# commentaries

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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>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.</p><p><em>Looked up earnestly into heaven</em></p><p>- see on 6:15 <em>Fastening their eyes on him</em>.</p><p><em>And saw the glory of God</em>-</p><p> 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.</p><p><em>And Jesus</em>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>. </p><p><em>Standing on the right hand of God- </em>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, 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?".</p>


text:
<p><em>But</em>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>.</p><p><em>And rushed upon him with one accord</em>-</p><p> 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.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they threw him out of the city and stoned him</em>-</p><p> 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><em>And the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul</em>-</p><p> 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><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>-</p><p> 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></p><p>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. 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></p><p> 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.</p><p><em>And when he had said this, he fell asleep</em>-</p><p> 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>


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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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></p><p>But Saul treated the church shamefully, entering into every house</em>-</p><p> “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>-</p><p> 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></p><p> 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>-</p><p> <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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> “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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> "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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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></p><p>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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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.</p><p><em>To the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza</em>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</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>-</p><p> 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><em>Who was over all her treasure</em>-</p><p> "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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>


text:
<p><em>In his humiliation</em>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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></p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>


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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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></p><p> 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></p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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></p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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><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>


text:
<p><em>But rise and enter into the city, and you shall be told what you must do</em>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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><em>And the men that journeyed with him stood speechless-</em></p><p> 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>Hearing the voice but seeing no one- After Saul arose, he too saw no man (<a href='B:510 9:8>'>:8</a> AV). The implication is that Saul did see the Lord Jesus during this vision. Paul says this explicitly in <a href='B:530 15:8>'>1 Cor. 15:8</a>. </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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> '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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> '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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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.</p><p>“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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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></p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> <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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> <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></p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> Comprised of Italians and true Romans. The man could not have been more Gentile.</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></p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> "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>-</p><p> 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).</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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> Another example of Luke's medical language, as this was the term used for the ends of bandages.</p>


text:
<p><em>Wherein were all manner of fourfooted animals, and creeping things of the earth and birds of the sky</em>-</p><p> 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.</p>


text:
<p><em>And there came a voice to him: Rise, Peter. Kill and eat</em>-</p><p> 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.</p>


text:
<p><em>Peter said: Not so, Lord. For I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean</em>-</p><p> 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>.</p><p><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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> An Angel, see on :5 <em>Send men</em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>So rise, and get downstairs</em>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> "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></p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> Jews and Gentiles.</p><p><em>Receives forgiveness of sins through his name-</em></p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> Probably in Hebrew, which would have been deeply impressive to the Jewish Christians present.</p><p><em>And magnify God. Then said Peter</em>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p>&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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> “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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> Strictly against Jewish practice (10:28).</p>


text:
<p><em>And he told us how he had seen the angel</em>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>). 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>


text:
<p><em>And when they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying: Then to the Gentiles also has God granted repentance to life</em>-</p><p> This shows that He is active in developing our desire to repent; "the goodness of God leads you to repentance" (<em><a href='B:520 2:4'>Rom 2:4</a></em>). The same words were used by the apostles when teaching that God had "granted repentance to Israel" (5:31). That statement was not untrue, but now they recognized that they had only seen and preached a partial picture; for the gift of repentance was now rightly perceived as being to the Gentiles too.</p><p>God clearly works, potentially, on the hearts of people. In our moments of repentance, both at baptism and on the many subsequent occasions, it is hard to believe that in prospect God's enormous Spirit power has really prepared a way for us to be totally spiritual. Israel on Carmel with Elijah were in a similar position; thus Elijah prayed "Hear me, O Lord... that this people may know... that You have turned their heart back again" (<em><a href='B:110 18:37'>1Ki 18:37</a></em>). He meant: 'They don't realize that you are so willing for them to repent, that in prospect you have touched their hearts and made them do it; answering my prayer dramatically may motivate them to make the necessary freewill response in repenting, so that the spiritual help you have made available in prospect, can be theirs in reality'. Even the frankest comparison of ourselves with that motley crew of hardened apostates should inspire afresh the belief within us that God is willing that all His people should continually come to repentance.</p><p>The road to eternal life involves repentance. Recognition of personal sin is utterly fundamental to salvation. </p>


text:
<p><em>Now those who were scattered</em>-</p><p> The use of <em>diaspeiro</em> suggests that the scattered Christians were now the Israelite <em>diaspora</em>; they were the true Israel of God. The Greek literally means 'to be sown widely'; and indeed the seed of the Gospel was spread through this enforced migration.</p><p><em>Because of the persecution that arose over Stephen travelled as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch</em></p><p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 8:1'>Act 8:1</a></em>.</p><p><em>Speaking the word to no one except Jews-</em></p><p> They clearly assumed that the command to take the Gospel into all the world and to "every creature" referred to Jewish people worldwide. We too can read in an ellipsis into a section of God's word, so confident are we that our subconscious assumptions are the correct interpretation.</p>


text:
<p><em>But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they reached</em> <em>Antioch, spoke to the Gentiles also, preaching the Lord Jesus</em>-</p><p> Why was it specifically here that the persecuted Jewish believers began to share the word with the Gentiles? The term used for "Gentiles" here can also mean 'Hellenists', i:e. Greek speaking Jews. Perhaps it was initially to them that they preached, but the ethnicity of these people in Antioch was unclear, and so it became impossible to divide full Gentiles from Greek speaking Jews- and thus the Gospel was spoken to the Gentiles. According to Plumptre, "It was a centre of vice, featuring the harlot-priestesses of Daphne and Apollo who on occasions engaged in public ceremonies "stripped of clothing":&nbsp;Heathenism in its most vulgar and debasing forms dominated the life of the people". One can assume therefore that there would have been Jews there who had intermarried with Gentiles; and yet in this immoral city, the Gospel took off. Antioch became as it were the Jerusalem of the Gentile church. But it's rather like a church being founded in some deeply immoral area of a modern city; again, the Lord's choice is strange at first blush. It would've been so hard for the Jewish conservative Christians to accept that there had been mass conversions of Gentiles in such a place.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number believed</em>-</p><p> The Lord's hand, His activity, resulted in people believing. Again we see that His outreach and grace towards men means that we are not left unaided as we face the choice between faith and unbelief. The Lord's hand works on the hearts of men, to give them faith and repentance (:18). </p><p><em>Believed and turned to the Lord</em>-</p><p> These are two separate things. The equivalent is maybe&nbsp;"The Corinthians believed and were baptized" (<em><a href='B:510 18:8'>Act 18:8</a></em>). The turning to the Lord would then refer to water baptism. Or the reference may be to the psychological activity of the Lord in turning hearts and minds to Himself. The same word is used in 3:19: "Repent... and be <em>converted</em>". After belief and baptism, there comes the process of conversion. It is something done to us by the Lord, as much as us seeking to make concrete changes ourselves. It is the duty of the preacher to turn people to the Lord (s:w. 26:18), and yet we must ever be aware that this is also His desire; and His spirit is at work seeking to turn our audience to Himself. "The hand of the Lord" seeks to do this; and any who remain unconverted, not turned to Him, have therefore resisted His hand, His operation in their lives and hearts. Only by wilfully closing the eyes and heart can someone disallow the Lord from converting / turning their heart to Him (28:27 s:w:). We must remember this when struggling with the problem of those who do not believe. Their unbelief is multifactorial, but one element of the equation is that the Lord has worked to try to win them.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 8:1'>Act 8:1</a></em>.</p><p><em>And the report concerning them came to the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem</em>-</p><p> The metaphor of the body is used for the local church, rather than the global body of Christ. It seems Paul's extended usage of the metaphor has the same reference.</p><p><em>And they sent Barnabas as far as Antioch- </em>The Jerusalem ecclesia told Barnabus to go only as far as Antioch; he didn’t tell them how wrong they were to boss him around. He went beyond Antioch to Tarsus, took Paul, and then went down to Antioch (:22,25). In the end, whilst we must respect those who deserve it, we are personal servants of the Lord who died for us, and we must follow Him according to our personal conscience. The lesson from this is that we should seek to be as positive as possible in the midst of this tension between right and left- especially in the way we write or speak about the problems. We should seek to move the Gospel forward, whatever unhappy disagreements there are between those already baptized.</p>


text:
<p><em>Who, when he had arrived and had seen the grace of God</em>-</p><p> The idea is not simply that Barnabas saw how kind God had been in accepting the Gentiles. The gift [<em>charis</em>, s:w. "grace"] of God would have referred to the gift of the Spirit. With Cornelius, the receipt of the Spirit gifts by him was proof enough to the Jewish brethren that his conversion was <em>bona fide</em>. And so it was the same in Antioch- when Barnabas saw the evidence of the <em>charis</em> of God, the work of the Spirit, then he was assured that the conversions were valid. </p><p><em>Was glad</em>-</p><p> There is a play on words here. <em>Chairo</em>, "glad", is similar to <em>charis</em>, "grace" or "gift". The joy of Barnabas was exactly because the Gentile converts had been given the gift of the Spirit, which was the proof of their legitimacy as converts. When those who have formally held a privileged position open the doors to others, it's a hard thing to be truly glad that you have lost your position of privilege. The joy of Barnabas and other Jewish brethren therefore indicates their utter humility and genuineness.</p><p><em>And he encouraged them all, that with purpose of heart they should cleave to the Lord</em>-</p><p> The Spirit gift of cleansing the heart must be responded to; 'use it or lose it' would be the appropriate slogan. Having seen evidence that they had received the gift of God, Barnabas urged them to do their part in maintaining that way of thinking / spirit.</p>


text:
<p><em>For he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit</em>-</p><p> He was the right person to exhort the new converts to retain the gift of the Spirit, because he had done so himself, and was full of it. We also see that being full of the Spirit involved some personal effort- his 'goodness' was related to his being full of the Spirit. The gift is given by grace- but must be retained by our wilful decision to abide with the Lord.</p><p><em>And many people were added to the Lord</em>-</p><p> Luke likes to use this word "added". In 2:41,47 we read of converts being added to the church; here, they are added to the Lord. He is His church. The word <em>prostithemi</em> means literally to lay beside; it is used in describing how David was buried, being laid beside his fathers (13:36). For a convert to be laid beside the Lord suggests baptism, with all its symbolism of death and burial together with the Lord. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he went to Tarsus to seek out Saul</em>-</p><p> The implication is that Saul / Paul had retreated within himself, returning to obscurity in his home town. Barnabas knew that Saul had the potential to do far more than that, and went to try to find him. We too need to make such efforts to encourage others to live up to their callings. Perhaps Barnabas was motivated by the fact that the amazing spread of the Gospel to the Gentiles had arisen as a result of Saul's persecution of the Christians (:19). Perhaps Saul was consumed with "over much sorrow" for his sins, and Barnabas wanted him to understand how wonderfully God had worked through them. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when he had found him</em>-</p><p> Luke describes the work of Barnabas in terms of seeking (:25) and finding. It is Luke who records the parables of seeking and finding (<em><a href='B:490 15:8'>Luk 15:8</a></em>). In those parables, it is the Lord Jesus who seeks and finds. But He works through His body on earth; in this case, Barnabas. Yet Barnabas used his own initiative in order to seek and find Saul. </p><p><em>He brought him to Antioch</em>-</p><p> This suggests Saul's relative passivity, implying that it was the initiative of Barnabas which resulted in Saul coming to Antioch.</p><p><em>And it came to pass, that for a whole year they were gathered together with the church and taught many people</em>-</p><p> The "they" grammatically appears to refer to Saul and Barnabas, hence the GNB: "the two met with the people of the church and taught a large group". This establishment of the Gentile mission centre in Antioch was due to Barnabas taking the initiative and going to search out Saul and bring him to Antioch. "The church" and the "many people" appear to have been two separate groups- the two brethren engaged in both pastoral and outreach work. This would have been in response to the call of the great commission, to teach the simple Gospel, baptize people, and then teach them all the Lord had commanded.</p><p><em>And there in Antioch the disciples- </em>All Christians are disciples, ‘learners’; the twelve men who followed the Lamb of God around Galilee, with all their misunderstandings and lack of faith, were and are symbols of us all. The focus was upon Him, not each other. We are all learners of Christ, taught by He Himself (<em><a href='B:560 4:20-21'>Eph 4:20-21</a></em>). And we are to make all men into disciples (<em><a href='B:470 28:19'>Mat 28:19</a></em> RV); to make them learners of Jesus too. </p><p><em>Were first called Christians</em>-</p><p> It has been suggested that this was initially a term of insult and mockery. They were Christ-centred, and so were mocked as being 'the Christ-folk'. However, the term is used as a self-designation of the community by Peter (<em><a href='B:670 4:16'>1Pe 4:16</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:510 26:28'>Act 26:28</a></em>). Or it could be that we can read this as meaning that they first gave themselves this name of 'the Christ folk'. In this case, yet again we see that the early community was centred around Jesus as the Christ, around a living person, rather than around a set of theories and abstract interpretations. Another option is that it was Paul and Barnabas who first coined the term. The Codex Bezae reads: "And hearing that Saul was at Tarsus, he departed, seeking for him; and having found him, he besought him to come to Antioch; who, when they were come, assembled with the Church a whole year, and instructed a great number; and there they first called the disciples at Antioch Christians". "Called" translates a word which usually refers to a Divine call; so another option would be that there was direct Holy Spirit revelation that the believers should brand themselves with the term 'Christian'. This needs to be given due weight by those who name the name of Christ but refuse to be called Christians.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now in these days there came down prophets from Jerusalem to Antioch</em>-</p><p> One of them predicted a famine which would affect "all the world" (:28); yet the Antioch brethren gathered funds to send to Jerusalem to relieve "the believers that lived in Judea" (:29). Inevitably one wonders whether these prophets asked for material support in view of the predicted famine. And yet if they were predicting a world-wide famine, which would affect Antioch as much as Jerusalem, why was support only sent for the brethren in Judea / Jerusalem? Perhaps it was in order to demonstrate unity with different brethren of a different culture and ethnicity, and was therefore done in absolute selflessness, seeing that Antioch was presumably going to suffer as well. </p>


text:
<p><em>And one of them, named Agabus, stood up</em>-</p><p> The Greek form of the Hebrew 'Hagab', meaning 'locust'. Locusts were understood as bringers of famine; so certain was the prophetic word, that the person bringing it was seen as the fulfilment of it.</p><p><em>And foretold</em>-</p><p> Gk. 'signified'. It could be that Agabus didn't simply predict a famine, but gave a symbolic vision which was interpreted as meaning that a famine would come.</p><p><em>By the Spirit that there would be a great famine</em>-</p><p> We have here a powerful example of what it means to believe the prophetic word. These brethren were so convinced that the prophecy would come true that they decided there and then, ahead of the predicted famine, to gather welfare for those who would be affected by it. There appears to be an allusion to Joseph, who so believed the dreams he interpreted about the seven years of famine that he arranged the gathering of welfare in order to cope with it. The coming of 'great famine' was a sign of the end of the age in the Olivet Prophecy (<em><a href='B:490 21:11'>Luk 21:11</a></em>). We see how the stage was set for the Lord's coming in the first century; it was Israel's lack of repentance, and a paucity of evangelical zeal amongst the believers, which meant that His return was delayed. Until we learn the lesson.</p><p><em>Over all the world. This took place in the days of Claudius</em>-</p><p> This only came true in a limited sense. Perhaps the massive wider reference was to flag attention to the way that this famine could fulfil the prophetic requirement of famine in many strange places (<em><a href='B:470 24:7'>Mat 24:7</a></em>). I suggest that the extent of this famine wasn't effected, because the human conditions weren't right to allow the Lord to return.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the disciples, every man according to his ability- </em>Paul uses the same words in appealing to the Corinthians to likewise contribute for the brethren in Judea "every man according to" his opportunity (<em><a href='B:540 9:7'>2Co 9:7</a></em>). He was thereby appealing to Corinth to follow the pattern of the Antioch ecclesia. Patterns of generosity are to be observed and imitated; for we take strength and patterns in giving from the example of others. There is also a reference to the parable of the talents- each were given according to their ability, and were to trade them. Here, the talents given is applied to whatever material resources we have.</p><p>The Mosaic Law countered the idea that only the rich can be generous. The purification after childbirth and the cleansing of the leper allowed a lower grade of offering to be made by the very poor- to underline that <em>no one</em> is exempted from giving to the Lord, no matter how poor they are. Consider the emphasis: "Every man shall give <em>as he is able</em>... he shall offer <em>even such as he is able to get</em>... then the disciples (consciously motivated by these principles?) <em>every man according to his ability</em>, determined to send relief [one gets the picture of a convoy of brethren going to Jerusalem, carrying a little bit of meal from Sister Dorcas, a few coins from brother Titus…] ... let <em>every one of you</em> lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him" (<em><a href='B:50 16:17'>Deu 16:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 14:30-31'>Lev 14:30-31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 11:29'>Act 11:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 16:2'>1Co 16:2</a></em>). </p><p><em>Decided to send relief to the believers that lived in Judea</em>-</p><p> First century people were relatively passive to disasters compared to Western people today. A famine was an act of God, of nature, and it had to be accepted; the idea of one ethnic group taking up a collection for another one in another place who were suffering from famine was a real paradigm breaker. And that's just what Paul engineered, in arranging for the Gentile converts to take up such a collection for the Jewish believers in Palestine who were suffering famine.</p>


