Father, I know that there's much on our minds here as the semester draws to a close. The very pressures and stresses of school often refocus us from all the arrest of life, and yet then the rest of life doesn't give up, and so there's many pressures on these students at this time. Father, I would pray for all of us that in this hour, especially, that we would not lose focus on you. For we are here, ultimately, to serve you and to learn how to serve you better. And we are here on this Earth, ultimately, to bring glory to you and enjoy you forever. And we pray that we not lose sight of that. Father, I would ask also that you would pour out your grace on these students as they continue to work diligently in this class and in other classes and in the rest of life, but they would know your presence, and they would feel your peace and the midst of the work they're called to do, and that they would show wise and disciplined approach to the task that is before them, that all things would be done to your glory in his name we pray. Amen. Okay, we have just last time, in and into the discussion of Acts and Luke and Acts. And the way I entered into that discussion, I believe, was through the prologue to the book of Acts, and noting some of the themes that come up there, just as you hit some of the key words and phrases that show up in the prologue. So some of these things you will know from even maybe your list, from RT France, about distinctive infacies within the, or particular infacies within the gospel of Luke, things such as the Holy Spirit, the choosing of the apostles, the nature of kind of the proofs of Jesus in his crucifixion and his resurrection, especially in his resurrection. The idea of a mission that the apostles and ultimately the whole church is called to do, and the idea also that all of this is part of what Jesus began to do in teach, that ultimately the book of Acts is going to be kind of a continuation of the ministry of Jesus. People following in the train of Jesus, ministering to others, performing miracles and healing like Jesus did, teaching others like Jesus did, suffering like Jesus did, dying like Jesus did, all of that is very much part of the book of Acts. So for instance, if you think of the miracles at Pentecost and the teaching of Peter and the midst of that, this continues the sense of Jesus' ministry, and that now his ministry has passed on to the apostles, who with the apostolic mantle are then responsible for the spreading of this good news which is to be found in Jesus. Also when you come to something as shocking, for instance, as the death of Stephen in chapter 6 and 7, and you have Stephen's stone, there is a sense in which the very way that Stephen speaks at the end of his stoning ties into the gospel's account of the death of Jesus. So let me just give you a sense of this. In chapter 7, the very end, right before they stoned him, 7.52, Stephen says the following, which one of the prophets did your father's not persecute? Well now who else has accused them of not persecuting the prophets? Well Jesus has. And they killed those who had previously announced the coming of the righteous one whose betrayers and murderers you have now become, specifically inditing them for the death of Jesus. You who received the laws ordained by angels and yet did not keep it. Now when they heard this they were cut to the quick. And then this is the part that is so strikingly parallel, verse 55, but being full of the Holy Spirit, Stephen gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God in Jesus standing at the right hand of God and he said, listen to what he says, behold I see the heavens open up and the sun of man standing at the right hand of God. Now who else in the New Testament says that? Jesus does. What context is Jesus saying it? Yeah, his trial before the Sanhedrin, that's right exactly. And what is the result? They proclaimed him a blasphemer and they decide that he's worthy of death. Here's the result here, but they cried out with a loud voice and covered their ears and they rushed upon him in one impulse and when they had driven him out of the city they began stoning him. So you see Stephen undergoes a death very similar to Jesus. Now the crucial bit here is that Stephen at no point in this death claims an atoning worthiness to his death. As Jesus in the commissioning of the Lord's supper, especially in the gospel of Luke, proclaims that this is the work of the new covenant and that it's established in his blood. So Stephen is not trying to inaugurate anything new. He's looking to his Lord and he's emulating his Lord in his life, in his proclamation and ultimately in his death. So you see the sense of what Jesus began to do and teach even works out to the death of some of the people in the book of Acts. So there's a lot of connections to be made between Acts and the gospel of Luke and we started talking about some of those last time. I got into a number of these via the discussion with the prologue. I should note that the prologue has a lot of the themes that people typically see in Luke and Acts but not all of them. So for instance, the prologue doesn't specifically, at least to the point that we've read it, but prayer is a theme that is very common to Luke and Acts that's also properly done. And so prayer