apparent that unless Peter and John had prayed, travelled to Samaria and laid hands on these believers, they would not have received the Spirit. It would seem that it was outside the scope of Philip's calling to do this. But <em>lambano</em>, 'receive', can imply that the converts had to themselves make a conscious decision to receive it, in the same way as the Spirit will not come into our hearts unless we are open to it. The Lord's request to the apostles 'Receive the Holy Spirit' (<em><a href='B:500 20:22'>Joh 20:22</a></em>) can be read as a request for their openness, rather than just stating the obvious, as if to say, 'Well I'm giving you the Holy Spirit, here you are, receive it'. Rather I suggest the sense is 'Please, receive it, go on, take what I am offering you'. <em><a href='B:540 11:4'>2Co 11:4</a></em> criticizes the Corinthians for not receiving the spirit of Jesus but rather "another spirit", implying that receipt of the Spirit requires freewill decision making on the part of the recipient. So often,<em> lambano</em> means to consciously decide to take or receive something; it does not have to mean that the Spirit just comes upon the recipient in any case. Examples include <em><a href='B:470 8:17'>Mat 8:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:38'>Mat 10:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 12:14'>Mat 12:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 21:35'>Mat 21:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:15'>Mat 22:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 26:52'>Mat 26:52</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 20:28'>Luk 20:28</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p><em>Now when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money, saying</em>- The gift of the Spirit was surely the same as in Acts 2, which I have reasoned was a gift of internal spirituality. The same words for 'Spirit' and 'given' are to be found in other passages which clearly relate it to an internal power working within the human mind: "The love of God is shed abroad <em>in our hearts </em>by the <em>Holy Spirit</em> which is <em>given</em> unto us" (<em><a href='B:520 5:5'>Rom 5:5</a></em>). "[He has] sealed us and <em>given</em> the earnest of the <em>Spirit</em> in our <em>hearts</em>" (<em><a href='B:540 1:22'>2Co 1:22</a></em>). "He would <em>give</em> you, according to the riches of His glory, that you may be strengthened with power through His <em>Spirit </em>in the <em>inner man</em>" (<em><a href='B:560 3:16'>Eph 3:16</a></em>). "God did not <em>give</em> us a <em>spirit</em> of fearfulness, but of... a disciplined <em>mind</em>" (<em><a href='B:620 1:7'>2Ti 1:7</a></em>). It's unclear whether or not that gift was accompanied by the reassurance of physical manifestations in this case. But the essence of it was just as it is today- the power of internal transformation, which is what every convert so desperately needs.</p>


text:
<p><em>Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay my hands, he may receive the Holy Spirit</em>- Simon didn’t ask for the Holy Spirit himself, but rather the authority ["power"] to give it to others. He had been used to being perceived as the power of God (:10), and despite his new religious milieu as a Christian, he wanted that to continue. This kind of thing is observable amongst power hungry pastors today, who clearly do not see personal spirituality as significant, so drunk are they on power. </p>


text:
<p><em>But Peter said to him:</em> <em>May your silver perish with you</em>- The man was identified with his wealth, as so many are today. See on 5:5 <em>Fell down</em>. "Perish" translates a Greek word later to be often used by Peter, in the sense of the destruction of condemnation at judgment day (<em><a href='B:680 2:1-3'>2Pe 2:1-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 2:7'>2Pe 2:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 2:16'>2Pe 2:16</a></em>). When the Lord returns and judges this world, there will finally be left no silver, no wealth, and no people who identified with it. Although Peter was telling Simon that he would not at this point be saved but rather condemned along with his money, he urges him to repent and pray, knowing that the verdict of condemnation can be changed whilst we have life (:22). At his denials, Peter had himself experienced that status of being condemned; he had gone out from the Lord's presence and wept bitterly, just as the rejected will do at the last day. But he had repented. And so now he is sharing that experience with others. He would not, therefore, have said these words with any disinterested shrugging of the shoulders; he had personally been through this process of condemnation and salvation out of it. And he dearly wished Simon, his namesake, to do likewise.</p><p><em>Because you have thought to obtain the gift of God with money</em>- The Greek can equally carry the sense, as in the AV, that he thought that God’s gift could be purchased with money. In this case, Peter is seeing right through Simon's game plan. He wanted to have the power to pass on the gift, because he foresaw that he could then charge money for giving it to others.</p>


text:
<p><em>You have neither part nor share in this matter</em>- "Matter" is<em> logos</em>, usually translated "word", and used in the context about the word of the Lord which the Samaritans had responded to (8:4,14,25). "Part" is often used about a 'part' in an inheritance. Simon was not in line to share in the promised inheritance, which all true believers were experiencing and would experience. And neither was he any elder in this new community; for "share" or "lot" is a reference to the LXX of <em><a href='B:40 26:55'>Num 26:55</a></em> which speaks of the lot of the priests in service. Simon had no part in the work of the new priesthood / leadership, nor did he even have a part in the general inheritance of all believers. The Greek words for "part... share" are often used together in Deuteronomy (LXX) concerning how the Levites had no part nor share in the inheritance of Canaan (<em><a href='B:50 12:12'>Deu 12:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 14:27'>Deu 14:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 14:29'>Deu 14:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 18:1'>Deu 18:1</a></em>). They are also used together in <em><a href='B:580 1:12'>Col 1:12</a></em>, of <em>partaking </em>in the <em>inheritance</em> of the saints. Simon had no inheritance in the word of the Kingdom. Another possibility is that a "part" refers to what is purchased, and "share" or "lot" is what is distributed freely; as if to say that Simon had no part in the word / <em>logos </em>/ intention of the Gospel, whether by purchasing it or by being given it freely.</p><p><em>Because your heart is not right before God</em>- Quoting <em><a href='B:230 78:37'>Psa 78:37</a></em> LXX about Israel in the wilderness, whose heart was in Egypt, whatever appearance they gave of journeying with God. This quotation, along with the previous allusions in this verse to Simon not having his inheritance in Canaan, rather suggests that Simon was Jewish. He had a Jewish name, after all, and was acting like Israel of old. The conversion of Cornelius in Acts 10 is surely framed as "the conversion of the Gentiles", and it was this baptism which provoked the debate about the inclusion of the Gentiles. We can assume therefore that the Lord considered Samaritans as Jews; and the Samaritans practiced circumcision and considered themselves to be part of God’s covenant people. My point is that these Old Testament allusions would not have been lost upon Simon, being a Jew.</p><p>"Before God" is literally 'in the face / presence of God'. Our innermost thoughts and subconscious motives, as in Simon's case, his fantasy of selling Holy Spirit to Christians, are directly before the face of God Almighty, which face we cannot currently come before in our own flesh.</p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore, repent- </em>Peter had used the same words earlier in addressing the crowd in <em><a href='B:510 3:19'>Act 3:19</a></em>, appealing for them to "repent therefore and be converted"; in <em><a href='B:510 2:38'>Act 2:38</a></em> Peter had urged repentance in order to obtain forgiveness. Now he encourages the baptized Simon to repent and be forgiven. The call to repent and convert is as real both before and after baptism, for Simon had been baptized. Conversion, as Peter himself had learnt, is ongoing. This incident is proof enough that baptism alone will not save us; there is no such thing as 'once saved always saved'.</p><p><em>Of your wickedness- </em>This is later defined as the thought of his heart. For the sake of thoughts, a man can be condemned. That is the message here, and the Lord made it equally clear. In this we see the supreme importance of being spiritually minded.</p><p><em>And pray to the Lord, that perhaps the thought of your heart shall be forgiven you</em>- He had not just thought something, he had offered money in order to be able to pass on the Spirit gifts (:18,19). But the essence of his sin was a heart matter, what he was imagining, the likely future he envisaged, of him being given money in return for giving Spirit gifts. See on :20.</p>


text:
<p><em>For I see-</em>Perhaps Peter perceived the thought of Simon's heart by direct Spirit revelation; or maybe he himself perceived it. It's likely Peter's own perception was confirmed by the Spirit.</p><p><em>You are poisoned by bitterness</em>- Simon's problem wasn't simply a love of money. He wanted the power of the Spirit gifts because of bitterness- the bitterness of envy (<em><a href='B:660 3:14'>Jas 3:14</a></em>). I suggest therefore that he was envious of the Christian preachers who had replaced him as the ones to whom people gave attention (see on :6 <em>Gave heed</em>). So his motivation was envy as well as greed. Bitterness is likened here to a snakebite- it spreads to influence every part of a person's thinking. We are surrounded by examples of this. <em><a href='B:650 12:15'>Heb 12:15</a></em> may carry the same idea, speaking of a root that bears bitterness in one person and thereby defiles many. Bitterness spreads like venom.</p><p><em>And held captive by iniquity</em>- Literally, in the bonds of iniquity. The same word is used of how believers are likewise held in the bonds of peace and righteousness. People are 'bonded' in sin or in righteousness. We are confirmed one way or the other, and 'held' in those positions- although it's possible to break out of them. </p>


text:
<p><em>And Simon answered and said: Pray for me to the Lord</em>- Peter had to pray for Simon as Christ had prayed for him (<em><a href='B:510 8:24'>Act 8:24</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 22:32'>Luk 22:32</a></em>). As with his preaching, Peter’s pastoral work was shot through with an awareness of his own failure and taste of his Lord’s grace. The lack of energy in our collective care for each other is surely reflective of a lack of awareness of our sinfulness, a shallow grasp of grace, and a subsequent lack of appreciation of the need to lay down our lives for the brethren, as the Lord did for us. Jesus Himself encouraged Peter to see things this way, in that He arranged&nbsp;circumstances so that Peter had to pray for Simon as Christ had prayed for him (<em><a href='B:510 8:24'>Act 8:24</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 22:32'>Luk 22:32</a></em>).</p><p>There is no record as to whether Peter did pray for Simon. This is one of those things which is purposefully left hanging in the Biblical record, in order to exercise us. Can we pray for others to be forgiven? To what extent can our prayer be a factor in their forgiveness? There is a degree to which this is indeed a factor (e.g. <em><a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a></em>), but to what degree…? </p><p><em>That none of the things which you have spoken come upon me</em>- Did Peter list various terrible judgments which the record doesn't state? Or are "the things" a reference to Peter's comment that Simon right then was "poisoned by bitterness and held captive by iniquity"? I suspect the latter. Because it is typical of those in that position that they will refuse to recognize that this is in fact how they are. They see this state as something which could happen to them, but they aren't there yet. All sin is addiction, to some extent; and this is the classic mindset of the addict or alcoholic. </p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore, when they had testified and spoken the word of the Lord</em>- Perhaps this refers specifically to what they testified to Simon. But it would seem it has a wider reference. "Testified" is a legal term for a witness in court. Whenever someone hears the word of the Lord, they are as it were in the dock before Him; and their hearing of His word is the witness spoken by the preacher. The outcome of their case, in a sense, depends upon how they have responded to that testimony. The use of this language is a powerful example of how knowledge of the word brings responsibility.</p><p><em>They returned to Jerusalem, and preached the gospel to many villages of the Samaritans</em>- Presumably, in Samaritan villages surrounding Jerusalem. The parable of the good Samaritan suggests that there were Samaritans in the Jerusalem area. They had found such good response in the city of Samaria itself (:5) that they followed the Lord's leading, in realizing that all Samaritans were good ground for the Gospel. It's rather like preaching to Latvians in the UK after having a great response to the preaching of the word in Latvia. We are intended to use our initiative to follow where the Lord leads. Acts 10 presents the conversion of Cornelius as the first Gentile convert. The ethnicity of the Samaritans was a moot question; they were seen as half Jews. The Lord had spoken of the Samaritan leper He healed as a "stranger" or Gentile (<em><a href='B:490 17:11'>Luk 17:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 17:18'>Luk 17:18</a></em>; note it is Luke again who records this). The disciples should have grasped immediately from the great commission that they were to take the Gospel to the Gentiles; but they didn’t. The Lord therefore led them gently to that conclusion, by giving them great response amongst the half-Jewish Samaritans. We too are led to the right conclusions and directions in our lives- if we correctly respond, stage by stage, to how the Lord patiently teaches us by the encounters and experiences He gives us in life.</p>