text:
<p><em>Which also they did- </em>This may appear redundant, until we realize that it is a common human tendency to 'decide' to be generous, but not actually do it. These brethren decided and also did it. And that is noted in the inspired record.</p><p><em>Sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul</em>-</p><p> This seems a wise pattern to follow in providing welfare relief.</p>


text:
<p><em>About that time</em>-</p><p> The time of chapter 11, when the brotherhood in Judea were threatened with famine, and the Gospel was spreading to the Gentiles. It seems the persecution of the Jerusalem leadership was used by the Lord to encourage the Gentiles to take responsibility- for the Jewish leadership of the early church was then straight away put under pressure. This is how intricately the Lord coordinates situations in our lives and collective experiences.</p><p><em>Herod the king laid violent hands on some who belonged to the church</em>-</p><p> This Greek phrase is often used about the leadership laying hands on the Lord Jesus. The church were fellowshipping the sufferings of their Lord, just as we do in essence; hence the same language is used. This is also the phrase which is used in the Olivet prophecy, only in Luke's account of it, about how in the last days, hands would be laid on the believers (<em><a href='B:490 21:12'>Luk 21:12</a></em>). Luke clearly saw this action of Herod as fulfilling that prophecy. All was set up for the Lord's coming in glory; the signs which depended upon God for fulfilment all came true. But Israel's lack of repentance and the lack of evangelical zeal to take the Gospel world-wide meant that the human preconditions weren't met, and so His coming has been delayed until our last days.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he killed James the brother of John with the sword</em>-</p><p> Several commentators claim that the phrase 'to kill with the sword' means beheading. James was the first recorded martyr for the faith; and again (see on :1), Luke is recording this framed to show that the Olivet prophecy was coming true. The Lord had predicted that James would drink of His cup (<em><a href='B:470 20:22-23'>Mat 20:22-23</a></em>), and so it happened. It's worth noting that there is no record of anyone being raised up to replace James and to thereby maintain the number of the 12. This gives the lie to Catholic claims of an apostolic succession.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. And those were the days of unleavened bread</em>-</p><p> Luke uses the same word in recording how the Lord was 'seized', and "Peter followed afar off" (<em><a href='B:490 22:54'>Luk 22:54</a></em>). Now, the implication is, after a period of following the Lord, it was Peter's turn to experience His sufferings more directly. There are many similarities with the Lord's sufferings- e.g. it was to "please the Jews" (:2). Hence the comment: "And those were the days of unleavened bread". It was Passover time- the very time of the Lord's sufferings. We too are led to fellowship with the Lord's sufferings, and our familiarity with the records of them will help us to perceive this more quickly.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he had taken him</em>-</p><p> A word repeatedly used about the Lord's being 'taken' by the Jewish opposition (<em><a href='B:500 7:30'>Joh 7:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:32'>Joh 7:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:44'>Joh 7:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:20'>Joh 8:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:39'>Joh 10:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 11:57'>Joh 11:57</a></em>). Again, we see the development of the theme that the Lord's final sufferings were being replicated in Peter.</p><p><em>He put him in prison</em>-</p><p> Surely to test Peter's confident claim that he was ready to go to prison and death for his Lord (only recorded by Luke- <em><a href='B:490 22:33'>Luk 22:33</a></em>). The Lord likewise has a way of testing our confident claims about our loyalty to Him. It's worth noting that Herod had earlier arrested John the Baptist and 'put him into prison' (the same words are used; <em><a href='B:470 14:3'>Mat 14:3</a></em>), again in order to please another party- in that case, Herodias. That similarity would have led Peter to suspect that Herod would likewise behead him in prison as he had John. Our sufferings are so often in terms and tones similar to those of others, and this is because we are to take strength from them and to see that we are not alone.</p><p><em>And delivered him</em>-</p><p> A word so often used about the handing over of the Lord to death.</p><p><em>To four squads of soldiers to guard him, intending after the Passover</em>-</p><p> The Greek for 'squad' refers to a group of four soldiers; four such squads meant 16 in all.</p><p><em>To bring him out to the people</em>-</p><p> The Greek word Luke uses about what was done to the Lord (<em><a href='B:490 22:66'>Luk 22:66</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore Peter was kept in the prison; but earnest prayer was offered to God</em>-</p><p> The guarding of Peter in prison is placed in opposition to earnest prayer being offered; as if worldly forces were in struggle with spiritual ones, and the spiritual prevailed. "Earnest" is literally 'unceasing', and the word is only used elsewhere by Peter, in appealing for unceasing love within the church (<em><a href='B:670 4:8'>1Pe 4:8</a></em>). He would have recalled how unceasing prayer had been offered for him- and he urged the church to show such love to others.</p><p><em>For him by the church</em>-</p><p> <em>Huper</em>, translated "for", is what Dorothee Sölle called “the preposition of representation” (Dorothee Sölle,&nbsp;<em>Christ The Representative</em>&nbsp;(London: S:C:M:, 1967) p. 69). Our prayer for others is effectively our representation of them before the throne of Heaven and the Divine court. And this of course is exactly what the Lord Jesus has done and continues to do for us; mediating <em>huper</em> us, as our representative. What He has done for us, we are not to merely lamely accept; we are to do the same in essence for others. And the clearest way we reflect it is through prayer <em>huper</em> others, feeling with them and for them, and bringing those feelings before the Father in prayer for them.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when Herod was about to bring him out, that same night</em>-</p><p> This reflects how the Jewish day began at sunset. That night was the day in which Herod intended to 'bring him out' to death. In this kind of careful congruence we see evidence of inspiration and every verisimilitude. The language of 'bringing him out' naturally recalls the trial of the Lord Jesus before His death. </p><p><em>Peter was sleeping</em>-</p><p> A great essay in faith and the peace which comes from it. For it seemed obvious that that night would be his last, and death awaited him in the morning.</p><p><em>Between two soldiers</em>-</p><p> Recalling the Lord's death between two thieves.</p><p><em>Bound with two chains</em>-</p><p> The record gives much detail about Peter's binding and guarding by the soldiers. We learn there were four squads of four soldiers guarding him (:4), there is the apparently unnecessary repetition of the fact he was guarded (:5), and now we learn that he slept with a separate chain connecting him to a separate soldier. All that was humanly possible had been done, to ensure there was no escape. All this sets the scene for the amazing deliverance wrought by the Lord that night. Significantly, the Lord overruled it that Paul was later likewise bound with two chains (<em><a href='B:510 21:33'>Act 21:33</a></em>); encouraging Paul to see his ministry as parallel to that of Peter. However, as I have elsewhere suggested, Paul seems to have pretended to Peter's ministry to the Jews, rather than accepting that his ministry was to be parallel to Peter's, but not identical with it. See on 12:7 <em>And an angel of the Lord stood by him</em>. It's also noteworthy that Peter later chose to describe the essence of condemnation as being in chains, in darkness, awaiting judgment (<em><a href='B:680 2:4'>2Pe 2:4</a></em>). He surely wrote that with recollection of how he had been left in exactly the same position that night in prison- and been saved out of it.</p><p><em>And guards before the door were guarding the prison</em>-</p><p> Another example of apparently excessive detail about the guarding. See on <em>Bound with two chains</em>. It also recalls the guards guarding the Lord's tomb. This is the second time in Acts that the "guards before the door" have been rendered powerless (<em><a href='B:510 5:23'>Act 5:23</a></em> uses the same Greek words).</p>


text:
<p><em>And an angel of the Lord stood by him</em>-</p><p> Exactly as happened to Paul (<em><a href='B:510 27:23'>Act 27:23</a></em>); see on 12:6 <em>Bound with two chains</em>. Luke uses the same language as in <em><a href='B:490 2:9'>Luk 2:9</a></em>, where the Angel of the Lord stands by the shepherds and again, the light shines. It's unclear what exact point Luke is trying to make by demonstrating the similarity. Perhaps it was that the Lord was demonstrating to Peter that the events of His life were being replicated in Peter's; just as they are in the experiences of all who are in Christ. </p><p><em>And a light shone in the cell; and he struck Peter on the side and woke him, saying: Rise up quickly. And his chains fell off from his hands</em>-</p><p> Yet another similarity with the Lord's crucifixion. The Greek verb translated 'strike' is usually used in the New Testament with the sense of striking with a fatal wound. This makes the next phrase so significant: "... and woke him", AV "raised him up". The similarities with the keepers / guards being stricken helpless at the resurrection and the glory of the Lord shining... all this was to help Peter to understand that the essence of the Lord's death and resurrection was being worked out in him. We note the subsequent disbelief of the male disciples as they fearfully prayed in a locked room, contrasted with the faith of a woman [Rhoda]; this was clearly looking back to the situation at the Lord's resurrection. His death and resurrection are being continually lived out in our experience too; baptism is a signal that we are prepared for that ongoing participation in His death and resurrection. </p>


text:
<p><em>And the angel said to him:</em> <em>Dress yourself and put on your sandals</em>-</p><p> When the Angel told Peter this, he was alluding back to the Lord's words to Peter, that when he would be old, others would gird him and carry him to his death (<em><a href='B:500 21:18'>Joh 21:18</a></em>). The Angel was therefore saying that the time of Peter's death had not yet come. The lesson is, that the amount of comfort and reassurance Peter took from the Angels' words would have been proportionate to the degree to which he had meditated on his Lord's prophecy. And so with us. See on :10 for another example.</p><p><em>And he did so. And he said to him: Wrap your cloak around you and follow me</em>-</p><p> “Follow me” is a phrase used 18 times elsewhere, and always about following the Lord Jesus. Peter struggled with this- he was told to stop trying to persuade the Lord against death on the cross, and instead to follow Him; and at the end of John's Gospel, Peter again has to be reminded of the need to follow his Lord. So here we are surely to perceive the Lord Jesus speaking through the Angel at this point; the call to follow Him comes to us in the most unusual circumstances.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he went out and followed</em>-</p><p> This might imply that the following and the going out were separate things. Peter's willingness to get dressed and leave the cell was a test of his faith. The commands to dress were likewise not simply the Angel's thoughtfulness because of the cold of the night which Peter would experience. Rather was it all a test and development of Peter's faith and obedience.</p><p><em>And he did not perceive that it was true which was done by the angel, but thought he was seeing a vision</em>-</p><p> This was precisely the position of the prayerful believers that same night (:15); and again, it was only after the opening of a door that they believed (:16). Peter was weak in believing that his prayers that night were being answered right before his eyes; and his awareness of his failure surely helped him to be patient with the failure of his own brethren that night. For at a prayer meeting, they received the answer to their prayers- and dismissed it as 'madness', as a mad woman seeing a vision. Which was precisely what Peter had done. So often, human weakness repeats between believers; and this is also under the hand of providence. It is intended, surely, to enable us to achieve patient forgiveness and fellowship with each other.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they were past the first and the second guard, they came to the iron gate that leads into the city</em>-</p><p> There is huge variation in the amount of detail in the Biblical records. Many years of the lives of men like Peter aren't recorded; but here we have the finest details of a few moments of his life. This is to help us play Bible television with the material; so that we can attempt to reconstruct and relive this wonderful scene.</p><p>"The iron gate that leads into the city" was likely what was known as "the prison gate", and this gate is mentioned only one other time in the Bible. <em><a href='B:160 12:39'>Neh 12:39</a></em> records that it was at this gate that the celebrating Israelites met and sung praise to God when Jerusalem was finally revived under Nehemiah. As noted under 12:8 <em>Dress yourself and put on your sandals</em>, Peter would have taken encouragement from this, as he doubtless felt full of praise himself, according to whether or not he picked up the allusion to the Nehemiah record. So many things in our lives likewise are nudges and hints towards Biblical accounts- but if we fail to perceive them, then those things remain in the large mass of apparently irrelevant and unexplained furniture in our lives. </p><p><em>This opened to them of its own accord; and they went out and passed on through one street; and immediately the angel departed from him</em>-</p><p> Whilst walking with the Angel, Peter must have thought that nothing possibly could go wrong for him; but the Angel continued with him, it was just not visible. The 'leaving' was therefore just from his earthly perspective. </p><p>"Passed on" implies literally 'to follow'; the situation is replete with reference to the Angel opening the iron gates of Egypt at Passover time and leading Israel out. Further, the idea in :11 that "the Lord has sent his angel and delivered me out of the hand of Herod and from all that the Jews were expecting" alludes clearly to the Lord sending an Angel to deliver Israel from Pharaoh [= Herod] and the Egyptians [= the Jews]. This all gives the impression that this was yet another level of conversion for Peter; again he was being 'converted', brought out of Egypt to light, just as we too have various levels of conversion, and the essence of baptism becomes an ongoing daily experience.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when Peter came to himself, he said:</em> <em>Now I know of a truth-</em></p><p> This Greek phrase, and the idea of 'knowing of a truth', is quite common in the Bible (<em><a href='B:470 27:54'>Mat 27:54</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 15:39'>Mar 15:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 4:42'>Joh 4:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:14'>Joh 6:14</a></em>). The idea is that there are things we know, but experience brings us to know them of a truth. Job heard by the hearing of the ear, and then through his sufferings came to see it all for real as personal truth. This is why the knowledge of the Gospel learnt before baptism is merely knowledge; it is through the Lord's personal program for us in subsequent life, that that knowledge is known by us in truth. And we must be patient as others are led along that same path of converting mere ideas, theology, lines in a statement of faith, into personal truth. See on 12:12 <em>Considered</em>. </p><p><em>Now I know of a truth, that the Lord has sent his angel and delivered me out of the hand of Herod and from all that the Jews were expecting-</em></p><p> Peter was delivered from prison as a result of the Angel being “sent forth”- from the court of Heaven, by the prayers of the other believers at their prayer meeting (<em><a href='B:510 12:11'>Act 12:11</a></em> RV). When those same believers commented: “It is his Angel” (:15) they were perhaps not mocking Rhoda; rather they were thanking God that Peter’s guardian Angel had indeed been sent forth due to their prayers:&nbsp;See on :10 "Passed on".</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he had considered the thing</em>-</p><p> The Greek doesn't mean this, but rather means 'to know'. We can pass through an experience, but now 'know' it until we have processed it with faith. See on 12:11 <em>Now I know of a truth</em>. </p><p><em>He came to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose surname was Mark</em>-</p><p> Peter later refers to John Mark as his [spiritual] son (<em><a href='B:670 5:13'>1Pe 5:13</a></em>). We sense here therefore the deep family relationships forged by our experience in Christ. </p><p><em>There many were gathered together and were praying</em>-</p><p> Do we hold such all night prayer meetings? To pray all night requires quite some psychological stamina. However, note the difference between "gathered together" and "praying". They came together to be together in their thoughts about Peter, "and were praying" at that gathering, but not necessarily every minute of the night. The powerful lesson is that even these highly committed believers were of limited faith- for when the answer to their night of prayer knocked at the door, they laughed at anyone who thought such an answer was possible. We too must ask whether we pray in the real hope of answer; or whether our praying is more for our benefit.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he knocked at the door of the gate, a maid named Rhoda came to answer</em>-</p><p> Probably a Gentile name, perhaps reflecting her origin from Rhodes. We have a hint here of how Gentiles were already amongst the inner circle of the early church; and how they had more faith than their senior Jewish brethren. In any case, we find another similarity with the Lord's resurrection- that it was a woman who first believed in His deliverance from the iron gates of death, whilst the senior apostles didn't believe and mocked her as mad, just as they did Mary Magdalene. See on :15 <em>Confidently affirmed</em>. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when she recognised Peter's voice</em>-</p><p> The similarities with Peter's betrayal of the Lord are clear. Again, he is standing at a gate; and again, a servant girl recognizes his voice without clearly seeing him. And she "told everyone" that it was Peter. The parallels are such that we wonder whether Rhoda was in fact the servant girl who recognized Peter by his voice in the High Priest's courtyard. In this case, we have yet another wonderful example of how the Lord works through human weakness and betrayal of His Son; for through that whole shameful incident, that young woman was brought to faith in Christ, as she witnessed the amazing repentance of Peter. It was his weakness and the way he dealt with it which persuaded thousands on the day of Pentecost; and perhaps amongst them was a young Gentile servant girl called Rhoda.</p><p><em>She did not open the gate, but in joy ran inside</em>-</p><p> Another connection with how 'mad' Mary ran to the same disciples with joy that the Lord had been delivered. The similarities are such that we can conclude that this repetition of circumstance was in order to test the disciples; and again they failed, as we do so often.</p><p><em>And told everyone</em>-</p><p> The language of the great commission, about telling everyone the good news of the Lord's deliverance from the gates of death.</p><p><em>That Peter stood before the gate</em>-</p><p> The language of the risen Lord standing before the door, about to return, if His followers believed in Him enough (<em><a href='B:660 5:9'>Jas 5:9</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And they said to her: You are mad- </em>The believers gathered together to hold a prayer meeting for Peter’s release. Their prayers were answered; he stood outside, knocking on the door. But they simply didn’t believe it. They couldn’t conceive their prayer was answered. They mocked poor Rhoda and told her to go back and watch the door and not disturb them any more while they prayed for Peter’s release. And having mocked her, they got back on their knees and asked again for his release. We can pray, in faith apparently, but with no very deep faith that the answer in actual reality will happen or may already have been granted. </p><p><em>But she confidently affirmed that it was so</em>-</p><p> The only other time this Greek word occurs is again in Luke's writing, when describing how the girl in the courtyard confidently affirmed that Peter was Peter (<em><a href='B:490 22:59'>Luk 22:59</a></em>). For me, this clinches the identity of that girl with Rhoda; see on :13 <em>Rhoda</em>.</p><p><em>And they said: It is his angel</em>-</p><p> The early church clearly believed in the [Biblical] concept of guardian Angels who represent us and can therefore be understood to appear as us before the court of Heaven.</p>


