*Acts 13 -
None of the apostle Paul's teachings in this chapter, just as nothing else in the Bible, contradicts the idea of Jesus Christ reigning in a still-future, physical, Davidic, Kingdom of God on the earth, with both Jewish and Gentile Christians.
(See Acts 1:6 above)
--
*Acts 13:6 -
"Bar-jesus" (G0919) means "Son of Joshua". For the Hebrew word "bar" (H1247) means "the son of" (Ezra 5:1), and "Jesus" is the Greek form of the Hebrew name "Joshua", which was a common name among the Jews in the first century AD. So the Jew (Acts 13:6) named "Bar-jesus" was not claiming to be the son of Jesus Christ, or even the son (or direct descendant) of the ancient Joshua in the book of Joshua in the Old Testament, but was simply the son of some other Jew named Joshua.
But the English name "Bar-jesus" has a suitable double entendre in this case. For the Bar-jesus in Acts 13:6 did try to "bar" (in the sense of prevent) Jesus Christ from being preached to and believed upon by Bar-jesus' associate named Sergius (Acts 13:7-8). But Bar-jesus failed, and he was struck blind for his efforts (Acts 13:11-12). The apostle Paul even called him a son of the devil (Acts 13:10), which if translated into Hebrew as a name would be "Bar-satan". Jesus Christ similarly said that nonelect non-Christians are sons of the devil (John 8:42-47).
(See also Romans 9:11 below)
--
*Acts 13:8 -
The original Greek word (methermeneuo: G3177) translated as "by interpretation" can mean "when translated".
~
"Elymas" (G1681) means "Sorcerer".
So when Acts 13:8 says: "Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation)", it means that "the sorcerer" is the translation of the name "Elymas", the name given to "Bar-jesus" (Acts 13:6,8). Per Easton's, "Elymas" is an Arabic name. So at that time, there must have been many Arabs on Cyprus (Acts 13:4). It is curious that "Bar-jesus" was known generally by an Arabic name. For (centuries later) it would be the Arabs who would invent Islam, now the second-largest religion in the world, after Christianity. And Islam completely denies the Gospel of Jesus Christ (of 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, John 3:16,36). Islam has for centuries tried to "bar Jesus" (the true, Biblical Jesus) from hundreds of millions of people throughout the world. But it too, like Elymas himself (Acts 13:8-12), will eventually be defeated. Also, it is curious that "Islam" is even like an anagram of "Elymas". For the letters of "Elymas" can be rearranged to read "Eslam-y", as in "like Islam".
(See the "Islam" section of Galatians 1:8 below)
Later in Acts 13, we see Jews rejecting the gospel of Jesus Christ out of envy (Acts 13:45) of Christians (whether Jews or Gentiles) (Acts 13:42-45), just as the Arabs (for the most part) could have rejected both Christianity and Judaism out of envy of the Jews, through whom God had started both religions, in their strictly-Biblical form, the Bible being the only true religion in the world (2 Timothy 3:15 to 4:4, Galatians 1:8-9, John 14:6, John 3:36, Acts 4:12).
(See also Genesis 16:3 above)
--
*Acts 13:29 -
See Luke 24:44 above.
--
*Acts 13:33 must be taken together with Acts 13:34-37, which shows that the resurrection of the Son was foretold not in Psalms 2:7, but in Psalms 16:10.
But His resurrection was the proof that He was the Son (Romans 1:4), just as the Father had said at Jesus' baptism that Jesus was the Son (Mark 1:11).
(See also the "Begotten" section of John 3:16 above)
--
*Acts 13:40-41 -
Here the apostle Paul was employing the basic principle of Habakkuk 1:5. He was not saying that the Chaldeans (Babylonians) were going to come (Habakkuk 1:5-6) upon the non-Christian Jews in Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13:14), in what is today Turkey, in the first century AD. Instead, he was warning them, using the example of Habakkuk 1:5, not to disbelieve God the Father's work, in this case through Jesus Christ Himself (Acts 13:37-39).
--
*Acts 13:48b means that in that situation, as many people as were elect (Romans 9:11), predestined to initial salvation (Ephesians 1:4-11), were granted God's miraculous gift of faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8, John 6:65; 1 Corinthians 3:5b, Romans 12:3b, Hebrews 12:2). For in Acts 13:48 the original Greek word (tasso: G5021) translated as "ordained" includes the meaning of "to assign", and can be translated as "appointed" (Acts 28:23) and "determined" (Acts 15:2), which are the same ideas as "elected" (Romans 9:11) and "predestinated" (Ephesians 1:4-11).
(See Romans 9:11 below)
--
*Acts 14:14 shows that eventually there were at least fourteen apostles of Jesus Christ, including Paul and Barnabas, and the twelve apostles of Acts 1:26.
Note also the curious correlation of this truth with the verse's own chapter and verse numbers.
(But see Zechariah 5:1-4 above)
--
*Acts 15:5-29 -
Whether or not the Pharisees at the time of Acts 15 actually obeyed the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, the false spirit of Pharisaism (which is still alive and well today, even among some Christians) nonetheless mistakenly insists that people must obey the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Acts 15:5, Acts 26:5, Philippians 3:5, Matthew 12:2).