becomes another common theme to Luke and Acts that's not announced specifically in the prologue. And another thing that's often seen in Luke and you see touches of this in Acts as well, is that the issue of the rich and poor Luke focuses a lot on the poor and in their particular responsibilities. And they're particular, the graces that come to the poor and the dangers for the rich. And you see some of that in Luke and Acts, perhaps a little bit in Ananias and Sapphira and the death that is produced when they claim to have given all that they can to the church and in fact have held back some and the Lord puts both of them to death. So you have some similarities there. But that is to say to acknowledge that there are themes outside of just the prologue to Acts that are common. But most of the themes can be found in the prologue. So I think I'll mention that. So that's kind of touching on some common themes. I want to move into the structure of Acts. And then I'll give you guys a chance to ask some questions at that point about common themes to Luke and Acts. And then I want to look at some specific kind of key instances in the book of Acts especially. I'm going to move from our discussion particularly of the gospels into the book of Acts. And let me just say, I mean we could spend an entire semester on any of these books in the New Testament. Certainly the book of Acts. And so my intention here as in all the rest of this class is not to give you kind of a Chapman take on the whole book of Acts in 30 minutes. Such that you suddenly know what to do with every particular part of the book of Acts. But my goal is to give you some kind of methodological issues and some kind of big picture elements so that as you're working your way through Acts, first of all you have a sense of where you are at in the flow of the book of Acts. And also that so that you can see where some of the themes that are going on in the different little episodes and Acts have import. So I want to just show you a few kind of methodological things. That's my concern. It's in keeping with that old saying you may have heard before if you give a man a fish you know that. If you give a man a fish you feed him for was it a day or a week I forget whatever. And whereas if you teach a man how to fish you can retire and let him do all the work. And that's my goal here basically is to throw things into your lap because the rest of your ministerial life be it in whatever lay or professional vocation you're called. You know you're going to be called to do the stuff for yourself. And that's by the way is going to be true for the next few class periods as we look at John and Paul as well. All right. Let's talk a little bit about the structure of Acts. There's a few ways that one could divide Acts up the book of Acts up. One way is to talk about Peter and Paul right to focus on the people in the book of Acts. So Peter is the main actor in chapters 1 through 12 but then after chapter from chapter 13 and following to the end of the book of Acts you have Paul taking center stage. So one of the most kind of overt ways of seeing transitions in the book of Acts is going from Peter to Paul. Problems with that as any kind of working division right in the middle of all this Peter material there's a whole lot of non-Peter material if you would. So even if you allow Ananias and Sapphira ultimately in chapter 5 to be connected with Peter because after all Peter is the one who pronounces their doom in some ways. When you get to chapter 6 and 7 you're clearly talking about Stephen. So there's two long chapters in the midst of the Peter section that are somewhat really talking about something else. And if you continue into chapter 8 there's a brief focus on Saul who of course will take the latter half of the book of Acts and Philip and the rest of the chapter 8 talks about Philip. And then you have the conversion of Saul in verse 9 and you don't get back to Peter until I'm sorry chapter 9 you don't get back to Peter into chapters 10 and 11. So in other words at least the Peter section is extremely muddled if we're going to divide this into Peter and Paul. So I would suggest to you that that's not an adequate division in the book of Acts. So the people are important they take center stage at different points but it's not like there's this kind of way of structuring the book of Acts that revolves solely around a neat division into some key people. So leaving that behind is a possibility for the structure of Acts. There's another major kind of structural feature to the book of Acts that has been suggested and that's found in the prologue specifically in the kind of commissioning of the disciples unto witness in Acts 1, 7 and especially 1, 8. So when you read Acts 1, 8 the very famous words but you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you and you shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria and even to the remotest part of the earth. So you have this move from Jerusalem the city to Judea and Samaria the region surrounding Jerusalem to the uttermost parts of the earth. And that in some ways does work its way out in the rest of the book of Acts because certainly in the early chapters of the book of Acts everybody is hanging out in Jerusalem. And with the death of Stephen in Acts chapter 7 suddenly people are kind of thrown out thrust out from Jerusalem the Apostle stand Jerusalem but others leave and that's the narrative starts following the others who left. So you have Philip who is very important is one of the early people who left and he encounters Samaritans and Ethiopic Unic and such. And so you have this move out to Judea and Samaria which continues unto basically chapter 13 when you have Paul and Barnabas commissioned to the first missionary journey of the Apostle Paul where they start going into other regions. And this is in fact a fairly pronounced structural feature to the book of Acts starting in Jerusalem moving out to Judea and Samaria and then to the uttermost parts of the earth winding up in Rome as kind of the central city in the Roman Empire.