text:
<p><em>But Peter continued knocking</em>-</p><p> Strikingly similar to the appeal to keep on knocking so that the door will be opened (<em><a href='B:490 11:9-10'>Luk 11:9-10</a></em>). The figure of knocking is also used about the Lord Jesus knocking on the door of His church (<em><a href='B:490 12:36'>Luk 12:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 3:20'>Rev 3:20</a></em>). And thus faithful Peter was to be understood as representative of the risen Lord Jesus, as we have pointed out earlier in this exposition.</p><p><em>And when they had opened, they saw him and were amazed</em>-</p><p> The strength of the Greek word reflects upon their lack of faith in the prayers they had just been offering. The word is translated "mad" in <em><a href='B:480 3:21'>Mar 3:21</a></em> and <em><a href='B:540 5:13'>2Co 5:13</a></em>. The obvious inversion of ideas is in the fact that they had just accused Rhoda of being mad (:15). It was they who were, as it were, mad. And again, Luke is bringing out the similarities with the Lord's resurrection; for the same group of male disciples were "amazed" (s:w:) by the testimony of the women who had met the risen Lord (<em><a href='B:490 24:22'>Luk 24:22</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>But he, motioning with the hand to hold their peace, declared to them how</em> <em>- </em>Paul is twice recorded as doing the same (<em><a href='B:510 13:16'>Act 13:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 21:40'>Act 21:40</a></em>). Was this a reflection of how he had unconsciously absorbed the example of fisherman Peter and so sought to emulate it? Or was he consciously pretending to Peter's ministry to the Jews- rather than focusing upon being himself and focusing on the very different ministry the Lord had given him?</p><p><em>The Lord had brought him out of the prison- </em>When the Angel ‘brought Peter forth out of the prison’, this is recorded as “the Lord” (Jesus) doing so. He worked through [one specific?] Angel.</p><p><em>And he said: Tell these things</em>-</p><p> The women were told by the risen Lord to “tell My brothers…”. Here in <em><a href='B:510 12:17'>Act 12:17</a></em> the same Greek words are used by Peter: “Tell these things… to the brothers”. Peter felt that his deliverance from prison was like the Lord’s resurrection, and perhaps consciously he used the Lord’s words to Mary Magdalene. Peter then went “to another place” just as the Lord did on saying those words. He saw that his life was a living out of fellowship with the Lord’s mortal experiences, every bit as much as our lives are too:&nbsp;Peter specifically said: "Tell these things to James and to the brothers"- just as the Lord had told the women to go and tell <em>Peter</em>, and the brothers. Peter perhaps saw James in the same position as he had been in. From our own experience of faithlessness and weakness, we are able to appear to others.</p><p><em>To James and to the brothers</em>-</p><p> There seem to be a number of unconscious allusions by Peter back to his own failures- and this is an example. It was an allusion to the women being told to go and shew the news of the resurrection to the brethren <em>and Peter</em>, who was then in spiritual crisis. Those words, that fact, was ingrained upon Peter to the point that he unconsciously builds it in to his own words. Here the same Greek words are used by Peter as by the Lord: “Go shew these things… to the brothers”. Peter felt that his deliverance from prison was like the Lord’s resurrection.</p><p><em>And he departed and went to another place</em>-</p><p> The way Peter beckons to the disciples to hold their peace, declares how the Lord had brought him out of the prison and death, tells them to go and shew these things to the brethren and then goes “unto another place” is a reflection of the Lord’s behaviour after His resurrection (cp. <em><a href='B:470 28:19'>Mat 28:19</a></em>). Consciously and unconsciously, confirmed by providence, Peter was living out the fact he was in Christ; he was showing the risen Lord to men and women by his words and actions.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now as soon as it was day, there was no small anxiety among the soldiers about what had become of Peter</em>-</p><p> Again, a similarity with the Lord's resurrection. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when Herod had searched for him and not found him</em>-</p><p> This sounds as if Herod personally searched, presumably going to the prison personally. </p><p><em>He examined the guards, and commanded that they should be put to death</em>-</p><p> This has echoes of the punishment of those entrusted with the murder of Daniel. </p><p><em>And he went down from Judea to Caesarea and stayed there</em>-</p><p> Herod had intended to kill Peter because he wanted to please the Jews (:3). But he invested so much in what originally was just a political move, that he became obsessed with it. And now it backfired, he took it so personally that he moved his residence out of Judaea to Caesarea. This is how our human minds degenerate; an insincere decision or policy adopted becomes a personal obsession, and then when we are shown to be fighting against the Lord's way, there is hurt pride which results in destruction.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now Herod was highly displeased with those at Tyre and Sidon- </em>"highly displeased" translates a Greek term which seems to mean 'to prepare war'. Hence they "asked for peace". The incident naturally recalls the Lord's parable of the mighty King who must be asked for peace, referring to how we must make peace with Him; and again we note that it is Luke who records this (<em><a href='B:490 14:31'>Luk 14:31</a></em>). The connection may be to demonstrate that Herod was acting as God; and this is stated in so many words in :22. The way Blastus serves to reconcile Herod and these people would then look forward to the Lord's work between God and man.</p><p><em>They came with one accord to him and having made Blastus the king's chamberlain their friend, they asked for peace- </em>Throughout Scripture, the opposition between the kingdoms of this world and the Kingdom of God is highlighted. After the establishment of the first ecclesia in Jerusalem, the Acts record seems to emphasize the pointed conflict between the ecclesia and the world. Being "of one accord" was a hallmark of the early brethren (<em><a href='B:510 1:14'>Act 1:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:1'>Act 2:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:46'>Act 2:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:24'>Act 4:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:12'>Act 5:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 15:25'>Act 15:25</a></em>); but the world were in "one accord" in their opposition to that united ecclesia (<em><a href='B:510 7:57'>Act 7:57</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 12:20'>Act 12:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 18:12'>Act 18:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 19:29'>Act 19:29</a></em>). The two women of Proverbs both have surface similarities; folly parodies wisdom. Thus the words of the adulteress drip honey and oil (<em><a href='B:240 5:3'>Pro 5:3</a></em>), just as those of wisdom do (<em><a href='B:240 16:24'>Pro 16:24</a></em>). Rabshakeh promised the Jews an Assyrian Kingdom where everyone sat under their own vine and fig tree- consciously parodying Micah’s contemporary prophecies of God’s future Kingdom (<em><a href='B:290 36:16'>Isa 36:16</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:400 4:4'>Mic 4:4</a></em>). The Assyrian Kingdom was set up as a parody of Solomon’s, which was the Kingdom of God (<em><a href='B:110 4:25'>1Ki 4:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 9:8'>2Ch 9:8</a></em>). A glance through the descriptions of the beasts- the Kingdoms of this world- reveals that they are all set up in terms of the Lord Jesus and His Kingdom.</p><p><em>Because their country was fed from the king's country</em>-</p><p> Tyre and Sidon were city states belonging to Syria, with no agricultural land. They were therefore dependent upon food supplies from Herod's territory. Perhaps the famine of <em><a href='B:510 11:28'>Act 11:28</a></em>, or at least, the famines associated with the last days of AD70, led to tensions over food supplies.</p>


text:
<p><em>And upon a set day</em>-</p><p> Perhaps a Jewish feast day, or a day of religious significance, upon which Herod wished to present himself as a Divine figure. </p><p>Herod dressed himself in <em>Royal apparel</em>-</p><p> Literally, 'the clothing of the Kingdom'. He was wilfully playing God.</p><p><em>And sat on the throne and delivered an oration to them</em>-</p><p> In imitation of the Lord sitting on His judgment throne [<em>bema</em>] specifically refers to a judgment throne, and giving his verdict as if it were the Lord's.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the people shouted: The voice of a god and not of a man</em>-</p><p> They clearly perceived that Herod wished himself to be perceived as Divine, and so they went along with his wish; for they desired peace with him. Roman emperors and leaders frequently presented themselves as Divine figures; and Revelation brings out the tension between accepting Jesus as Lord, and being part of the Roman empire with its cult of emperor worship. We may never go this far in brazen blasphemy, but we are all tempted to 'play God'. And we are also all in situations where at times, folks glorify<em> us</em> when the glory needs to go to God; and it is imperative that we remind others of our humanity. Paul and Peter were several times in such situations, and their eagerness to assure others of their humanity was perhaps partly in order to avoid the kind of condemnation which came upon Herod.</p>


text:
<p><em>And immediately an angel of the Lord struck him, because he did not give God the glory</em>-</p><p> It would appear that he did not die immediately, because his death is described as through being "eaten by worms", presumably a reference to some kind of cancer. Perhaps this method of death was chosen rather than instant death in order to give him a chance of repentance.</p><p><em>And he was eaten by worms and breathed his last- </em>Not literally. Rather is this the language of the day being used to describe illnesses such as cancer which were not then understood. There should be no surprise, therefore, that the language of the day for mental illness is also used in the Bible. This explains the usage of 'demon possession' in the Gospels. </p>


text:
<p><em>But the word of God grew and multiplied</em>-</p><p> The number of converts to the word multiplied- for the same word is repeatedly used in this sense (<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 5:14'>Act 5:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 9:31'>Act 9:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 19:20'>Act 19:20</a></em>). Thus “the word of God” is put by metonymy for ‘the response to the word of God’, as if the word will inevitably bring forth response. We must believe, really and truly, that the word will not return void, but it will accomplish what it is intended to achieve. We are not scattering seed with the vague hope that something might sprout up; we are planting, fully expecting to see a harvest. It's also possible to speculate that the multiplication of God's word might refer to a growth in the availability of the written, inspired word of God in the form of the Gospel records, which were likely starting to appear in written form about this time.</p><p>The contrast is surely with how the people had claimed that Herod's voice was the word of God and not of man (:22). Here we see God's extreme sensitivity to attitudes to His word. The point is being made that the mimic of God's word soon fell silent, whereas God's true word grew. Our attitude to God's word in the Bible should reflect His understandable sensitivity to His word; just as we too are sensitive if others pay no attention to what we are saying or our efforts to communicate with them.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had completed their service</em>-</p><p> The AV says that Paul 'fulfilled his ministry'; and he can use the same two words in telling Archippus to ensure that he too fulfils <em>his</em> ministry (<em><a href='B:580 4:17'>Col 4:17</a></em>). Surely Paul is setting himself up as a pattern, and inviting his brother to follow it. The specific "service" in view was the taking of donations from Antioch to Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:510 11:30'>Act 11:30</a></em>). Having done this once, it became Paul's desire to do it again, when he attempted to gather donations from Asia for a Jerusalem Poor Fund. The record may be making the point that Paul was in Jerusalem at the time of Peter's deliverance from prison; this experience was intended to cultivate his faith, ready for the times when he would be imprisoned.</p><p><em>Taking with them John whose surname was Mark</em>-</p><p> The cousin of Barnabas (<em><a href='B:580 4:10'>Col 4:10</a></em>). Some changed their Hebrew names into the Latin forms when they went on mission work into the Roman world: Silas became Silvanus, Saul became Paulus, Joseph Barsabbas became Justus (<em><a href='B:510 1:23'>Act 1:23</a></em>); and hence we read of “John, whose other [Latin] name was Mark” (:12,25). We have here an example of becoming all things to all men in our witness to the world.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now there were at Antioch, in the church that was there, prophets and teachers- </em>The prophets 'spoke forth' God's word under inspiration, and the teachers relayed, distributed and interpreted this. </p><p><em>Symeon that was called Niger</em>-</p><p> Perhaps the same person as Simon of Cyrene who carried the cross (<em><a href='B:470 27:32'>Mat 27:32</a></em>). Simon is listed here next to Lucius, who was also from Cyrene. The thief and the centurion were likewise converted, and the faith of Joseph, Nicodemus and probably others was brought out into the open by the cross. Like Samson, the Lord won victories even in His death. The spiritual turn-around in Simon is a type of what is experienced by all whom the Lord compels to carry His cross. He was passing by, going somewhere else, full of his own plans, going about to establish his own righteousness... and then, out of the blue, he was called to what he much later realized was the greatest honour a man could be called to: to accompany the Son of God and carry His cross, right to the end. We are left to imagine him plonking it down, as if to say to Jesus 'Now you've got to do the rest', and then slipping off into the crowd. Cyrene was where there was a strongly orthodox Jewish community (cp. <em><a href='B:510 6:9'>Act 6:9</a></em>). Simon was probably dark skinned, "called Niger", a countryman, a simple man, who had perhaps come up to Jerusalem in his zeal to keep Passover. What a comfort it was to the Lord to see a black man carrying His cross; for He had earlier said that all His true followers would carry the cross behind Him (<em><a href='B:470 10:38'>Mat 10:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:24'>Mat 16:24</a></em>). The Hebrew writer seemed to see Simon as typical of us all when writing of how we must go out of the city with the Lord, "bearing his reproach" (<em><a href='B:650 13:12-13'>Heb 13:12-13</a></em>, probably using 'reproach' as a parallel to 'the cross'). He would have seen in Simon a prototype of all His future, suffering, humiliated followers; "impressed" by the predestined calling, almost against our will, to carry His cross (<em><a href='B:470 27:32'>Mat 27:32</a></em> RV mg:). And was it accident that this prototype was almost certainly a black man, when perhaps ultimately it may appear that a large proportion of the faithful body of the Lord Jesus will have been black people? If indeed Simon was a black Jew (cp. modern Falashas) who had come up to keep the Passover, it would have been annoying beyond words for him to be made unclean by the blood of the Lord, which was inevitably on the stake after His first attempt at bearing it after His flogging. Not to mention the shame for a zealous Jew in having to carry the cross of this Jesus of Nazareth. Yet it would seem that he was later converted, and he in turn converted his wife and son (<em><a href='B:480 15:21'>Mar 15:21</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:520 16:13'>Rom 16:13</a></em>). Mark rarely records proper nouns, but he makes a special effort to mention that Simon was the father of Alexander and Rufus. It would therefore seem that these men were well known in the early church.</p><p><em>And Lucius of Cyrene</em>-</p><p> Perhaps one of the men of Cyrene converted at Pentecost (<em><a href='B:510 2:10'>Act 2:10</a></em>) who fled to Antioch from the persecution in Jerusalem.</p><p><em>And Manaen the foster-brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul</em>-</p><p> The mention of Herod's title was perhaps to demonstrate how the Gospel had spread amongst the elite, and also within the circles of those who had been so bitterly opposed to it. This is a tacit reference to the immense power of the message.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 18:18'>Act 18:18</a></em>.</p><p><em>And as they ministered to the Lord</em>-</p><p> All spiritual endeavour leads to the Lord inviting us deeper into that endeavour; thus it was <em>as</em> Barnabus and Paul went about their ministering to the Lord that they were invited to go on a missionary journey (<em><a href='B:510 13:2'>Act 13:2</a></em>). Likewise it was <em>as</em> the Levites were in process of collecting funds for repairing the temple, that they found the book of the law- perhaps because they needed more space in which to store the donations, and whilst making space they found the scroll (<em><a href='B:140 34:14'>2Ch 34:14</a></em>). </p><p><em>And fasted</em>-</p><p> Perhaps for guidance as to how to further progress the Lord's work. For the response to this fasting was to call Barnabas and Saul to go forth. Have you fasted for such guidance in your own ministry?</p><p><em>The Holy Spirit said: Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul</em>-</p><p> Paul uses the same word to describe how he had been 'set apart' for his missionary work from before creation (<em><a href='B:520 1:1'>Rom 1:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 1:15'>Gal 1:15</a></em>). Now the time had come for that ancient plan to be realized. But Paul had the freewill not to respond to it. He was not bound to go forth in his missionary work just because it had been planned from the beginning. There are for each of us good works prepared for us to execute in our lives (<em><a href='B:560 4:10'>Eph 4:10</a></em>), but we do them by our own freewill. There are many such works, and many individuals, who do not respond. And in this must be the tragedy of God; that He has arranged the potential for us to perform or achieve much for Him, which is not performed because of our dysfunction or unbelief. We are never better than when we are fluently responding, open to God's intentions for us, and sensing His willing us forward in the service He intended for us.</p><p><em>For the work-</em></p><p> Paul appropriates the words of <em><a href='B:420 1:5'>Hab 1:5</a></em> LXX to his work of preaching: “I <em>work a work </em>in your days, which ye will in no wise believe though <em>a man</em> declare it unto you”. And so when we read of the <em>men</em> Barnabas and Saul being sent out on the <em>work</em> of the first missionary journey, we are to see an allusion back to <em><a href='B:420 1:5'>Hab 1:5</a></em> (<em><a href='B:510 13:2'>Act 13:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 14:26'>Act 14:26</a></em>). And yet that passage went on to say that the work would not be believed. Yet hoping against hope, they embarked on the missionary journey. Cyprus didn’t respond, initially- as they had expected. But soon their positive spirit was rewarded, and converts were made, against all odds. </p><p><em>Unto which I have called them</em>-</p><p> In <em><a href='B:510 16:10'>Act 16:10</a></em>, the same word is used of how Paul proved or concluded that he had been called to preach the Gospel to Gentiles. The implication could be that he somehow doubted his calling- he would far rather have been the apostle to the Jews. Later in this exposition I seek to demonstrate that Paul struggled with his calling as the apostle to the Gentiles, preferring rather to fill Peter's role. The parable of the talents suggests the Lord has specific hopes and callings for each of us, and man is never better than when he is working at those callings with the Lord's every support and blessing.</p>