text:
<p><em>But an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying: Arise and go toward the south- </em>A literal Angel? Or perhaps a messenger sent to Philip, to whom he faithfully responded. "Toward the south" is read by some manuscripts as "about noon" [also translated this way in Acts 22:6]- the worst time to travel into a desert. But the calling to witness is counter instinctive and against all human wisdom. It was also about noon, "at the sixth hour", that Peter received his call from an Angel to accept the Gentiles (Acts 10:9). Both are told to "arise and go" to the Gentile seeker. As the Ethiopian asked who could "forbid" water baptism, so Peter says he could notforbid water baptism to Cornelius (Acts 10:47,48). The parallels between Peter and Philip are discussed on :27.</p><p><em>To the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza</em>- This appears to echo the parable of the good Samaritan, which had been programmatic for the decision to preach to and accept Samaritans as recorded in the previous verses. For <em>Gaza, </em>see on :27 <em>Treasure.</em></p><p><em>The same is desert</em>- There is a theme in the New Testament that major response to preaching is often unexpected. The disciples were told to cast the net on the other side, when they were convinced there would be no response. Philip was told to go onto a road, probably in the heat of the day- when nobody was travelling. His willingness to go, to do at least something, resulted in an amazing response. This is exactly why predicting response to preaching is well-nigh impossible. It’s why the geographical spread of the Gospel is so hard to explain when it is humanly analysed.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he arose and went</em>- In response to the command 'Arise and go' (:26). Luke so often uses this phrase. As Joseph and Mary arose and went immediately in response to a command, so did Philip. Immediacy of response was important to Luke; and he notes it in other terms in describing the immediacy of response to the Gospel and acceptance of baptism. Our flesh always seeks to delay our response, in the hope we may not have to fully make it in the end; whereas those whose hearts really perceive our call will respond immediately.</p><p><em>And a man</em>- Gk. 'behold, a man'. We are invited to be with Philip, noticing the man from afar; and thereby sense his wonder at how faith had been rewarded. He had gone into the desert at midday in response to the Lord's strange request; and now, he saw why.</p><p><em>From Ethiopia</em>- "Ethiopia" is often mentioned in the OT as being on the far edge of the world, and converts to Yahweh would come even from there (Ps. 68:31,32; Is. 45:14; Zeph. 3:9,10). We note from :26 that the road to this man came down from Jerusalem. Although he was not given a good reception by God's representatives in that city, it was from Jerusalem that the Gospel was to go out to the farthest parts of the known world. These considerations lead us to think that he was indeed a Gentile and not a Jew. The apparent opening of the doors to the Gentiles in Acts 10 with Cornelius was only making more public a situation that already existed sub rosa- the door was already open to the Gentiles and Philip had been taught this in Acts 8, as Peter was in Acts 10. The Gospel's path was made clear in Acts 1:8- from Jerusalem to Samaria and "to the ends of the earth". Acts 8 tells us of the Gospel going from Jerusalem to Samaria, and now, to an Ethiopian- seen to be at the "ends of the earth". Philip is whisked away to Azotus and from there preaches to the towns along the coastal plain up to Caesarea. This included Gaza and Ashdod, former Philistine towns still largely populated by Gentiles. Peter is led to preach in this same area in Acts 9, preaching in Lydda an Joppa before coming to Caesaria. Indeed his work there may have been visiting the existing believers there whom Philip had converted. So we see the Lord's hand teaching both Philip and Peter in separate ways, gently leading them to understand the calling to include the Gentiles. We see the Lord working likewise today, to teach the same things to parallel believers.</p><p>The disciples were being progressively opened up towards accepting that the Gospel must go to the Gentiles. They had been given great response amongst the Samaritans, who were at best half-Jews. And now a proselyte from Ethiopia was baptized. All this was leading up to the conversion of the totally Gentile Cornelius in Acts 10, which is presented as the opening of the door to the Gentiles. Of course, the disciples ought to have understood from the Lord's own teaching that the Gospel was now for all nations. But He worked with them in their slowness to understand that, accepting and gently working with their limited vision and cultural and historical resistances; just as we should with others, and exactly as the Lord does with us. Response from the leaders of Ethiopia was a feature of the Messianic Kingdom (<em><a href='B:230 68:31'>Psa 68:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 45:14'>Isa 45:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:430 3:10'>Zep 3:10</a></em>). Although that Kingdom was not established in a literal sense upon the earth, it was being made clear to the disciples that the essence of it, with the lame walking and the blind seeing, was already with them. The same 'now but not yet' is seen in the Lord's work today just as clearly. </p><p><em>A eunuch of great authority under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians</em>- The spiritually perceptive amongst the disciples would have reflected that Jeremiah's faithful friend Ebedmelech was an Ethiopian (<em><a href='B:300 38:7-12'>Jer 38:7-12</a></em>); and his name meant 'Servant of the king'. Here was another servant of the king / queen of Ethiopia. If Ebedmelech could have a place amongst the Old Testament faithful, why not Ethiopians of Philip's day? Again we see how the Lord was gently but quickly leading His people towards acceptance of the Gentiles. Those who refused that leadership and continual psychological nudging were refusing the movement of the Spirit in their lives by resisting the obvious conclusion: Gentiles could be accepted in the family of God just as well as Jews.</p><p>Dt. 23:1 was clear that whoever had crushed testicles or was castrated "shall not enter the assembly of Yahweh". The Ethiopian was cut off from Yahweh's people, apparently. But that didn't stop him coming to the Lord. Some Rabbis understood Lev. 21:20; 22:24 to mean that a castrated man was permanently unclean. Josephus wrote: "Shun eunuchs and flee all dealings with them... expel them" (Antiquities, 4.290,291). As a eunuch, he could not be circumcised, and so was seen as outside the realm of covenant relationship with God- under the old covenant. He desperately wanted a new covenant, and this is what he found in the Lord Jesus. The Ethiopian likely heard all these arguments on his visit to Jerusalem. And therefore was the more intrigued to read of the Lord's condition and situation in Isaiah 53, and felt the more identity with He who had likewise been rejected by the Jerusalem religious leaders. Isaiah 56 had foretold that the eunuchs would be welcomed into the new temple on Zion; clearly the views of Judaism were askance with that. Hence the Ethiopian was baptized on the road that led away from Jerusalem. </p><p>
The parts of Isaiah 53 that he focuses upon are those which speak of the Lord's humiliation on the cross, and the lack of justice. He quotes from the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew text, suggesting he had purchased the Greek version as he wasn't fluent in Hebrew. He doesn't quote the whole section, just some verses which struck him as relevant to himself. We too focus on various aspects of the Lord's sufferings as pertinent to our own experience. He saw the lamb being led to slaughter as a picture of a humbled animal, now willing to accept whatever was done to it, be it shearing or death. He had been humiliated- racially, as a man, as a person. And he was struck by how the Lord's humiliation was the basis of His exaltation- note :33 Gk. "His life was taken up [exalted] from the earth". This may well be a reference to His resurrection and ascension rather than to His death. No wonder the Ehtiopian so eagerly wanted immersion baptism, which speaks of this.  This fits with Luke's great theme, shown by how he records Mary's words, that the high are brought down, and the humble lifted up (Lk. 1:52). But the Ethiopian was a high one in his own circles. But he was willing to be brought down along with the Lord Jesus, and thus be lifted up. 
</p><p><em>Who was over all her treasure</em>- "Treasure" translates a non-Greek word, <em>gaza</em>. It occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It's a strange word choice, at first blush. Likewise when we encounter the same word as a proper noun in :26 to describe the road from Jerusalem to Gaza, we wonder why that description is given. For the Ethiopian was travelling from Jerusalem to Ethiopia, and defining the road as the part that lead to Gaza begs the question as to why that point along the journey is emphasized. The connection is clearly intentional. The man was burdened with the responsibility of managing great wealth, and he was now beginning his journey home, full of those thoughts one has on coming to the end of a vacation and realizing that it's now back to work. He was going back to his wealth, to his <em>gaza</em>, which he had been placed over. The idea of being placed over wealth is to be found in the Lord's parable of <em><a href='B:470 25:21'>Mat 25:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:23'>Mat 25:23</a></em>, where the same words are used as here; we are placed over the Lord's wealth. I think the allusion is teaching us that all the cares of this world regarding our employment and the management of wealth, be it great or small, is utterly eclipsed by our conversion to the Lord and the responsibilities we now have in <em>His</em> service. For we are servants of the King, the King of the cosmos, and are put in charge over <em>His</em> amazing wealth, which we are to manage for <em>Him</em>. </p><p><em>Had come to Jerusalem to worship</em>- He was a proselyte, but as a eunuch and effectively a Gentile, would have been unable to enter the temple for "worship". His worship would therefore have been in his heart and outside the temple. He was a prime candidate for the Gospel, just as all God loving but excluded persons are. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he was returning, and sitting in his chariot</em>- A similar word to 'converting'. He had only just begun his journey back to Ethiopia; he had not yet reached even Gaza. He would have been full of thought and sadness as to how his physical condition and ethnicity disallowed his full worship. And likely he had felt keenly the proud superiority of the Jewish religious leaders, which left him feeling humiliated. But this being brought down by the rejection of others was all part of his 'converting' to the Lord in spirit and truth. And the Lord above saw his feelings and felt for him, just as He does with all such folk to this day.</p><p><em>Was reading the prophet Isaiah</em>- Perhaps he had bought a copy of the scroll. Such scrolls were hard to come by, especially for a Gentile eunuch, and were very expensive. Perhaps he had just bought it on his visit. And he knew Hebrew. His desire to draw close to God was very serious. And God notices likewise today all who truly love and seek to understand His word.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the Spirit said to Philip</em>- A reference to the Lord Jesus, "the Lord the Spirit" of <em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em>? Or the Spirit as an Angel? Or an internal prompting? I would opt for an Angel, perhaps the Comforter Angel, which effectively was the Holy Spirit in the early church. See on 8:39 <em>The Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip</em>.</p><p><em>Go near and join this chariot</em>- The language of 'joining' is another prompt towards fellowshipping with Gentiles; the same term has been used for how believers 'joined themselves to' other believers (<em><a href='B:510 5:13'>Act 5:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 9:26'>Act 9:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 17:34'>Act 17:34</a></em>). It became a lesson for Peter, who uses the term for how it was not seen as lawful for a Jew to 'keep company' or 'join himself to' Gentiles (<em><a href='B:510 10:28'>Act 10:28</a></em>). Peter learnt from Philip's experience. For 'chariot' is put here for the entire entourage, who would have been Gentiles. Such a prominent man would not have travelled alone. His commanding the chariot to stop in :38 surely means he asked those driving the horses to stop. "Go near" translates the same word used by Peter in explaining that a Jew could not 'come unto' non-Jews (<em><a href='B:510 10:28'>Act 10:28</a></em>). Philip was being led to the same experience as Peter by an Angel or "the Spirit" telling him to 'come unto' non-Jews. Philip's experience would have been an example to Peter. We see how the Lord works in a parallel way in different lives, and we are to take lessons and inspiration from this. It is this feature of His working which is the basis for true Christian fellowship; our meetings together are not therefore to be to chatter about the state of the nation and lament the weather, but rather to share our experiences of the Lord's hand, so that we might take encouragement from the fact that He is at work according to a similar pattern in other lives. For man is not alone, even amongst our fellows there are parallel lives from which we are to take warning and encouragement. Her breast cancer, your broken leg, their bereavement... we perceive as the workings of the same Lord towards similar ends.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said</em>- Sensing the Lord was leading him, Philip was eager to respond. Running is a Hebraism for response to God’s word (<em><a href='B:420 2:2'>Hab 2:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 12:4'>Dan 12:4</a></em>). We too need to sense where we are being led and enthusiastically respond in order to be led further.</p><p><em>Do you understand what you read?</em>- Our Bible reading can be so easily performed on a merely surface level, skimming over words without letting their real import be felt at all. Fred Barling truly observed: “Through long familiarity we have come to read [the Bible] with a phlegm and impassivity which are in sharp contrast to the amazement felt by those who came into actual contact with Jesus, and by those who first read these accounts”. Philip realized this when he quizzed the eunuch, with a play on words in the Greek: "Do you understand what you read?" . <em>ginoskeis ha anaginoskeis? </em>'Do you really understand, experientially, what you are understanding by reading?'.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said: How can I- </em>This suggests, in the Greek, that "I am not able". And God recognized this, by sending Philip to explain. It would seem from this that it isn't possible, or is very unusual, for a person to understand the Gospel purely through their own Bible reading. The implication is that an existing believer is required to explain it, to embody the theory in practice. This reflects how God (who can teach or save anyone as He wishes, how He wishes) prefers to work through the mechanism of the body of Christ, the church, in order to do this. It is His intention that the message of Christ be spread by those who model Christ. We can wrongly assume that Bible study alone is required to reveal the Gospel to a person. It can do, but marooned on a desert island with only a Bible we would be unlikely to find Christ- unless someone revealed Him to us.</p><p>"How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" (<em><a href='B:520 10:14'>Rom 10:14</a></em>). This clearly states that (as a general rule) it is impossible to believe in Christ without a preacher. The Ethiopian eunuch was the classic case of this. It is perfectly possible that <em><a href='B:520 10:4'>Rom 10:4</a></em> alludes to this, implying that this man's case was typical [and notice the connections between <em><a href='B:510 8:37'>Act 8:37</a></em> and <em><a href='B:520 10:9'>Rom 10:9</a></em>]. Likewise the Lord Jesus spoke of "them also which shall believe on me through <em>their</em>&nbsp; (the preachers') word" (<em><a href='B:500 17:20'>Joh 17:20</a></em>)- not through their unguided Bible reading. If all we had been given was a Bible, most of us would simply not be where we are today, spiritually. If I had started reading from Genesis, I don't think I'd have got much beyond Leviticus before giving up on the Bible. Yet there are some who have made it through, from Genesis to Revelation. And their testimony is even more emphatic: "Without doubt I needed someone to guide me, I was just crying out for all the pieces to be put into place" , in the words of one such recent convert. </p><p><em>Unless someone guides me</em>- The LXX frequently uses this word for the Divine guidance of Israel in the desert. And here was the eunuch also in a desert, but wondering where the guidance would come from. He had God’s word in the form of part of the Bible; but putting a Bible in a man's hand is not always enough. There is some other element required, and God in His wisdom has set things up like that so that our guidance is not a result of unaided intellectual effort, and requires fellowship with other believers at some level.</p><p><em>And he begged Philip</em>- Another similarity with Peter's experiences, for we go on to read how Peter was 'begged' (s:w:) to go to Joppa and heal the half Gentile Dorcas (<em><a href='B:510 9:38'>Act 9:38</a></em>). </p><p><em>To come up and sit with him</em>- The wealthy, powerful man was 'sitting' in his chariot, at the centre of his entourage (:28 s:w:). We notice the new equality between the two men; Philip climbed up to him, and they sat together. This is the effect which the Gospel has upon people.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now the passage of the Scripture which he was reading was this:</em> <em>He was led- </em>This changes the quotation from Isaiah 53 to say that Christ was led (this isn't in the Hebrew text). The impression given of His passivity is another indication that He was giving His life of His own volition, it wasn't being taken from Him. There is great emphasis on the Lord being led (<em><a href='B:470 26:57'>Mat 26:57</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:2'>Mat 27:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:31'>Mat 27:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 15:16'>Mar 15:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:13'>Joh 18:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:28'>Joh 18:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:16'>Joh 19:16</a></em>). The eunuch felt he too was being led; Luke uses the word to speak of the convert to Christ being led to the inn by the good Samaritan (<em><a href='B:490 10:34'>Luk 10:34</a></em>), and it is used of Peter being first led to Christ (<em><a href='B:500 1:42'>Joh 1:42</a></em>), of the sheep being led to the Lord's fold (<em><a href='B:500 10:16'>Joh 10:16</a></em>), of sinners being led to repentance (<em><a href='B:520 2:4'>Rom 2:4</a></em>) and the many sons being led to glory (<em><a href='B:650 2:10'>Heb 2:10</a></em>). So the eunuch saw striking similarities between himself and all that was written of the Messianic figure in Isaiah. We could say that he saw in the Christ his representative. But he needed to make some conscious act of identification with him, which is why the appeal for baptism into Him was so natural and was exactly what he needed to hear.</p><p><em>As a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb</em>- Having been so recently in Jerusalem for worship, these images were fresh in the eunuch's mind. Those animals were representative of some greater reality- and now he was figuring that that person whom they represented was also in turn representative of himself.</p><p><em>Before his shearer is dumb, so he did not open his mouth</em>- One simple reason the Lord was silent before His accusers was because He was utterly scared in the face of death. His silence wasn't merely because of an iron willed biting of the tongue; it was also a result of the same humanity which sweated great drops in Gethsemane as He begged not to die. The sheep-Messiah was "dumb", literally, without a voice. Just as the eunuch was in Judaism. He too had been unable to "open his mouth" in the worship formalities because he was excluded from the temple on account of his physical condition and ethnicity. </p><p>The word "shearer" means literally 'one who cuts'. Perhaps the eunuch remembered his own castration before 'one who cuts', and thus eagerly wanted to know about this man with whom he could identify.</p>


text:
<p><em>In his humiliation</em>- The majority of references to humility in Scripture refer to humbling<em> oneself</em>; humility, hard as it is to define, is something consciously done, as an act of the will. Yet the Father confirms us in our efforts. The Lord&nbsp;<em>humbled Himself</em>&nbsp;to die on the cross (Philippians 2), and yet the cross<em> humbled Him</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:510 8:33'>Act 8:33</a></em>). I suggest the eunuch felt humbled by his visit to Jerusalem; but the word can also mean 'depressed'. He was depressed at the seeming impossibility of drawing close to God within the strictures of Judaism.</p><p><em>Justice was denied him</em>- The eunuch’s exclusion from the temple for reasons beyond his control seemed unjust. So he was both depressed and also frustrated at the injustice. And now he was reading of another depressed man who was also denied justice.</p><p><em>Who can declare his generation?</em>- The eunuch was likewise without children and impotent. What attracted him to this Messiah figure was the similarity he was between this saviour figure and himself. He too was humiliated / depressed, just as this saviour was. This is the compelling attraction of the representative nature of the Lord's sacrifice, that He as a man with our nature and experience gave Himself as the sacrifice which we can identify with. No wonder, then, that the conversation with Philip moved to baptism, and the eunuch wanted to make that necessary identification with the Lord Jesus in that way.</p><p><em>For his life is taken away from the earth</em>- Perhaps the depression / humiliation of the eunuch was to such a degree that he felt suicidal, or at least, he despaired at the purpose of his life if he were to remain excluded from God. And now he was reading of another man whose life was taken away. In passing, the Lord makes the point that His life was not taken away from Him (<em><a href='B:500 10:18'>Joh 10:18</a></em> - same words used), but rather He gave it of His own will. We see here how God is not a literalist when it comes to the use of words and ideas. The critic would cry 'Contradiction!'. But it's nothing of the sort. Instead we see here a truth stated- that His life was taken away. But the Lord saw deeper than that, and explained that His wilful giving of His life was to such an extent that in effect, the taking away of His life was not a taking away of life from Him. For He freely gave His life of His own volition.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the eunuch said to Philip:</em> <em>I beg you, of whom does the prophet speak?- </em>This urgency to understand whom the prophet spoke of was a reflection of the man's need to identify himself with that man. This is why baptism, as that act of identification, flowed on so naturally.</p><p><em>Of himself, or of somebody else?</em>- The Greek translated "or" is very wide in meaning. The sense could equally be 'Of himself as much as about somebody else?', or 'Of himself and also somebody else?', or 'Of himself but also of somebody else?'. I have tried to demonstrate that all aspects of Messiah read by the eunuch were relevant to himself. So I would argue that the 'somebody else' he had in view was himself. His reasoning was not that the prophet was perhaps talking about himself but he was additionally a type of Messiah. That would be to read into these words the kind of thing<em> we</em> are accustomed to seeing in the Old Testament. The eunuch was a eunuch and was feeling strong connection with this figure he was reading about. So strong, that he asked whether he was correct in feeling that this prophecy was about the Messianic prophet figure and also about himself. We could wish for no clearer statement of the representative nature of the Lord's being and sacrifice.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Philip opened his mouth- </em>This surely must connect with the usage of the same phrase in :32 about the Lord Jesus, who in His time of death "did not open his mouth". It was as if Philip was manifesting the Lord Jesus; the eunuch had been reading of a figure like him who died, whereas now Philip represents that figure as alive. The desire for baptism at Philip's hands into that dead and resurrected figure was therefore quite natural.</p><p><em>And beginning from this Scripture- </em>As He ‘began’ in the prophets and expounded “in all the scriptures the things <em>concerning himself</em>” (<em><a href='B:490 24:27'>Luk 24:27</a></em>), so those in Him “<em>began</em> at this Scripture, and preached... <em>Jesus</em>”.</p><p><em>Preached Jesus to him- </em>Our early brethren preached a person, even a personality cult- based around the man Christ Jesus. They preached a Christ-centred Gospel, to the extent that the preaching of the entire Gospel is sometimes summarised as “preaching Christ” (<em><a href='B:510 8:35'>Act 8:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:42'>Act 5:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 28:31'>Act 28:31</a></em>). They preached a Man, a more than man, who has loved us more than we loved Him, and more than we ever can love Him. In this there is an imperative for response. It’s not the same as demanding obedience merely for the sake of a good time to come. </p>


text:
<p><em>And as they went along the road, they came upon some water; and the eunuch said:</em> <em>Look, water!-</em> The preaching of "Jesus" involved the message about baptism. There was more content in 'preaching Jesus' than literally just saying 'believe in Jesus'. Or it could be argued that the message he had read of the death and resurrection of the human Lord Jesus, whose experiences were representative of his own, naturally led to a desire to identify with Him. And perhaps the eunuch had seen Jews being baptized into Jesus during his stay in Jerusalem; and perhaps the brethren had refused to baptize him because he was a Gentile. The initiative in requesting baptism was clearly from the candidate; infant sprinkling is therefore no way Christian baptism. The act of baptism is therefore a response to the message of the Lord's death and resurrection. For baptism by its nature is designed as an identification with those things, rather than a sign of assent to a theology we have heard and accepted. This is what the great commission envisaged- preaching the message of Christ's death and resurrection, baptizing people into that, and then subsequently teaching them "all things that I have commanded you". </p><p><em>What is stopping me from being baptized?</em>- The Greek word is generally used in the context of forbidding people, Gentiles especially, from coming to Christ. Peter uses it in reasoning that baptismal water could not be forbidden for the Gentile Cornelius (<em><a href='B:510 10:47'>Act 10:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 11:17'>Act 11:17</a></em>). The Ethiopian may well have come up to the temple, searching for the God of Israel, and was now returning depressed at his rejection by Judaism. But now he finds acceptance in Christ. He is described as "a man from Ethiopia" (:27), and not a diaspora Jew. Luke has written of diaspora Jews in chapter 2, so it's rather surprising he doesn't mention the fact if the man indeed was one. However, the fact he was reading Hebrew could suggest he was a Jew, or at least, a very serious proselyte; and the conversion of Cornelius later, in Acts 10, is certainly set up as if it was the opening of the door to the Gentiles. But all the same, eunuchs weren't allowed into the temple; so even if this man was a Jew, he was an excluded one. The fact he was a senior minister in a gentile Government would also suggest he was not that devoted to Judaism externally, although in his heart he was, and had made the pilgrimage to Jerusalem and learnt to read Hebrew.</p><p>"What is to prevent me...?" is understandable once we appreciate the background of the man's experience at the hands of the Jerusalem Jews. They had found every reason to "prevent" him coming to God. But having understood the Lord Jesus, the Ethiopian is convinced that He operates no barriers. There is, surely, nothing to prevent him. And indeed there wasn't. Luke has previously noted that the disciples tried to "prevent" John the Baptist's disciples from witnessing, and were told not to prevent them (Lk. 9:49,50). And again they were warned not to prevent little children from coming to the Lord (Lk.  18:15-17). Those lawyers who prevent others coming to God were strongly condemned (Lk. 11:52; Mt. 23:13). The parallels with Peter (see on :27) continue when Peter is likewise led to understand that nobody could surely forbid water to those Gentiles who wanted to be baptized in Cornelius' home (Acts 10:47,48). We note that Luke ends his volume by noting that Paul preached the Gospel to the Gentiles with no man preventing / forbidding him (Acts 28:31). There are no bars on who can be baptized and we should rejoice in this. </p>


text:
<p><em>And Philip said: If you believe with all your heart- </em>Philip is putting the question back to the candidate. It was not for him to judge the state of the man's heart; only the eunuch knew his own heart. The decision regarding readiness for baptism was therefore left with the candidate and not the baptizer. There is no example in the apostolic preaching of candidates being turned down by the preachers. We notice that the question as to whether the eunuch believed "with all [his] heart" was answered by the eunuch with no reference to his heart; rather simply, "I believe". He knew he believed, but rarely is faith 100%. And the eunuch had the humility to recognize that, and Philip accepted that. Belief is frequently stated to be in the heart, and the passages in the later New Testament which state that may well be alluding back to the eunuch as a model convert to be emulated by us all. Belief, therefore, was not mere attendance at the temple nor simply external acceptance of religion. It was deeply personal, in the heart which only the believer knows. This may sound obvious to us, but it was a radical concept amongst the religions of the day and also within Judaism.</p><p><em>You may</em>- The Greek <em>exesti</em> occurs 32 times and is 28 times translated "lawful" in the context of arguments about the Mosaic law. Surely the eunuch had encountered the objection so many times whilst in Jerusalem: It is not lawful for you to come into the temple, or even, perhaps, to be baptized. Now Philip is being led to understand that the spirit of the Law did indeed encompass a personal like the eunuch, despite his physical condition and ethnicity. For if Philip simply meant 'Sure, you can…', other words would more comfortably have been chosen. </p><p><em>And he answered and said: I believe- </em>The impression is given by the record that he really couldn’t put the Scriptures together at all; his first comment to Philip was that he couldn’t understand the Scriptures because he had no teacher (<em><a href='B:510 8:31'>Act 8:31</a></em>). The way Philip opens his mouth “and preached unto him Jesus” (<em><a href='B:510 8:35'>Act 8:35</a></em>) suggests the man had no prior understanding of “Jesus”. Philip’s message obviously included baptism, because the Ethiopian on his initiative asked to be baptized when he noticed some water on their journey. Philip did not refuse him, but said that he could do so if he believed with all his heart (<em><a href='B:510 8:37'>Act 8:37</a></em>). The fact Philip requested the man to ask <em>himself</em> that question would imply that Philip did not know the state of the man’s heart. He didn’t say “Yes, Mr. Ethiopian, I can read your heart and I see you believe, so, yes, you can”. The Ethiopian’s confession that “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God” (<em><a href='B:510 8:37'>Act 8:37</a></em>) is clearly presented as sufficient for the man to be baptized. One excuse for not following the example of baptisms found in Acts is to argue that no extensive interview or theological teaching was necessary because the apostles knew the hearts of men by the Holy Spirit gifts. That of course is an argument from silence. Nowhere is that explicitly stated in the context of baptism. But the example of the Ethiopian rather suggests that Philip did not know the man’s heart, rather did he leave the man to decide the state of his own heart. </p><p><em>That Jesus Christ is the Son of God</em>- It would be hard to argue that anything much more is required to make a baptism valid. Belief in Jesus as God’s Son becomes the quintessential statement of faith in <em><a href='B:500 9:35'>Joh 9:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:31'>Joh 20:31</a></em> and <em><a href='B:690 5:5'>1Jn 5:5</a></em>. If acceptance of a detailed package of theology was essential for the validity of baptism, then surely the New Testament would be specific in giving examples of this. But the evidence is quite the opposite.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he commanded the chariot to stop</em></p><p>- see on :29 <em>Go near and join this chariot</em>.</p><p><em>And they both went down into the water</em>- This along with the description of them coming "up out of the water" (:39) is sure evidence that baptism was by immersion. And it has been well observed that nobody crosses a desert without water bottles. They surely had some water, which would have sufficed if baptism were by sprinkling.</p><p><em>Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him-</em> It is stressed twice that both of them went into the water. We see here the unity between preacher and convert, which we also noted on :31 <em>Sit with him</em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they came up out of the water, the</em> <em>Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip-</em> This would suggest that "the Spirit of the Lord" was not an internal prompting but the Spirit working through an Angel. The 'snatchings away' recorded in the Bible often imply the involvement of an Angel. The Alexandrian MS renders: "The Holy Spirit fell upon the eunuch, but an angel&nbsp;of the Lord snatched away Philip". This would parallel the Angel's work with that of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit was equally active in work in both their lives. "Caught away" would have recalled how Ezekiel was snatched away from Jerusalem to Gentile Babylon (<em><a href='B:330 3:14'>Eze 3:14</a></em>); and the Apocryphal story of the transportation of Habakkuk, who was supposedly like Ezekiel taken up by the hair of his head, and carried from Judea to Babylon. Again the suggestion is that Philip now went to preach to Gentiles.</p><p><em>And the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing</em>- The temple centred Judaism of the time would have found it hard to get their head around how a person could go off and have a relationship with God with no access to holy space and without the further presence of their rabbi / teacher. It's likewise difficult for those who perceive the body of Christ to be limited by a particular church or attendance within a denomination. The idea that a person can be baptized and live in isolation with their Lord is hard for them to accept. There is fairly strongly documented evidence that there was a Christian movement in Ethiopia from the first century, so we can conclude that the eunuch preached there on his return.</p>