So there's a possibility in terms of structure and I think one that we certainly need to take into account because of some elements there. Thus the very commissioning of the people of God that focuses initially on Jewish converts and then on Hellenistic Jewish converts and then ultimately on Godfairers in the land of Judea. And then finally on Gentiles in the lands in the uttermost parts of the earth after Jewish people ministered into those contexts as well. So you see this kind of transition as well from a purely Jewish religion to a religion that's incorporating the hall of humanity. And then that's tied up with the structure of Acts which is also announced here Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria and the uttermost parts of the earth. Now it has to be said though that even this structure has some problems with it not nearly as many problems as the idea of dividing Acts up based on people. But one of the problems is Jerusalem keeps factoring into the whole deal. So Paul and Barnabas go off on their missionary journey, the first missionary journey. They come back, there's dispute over whether the Gentiles need to be circumcised and in Acts 15 there's a meeting of the church to determine whether Gentiles need to be circumcised and where do they meet? Jerusalem. So it's like they started in Jerusalem, they went out and they come back to Jerusalem. And then of course at the end of Paul's third missionary journey he fills the call of God to go specifically back to Jerusalem to fulfill a vow there. And then the action again focuses on Jerusalem for some time until Paul has ultimately led in chains to Rome. So there's a sense in which people keep coming back to Jerusalem and I don't think that's a major indictment of this idea of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, uttermost parts of the earth as a structural feature. But it is a reminder to us that it's not neat and crisp and clean like you might like it if that was the whole of the structure of the Book of Acts. There's one other feature in the Book of Acts that I want to point out as a possible structural marker to let you know where you are going through the Book of Acts. And that is this phrase that shows up again and again in some variation and I give you a few instances of it there, some of the most important instances. And that is the phrase that's found for instance at the end of chapter 6 verse 7. And the word of God kept on spreading and the number of the disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith. Now compare that to 931 which has the following. So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria enjoyed peace, being built up and going on in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it continued to increase. Moving to 1224. But the word of the Lord continued to grow and to be multiplied. And then I'll skip 1920 and just take us to the very end of the book 2831.
And he stayed two full years in his own rented quarters and was welcoming all hosts who came to him and in the very last sentence, a very last part of the sentence in the Book of Acts, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching concerning the Jesus Christ with all openness unhindered. Now if you look at especially the first three instances that I mentioned there, there's a word or a concept really more accurately said, there's a concept that comes up again and again. Which is the idea of the increase of the church, the multiplication of the church. And at the very end of the book of Acts it ends on this idea of the unhindered growth of the church or that he was his proclamation at least was unhindered. And so you have this sense of the expansion of the church and there's several kind of key points where the author of the book of Acts steps back and says, hey look, it's continuing to multiply. Now what's striking about some of these is for instance if you look back at 6.7 there that effectively this provides a very nice and neat ending to the section that preceded up to verse 7. Because you have events going on within the church, persecution of the church, the choosing of the 7 and effectively the focus has been largely on Peter and the church in Jerusalem. And so he ends by saying to increase, the disciples continue to increase greatly in Jerusalem. So there's the increase of the church in Jerusalem which gets back to our kind of geographic structural markers, Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, as part of the era. And then the next one