text:
<p><em>Then, when they had fasted and prayed</em>-</p><p> It was as they did those things that the Lord opened the way for Barnabas and Saul to depart on their missionary journey. Yet the process continued. This is the spirit in which we should live life in His service.</p><p><em>And laid their hands on them, they sent them away</em>-</p><p> The next verse says that they were "sent forth by the Holy Spirit" (:4), thus drawing a parallel between the "prophets and teachers" in Antioch and the Holy Spirit. Whilst we do not have the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, it is also so that we are to walk in step with the Spirit (<em><a href='B:550 5:25'>Gal 5:25</a></em>), following the Lord's leading in His service. The laying hands upon the missionaries may therefore have been more than simply expressing unity with them, but could have been a granting of Holy Spirit to them, empowering them for the task ahead of them. In the Old Testament, hands were laid upon the sacrificial animals as a sign of identity, and we should not think that every 'laying on of hands' was in order to impart a blessing of Holy Spirit power; it was also simply an act of identity with the person. </p>


text:
<p><em>So they, being sent forth by the Holy Spirit</em></p><p>- see on :3. </p><p><em>Went down to Seleucia, and from there they sailed to Cyprus</em>-</p><p> Judaism spoke of going up to Jerusalem and going down from it. But that concept is now transferred to Antioch, the centre of the early Christian mission at this time. This is another hint that Jerusalem was no longer the 'mecca' of God's people.</p><p>From Seleucia, Cyprus would have been visible from there on a clear day. So far as we know, the Holy Spirit had stated that there was a specific work for Barnabas, Saul and John Mark to do; but it's unclear to what extent they had to work out the plans and itinerary on their own initiative. Seeing that Cyprus was visible from Seleucia, it might have seemed the obvious first destination in an attempt to take the Gospel over the seas. And Barnabas was from there; perhaps they concluded that this was the logical overseas destination for the Gospel.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 4:24-30'>Act 4:24-30</a></em>.</p><p><em>And when they were at Salamis, they proclaimed the word of God</em>-</p><p> Literally, the <em>logos</em> of God, which is the Lord Jesus. "The word of God" was a common Old Testament term for the prophetic word spoken through the prophets, but that had now come to a climax in the word about Jesus. </p><p><em>In the synagogues of the Jews</em>-</p><p> The movement of the Spirit was clearly for Saul to go "far hence unto the Gentiles", but he immediately begins his missionary work on arrival at the capital, Salamis, as he sadly continued it- with a stubborn obsession with preaching to the Jews, when this was Peter's work.</p><p><em>They had also John to assist them</em>-</p><p> Gk. 'to be their minister'. There was typically a minister or assistant attached to the synagogues, and so the impression may be that Saul and Barnabas were effectively taking over as the rabbis of the synagogues, and John Mark was their minister. Or perhaps the idea is that Saul preached as a Rabbi, and John Mark was his minister.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they had gone through the whole island to Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a</em> <em>false prophet</em>-</p><p> Perhaps to point out that the predictions of Luke 21 about the scenario in the last days was being fulfilled. He claimed to be "Bar Jesus", literally 'son of Jesus'; perhaps he actually purported to be the returned Jesus. Such a false Christ and false prophet surely met the terms of the Olivet Prophecy; again we see that the conditions were ripe for the Lord's return, but He didn't come because the human factors failed. Israel didn't repent, and the church became divided and lacking the Spirit. We must ask whether our last days will be different.</p><p><em>A Jew whose name was Bar-Jesus</em>-</p><p> Again we sense the focus, if not obsession, with engaging with Jews; see on :5.</p>


text:
<p><em>Who was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, a man of understanding</em></p><p>- see on 13:12 <em>The proconsul... believed</em>.</p><p><em>The same summoned Barnabas and Saul, and sought to hear the word of God</em>-</p><p> We can speculate that through Sergius Paulus trying to get the preachers into trouble with the proconsul, the Gospel was preached on a high level and with success. For Elymas was "with" Sergius Paulus, as if he had influence over him; and therefore under this influence, Sergius Paulus summoned the missionaries. But the plan of Elymas badly backfired; encouragement that no weapon formed against the work of the Gospel will ultimately succeed.</p>


text:
<p><em>But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) opposed</em> <em>them</em>-</p><p> The scene is reminiscent of Satan, the Arabic adversary of the Jews, standing before the Angel with Joshua-Jesus the priest standing on the other (<em><a href='B:450 3:1-2'>Zec 3:1-2</a></em>). The impression is given of the proconsul being preached to by Paul, whilst Elymas tried to persuade him otherwise. The similarity is appropriate because "Elymas" appears to be an Arabic word, from the Arabic <em>elim</em>, 'the wise', and he was likely an Arab. The scene also recalls the Egyptian magicians 'opposing' Moses before Pharaoh. </p><p><em>Seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith</em>-</p><p> The same Greek word is found in :10, where Elymas is accused of 'perverting' the "right ways of the Lord". The word seems to specifically mean to misinterpret; we have the impression that as Paul preached to the proconsul, Elymas stood there eagerly saying 'Ah, but what they really mean by that is <em>this.</em>::'. These two verses state that both the listener [Sergius Paulus] and the message were 'perverted'. The listener is thus identified with the message; as in the parable of the sower, the Gospel takes lodgement within a person, and they become identified with it.</p>


text:
<p><em>But Saul, who is also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, fastened his eyes on him</em>-</p><p> It can be no accident that Saul appears to have changed his name to ‘Paul’, “the little one”, at the time of his first missionary journey. His preaching of the Gospel was thus related to his own realization of sinfulness, as reflected in his name change. And so it has ever been. Saul becomes Paul in so many lives. True self-abnegation, recognition of our moral bankruptcy, our desperation, and the extent of the grace we have received… these two paradoxical aspects, fused together within the very texture of human personality, are what will arrest the attention of others in this world and lead them to the Truth we can offer them.</p><p>Saul and Paul</p><p>Various expositors have noticed the links between Saul and Paul. "Is Saul also among the prophets?" was directly matched by 'Is Saul of Tarsus also among the Christians?'. The way Paul was let down through a window to escape persecution was surely to remind him of what King Saul had done to David (<em><a href='B:90 19:12'>1Sa 19:12</a></em>). They were both Benjamites, and perhaps his parents saw him as following in Saul's footsteps. And it seems Paul was aware of this. The implication is that by <em><a href='B:510 13:9'>Act 13:9</a></em> Paul consciously changed his name from Saul to Paul ('the little one'). It is difficult to avoid seeing the link with <em><a href='B:90 15:17'>1Sa 15:17</a></em>: " When thou wast little (Heb. 'the littlest one') in thine own sight", God anointed Saul and made him the <em>rosh</em>, the chief, over Israel. Maybe Paul's parents intended him to be the <em>rosh</em> over Israel; and it seems he would have made it had he not been converted. I suggest that <em><a href='B:90 15:17'>1Sa 15:17</a></em> rung in Paul's mind. He saw how he had persecuted Christ, as Saul had David. He saw the self-will within him as it was in Saul. Yet he went on to see the tragedy, the utter tragedy, of that man. He saw how pride had destroyed a man who could have achieved so much for God. And he determined that he would learn the lesson from Saul's failure (as he determined to learn the lessons from those of John the Baptist and Peter). So he changed his name to Paul, the little one. What influence his sustained meditation on one Old Testament verse had upon him! It affected some basic decisions in his life; e.g. the decision to change his name. There was a time, according to the Hebrew text of <em><a href='B:90 15:17'>1Sa 15:17</a></em>, when Saul felt he was 'the littlest one' (as demonstrated in <em><a href='B:90 9:21'>1Sa 9:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 10:22'>1Sa 10:22</a></em>). This was so, so pleasing to God. Saul at that moment, captured as it were in a snapshot, as the obvious, anointed King of Israel hid among the baggage, knowing in his heart he was no way suited to be the leader of God's Israel, was Paul's hero. And Paul alludes to it when he says he is less than the <em>least </em>of all saints, <em>least </em>of the apostles, chief of sinners (<em><a href='B:530 15:9'>1Co 15:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 3:8'>Eph 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 1:15'>1Ti 1:15</a></em> - note the progressive realisation of his sinfulness over time). He earnestly resolved to be like Saul was at the beginning. When he describes himself as "anointed" (<em><a href='B:540 1:21'>2Co 1:21</a></em>) he surely had his eye on <em><a href='B:90 15:17'>1Sa 15:17</a></em> again; when Saul was little in his own eyes, he was anointed. Paul tried to learn the lessons from Saul, and re-apply Saul's characteristics in a righteous context. Thus Saul was jealous (<em><a href='B:90 18:8'>1Sa 18:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 19:1'>1Sa 19:1</a></em>), and Paul perhaps had his eye on this when he describes himself as jealous for the purity of the Corinthians (<em><a href='B:540 11:2'>2Co 11:2</a></em>). "I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision" (<em><a href='B:510 26:19'>Act 26:19</a></em>) is surely a reference back to Saul's <em>dis</em>obedience (<em><a href='B:90 15:22'>1Sa 15:22</a></em>). </p>&nbsp;


text:
<p><em>And said, You son of the devil</em>-</p><p> The Jewish religious leaders were “of your father the Devil” (<em><a href='B:500 8:44'>Joh 8:44</a></em>). This would explain the Lord’s description of Judas as a Devil (<em><a href='B:500 6:70'>Joh 6:70</a></em>) because the Jewish Devil had entered him and conceived, making him a ‘Devil’ also. In the space of a few verses, we read the Lord Jesus saying that “the Devil” is a “liar” – and then stating that His Jewish opponents were “liars” (<em><a href='B:500 8:44'>Joh 8:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:55'>Joh 8:55</a></em>). These are the only places where the Lord uses the word “liar” – clearly enough He identified those Jews with “the Devil”. If the Jews’ father was the Devil, then ‘the Devil’ was a fitting description of them too. They were a “generation of (gendered by) vipers”, alluding back to the serpent in Eden, which epitomized “the Devil”; “that old serpent, called (i:e. being similar to) the Devil and Satan” (<em><a href='B:730 12:9'>Rev 12:9</a></em>). In the same way as Judas became a Devil, the “false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Bar-Jesus” is called a “son of the Devil” (<em><a href='B:510 13:6'>Act 13:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:10'>Act 13:10</a></em>), which description makes him an embodiment of the Jewish opposition to the Gospel.</p><p>"You son of the Devil" is implying he was a tare sown among the wheat (<em><a href='B:470 13:38'>Mat 13:38</a></em>).</p><p><em>You enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and all villainy, will you not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?</em>-</p><p> Just as the preaching of the Gospel was to make straight paths for the Messiah to come (<em><a href='B:490 3:4'>Luk 3:4</a></em>), so we are to make&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;paths straight (<em><a href='B:650 12:13'>Heb 12:13</a></em>)- as if somehow we are the Lord Jesus; His revelation to this world at the second coming will in a sense be our revelation. Hence the final visions of Revelation speak of the Lord's second coming in terms which are applicable to the community of those in Him [e.g. a city of people coming down from Heaven to earth]. John’s preaching was in order to make [s:w. ‘to bring forth fruit’] His [the Lord’s] paths straight- but the ways of the Lord are “right” [s:w. “straight”] anyway (<em><a href='B:510 13:10'>Act 13:10</a></em>). So how could John’s preaching make the Lord’s ways straight / right, when they already are? God is so associated with His people that their straightness or crookedness reflects upon Him; for they are His witnesses in this world. His ways are their ways. This is the N:T. equivalent of the O:T. concept of keeping / walking in the way of the Lord (<em><a href='B:10 18:19'>Gen 18:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 21:22'>2Ki 21:22</a></em>). Perhaps this is the thought behind the exhortation of <em><a href='B:650 12:13'>Heb 12:13</a></em> to make straight paths for our own feet. We are to bring our ways into harmony with the Lord’s ways; for He is to be us, His ways our ways. Thus <em><a href='B:290 40:3'>Isa 40:3</a></em>, which is being quoted in <em><a href='B:490 3:4'>Luk 3:4</a></em>, speaks of “Prepare ye the way&nbsp;<em>of the Lord</em>”, whereas <em><a href='B:290 62:10'>Isa 62:10</a></em> speaks of “Prepare ye the way&nbsp;<em>of the people</em>”. Yet tragically, the way / path of Israel was not the way / path of the Lord (<em><a href='B:330 18:25'>Eze 18:25</a></em>).</p><p>"The right ways" is literally, the straight streets. The same word is used of the street called "Straight" where Paul was baptized (<em><a href='B:510 9:11'>Act 9:11</a></em>). That street was chosen in order to demonstrate to Paul how his new life was to be walked along a straight way or street, towards the Kingdom; remembering how John the Baptist's mission had been to make straight [s:w:] the Lord's paths or roads (<em><a href='B:470 3:3'>Mat 3:3</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And now, the hand of the Lord is upon you and you shall be blind- </em>This foreshadowed how the rejected will be sent to a mist of darkness (<em><a href='B:680 2:17'>2Pe 2:17</a></em>). Thick darkness is associated with God's judgment (<em><a href='B:290 8:22'>Isa 8:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:360 2:2'>Joe 2:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:430 1:15'>Zep 1:15</a></em>)- and recall how the judgment of darkness upon Egypt was so severe that human movement required 'groping' (<em><a href='B:20 10:21'>Exo 10:21</a></em>). Perhaps there will be a literal element to this in the experience of the rejected. Be that as it may, the utter&nbsp;<em>pointlessness&nbsp;</em>of life without God will be so bitterly apparent. And yet they would not face up to it in their day of opportunity.</p><p><em>Not seeing the sun for a time. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness, and he went about seeking someone to lead him by the hand</em>-</p><p> It is possible that this was so that he had to be led by the hand (<em><a href='B:510 13:11'>Act 13:11</a></em>); it is all so reminiscent of Paul’s own experience in 9:8 that it would seem he was consciously seeking to replicate his own conversion in the life of another man. And this is, indeed, the very essence of preaching from a grateful heart. He saw the power that worked in Him as working in all of us (<em><a href='B:560 3:7'>Eph 3:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 3:20'>Eph 3:20</a></em>). Paul wishes that the Colossians would be “filled with the knowledge of his will” (<em><a href='B:580 1:9'>Col 1:9</a></em>), just as at his conversion he had been chosen so “that you should know his will” (<em><a href='B:510 22:14'>Act 22:14</a></em>). He wanted them to share the radical nature of conversion which he had gone through; the sense of life turned around; of new direction.</p>


text:
<p><em>Then the proconsul, when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the teaching of the Lord- </em>Paul's name change from Saul to Paul&nbsp;occurred whilst in Cyprus- where he met Sergius Paulus and preached the Gospel to him (<em><a href='B:510 13:7'>Act 13:7</a></em>). It would seem that Paul took the name of this Gentile to represent how his work with the Gentiles had become so fundamentally a part of him. From there, Paul went to Antioch and preached there. Why did he do that? Bruce Chilton has pointed out that there is archaeological evidence in Antioch that Sergius Paulus of Cyprus was in fact from there and there are plaques and inscriptions recording how he had funded things in the town (Bruce Chilton, <em>Rabbi Paul: An Intellectual Biography</em> (New York: Random House, 2005) p. 117). The guess is that this man became Paul's patron for a while, and sent him to preach the Gospel to his family in Antioch; hence, as the custom was, Saul of Tarsus took the name of his patron. And perhaps reflecting upon how this was all so providential in spreading the Gospel to the Gentiles, Saul kept that name. The providence of the situation becomes the more interesting when we reflect that as a Roman Governor, bound to perform pagan rituals and be loyal to Caesar, Sergius Paulus may never himself have accepted the faith. The way John Mark returned to Jerusalem at this point (<em><a href='B:510 13:13'>Act 13:13</a></em>) may simply be because he considered that all this was too much- following what appeared to be a whim of chance and calling it God's hand. For Antioch [not Antioch on the Orontes] was in the backwoods of Asia Minor, and it would've seemed crazy to go into such a distant and insignificant area all because of a 'chance' meeting with a generous Roman Governor.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 6:1'>Act 6:1</a></em>.<em></p><p>Now Paul and his company set sail from Paphos and came to Perga in Pamphylia; and John left them and returned to Jerusalem- </em>John Mark was an example of one 'brought up in it' (almost) who made it real for himself in the very end. His mother Mary owned the home where the first ecclesia met in Jerusalem- he would have known all the leading lights, the doubts, the joys, the fears, the debates of the early church. Barnabas was his kindly uncle, who took him on the first missionary journey with Paul. Cyprus was OK, but once they landed at Perga, Paul insisted on leaving the coast road and going up the dangerous road to preach on the uplands; and Mark quit, scared perhaps to risk his life that far. And so he went back to his mum in Jerusalem, and the safety of the home ecclesia. And no doubt he was warmly welcomed home, as the Jerusalem ecclesia by then were beginning to consider Paul as apostate. But over the months, things changed. John Mark wanted to go again, and his uncle Barnabas encouraged him. But Paul would have none of it. That rejection must have sorely hurt Mark; and we hear nothing more of him for about 15 years. Then, when Paul was in prison, he starts to get mentioned. He is called there Paul's "fellow-prisoner" (<em><a href='B:580 4:10'>Col 4:10</a></em>), as if he too had been imprisoned for his bold preaching. To Philemon, Paul writes that Mark is his "fellow-worker”; and in his last days, he begs Mark to come and see him (<em><a href='B:620 4:9-11'>2Ti 4:9-11</a></em>). Peter also, probably writing likewise from Rome ["Babylon"] mentions Mark as his "son" (<em><a href='B:670 5:13'>1Pe 5:13</a></em>), and tradition has it that Mark wrote down Peter's Gospel. So the young brother who possibly had been made flabby by the nice background, eventually made it real for himself in the end. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>But they, passing through from Perga, came to Antioch of Pisidia; and they went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day- </em>This again sounds as if this focus upon the Jews was customary for Paul. And yet the work to which he had been called by the Holy Spirit was specifically to the Gentiles (:2). But in tension with that, Paul's obsession with Israel comes out repeatedly. Maybe this has something to do with how this verse opens with "But...". </p><p><em>And sat down</em>-</p><p> The cameraman is as it were zoomed up close upon them. Or perhaps the significance of their 'sitting down' was that they sat down as if they were members of Judaism, exercising their rights. </p>