text:
<p><em>But Philip was found</em>- Elsewhere I have suggested that it's helpful to imagine the Biblical records as being filmed by some Divine cameraman who changes perspective and at times zooms in and zooms out, and changes angle. In this record we have seen Philip looking at the chariot, focusing upon the eunuch, running to the chariot entourage and joining himself to it, then climbing up into it and sitting with the eunuch. Now the word "found" suggests an almost aerial perspective, looking down upon Palestine and 'finding' Philip in Ashdod / Azotus.</p><p><em>At Azotus</em>- Ashdod. It is given its Gentile name because the suggestion is that after the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch, Philip began preaching to Gentiles. He preached along the coastal strip from Ashdod to Caesarea, an area well known for the many Gentiles living there. Both he and Peter were led to the same conclusions by different routes. This impression is confirmed by the way that Cornelius was at Caesarea (<em><a href='B:510 10:1'>Act 10:1</a></em>), and his conversion is presented as the opening of the doors to the Gentiles. Both Philip and Peter ended up open minded to Gentiles in Caesarea by different routes. We so often find this- believers are led to the same changed positions and the same truths by different paths but by the same Lord.</p><p><em>And passing through that area, he preached the gospel to all the towns, until he came to Caesarea - </em>Luke describes the Lord and His followers as ‘passing through’ and teaching as He went (<em><a href='B:490 2:15'>Luk 2:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 4:30'>Luk 4:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 5:15'>Luk 5:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:22'>Luk 8:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:6'>Luk 9:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:24'>Luk 11:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 17:11'>Luk 17:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 19:1'>Luk 19:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 19:4'>Luk 19:4</a></em>); and employs the same word to describe the preaching of the apostles in Acts (8:4,40; 9:32,38; 10:38; 11:19,22; 12:10; 13:6,14; 14:24; 15:3,41; 16:6; 17:23; 18:23,27; 19:1,21; 20:2,25). See on <em><a href='B:510 1:1'>Act 1:1</a></em>. His witness becomes that of all those in Him. We are Him to this world.</p>


text:
<p><em>But Saul, yet breathing threats and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest</em>- Saul here is portrayed as a beast, perhaps the personal epitome of the beast system of Revelation which persecuted God’s people during the first century. AV is incorrect in rendering "breathing <em>out</em>"; the Greek here means to inhale, not to exhale. The idea is that he breathed in a mental atmosphere of threats and murder. This is a helpful way of describing our mindset- we can breathe in our own words and wrong intentions, as Saul did here. The "yet" suggests that his fury at Stephen's arguments continued... but the depth of his hurt was really the depth to which his conscience had been prodded by the goads of the risen Christ.</p><p>The Damascus road experience surfaces time and again in Paul’s writing and self-consciousness (<em><a href='B:520 10:2-4'>Rom 10:2-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 9:1'>1Co 9:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 9:16-17'>1Co 9:16-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:8-10'>1Co 15:8-10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 3:4'>2Co 3:4</a></em> to <em><a href='B:540 4:6'>2Co 4:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 5:16'>2Co 5:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 3:1-13'>Eph 3:1-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 3:4-11'>Phi 3:4-11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:23-29'>Col 1:23-29</a></em>). &nbsp;It is no mere pointless repetition that results in Luke recording Paul’s conversion three times in Acts (Acts 9, 22, 26). Special attention is being paid to his conversion, because he is being set up as the model of all Christian conversion.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 22:19'>Act 22:19</a></em>.</p><p><em>And asked from him letters to Damascus, to the synagogues</em>- The implication is that the Christians were to be found in the synagogues. This is yet further evidence that the Lord never required His followers to 'break fellowship' with the synagogue system, apostate as it was in doctrine and practice. He clearly had no concept of 'guilt by association'. </p><p><em>That if he found any that were of the Way</em> - How the Christian community is described in 19:9; 22:4; 24:22. Yet "the way" is a title of the Lord Jesus personally. The community were so identified with Him personally that one of His personal titles became the name given to the community which manifested Him and was based around Him.</p><p><em>Whether men or women</em>- This is emphasized three times (8:3; 9:2; 22:4).</p><p><em>He might bring them bound to Jerusalem</em></p><p>- see on 9:14 <em>To bind</em>. It was specifically in Jerusalem that Saul had done so much evil to Christians (:13). Presumably the level of torture and death which Saul wanted to inflict couldn't so easily be done in Damascus, but he could get away with it in Jerusalem; hence he wanted to bring the Christians to Jerusalem. Paul later admitted he had murdered Christians during the period before the Damascus road incident: "And I persecuted this Way to the death [meaning, he murdered them], binding and delivering into prisons both men and women" (<em><a href='B:510 22:4'>Act 22:4</a></em>). The way of getting the Christians into Roman prisons could only have been through false accusation. For the Jews didn’t have their own prison system. Or perhaps we are to understand the Greek for "prisons" in 22:4 in its more literal sense of 'cages', in which Christians were sometimes burnt. The question, of course, is how Saul got away with doing this when the Lord's own trial and death had highlighted how the Jews themselves did not have the power to put people to death, and needed Roman agreement to do so. It could be that this changed after the death of the Lord Jesus; or it could be that a blind eye was turned, as the Christian converts were seen as anti-Roman in their beliefs and practices.</p><p>The binding and bringing of Christians from one city to another, along with other references to Saul's abuse of Christians (26:10,11), was predicted clearly in <em><a href='B:470 23:33-36'>Mat 23:33-36</a></em>: "You serpents, you offspring of vipers, how shall you escape the judgment of Gehenna? Therefore, look, I send to you prophets and wise men and scribes. Some of them you shall kill and crucify, and some of them you shall scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city. That upon you may fall the guilt for all the righteous blood shed on the land... all these things shall come upon this generation". This reads as a prediction of Saul's personal behaviour. And yet the apparently inevitable judgment for doing these things did not come upon Saul. Here again we see how judgment can be stated, without any conditions or mitigating factors being explained at the time [just as Nineveh was to be destroyed after 40 days]- and yet the judgment can still be altered. And in Saul's case, the Lord worked hard to avoid having to bring it upon him. We wonder how many others He likewise worked with, but they didn’t respond... The scope of His activity amongst men is wonderful.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 26:10-11'>Act 26:10-11</a></em>.</p><p><em>And as he journeyed, it came to pass, that he drew near to Damascus; and suddenly there shone round about him</em>- The idea is of flashing, and suggests this was a vision of the Cherubim, similar to what Ezekiel saw (<em><a href='B:330 1:4'>Eze 1:4</a></em>). See below.</p><p><em>A light out of Heaven-</em> Paul’s conversion-commissioning experience on the Damascus road has many similarities with the commissioning of Ezekiel. Ezekiel saw a similar vision of glory, heard “a voice of one that spoke”, fell to the ground, resisted the commission, received Divine assurance, rose up by Divine invitation and was prepared for his commission by signs and wonders. The difference was that Paul says he saw the glory of the risen Christ. Ezekiel saw the glory of Yahweh, as the Lord Jesus wasn’t in physical existence and hadn’t resurrected at his time. But essentially, it was the same glory- for the glory of the Father is now fully invested in the Son (<em><a href='B:520 9:23'>Rom 9:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 4:19'>Phi 4:19</a></em>). Ezekiel saw at the head of the vision of glory “the likeness of a man”. He calls this figure the <em>Kavod</em>, the glory of God (<em><a href='B:330 1:28'>Eze 1:28</a></em>). Although Jesus was not in physical existence at Ezekiel’s time, I suggest that Ezekiel saw a vision of the Lord Jesus in glory. John 12 says that Isaiah likewise saw the glory of the Lord Jesus when he saw a similar vision of glory in Isaiah 6. <em><a href='B:660 2:1'>Jas 2:1</a></em> speaks of “our Lord Jesus Christ, the glory”. Christ is “the Lord of glory”, reflecting the glory of God (<em><a href='B:580 1:27'>Col 1:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 1:3'>Heb 1:3</a></em>). When Paul writes of our being transformed into “the image of Christ” (<em><a href='B:520 8:29'>Rom 8:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:49'>1Co 15:49</a></em>) he seems to have in mind <em><a href='B:330 1:28'>Eze 1:28</a></em> LXX: “The appearance of the image of the glory of the Lord”. “The glory” in Ezekiel is personified-&nbsp; it refers to a person, and I submit that person was a prophetic image of Jesus Christ. But Paul’s big point is that we <em>each </em>with unveiled face have beheld the Lord’s glory (<em><a href='B:540 3:16'>2Co 3:16</a></em> to <em><a href='B:540 4:6'>2Co 4:6</a></em>); just as he did on the Damascus road, and just as Ezekiel did. It follows, therefore, that not only is Paul our example, but our beholding of the Lord’s glory propels us on our personal commission in the Lord’s service, whatever it may be:&nbsp;</p><p>Theologians debate whether the Damascus road experience was Paul's conversion, programmatic for each of us, as he says in <em><a href='B:610 1:16'>1Ti 1:16</a></em> and <em><a href='B:540 4:6'>2Co 4:6</a></em>; or whether it is a specific, unique calling to be a preacher of the Gospel, and therefore is couched in terms of the call of Ezekiel and other Old Testament prophets. In Galatians 1, Paul clearly understood what happened as being his specific call to a preaching ministry. I would say that Saul's conversion was also a call to a preaching ministry; and that our conversion is also a calling to a ministry no less significant than that of the Old Testament prophets.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he fell upon the earth and heard a voice saying to him: Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?</em>- Clear evidence that the body of Christ is as it were the Lord Jesus personally. Whatever is done to us is done to Him. Nearly 10 times we read Paul saying that he had 'persecuted' Jesus; he was deeply aware of it. And he surely had his past in view when he urged: "Bless them which persecute you; curse [them] not" (<em><a href='B:520 12:14'>Rom 12:14</a></em>). He likely remembered those whom he had maimed and murdered blessing him and not cursing him, and he realized that he was reaping the blessings of their grace.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 23:1'>Act 23:1</a></em>.</p><p><em>And he said: Who are you, Lord? And he said: I am Jesus whom you persecute- </em>Paul was told by Jesus that all those whom he had persecuted were in fact Jesus personally (<em><a href='B:510 9:5'>Act 9:5</a></em>). And this idea of the believer being so totally bound up with his or her Lord continues with Paul throughout his life. Thus he takes a prophecy concerning how Christ personally would be the light of the whole world (<em><a href='B:290 49:6'>Isa 49:6</a></em>), and applies it to himself in explanation of why he was devoted to being a light to the whole world <em>himself </em>(<em><a href='B:510 13:47'>Act 13:47</a></em> - although 26:23 applies it to Jesus personally).</p><p>The term "Lord" is usually used in Acts about the Lord Jesus. The way Paul calls Him "Lord" is surely a reflection of how subconsciously he already knew Jesus was Lord. Conversion is largely about coming to be honest with ourselves and to accept the truth of what we already know. And this is the task of the preacher- to elicit honesty and humility in a person, so that they realize that the content of our message is in fact what they intuitively, subconsciously knew all along.</p><p><em>It is hard for you to kick against the pricks- </em>This is omitted in some manuscripts. It's easy to assume that this means that Saul earlier in his life had been as an animal kicking against the goads, causing him much pain; and thus we can read this as a comment from the Lord about the tortured conscience of Saul. And this may be a valid reading. Paul had grown up in Jerusalem and would have probably been amongst 'all Jerusalem' who heard John the Baptist; he would've surely met the Lord Jesus during His times in Jerusalem. He so often alludes to John the Baptist, as I demonstrated at length in <em>Paul and Peter</em>. His anger against the followers of Jesus was therefore psychologically understandable if in fact he was angry with himself for resisting his conscience about Jesus personally. In fact, his persecution of Christians was a classic case of transference; he transferred his anger against himself onto the symbols of what was the root of his anger- Jesus. </p><p>But on :3 I discussed the question of whether the Damascus road experience was a conversion or [additionally] a receipt of a preaching commission. If we look at it from the aspect of being a commission to a preaching ministry, then we could understand these words not so much as the Lord comment upon Saul's past life, but rather a word of guidance to him about his future ministry. He was taking on the yoke of Christ, and was to plough a straight furrow for Him; any kicking against the goads would be painful for him. In other words, the Lord is encouraging Saul to accept the ministry and not try to wriggle out of the direction the Lord is going to lead him in. However, the comment that it is hard to kick against the goads is made directly in the context of asking Saul why he was persecuting the Lord Jesus. It would appear part of the appeal for him to repent of what he was intending to do in Damascus. </p><p>We note there is no demand from the Lord that Saul repent, nor a request to put anything right. Stephen had prayed for Saul's forgiveness and we wonder whether that prayer had been so totally answered that there was no need for this. </p>


text:
<p><em>But rise and enter into the city, and you shall be told what you must do</em>- The obvious question is why the Lord didn’t tell Saul immediately of the need for repentance, baptism and a life of service. Perhaps He did, but it's not recorded. But maybe it was [and continues to be] His preferred method of working to use a human mechanism in explaining His will. He had Ananias in view already for this work. And he wanted Saul to meet with one of those he intended to abuse, and learn the Lord's requirements from him. If these were the only words of response which the Lord made, then Saul's obedience to the Lord's word would have been tested. On arrival at Straight Street, Damascus, he was presumably taken to a suitably hard-line Jewish Orthodox household. He must've wondered whether it was all for real; for no further instructions were given. Until Ananias bravely turned up on the door of a household he probably knew were bent on his destruction. The very same words for "[he shall] tell you what you must do" were used by the Angel in telling Cornelius that he must go to Peter and Peter would tell him what he must do (<em><a href='B:510 10:9'>Act 10:9</a></em>). We see here the same Divine footprint; and again, we note the Lord's preference to work through human mechanisms in order to reveal His Truth to men. The Ethiopian eunuch correctly noted that he couldn't understand the Bible unless someone should guide him. Often the theoretical case has been presented of a man on a deserted island with only a Bible. Would he figure out the Gospel for himself by his Bible reading? Maybe. It would have to be theoretically possible. But my sense both from Biblical history and observed experience is that God would parachute someone onto the island to explain the Bible to the marooned man.</p><p>9:7 <em>And the men that journeyed with him stood speechless</em>- They stood, whilst Saul fell to the ground because of the light. The awesomeness was only felt by Saul, otherwise the others would have fallen to the ground too. </p><p><em>Hearing the voice but seeing no one</em>- After Saul arose, he too saw no man (:8 AV). The implication is that Saul did see the Lord Jesus during this vision. Paul says this explicitly in <em><a href='B:530 15:8'>1Co 15:8</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 13:11'>Act 13:11</a></em>.</p><p><em>And Saul arose from the earth, and when his eyes were opened</em>- We are to imagine the other men opening his eyelids, but not restoring his sight. Those men would have been hard-line orthodox Jews; and the message was clearly that Judaism could open eyes but not reveal the light of life and true spiritual vision.</p><p><em>He saw nothing, and they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus</em>- AV "no man". See on :7 <em>Seeing no one</em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he was three days without sight, and did neither eat nor drink</em>- To help him identify with the Lord's three days in the grave. He was thus prepared to make the formal step of identity with His death and resurrection through baptism. This was how the Lord worked with the Ethiopian eunuch, and with people today too- they are led to identify with the experiences of the risen Lord, and then baptism as identity with His sufferings and victory becomes the logical next step. Note that it is experience rather than doctrinal instruction alone which prepares for this act of identity.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus named Ananias; and the Lord said to him</em>- 'Named' could imply that he had received the name 'Ananias' as his Christian name, in line with the practice attested in the New Testament of Christians taking another name on conversion. The name would literally be translatable as 'God’s grace / gift', equivalent of the Hebrew 'Hannah'. He was addressed by his name, "Ananias", and he responds [in the Greek]" "Behold, I". As if to say 'Yes, that's me- the one who is by God’s grace'. His understanding of grace was now going to be tested- he was to go to the man who had come to abuse him, who was currently living in a household that were presumably agreeable to Saul's evil plans- and share God’s grace with that man.</p><p><em>In a vision: Ananias. And he said: I am here, Lord</em>- The active Lord Jesus likewise appeared to Saul in a vision at this time (:12). He is no less active today, working simultaneously in the lives of multiple people around the clock, worldwide.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the Lord said to him:</em> <em>Arise and go</em>- Just as Saul had been told to 'Arise and go' into Damascus (:6). This is no mere literary flourish, nor simply the stamp of the same human author. Just as similar experiences were shared by Peter and Cornelius, and similar language used about them both, so here too, Ananias and Saul are being worked with by the same Lord in the same way; and the similarities between them were in order to bind together the preacher and his convert (see also on :12). The same similar hand at work can be felt between believers today, and is one of the things which creates the bond of fellowship between them, knowing that the same Lord has left the same Divine footprint in working with both of them. This of course is only realisable if both believers share with each other their experience of the Lord- and don't merely meet at church to chat about the weather and the state of the nation. Both Paul and Ananias had the choice as to whether to 'arise and go', and they both responded. Luke so often uses this phrase. Yet there was an element of choice before both those men. One side could have let the ball drop. But they both responded, with magnificent result.</p><p><em>To the street which is called Straight</em></p><p>- see on 13:10 <em>The right ways</em>.</p><p><em>And enquire in the house of Judas for one named Saul, a man of Tarsus. For he prays</em>- This is the same word used for how the men of Cornelius came enquiring for Cornelius, who had also been praying (10:19,21). Again we see the same Lord operating in the lives of Saul and Cornelius, according to a similar pattern. Those same similarities of pattern can be seen between our lives and those of other believers, and it is on this basis that we can be a comfort to each other (<em><a href='B:540 1:3-8'>2Co 1:3-8</a></em>). Presumably the household were supportive of Saul's abuse campaign against Christians. So the name Judas was appropriate, obviously recalling Judas Iscariot, and again presenting Judas Iscariot as the epitome of the Jewish system who crucified the Lord. </p>


text:
<p><em>And</em> <em>he has seen a man named Ananias coming in and laying his hands on him, that he might receive his sight</em>- Saul is spoken of as "one named Saul" (:11), another attempt to present Saul and Ananias in parallel; see on 9:11 <em>Arise and go</em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>But Ananias answered: Lord, I have heard from many of this man, how much evil he did</em>- In typical human style, Ananias assumes he knows the situation down here on earth better than the Lord, whom he perceived [as we do in our weakness] to be somewhat distant and ignorant. But we locals do not in fact see the full picture at all... and this is where faith comes in.</p><p><em>To your saints at Jerusalem</em>- 'Saint' means a holy one, but holiness also carries the sense of separation <em>unto</em> as well as separation <em>from</em>. The Hebrew idea is of consecration. The believers there were consecrated by the Lord Jesus unto specific service. And it is in this sense that we are all saints- we all have a specific service which we are commissioned to perform in the Lord's service.</p>


text:
<p><em>And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind</em>- And to take them bound to Jerusalem (:2). Paul later uses the same words to describe how he is going "bound in the Spirit unto Jerusalem" (20:22), and to prison, suffering and maybe death there. He realized that he was living out the same experience he had inflicted upon others, and it was "the Spirit" which was bringing this about. God’s providential hand, the Spirit, the Lord Jesus, the Angels [call it what you will] works likewise with us, so that we appreciate the impact of our actions upon others. And yet Saul actually never took anyone bound from Damascus to prison, suffering and death in Jerusalem. But he intended to. And so we can reflect that what we <em>intended</em> to do to others in essence happens to us; for the thought is counted as the action, and we are being led to understand the meaning and implications of our own thinking and intentions.</p><p><em>All that call upon your name</em>- Saul was therefore asked to be baptized and also call upon himself the Lord's Name (22:16). His baptism was not merely an act of identity with the Lord Jesus, but with the body of Jesus whom he had been persecuting.</p>