that I have on your list goes to Judea and Samaria and Galilee. So the geographic is wed with this feature of the multiplication of the church. Therefore I would argue that these provide kind of ending points to sections in the book of Acts. So we're tempted in our outlining of a book to try and stay with chapter headings and chapters. I would argue that the first section of the book of Acts, at least after the Pentecost events, ends in 6.7 and not at 6.1 or actually that becomes the kind of summary statement of that section. And then when we move into the Stephen account, we move into a kind of martyrdom, but ultimately it's a martyrdom that forces the church to expand beyond the borders of Jerusalem and to consider Judea and Samaria and Galilee. So if you get to the end of chapter 7, actually chapter 8, after Stephen's put to death, some devout men, verse 2, buried Stephen and made loud lamentation over him. But prior to that, note that on that day a great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem and they were scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria except the apostles. So there's a sense in which one of the major features of Stephen's death is it forces the church out of Jerusalem and into Judea and Samaria, which then provides the summary conclusion that comes into chapter 9 when he notes that the gospels being multiplied Judea and Samaria and Galilee. So what I'm saying is if you start looking at the structure of the book of Acts, there's an interweaving of this geographic theme with also this theme of the multiplication of the church throughout all these territories in the midst of, if you would, persecution. And so this becomes another very important thematic element to, or several thematic elements, to the book of Acts. First, there is the geographic spread of the gospel and that is compounded with, I'm now kind of moving into the next section on themes and acts, the geographic spread of the gospel compounded with the spread of the gospel beyond mere ranks of Judaism. So the incorporation of the Gentiles into Judaism, there is the theme of the multiplication and spread of the church and the theme of that occurring in the midst of persecution. And so if you look at some of these structural features, it even brings some of those kind of thematic elements bubbling to the surface if you would. All right, I'll stop for a second and see if you guys have any questions on common themes in Luke and Acts and also some of these structural elements. I'm not sure if I can pull the date off off the top of my head right there. Gamaliel was active in the Sanhedrin. I'm not sure I can pull out the date right off the top of my head. And part of the issue is that, of course, all the chronology in the book of Acts is relative chronology. There's not a date that's given anywhere in the book of Acts. There's always references to specific leaders. And those references to leaders allow you, if you know the dates of the leaders, to date everything else. So actually when we get into Paul, the one real secure date that we have for Paul comes from in the book of Acts knowing that Paul was in Corinth and was being tried by Galia. Who was the leader in Corinth at the time? I think he was a counsel, but I have to check that again. And so the result is that we know that he was there during the time Galia was there. Well, there's been an inscription found at Delphi that tells us when Galia was leader of this region. And so that allows us basically to date when Paul was there. And then everything else with Paul's chronology is done relative to that one date. So this is something, if you want specifics on that, Carson, Moon Morris, show you, they have a part where they discuss the chronology of Paul's life. So there's that. So one of the issues that you're going to come about with Stephen is at what point did this happen? Well, that's going to have to do with when did Jesus die? And when did this happen relative to Paul's ministry? Because your only secure date has to do with Paul when Jesus died is a bit of a guess. And so it's an educated guess, but it's a guess. And so it's all going to be relative to that. I would put it in the fourth decade sometime. I mean, just a guess somewhere in there. But I'm not sure if we could come to a more precise state. The commentators might help there. It's a good question. Do you guys have any other questions about structural markers or common themes, Luke and X? I'm a little fuzzy on the theme, still. And I understand the idea of the incorporation of growth in its persecution, but beyond that, you went too fast. Okay. Actually, I'm too slow. No, no, it's fine. Here, let me do this. You got the common themes on Luke and X. That comes from the prologue of the Gospel Acts. So you're talking about the second theme section. Is that right? On your outline, Romanum 4. Is that what you're talking about? Okay. I drew out four extra themes and acts. And let me, this is helpful. I'm glad you asked the question, because what I'm saying is these are themes that come out particularly in the book of Acts in addition to some of the common themes that I mentioned earlier. Okay. And I was drawing these from structural features. And so, to recap, there were four themes that I was drawing on. One is the geographic