(See the "Law" section of Ephesians 2:15 below)
~
The circumcision referred to in Acts 15:5-29 was the physical circumcision of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Galatians 5:1-12), not the spiritual circumcision of the New Covenant of Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:11-13, Philippians 3:3, Romans 2:29).
(See the "Circumcision" section of Ephesians 2:15 below)
--
*Acts 15:6-29 -
Here the meeting was about whether or not Christian Gentiles must keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Acts 15:5-6,24). The Church leadership as a whole in Jerusalem was not ready at that time to say that the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law did not have to be kept by Jews either, because it had been abolished, even for Jews (Romans 7:6, Hebrews 7:18-19, Galatians 2:11-21, Galatians 4:21 to 5:8, Galatians 3:2-25; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18), on the New Covenant Cross of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 10). But this truth was known full well by the apostle Peter (Acts 15:5,10-11), even though he sometimes did not act like he knew it, and so he was admonished one time by the apostle Paul away from the leaders in Jerusalem, while he was up in Antioch (Galatians 2:11-21). Paul and other apostles who knew the truth got it directly from Jesus, not from other apostles (Galatians 1:11-12; 2 Peter 1:16). That is why they could fend for themselves in arguing against those Jews who were pressuring Christian Gentiles to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Acts 15:2a).
But when they could not convince those Jews to stop their pressuring, they got yet other leaders (Acts 15:2b), such as James, whom those Jews' hopefully would obey (Galatians 2:12), to get them to stop, through a letter which showed Christian Gentiles that none of the leaders of the Church were commanding them to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Acts 15:24).
When the apostle Peter was away from Jerusalem, living among the Gentiles in Antioch, in what is today Turkey, he rightly lived "after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews" (Galatians 2:14). It was only when some Jews came to Antioch who were "from James" (Galatians 2:12) that Peter reverted back to their (mistaken) practice. For James, and those who followed him, "zealously" (yet still mistakenly) held that the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law was still in effect for Jews (Acts 15:21, Acts 21:18-24). Such Old Covenant Mosaic law-zealous Jews griped to James over what the apostle Paul was telling Jews (Acts 21:21).
(See Acts 21:20 below. Also, see the "Law" section of Ephesians 2:15 below)
--
*Acts 15:10 means that all Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, should stop trying to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law. For the yoke which the apostle Peter says in Acts 15:10 was an unbearable yoke even for Jews was the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, which had just been referred to in Acts 15:5. Similarly, in Galatians 5:1 the yoke of bondage which the apostle Paul says that all Christians are not to be entangled with is the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law which Paul had just showed "gendereth to bondage" (Galatians 4:21-31).
--
*Acts 15:14-17 does not say or mean that Amos 9:11-12 is "fulfilled", only that the basic principle of the salvation of Gentiles "agrees" (Greek "sumphoneo": G4856) with the idea of Amos 9:11-12, and only as it was understood by the (fallible) individual quoted in Acts 15:14-17. A different way of understanding Amos 9:11-12 is by looking at the original Hebrew: Amos 9:11-12 can mean that the house of King David will be restored to power, and will possess Edom (present-day southern Jordan) and all other nations. This will be fulfilled during the future Millennium, which will not occur until after Jesus Christ's future, Second Coming (Revelation 19:7 to 20:6, Zechariah 14:3-21). Jesus is of the house of David (Luke 1:69, Matthew 1:1), and so at His return He will restore the house of David to power by sitting on the throne of David (Luke 1:32, Isaiah 9:7, Isaiah 16:5) and ruling the earth (Zechariah 14:9, Psalms 72:8-11).
(See also paragraphs 4-5 of Acts 1:6 above)
--
*Acts 15:21 is a quotation of James (Acts 15:13-21), one of the people in the Church at that early time who mistakenly thought that the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law was still in effect (Acts 21:20).
(See the "Law" section of Ephesians 2:15 below)
--
*Acts 15:29a -
The historical account of the forbidding of Christian Gentiles to eat certain foods at the time of Acts 15:29 is not in line with the Biblical teachings which show that under the New Covenant all foods are in themselves okay for all Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, to eat (1 Timothy 4:4-5, Romans 14:14,20, Mark 7:18-19; 1 Corinthians 10:25-30, Colossians 2:16-17, Hebrews 9:10). But it may have seemed good to the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28) to allow Acts 15:29 as an only-temporary compromise among the Church leaders at that time, so that a schism would not arise within the Church (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:25) so shortly after its inception, between those leaders who at that time still (mistakenly) wanted to continue keeping the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Acts 15:21, Acts 21:20b), and those leaders who knew the truth that all Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, should not try to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Acts 15:10, Romans 7:6, Galatians 4:21 to 5:8, Galatians 3:2-25, Galatians 2:11-21; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Hebrews 7:18-19, Hebrews 10:9b).