text:
<p><em>And after the reading of the law and the prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent for them, saying</em>-</p><p>&nbsp; The synagogues read the Law and prophets according to a reading planner, rather like <em>The Bible Companion. </em>Paul's opening words refer to <em><a href='B:50 1:31'>Deu 1:31</a></em> LXX, which was the lesson for the 44th Sabbath in the year, around July / August; the corresponding second lesson from "the prophets" for that Sabbath was from <em><a href='B:290 1:1-27'>Isa 1:1-27</a></em>, from which Paul also quotes when he alludes to <em><a href='B:290 1:2'>Isa 1:2</a></em> LXX. </p><p><em>Brothers</em>-</p><p> They treat Paul as if he is one of them. The invitation to give such a major discourse could have been because Paul purposefully gave the impression that he was still an orthodox thinking Jewish rabbi</p><p>- see on <em>And sat down</em> (:14). Much of the Jewish anger with Paul was because he later turned out to not be Judaist any longer, despite giving that impression in order to get an audience with them. If he had focused on his Divinely given mission to the Gentiles, he wouldn't have got into all these kinds of problems.</p><p><em>If you have any word of encouragement for the people, speak</em>-</p><p> 'Barnabas' meant 'Son of encouragement', so it would seem likely that the synagogue elders knew of his presence and were kindly alluding to it. One wonders if [contrary to what I have just suggested above] these elders were in fact Messianic believers in Jesus, or at least sympathetic to that Way. That would explain the rather odd description of them 'sending' <em>[apostello]</em> to Paul and Barnabas to give a word of encouragement to the congregation. Perhaps there was a veiled allusion to the Lord Jesus being the consolation [s:w. 'encouragement'] of Israel (<em><a href='B:490 2:25'>Luk 2:25</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And Paul stood up and beckoning with the hand, said</em>-</p><p> The same words used about Peter (<em><a href='B:510 12:17'>Act 12:17</a></em>). Luke seems to be developing the parallels between Paul and Peter; but it is also possible that Paul is emulating Peter.</p><p><em>You men of Israel and you that fear God</em>-</p><p> Referring to the 'God fearers', the Gentile proselytes. Paul's sensitivity to this group may be reflected in his opening reference to "this people" rather than 'our people'; we can imagine Paul saying this whilst looking at the benches where the Gentile proselytes were sitting. Paul also directs his words to the Jews, by speaking of "our fathers"; thus modelling for us an inclusive approach in our witness and teaching.</p><p><em>Listen- </em>The idea of the Greek is an appeal to understand, to 'get it'. The early brethren preached looking for a response. They were preaching toward decision, for conversion. The Lord taught us that He will make His followers fishers of men; and fishers catch something, they aren’t fishermen if they just offer a bait indifferently. Paul taught that his hearers should repent and turn to God and do works meet for repentance (<em><a href='B:510 26:20'>Act 26:20</a></em>). The address in the synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia has three parts, each marked by an appeal to the listeners. Clearly it has been planned in advance, and was an appeal for response (<em><a href='B:510 13:16'>Act 13:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:26'>Act 13:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:38'>Act 13:38</a></em>). These preachers weren’t shy in asking men and women to decide for or against the love of God in Jesus. They challenged men to do something about the message they had heard. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>The God of this people Israel chose our fathers</em>-</p><p> Paul's entire speech is based upon Stephen's in Acts 7 [see commentary there]. It was that witness from Stephen which had converted Saul / Paul; and he reflects that fact by likewise witnessing to others.</p><p><em>And exalted the people when they sojourned in the land of Egypt, and with a high arm He led them out of it</em>-</p><p> The prophets are clear that Israel worshipped idols in Egypt, and were not very responsive to God's salvation plans for them. The reference to exalting them therefore draws attention to God's grace towards Israel.</p>


text:
<p><em>For about the time of forty years</em></p><p>- see on :19 <em>About four hundred and fifty years.</em></p><p><em>As a nursing father He carried them in the wilderness</em>-</p><p> Another reading is 'He suffered their manners in the wilderness' [as AV]. This would again be drawing attention to God's patient grace towards His people. But the allusion to <em><a href='B:50 1:31'>Deu 1:31</a></em> LXX encourages us to follow the 'As a nursing father' option. The idea of a father carrying and feeding his baby child is one which creates sympathy for the father; and Paul may have this in mind. For he was going on to appeal to Israel to consider that they had slain God's only begotten Son.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan- </em>There were ten nations in the land (<em><a href='B:10 15:19-21'>Gen 15:19-21</a></em>), but seven of them were destroyed (<em><a href='B:50 7:1'>Deu 7:1</a></em>). This combination of ten and seven is repeated throughout the descriptions of the latter day beast dominating the land of Israel with seven heads and ten horns (<em><a href='B:730 12:3'>Rev 12:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 13:1'>Rev 13:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 17:3'>Rev 17:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 17:7'>Rev 17:7</a></em>). I suggest that this means that not all of the ten horns will conflict with Israel; perhaps only seven of the ten nation confederacy dominating latter day Israel will be destroyed.</p><p><em>He gave them their land for an inheritance, for about four hundred and fifty years</em>-</p><p> There are times when the Spirit uses very approximate numbers rather than exact ("about four hundred and fifty years", <em><a href='B:510 13:20'>Act 13:20</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:110 6:1'>1Ki 6:1</a></em>, which gives four hundred and eighty years, although the LXX there says 440- hence "about 450 years"). Sometimes the Bible is not precise. Under inspiration, the Hebrew writer seems to have forgotten the exact quotation, or to have been deliberately vague, when he speaks of "one in a certain place testified" (<em><a href='B:650 2:6'>Heb 2:6</a></em>). The reference to "seventy" in <em><a href='B:70 9:56'>Jdg 9:56</a></em> also doesn't seem exact. Seven and a half years (<em><a href='B:100 2:11'>2Sa 2:11</a></em>) becomes "seven years" (<em><a href='B:110 2:11'>1Ki 2:11</a></em>); three months and ten days (<em><a href='B:140 36:9'>2Ch 36:9</a></em>) becomes "three months" (<em><a href='B:120 24:8'>2Ki 24:8</a></em>). And <em><a href='B:110 7:23'>1Ki 7:23</a></em> gives the circumference of the laver as “thirty cubits”, although it was ten cubits broad. Taking ‘pi’ to be 3:14, it is apparent that the circumference would have been 31:4 cubits; but the Spirit says, summing up, “thirty”. Surely this is to show that God is God, not man. His word is not contradictory, but in ensuring this, God does not sink down to the level of a man who wanted to produce an apparently faultless book, carefully ensuring that every figure exactly tallied. He has a spiritual culture much higher than this. And this is behind the many Bible paradoxes which we meet. The reading of the AV suggests judges were given for a period of about 450 years. Other readings are as in the NEV. Significantly, the period from the call of Abraham to the death of Joshua was likewise 450 years, suggesting that God works according to a plan and structures 'ages' according to a masterplan which climaxed in His Son (<em><a href='B:650 1:1-2'>Heb 1:1-2</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And after these things He gave them judges until Samuel the prophet</em>-</p><p> The judges all made the deliverances they did because they themselves made the effort to deliver Israel. But their freewill was worked through by God, who raised up or "gave them" these judges. Here again we see the perfect synthesis between Divine will and human freewill. </p>


text:
<p><em>And afterwards they asked for a king; and God gave to them Saul the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin</em>-</p><p> God responds to human desire, even if the desire is wrong. He gives us our heart's desire. And all the desire of Israel was upon Saul (<em><a href='B:90 9:20'>1Sa 9:20</a></em>). This is something more than a deep respect for human freewill on God's part. The fact is that we are confirmed in our desires; those who love the things of God's Kingdom above all else shall surely be there. If a place in the Kingdom is truly "all our hope and desire", it shall be granted. "All them that love His appearing" and in their hearts long and wait for Him- shall not be disappointed. This feature of God's dealings with men means that spiritual mindedness is of uppermost importance. What we really desire in our heart of hearts, our dominant desire, shall be granted. And God gave them a King whom He foreknew and told Israel would be bad for them. But He respected their desire.</p>&nbsp;<p><em>For the space of forty years- </em>The OT doesn't mention how long Saul reigned. Paul inserts this detail perhaps to demonstrate how God had given Israel various periods of testing and opportunity- for in :18 he mentions that they were 40 years in the wilderness. The period is realistic because Saul's son was 40 when he was placed on the throne when Saul died (<em><a href='B:100 2:10'>2Sa 2:10</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And when He had removed him, He raised up David to be their king, to whom also He bare witness and said: I have found David the son of Jesse</em>-</p><p> The 'removal' was when God 'raised up' David. But that point was some time before Saul's death. God makes a plan, decrees a course of action, but there is often a gap until it is fulfilled. He thus describes Himself as both planning and fulfilling His plans. That gap is perhaps to enable repentance even at an apparently late stage.</p><p><em>A man after My own heart, who shall do all My will</em>-</p><p> Perhaps David was only after God’s own heart at the time Samuel anointed him? David was, in God's opinion, a man after His own heart, who fulfilled all His will. Yet this is the God whose ways are not, and cannot be, ours. Yet this is how humble He is, and how positive His view of a faithful servant. We also note that not all men do [or "fulfil"] God's will. He searches for and 'finds' men who will. God's will is revealed in His word- which is why attention to the Bible is so important. The Lord Jesus is often described as the one who did the Father's will (the same Greek words are used- <em><a href='B:500 4:34'>Joh 4:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:30'>Joh 5:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:38'>Joh 6:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 9:31'>Joh 9:31</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>Of this man's seed</em>-</p><p> The false doctrine of the physical ‘pre-existence’ of Christ before birth makes a nonsense of the repeated promises that he would be the <em>descendant</em> of Eve, Abraham and David. The early preachers emphasized that Jesus was “of David’s posterity” [Gk. s<em>permatos</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:510 2:29-31'>Act 2:29-31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:23'>Act 13:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 1:3'>Rom 1:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 2:8'>2Ti 2:8</a></em>]. If He were already existing up in heaven at the time of these promises, God would have been incorrect in promising these people a descendant who <em>would be</em> Messiah.</p><p><em>Has God according to His promise</em>-</p><p> The promise to David is not specifically cited here. What has just been quoted is God's comment upon David, that he would fulfil all His will, seeing he would have the mind of God. Perhaps Paul took this as meaning that as David was imperfect, therefore that comment was effectively a promise that a seed of David would fulfil the requirements of having the mind of God [which Paul says the Lord Jesus did, in Philippians 2] and fulfilling God's will- which the Lord did to an ultimate extent&nbsp; (the same Greek words are used about Him- <em><a href='B:500 4:34'>Joh 4:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:30'>Joh 5:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:38'>Joh 6:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 9:31'>Joh 9:31</a></em>). Ezekiel's prophecies about "David" ruling over God's people at the restoration clearly mean 'one of the seed of David', and Paul may be reasoning in the same way here.</p><p><em>Raised up to Israel a Saviour, Jesus</em>-</p><p> This 'raising up' of Jesus began at the end of John's ministry (:24) and therefore doesn't specifically refer to the Lord's resurrection, although there is clearly the hint of that too.</p>


text:
<p><em>After John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance</em>-</p><p> Paul's mention of John in <em><a href='B:510 13:24-25'>Act 13:24-25</a></em> apparently adds nothing to his argument; it seems out of context. But it surely indicates the degree to which John was never far below the surface in Paul's thinking. Having been raised in Jerusalem, surely Paul as a young man would have heard John's preaching. It was the source of the goads against which he later kicked. Paul alluded to some parts of the Gospels much more than others, and an example of this is the way in which he alluded so extensively to the passages related to John the Baptist. I would suggest that the reason for this is that he saw John as somehow his hero, one for whom he had a deep respect. In doing so he was sharing the estimation of his Lord, who also saw John as one of the greatest believers. There are many 'unconscious' links between Paul's writings and the records of John, indicating how deeply the example and words of John were in Paul's mind (e.g. <em><a href='B:470 3:7'>Mat 3:7</a></em> = <em><a href='B:590 1:10'>1Th 1:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 5:9'>1Th 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:31'>Joh 3:31</a></em> = <em><a href='B:530 15:47'>1Co 15:47</a></em>). Or consider how John said that wicked Jewry would be "hewn down" (<em><a href='B:470 3:10'>Mat 3:10</a></em>); Paul uses the very same word to describe how the Jewish branches had now been "cut off" (<em><a href='B:520 11:22'>Rom 11:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 11:24'>Rom 11:24</a></em>). Paul saw himself as being like the best man, who had betrothed the believers to Christ (<em><a href='B:540 11:2-3'>2Co 11:2-3</a></em>)- just as John had described himself as the friend of the bridegroom (<em><a href='B:500 3:28'>Joh 3:28</a></em>).</p><p><em>To all the people of Israel</em>-</p><p> This usage of "all" is hardly literal. If John's witness was counted as reaching "all Israel", we can understand the fulfilment of the great commission as likewise meaning that the Gospel must go to <em>people from</em> all nations, rather than to every individual:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>&nbsp;<p>As John preached repentance with a deep sense of his own unworthiness, so did Paul, with exactly that same sense (<em><a href='B:510 13:24-25'>Act 13:24-25</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 17:3'>Act 17:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 20:21'>Act 20:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:20'>Act 26:20</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And as John was fulfilling his ministry, he said: Who do you suppose I am? I am not he! But look, there comes one after me</em>-</p><p> It could be argued that John's ministry failed, in that people did not widely accept Jesus as Messiah but crucified Him. John's ministry was as children sitting in the marketplace appealing for Israel to mourn, but they would not. And yet John played the part he was called to play, and in this sense he fulfilled his ministry. Many ministries or lives may appear to have failed, but actually the believer played their part and fulfilled their ministry. The response of others, or success or failure of response to our message, doesn't of itself indicate whether we fulfilled our ministry or not.</p><p><em>The shoes of whose feet I am not worthy to untie- </em>To untie another's sandals was an idiom for being his forerunner or herald. So John is not denying that he was the one who untied the Lord's sandals- but he is saying that he was not worthy to do the work he did. This is exactly the kind of humility to be associated with all witness work.</p>


text:
<p><em>Brothers, children of the stock of Abraham, and those among you that fear God, to us</em>-</p><p> Here, and several times in this sermon, Paul seems to be repeating Peter's style of 3:17. He was deeply impressed by Peter; the question is whether he followed his example out of humble deference, or partly because he pretended to Peter's chosen role as the apostle to the Jews.</p><p><em>Is the word of this salvation sent</em>-</p><p> 'The <em>logos</em> of this Jesus'. That the Lord Jesus personally is in view here is confirmed by the next verse talking of how the Jews "knew Him not" and 'condemned Him' (:27). The personal pronoun is usually used after the person has been defined. The 'he' in verse 27 clearly refers to Jesus; and so the reference to Him is surely here in :26 in the phrase "the word of this salvation". <em><a href='B:510 10:36'>Act 10:36</a></em> speaks of the Lord Jesus as the word sent from God. </p>