spread. Secondly, is the spread from Jew to Gentile. Third is the multiplication of the church. And fourth is the fact that that multiplication comes during a time of persecution. There's almost incessant persecution going on throughout the book of Acts. Okay. So those are the four themes that I mentioned. Yeah. Okay. All right. Well, moving on, then, what I'd like to do actually, there really should be another section in your outline as I have it. Beyond themes and acts that kind of relates themes and acts to some of the kind of key events and acts. All right. Now, in effect, we should say that for Luke, all of chapters one through 28 are important to him. All right. So it's not that there's anyone chapters that should stand out as more important without acknowledging the importance of the others. But I do want to kind of scam over the surface and point out a few really important features. Okay. And they're important because they show change that's going on in the church. And they also tie into some of the thematic elements that we see in the book of Acts. So we're going to do kind of a quick scam of Acts. I'm going to point out some of the things that most stick out at least to me. All right. I'll just get started. All right. Well, I think given that the structure of Acts is this interesting interweaving at least, we have to take into account the geographic kind of structure and the notion of these kind of multitude increasing versus as part of the structure. The first one of these, the really important element, then really is Acts 1.8. And so you have this idea that their question they ask in six is, Lord, when are you going to restore the kingdom to Israel? And Jesus's response is, I'm not going to answer that question, basically. And you shouldn't worry about it because it's not for you to know. So in one seven, he says, it is not for you to know times or epics, which the father has fixed by his own authority. But this is what you should know. And this is the job that's in front of you. You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you. And you shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judean Samarian even to the remotest part of the earth. That says kind of two major elements, the Holy Spirit and their witness and their expansive witness. So we see certainly those thematic elements going on there. What that does to the reader is you're like, OK, send the Holy Spirit on them. We're ready for them to witness. But you have to go through an entire chapter of other stuff before you get the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. So certainly from a narrative point of view, there's a tension that's created in the reader because you're waiting for this event to happen. From the point of view of the history of the church, there's a number of things that have to happen in between including the ascension of Jesus and then the decision as to who will be the twelfth apostle, which shows the church is concerned with maintaining the structure that Jesus himself set up. But also maintaining that number 12 because that number 12 effectively functions as a reminder that Jesus is own ministry here is, I'm going to raise this because it kind of gets in the way, that Jesus is own ministry here was to the 12 tribes of Israel. So you have this need to reinstate the 12 and so there's an election of that. But the fact that at the very kind of opening structural mark Jesus and of course Luke announces that the Holy Spirit is going to come upon the disciples, you're waiting for Pentecost. So probably the most important event in all of the book of Acts is that of Pentecost. And thus you have the waiting for the Spirit, the explanation of the Spirit, the first speech as to what the evangelism of the early church is going to look like and that all being announced at the coming of Pentecost. And I want to come back to that speech in a bit when we talk about the speeches of Acts. So you have Pentecost is that key event. Now there are there's subsequent sermons of Peter, there's a variety of miraculous things that happen. There's this very striking event of Ananias and Sephira and the result that the great fear comes upon the church. I'm in chapter 5 verse 11. There's this sense of God is at work among these people performing miracles, performing multiplication of the church and purifying and refining his church such that they understand that they must live in a reverential of God. Because this is serious stuff and that's what's really going on in a sense with Ananias and Sephira. Now I've already mentioned repeatedly this whole event with Stephen. The event of Stephen is important because it provides an impetus to the spread of the church throughout the rest of the regions. It also provides an introduction to us to Saul who's obviously going to be a major character because in chapter 8 1 Saul's there holding and watching the whole thing happen and he was in heart of agreement with putting him to death. So you have this sense that Saul becomes a character later on and you get this first taste of this man who is present at the first great martyrdom in the church and is hardly agreeing to that. That provides all the more of a character change as you come across Saul and the Damascus Road experience. The other thing to say