(See also Romans 14:14 and Acts 21:21 below)
--
*Acts 16:3 -
The apostle Paul circumcised his assistant Timothy not because Paul thought that the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law was still in effect, but simply so that "the Jews which were in those quarters" (in what is today Turkey) would allow Timothy to enter synagogues with Paul during his missionary journey (Acts 16:3).
--
*Acts 16:16-17 -
This was an example where a non-Christian possessed by a spirit of divination spoke some truth regarding some Christians. But that spirit was cast out nonetheless (Acts 16:18). For people are never to turn to those with spirits of divination (1 Samuel 28:8; 1 Chronicles 10:13-14; 2 Chronicles 33:6), regardless of whether they sometimes speak some truth or not. Instead, people are to turn to the infallible Bible for their instruction (2 Timothy 3:15-17), and to the prophets of God in the Church (1 Corinthians 12:28), who may have miraculously been given words for their congregations (1 Corinthians 14:4b,29) by God's Holy Spirit Himself (1 Corinthians 12:8-11).
--
*Acts 16:18 -
(Re: Is *casting out demons dangerous, because it is deliberately contacting them?)
Casting out demons should not be thought of as "contacting demons" in, for example, what Christians would consider to be the "New Age" sense of that phrase, where deceived humans contact and "channel" demons masquerading as "Ascended Masters" supposedly dispensing ancient spiritual wisdom to modern man. Instead, casting out demons is simply commanding them in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of a person, like the apostle Paul did in Acts 16:18.
(See also 1 Samuel 28:3 above)
--
*Acts 16:31 is what Christians should preach to everyone (Mark 16:15-16). They should never assume that anyone is nonelect and so unable to ever believe in Jesus Christ (John 8:42-47, John 10:26-27). Also, even when Acts 16:31 is unknowingly preached to someone who is nonelect, it is not a lie. For it is not saying: "You as an individual definitely have the ability to believe". But is simply saying: "If you as an individual do believe, you will be saved". It is like if a man on a ship fell overboard into icy water, and cried out to the people on deck: "What must I do to be saved?". The people threw him a rope, and said: "Grab this rope and you will be saved". What they did not know was that his hands had become so icy-cold from the water that he had lost all use of them, and so he could not possibly grab the rope.
Also, while the apostle Paul and Silas would have been aware that nonelect individuals can never believe in Jesus Christ (John 8:42-47, John 10:26-27), there is no reason that they would have shared that with the jailer when he asked them what he must do to be saved (Acts 16:30). Similarly, in the analogy above, even though the people who threw the man the rope could have been aware of the possibility that he might not be able to grab the rope, there is no reason that they would share that with the man when he asked them what he must do to be saved. The man would have found that out right away on his own when he tried to grab the rope and found that he had lost all use of his icy-cold hands; just as if the jailer had been nonelect, he would have found out right away on his own that he had no capacity to believe in Jesus Christ.
~
(Re: OSAS?)
Acts 16:31 refers only to initial salvation, which is based on faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9). The apostle Paul elsewhere makes clear that only those Christians who subsequently obey Jesus Christ will be saved from hell in the end (Romans 2:6-8). And those Christians who wrongly employ their free will to commit any unrepentant sin will not be saved in the end (Romans 8:13a, Galatians 5:19-21).
(See also Ephesians 2:8 and Hebrews 10:26 below)
--
*Acts 17:11 -
The apostle Paul taught everyone what the Old Testament had taught regarding the Messiah, the Christ (Acts 26:22-23), but which had not been understood by anyone (Luke 18:34, Romans 16:25-26) until Jesus Christ explained it to His apostles after His resurrection (Luke 24:44-47, Galatians 1:12).
(See also section 2 of 1 Timothy 3:15 below)
~
(Re: Regarding sola scriptura, did not the Bereans not practice it, because they accepted Paul's authority to teach what the scriptures mean?)
Note that the Bereans did practice sola scriptura, because scripture was the ultimate authority against which even the apostle Paul's teachings had to be tested (Acts 17:11b).
Sola scriptura does not negate human teachings per se (e.g. 1 Corinthians 12:28). It simply means that no human teaching is necessarily true unless it is taught by the Bible itself:
Acts 17:11 . . . and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
(See also the "Tradition" section of 1 Timothy 3:15 below)
~
(Re: Would the idea of the written law being a sole religious authority have even crossed the Bereans' minds?)
Yes, for, insofar as when testing the truth of teachers, a Jew was always to go:
[Isaiah 8:20]
(See also 1 John 2:27 below)
--
*Acts 17:24b -
See Acts 7:48 above.
--
*Acts 17:26 -
(Re: Disproves election?)
No, for Acts 17:26's "one blood" would simply mean that nonelect individuals are no different genetically than elect individuals.
(See Romans 9:11 below)
--
*Acts 17:27-28 -
The desire to seek the omnipresent God is not in anyone before they become a Christian (Romans 3:11). And nonelect individuals are not considered by God to be His children, but the children of the devil (John 8:42-47, Matthew 13:38b-39), even though they can only exist because God exists, just as even the devil himself can only exist because God exists.