text:
<p><em>But the Lord said to him: Go your way. For he is a chosen vessel to me- </em>The Lord spoke of Paul even before his conversion as "a chosen vessel unto me". The words "chosen" ['elect'] and "vessel" recur frequently in Paul's reasoning in Romans 9-11, where he argues that <em>we</em> are chosen vessels, elected / chosen by grace (<em><a href='B:520 9:22'>Rom 9:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 9:25'>Rom 9:25</a></em>). It's as if Paul is warning us not to see him as a special case, a piece of Divine artwork to be admired in passing; but as a very real example of how God is just as powerfully at work with <em>us</em>. Truly Paul 'bore' Christ to the world just as John 'bore' (s:w:) Christ's Gospel (<em><a href='B:510 9:15'>Act 9:15</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 3:11'>Mat 3:11</a></em>). But surely Paul had the Lord's words here in mind in <em><a href='B:540 4:7'>2Co 4:7</a></em>: "But we have this treasure in earthly vessels, that the exceeding greatness of the power may be of God and not from ourselves". And the preceding verses are also full of allusion to the Damascus road, speaking of God shining into our hearts with the knowledge of Jesus.<br/>“A chosen vessel” refers to how “The Holy One of Israel... has chosen you [Messiah]” (<em><a href='B:290 49:7'>Isa 49:7</a></em> RSV). This is one of a number of instances of where Old Testament Messianic Scriptures are applied to Paul in the context of his preaching Christ.</p><p><em>To bear my name- </em>Paul was to bear Christ’s name to the world <em>in that he</em> would suffer great things for the sake of that Name (<em><a href='B:510 9:15-16'>Act 9:15-16</a></em>). His sharing in the Lord’s sufferings was the bearing of the Name before men. The Greek word for ‘bear’ in <em><a href='B:510 9:15'>Act 9:15</a></em> is the same used in <em><a href='B:490 14:27'>Luk 14:27</a></em> about bearing the cross. To bear His name to the world is to bear His cross. The record of the disciples’ persecution for the sake of their witness is studded with references to their preaching being <em>in</em> the Name of Jesus (<em><a href='B:510 4:2'>Act 4:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:7'>Act 4:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:9-10'>Act 4:9-10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:12'>Act 4:12</a></em> RV). Whoever heard them heard Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 10:16'>Luk 10:16</a></em>). The prophecy of Psalms 2 concerning how “the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against his Christ” was appropriated by the preachers to themselves even though it is elsewhere applied to the crucifixion (<em><a href='B:510 4:26'>Act 4:26</a></em>). </p><p><em>Before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel</em>- Therefore the reference to Paul being the apostle to the Gentiles and Peter going to the Jews may not mean that they had such distinct roles. That may have described a local or temporary situation. </p><p><em>And the maniac answered and said to them: Jesus I know and Paul I know, but who are you?</em>- The sick man on one level 'knew' Jesus and recognized Paul; on that level of personality, the man was a believer. </p>


text:
<p><em>For I will show him how many things he must suffer for my name's sake-</em> There seems no record of the Lord as it were informing Saul of the details of his life ahead of time. The idea may rather be that throughout the course of his life, he would come to realize the sufferings of Christ through sharing the sufferings he had brought upon the Christian believers. Ananias had just spoken of the believers as those who bore the Lord's name (:14), and so the idea here may be that Saul was to experience the sufferings he had brought upon those who bore the Lord's name.</p><p>Right at his baptism, Paul realized that the Lord Jesus intended to make Paul fellowship the spirit of his experience on the cross (<em><a href='B:510 9:16'>Act 9:16</a></em>). Later, Paul speaks of how he is "filling up what is lacking" in the aim Christ had set him: to fellowship the crucified Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:570 3:10'>Phi 3:10</a></em>). As the sufferings of Christ (i:e. his ability to relate to them) increasingly abounded in Paul (<em><a href='B:540 1:5'>2Co 1:5</a></em> Gk:), so did his comfort and certainty that he would be in the Kingdom; because he knew that if he suffered with Christ, he would share his glorious resurrection (<em><a href='B:540 4:11-12'>2Co 4:11-12</a></em>). As we grow, therefore, our realization that we are progressively sharing the sufferings of Christ should increase; our understanding of the memorial meeting (which reminds us of this) will deepen, as we appreciate more what it means to take the cup of his pain. The need and simple beauty of the breaking of bread becomes more logical; taking those emblems becomes in a sense more difficult, yet more sobering and comforting. The point is that as we grow, the centre of our attention will increasingly be the Lord Jesus and his cross.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Ananias departed, and entered into the house; and laying his hands on him, said: Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road upon which you travelled, has sent me, that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit</em>- As with Cornelius, Saul received the Holy Spirit before baptism. This is one of a number of similarities between the two men and a parade example of how the Lord works in a similar way with different people.</p>


text:
<p><em>And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales</em>- A classic example of how doctor Luke uses first century medical language.</p><p><em>And he received his sight; and he arose and was baptized</em>- The Greek text adds 'immediately'. To receive sight immediately is a phrase only used elsewhere by Luke, in describing the healing of the blind man near Jericho: "Immediately he received his sight, and followed him, glorifying God" (<em><a href='B:490 18:43'>Luk 18:43</a></em>). This man was seen by Luke as representative of Saul. But that blind man asked the Lord to heal him. We wonder whether doctor Luke perceived that subconsciously, this is what Saul had been asking for; or perhaps during the three days blindness, this was indeed Saul's prayer. Or perhaps his idea is that Saul's conversion and healing was an act of grace; what was done to the blind beggar because the man asked for it, was done to Saul without him asking for it. Whatever, the proud young Pharisee Saul was spiritually no more than a blind, possibly Gentile, beggar by the roadside. The blind man encountered the Lord on a road- just as Saul had done on the road to Damascus (<em><a href='B:490 18:35'>Luk 18:35</a></em>). And if the blind man was indeed Bartimaeus (<em><a href='B:480 10:46'>Mar 10:46</a></em>), 'the son of the unclean', we see an inversion of Saul's proud sense of his genealogy (<em><a href='B:520 11:1'>Rom 11:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 3:5'>Phi 3:5</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And he took food and was strengthened, and was several days with the disciples that were at Damascus</em>- Saul was named after the historical King Saul, also being from the tribe of Benjamin. On Saul's last fateful night at Endor, having learnt of his unalterable condemnation, Saul likewise "took food and was strengthened" at the hands of the witch. Saul was being made to see the similarities- that he was as good as condemned, like Saul on his last night; but had been saved by Ananias, 'the grace of God'. The connection with the historical Saul accented the pure grace of God towards him.</p>


text:
<p><em>And immediately in the synagogues he proclaimed Jesus, that he is the Son of God</em>- No fewer than 15 times do we read of Paul "preaching Jesus". His message focused around a living person, more than over dry theology. <em><a href='B:550 1:16'>Gal 1:16</a></em> describes this as God being pleased to reveal His Son in Paul. Paul had the Son of God within he; he had the spirit / mind of Christ. And it was this which gave credibility and power to his preaching Jesus as the Son of God. And God eagerly manifested Himself and His Son through this.</p>


text:
<p><em>And all that heard him were amazed, and said: Is this not he that in Jerusalem made havoc of those that called on this name? And he had come here for this intent, that he might bring them bound before the chief priests</em>- The same word translated "made havoc" or "destroyed" is found in Paul's reporting of these words in <em><a href='B:550 1:23'>Gal 1:23</a></em>: "They only heard say: He that once persecuted us now preaches the faith of which he once made havoc!". They said that he made havoc of believers; and also that he made havoc of "the faith". This reflects how closely identified were Christians with their "faith". They were living embodiments of their statements of faith. There was no such in those days as cultural Christianity, living out an inherited position. You were your faith. And so it should be today.</p>


text:
<p><em>But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews that dwelt at Damascus</em>- But he repeatedly uses the same word, particularly in his later letters, to describe how <em>Christ</em> strengthened him (<em><a href='B:570 4:13'>Phi 4:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 1:12'>1Ti 1:12</a></em>; 2 Timothy 2; 2 Timothy 1; <em><a href='B:620 4:17'>2Ti 4:17</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>Proving that this is the real Christ</em>- This is a strange way to put it; it’s as if Paul himself was standing there showing in his person, Christ Himself. The Greek for 'proving' means 'to put together'; it may be that what was being put together was not so much OT prophecies and Jesus, but rather Paul and Jesus. Preaching is a revealing to men of the Christ that is within us; this is what witnessing in Christ is really about, rather than pushing bills or placing press adverts or writing letters. Not that any of these things are to be decried, but the essence is that we from deep within ourselves reveal Christ to men. This is why those who witness to Him, as only those in Him can, testify to His especial presence in this work. The promise that “I am with you always” was in the context of being near the preacher as he or she witnesses.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel together to kill him</em>- The very language used of the Jews' plans to kill the Lord. Paul was already starting to fellowship the sufferings of his Lord, just as we all must do. In this reality we find a bridge between Him there two millennia ago, and us today. He is now icon to be gazed upon, but rather a real individual whose sufferings and experiences are ours in essence. And this connection is what gives meaning and significance to the events in our human lives.</p>


text:
<p><em>But their plot became known to Saul- </em>The same word used of how the Jews later plotted against Paul (<em><a href='B:510 20:3'>Act 20:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 20:19'>Act 20:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 23:30'>Act 23:30</a></em>). Through this, he was going through his Lord's experiences at the hands of the Jews. We too are brought to fellowship aspects of the Lord's sufferings, day by day.</p><p><em>And they watched the gates day and night that they might kill him</em>- <em><a href='B:540 11:33'>2Co 11:33</a></em> says that Aretas the governor of Damascus did this. As with the Lord's death, the Jews persuaded Gentile rulers of the need to destroy God’s people.</p>


text:
<p><em>But his disciples took him by night and lowered him down the wall in a basket</em>- He made converts very quickly- another indication that conversion can happen very soon after hearing the basic Gospel. This invites comparison with David escaping from king Saul's persecution in <em><a href='B:90 19:12'>1Sa 19:12</a></em>. Saul had been named after king Saul, and like him, he had persecuted David-Jesus. Saul / Paul saw the similarity, and the Lord worked with him in this by putting him in a situation where he was replicating <em>David’s</em> behaviour; and getting a taste of Saul's persecution. He was being helped to see his behaviour from outside of himself; and the Lord works with us likewise. Paul perhaps therefore recalls this incident as one of the most humbling he had ever experienced (<em><a href='B:540 11:33'>2Co 11:33</a></em>). Further, we note that it was the disciples, whom he had intended to abuse and kill, who let him down over the wall. As they held the rope, he realized that his life was in the hands of those whom he had plotted to torture to death.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he came to Jerusalem, he decided to attach himself to the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple</em>- The similarities with the Cornelius and Peter situation continue, in that Peter explained that it was not acceptable for a Jew to 'attach himself' to a Gentile (10:28). Saul the Jew was treated as a Gentile- and this, again, was used in the Lord's ecology and larger, wiser game plan in order to make Paul sympathetic to providing fellowship to Gentiles. For he had now learnt what it felt like to be excluded from fellowship with one’s Jewish brethren.</p>


text:
<p><em>But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared to them how he had seen the Lord on the road and that he had spoken to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus</em>- The Greek suggests he physically took him by the arm or hand. The psychological likelihood of the record here is so very strong and imaginable. We are reading of events which truly happened.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he was with them</em>- The "them" with whom Paul was with refers to the apostles, the leadership (:27).</p><p><em>Going in and going out at Jerusalem</em>- A Hebrew idiom for leadership. </p><p><em>And when they heard this, they were filled with anger and cried out, saying: Great is Diana of Ephesus!- </em>Because Paul's preaching 'despised' the goddess Diana, her worshippers perceived that she and they were somehow thereby shamed; and so they were angry. It's perhaps possible to understand the wrath of God in this way, too. For His wrath is upon those who break His commands; and by breaking them we<em> shame</em> God (<em><a href='B:520 2:23'>Rom 2:23</a></em>); we <em>despise</em> his desire for our repentance (<em><a href='B:520 2:4'>Rom 2:4</a></em>). We note how pagan gods were local in worship and supposed sphere of influence- Diana was “of Ephesus”, and the Jews considered Yahweh the God of Israel alone, and the likes of Jonah even thought that His presence was limited outside the land of Israel. The Christian message of a loving Father involved with “all men” as their saviour was therefore radical in its huge, global scope.</p><p>Their anger was related to shame that their god had been exposed as a fake. There's a definite link between shame and anger. Take a man whose mother yelled at him because as a toddler he ran out onto the balcony naked, and shamed him by her words. Years later on a hot Summer evening the man as an adult walks out on a balcony with just his underpants on. An old woman yells at him from the yard below that he should be ashamed of himself. And he's furiously angry with her- because of the shame given him by his mother in that incident 20 years ago. Shame and anger are clearly understood by God as being related, because His word several times connects them: "A fool's <em>anger </em>is immediately known; but a prudent man covers his <em>shame</em>" (<em><a href='B:240 12:16'>Pro 12:16</a></em>); A king's <em>anger</em> is against a man who <em>shames</em> him (<em><a href='B:240 14:35'>Pro 14:35</a></em>). Or consider <em><a href='B:90 20:34'>1Sa 20:34</a></em>: "So Jonathan arose from the table in fierce <em>anger</em>, and did eat no meat the second day of the month... because his father had done him <em>shame</em>". Job's<em> anger</em> was related to the fact that he felt that ten times the friends had <em>shamed</em> him in their speeches (<em><a href='B:220 19:3'>Job 19:3</a></em>). Frequently the rejected are threatened with both shame and anger / gnashing of teeth; shame and anger are going to be connected in that awful experience. They will "curse [in anger]... and be ashamed" (<em><a href='B:230 109:28'>Psa 109:28</a></em>). The final shame of the rejected is going to be so great that "they shall be greatly ashamed... their everlasting confusion shall never be forgotten" (<em><a href='B:300 20:11'>Jer 20:11</a></em>). Seeing they will be long dead and gone, it is us, the accepted, who by God’s grace will recall the terrible shame of the rejected throughout our eternity. Their shame will be so terrible; and hence their anger will likewise be. </p>


text:
<p><em>Preaching boldly in the name of the Lord; and he spoke and disputed against the Greek speaking Jews, and they that were seeking to kill him</em>- <em>Preaching... spoke... disputed- </em>These are all different preaching styles. Sometimes there was simple, joyful proclamation of the good news (<em>euaggelizein)</em>, sometimes patient comparison of the OT Scriptures (<em>suzetein,</em> <em><a href='B:510 9:29'>Act 9:29</a></em><em>, paratithestai</em>, 17:3<em>, sumbibazein, </em>9:22); at other times there was the utter defeat of the listener by argument (<em>sunchunei</em>, 9:22). This is a far cry from the blanket attitude to ‘the world’ which our preachers so often show. There <em>is</em> a place for intellectual argument; belief is a matter of the mind as well as the heart.</p><p>He “preached boldly” as he had done in Damascus. Bold preaching was a characteristic of Paul, and this particular Greek word which means 'bold preaching' is used so often to describe his style (<em><a href='B:510 9:27'>Act 9:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 9:29'>Act 9:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:46'>Act 13:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 14:3'>Act 14:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 18:26'>Act 18:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 19:8'>Act 19:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:26'>Act 26:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 28:31'>Act 28:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 3:12'>2Co 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 7:4'>2Co 7:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 3:12'>Eph 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 2:2'>1Th 2:2</a></em>). But this points up the deep significance of Paul's request that others join him in prayer that he may be bold in preaching (<em><a href='B:560 6:19-20'>Eph 6:19-20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 1:20'>Phi 1:20</a></em> s:w:). He didn’t find it easy, and his request for prayer that he might achieve imply that he wasn't a natural at this 'bold preaching'. We shouldn't assume that those who have the limelight in Gospel preaching are in fact confident extroverts, naturally brave and bold. Not all are; some only achieve that through prayerful struggle with their deep sense of inadequacy. And Paul was one of them.</p><p>“Disputed” is the very same word used for how this same group, Greek-speaking Jews, "disputed" with Stephen (<em><a href='B:510 6:1'>Act 6:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 6:9'>Act 6:9</a></em>). Seeing it was Saul who had arranged the murder of Stephen, this cannot be coincidental. The Lord was again seeking to bring Saul to enter into the experience of another, whom he had effectively killed. But there is a slight difference- it was these Greek speakers who disputed with Stephen in Acts 6, whereas here it is Saul who apparently takes the initiative and disputes with them. Perhaps he consciously wanted to stand up for Stephen, or wilfully sought to enter into Stephen's experiences and life's struggles. This was and is repentance indeed- seeking to know the mind of the one you have hurt.</p><p>He was purposefully trying to convince those who wanted to kill him. Again, Saul was truly motivated by his own recent experience; those whom he had sought to kill were now his brethren, and he marvelled at the grace of men like Ananias, the epitome of 'God’s grace' [as his name meant], and those brethren who let him down over the Damascus wall. And he wished to reflect that same grace that he had been shown. There are principles here for all time, meaning that this is no mere history for us. He tried to preach to and persuade those who wanted to kill him- rather than keeping away from them. He knew so well that those <em>he</em> had wanted to kill had taken great risks in order to preach to and persuade <em>him</em>. And he was trying to do likewise.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when the brothers knew it, they brought him down to Caesarea-</em> As the brothers likewise took Saul and saved his life by letting him down over the wall of Damascus so that he might flee elsewhere. As he was let <em>down </em>over the wall, so the brothers took him <em>down </em>to Caesarea. The impression is created of Paul's human salvation being in the hands of those he had only recently sought to abuse and kill. Straight away we go on to read about Cornelius in Caesarea (10:1); and one wonders whether he met Paul and was one of his first converts. We have noted throughout these notes the points of contact between Paul and Cornelius. </p><p><em>And sent him to Tarsus</em>- Literally, they 'apostle' him. He went where they sent him, so he was under their control. Perhaps they thought that just as the Lord Jesus consciously went to preach in the home towns of the disciples, so a convert ought to preach in his hometown. And so they sent him on a mission to Tarsus, his hometown. We know that his nephew was sympathetic to him, and one likes to think that he converted at least his sister and nephew. </p>


text:
<p><em>So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace, being built up</em>- This was because Saul was no longer persecuting the church; the implication therefore is that he had actively persecuted the Christians throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria. This means that the Samaritans baptized by Philip in Acts 8, and the groups in Galilee who remembered the Lord's time there... all were terrorized by Saul.</p><p><em>And walking in the fear of the Lord</em>- They had been in fear of Saul's persecution (:26 s:w:). Now he wasn't persecuting them, instead they feared the Lord Jesus. They had been distracted from fearing Him by their fear of Saul. </p><p><em>And in the comfort of the Holy Spirit</em>- A reference to the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, promised in John 14-16. One role of the Spirit is simply to comfort, and here we see clearly that it works on an internal, psychological level- i:e. in the human heart. </p><p><em>It multiplied</em>- The connection is between the 'walking' of the church, focused now on the Lord rather than fear of Saul- and the growth of the church. Church growth is therefore made relative to the 'walk' of the church members. </p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, as</em> <em>Peter went throughout all regions, he came also to the saints that dwelt at Lydda</em>- This suggests that Peter went on a pastoral circuit throughout all the areas where there were believers. This would have been in response to the Lord's command to him to tend His sheep and lambs.</p>