about Stephen is his very long speech which recaps the history of Israel and does so ultimately at the end. Now throughout there's a variety of kind of things that come up but at the end his point is to indict the Jewish leaders and the Jewish people because they haven't followed the prophets in the past. No surprise they're not following Jesus now. And one of the issues and one of the thematic issues that comes throughout the book of Acts is how is it that the Jewish people are being viewed? Some people have accused the book of Acts as being anti-Semitic. This is especially the case in the last century or more because in the last century or more there has been a major event namely World War II in the Holocaust. And a good deal of New Testament scholarship is still if you would reeling from the Holocaust because there has been an increasing awareness of the degree to which the church in the last two millennia has participated in anti-Semitic behavior. And especially the church in Germany found the flames of anti-Semitism in some respects and then sat idly by as millions of Jewish people were put to death. And so there has been this sense of a particular awareness and sensitivity to elements of anti-Semitism in anything this Christian. Now just a quick aside on that. I think we as Christians should acknowledge that the history of the church has at times evidence significant anti-Semitism even with some of the great heroes of the church such as Tertullian said some very cruel things about the Jews and especially Luther. Luther in his old age got very crabby and he said some things that were extremely regretful that's a word about Jewish people. And unfortunately because the German church has held Luther in such a steam that really did set the course for the German church to be increasingly anti-Semitic in some respects. So we need to acknowledge that as Christians initially. We also have to come to grips with the degree to which there is anti-Semitism in the New Testament itself. And there have been those who have argued that there's significant anti-Semitism especially in the book of Acts and in the Gospel of John where the Jews, the phrase the Jews are the people who constantly oppose Jesus. My response would be you are neglecting the nuance of what is going on and the historical circumstances in which these writings appear. So should anyone ask you about anti-Semitism? Here's briefly what I would say. First of all, it is simply the case in the book of Acts that Jewish people and the synagogue forms the major rival and one of the major persecuting arms against the church in the book of Acts. And so we need to acknowledge that the church perceived themselves in some ways as in combat with at least some synagogue leaders and some synagogues. And that's simply part of what's going on. In which case, it is only fair to acknowledge that this is not anti-Semitism per se. This is a rivalry over who has the right claim to the Jewish religion. And the Jewish people are engaging in physical means of harm against the church. And in some ways the church is simply responding to that. And so some of the harsher things that are being said need to be located in that particular context. In other words, the earliest history of persecution that we can see seems to be Jewish people against the church ultimately and very sadly the church turned and became more powerful and turned on the Jewish people. And so it went the other direction. But in this early period we need to see which is the way the director was going. That's one point. A second point is that most of the authors of the New Testament were themselves Jewish. So when John in his gospel, which we'll get to in a separate occasion, but John in his gospel speaks of the Jews as the main opposition against Jesus, it has to be acknowledged that John himself was Jewish. And so he's effectively inditing his own people. And this cannot truly be deemed anti-Semitism. It's not that he's against the Jewish people. He is effectively saying that the mass of Jewish people in Palestine in the time of Jesus missed the Messiah. And that's an indictment of his own people. One other thing as long as we're on this, there's some very interesting nuanced features in the book of Acts returning to Acts in front of us that have to do with the relationship between the church, Judaism and the death of Jesus. Because after all one of the great claims against the Jewish people in the church has been that these are, and this is a term that is extremely offensive to Jewish people today, these are Christ killers. Because it's under that slogan that a lot of anti-Semitic persecution of Jewish people in Western society has gone on. They don't deserve to be treated well because their whole race constitutes Christ killers. So a lot of the issue here has to do with who was responsible for Jesus's death. Those of you who remember the controversy surrounding the movie The Passion just over a year ago, know that this was what created such a stir. Because in the movie The Passion, the Jewish leaders following the Gospels clamor for Jesus's death, and there's a fear that this would stir up anti-Semitism. Now I think it's fair to say in the movie, and certainly in the Gospels, it's not just the Jewish people clamoring for Jesus's death. The