--
*Acts 17:30 -
God can command something so that sin by the commandment might become exceedingly sinful (Romans 7:13). God hardens nonelect individuals in their sin because He created them to be vessels of His wrath (Romans 9:18-22).
(See the "Vessels of wrath" section of Romans 9:11 below)
--
*Acts 17:31 -
(A day / G2250)
See section 2 of John 6:39 above.
--
*Acts 18:18b -
If any apostles or other Jewish Christians at first kept doing any of the things of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law out of a mistaken belief that it was still in effect (Acts 21:20b), then they simply had not yet grasped the truth that...
(See the "Law" section of Ephesians 2:15 below)
Also, nothing in Acts 18:18b requires that the vow which the apostle Paul took was the Nazarite vow of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Numbers 6). For Paul made no exceptions to his New Covenant teaching that if a man has long hair, it is a shame to him (1 Corinthians 11:14). Nor does anything in the Bible say that Paul shaved his head in Cenchrea because someone had died very suddenly by him seven days earlier (Numbers 6:9), or that Paul on the day after shaving his head made the temple animal sacrifices of Numbers 6:10-12. Nor does anything in the Bible say that Paul shaved his head in Cenchrea because he had successfully completed a Nazarite vow, which completion required that the shaving of the Nazarite's head be done only at the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, and only after certain animal sacrifices had been performed there (Numbers 6:13-21).
--
*Acts 19:1-6 -
See Acts 1:5 above.
--
*Acts 19:6 -
(Re: Can only apostles perform Holy Spirit baptism?)
See Acts 8:14 above.
--
*Acts 21:20-25 / *Acts 21:21 / *Acts 21:24b -
The apostle Paul did not object to the charges in Acts 21:21, because they were true (Romans 7:6, Galatians 2:11-21, Galatians 4:21 to 5:8, Galatians 3:2-25; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17). And he did not object to the request in Acts 21:23-24a, because of the principle in 1 Corinthians 9:20, and because the practices of the Old Covenant Mosaic law in themselves are still holy. For the Old Covenant Mosaic law in itself is still holy (Romans 7:12). So Paul was not sinning by participating in them. Also, Acts 21:24b does not require that the charges in Acts 21:21 were false. All Acts 21:24b means is that if Paul agreed to the request in Acts 21:23-24a, the charges in Acts 21:21 might be negated in the minds of Jews who (mistakenly) thought that Jews still had to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law.
(See the "Law" section of Ephesians 2:15 below)
~
(Re: Does "know" require that the charges were false?)
No, for Acts 21:24 is simply quoting what someone said. And nothing requires that what he said was true. For the Bible includes quotations of people who were mistaken (John 7:12b, Matthew 27:63a). Also, in Acts 21:24 the original Greek word (ginosko: G1097) translated as "know" can be used in cases where people are mistaken with regard to what they "know" (John 8:52).
~
(Re: So is deception okay? And could Paul do the same thing that he rebuked Peter for doing?)
Deception is not okay. For "all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death" (Revelation 21:8). And nothing requires any deception on the part of the apostle Paul. For he did not deny the true charges in Acts 21:21. Neither did he affirm the mistaken belief of some Jews that they still had to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law. Also, Paul agreed to the request in Acts 21:23-24a based on the principle in 1 Corinthians 9:20, which did not apply in the case of the apostle Peter among the Gentiles in Antioch (Galatians 2:11-21), where Peter could have continued to act consistently according to the principle of 1 Corinthians 9:21 instead. Under that principle, "the law of Christ" (1 Corinthians 9:21) is the New Covenant/New Testament law (John 14:15, Hebrews 7:12), and not the abolished letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6, Hebrews 7:18-19, Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 10, Galatians 2:11-21, Galatians 4:21 to 5:8, Galatians 3:2-25; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18).
~
(Re: Did Paul stop being a Jew? Did he part from the law?)
The apostle Paul did not stop being a Jew. For he always maintained that he continued to be a Jew (Acts 22:3, Romans 11:1). But he made clear that the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law should no longer be kept, not even by Jews (Romans 7:6, Galatians 2:11-21, Galatians 4:21 to 5:8, Galatians 3:2-25; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18). For it had been abolished, even for Jews, on the New Covenant Cross of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Hebrews 7:18-19, Hebrews 10:1-23, Matthew 26:28). Also, just as Jews do not stop being Jews when they become New Covenant Christians, so all of the people in the Church, whether genetic Jews (Romans 11:1) or genetic Gentiles (Romans 16:4b), have become spiritually-circumcised Jews, if they have undergone the spiritual circumcision of water-immersion (burial) baptism into Jesus Christ (Romans 2:29, Philippians 3:3, Colossians 2:11-13).
Also, while all Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, are delivered from the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, and should not keep it (Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18), they must still keep the spirit of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Romans 7:6), by loving others (Galatians 5:14, Romans 13:8-10), by doing to others as they would have others do to them (Matthew 7:12). And Jesus Christ taught that Christians have to obey all of His New Covenant/New Testament commandments (John 14:15).