text:
<p><em>Consider the intensity of allusion to the records of Christ's death and resurrection in <em><a href='B:510 13:27-38'>Act 13:27-38</a></em>: </p><p>Acts&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Gospels </p><p><em><a href='B:510 13:27'>Act 13:27</a></em>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:490 24:27'>Luk 24:27</a></em></p><p><em><a href='B:510 13:28'>Act 13:28</a></em>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:480 15:13'>Mar 15:13</a></em> </p><p><em><a href='B:510 13:29'>Act 13:29</a></em>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:470 27:59'>Mat 27:59</a></em></p><p><em><a href='B:510 13:30'>Act 13:30</a></em>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:470 28:6'>Mat 28:6</a></em></p><p><em><a href='B:510 13:38'>Act 13:38</a></em>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em></p><p>Thus Paul's early recorded preaching was basically a commentary on the Gospel records of Christ's death and resurrection (as was Peter's). </p><p><em>For they that dwell in Jerusalem and their rulers- </em>This phrase is used in Acts about those responsible for the Lord's death who then repented (<em><a href='B:510 1:19'>Act 1:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:5'>Act 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:14'>Act 2:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:16'>Act 4:16</a></em>). This group are therefore being held up as an example to the Jews in the synagogue where Paul was preaching. </p><p><em>Because they knew Him not, nor the voices of the prophets</em>-</p><p> Jesus personally is paralleled with the word of the prophets; for as explained under :26 <em>The word of this salvation, </em>Jesus is being presented as the word of the Jewish prophets made flesh. Paul was preaching just after the reading of the prophets- and he was seeking to persuade his audience that the words just read had become flesh in the person of Jesus. He speaks of their "voices" rather than merely their words. They had heard the words, but not felt and perceived that these were the actual voices of men who being dead yet speak. They didn't <em>feel</em> the wonder of inspiration in their attitude to Bible study- even though they would have devoutly upheld the position that the Bible texts were inspired. And here we have a lesson for ourselves. See <em><a href='B:520 9:27'>Rom 9:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:39'>Joh 5:39</a></em>. </p><p><em>Which are read every Sabbath, fulfilled them by condemning him</em>-</p><p> Paul was preaching at a time when the voices of the prophets had just been read in the synagogue- he was appealing to his audience to be different from the respected Jerusalem Jews, who had heard the same readings read, and yet condemned God's Son to death. Paul was ever quick to press home the similarities between his present audience and previous precedents.</p>


text:
<p><em>And though they found no cause of death in Him- </em>Saul / Paul would have taken intense legal interest in the trial. He was fully aware that in fact they did claim that there was a cause for death; He was "guilty of death" for blasphemy (<em><a href='B:470 26:66'>Mat 26:66</a></em>), and on this legal basis they asked Pilate to execute Him: "We have a law, and by our law He ought to die" (<em><a href='B:500 19:7'>Joh 19:7</a></em>). Paul says the opposite- that they found no cause of death in Him. Paul is not making any mistake here- rather is he correctly reading the hearts of the Jews. They knew there was no cause of death in Jesus- although they said that there was. Paul is seeking to demonstrate that the voice of inner knowledge and conscience is so easily overridden by group think, by psychological obsession rooted in jealousy, by the power of conservatism, the terror of realizing we have been seriously wrong, the desperate clinging to pride... And he realized that the same subconscious psychological battle was going on in the minds of those listening to him. And he warns them through drawing attention to those who had likewise refused to accept Jesus as Messiah.</p><p><em>They asked Pilate to have him slain</em>-</p><p> The Greek means to earnestly beg. The only other three occurrences of this idea of 'begging Pilate' are all about Joseph begging Pilate for the Lord's body (<em><a href='B:470 27:58'>Mat 27:58</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 15:43'>Mar 15:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:52'>Luk 23:52</a></em>). Yet Joseph was a Sanhedrin counsellor, one of those who had condemned the Lord to death- for although he didn't agree with it, the Sanhedrin decision was unanimous (<em><a href='B:480 14:64'>Mar 14:64</a></em>). So Joseph was one of those who on face value begged Pilate to crucify the Lord; and yet also begged Pilate for His body, something only done by closest family, and a sign of Joseph's public identification with Jesus and His cause. This continues the theme developed in commentary on the first half of this verse :28. A person can say or do something when in fact their inner convictions are otherwise. Both Joseph and the Jerusalem leadership knew in their hearts that Jesus was innocent and actually the Messiah. But they acted otherwise. Paul is speaking here to Jews assembled in synagogue. He knew there were many similarly struggling hearts before him in the audience, and his use of psychology and history in making his appeal is masterful.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they had fulfilled all things that were written about him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb- </em>The "they" who did this amounts to Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, whom I have argued in commentary on :28 were in Paul's mind in his flow of thought at this point. </p>


text:
<p><em>But God raised him from the dead</em>-</p><p> This is a bald statement of fact. Paul gives no evidence; and he is not recorded here as mentioning the obvious fact that he himself had met the risen Jesus on the Damascus road. This would be another example of where evidence is not required for faith; the simple facts of the Gospel are powerful of themselves to persuade the hearers.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he was seen for many days by those that came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses to the people</em>-</p><p> It is worth putting together two passages, both from Luke: “The women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after…” (<em><a href='B:490 23:55'>Luk 23:55</a></em>); and <em><a href='B:510 13:30-31'>Act 13:30-31</a></em>: “God raised him from the dead and for many days he appeared to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, and they are now his witnesses”. Surely Paul and Luke have in mind here the ministering women. They had followed from Galilee to Jerusalem, the risen Lord had appeared to a woman first of all, and now those women were witnessing to the people. Perhaps <em><a href='B:530 15:3-7'>1Co 15:3-7</a></em> is relevant here, where we read that the Lord appeared after His resurrection to the twelve, and yet on another occasion to “all the apostles”- perhaps referring to the group that included the women. An empty tomb was no proof that Jesus of Nazareth had risen- unless there were witnesses there present at that empty tomb who could testify also that it was in that very tomb that Jesus had been laid. And only women, not men, were witnesses of this. The Greek world placed great emphasis upon sight- “Eyes are surer witnesses than ears”, Heraclitus said. They related to the past visually; for a group of people to be eyewitnesses was considered conclusive. Hence the enormous significance of the way in which the Gospels repeatedly make the women the subjects of verbs of seeing (<em><a href='B:470 27:55'>Mat 27:55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 15:40'>Mar 15:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:49'>Luk 23:49</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:55'>Luk 23:55</a></em>). They were the eyewitnesses.</p>


text:
<p><em>We bring you good news</em>-</p><p> The Gospel is stated to be in the promises made to the Jewish fathers, just as Paul states in <em><a href='B:550 3:8'>Gal 3:8</a></em>. The good news, or Gospel, was strictly speaking in the fulfilment of the promises, through the resurrection of Christ. It is a knowledge of that reality, rather than of the wording of the ancient promises of it, which is the essence of the Gospel.</p><p><em>Of the promise made to the fathers</em>-</p><p> Paul saw a singular promise as having been made to all the Jewish fathers; and it had its fulfilment in the Lord's resurrection.</p>


text:
<p><em>That God has fulfilled the same- </em>There was a degree to which the promises to Abraham were fulfilled in the Lord's resurrection. This is not to say that they have no fuller realization in the establishment of God's Kingdom on earth in the future. But their fulfilment in the Lord's resurrection was surely in that the promised "blessing" to all peoples was actualized through that event; for the "blessing" is interpreted in <em><a href='B:510 3:25-26'>Act 3:25-26</a></em> and Galatians 3 as the spiritual blessing of forgiveness and grace. And here in :34 we have an explicit connection made between the Lord's resurrection and "blessings".</p><p><em>To our children</em>-</p><p> AV "To us their children". If the other textual reading is correct, are we to suppose that Paul had children?</p><p><em>In that He resurrected Jesus. As also it is written in the second Psalm: You are My Son, this day have I begotten you</em>-</p><p> This text has multiple fulfilments in the New Testament; proof enough that prophetic fulfilments are not singular. Bible prophecy can have multiple fulfilments. </p>


text:
<p><em>And as for the fact that He raised him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, He has spoken in this way: I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David</em></p><p>- see on 13:33 <em>God has fulfilled the same. </em>The blessings associated with David are surely the blessings of grace and forgiveness; for he speaks of himself in reflecting "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute iniquity" (<em><a href='B:230 32:1'>Psa 32:1</a></em>), and this is applied to all who believe in Christ in Romans 4. The quotation is from <em><a href='B:290 55:3'>Isa 55:3</a></em>, which offers the returning exiles a new covenant of forgiveness and radical, gracious acceptance- described as "the sure blessings [LXX] of David". That new covenant was spurned by Judah, and yet can be accepted by us today. It could be that Paul and Isaiah are using "David" in the way it is used in the restoration prophecies of Ezekiel and in <em><a href='B:300 30:9'>Jer 30:9</a></em>, where it refers to David's promised Son, the Messiah. Or it could be that the blessings of David refer to the promise made to him of Messiah, whose eternal Kingdom on earth would only be possible through the extension of grace and mercy to those who would inhabit it. The 'setting up' of David's seed in resurrection was part of the blessings of David, and so these blessings can be said to have come true on account of the Lord's resurrection. </p><p>Not seeing corruption was humanly achieved by the huge amount of spices used in the burial of the Lord Jesus. Some have complained that the weight of spices was more than even used to bury the Caesars. This extravagant freewill outpouring of love and respect for the crucified Lord was therefore the way the Father used to fulfil His prophetic word. </p>


text:
<p><em>Because He said also in another Psalm: You will not allow Your Holy One to see corruption</em>-</p><p> Paul's reasoning and usage of Psalms 16 is identical to that of Peter in his Pentecost address in <em><a href='B:510 2:29-31'>Act 2:29-31</a></em>. There is good reason to think that Paul heard that speech live; and it was one of the goads in his conscience which the Lord asked him to stop going against. Paul's humility is seen in the way that he learned from fisherman Peter, and had clearly reflected upon Peter's line of argument. </p>


text:
<p><em>For David, after he had in his own generation served the will of God, fell asleep and was laid with his fathers, and saw corruption</em>-</p><p> The AV suggests that David served his own generation, according to God's will. We wonder why Paul mentioned this. Perhaps the idea is as expressed in Hebrews- that the Lord Jesus serves not only one generation because of his mortality; rather, His resurrection to immortality makes Him the eternal "servant" of all generations. The Lord had had to remind the Jews that David was inferior to Messiah, because Judaism had a tendency to reason that Moses and David were in any case greater than the Messiah figure (<em><a href='B:490 20:44'>Luk 20:44</a></em>). Paul does the same here, pointing out the inferiority of David to Messiah. </p>


text:
<p><em>But he whom God raised up saw no corruption</em>-</p><p> As noted on :36, the superiority of Messiah over David had to be emphasized to a Jewish audience. The 'not seeing corruption' does not have to refer to the Lord's physical body being somehow preserved from corruption by embalming. He saw / experienced no corruption after His resurrection because He was immortalized. Psalms 16 expresses David's personal hope of resurrection out of the grave, where he envisaged "my flesh shall rest in hope" (<em><a href='B:230 16:9'>Psa 16:9</a></em>). But he understands this as being possible because of what he writes in <em><a href='B:230 16:10'>Psa 16:10</a></em>: "For You will not leave my soul in Sheol, neither will You allow Your holy one to see corruption". "My soul" and the Messianic "holy one" are related, paralleled, but not identical. David would not remain in the grave because Yahweh's Holy One, Messiah, would not see corruption. David did "see corruption", as Paul and Peter state clearly. But David perceived that through identity with his great son, Messiah, he would be resurrected on account of Messiah's salvation from death. And we make that association through baptism into His death and resurrection. We too, as well as David, can therefore have remission of sins and resurrection proclaimed to us in the Gospel (:38).</p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore, be it known to you, brothers, that through this man is proclaimed to you the remission of sins</em>-</p><p> The preaching of the man Paul was in effect the preaching of the man Christ Jesus. Because the Lord’s resurrection enabled forgiveness of sins (<em><a href='B:530 15:17'>1Co 15:17</a></em>), Peter therefore on this basis makes an appeal for repentance and appropriation of the Lord’s work for men through baptism into His death and resurrection (<em><a href='B:510 2:31-38'>Act 2:31-38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 3:15'>Act 3:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 3:19'>Act 3:19</a></em> “therefore"). And Paul here likewise: “He, whom God raised again... through [on account of] this man [and His resurrection] is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins" (<em><a href='B:510 13:37-38'>Act 13:37-38</a></em>). Because of the Name the Lord has been given, salvation has been enabled (<em><a href='B:510 4:12'>Act 4:12</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:570 2:9'>Phi 2:9</a></em>). “God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities" (<em><a href='B:510 3:26'>Act 3:26</a></em>); “the God of our fathers raised up Jesus… exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give (i:e. inspire) repentance to Israel, and forgiveness" (<em><a href='B:510 5:30-31'>Act 5:30-31</a></em>). The fact of the Lord’s resurrection has obtained forgiveness of sins for all who will identify themselves with it through baptism into Him; and this is why it is thereby an imperative to preach it, if we believe in it. The disciples were told to go and preach of the resurrection of Christ, and <em>therefore </em>of the required responses this entails: repentance, acceptance of forgiveness and baptism (<em><a href='B:490 24:46'>Luk 24:46</a></em>). Preaching is motivated by His resurrection (<em><a href='B:530 15:14'>1Co 15:14</a></em>). Baptism saves us "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (<em><a href='B:670 3:21'>1Pe 3:21</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:520 4:25'>Rom 4:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 2:13'>Col 2:13</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And through him, everyone that believes is declared righteous in all things in which the law of Moses could not declare you righteous</em>-</p><p> Better, "in Him". This is exactly what Paul expounds at such depth to the Romans; in Christ we are counted as Him, His righteousness is imputed to us, and this covers all our sins and disobediences to any Divine law, including that given through Moses. This justification, counting as righteous by grace through faith, was not on offer within the Mosaic structure. The force of "everyone..." is that it included Gentiles, which is what attracted them to this message (:42). </p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore beware, lest that which is spoken in the prophets comes upon you</em>-</p><p> Prophecies of judgment can come true at any time if there is the required ‘condition’ of disbelief and disobedience. The prophecy didn’t <em>have</em> to come true for them; but they should “beware” lest it did.</p>


text:
<p><em>Behold you despisers, wonder and perish. For I work a work in your days, a work which you shall in no way believe, even if someone declares it to you</em>-</p><p> By rejecting justification by faith through grace, they were in effect despising God's grace, considering their own works were better, rather like the man in the parable who thought he didn't need the wedding garment provided because his own clothing was better. This prophecy stated that even when the Gospel was declared to some, they would not believe it. And yet Paul still declares it; knowing that God's purpose is open insofar as every person who hears the Gospel has genuine freewill.</p><p>The Hebrew text reads to the effect "Behold you Gentiles"; but this is quoted by Paul about the orthodox Jews. Paul is doing just what Stephen did in the speech of Acts 7 which so convicted Paul in his conscience; he demonstrates that the most nationalistic Hebrews were spiritually no better than the Gentiles whom they despised. The original context of the <em><a href='B:420 1:5'>Hab 1:5</a></em> quotation is the destruction of the temple by the Babylonians. Paul saw the parallels with the coming destruction of the temple by the Romans. But just as the threatened destruction of the temple could have been averted by Jewish repentance in the past, so it could have been in the first century. Hence :40 "Beware therefore lest...". Jewish repentance could have brought on the second coming; but they did not. Paul has asked them to repent in :38, and here he is implying that if they do not, then the Jewish system and temple cult were going to be permanently destroyed. </p>


text:
<p><em>And as they went out, they pleaded that these words might be spoken to them the next Sabbath</em>-</p><p> The "words" included the stark warning of condemnation with which Paul concluded in :41. The harder side of God attracts; the reality of the issues before us, of eternal life and eternal death, attract attention in a way which a 'softer' approach cannot. And the Gentiles were attracted by the logic of the idea of righteousness imputed by grace through the faith of literally any human; see on :39. </p>


text:
<p><em>Now when the meeting of the synagogue was dismissed, many of the Jews and of the devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas; who, speaking to them, urged them- </em>The apostles weren’t interested in just giving good advice, but rather good news. They were pressed in their spirit, that they <em>had </em>to appeal to men (<em><a href='B:510 13:43'>Act 13:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 18:13'>Act 18:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:28'>Act 26:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 28:23'>Act 28:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 1:10'>Gal 1:10</a></em>). They persuaded men, convinced and confounded the Jews, reasoned, testified and exhorted, disputed and converted (<em><a href='B:510 8:25'>Act 8:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 18:13'>Act 18:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 18:19'>Act 18:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 18:28'>Act 18:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:40'>Act 2:40</a></em>). In short, they <em>so</em> spake that multitudes believed .</p><p><em>To continue in the grace of God</em>-</p><p> Paul and Barnabas realized that the idea of grace is attractive at first encounter, but to continue believing it is demanding, and has to be consciously continued in. For if by grace we are indeed counted righteous and shall surely be saved- this demands every fibre of our being in response. And the later New Testament letters are full of examples of how believers failed to continue under grace but turned to various forms of legalism. We have to continue in His kindness / gentleness (<em><a href='B:520 11:22'>Rom 11:22</a></em> s:w:). And that is harder than it might seem, because to abide in that constant sense of sin forgiven and certain salvation demands so much of us, in that we cannot be passive to it, nor treat these things as a mere part of our religious hobby. The <em>charis</em>, grace / gift of God, often refers to the gift of the Spirit given to believers after baptism. The Corinthians received it, but were "not spiritual" (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>); it could be received in vain if the believer denied the Spirit or refused to be led by it. So it could be that those who heard in the synagogue were baptized, and received the gift of God- and had to be encouraged to continue in it.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the next Sabbath almost the whole city was gathered together to hear the word of God- </em>This huge attendance was not because of miracles, carrots offered or the hope of personal benefit. It was because of the immense power of the ideas presented- justification, total righteousness, by grace through faith; for everyone, literally everyone. The Gentiles enthused about this to others, and it is by personal witness that people come along to meetings and are converted.</p>