text:
<p><em>There he found...</em></p><p>- see on :35.</p><p><em>A certain man named Aeneas, who had been bedridden for eight years, for he was paralyzed</em>- What is the significance of this period? Depending on when we date Saul's conversion, it could be that it was eight years ago that the man had first begun to hear the Gospel from John the Baptist. He had been sick all that time, as he resisted the message.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Peter said to him: Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals you. Arise and make your bed. And immediately he rose</em>- But of course it was Peter standing there healing him. He was Christ-manifest in his witness, just as we should be. Peter had observed as Jesus made a lame man <em>arise</em>, take up his bed, and follow Him (<em><a href='B:490 5:25'>Luk 5:25</a></em>). But here in <em><a href='B:510 9:34'>Act 9:34</a></em>, we find Peter doing just the same to Aeneas, even taking him by the hand as he had seen Jesus do to Jairus’ daughter. What Peter had seen and learnt of the Lord Jesus, he was now called to do. Not for nothing did he tell Aeneas that “Jesus Christ heals you”, thereby recognizing the connection between him and his Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em>All that dwelt at Lydda and in Sharon saw him, and they turned to the Lord</em>- Another example of where "all" refers to all those in God’s purpose rather than literally 'all men'. This incident is recorded as an exemplification of what we have just read in :31- that through the work of the Holy Spirit, the church was multiplied at this time. The Greek translated "turned" is indeed translated 'to convert', but also 'to turn back'. Perhaps the "all" refers to all the believers in those areas, who had somewhat fallen away as a result of fearing Saul rather than the Lord; but after that miracle, of curing Aeneas who was maybe one of the saints at Lydda (:32,33 "there he found"), they all turned back to the Lord. Note how fresh conversion to the Lord as a result of Peter's miracles is described differently in :42: "It became known throughout all Joppa; and many <em>believed </em>in the Lord".</p><p>Mass conversions to the Lord's flock at Sharon sounds like the Kingdom prophecy of <em><a href='B:290 65:10'>Isa 65:10</a></em> "Sharon shall be a fold of flocks". The essence of the Kingdom was coming true in the preaching of the Gospel, as it is today; and we await the physical manifestation of all this in the literal return of Christ to establish God’s Kingdom on earth.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named</em> <em>Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas. This woman was full of good works and charitable deeds</em>- She was therefore clearly well known to both Jews and Gentiles, hence she had the two names. Dealing with her was therefore an incident which prepared Peter for the challenge of chapter 10- to reject the Jewish idea that having Gentiles into your house was wrong. Note how the widows came into the house and spoke of the clothing which <em>Dorcas</em> [her Greek name] had made (:39). But Peter then goes to her corpse and addresses her by her Hebrew name, Tabitha (:40). So there were Jews and Gentiles in the same house; and the Holy Spirit worked through Peter to bind them all together in faith, joy and praise. This was clearly to prepare Peter for the challenge of going into the home of Cornelius. We note the obvious similarity with Cornelius, of whom the same was said as for Tabitha: "Full of good works and charitable deeds". See on :38. The Lord is very gentle, and leads us stage by stage towards deeper understandings. We should likewise be sensitive to the fact that the folk we mix with, in the world and also in the church, will not immediately 'get it' about things. As we have been gently led through Divinely controlled experienced from one understanding to another, so we must recognize that others are at different points in their journey. And we are to reflect them the same patience as the Lord has shown us.</p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass in those days, that she fell sick and died, and when</em> <em>they had washed her</em>- Why mention this detail? Was it to recall her baptism, which gave her the hope of bodily resurrection?</p><p><em>They laid her in an upper room</em>- Luke brings out her identification with the church, the body of Christ, which was so associated with 'upper rooms' in its earliest days.</p>


text:
<p><em>And as Lydda was near to Joppa, the disciples, hearing that Peter was there, sent two men to him, urging him: Come to us without delay</em>- This is so similar to what Peter was to experience with Cornelius; messengers sent to him, urging him to come without delay. These events were intended to prepare him for the Cornelius experience; see on :36.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Peter rose and went with them. And when he had arrived, they brought him into the upper room; and all the widows stood by him, weeping and showing the coats and garments which Dorcas had made, while she was with them</em>- The widows would have likely been poor, and their clothes had been made by Dorcas. So they were showing their own clothes. </p>


text:
<p><em>But Peter sent them out, and kneeled down and prayed; and turning to the body, he said: Tabitha, rise. And she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter, she sat up</em>- When Peter resurrects Dorcas, he asked the weeping crowd to depart before he raised her- exactly repeating the Lord’s procedure when He raised Jairus’ daughter. Note how she is laid in a chamber, she is spoken to by Peter, she opens her eyes and sits up, and Peter presents her alive and asks for her to be given food. All this was evidently parallel to what Peter had been especially invited by Jesus to come and witness when He raised the girl during His ministry. The events Peter had been witnessed had been especially arranged so that when they repeated themselves in his future life, he was able to see the similarities and act as a true follower and mimicker of his Lord:&nbsp;The way he put everyone out of the room, turned to the body and said “Tabitha, arise”, and she rose up, is exactly the way the Lord acted (<em><a href='B:510 9:40'>Act 9:40</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 8:54'>Luk 8:54</a></em>):&nbsp;Consciously or unconsciously, his very body language and words reflected those of the Lord.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 3:7'>Act 3:7</a></em>.</p><p><em>And he gave her his hand and raised her up; and calling the saints and widows, he presented her alive</em>- The very words used about the resurrection of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:510 1:3'>Act 1:3</a></em>). Acts continually presents the life, sufferings, death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus as being reflected in the experiences of His body on earth, the church.</p>


text:
<p><em>And it became known throughout all Joppa; and many believed in the Lord</em>- An exemplification of the introductory statement to this section in :31, that the activity of the Holy Spirit at this time led to the numerical growth of the church.</p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, that he stayed many days in Joppa with Simon a tanner</em>- Peter had been urgently called to Joppa whilst visiting Lydda (:38). The Joppa visit was apparently unplanned. He raises Tabitha, many are converted as a result- and so he stays there for some time in order to follow up on the new ecclesia. This reflects his openness to the movement of the Spirit and willingness to go wherever led. No wonder <em><a href='B:530 9:5'>1Co 9:5</a></em> mentions how Peter 'took around' his wife. </p>


text:
<p><em>Now there was a certain man in Caesarea, Cornelius by name, a centurion of what was known as the Italian Regiment</em>- Comprised of Italians and true Romans. The man could not have been more Gentile. He was part of the Roman army of occupation, of none less than "the Italian regiment", a Roman of the Romans. For him to be described as "devout" and a God fearer was a deep paradox and challenge to Jews. Ceasarea had only a minority Jewish population; it was a new town built by Herod on the site of Strato's Tower, as the "model Greco-Roman city". Hence it was named 'Caesar City', Caesaria. Many Jews, even moderate ones, refused to accept Caesarea as part of Judah, dubbing it "the daughter of Edom". That a centurion in the army of occupation should be set up as the model Gentile convert, without apparently quitting his job, was a major challenge to Jewish Christians. 
In this context, we note that the "Simon" with whom Peter stayed was a Jew who was a tanner, producing leather goods. The Roman military machine had a huge demand for leather- for tents, boots, bags, belts, helmet parts, sword and dagger sheaths, horse harnesses etc.  “A legion required a minimum of 68,000 goatskins to make tents, and more than 3,000 cattle hides annually for boots alone”. “Each tent required some 70 hides, so to put a cohors quingenaria ‘sub pellibus’ (auxiliary regiment ‘under leather tent’— approximately 500 soldiers) would require the lives of more than 4,200 goats, and a legion (approximately 5,000 soldiers) something in excess of 46,000”. So without question, Simon was working for the occupying army. And Peter stayed with him; and Simon provided Peter with food and lodging. We note that the record says that Peter was hungry, and Simon's household were preparing food for Peter. Peter was therefore sharing table fellowship with a man whom most Jews would have seen as a traitor and not a faithful Jew. But this Simon the tanner is presented as a faithful supporter of Peter's missionary work.  Acts 9:43 notes that "he stayed many days in Joppa with Simon a tanner". This was no passing stay for one night. Peter arrived as a Christian missionary and was supported by Simon, following the Lord's command for missionaries to remain in the first home that welcomed them- which, in terms of the social norms of the day, meant accepting the message of the messenger. No decent Jew would have stayed at Simon's home. But Peter did, perhaps because he was the first person he approached, or perhaps because he had no choice. Maybe nobody else who owned a home accepted his message. Tanners were despised by Jews; Lev. 11:39,40 pronounced unclean anyone who touched the carcasses of even a clean animal, so tanners were seen as unclean. The Rabbis allowed a woman to divorce her husband for any reason if he were a tanner. A tanner's yard could not be located within 50 cubits of any town- hence Simon lived by the seaside. A Jew should never even learn the trade of a tanner.  We note in passing that Paul, Aquila and Priscilla were tentmakers, which would have likewise have often rendered them ritually unclean, or at  best, reminded them that the tanner was the but one step between them and ritual uncleanness. Indeed some texts offer "they were leatherworkers" at Acts 18:3 [NEV "by trade they were tentmakers"].
</p>


text:
<p><em>A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, who gave much charity to the Jewish people and prayed to God always-</em> The point has often been well made that doing all these things was not enough. Faith in Christ and baptism into Him was what was required; and yet his good deeds were not ignored by God. They were responded to by sending Peter to him to teach him the Gospel. Note too that devotion to God was still possible despite being an army officer. There is a significant silence regarding Cornelius leaving his job after baptism. There is a purposeful silence here in the record, to provoke our reflections. Because such matters are indeed a matter of very personal conscience.</p>


text:
<p><em>About the ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God, who came to him and said: Cornelius- </em>In 10:3,22,25 an Angel ‘comes in’ to Cornelius and gives him hope of salvation, and then Peter ‘comes in’ to Cornelius and explains that hope in more concrete terms. Peter was acting out what his guardian Angel had prepared for him to do, just as Israel had to follow the leading of the guiding Angel in the wilderness. We too must as it were follow our Angel.</p>


text:
<p><em> And he, fastening his eyes upon him and being afraid, said: What is it, Lord? And he said to him: Your prayers and your charity have gone up as a memorial before God- </em>The allusion is to the offering of incense and sacrifice. And Cornelius didn’t have to be a Jew in the temple to do this. He could do it in his own home and life situation. Note the parallel between prayer and charitable giving. Prayer is not simply words; God reads human actions as prayer, too. And mere words alone are not of themselves prayer, otherwise whoever is the better wordsmith has the greater access to God. And that is not the case; some people are wired better as regards words and verbalizing. We note too that an unbaptized person was still listened to by God, and his good deeds still registered with Him. The scale of God’s observation and sensitivity to humanity is so huge as to be beyond our comprehension. Cornelius had his generous gifts responded to in the same way as his prayers- in that Peter was sent to teach him the Gospel and baptize him. This suggests that our good deeds are seen as an expression of our essential self, and are treated as prayers. Yet those good deeds are not in themselves verbalized requests. It is also doubtful whether Cornelius was specifically praying for more knowledge and the opportunity of baptism. But this is how his prayers were interpreted by God, and this passive though unexpressed desire was interpreted and responded to. Prayer is likened to incense coming up before God. But so also is the almsgiving of Cornelius; his good deeds expressed a fine spirituality in his heart, and this was counted by God as prayer. Prayer is seen as an incense offering (<em><a href='B:230 141:2'>Psa 141:2</a></em>); but the generosity of Mary (<em><a href='B:500 12:3'>Joh 12:3</a></em>), the work of preaching (<em><a href='B:540 2:16'>2Co 2:16</a></em>); living "a life of love" (<em><a href='B:560 5:2'>Eph 5:2</a></em> NIV); giving money to the needy (<em><a href='B:570 4:18'>Phi 4:18</a></em>) are all seen as a fragrant incense offering. The act is the prayer. Mary's anointing was to be seen as a "memorial" (<em><a href='B:480 14:9'>Mar 14:9</a></em>), but the only other times this word is used are in connection with the prayers of Cornelius (<em><a href='B:510 10:4'>Act 10:4</a></em>, cp. the OT idea of prayerful people being God’s 'rememberancers'). Likewise, prophecy does not have to refer to specific, lexical statements; it can refer to the spirit and implication behind the recorded words. </p>


text:
<p><em>And now send men to Joppa- </em>The sense of the physical presence of&nbsp;the&nbsp;Angel was shown in Peter's case in the matter of Cornelius. <em><a href='B:510 10:5'>Act 10:5</a></em> says that the Angel told Cornelius to send men to Joppa to ask for Peter, whilst the same Angel ("The spirit", v. 19) tells Peter in v. 20 that <em>He </em>has sent the men. This awareness of the Angel is perhaps continued when Peter says in&nbsp;:33 "we are all here present before God"- i. e. before the Angel which both he and Cornelius were conscious had led them together. See on <em><a href='B:10 18:10'>Gen 18:10</a></em>. </p><p><em>And fetch one Simon, who is surnamed Peter</em>- This is the same word used to describe how believers 'called upon [themselves] the name of the Lord'; they surnamed themselves by His Name. The Lord had given Simon a new name, and the idea of having a 'Christian name' was popular amongst the early Christians. We have been given a new identity, unique to ourselves, by the Lord who has called us; and will have the new name written upon us eternally at judgment day. We can conclude that our unique and new identity / personality is being forged in us throughout this brief life, and will be permanently stamped into our eternal nature at the last day. In this lies the eternal significance of character development- for who we become now, is who we shall eternally be.</p>


text:
<p><em>He lodges with someone called Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the sea side</em>- Peter later explains that it was not possible for a Jew to enter the house of a Gentile (:28). So we can safely assume this Simon was a Jew, but not a very observant one, seeing he worked daily with the skins of unclean animals and blood. Being there must have provoked Peter to wonder about whether the Law really had to be kept so strictly; and living by the beach, he would have wondered whether the Lord's work actually extended overseas, beyond Israel. All these things were gently arranged by the same loving Lord who guides our spiritual path too. Peter was being led along the road towards leaving law-keeping, rather like Elijah having to depend for his life upon meat brought by unclean ravens. "If a tanner married without mentioning his trade, his wife was permitted to get a divorce. The law of levirate marriage might be set aside if the brother-in-law of the childless widow was a tanner. A tanner's yard must be at least fifty cubits from any town" (Farrar, <em>Life and Work of St. Paul</em>).</p><p>The AV adds: "He shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do". This phrase is much loved of Luke. Saul and the jailor said the same (<em><a href='B:510 9:6'>Act 9:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 16:30'>Act 16:30</a></em>), as did the crowds at Pentecost. The point is that encounter with the Lord Jesus means that we can never again be passive; we are to do something.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when the angel that spoke to him had departed, he called two of his household servants</em>- Luke uses this term about Angels speaking to Moses and Philip (7:38; 8:26). Gentile Cornelius was no less a significant player in God’s unfolding purpose.</p><p><em>And a devout soldier of them that served him continually</em>- "Devout" means just that; the word has a religious overtone of piety. To place the word together with "soldier" may seem an oxymoron; it could seem inappropriate, at first blush, to imagine that a Roman soldier could be "devout". Here we have an intentional challenge of stereotype. Those we might consider to be in a status which precludes spirituality may indeed be spiritually devout. "Devout" is the Spirit's comment through Luke upon this man. Clearly Cornelius' search for the Lord had not been a private matter; he had spread it to those closest to him in his family and workplace. As the Gospel spreads to the secular and unchurched, such challenges to stereotype are frequent in our day.</p>


text:
<p><em>And having related all things to them, he sent them to Joppa</em>- His search for God was not conducted secretly, behind a computer screen or on a mobile device. He was quite open about it. Likewise notice how he called together his relatives and friends to hear Peter's message (:24). We note the many parallels between Jonah and Peter. They were both at Joppa, Peter is 'son of Jonah' [bar Jonah, Mt. 16:17]. Both were hesitant to preach to the Gentiles; Jonah was persuaded by three days in the fish, Peter by three repeated visions. They were both told "arise and go" (Jonah 3:2; Acts 10:20). The Gentiles believed the message (Jonah 3:5; Acts 10:43). The men of Nineveh repented, quite unexpectedly, by Jewish standards of thought; Cornelius repented and was baptized, again, as noted on :1, quite against all Jewish expectation. The parallels are to show that resistance to taking the Gospel to those considered 'beneath us' is a common human trait. And God patiently struggles with it, ever seeking to broaden the parochial perspective of His people. Because to be parochial and judgmental is native to the natural man's mindset. The backdrop to the conversion of Cornelius and the Gentiles is the Jonah story; it is the scripture-scape behind the events recorded. The implication is therefore that those amongst God's people who refused to get on board with the idea of inclusivity would be left as Jonah is at the end of the book- sitting dejected, bitter and angry, shaking their fist at the God who is evidently love itself. For all their much avowed 'defence of the faith' and defence of [their own version of] God. Peter, we can infer, was initially resistant to the call to preach to the Gentiles, just as Jonah was. He was indeed son of Jonah. But it seems he repented sooner and was softer in God's hand than was Jonah. The vision Peter saw was nothing less than a nightmare for a Jew- to imagine God telling you to eat unclean animals, three times. Every halachah was broken, and apparently, God's own law was being changed by God Himself. Of course, all this had been implied in the Old Testament as well as the teachings of the Lord Jesus. But all the same, we must seek to enter into the degree to which it was all a nightmare shattering of paradigms for Peter. Just as an openness to others is for many traditions today. His response, especially when compared with Jonah's, is really humble and commendable. 
</p>


text:
<p><em>Now the next day, as they were on their journey, and drew near to the city, about the sixth hour</em>- Jesus removed prayer from being mere liturgy into being a part of real, personal life with God. The way Peter prays at 12 noon (<em><a href='B:510 10:9'>Act 10:9</a></em>), and how Paul urges us to pray <em>all the time</em> (<em><a href='B:520 12:12'>Rom 12:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 4:2'>Col 4:2</a></em>) are therefore radical departures from the concept of praying at set times, three times / day. </p><p><em>Peter went upon the housetop to pray</em>- He 'went up', and the same word is used of how the prayers of Cornelius 'went up' (:4). The parallels between Cornelius and Peter are extensive. They both prayed regularly, and during one of those regular prayer sessions, they received visions. The same Angel was at work with both of them. Thus a solidarity was developed between the preacher and the convert; and we see this so often in our own lives too. we of course fail to attach meaning to event, but we can rest assured that the events in our lives are all part of a wider plan and potential purpose, which may or may not work out or become clear to us in this life. Because we and / or others fail to respond as we might, sometimes things are as it were left hanging, in that event appears therefore not to have achieved its possible meaning or intention.</p>


text:
<p>&&<em>And he became hungry and desired to eat, but while they made the food ready, he fell into a trance</em>- His hunger, like the Lord's hunger as He came to the fig tree, spoke of the Lord's desire to save and have fellowship with ['eat with'] the Gentiles. The Jews in Simon's home were preparing clean food for Peter [cp. preparing Jewish people to hear the Gospel], but then Peter's hunger was offered another method of satiation- in the eating of <em>unclean</em> food. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he saw the heaven open and a certain vessel descending</em>- The very same phrase occurs in <em><a href='B:500 1:51'>Joh 1:51</a></em>, where the Lord predicted that the disciples would see "heaven open": "I say unto you [plural], Hereafter you [plural- all the disciples] shall see heaven open, and the Angels of God ascending and descending upon the son of man". Whatever that enigmatic prediction meant, it surely was being given some application to the opening of 'heaven' to "all men", including Gentiles, thanks to Angelic work. And Peter saw Heaven open, and an Angel... and the equivalent of 'ascending and descending' was surely in the descent and ascent of the sheet containing unclean animals. The context of <em><a href='B:500 1:51'>Joh 1:51</a></em> is the Lord's observation that Nathanael was "an Israelite indeed" (<em><a href='B:500 1:47'>Joh 1:47</a></em>). Maybe His intention was to teach the disciples that actually, 'heaven' was to be opened to non-Israelites too, and Jacob lying on Gentile ground that night with Angels ascending and descending upon him was some kind of foretaste of the body of Christ in future times. The opening of the 'heaven' of the Most Holy place at the Lord's death clearly gave the message that now the way into the holiest was open to all. Peter would also have recalled how the heavens were opened (same words used) at the Lord's baptism, and the dove / Holy Spirit 'descended'. Now he saw heaven opened, and was to see the Spirit descending upon Gentiles. They were, therefore, Jesus- the body of Christ, upon whom the Spirit first descended. Ezekiel likewise saw heaven opened and entered into a vision, whilst sitting with the captives in gentile Babylon (<em><a href='B:330 1:1'>Eze 1:1</a></em>); thereby encouraging Peter that he was no less significant than the revered Old Testament prophets.</p><p><em>As it were a great sheet</em>- The word strictly means a sail. Perhaps this was an echo from Peter's fisherman past, an image coming back in his dreams. And it was maybe an image recently impressed in his mind as living next to the beach, he would have seen boats at sea. Maybe this image was used to teach Peter that now the disciples should go overseas by boat to spread the Gospel to the Gentiles. If Sigmund Freud were amongst us, with his theories of dreams, he would likely have suggested that this aspect of the dream was an example of Peter's inner conscience and unexpressed awareness speaking to him- in this case, that the Gospel should indeed go to the Gentiles. And yet the dream was given by God, ultimately- perhaps using all these images, from whatever sources, in order to deliver the message to Peter.</p><p><em>Let down by four corners upon the earth</em>- Another example of Luke's medical language, as this was the term used for the ends of bandages. But a four cornered sheet is more likely suggesting a table cloth. Peter is seeing the animals as it were on the table in front of him, and is invited to eat them. The unclean animals clearly represent previously unclean Gentiles. And a big theme of Luke is of inclusive table fellowship. Peter was to accept at table the Gentiles. The true Christian church was to accept the Gentiles at what had previously been an exclusively Jewish table. We must give due weight to the interpretation given to Peter- that God considers all to be clean and fit for fellowship at His table. It is an assumption to think that the idea was that baptized, Christian Gentiles could now be accepted at the table. Rather is the idea that the table is open to all who wish to be there; an approach taken by the Lord, who went out of His way to eat with hardened sinners so that they might repent, rather than to celebrate their repentance.</p>