(See the "stricter" section of Matthew 5:19 above)
-
Next entry / Prior / Table of Contents
Dec 10, 2018
None of the apostle Paul's teachings in this chapter, just as nothing else in the Bible, contradicts the idea of Jesus Christ reigning in a still-future, physical, Davidic, Kingdom of God on the earth, with both Jewish and Gentile Christians.
(See Acts 1:6 above)
--
*Acts 13:6 -
"Bar-jesus" (G0919) means "Son of Joshua". For the Hebrew word "bar" (H1247) means "the son of" (Ezra 5:1), and "Jesus" is the Greek form of the Hebrew name "Joshua", which was a common name among the Jews in the first century AD. So the Jew (Acts 13:6) named "Bar-jesus" was not claiming to be the son of Jesus Christ, or even the son (or direct descendant) of the ancient Joshua in the book of Joshua in the Old Testament, but was simply the son of some other Jew named Joshua.
But the English name "Bar-jesus" has a suitable double entendre in this case. For the Bar-jesus in Acts 13:6 did try to "bar" (in the sense of prevent) Jesus Christ from being preached to and believed upon by Bar-jesus' associate named Sergius (Acts 13:7-8). But Bar-jesus failed, and he was struck blind for his efforts (Acts 13:11-12). The apostle Paul even called him a son of the devil (Acts 13:10), which if translated into Hebrew as a name would be "Bar-satan". Jesus Christ similarly said that nonelect non-Christians are sons of the devil (John 8:42-47).
(See also Romans 9:11 below)
--
*Acts 13:8 -
The original Greek word (methermeneuo: G3177) translated as "by interpretation" can mean "when translated".
~
"Elymas" (G1681) means "Sorcerer".
So when Acts 13:8 says: "Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation)", it means that "the sorcerer" is the translation of the name "Elymas", the name given to "Bar-jesus" (Acts 13:6,8). Per Easton's, "Elymas" is an Arabic name. So at that time, there must have been many Arabs on Cyprus (Acts 13:4). It is curious that "Bar-jesus" was known generally by an Arabic name. For (centuries later) it would be the Arabs who would invent Islam, now the second-largest religion in the world, after Christianity. And Islam completely denies the Gospel of Jesus Christ (of 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, John 3:16,36). Islam has for centuries tried to "bar Jesus" (the true, Biblical Jesus) from hundreds of millions of people throughout the world. But it too, like Elymas himself (Acts 13:8-12), will eventually be defeated. Also, it is curious that "Islam" is even like an anagram of "Elymas". For the letters of "Elymas" can be rearranged to read "Eslam-y", as in "like Islam".
(See the "Islam" section of Galatians 1:8 below)
Later in Acts 13, we see Jews rejecting the gospel of Jesus Christ out of envy (Acts 13:45) of Christians (whether Jews or Gentiles) (Acts 13:42-45), just as the Arabs (for the most part) could have rejected both Christianity and Judaism out of envy of the Jews, through whom God had started both religions, in their strictly-Biblical form, the Bible being the only true religion in the world (2 Timothy 3:15 to 4:4, Galatians 1:8-9, John 14:6, John 3:36, Acts 4:12).
(See also Genesis 16:3 above)
--
*Acts 13:29 -
See Luke 24:44 above.
--
*Acts 13:33 must be taken together with Acts 13:34-37, which shows that the resurrection of the Son was foretold not in Psalms 2:7, but in Psalms 16:10.
But His resurrection was the proof that He was the Son (Romans 1:4), just as the Father had said at Jesus' baptism that Jesus was the Son (Mark 1:11).
(See also the "Begotten" section of John 3:16 above)
--
*Acts 13:40-41 -
Here the apostle Paul was employing the basic principle of Habakkuk 1:5. He was not saying that the Chaldeans (Babylonians) were going to come (Habakkuk 1:5-6) upon the non-Christian Jews in Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13:14), in what is today Turkey, in the first century AD. Instead, he was warning them, using the example of Habakkuk 1:5, not to disbelieve God the Father's work, in this case through Jesus Christ Himself (Acts 13:37-39).
--
*Acts 13:48b means that in that situation, as many people as were elect (Romans 9:11), predestined to initial salvation (Ephesians 1:4-11), were granted God's miraculous gift of faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8, John 6:65; 1 Corinthians 3:5b, Romans 12:3b, Hebrews 12:2). For in Acts 13:48 the original Greek word (tasso: G5021) translated as "ordained" includes the meaning of "to assign", and can be translated as "appointed" (Acts 28:23) and "determined" (Acts 15:2), which are the same ideas as "elected" (Romans 9:11) and "predestinated" (Ephesians 1:4-11).
(See Romans 9:11 below)
--
*Acts 14:14 shows that eventually there were at least fourteen apostles of Jesus Christ, including Paul and Barnabas, and the twelve apostles of Acts 1:26.
Note also the curious correlation of this truth with the verse's own chapter and verse numbers.
(But see Zechariah 5:1-4 above)
--
*Acts 15:5-29 -
Whether or not the Pharisees at the time of Acts 15 actually obeyed the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, the false spirit of Pharisaism (which is still alive and well today, even among some Christians) nonetheless mistakenly insists that people must obey the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Acts 15:5, Acts 26:5, Philippians 3:5, Matthew 12:2).