Gentiles are ultimately responsible. They are the ones who scourge and beat and crucify, and so you have both aspects going on in the Gospels. So effectively everyone is indicted. But you see this as well explicitly in the book of Acts. So if I can find the particular point I'm looking for. If you turn to Acts chapter 2, there is another statement that appears in several different ways in the book of Acts, and at least a couple of times in Peter's speeches, in Acts chapter 2 verse 23. This man, namely Jesus, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God. You, he's speaking to Jewish people in that context, including Hellenistic Jews who are visiting Jerusalem by the way, but you nailed to a cross by the hands of Godless men and put him to death. In Jesus's death there are three other actors besides Jesus according to this verse. There's the Jewish people who are responsible ultimately for nailing Jesus to the cross because they're the ones who clamor for the crucifixion. But there are also the Gentiles who are the Godless men who actually carry out that death sentence. And then the third actor is God himself who acts in foreknowledge and predetermination to bring all of it around, all of it about. And what's going on there is a frank acknowledgement of the human parties that are involved and indictment of both of the parties, but especially in this context because he's talking to Jewish people. He especially indicts the Jewish people for saying you put to death the Messiah and he calls forth repentance which is certainly the proper response in that context. But both sets of human parties, Jew and Gentile alike are held responsible for the death of Jesus and yet even all of this is under the foreridaining plan of God. God's hand was over all of this and if we recognize all of those parties in the action then I think this idea that this is particularly anti-Semitic is quite muted because it becomes part of the proclamation to the first century Jewish people who in fact were responsible for the clamor crucify and crucify him. And that becomes a basis for then offering to them repentance in the name of Jesus Christ and baptism in his name. And that's part of what's going on there. So I wanted to bring out that theme as long as we're on Stephen here. So Stephen and the book of Acts is quite forthright in guiding the Jewish people, but in doing so my final comment in terms of anti-Semitism would be this, that in doing so it is fully within the prophetic mode of the Old Testament. If you want some particularly harsh passages on the Jewish people, why would suggest that you read the book of Isaiah or some of the minor prophets who go straight for the jugular and indict them again and again for being a stiff-necked, uncircumcised people because they're uncircumcised in their heart and they refuse to follow the commandments of God. Effectively, these are Jewish people speaking to their Jewish colleagues and inditing them on similar prophetic grounds. And that's fully what Stephen's doing certainly in this speech. I guess that might be a good place to take any questions before I keep going through the book of Acts. Do you guys have any questions on that anti-Semitism in particular or anything like that? I don't know if it's a question or a comment, but I just don't understand why you can't change history. So when Mel Gibson told the story in the movie and there's this accusation that it's anti-Semitic, but just in telling the story, it's kind of like almost like if we told the story of what happened to the American Indians. How the white man came. Somebody might say, well, you're against the white man. Well, though I'm not. I'm just telling what historically happened. So it's not that we're against the Jews. We're not anti-Semitic. It's simply this history. What happened? The point, the question is basically that this is the idea that this is simply what happened, so it's a problem there. But let me take out a few little threads of what you said and then kind of go with your main theme. I'm not going to staunchly defend the movie, the passion. So because in part what Mel Gibson showed is not truly speaking history, I would argue that half or less of that movie is actually historical. In that he frequently departs from the Gospels and goes to medieval Catholic tradition in that movie. It's a very artistic film. It's got some very good theological elements and elements I would question, et cetera. I have an appreciation for the film, but I'm not going to staunchly defend it in terms of its historicity. What you're getting at is effectively the historicity of the Gospels themselves. The Gospels themselves show that this is what happened. The Jewish people were involved in the death of Jesus, and you're quite right to say that on one level we're just telling the story of what actually happened. And I like your analogy because it helps with some of the racial issues that are involved to the destruction of the Indian way of life by white people. And one of the things that I also say about all of that is that there's nuances to all of that. One can't just paint a broad picture and say that Jewish people were involved and one people, you know, there's other issues with regard to the Indian thing. But it provides a helpful analogy. On the