text:
<p>&&</p><p><em>Wherein were all manner of fourfooted animals, and creeping things of the earth and birds of the sky</em>- This translation is misleading. The idea is that every kind of four-footed animals were there, looking forward to how "all men" were to be encompassed in God’s saving purpose. The implication is that there were both clean and unclean animals- there were "all manner" of animals, every kind. And they were mixing together, as it were, and Peter is asked to eat all of them. This has huge implications. God through the cross has achieved the world's redemption and cleansing, so that the world is to be seen as potentially clean. But, they must be offered in sacrifice; and this of course connects with how Paul speaks of preaching to Gentiles in terms of "the offering up of the Gentiles might be made acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 15:16). </p>


text:
<p><em>And there came a voice to him: Rise, Peter. Kill and eat</em>- This could as well be understood as the language of sacrifice; the animals were killed and then the offerer ate part of them, to demonstrate his identity with the animal. Likewise see on :35 <em>Is acceptable</em>. Peter's killing and eating was obviously symbolic of the acceptance of the Gentile converts; Paul's words in <em><a href='B:520 15:16'>Rom 15:16</a></em> surely allude to this incident and use the same sacrificial language, as if to say that he shared Peter's mission: "That I should be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be made acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Spirit". Peter's work with the Gentile Cornelius was sanctified by the Holy Spirit in that the Spirit descended upon them before their baptisms. If "kill and eat" indeed refers to sacrifice, Peter's shock is even more understandable; he was being asked to not merely eat unclean food, but to actually offer it as a sacrifice to God.  Peter's work with the Gentile Cornelius was sanctified by the Holy Spirit in that the Spirit descended upon them before their baptisms. If "kill and eat" indeed refers to sacrifice, Peter's shock is even more understandable; he was being asked to not merely eat unclean food, but to actually offer it as a sacrifice to God. Judaism would have argued that the clean animals were made unclean by their association with the unclean. But here for all time the idea of 'guilt by association' is shown to be actually the radical inverse of what is now the situation. Peter was taught that he should call nobody unclean- because even the unclean had been potentially cleansed in Christ (:15). "Yet to me God has shown that I should not call anyone common or unclean" means literally 'I should not make anyone unclean'. He had done this by assuming that the clean animals were made unclean by asssociation with the unclean on the table sheet. They were all cleansed. "What God has cleansed" suggests that the cleansing was at one historical point- which was the cross. But it is over to us to as it were offer them up to God.  That becomes the critical point in the vision. Not judging who is clean or unclean, for there is now totally no division between categories of persons; but bringing men to God in Christ, as the new priesthood. We must ask the question, 'Why didn't Peter just choose a clean animal and offer it?'. He saw all the animals of creation, clean and unclean, and he was told to offer them. But he objects that "No". He can't offer any of them. Why did he say that, if there were also clean animals there? Why not respond 'I'll offer the clean ones, but not the unclean ones'? I suggest the answer is that he considered the clean to have been made unclean, in line with the Mosaic laws about uncleanness spreading. And he was told that quite opposite to what he thought, actually every one of those animals was now clean. 
What we are seeing here is therefore the conversion of Peter to what Christianity is actually all about. And so Acts 10 is set up as parallel to the conversion of Saul in Acts 9- there are visions, and Ananias and Peter both are taught that the Gospel net has caught those whom they naturally object to being allowed "in". The parallels are many, e.g. Saul's "Who are you, Lord?" is matched by Cornelius' "What is it, Lord?". </p>


text:
<p><em>Peter said: Not so, Lord. For I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean</em>- The figure of 'eating' is being used in this incident to speak of fellowship. This confirms the impression we have throughout the New Testament- that eating together was seen as an act of fellowship. The open table manners of the Lord Jesus are therefore the more worthy of notice- eating with sinners and eating together in the feeding miracles with thousands of people, including some Gentiles. An example of relevant Old Testament quotation is shown when Christ asked Peter to kill and eat unclean animals. He replied by quoting from <em><a href='B:330 4:14'>Eze 4:14</a></em>, where Ezekiel refuses to eat similar food when asked to by the Angel. Perhaps Peter saw himself as Ezekiel's antitype in his witnessing against Israel's rejection of the word of God in Christ (note how <em><a href='B:330 4:16'>Eze 4:16</a></em> is a prophecy of Jerusalem's destruction in AD70). 'In the same way as God made a concession to Ezekiel about this command to eat unclean food', Peter reasoned, 'so perhaps my Lord will do for me'. But the Lord was to teach him even greater things than Ezekiel. &nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 10:35-36'>Act 10:35-36</a></em>.<br/><em>And a voice came to him again the second time: What God has cleansed- </em>The unclean animals which Peter saw in the vision represented all the Gentile world (<em><a href='B:510 10:15'>Act 10:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:28'>Act 10:28</a></em>). They had already all been potentially “cleansed” by the blood of Christ, but He was dead in vain, the cleansing achieved for nothing, unless the likes of Peter took the message to them. The more and the wider and the more powerfully we do this, the more we enable the cross of Christ to be victorious, to achieve its end, the more ‘worthwhile’ as it were was the Lord’s sacrifice. </p><p><em>Do not call common- </em>The fact we can be guilty of causing others to stumble means that we can limit God’s gracious plan for them. By refusing to preach to the Gentiles, Peter was ‘making common’ what God had potentially cleansed (<em><a href='B:510 10:15'>Act 10:15</a></em> RV). We can spiritually <em>destroy </em>our brother, for whom Christ died (<em><a href='B:520 14:15'>Rom 14:15</a></em>); we can undo the work of the cross for a brother who would otherwise be saved by it. We can make others sin (<em><a href='B:20 23:33'>Exo 23:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 2:24'>1Sa 2:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 16:19'>1Ki 16:19</a></em>). </p><p>Peter was told not to call or make common that which God had [potentially] cleansed; but the Greek is always elsewhere translated to defile or to make unclean. ‘Don’t make unclean what God’s made clean’ is the idea. By refusing table fellowship to people, we are proactively making them unclean- we are treating them as if the cleansing work of Christ has no possible connection to them. And so often, people end up acting and believing according to how others act toward them in such matters of spirituality. They simply walk away from the table from which they were excluded, and from all that is represented upon it… That is the observed reality in thousands of cases. David felt that being cast out of the community of Israel was effectively saying to him "Go, serve other gods" (<em><a href='B:90 26:19'>1Sa 26:19</a></em>). Nobody probably ever said those actual words to him, but this verse captures well how people so often read rejection from the people of God- they do indeed tend to go off and serve other gods. It is those who cast them out who will have to answer for having caused their stumbling. </p>


text:
<p><em>And this was done three times; and immediately the vessel was received up into heaven</em>- This surely connects with the triple instruction to Peter to feed the Lord's sheep. He was being taught that in practice, this would mean offering Gentiles to the Lord. And yet although Peter was the one chosen to lead the way in accepting the Gentiles, he was given a ministry to the Jews whereas Paul was given the Gentile mission to oversee (<em><a href='B:550 2:9'>Gal 2:9</a></em>). Why was this? Perhaps Peter's inner struggle with accepting Gentiles was recognized, and he was given an easier way of service which was more within his comfort zone? Or perhaps Peter was initially the apostle to the Gentiles, but the Lord changed over the roles of Paul and Peter for some reason? Or perhaps <em><a href='B:550 2:9'>Gal 2:9</a></em> speaks of a specific missionary endeavour at one time, for which Peter focused on the Jews and Paul on the Gentiles?</p><p>We note that the unclean animals, representing Gentile converts, were “received” in heaven.</p>


text:
<p><em>While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men that had been sent by Cornelius, having made enquiry for Simon's house, stood before the gate</em>- On 10:9 <em>Peter went upon</em> I sought to demonstrate that the Lord's providential hand was creating a parallel between Peter and Cornelius, just as He does between brethren today. The language of these men of Cornelius 'standing before the gate' and earnestly knocking is precisely the same language as we find in the account of <em>Peter </em>knocking at the "door of the gate" after his release from prison: "He came to the house of Mary... there many were gathered together and were praying. And when he knocked at the door of the gate, a maid named Rhoda came to answer. And when she recognised Peter's voice, she did not open the gate, but in joy ran inside and told everyone that Peter stood before the gate" (<em><a href='B:510 12:12-14'>Act 12:12-14</a></em>). As he stood there, Peter was being put into the shoes of those men who had stood before his gate and knocked. Providence does this in our lives many times, as the Spirit seeks to bind us together in one close-knit body. When the Jewish disciples initially wouldn't let Peter in... he must have seen the similarity with how things could have worked out, had he likewise left those Gentiles outside, holding to the Jewish tradition of not having Gentiles into your home.</p>


text:
<p><em>And called and asked whether Simon, who was surnamed Peter, were lodging there</em>- They carefully and obediently repeat the words of the Angel in :5. </p>


text:
<p><em>And while Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said to him: Look, three men seek you</em>- This seems typical of the Spirit's operation to this day. Those who think about their experience with the Lord are led to further revelation and paths of action. The same words are used of how whilst Joseph likewise "thought on these things" (s:w:), he had a vision directing him further (<em><a href='B:470 1:20'>Mat 1:20</a></em>). "The Spirit" may well refer to the same Angel who was active with Cornelius. <em><a href='B:510 11:11'>Act 11:11</a></em> says that the men called for Peter "immediately" after the vision ended; but here in 10:19 we have the information that Peter thought on the vision after it ended, and only then did the men call for him. His 'thinking' on the vision was therefore brief, but as soon as he did, the answer came. <em>The Spirit</em>- An Angel, see on :5 <em>Send men</em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>So rise, and get downstairs</em>- Gk. 'go down'. This is the same word translated "descending" in :11. As God had 'come down' to Peter and to save the Gentiles, so Peter was in turn to 'come down'. Hence the word occurs again in :21, emphasizing Peter's obedience. We really can be part of God’s program in saving others; as He comes down to the excluded, so we are to likewise. </p><p><em>Without doubting. For I have sent them</em>- The phrase occurs only here (also in <em><a href='B:510 11:12'>Act 11:12</a></em>) and in <em><a href='B:660 1:6'>Jas 1:6</a></em>, where we are bidden to ask in faith "without doubting". This might imply that Peter was being encouraged to pray for the acceptance of the Gentiles and go forward in doing so "without doubting". As already outlined in these studies, there had been hints galore that such inclusion was what the Lord wanted. Even if the reference is not to prayer, the Lord recognized that Peter had doubts- and He urges Peter not to have them. His attitude was not that Peter should have accepted the plain statements of his Lord, that Gentiles worldwide were to be included in God’s plan; nor that Peter should just accept the way he was being led. Instead the Lord tenderly appreciates Peter's doubts and prejudices, and urges him to overcome them. This should be our template in dealing with those who still 'don't get it' or 'won't get it' over various issues which are obvious to us.</p><p>"Doubting" translates <em>diakrino</em>. The same word is used about the Jewish brethren who then “contended” with Peter over his table fellowship behaviour (<em><a href='B:510 11:2'>Act 11:2</a></em> - <em>diakrino </em>again). The repetition of the word like this in the record&nbsp;seems to rebuke those who contend with others about their table fellowship policy; for Peter had been told <em>not</em> to contend / judge in this matter, and yet those legalistic brethren did that very thing. “You can’t break bread with us because you break bread with those we don’t approve of, even though you are our brother in Christ…” seems to smack of just the same disobedience. But as always, the proof of the pudding is in the eating; open table fellowship brings people to Christ, as it did Cornelius, whereas closed table fellowship drives people away. At least initially, this was recognized by the brethren in Acts 11 and they too changed their closed table policy. </p>


text:
<p><em>And Peter went down to the men and said:</em> <em>I am the one you seek. Why have you come?</em>- This is full of allusion to the Lord in Gethsemane (<em><a href='B:470 26:56'>Mat 26:56</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 18:4-6'>Joh 18:4-6</a></em>). There is perhaps no exact sense in the allusions; but they reflect the fact that the experience of the Lord’s death and resurrection so indelibly impressed Peter that he reflected it both consciously and unconsciously. Likewise with us- even our body language should reflect our experience of such great salvation in so great a Saviour. </p>


text:
<p><em>And they said: Cornelius a centurion, a righteous man and one that fears God, and who is praised by all the nation of the Jews, was instructed by a holy angel of God to summon you to his house and to hear words from you</em>- Yet Peter didn’t know what he was to say. When he arrived, he asked them: "I ask with what intent did you send for me?" (:29). So he went with the visitors, confident God was leading him, but with no set piece speech prepared to read to them. We likewise are to follow the Spirit's leading in the Gospel's work.</p>


text:
<p><em>So he called them in and lodged them. And the next day he arose and went with them, and some of the brothers from Joppa accompanied him</em>- Just as Peter's 'coming down' reflected the 'coming down' of the Lord in the world's salvation (see on :20), so this 'calling them in' reflects the calling in of "as many as the Lord our God shall call" (<em><a href='B:510 2:39'>Act 2:39</a></em>). Peter had spoken those words, thinking of the wide range of Jews being called to salvation. But now he would have realized that the Lord's call was to all men and women; and he was the one being asked to 'call them in' to the house of the Jews.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the next day they entered into Caesarea. And Cornelius was waiting for them, having called together his relatives and his near friends</em></p><p>- see on :8. The same words are used in Luke's record of the parables of the lost; in a home, friends and neighbours are "called together" (<em><a href='B:490 15:6'>Luk 15:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:9'>Luk 15:9</a></em>):&nbsp; Cornelius was the lost who was being found, but he was also reflecting the joy of the Lord in Heaven by calling together his friends and neighbours into his home. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when it happened that Peter entered, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet and did homage to him</em>- The Biblical examples of this kind of thing demonstrate the typical way that human beings tend to equate the message with the messenger. Cornelius so respected the message that he thought the messenger was wonderful and worthy of his respect. The reverse side of this equation is particularly destructive- the messenger is equated with the message. And therefore any disillusion with the messenger (or community of messengers) results in a corresponding collapse of faith in the message. Yet the message is the good news about God, the Lord Jesus and their Kingdom- not about the messenger. John the Baptist wisely described himself as merely a voice; and that is all we are. The truth and wonder of the message we pass on does not of itself mean that we are pure. Solomon made this mistake, assuming that his mere possession of wisdom made him somehow spiritually invincible, leading him to make concessions for himself which resulted in his final destruction.</p>


text:
<p><em>But Peter raised him up, saying: Stand up</em>- The occurrence together of the words "raised up" and "stand up" recalls incidents in the Gospels (<em><a href='B:480 9:27'>Mar 9:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 6:8'>Luk 6:8</a></em>). Peter would have observed the Lord 'raising up' and then making 'stand up' the sick boy of <em><a href='B:480 9:27'>Mar 9:27</a></em>; and he would have seen this as his pattern. We earlier observed how Peter's healing of Tabitha reflects the Lord's body movements and language. This sets us a challenge in our Christianity, our following and absorption of Him. It should be to the point that the actions and even body movements of the historical Jesus are so imprinted upon us that we are literally influenced by His Spirit.</p><p><em>I myself am also a man</em>- These are the very same words on the lips of the Centurion in <em><a href='B:470 8:9'>Mat 8:9</a></em> and <em><a href='B:490 7:8'>Luk 7:8</a></em>: "I am a man". One wonders whether this Centurion was in fact Cornelius or in some way connected with him. In this case, Peter would be quoting the words of Cornelius back to him, assuring him that he too was exactly who he was. We notice how the essence of this incident repeated in Paul's ministry, when in <em><a href='B:510 14:15'>Act 14:15</a></em> Paul has to assure the crowd that "We are men...". Again, Paul was being brought to understand Peter by going through similar experiences.</p>


text:
<p><em>And as he talked with him, he went in and found many gathered together</em>- There is a strange emphasis upon the idea that they were talking as Peter went in to Cornelius' home. It was that crossing of the threshold which was so significant; and the idea was that they did it whilst Peter was teaching the Gospel to the Gentile householder. The need to take Christ to others was what gave Peter strength to cross that significant boundary line. It was whilst doing that work of teaching that he found himself crossing the line, and thereby realized it was but a line in the sand. So many times, going out and teaching the Gospel, and then 'going with' the convert on their new journey, has been the means of radical change in the thinking of the preacher.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: You yourselves know how it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew</em>- If the 'law' in view was that of Moses, then Peter is sharing his struggle with the fact God had changed His law. Yet the idea of a Jew not sharing table fellowship with a Gentile nor entering his house was not Biblical; these were the 'laws' of the Jews rather than of God or Moses. </p><p><em>To join himself or come to</em>- These are the very words used about Philip coming to and joining himself to the Ethiopian's chariot (<em><a href='B:510 8:29'>Act 8:29</a></em>). The Lord worked in educating His followers using different means. Peter needed a vision; Philip was taken out into a desert away from peer pressure and simply told to connect with a Gentile. Yet both men ought to have figured that the Lord's work and teaching had ended the divide anyway. But they didn’t, and He patiently worked with each of them in personally tailored ways in order to bring them to the same truths. He works likewise today. The level and intensity of His activity is simply colossal. </p><p><em>One of another nation; and yet to me God has shown that I should not call anyone common or unclean</em>- Gk. 'not purged'. It could be argued that Peter has in view here those purged in Christ. For not all men are 'clean' or 'purged'. Therefore I am inclined to think that Peter means 'If someone, anyone, including a Gentile, is cleansed by baptism into Christ- who am I to say they are not cleansed / purged?'. </p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore also I came without objection, when I was sent for</em>- Peter says he went with them because he had seen the vision, and then the messengers from Cornelius knocked on his door. He felt that was providential and an answer to the mysterious vision he had seen. But he describes this in 11:12 as "the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting / judging". Perhaps the Spirit did not give him a specific word, to the effect 'Yes, go with them!'; but rather the Spirit arranged circumstances so that it was not hard for Peter to figure 'Well I guess I am meant to go with these strangers'. Likewise when Luke says that the Spirit stopped Paul preaching in Bithynia (16:7), we are not to assume that he had a specific word from the Lord about it; probably circumstances worked out in such a way where he figured that 'This is not meant to be'. And the Spirit works no less actively in our own lives in these ways.</p><p><em>Therefore, I ask with what intent did you send for me</em></p><p>- see on :22. "Intent" translates <em>logos</em>; we could translate: 'For what word / logos did you send for me?'. Luke has used this phrase before in recording how the people exclaimed at the teaching of the Lord: "What a word is this!" (<em><a href='B:490 4:36'>Luk 4:36</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And Cornelius said: Four days ago, about this hour, I was keeping the ninth hour of prayer in my house, and a man stood before me</em>- The Angelic vision to Cornelius is presented as a direct response to his fasting and prayer. But what was he praying for? Perhaps specifically for acceptance amongst God’s people and closer relationship with Israel's resurrected Messiah? Or was it that his prayers were interpreted as being for these things in essence, even if there was no specific, verbalized request for them made? For this is how many of our 'prayers' are answered; the essence is perceived and answered.</p><p><em>In bright apparel</em>- The idea is of a good robe, rather than the glistening garments of Angels; "a gorgeous robe" (<em><a href='B:490 23:11'>Luk 23:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 2:2-3'>Jas 2:2-3</a></em>). This person may have been the Lord Jesus rather than an Angel.</p>