text:
<p><em>But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy</em>-</p><p> The success of other preachers can elicit the most powerful jealousy, as it does to this day. "The Jews" here refers surely to the Jewish leadership, as the term often does in Luke-Acts. The experience of such jealousy places us in the direct fellowship of the Lord Jesus. For it was jealousy about "the crowds" which led to His persecution unto death.</p><p><em>And contradicted the things which were spoken by Paul and blasphemed- </em>Gk. 'cursed'. The Jews of Antioch in Pisidia cursed Paul and his message, drove him out of the city, and then travelled 180 km. to Lystra to oppose his preaching there. This is the behaviour of bad conscience, rather than secular people just irritated with religious evangelism. Not only did the Jews crucify God’s Son, but the book of Acts makes it clear that it was Jewish opposition which was the main adversary to Paul’s spreading of the Gospel and establishment of the early church (<em><a href='B:510 13:50-51'>Act 13:50-51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 14:2'>Act 14:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 14:5-6'>Act 14:5-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 14:19'>Act 14:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 17:5-9'>Act 17:5-9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 17:13-14'>Act 17:13-14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 18:6'>Act 18:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 18:12-17'>Act 18:12-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 21:27-36'>Act 21:27-36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 23:12-25'>Act 23:12-25</a></em>). Paul speaks of the Jewish opposition as having “killed both the Lord Jesus and the [first century Christian] prophets, and drove us out; they displease God and oppose everyone by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. Thus they have constantly been filling up the measure of their sins” (<em><a href='B:590 2:13-16'>1Th 2:13-16</a></em>). These are strong words, and must be given their full weight in our assessment of the degree to which the Jews were indeed a great ‘Satan’ to the cause of Christ in the first century.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, and said: It was necessary that the word of God should first be spoken to you. Seeing you thrust it from you</em></p><p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 7:27'>Act 7:27</a></em> <em>Thrust him away</em>. One phrase of Paul's in <em><a href='B:510 13:46'>Act 13:46</a></em> combines allusions to two verses in Matthew (<em><a href='B:470 21:41'>Mat 21:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:8'>Mat 22:8</a></em>). Those verses are close to each other. As Paul thought about <em><a href='B:470 21:41'>Mat 21:41</a></em>, he would have gone on to <em><a href='B:470 22:8'>Mat 22:8</a></em>, and then brought them both together in his allusion- ultimately controlled by the Spirit, of course.</p><p><em>And judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the gentiles</em>-</p><p> Not only are we living out <em>our</em> judgment by how we preach; by presenting the Gospel to people we are effectively bringing the judgment to them. Paul commented how those who rejected his preaching judged / condemned themselves to be unworthy. The Jews by their attitude to the word "judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life"; and we too can anticipate the judgment seat by the same mistake. The preacher stands in the ‘highways’ (<em><a href='B:470 22:9'>Mat 22:9</a></em>)- ‘the place of two roads’, the Greek means, i:e. the place where two roads divide. This is what our taking of the Gospel to people means. They are given their choice. We bring the crisis of the judgment seat right in front of them, and they make their choice. </p>


text:
<p><em>For so has the Lord commanded us: I have set you for a light of the Gentiles, that you should bring salvation to the uttermost part of the earth</em>-</p><p> Isaiah's prophecies of Christ being a light to the Gentiles in the Kingdom were fulfilled in Paul (<em><a href='B:290 49:6'>Isa 49:6</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 13:47'>Act 13:47</a></em>; and is <em><a href='B:290 49:4'>Isa 49:4</a></em> also a prophecy of Paul's thoughts? "I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought... yet surely my judgment is with the Lord"). Paul noticed the prophecy that Christ was to be the light of the whole world and saw in this a commandment to him to go and preach Christ world-wide. &nbsp;He read “…for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider” (<em><a href='B:290 52:15'>Isa 52:15</a></em>) as a prophecy which required him to fulfil it, by taking Christ to those who had not heard (<em><a href='B:520 15:21'>Rom 15:21</a></em>). All that is prophesied of Christ is an imperative to us as His body to action. Paul was to bring others to the light just as John had (<em><a href='B:490 1:77'>Luk 1:77</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:79'>Luk 1:79</a></em> =&nbsp; <em><a href='B:510 13:47'>Act 13:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:23'>Act 26:23</a></em>). Paul 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). Paul even says that this prophecy of Christ as the light of the world was a <em>commandment</em> to him; all that is true of the Lord Jesus likewise becomes binding upon us, because we are <em>in</em> Him. Note that Paul says that God has commanded <em>us</em> to witness; it wasn’t that Paul was a special case, and God especially applied Isaiah’s words concerning Christ as light of the Gentiles to Paul. They apply to <em>us</em>, to all who are in Christ. Because everything said about Christ is a commandment to all of us who are in Him. What would Jesus do, who would He be, if He lived in your street, did your job, was married to your partner, mixed with the guys <em>you</em> mix with? The answer to that is our mission. In this sense He has in this world no arms or legs or face than us. </p><p>Believers worked for the fulfilment of their prophecies. Thus Mary was blessed for believing, because therefore and thereby there would be a fulfilment of the things spoken to her (<em><a href='B:490 1:45'>Luk 1:45</a></em> RV). Without her faith, would those things have been fulfilled? She had to do her bit. And this is why she was called blessed. The Lord basically told the disciples to go into the world and preach in order that the prophesies of repentance being preached among all nations would come true (<em><a href='B:490 24:48'>Luk 24:48</a></em>). Paul’s preaching to the whole world was likewise driven by a desire to fulfil the prophecy that Christ would be a light to the Gentiles.</p>


text:
<p><em>And as the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of God- </em>The Gentiles may refer specifically to those Gentiles who had been attending the synagogue (:43). To be taught that the Jewish Messiah was the light of all people, and justification was possible in Him and not through legal obedience, triggered real joy amongst them. Paul prayed for the word of the Lord to be glorified (<em><a href='B:600 3:1'>2Th 3:1</a></em> same phrase), and those prayers were heard here. We glorify God's word or <em>logos</em>, His essential purpose in Christ, by believing it. </p><p><em>And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed</em>-</p><p> This phrase was that used by Judaism regarding how all the faithful people of natural Israel were those "ordained to eternal life", comprising "everyone that is written to eternal life, in the book of life". But the phrase is as it were subverted here to refer to Gentiles who believed in the Lord Jesus. It is meant to be read as the opposition to the statement that the Jews had judged themselves unworthy of eternal life (:46). But whilst there is freewill as to whether we believe or abide in the Lord Jesus or reject Him as the Jews did, there is also an element of predestination, of having been "ordained" to believe. For "all men have not faith" (<em><a href='B:600 3:2'>2Th 3:2</a></em>); faith "is the gift of God" and thereby a proof of how His grace saves us rather than our works (<em><a href='B:560 2:8'>Eph 2:8</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And the word of the Lord was spread about throughout all the region</em>-</p><p> The joyful response and wide publication of the Gospel is strongly emphasized in these verses. But we hear nothing more of the church in Pisidian Antioch; perhaps we are left to conclude that they were an exemplification of the parable of the sower, where there was zealous, joyful response initially which then quickly withered when persecution arose (<em><a href='B:490 8:13'>Luk 8:13</a></em>). The reference to persecution in :50 suggests that Luke may be making a conscious allusion to his record of the sower parable. The converts here were in the category of the seed sown upon the rock. This would explain why they were given especial warning to "continue" in their faith (:43).</p>


text:
<p><em>But the Jews incited the religious women of high standing and the leading men of the city- </em>These women may have been Jews, or at least Jewish proselytes. Josephus claims (<em>The Jewish War</em> 2:20:2) that "In large towns and cities in which Jews abounded, the wives of the men in high position among the heathen were much inclined to the Jewish religion"; this would explain the connection between them and the leading males of the city.</p><p><em>And stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of their district</em>-</p><p> This persecution was apparently successful in withering the faith of the once joyful believers who had responded so quickly and enthusiastically to the Gospel; see on :49. The collaboration here between the Jewish leaders and powerful Roman leaders was typical of how the 'satan' / adversary operated against the early Christians, just as it was such a joining of the forces of evil which led to the Lord's death. The expulsion from the district may refer to some formal ban on Paul ever re-entering, similar to what seems to have happened at Thessalonica (see on <em><a href='B:590 2:18'>1Th 2:18</a></em>). </p>&nbsp;


text:
<p><em>But they shook off the dust of their feet against them and came to Iconium</em>-</p><p> The way Paul shook off the dust of his feet against those who rejected his preaching was surely an almost unconscious reflection of the attitude which the Lord had enjoined upon his men; but there is no evidence that Paul was given the same commission (<em><a href='B:510 13:51'>Act 13:51</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 10:14'>Mat 10:14</a></em>). Jews were supposed to shake off Gentile dust from their feet on returning to the promised land; again, Paul is treating these orthodox Jews as if they are Gentiles. The idiom of shaking out is used in <em><a href='B:160 5:13'>Neh 5:13</a></em> to mean a shaking out of covenant relationship with God; by refusing the new covenant, those Jews were effectively ending their relationship with God, despite their zeal to keep the old covenant.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 8:8'>Act 8:8</a></em>.</p><p><em>And the disciples were filled with joy, and with the Holy Spirit</em>-</p><p> The Ethiopic text reads "the apostles", as if Paul and Barnabas are in view. To be filled with implies external agency; the Lord filled them with joy, through the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit therefore here refers to an internal psychological power, which in this case gave joy. The Spirit gift is given to each believer at baptism, but there are clearly specific moments when believers are filled with it further. The allusion here is clearly to the Lord's command to rejoice under persecution (<em><a href='B:470 5:12'>Mat 5:12</a></em>); that is an attitude and action which has to be consciously adopted. But this is confirmed and encouraged by the action of the Spirit within us to give joy. The spirit is effectively our mind and attitude; the Spirit /mind of the Lord Jesus is therefore being replicated in our minds. As "Jesus was filled with joy by the Holy Spirit" (<em><a href='B:490 10:21'>Luk 10:21</a></em>), so are we "fill[ed]with all joy and peace by means of... the power of the Holy Spirit" (<em><a href='B:520 15:13'>Rom 15:13</a></em>). This is "the joy that comes from the Holy Spirit" (<em><a href='B:590 1:6'>1Th 1:6</a></em>); "For God's Kingdom is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of the righteousness, peace, and joy which the Holy Spirit gives" (<em><a href='B:520 14:17'>Rom 14:17</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>Now at Iconium they entered together into the Jewish synagogue</em></p><p>- see on 17:1,2.</p><p><em>And spoke in such a way</em>-</p><p> Paul <em>so </em>spoke that men believed. Presentation <em>is</em> important. Yet, his speech was “rude… contemptible… not with wisdom of speech” (<em><a href='B:540 10:10'>2Co 10:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 11:6'>2Co 11:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 1:17'>1Co 1:17</a></em> AVmg:). Yet it was because Paul <em>so </em>spoke that men believed:&nbsp; He spoke God’s Truth in his own words, with no pretensions, with no attention to a smooth presentation; and the more real, the more credible. Because he spoke things as they are, right between the eyes, without posing as anyone apart from the real, human guy Paul… therefore men believed. He came over as credible and convinced, and he inspired others to this end.</p><p><em>That a great number of both Jews and Greeks believed</em>-</p><p> This occurred within the synagogue, so presumably the "Greeks" were Gentile proselytes or Hellenic, Greek speaking Jews. </p><p>The record gives the impression that after just one synagogue address, many Jews and Gentiles who were present "believed", and belief and baptism are presented in Acts as part of the same process. This happened it seems after just one address. For there is no hint that there was any period of extended instruction here. This is the power and simplicity of the Gospel. </p>


text:
<p><em>But the unbelieving Jews</em>-</p><p> Yet these Jews would have been far from atheists. But their unbelief in Jesus as Lord leaves them classified as unbelievers. Here we see proof enough that all religions, even Judaic ones, do not lead to salvation. We also see here a classic pattern in Paul's work- he immediately goes to the synagogue, irritates the Jews, although converting some of them, and those Jews then make trouble which damages his work with the Gentiles. Chapter 17 records the same pattern almost word for word. I suggest that if Paul had instead followed the Lord's command and left the Jewish ministry to Peter, and focused solely on the Gentiles- then his life would've been much easier, and his intended ministry to the Gentiles would have been far more fruitful. But this is how it so often is when we do not follow the path the Lord intends for us; even though He will work with us in the other, less ideal paths we choose.</p><p><em>Stirred up the Gentiles</em>-</p><p> The Greek word only occurs a few verses earlier, in the same context (<em><a href='B:510 13:50'>Act 13:50</a></em>). As noted above, the impression is being created of a pattern of behaviour. Paul immediately targets the Jews in the synagogue on his arrival in a town, and those Jews there who reject his message stir up the Gentiles against Paul's mission, thus making his intended mission to the Gentiles so much harder to operate.</p><p><em>And poisoned their minds against the brothers</em>-</p><p> Gk. <em>kakoo psuche</em>, literally they evil spirited- providing proof enough that evil spirits are not radically free entities swanning around the cosmos, but refer to the internal human spirit.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 17:34'>Act 17:34</a></em>.</p><p><em>Therefore they stayed there for a long time speaking boldly in the Lord</em>-</p><p> Boldness is a repeated characteristic of the early preachers, but their boldness was "in the Lord", it was a true sense of being brethren-in-Christ which gave them that boldness.</p><p><em>Who bore witness to the word of his grace</em>-</p><p> This was the purpose of the miraculous gifts in the first century- to back up the verbal preaching of the Gospel at a time when there was no written New Testament available.</p><p><em>Granting</em>-</p><p> Implying they asked for the miracles to be done? The gifts were not possessed continuously by the apostles, they were for specific things at specific times.</p><p><em>Signs and wonders to be done by their hands</em>-</p><p> The Lord Jesus was the doer of the works, but He worked through the hands of those in Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>But the crowd of the city was divided; part held with the Jews and part with the apostles</em>-</p><p> This reflects how widespread was the Jewish slander campaign. Nobody in the town was left untouched by it.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when there was an attempt by the Gentiles and the Jews, with their rulers, to treat them shamefully and to stone them</em>-</p><p> This clearly alludes to the parable of the wicked husbandmen; the same word is used (<em><a href='B:470 22:6'>Mat 22:6</a></em>). And Luke uses the word about what was done to the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 18:32'>Luk 18:32</a></em>). In the work of witness, we are as Christ to the world and share in His sufferings, that we might share in His life. There is nothing glamorous about missionary or evangelistic work; it is on one hand a sharing in the Lord's sufferings, seeing that the cross was itself the greatest preaching of all time. <em><a href='B:530 1:18'>1Co 1:18</a></em> speaks of the preaching which is the cross (Gk:).</p>


text:
<p><em>They became aware of it and fled to the cities of Lycaonia, Lystra and Derbe and the surrounding region</em>-</p><p> Carefully following the Lord's instruction to flee persecution rather than wilfully be martyred (<em><a href='B:470 10:23'>Mat 10:23</a></em>). Several times, Paul has to be bundled away from such persecution by the disciples; he had the Semitic fanaticism when it comes to religion, and was not against violent death for the Christian cause. But the Lord didn't want His followers to serve and die for Him from such impulses of religious fanaticism. The wisdom of the Lord's command is here demonstrated in that the Gospel now spread as a result of their 'fleeing'- to "the surrounding region".</p>


text:
<p><em>And there they preached the gospel</em>-</p><p> The Acts record notes so often that after persecution, Paul continued preaching in fresh areas. This is no small testament to the spirit of 'keeping on keeping on' which is to characterize all Christian endeavour. But it also reflects another theme of Acts- that persecution only led to the geographical spread of the Gospel.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now at Lystra there was a man sitting who could not use his feet. He was crippled since birth and had never walked</em>-</p><p> Again Luke is alluding to the Lord's words he has recorded in his volume 1, the Gospel according to Luke. This time, to <em><a href='B:490 18:27'>Luk 18:27</a></em>: "The things which are impossible [s:w. "could not use"] with men are possible with God". The Lord's ministry in Palestine was being continued by those in Him, just as it is today. We too need to daily read the Gospels and perceive how in essence, the spirit of those incidents and teachings are continuing in our experience daily.</p>