(See the "Law" section of Ephesians 2:15 below)
~
The circumcision referred to in Acts 15:5-29 was the physical circumcision of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Galatians 5:1-12), not the spiritual circumcision of the New Covenant of Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:11-13, Philippians 3:3, Romans 2:29).
(See the "Circumcision" section of Ephesians 2:15 below)
--
*Acts 15:6-29 -
Here the meeting was about whether or not Christian Gentiles must keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Acts 15:5-6,24). The Church leadership as a whole in Jerusalem was not ready at that time to say that the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law did not have to be kept by Jews either, because it had been abolished, even for Jews (Romans 7:6, Hebrews 7:18-19, Galatians 2:11-21, Galatians 4:21 to 5:8, Galatians 3:2-25; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18), on the New Covenant Cross of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 10). But this truth was known full well by the apostle Peter (Acts 15:5,10-11), even though he sometimes did not act like he knew it, and so he was admonished one time by the apostle Paul away from the leaders in Jerusalem, while he was up in Antioch (Galatians 2:11-21). Paul and other apostles who knew the truth got it directly from Jesus, not from other apostles (Galatians 1:11-12; 2 Peter 1:16). That is why they could fend for themselves in arguing against those Jews who were pressuring Christian Gentiles to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Acts 15:2a).
But when they could not convince those Jews to stop their pressuring, they got yet other leaders (Acts 15:2b), such as James, whom those Jews' hopefully would obey (Galatians 2:12), to get them to stop, through a letter which showed Christian Gentiles that none of the leaders of the Church were commanding them to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Acts 15:24).
When the apostle Peter was away from Jerusalem, living among the Gentiles in Antioch, in what is today Turkey, he rightly lived "after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews" (Galatians 2:14). It was only when some Jews came to Antioch who were "from James" (Galatians 2:12) that Peter reverted back to their (mistaken) practice. For James, and those who followed him, "zealously" (yet still mistakenly) held that the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law was still in effect for Jews (Acts 15:21, Acts 21:18-24). Such Old Covenant Mosaic law-zealous Jews griped to James over what the apostle Paul was telling Jews (Acts 21:21).
(See Acts 21:20 below. Also, see the "Law" section of Ephesians 2:15 below)
--
*Acts 15:10 means that all Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, should stop trying to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law. For the yoke which the apostle Peter says in Acts 15:10 was an unbearable yoke even for Jews was the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, which had just been referred to in Acts 15:5. Similarly, in Galatians 5:1 the yoke of bondage which the apostle Paul says that all Christians are not to be entangled with is the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law which Paul had just showed "gendereth to bondage" (Galatians 4:21-31).
--
*Acts 15:14-17 does not say or mean that Amos 9:11-12 is "fulfilled", only that the basic principle of the salvation of Gentiles "agrees" (Greek "sumphoneo": G4856) with the idea of Amos 9:11-12, and only as it was understood by the (fallible) individual quoted in Acts 15:14-17. A different way of understanding Amos 9:11-12 is by looking at the original Hebrew: Amos 9:11-12 can mean that the house of King David will be restored to power, and will possess Edom (present-day southern Jordan) and all other nations. This will be fulfilled during the future Millennium, which will not occur until after Jesus Christ's future, Second Coming (Revelation 19:7 to 20:6, Zechariah 14:3-21). Jesus is of the house of David (Luke 1:69, Matthew 1:1), and so at His return He will restore the house of David to power by sitting on the throne of David (Luke 1:32, Isaiah 9:7, Isaiah 16:5) and ruling the earth (Zechariah 14:9, Psalms 72:8-11).
(See also paragraphs 4-5 of Acts 1:6 above)
--
*Acts 15:21 is a quotation of James (Acts 15:13-21), one of the people in the Church at that early time who mistakenly thought that the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law was still in effect (Acts 21:20).
(See the "Law" section of Ephesians 2:15 below)
--
*Acts 15:29a -
The historical account of the forbidding of Christian Gentiles to eat certain foods at the time of Acts 15:29 is not in line with the Biblical teachings which show that under the New Covenant all foods are in themselves okay for all Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, to eat (1 Timothy 4:4-5, Romans 14:14,20, Mark 7:18-19; 1 Corinthians 10:25-30, Colossians 2:16-17, Hebrews 9:10). But it may have seemed good to the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28) to allow Acts 15:29 as an only-temporary compromise among the Church leaders at that time, so that a schism would not arise within the Church (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:25) so shortly after its inception, between those leaders who at that time still (mistakenly) wanted to continue keeping the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Acts 15:21, Acts 21:20b), and those leaders who knew the truth that all Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, should not try to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Acts 15:10, Romans 7:6, Galatians 4:21 to 5:8, Galatians 3:2-25, Galatians 2:11-21; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Hebrews 7:18-19, Hebrews 10:9b).