text:
<p><em>And said: Cornelius, your prayer is heard and your charitable acts are held in remembrance</em>- It's doubtful Cornelius was specifically praying for a person to guide him to baptism into Christ and an understanding of the Christian Gospel. But the essence of his spirit was discerned and counted for prayer. Note that "prayer" is singular- his various requests and devotions amounted to one essential prayer. This is a great comfort to all who feel that in prayer, they cannot somehow get the words out right, or nicely enough. It is the deepest spirit of a person which is discerned by the Father and Son, and counted as prayer. See commentary on the resurrection of Lazarus in John 11.</p><p><em>In the sight of God</em>- The same term is used in :33, to describe how they were all present "here in the presence of God". The generosity of Cornelius was noted in the very presence of God; and yet Cornelius realized that that presence of God was also here on earth. The repetition of the ideas demonstrates how the presence of God was no longer to be thought of as simply in the Jerusalem temple; the good deeds of a Gentile were in God’s presence, and that same Divine presence was to be found in the home of a Gentile.</p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore- </em>The plan to bring Peter to baptize Cornelius was all part of a Divine response to the prayers and good works of Cornelius. It was not simply the sovereign movement of God towards Gentiles. It was a response to that man's prayer and spirituality. Note that good works, in this case, regular giving to the poor, had high significance and partly elicited the Lord's response to the man. Although we likewise note that good works alone cannot save; it was encounter with the Gospel and faith in Christ which was so essential.</p><p><em>Send to Joppa and summon Simon, who is surnamed Peter. He lodges in the house of Simon a tanner, by the sea side</em>- This is military language, as if Peter was already part of the military household of Cornelius. This is the whole theme of the record- that fellow believers are in a new family relationship.</p>


text:
<p><em>So I sent for you at once, and you have been kind enough to come. Therefore, now we are all here in the presence of God, to hear all that you have been commanded by the Lord to say</em>- Cornelius had just said that he had seen an Angel standing "before me" (:30, s:w. "in the presence of"). He had been in the presence of the Angel, and he felt that that had now happened again. He felt the literal presence of the Angel who had appeared to him. But "in the presence of God" is the same phrase as has been used to describe how the prayers and works of Cornelius had come into "the presence of God" (:4,31). It is as if God’s presence had come to earth; the sheet had been let down from Heaven to earth.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Peter opened his mouth and said: Of a truth I perceive that God- </em>Peter was so powerful as a preacher, always alluding to his own weaknesses of behaviour and understanding. Consider this example here: “I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that fears him and works righteousness, is accepted with him [Peter alludes here to Old Testament passages such as <em><a href='B:50 1:17'>Deu 1:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 10:17'>Deu 10:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 24:23'>Pro 24:23</a></em> and <em><a href='B:290 64:5'>Isa 64:5</a></em>]. The word which God sent unto the children of Israel… that word, you know” (<em><a href='B:510 10:34-37'>Act 10:34-37</a></em>). Peter is saying that he only <em>now</em> perceives the truth of those well-known Old Testament passages. He is admitting that the truth of his Lord’s criticism of him, that he had been so slow of heart to believe what the prophets had spoken. And yet Peter masterfully goes on to show solidarity with his readers- he tells them that they too had already heard “the word” and yet now they like him needed to believe the word which they already knew. In doing this, Peter is bridge building, between his own humanity and that of his hearers. And the wonder of it all is that it seems this happened quite naturally. He didn’t psychologically plan it all out. His own recognition of sinfulness quite naturally lead him into it. </p><p><em>Is no respecter of persons</em>- Later, Peter reminds his Jewish readers that their prayers ascend to a Father “who without respect of persons judges according to <em>every</em> man’s work” (i:e. Jew or Gentile, <em><a href='B:670 1:17'>1Pe 1:17</a></em>). He was asking them to learn what he had so slowly and falteringly come to accept:&nbsp;In this was the power of his pastoral appeal- for the things he teaches are all what he had himself come to accept after much failure and struggle.</p>


text:
<p><em>But in every nation- </em>Peter’s grasp of the extent of Christ’s Lordship was reflected in the scope of his preaching. He had known it before, but understood it only to a limited extent. It seems that he preferred to understand the commission to preach “remission of sins <em>among</em> all nations” as meaning to the Jewish diaspora scattered amongst all nations (<em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em>)- notwithstanding the copious hints in the Lord’s teaching that His salvation was for literally all men. He preached forgiveness (s:w. remission) <em>to Israel</em> because he understood that this was what the Lord’s death had enabled (<em><a href='B:510 5:31'>Act 5:31</a></em>). It was Israel who needed forgiveness, because they had crucified God’s Son- this seems to have been his thinking. Peter applies the word “all” (as in “to all nations”) to his Jewish audiences (<em><a href='B:510 2:14'>Act 2:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:36'>Act 2:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 3:13'>Act 3:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:10'>Act 4:10</a></em>). But he was taught in the Cornelius incident that because Christ is “Lord of <em>all</em>”, therefore men from <em>every</em> (s:w. “all”) nation can receive forgiveness of sins (<em><a href='B:510 10:35-36'>Act 10:35-36</a></em>). He makes the link back to the preaching commission in <em><a href='B:510 10:43'>Act 10:43</a></em>: <em>all</em>&nbsp;in <em>every </em>nation who believe can receive remission of sins (s:w. <em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em>)- as he was commanded to preach in the great commission. He came to see that the desperate need for reconciliation with God was just as strong for those who had not directly slain His Son; for, Peter may have mused, all men would have held him “condemned by heaven” if they had been Jerusalem Jews. And he realized that Christ was truly Lord of all, all men, everywhere, and not just of a few hundred thousand Jews. And with us too. The wider and the higher our vision and conception of the ascended Christ, the wider and more insistently powerful will be our appeal to literally all men. Yet Peter had heard the Lord’s words, when He had asked them to tell all nations, and when He had prophesied that His cross would draw all men unto Him. And his comment that “unto you <em>first</em> God, having raised up His Son, sent him to bless you” (<em><a href='B:510 3:26'>Act 3:26</a></em>) suggests he suspected a wider benefit from the resurrection than just Israel. But all this knowledge lay passive within him; as with his understanding of the cross, he just couldn’t face up to the full implications of what he heard. But it was his recognition of the extent of Christ’s Lordship that motivated him to make the change, to convert the knowledge into practice, to throw off the shackles of traditional understanding that had held him from understanding the clear truth of words he had heard quite clearly. An example would be the words recorded in <em><a href='B:480 7:19'>Mar 7:19</a></em> RV: All meats were made clean by Christ. But Peter had to be told: “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common” (<em><a href='B:510 10:15'>Act 10:15</a></em>). He had to be taught to simply accept the word he loved, with all its implications:&nbsp;We too can skim over Bible phrases and verses, assuming our previous understanding of them is correct. </p><p><em>He that fears Him and works righteousness</em>- A reference to Cornelius as a Gentile God-fearer who did good deeds.</p><p><em>Is acceptable to Him- </em>Whoever truly works righteousness "<em>is</em> accepted" with God right now, as well as at the final judgment. Some faithful men experience condemnation for their sins now, with the result that they repent and therefore at the day of judgment will not receive that condemnation. The language of being 'acceptable' may be a continuation of the language of sacrifice which began with the invitation to "kill and eat" (see on :13). For the same Greek word for "acceptable" is found in <em><a href='B:570 4:18'>Phi 4:18</a></em>: "A sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God". </p>


text:
<p><em>The word</em>- The definition here of the word of the Gospel includes the basic facts of the Gospel story as recorded by the Gospel writers. Issues of finer theology are not directly part of that Gospel. Here, "word" translates <em>logos</em>. It is spoken of as the "message" [AV "word"], <em>rhema</em>, in :37. It could be argued that <em>logos </em>and <em>rhema</em> are therefore dynamically interchangeable in practice. Or it could be that we are to understand that God sent a <em>logos</em>, a message with an intention beneath its words... and the words of that message, the more literal <em>rhema</em>, was preached. </p><p><em>Which he sent</em>- The idea of a word being sent from God to earth clearly isn't literal. Likewise the language of the Lord Jesus, as the embodiment of that word being 'sent' doesn't imply any personal pre-existence or literal passage from Heaven to earth.</p><p><em>To the children of Israel</em>- The Gospel was initially intended for Israel, but that message was that Israel's Messiah was "Lord of all", Jews and Gentiles. </p><p><em>Preaching good news of peace by Jesus Christ (he being Lord of all!)</em>- The text is saying that God is the preacher; He was and is preaching, through His Son. Our preaching is therefore an identification with Him. We are His representatives, and we have Him behind us in what we are doing.</p>


text:
<p><em>That message you yourselves know, which was published throughout all Judea</em>- Even Gentile soldiers on duty in Palestine knew the basic message of the Lord Jesus, so widespread was the message. If Peter could reason that the content of the Gospel was common knowledge in Palestine, we can hardly imagine the Gospel to be much more than the life and teaching of the historical Jesus. All theological matters could not then have been in view; and the definition and content of the Gospel surely didn’t change after the time of Cornelius.</p><p><em>Beginning from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached</em>- There is a strong NT emphasis on the Galilean origins of the Lord, His message and the whole Christian movement. Yet Galilee was despised. The point is being laboured that the origins of Christianity were in that which was despised by men. Every Jew would expect a Messianic movement to begin <em>from Jerusalem</em>. But Christianity is presented as having its genesis in despised, half-Gentile Galilee.</p>


text:
<p><em>About Jesus of Nazareth. How God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed by the Devil. For God was with him</em>- The Lord was empowered to do miracles to demonstrate to illiterate folk that "God was with Him"; but He was Immanuel, God with <em>us; </em>in that God was with Him, and He is with us. The Lord Jesus did not heal every sick person in Palestine. The healing of "<em>all</em> that were oppressed by the Devil" therefore suggests that we understand "the devil" here as referring not simply to the source of illness which needed healing. The healing was of "all" who were under the power of sin and who wanted freedom from that. So again we see a connection between the devil and sin. </p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 5:30'>Act 5:30</a></em>.</p><p><em>And we are witnesses of all things which he did</em>- The Lord therefore was never much out of the view or hearing of the disciples. This implies a significant lack of privacy for Him, making more acute His need to go away in prayer alone. Truly He 'came down' and in that sense 'dwelt amongst men'; and men of such limited perception and vision, so constantly out of step with His thinking, language and direction.</p><p><em>Both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. Whom also they slew, hanging him on a tree</em>- Peter points out the difference between the disciples and "the Jews" generally. He clearly felt that difference, and reflecting upon it would've made the more logical and natural his sense of solidarity with Gentile believers in Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em>Him God raised up on the third day, and gave him to be revealed</em>- God didn’t parade His resurrected Son personally before the eyes of the world. But He resurrected Him in order that He should be openly revealed (Gk:). This is the connection between the resurrection and the imperative to preach the resurrected Lord; the great commission is therefore directly in the context of spreading the news that the Lord has risen. So in this sense, the Lord risen and alive was paraded before men- but in the form of His body, the church. The same word is used about Christian preaching in <em><a href='B:520 10:20'>Rom 10:20</a></em>: "I was made manifest ['revealed']". This open revelation was through the witness of the church.</p>


text:
<p><em>Not to all the people</em>- As noted on :40, God’s plan was that the open revelation of His Son was through the believers, rather than through some public parading of the resurrected body of Christ. </p><p><em>But to witnesses that were chosen before by God, to us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead</em>- Table fellowship with the risen Lord thereby empowered them to be witnesses that He is indeed alive. And the experience of breaking bread with Him now should lead to the same conviction- we know He is alive because we sat at table with Him, and thereby we are empowered to be witnesses of Him to the world. This explains the intended connection between the communion service and public witness; to turn it into a closed door private members club is to sadly miss the point.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he ordered us to preach to the people</em>- "Ordered" would be better translated 'commanded'. The reference is likely to the great commission. But Peter therefore misunderstood that as being a command to preach "to the people", i:e. the Jewish people. The great commission had commanded the disciples to preach; the fact Peter adds "to the people" suggests he is adding his interpretation to the Lord's actual words, until he assumes that that interpretation was part and parcel of the Lord's own words. Adam made the same mistake in <em><a href='B:10 3:3'>Gen 3:3</a></em>, and all Bible readers and students are inclined to. Peter seems to be saying that the Lord had commanded him to preach to the people of Israel, but that he had been led to now preach to Gentile Cornelius. But actually Peter had yet to join the dots, and realize that actually the requirement to share the Gospel with the Gentiles had been hinted at throughout the Old Testament and was to be found plainly in the actual teaching of the Lord Jesus. It wasn't a change of plan by the Lord at the time of Cornelius; rather was it Peter [and the other disciples] being so slow to understand the basic meaning of simple words, just as they had failed to accept the Lord's clear predictions of His own death and resurrection.</p><p><em>And to testify that this is he who is ordained by God-</em> Note the legal language. It's as if we have been given a subpoena; we have to testify that we have met Him. And the world is our judge. It is our duty to persuade them, sceptical as they are, of the utter truth of our case, and that life and death eternal depend upon judging it rightly. But the metaphor has a double twist; we are on trial, but we are testifying that actually this risen Jesus is "the judge of the living and the dead". </p><p><em>To be the judge of the living and the dead</em>- This could mean that when He returns, the Lord Jesus will raise the responsible dead and judge them, along with "the living" who are alive at the time of His return. Or it could be saying that He is right now the judge of all living, and also of all who have died, seeing He has their records and has already formulated His judgment of them. This latter option would make better sense of the present tense used- He <em>is</em> the judge, rather than 'He shall be one day the judge…'.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 10:35-36'>Act 10:35-36</a></em>.</p><p><em>To him all the prophets bear witness</em>- It is quite a challenge to find this message explicitly taught in all the Old Testament prophets. "The prophets" may be a reference to the section of the Old Testament scriptures known as "the prophets", as if to say that the essence of the message from that section was forgiveness for Israel in Messiah's Name. Or "the prophets" may refer to the New Testament prophets, the forth-tellers of the word of the Gospel. This would make better sense of the present tense- all the prophets were right then giving witness to this message. </p><p><em>That everyone who believes in him</em>- Jews and Gentiles.</p><p><em>Receives forgiveness of sins through his name-</em> The same word used of how they "received" the Holy Spirit (:47). Repentance, forgiveness and inner transformation is what the Spirit gift is all about. The visible manifestations sometimes noted were to demonstrate to observers that really, those who had converted to Christ really were legitimate. </p>


text:
<p><em>While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit</em>- Whilst Peter spoke of receiving forgiveness (:43), the Holy Spirit came on them all. This suggests that the gift of the Spirit is repentance and forgiveness; any external sign of it, such as speaking in tongues, was a mere external attestation of that internal change.</p><p><em>Fell</em>- The same word used of how Peter fell into a Spirit vision (:10); the outpouring was to underline that these Gentiles were just as much within the realm of God’s operation as Peter. Hence he observed that the Spirit had fallen on them as on the Jewish believers (<em><a href='B:510 11:15'>Act 11:15</a></em>).</p><p><em>On all them that heard the word</em>- The language of the parable of the sower for positive response to the word. The gift of the Spirit was not an arbitrary 'zapping' but in response to the hearing of faith.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed</em>- Peter had just quoted Old Testament scripture regarding how all the prophets taught that "everyone", literally 'anyone', who believes in Messiah receives forgiveness. And that 'anyone' embraced Gentiles. But when "even... Gentiles" were given the Holy Spirit as a sign of their acceptance by God... the Jewish believers were utterly amazed. Again, we see how the meaning of the most basic and simple words in the Bible can be so hard to accept and therefore to understand- because we carry with us so much baggage of presupposition and assumed understanding.</p><p><em>Because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles</em>- The pouring out of the Spirit elsewhere refers to an internal process of renewal (<em><a href='B:630 3:5-6'>Tit 3:5-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 5:5'>Rom 5:5</a></em>; the same words are used for 'pouring out'). But in the context here, it was critical that Peter and the Jewish brethren were aware of this. And you can't usually know what's happening in the heart of another; therefore in this case, there was a visible manifestation of the Spirit's activity. The Greek for "poured out" is usually translated "shed" with reference to the shedding of the Lord's blood. One achievement of His death was the shedding of the Holy Spirit; His mind / Spirit, His breathing and thinking, became available to all who are in Him. For His death was His ultimate act of identification with us.</p>


text:
<p><em>For they heard them speak with tongues</em>- Probably in Hebrew, which would have been deeply impressive to the Jewish Christians present.</p><p><em>And magnify God. Then said Peter</em>- The Greek means just that. We can make God greater, increase or magnify Him, in that He has delegated His work to us and it is over to us how far we extend it.</p>


text:
<p><em>Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these who have received</em> <em>the Holy Spirit just as we?</em>- The word means 'accepted'. Peter had been taught that God <em>accepted</em> <em>whoever</em> believed in Him, regardless of their race. But now Paul had to remind Peter that truly, God “<em>accepteth </em>no man’s person” (<em><a href='B:550 2:6'>Gal 2:6</a></em>). The same Greek word was a feature of the Cornelius incident: whoever believes <em>receives</em>, accepts, remission of sins (<em><a href='B:510 10:43'>Act 10:43</a></em>), and they <em>received</em>, accepted, the Holy Spirit as well as the Jewish brethren (<em><a href='B:510 10:47'>Act 10:47</a></em>). With his matchless humility, Peter accepted Paul’s words. His perceptive mind picked up these references (and in so doing we have a working model of how to seek to correct our brethren, although the success of it will depend on their sensitivity to the word which we both quote and allude to). But so easily, a lifetime of spiritual learning could have been lost by the sophistry of legalistic brethren. It’s a sober lesson.</p><p>The case of Cornelius (<em><a href='B:510 10:47'>Act 10:47</a></em>) shows the urgency of baptism; Peter didn’t report the case back to the elders, he went ahead immediately with it. <em><a href='B:510 10:36-43'>Act 10:36-43</a></em> usefully record “the word” of the Gospel which had been sent to Israel and which the Gentiles could now also believe: “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him:&nbsp; And we are witnesses of all that he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him on the third day and made him to appear, not to all the people but to us who had been chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead. To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name”. This “word” of the Gospel has several allusions to the great commission- “we are witnesses” is <em><a href='B:490 24:48'>Luk 24:48</a></em>, and Peter clearly felt he was fulfilling the great commission when he says that he is preaching because after the resurrection, Christ “commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God”. Peter’s comment that “to Him all the prophets bear witness” was doubtless said with his mind on how after His resurrection, the Lord had expounded where He was to be found in the prophetic writings. The Gospel which the great commission required to be taught and baptized into is therefore summarized in “this word” which is summarized here by Peter. It was a brief message about the person of Christ, His death and resurrection, His forthcoming return in judgment, and our need to repent and receive forgiveness by association with His Name. </p><p>“Can anyone withhold” is the same word used by the Lord to rebuke the disciples for 'forbidding' John's disciples and the little ones to come to Him (<em><a href='B:480 9:38'>Mar 9:38</a></em>); and yet He uses the same word to describe how the lawyers hindered [s:w. 'forbad'] people to enter the Kingdom. There's a very clear parallel here between the disciples and their Jewish teachers who had so influenced their thinking. But they finally got there- for Peter insisted that Gentiles should not be forbidden [s:w. 'hinder'] baptism (<em><a href='B:510 10:47'>Act 10:47</a></em>); and he uses the same word again when he says that now, he will not "withstand [s:w. 'hinder'] God in hindering people to come to Him (<em><a href='B:510 11:17'>Act 11:17</a></em>). The awfulness of the disciples' attitude is brought out by the use of the word in <em><a href='B:590 2:16'>1Th 2:16</a></em>, where Paul says that the way the Jews 'forbad' or hindered the preaching of the Gospel was cause for the wrath of God to come upon them "to the uppermost". And the disciples initially followed their Jewish elders in this kind of behaviour. In passing, there is a sober warning here to those who would likewise 'forbid' baptism to those who sincerely seek it, and who will not allow ‘little ones’ to the Lord’s table.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days</em>- Implying Peter himself didn’t perform the baptisms, so that there would not arise any cult following of the baptizer.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now the apostles and the brothers that were in Judea heard that the Gentiles also had</em>- Does this mean that the conversion of Cornelius was understood as representative of the conversion of the Gentiles? Or were there a number of Gentile converts apart from Cornelius- e.g. Tabitha, the Ethiopian eunuch, and it was to these that "the Gentiles" refers to here?</p><p><em>Received the word of God</em></p><p>- see on 8:14 <em>Received the word of God</em>.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 10:20'>Act 10:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 15:5'>Act 15:5</a></em>.</p><p><em>And when Peter had arrived in Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision</em>- This term seems to refer not simply to circumcised Jews, because the majority of the church was Jewish. Rather would it seem to refer to those within the church who thought that circumcision was essential for salvation.</p><p><em>Criticized him, saying</em>- The Greek <em>diakrino</em> can equally mean to enter judgment with. It's as if they set themselves up as Peter's judges before a church which had turned into a court of law. This so easily happens to this day.</p>