text:
<p><em>The same listened to Paul speaking. Paul looked at him intently- </em>Why is this detail mentioned? Are we intended to think that Paul was seeking to emulate how Peter had done just the same before healing a man in a similar condition (<em><a href='B:510 3:4'>Act 3:4</a></em> s:w:):? Both men were lame from their mother's womb. Both stood up and leaped (<em><a href='B:510 3:8'>Act 3:8</a></em>). In this case, we have another piece of incidental evidence for thinking that Paul was trying to copy Peter, and this led to his obsession to get to Jerusalem for a Pentecost feast in order to preach to the Jews assembled there, hoping he would repeat Peter's conversion of 3000 people in one day. It was this desire to emulate Peter's ministry which somewhat derailed Paul from the focus the Lord wished him to have on the Gentiles rather than the Jews.</p><p><em>And perceiving that he had faith to be made whole</em>-</p><p> Faith was not always required for miracles to be done. We think of the healing of Malchus' ear and other examples. But in this case Paul required faith, because he realized he was continuing the Lord's principle spoken of in <em><a href='B:490 18:27'>Luk 18:27</a></em> (see on :8). There, the Lord had taught that with faith, what is impossible, impotent, unable to be used by man- can be used. </p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 3:8'>Act 3:8</a></em>.</p><p><em>Said with a loud voice: Stand upright on your feet! And he leaped up and walked</em></p><p>- see on 14:9 <em>Paul looked at him intently.</em> The leaping and walking of the lame is expressed in terms of the Kingdom prophecy of <em><a href='B:290 35:6'>Isa 35:6</a></em>. The preaching of the Gospel was demonstrated to be a foretaste of the Kingdom of God which is to come upon earth; and our witness also has something of that about it.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when the crowd saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voice, saying in the language of Lycaonia: The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!- </em>The meaning is surely that Paul and Barnabas didn't understand this, but when they saw the garlands and sacrifices bring brought to them, then they realized- this is the force of the "but" in :14. The gift of languages was therefore not continually available to the apostles; indeed it could be argued that that gift enabled them to speak in those languages, or for the listeners to understand; but not necessarily for them to understand what was spoken to them. Hence in speaking of the practical usage of the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians 14, Paul says that the gift of interpreting tongues was also required. In any case, that was not available here, and so the point is established that the gifts were for highly specific purposes at specific times, and were not continually available for the usage of believers.</p><p>Note that the idea of gods coming to earth as men is a classic pagan belief; and yet it is seen mixed in to Trinitarian theology, with their belief in a pre-existent Christ and a literal 'coming down' of the Lord from Heaven to earth. Indeed, so common was the idea, and so close to it is the language of 'coming down' in John's Gospel, that it could be argued that the NT language is consciously alluding to this wrong idea and showing that this is not the case with the Lord Jesus, but rather His 'coming down' from Heaven was in terms of His manifestation of God rather than anything more literal, as the pagans believed. Standard Christian belief in a physically pre-existent Jesus has therefore missed the point, and taken on board the very pagan ideas which the NT is arguing against.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercury, because he was the chief speaker</em>-</p><p> This would suggest that Barnabas was the more personally imposing in appearance than Paul (cp. <em><a href='B:540 10:1'>2Co 10:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 10:10'>2Co 10:10</a></em>). For this is how they (along with their Greek equivalents Zeus and Hermes) are presented. </p>


text:
<p><em>And the priest of Jupiter, whose temple was before the city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates and would have done sacrifice with the crowds</em>-</p><p> We see in this incident the basic human desire to worship and to turn men into gods. We see it theologically, in the desire to turn the human Jesus into "very God of very Gods" as the Trinity incorrectly states. We see it in secular folk idolizing sports stars and musicians as their gods. The correct channel for this religious instinct is through the Lord Jesus to the Father, guided by His word. </p>


text:
<p><em>But when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of it, they tore their clothes and ran in among the crowd, crying out and saying</em>-</p><p> A set of clothes was one of the most valuable things a person possessed at that time. To tear them was a sign of real and genuine grief and passion. This was how strongly Barnabas and Paul felt about any glory being given to them rather than to the Father and Son; and their strong position should be reflected in our attitudes. We are not to glorify ourselves.</p>


text:
<p><em>Sirs, why do you these things? We also are men of like passions with you</em>-</p><p> Literally, of the same sufferings. If Paul was indeed deformed in some way (as tradition claims), then the point would have been that they too were not of perfect health, they also suffered. We note the emphasis on how similar they were to their audience; they ran in <em>amongst the crowd</em>, and were of the same sufferings "with you". This is the basis of all preaching work- that we are one with our audience and not above them. Exactly because they were ‘one of us’, they could make the appeal of the Gospel. As the Lord Jesus was and is our representative, so we are His representative to men, whilst being ‘one of them’, ‘one of us’. This is why we shouldn’t be afraid to show chinks in our armour, to admit our humanity, and on that basis make appeal to men: that I, as one of us, with all your humanity, your doubts and fears, am appealing to you to grasp that better way:&nbsp; When Paul wrote that if anyone was weak, he was weak, he seems to be saying that they could match their spiritual weakness by his own. This is why personal contact <em>&nbsp; must be</em> the intended way to witness.</p><p><em>And bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them</em>-</p><p> Literally, we evangelize to convert you. The aim of our preaching should be to convert, not simply to half-heartedly, lamely inform the public of the particular set of convictions held by our denomination or local church. Having a clear and defined aim is critical in interaction with others in order to evangelize them. The idea is the same as in 17:30; in the past, the Gentiles were [for the most part] allowed to do as they wish. But now, all the world is commanded to be obedient and repent, through the fulfilment of the great commission by the church. </p>


text:
<p><em>Who in the generations gone by allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways</em>-</p><p> This is another angle on God dealing mainly with the Jewish people during those past generations. Rather than seeing this as unfair, one could take the view that in fact God "allowed" the other nations to do what they wanted- which if asked, would have been their preferred option. They got what they would've wanted if asked by God. The question of 'Why didn't God call nations other than the Jews in Old Testament times?' was obviously going to arise with the Gentiles. Paul addresses this same issue in <em><a href='B:510 17:30'>Act 17:30</a></em>, saying that "the times of this ignorance God winked at". He seems to be taking the approach that the Old Testament Gentiles generally need not fear judgment. The same approach may be helpful when we are asked concerning the fate of those who did not know the Gospel. </p>


text:
<p><em>And yet He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, and gave you rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling your hearts with food and gladness</em>-</p><p> AV “gave <em>us </em>rain…”. I suggest that the "us" refers to Paul and Barnabas and faithful Israel. Paul is saying that <em>you</em> are in a position of worshipping idols, but <em>we</em> (Paul and Barnabas) are appealing to you to change, and believe in the true God- not in ourselves. What was God's witness to the Gentile world? An obedient Israel. That, at least, was His intention. That obedient Israel should have blessing of fruitful seasons, food and gladness. These are all terms taken from the Old Testament descriptions of how God would bless <em>Israel</em> (not the Gentile world) if <em>they</em> were obedient. Jupiter was the god of the air and responsible for rain; Mercury was responsible for food. But Lycaonia (14:6) was famous for droughts and famine- the references can be found in standard commentaries (Vine, Matthew Henry etc:). Jupiter and Mercury had <em>not</em> given those Gentiles these blessings. But Yahweh, the one true God, had given these things to faithful Israel. Thereby He was a witness to those Gentiles, that they should accept the God of Israel. Paul is saying 'God let you Gentiles live as you wished. But obedient Israel were intended to be His witness to you- <em>they</em> received rain, fruitful seasons, food and gladness from their God, Yahweh. But <em>you</em> didn't- your Jupiter and Mercury were unable to give those blessings to you. So don't treat <em>us</em> as gods, quit your idols, and turn to the one true God of Israel'.</p><p>This naturally raises the question: To what purpose then was that witness, seeing at that time His plan was with the Jews and not the Gentiles? Perhaps we can infer from this that if anyone really thought about creation, they would have perceived God's witness and come to Him. <em><a href='B:230 19:1-4'>Psa 19:1-4</a></em> appears to say the same: "The heavens declare the glory of God, the expanse above shows His handiwork. Day after day they pour forth speech, and night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Their voice has gone out through all the earth, their words to the end of the world". This last verse is quoted in <em><a href='B:520 10:18'>Rom 10:18</a></em> in order to prove that "Whoever believes in him shall not be put to shame. For there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile" (<em><a href='B:520 10:11-12'>Rom 10:11-12</a></em>). Paul interprets the "whoever" as meaning that both Jew and Gentile were witnessed to even in Old Testament times, and therefore there ought to be no barrier at all to taking the Gospel to Gentiles. Without access to the Bible or the witness of Israel and their religion, we can only conclude that God's level of acceptance of Old Testament Gentiles was quite low in terms of detailed knowledge. Admittedly there are few if any examples recorded of such Gentiles in Old Testament times coming to perceive the witness of creation and respond to it. But it would be a weak argument from silence to say there were no such cases. For the Old Testament is the history of God's old testament or covenant, which was with Israel. </p>


text:
<p><em>Even with these words the people were scarcely restrained from offering sacrifice to them</em>-</p><p> We see here the immense strength of the human urge to sacrifice. We see it in the success of the televangelists who appeal for donations- and get them- on the flimsiest of foundations. God's insistence that all sacrifice be offered <em>to Him</em> is not Him as it were seeking to dominate us humans. Rather is He explaining how to channel that propensity to sacrifice which we have. In the modern world, it seems that the willingness to sacrifice has been submerged somewhat beneath the chronic egoism and hedonism of our age. Suicide bombers and the like are seen by many Westerners as utterly inexplicable beings; but the desire to sacrifice is in fact a strong part of us, and is more logically and comfortably accepted by other cultures. Our knowledge of the Father and Son provides us with the ultimate way to channel and express it; although we may well need to get in touch with this self-sacrificial part of ourselves first. </p>


text:
<p><em>But there came Jews from Antioch and Iconium, and having persuaded the crowds</em>-</p><p> The same words used of how the Jews "persuaded the crowds" to crucify the Lord (<em><a href='B:470 27:20'>Mat 27:20</a></em>). Again, we see circumstances being arranged so that Paul entered into the crucifixion sufferings of the Lord. The same goes on in the lives of all who have committed themselves to identity with Him. And we naturally wonder what Saul / Paul was doing at the Lord's crucifixion; seeing he was then living in Jerusalem as a student of Gamaliel, he very likely was one of the Jews involved in 'persuading the crowds'. The same word for "persuaded" has just been used about Paul's preaching (<em><a href='B:510 13:43'>Act 13:43</a></em>), and continues to be used about it. We are given the impression that Paul persuaded the crowds one way, and then the Jews persuaded them another way. Paul must have bitterly lamented the fickleness of the crowds; but in so doing he was sharing the experience of the Lord Jesus. For the crowd who shouted "Hosanna!" and wanted Him as their Messianic King were soon shouting "crucify Him!", due to their persuasion by the Jews. The miracles both of the Lord and Paul clearly had no lasting power in persuading the crowds. The ministry of miracles never really achieved much, and Pentecostalism ought to take due note of that. How Paul must have wished for mass literacy amongst the people, and for some written record of the Gospel readily available to his audience, which could be their abiding source of persuasion. And in our days we have just that, although human fickleness is no less.</p><p><em>They stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing that he was dead</em>-</p><p> They stoned Paul and then dragged him out of the city, implying they were disposing of his corpse. He was either really dead (and was resurrected), or extremely damaged and apparently lifeless. The Mosaic principles about the guilt of death within a city come to mind; they had blood on their hands before both God and the men of the Roman authorities. But Paul never seeks to prosecute them for their behaviour. Paul was stoned and dragged out of Lystra as dead- presumably they didn’t want him to die within the city limits as they were under Roman jurisdiction. Yet, hobbling and bleeding, he returned into the city to witness. And it was here in Lystra that he made one of his greatest converts, Timothy (<em><a href='B:510 16:1'>Act 16:1</a></em>). And when Paul asks us to follow him, he is speaking in the context of his life’s work and preaching. He is our pattern, to be lived out in spirit within the confines within which God has placed us.</p>


text:
<p><em>But as the disciples stood around him, he rose up- Anistemi</em> can be used of resurrection. The way he rises up and walks off, when he had been considered a lifeless corpse just minutes before, rather suggests that this was indeed a resurrection. The disciples stood around about him, rather than seeking to minister to his wounds or resuscitate him. This sounds like trying to hold some kind of funeral service. If indeed Paul died and was resurrected, then it is a reflection of his humility that he never seems to specifically refer to this in any later passages of self-justification. </p><p><em>And entered into the city, and the next day he went with Barnabas to Derbe</em>-</p><p> If indeed Paul had been dragged out of the town to the rubbish dump where corpses were burnt, and then he returned alive and well into the city and spent a day there- this would have been a powerful witness to resurrection. And the Jews would have feared to touch him. He would clearly have been seen as "in Christ", whose death at the hands of the Jews and subsequent resurrection he had been preaching. His return into the city (rather than departing immediately) may have been for similar reasons as to why he did the same after release from prison at Philippi. The community he was leaving behind would have at least some mystique and respect attached to them which would save them from future persecution, at least for some time. We see here Paul's utter selflessness and constant concern for his converts. The way Paul returned to Lystra to confirm the disciples (:21), despite having been stoned and maybe killed there, speaks volumes about him. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch- </em>This word is that used in <em><a href='B:470 28:19'>Mat 28:19</a></em> about the making of disciples in response to the great commission. Paul clearly saw the commission as applying to himself; this surely disproves the contention that the great commission was only given to the eleven disciples to whom it was originally spoken. For <em>Lystra</em></p><p>- see on :20.</p>


text:
<p><em>Confirming the souls of the disciples</em>-</p><p> 'Confirming' might seem an activity more relevant to the spirit of disciples, to their minds, rather than their 'souls'. But often the words soul and spirit, <em>psuche </em>and <em>pneuma,</em> are used almost interchangeably. It is too simplistic to argue that the spirit refers to the human mind or spirit, and 'soul' refers to the material person or body. That distinction is at times valid, but not always. "Confirming" occurs only four times in the NT and always in Acts. Such follow up pastoral visits were clearly part of Paul's missionary strategy as they should be of ours.</p><p><em>Exhorting them</em>-</p><p> <em>Parakleo</em> means to beg, to strongly ask. But it also has the sense of 'comfort', although this is not the most common sense in which it is used in the 108 occurrences in the NT. The challenge, the asking to continue in the faith is actually a comfort; the height of the calling, the focus on the ideal, is itself a comfort.</p><p><em>To continue in the faith</em>-</p><p> Paul was a Jew, thinking in Hebrew terms, and steeped in the Old Testament language. And many of his converts were either Jews or Proselytes. The other two NT occurrences of the word likewise reflect the Old Testament idea of continuing in the covenant. Israel did not continue in that covenant (<em><a href='B:650 8:9'>Heb 8:9</a></em>), and that covenant cursed all who did not continue in all things written in the Mosaic law (<em><a href='B:550 3:10'>Gal 3:10</a></em> - written by Paul to converts in this very area where he was urging them to continue "in the faith"):&nbsp; The contrast is therefore between continuing [or trying to continue] in obedience to Mosaic law, and continuing in the faith in God's saving grace in Christ.</p><p><em>And that through many tribulations</em>-</p><p> Paul is fond of allusion to the parable of the sower, and he clearly has in mind the need to continue as good soil, and not to be in the category of those who fall away from faith because of tribulations (<em><a href='B:470 13:21'>Mat 13:21</a></em>). Those tribulations <em>must</em> come, he is saying. Christianity is no insurance policy against tribulation, but rather a way of attaching meaning to it. Perhaps he also had in mind the Lord's simple statement that "in the world you shall have tribulation" (<em><a href='B:500 16:33'>Joh 16:33</a></em>); it is inevitable. Stephen had twice used the word in his speech (<em><a href='B:510 7:10-11'>Act 7:10-11</a></em>), and consciously or unconsciously Paul was maybe recalling that. Paul himself had brought tribulation upon Christians (<em><a href='B:510 11:19'>Act 11:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:33'>Heb 10:33</a></em>, so again he was experiencing what he had done to others (the word is also used of Paul's sufferings in <em><a href='B:510 20:23'>Act 20:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 1:8'>2Co 1:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 6:4'>2Co 6:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:24'>Col 1:24</a></em>)- just as we do. Paul may also have in mind the predictions in the Olivet prophecy that there was to be great tribulation just before entry into the Kingdom of God at the Lord's return. In this case, we have another hint that he expected the Lord's return imminently, and spoke and reasoned accordingly, as we should do.</p><p>We must have tribulation, either in the condemnation of the judgment (<em><a href='B:520 2:9'>Rom 2:9</a></em>), or now- in order that we will enter the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:510 14:22'>Act 14:22</a></em>). We must bear the burden either of our sins (<em><a href='B:370 2:13'>Amo 2:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 58:6'>Isa 58:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 38:4'>Psa 38:4</a></em>) or of the Lord's cross (<em><a href='B:550 6:4'>Gal 6:4</a></em> etc:). We will experience either the spiritual warfare of the striving saint (<em><a href='B:520 7:15-25'>Rom 7:15-25</a></em>), or the lusts of the flesh warring in our members, eating us up with the insatiability of sin (<em><a href='B:660 4:1'>Jas 4:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 16:28-29'>Eze 16:28-29</a></em>). </p><p><em>We must enter into the kingdom of God- </em>The sense is that we are now entering into the Kingdom, but through tribulation. The Lord had spoken of entering the Kingdom through the narrow gate, and Paul is putting meaning into those words, explaining that the narrow gate means tribulation. His own experience of stoning and perhaps death at Lystra exemplified what he was getting at.</p>