(See also Romans 14:14 and Acts 21:21 below)
--
*Acts 16:3 -
The apostle Paul circumcised his assistant Timothy not because Paul thought that the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law was still in effect, but simply so that "the Jews which were in those quarters" (in what is today Turkey) would allow Timothy to enter synagogues with Paul during his missionary journey (Acts 16:3).
--
*Acts 16:16-17 -
This was an example where a non-Christian possessed by a spirit of divination spoke some truth regarding some Christians. But that spirit was cast out nonetheless (Acts 16:18). For people are never to turn to those with spirits of divination (1 Samuel 28:8; 1 Chronicles 10:13-14; 2 Chronicles 33:6), regardless of whether they sometimes speak some truth or not. Instead, people are to turn to the infallible Bible for their instruction (2 Timothy 3:15-17), and to the prophets of God in the Church (1 Corinthians 12:28), who may have miraculously been given words for their congregations (1 Corinthians 14:4b,29) by God's Holy Spirit Himself (1 Corinthians 12:8-11).
--
*Acts 16:18 -
(Re: Is *casting out demons dangerous, because it is deliberately contacting them?)
Casting out demons should not be thought of as "contacting demons" in, for example, what Christians would consider to be the "New Age" sense of that phrase, where deceived humans contact and "channel" demons masquerading as "Ascended Masters" supposedly dispensing ancient spiritual wisdom to modern man. Instead, casting out demons is simply commanding them in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of a person, like the apostle Paul did in Acts 16:18.
(See also 1 Samuel 28:3 above)
--
*Acts 16:31 is what Christians should preach to everyone (Mark 16:15-16). They should never assume that anyone is nonelect and so unable to ever believe in Jesus Christ (John 8:42-47, John 10:26-27). Also, even when Acts 16:31 is unknowingly preached to someone who is nonelect, it is not a lie. For it is not saying: "You as an individual definitely have the ability to believe". But is simply saying: "If you as an individual do believe, you will be saved". It is like if a man on a ship fell overboard into icy water, and cried out to the people on deck: "What must I do to be saved?". The people threw him a rope, and said: "Grab this rope and you will be saved". What they did not know was that his hands had become so icy-cold from the water that he had lost all use of them, and so he could not possibly grab the rope.
Also, while the apostle Paul and Silas would have been aware that nonelect individuals can never believe in Jesus Christ (John 8:42-47, John 10:26-27), there is no reason that they would have shared that with the jailer when he asked them what he must do to be saved (Acts 16:30). Similarly, in the analogy above, even though the people who threw the man the rope could have been aware of the possibility that he might not be able to grab the rope, there is no reason that they would share that with the man when he asked them what he must do to be saved. The man would have found that out right away on his own when he tried to grab the rope and found that he had lost all use of his icy-cold hands; just as if the jailer had been nonelect, he would have found out right away on his own that he had no capacity to believe in Jesus Christ.
~
(Re: OSAS?)
Acts 16:31 refers only to initial salvation, which is based on faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9). The apostle Paul elsewhere makes clear that only those Christians who subsequently obey Jesus Christ will be saved from hell in the end (Romans 2:6-8). And those Christians who wrongly employ their free will to commit any unrepentant sin will not be saved in the end (Romans 8:13a, Galatians 5:19-21).
(See also Ephesians 2:8 and Hebrews 10:26 below)
--
*Acts 17:11 -
The apostle Paul taught everyone what the Old Testament had taught regarding the Messiah, the Christ (Acts 26:22-23), but which had not been understood by anyone (Luke 18:34, Romans 16:25-26) until Jesus Christ explained it to His apostles after His resurrection (Luke 24:44-47, Galatians 1:12).
(See also section 2 of 1 Timothy 3:15 below)
~
(Re: Regarding sola scriptura, did not the Bereans not practice it, because they accepted Paul's authority to teach what the scriptures mean?)
Note that the Bereans did practice sola scriptura, because scripture was the ultimate authority against which even the apostle Paul's teachings had to be tested (Acts 17:11b).
Sola scriptura does not negate human teachings per se (e.g. 1 Corinthians 12:28). It simply means that no human teaching is necessarily true unless it is taught by the Bible itself:
Acts 17:11 . . . and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
(See also the "Tradition" section of 1 Timothy 3:15 below)
~
(Re: Would the idea of the written law being a sole religious authority have even crossed the Bereans' minds?)
Yes, for, insofar as when testing the truth of teachers, a Jew was always to go:
[Isaiah 8:20]
(See also 1 John 2:27 below)
--
*Acts 17:24b -
See Acts 7:48 above.
--
*Acts 17:26 -
(Re: Disproves election?)
No, for Acts 17:26's "one blood" would simply mean that nonelect individuals are no different genetically than elect individuals.
(See Romans 9:11 below)
--
*Acts 17:27-28 -
The desire to seek the omnipresent God is not in anyone before they become a Christian (Romans 3:11). And nonelect individuals are not considered by God to be His children, but the children of the devil (John 8:42-47, Matthew 13:38b-39), even though they can only exist because God exists, just as even the devil himself can only exist because God exists.