text:
<p><em>You went in to men uncircumcised and ate with them!</em>-&nbsp;It's easy to assume that the arguments about "regulations about food" (<em><a href='B:650 13:9'>Heb 13:9</a></em>) in the first century hinged about what&nbsp;<em>types</em>&nbsp;of food should be eaten, i:e. whether the Mosaic dietary laws should be observed or not. But the angst about "food" was more passionately about&nbsp;<em>with whom</em>&nbsp;you ate. Peter explains in <em><a href='B:510 11:3'>Act 11:3</a></em> how utterly radical it was for a Jew to eat with a Gentile. Bearing this in mind, the way Jew and Gentile Christians ate together at the Lord's supper would've been a breath-taking witness of unity to the watching world. And yet ultimately, Jew and Gentile parted company and the church divided, laying itself wide open to imbalance and every manner of practical and doctrinal corruption as a result. The problem was that the Jews understood 'eating together' as a sign of agreement, and a sign that you accepted those at your table as morally pure. The Lord's 'table manners' were of course purposefully the opposite of this approach. Justin Martyr (<em>Dialogue With Trypho</em>&nbsp;47:2-3) mentions how the Jewish Christians would only eat with Gentile Christians on the basis that the Gentiles firstly adopted a Jewish way of life. And this is the nub of the problem- demanding that those at your table are like you, seeing eating together as a sign that the other has accepted your positions about everything. The similarities with parts of the modern church are uncanny.</p><p>To enter in to a house was itself a religious act; the word is used repeatedly about how Peter entered in to the home of Gentile Cornelius (<em><a href='B:510 10:24-25'>Act 10:24-25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:27'>Act 10:27</a></em> use the word three times); and Peter was accused by the legalistic brethren of having not only eaten with a Gentile but also of “entering in” to his home (<em><a href='B:510 11:3'>Act 11:3</a></em>). Likewise Lydia felt that Paul could only enter in [s:w:] to her home if he had judged her to be faithful to the Lord (<em><a href='B:510 16:15'>Act 16:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 16:40'>Act 16:40</a></em>). But the assumption is made in <em><a href='B:530 14:23-24'>1Co 14:23-24</a></em> that the doors of the ecclesia should be open to even unbelievers who wished to “enter in”, with all that implied. <em><a href='B:660 2:2'>Jas 2:2</a></em> uses the same word twice in describing how both rich and poor strangers were ‘coming in’ to “your assembly”, and being given different treatment by the assembled believers. The point is, they “came in”- there was no barrier to them. The church and its table was open:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Peter ate with the uncircumcised- and got into trouble with the Judaist brethren exactly because the Law had forbidden the uncircumcised from eating the first Passover (<em><a href='B:510 11:3'>Act 11:3</a></em>). The Jews had put a [very large!] hedge around this law by forbidding Jews from eating with Gentiles period. Yet Peter was taught that this was wrong- and he ate with Gentiles, it seems even before they were baptized. But the point is, he had been taught by the vision that all the old Mosaic category distinctions of clean / unclean, circumcised / uncircumcised, had now been ended. It seems this was as large a challenge to the church in the 1st century as it is in the 21st. It was by eating with Gentiles that Peter openly demonstrated that God had accepted Gentiles (Acts 10, 11). In first century Judaism "meals... were principal expressions within Judaism of what constituted purity. One ate what was acceptable with those people deemed acceptable" (Bruce Chilton, <em>Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography</em> (London: Doubleday, 2000) p. 473). Note too how Luke mentions that Paul ate food in the homes of Gentiles like Lydia and the Philippian jailer (<em><a href='B:510 16:15'>Act 16:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 16:34'>Act 16:34</a></em>).</p><p>Eventually Peter wouldn’t eat with the Gentile brethren (<em><a href='B:550 2:12'>Gal 2:12</a></em>). But he had learnt to eat with Gentile brethren in <em><a href='B:510 11:3'>Act 11:3</a></em>; he had justified doing so to his brethren and persuaded them of its rightness, and had been taught and showed, so patiently, by his Lord that he should not make such distinctions. But now, all that teaching was undone. There’s a lesson here for many a slow-to-speak brother or sister- what you start by passively going along with in ecclesial life, against your better judgment, you may well end up by actively advocating:&nbsp; It can be fairly conclusively proven that Mark’s Gospel is in fact Peter’s.</p>


text:
<p><em>But Peter began to explain it all to them in order</em>- Peter didn’t claim to be the rock upon which the church was built; he didn’t demand respect for his position, but humbly recounted what had happened on a factual level. His humility here is impressive.</p>


text:
<p><em>I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision, a certain vessel descending, as it were a great sheet let down from heaven by four corners; and it came down even to me</em>- “Even to me” is a wonderful reflection of Peter's humility. He was under the strong impression of his denials, and how he felt he was the last who ought to have been chosen to receive this invitation to openly accept the Gentile converts. But this is how the Lord works; He chooses the humblest, the most humbled, through which to develop His work and to be at the frontiers of new movements of His Spirit.</p>


text:
<p><em>Looking at it closely, I saw the fourfooted beasts of the earth and wild beasts and creeping things and birds of the sky</em>- The very same word used of how the servant girl looked carefully at Peter on the night of the betrayals (<em><a href='B:490 22:56'>Luk 22:56</a></em>). Only Luke uses this word. He is making the connection, and revealing how perhaps even subconsciously, the experience of his failures was ever present in Peter's speaking and thinking. And exactly because of this, Peter was the one used by the Lord in this major extension of His work.</p>


text:
<p><em>And I heard a voice saying to me</em>- The only other person recorded as saying this phrase in the NT is Paul, recounting how the same Lord had appeared to him on the Damascus road (<em><a href='B:510 22:7'>Act 22:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:14'>Act 26:14</a></em>). Paul took the humble Peter as his role model, just as we should. </p><p><em>Rise, Peter, kill and eat</em>- This is sacrificial language. <em><a href='B:520 15:16'>Rom 15:16</a></em> speaks of the preacher as offering up his converts upon the altar; this uses the same image of ‘offering up’ sacrifices to describe preaching. And this connects with how Paul speaks in <em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em> of offering ourselves as living sacrifices in dedication. The aim of the preacher, therefore, is to provoke a sacrificial life in his or her converts, after the pattern of the Master whom they learn of.</p>


text:
<p><em>But I said: Not so, Lord</em>- Perhaps Peter sought to remind everyone that at the last Supper, he had likewise told the Lord not to wash his feet; and earlier, he had likewise disagreed with the Lord about His intention to go up to death in Jerusalem. Peter is emphasizing how he had been out of step with his Lord. And on this basis, he became one of the greatest pastoral figures ever to be seen in the body of God’s people.</p><p><em>For nothing common or unclean has ever entered into my mouth</em>- Comparing this with what he is recorded as saying at this juncture in <em><a href='B:510 10:14'>Act 10:14</a></em>, it seems he twice stated his objection to the Lord's request. Hence the voice came twice to him. </p>


text:
<p><em>But a voice answered the second time out of heaven</em>- Perhaps it came twice because Peter twice stated his objection to obedience- see earlier on this verse.</p><p><em>What God has cleansed, do not make common</em>- The idea seems to be that God had potentially cleansed Gentile individuals, making the cleansing sacrifice of His Son relevant to them; but by not preaching to them or accepting them, they would be made unclean by the sin of omission of the members of the Lord's body who refused to accept them. We see here how much has been delegated to us; and the deep significance of sins of omission in the lives of others. It's simply not the case that if we do not accept or preach to someone, then God somehow will find another way. Rather has their salvation been placed in our hands, and if we mess up, then it won't happen.</p>


text:
<p><em>And this was done three times</em>- This could mean that each time, Peter twice resisted the command (see on :9). Which would mean a total of six refusals, really quite some resistance to the Lord's will. Peter's obedience was therefore as it were the seventh time around. He presents it this way in order to assure his audience that he absolutely can understand their resistance to the idea of accepting Gentiles.</p><p><em>And all were drawn up again into heaven</em>- The word is only elsewhere used in the New Testament, again by Luke, in <em><a href='B:490 14:5'>Luk 14:5</a></em>, speaking of how just as a donkey or ox would be 'pulled up' on the Sabbath, so the Lord was likewise willing to 'draw up' those in need of salvation. What's significant is that the donkey is an unclean animal and the ox is a clean animal. The Lord's subtle point in the example given was that the urgency of salvation eclipsed legal distinctions between clean and unclean. The 'drawing up' of the unclean into Heaven therefore spoke of God’s saving acceptance of them; but this had to be operationalized here on earth by His representatives.</p>


text:
<p><em>And then three men stood before the house in which we were, having been sent from Caesarea to me</em>- Just as the Angel 'stood before' both Cornelius and Peter in his vision (10:30). Peter was to perceive that those Gentiles standing before him were effectively the Lord standing before him; to refuse them was to refuse his Lord. And that same principle must be applied to all cases where men and women stand before us, seeking our acceptance into the people of God. </p>


text:
<p><em>And the Spirit told me to go with them</em>- How the Spirit told Peter isn't clarified; it could have been through the circumstance of the vision he had just received; or a direct word from a Spirit-Angel; or an internal word of command. I'd go with the first option. "To go with them" renders a Greek word meaning 'to fellowship with'; and the point was, that the Spirit had told Peter to do this. Hence he explains that previously, it was not acceptable for a Jew to 'go with' Gentiles. </p><p><em>Making no distinction</em>- The same word is used in <em><a href='B:510 15:9'>Act 15:9</a></em>: "He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith". But this is also the same word used in 11:2 of how the Judaist Christians "debated with" Peter about his acceptance of Gentiles. Those Judaists made a distinction; but the Spirit did not. This is an age-old church situation- the Spirit leads some to accept a previously excluded group, and the conservatives will not accept them. Whilst it appears that the conservatives had no option but to accept the evidence of God’s movement, the history of the early church, and the constant reference to the theme in Paul and Peter's letters, all indicate that in the end, the conservatives just couldn't accept this. And that Jew-Gentile, conservative-liberal tension was what led to the church dividing and becoming apostate. The same has been seen in my own denomination. It should be noted, however, that the command not to make a distinction is within the context of not refusing those whom God has accepted. This is not to say that we no longer can tell right from wrong, retreating to a position where everything is but a shade of grey. The same phrase 'making no distinction' is used as a criticism of some believers for failing to make a moral distinction when they should have done (<em><a href='B:530 6:5'>1Co 6:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:29'>1Co 11:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:720 1:22'>Jud 1:22</a></em>). </p><p><em>These six brothers also accompanied me</em>- The picture is presented of Peter and the Jewish brethren travelling with the Gentiles, when such mingling with Gentiles was against Jewish practice. Yet he did so because the Spirit had bidden him do so.</p><p><em>And we entered the man's house</em>- Strictly against Jewish practice (10:28).</p>


text:
<p><em>And he told us how he had seen the angel</em>- The definite article suggests a specific Angel; the same one who had been working with Peter. He is called a "man" in 10:30; Angels appear as men, and in this case, the Angel surely represented the man Christ Jesus.</p><p><em>Standing in his house and saying: Send to Joppa and fetch Simon, whose surname is Peter</em>- The Jews were not supposed to enter into the houses of Gentiles (10:28). The fact the Angel entered into the house of Gentile Cornelius was therefore significant. If the Lord is fellowshipping with a person, then we also should be. This makes a nonsense of any fellowship position which recognizes a person as walking with the Lord, but refuses to fellowship them.</p>


text:
<p><em>Who shall speak to you words, whereby you shall be saved, you and all your household- </em>Belief is essential for salvation, and yet belief must have some intellectual basis; there must be some knowledge to be believed before faith can exist. Therefore it is utterly impossible to divorce understanding from ultimate acceptability. This is because the vital virtue of faith is rooted in understanding.</p>


text:
<p><em>And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit- </em><em><a href='B:510 15:9'>Act 15:9</a></em> explains that the whole incident demonstrated that there was no distinction between Jewish and Gentile believers, in that the hearts of the Gentiles had also been purified as a result of their faith. But Peter couldn't see into the heart of those Gentiles. There was therefore a visible manifestation of the Spirit given, in order to demonstrate to him that indeed, the Spirit was active inside the minds and hearts of these Gentiles. The giving of miraculous manifestations of the Spirit was therefore for a specific purpose at a specific time, which is how the miraculous gifts of the Spirit had always been used previously. The point is, belief in Christ is followed by Divine response, in that the Spirit is then made available to purify the heart / mind of the believer. This is one strong reason to be baptized. Those who are baptized often openly testify of this sense of God’s presence within them; but unless they make use of it, it truly becomes a case of 'use it or lose it'.</p><p><em>Fell on them</em></p><p>- see on 8:16.</p><p><em>Even as on us at the beginning</em>- The beginning of the Christian movement is here pinpointed as being at Pentecost. Hence the Cornelius incident can rightly be called the Pentecost of the Gentiles.</p>


text:
<p><em>And I remembered the word of the Lord</em>- The word recorded in <em><a href='B:510 1:5'>Act 1:5</a></em>; the remembering of the Lord's word was an example of the promised work of the Comforter (<em><a href='B:500 14:26'>Joh 14:26</a></em>). When dealing with this tricky ecclesial situation which arose over the admission of the Gentiles, Peter had truth and right on his side. But in his account of what happened to the elders, he constantly makes allusion to his own failures. “I remembered the word of&nbsp;the Lord, how that he said…” is an unmistakeable reference to his remembering of the Lord’s word all too late after his denials. It’s as if he was saying: ‘And there I was again, not remembering the Lord’s word, not facing up to what it obviously implied, almost denying Him again by hesitating to accept these Gentiles’. He comments that the vision of the unclean animals came “even to me”, as if he was the least worthy to have been involved with this work:&nbsp;</p><p><em>How he said that John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit</em>- The "you" referred to the disciples; the fact Gentiles had now been baptized with the Spirit meant that they were no less, spiritually, than the first disciples who journeyed with Jesus in Galilee. The 'baptism with the Holy Spirit' in the context would seem to refer to an internal purifying of the believer by the Spirit which was began around the time of their water baptism (<em><a href='B:510 15:9'>Act 15:9</a></em>). They were to be given a holy 'spirit' or mind / thinking.</p>


text:
<p> <em>If then God gave to these the same gift as He also gave to us- </em>I suggest the gift they all essentially received was that of the purification of their hearts by the Spirit (<em><a href='B:510 15:9'>Act 15:9</a></em>). This 'same gift as He also gave to us' parallels the gift of repentance unto life in :18. Repentance is itself a gift, although it must be responded to. And this is the same promise of the Spirit which is available to us too. It is true that both the apostles and the Gentile converts spoke in tongues, but I suggest that this was the external manifestation of the more essential internal change which was being effected. </p><p><em>When we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ</em>- This reading may not be correct. The AV is equally faithful to the Greek in omitting the idea of 'when…': "us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ". If the idea of 'when we believed…' is indeed correct, the suggestion would therefore be that the apostles only fully believed in the Lord Jesus at Pentecost. It could be argued that as Jesus was only made Lord and Christ at His ascension (<em><a href='B:510 2:36'>Act 2:36</a></em>), and therefore the disciples could only believe in Him as Lord and Christ after that point. Pentecost was the time chosen for them to make public their faith; I would not be surprised if they were all baptized in water at Pentecost, and then the Spirit came upon them in their hearts, and was publicly manifested in terms of the miraculous gifts. If this were indeed the case, the power of Peter's appeal to be baptized and receive the Spirit would've been so much more powerful- if indeed the preachers had themselves just been baptized and received the Spirit. Receipt of the Spirit is connected with water baptism throughout the New Testament; it comes at the point of belief. And the disciples received it at Pentecost. The implication would therefore be that this was when they were baptized. But admittedly the record is strangely silent about their baptism. Remember that Christian baptism, into the Lord's death and resurrection, could only have been performed after His resurrection. Indeed, His command to be baptized was only given after His resurrection. So at some point after His resurrection, the disciples would have been baptized. Pentecost seems a reasonable option; otherwise, they would have been baptized but apparently not received the gift of the Spirit until Pentecost. The objection that their baptism isn't recorded is fair enough; but that problem remains, whichever view one takes of the timing of their baptism.</p><p>Growing appreciation of the excellency of the Lord Jesus was also a feature of Peter's spiritual growth; he was the first to coin the phrase "the Lord Jesus Christ" (<em><a href='B:510 11:17'>Act 11:17</a></em>); although <em>never</em> did he call the Lord simply "Jesus" (indeed it seems that none of the disciples addressed and rarely spoke about Jesus without giving Him a title). Trace through the path of Peter's growth on appreciation of the Lord's greatness: <em><a href='B:470 16:22'>Mat 16:22</a></em> (<em>arguing</em> with Him!); <em><a href='B:510 2:36'>Act 2:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:36'>Act 10:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 11:17'>Act 11:17</a></em>. When Peter realized he was looking at the risen Christ standing on the shore, he exclaimed, with evident appreciation: "It is <em>the Lord</em>" - not 'Jesus' (<em><a href='B:500 21:7'>Joh 21:7</a></em>). And even though he had to swim to meet Him, Peter cast his fisher's coat about him to cover his bare arms and legs. He realized the greatness which attached to the Man from Nazareth on account of His resurrection. After the pattern of Peter, some of the early brethren likewise reached this appreciation of the Lord's excellence <em>and the importance of it</em> as the climax of their probations; for many were slain simply because they insisted on calling Jesus of Nazareth "Lord", when Nero had insisted that <em>he</em> be called 'Lord' (cp. <em><a href='B:510 25:26'>Act 25:26</a></em>). Those brethren (and sisters) died with the confession of Jesus as <em>Lord</em> on their lips- and more importantly, deep in their hearts. &nbsp;</p><p><em>Who was I, that I could oppose God</em>- Peter challenged the legalistic brethren of his day with the question: “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized?” (<em><a href='B:510 10:47'>Act 10:47</a></em>). The Greek word translated “forbid” presents a theme worth paying attention to. Peter uses the same word when he says later that if he had not baptized those Gentiles, then he would’ve been “withstanding” [s:w. “forbidding”] God Himself (<em><a href='B:510 11:17'>Act 11:17</a></em>). This is serious. By forbidding people baptism we are forbidding God, because it is ultimately God through His Son who is the baptizer of people, thus inducting them into His people. This thought alone should make it very difficult for any of us to ever forbid baptism to someone who wants it. Great judgment is stored up for those who forbid others to preach the Gospel (<em><a href='B:590 2:16'>1Th 2:16</a></em>). Diotrephes forbad brethren from fellowshipping with other brethren (<em><a href='B:710 1:10'>3Jn 1:10</a></em>)- and was roundly condemned for doing so. The disciples were rebuked for forbidding children to come to Jesus (<em><a href='B:470 19:14'>Mat 19:14</a></em>)- this was ‘much displeasing’ to Jesus (<em><a href='B:480 10:14'>Mar 10:14</a></em>, Gk. ‘much much-grieved’); for forbidding the disciples of John the Baptist, with their alternative understandings of some things (<em><a href='B:480 9:38'>Mar 9:38</a></em>); no man who works in Christ’s Name should be forbidden, although the disciples evidently thought such a person should be forbidden (<em><a href='B:480 9:39'>Mar 9:39</a></em>);&nbsp; the Jews are condemned for forbidding [s:w. “hindered”] men to enter the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:490 11:52'>Luk 11:52</a></em>; note that to make the way to entry hard and difficult, creating hoops which must be passed through, is effectively forbidding a man entry); the Eunuch’s question as to what forbad him to be baptized was answered by Philip eliciting a simple confession of faith from him, that Jesus was the Son of God (<em><a href='B:510 8:36'>Act 8:36</a></em>). </p><p>The grace of God is manifested to the world through the preaching of the ecclesia; and in this sense, God has allowed His ability to manifest this Grace to be limited according to our effort in witness. Peter could have chosen not to baptize Gentiles; and if he had done so, he would have withstood God, like the Pharisees he would have frustrated the counsel of God (<em><a href='B:510 11:17'>Act 11:17</a></em>). As in the Song of Solomon (1:8), the bride [the church] follows the sheep [believers] to find the shepherd [Jesus]. The sheep lead others to the shepherd. God has “manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me” (<em><a href='B:630 1:3'>Tit 1:3</a></em>). </p>