--
*Acts 17:30 -
God can command something so that sin by the commandment might become exceedingly sinful (Romans 7:13). God hardens nonelect individuals in their sin because He created them to be vessels of His wrath (Romans 9:18-22).
(See the "Vessels of wrath" section of Romans 9:11 below)
--
*Acts 17:31 -
(A day / G2250)
See section 2 of John 6:39 above.
--
*Acts 18:18b -
If any apostles or other Jewish Christians at first kept doing any of the things of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law out of a mistaken belief that it was still in effect (Acts 21:20b), then they simply had not yet grasped the truth that...
(See the "Law" section of Ephesians 2:15 below)
Also, nothing in Acts 18:18b requires that the vow which the apostle Paul took was the Nazarite vow of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Numbers 6). For Paul made no exceptions to his New Covenant teaching that if a man has long hair, it is a shame to him (1 Corinthians 11:14). Nor does anything in the Bible say that Paul shaved his head in Cenchrea because someone had died very suddenly by him seven days earlier (Numbers 6:9), or that Paul on the day after shaving his head made the temple animal sacrifices of Numbers 6:10-12. Nor does anything in the Bible say that Paul shaved his head in Cenchrea because he had successfully completed a Nazarite vow, which completion required that the shaving of the Nazarite's head be done only at the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, and only after certain animal sacrifices had been performed there (Numbers 6:13-21).
--
*Acts 19:1-6 -
See Acts 1:5 above.
--
*Acts 19:6 -
(Re: Can only apostles perform Holy Spirit baptism?)
See Acts 8:14 above.
--
*Acts 21:20-25 / *Acts 21:21 / *Acts 21:24b -
The apostle Paul did not object to the charges in Acts 21:21, because they were true (Romans 7:6, Galatians 2:11-21, Galatians 4:21 to 5:8, Galatians 3:2-25; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17). And he did not object to the request in Acts 21:23-24a, because of the principle in 1 Corinthians 9:20, and because the practices of the Old Covenant Mosaic law in themselves are still holy. For the Old Covenant Mosaic law in itself is still holy (Romans 7:12). So Paul was not sinning by participating in them. Also, Acts 21:24b does not require that the charges in Acts 21:21 were false. All Acts 21:24b means is that if Paul agreed to the request in Acts 21:23-24a, the charges in Acts 21:21 might be negated in the minds of Jews who (mistakenly) thought that Jews still had to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law.
(See the "Law" section of Ephesians 2:15 below)
~
(Re: Does "know" require that the charges were false?)
No, for Acts 21:24 is simply quoting what someone said. And nothing requires that what he said was true. For the Bible includes quotations of people who were mistaken (John 7:12b, Matthew 27:63a). Also, in Acts 21:24 the original Greek word (ginosko: G1097) translated as "know" can be used in cases where people are mistaken with regard to what they "know" (John 8:52).
~
(Re: So is deception okay? And could Paul do the same thing that he rebuked Peter for doing?)
Deception is not okay. For "all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death" (Revelation 21:8). And nothing requires any deception on the part of the apostle Paul. For he did not deny the true charges in Acts 21:21. Neither did he affirm the mistaken belief of some Jews that they still had to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law. Also, Paul agreed to the request in Acts 21:23-24a based on the principle in 1 Corinthians 9:20, which did not apply in the case of the apostle Peter among the Gentiles in Antioch (Galatians 2:11-21), where Peter could have continued to act consistently according to the principle of 1 Corinthians 9:21 instead. Under that principle, "the law of Christ" (1 Corinthians 9:21) is the New Covenant/New Testament law (John 14:15, Hebrews 7:12), and not the abolished letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6, Hebrews 7:18-19, Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 10, Galatians 2:11-21, Galatians 4:21 to 5:8, Galatians 3:2-25; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18).
~
(Re: Did Paul stop being a Jew? Did he part from the law?)
The apostle Paul did not stop being a Jew. For he always maintained that he continued to be a Jew (Acts 22:3, Romans 11:1). But he made clear that the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law should no longer be kept, not even by Jews (Romans 7:6, Galatians 2:11-21, Galatians 4:21 to 5:8, Galatians 3:2-25; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18). For it had been abolished, even for Jews, on the New Covenant Cross of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Hebrews 7:18-19, Hebrews 10:1-23, Matthew 26:28). Also, just as Jews do not stop being Jews when they become New Covenant Christians, so all of the people in the Church, whether genetic Jews (Romans 11:1) or genetic Gentiles (Romans 16:4b), have become spiritually-circumcised Jews, if they have undergone the spiritual circumcision of water-immersion (burial) baptism into Jesus Christ (Romans 2:29, Philippians 3:3, Colossians 2:11-13).
Also, while all Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, are delivered from the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, and should not keep it (Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18), they must still keep the spirit of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Romans 7:6), by loving others (Galatians 5:14, Romans 13:8-10), by doing to others as they would have others do to them (Matthew 7:12). And Jesus Christ taught that Christians have to obey all of His New Covenant/New Testament commandments (John 14:15).
(See the "stricter" section of Matthew 5:19 above)
-
Next entry / Prior / Table of Contents
Dec 10, 2018