other hand, here's what I would ask you to consider as well, is to consider how you would sensitively convey that to a Jewish friend. Because there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Jewish people living today, who have immediate relatives who died in an Nazi concentration camp, or who have a grandfather who still bears a number from the camps. And to quickly absolve Christians of some responsibility in that is certainly not going to go over well. And also I think it doesn't exactly portray history as well either. Now you're focusing on the Gospels. But that's why whenever I deal with this subject, I always start by admitting Christian guilt in the Holocaust because there is some and we need to frankly acknowledge that. And if we start there, then we have bridges that we can have there so that we can discuss some of the deeper questions of anti-Semitism and the New Testament. And ultimately, what I'm trying to do is build bridges for the Gospel there. Because I think we have to acknowledge that there is this problem. And we also have to admit that particular verses taken out of context from the Gospels are a long part of that tradition of Christian anti-Semitism. I would argue they're taken out of context, both out of literary context and out of their historical context. And we're misused and misabused by some people in the church, not all but by some, and that created a problem. But that means that those same statements for a Jewish person because they're very aware of some of those statements. Some of those statements become sensitive in themselves and we need to recognize that as we're trying to build bridges for the Gospel. Does that make some sense? So what I'm saying is effectively I agree with you. Yes, on a purely historical level, this is simply history and so why disabuse ourselves of that in some ways. At the same time, I'm also encouraging a different means of sensitively communicating that to Jewish people. When you took us through Mark, Jesus is a self-awareness when you got us to Mark 10th. He says, yes, I will be the trade to the chief priest of the teachers or the law. And they will condemn me and they will pay me over the Gentiles, but they will mock me, spit on me, block me and kill me. Exactly. There are the Gospels as well. I mean, Jesus said, that's how it's going to happen. Jesus indicts both Jewish and Gentile parties in his own passion predictions. That's well-stated, yeah. And I think if you go carefully through the Gospels, you'll see these elements there. If you want to pursue this more, there have been some evangelicals that have been working on this problem. This problem, anti-Semitism in the Gospels, is largely coming out of more liberal theological traditions. And so evangelicals have been coming back and giving, I think, careful nuanced responses. And I can point you to a book or two that might be helpful there. But it's good, yeah. Let's comment before we move on. I had the privilege once of sitting and listening to a history of the Jewish people in the former ghettos in Korea to change up the Jewish homes and synagogues where people were pushed out, the Jewish people were pushed out of Korea after, for during World War II. And it's not just the Holocaust. I mean, you can go through the human history of crusades and the great depression the Jewish bankers were planning for things during the Depression. I mean, it's just, it's been one thing after another. So, when it came to know that it's in passion, how could they not take it personally? Yeah. When they've seen it over and over again in history. That's true. And I think, actually, if I were to tie into that, you're right, there's a history of anti-Semitism that goes on for 2000 years. And more, really, I mean, there's anti-Semitism actually before the church showed up. There was a lot of anti-Semitism. And we just talked about this, didn't we, Charlie? There's a lot of anti-Semitism among pagans in the first century. And so, the Jewish people have been up against it for a long time. And we need to be sensitive to that as well. I would note that if you want some evidence of just how sensitive this makes people, I have tried to dispassionately look at the movie The Passion. And see that he, too, is extremely careful in that movie to indict Jew and Gentile, to claim the guilt of all people. It's explicitly brought out. So much so that Jesus proclaims, forgive them from the cross twice, which is certainly not in the gospels. And he does so looking at a Roman soldier. And the second time he does it is looking at one of the Jewish leaders. I think it's Caiaphas in that context, but looking at the Jewish leader. So he proclaims in the movie twice. So it's like they went out of their way to try and walk this line between saying Jews and Gentiles were involved in the death of Jesus and both are offered forgiveness. And so I think a dispassionate look at the movie, it heads in that way. But because, again, there's all these statements in it that have caused such sensitivity over hundreds of years, the very fact that those statements are included as viewed as anti-Semitic and some passions. And I don't know, Mel Gibson's hard on that. I know some of the public statements he made and all of that. I'm not trying to vouch for the movie. I'm just saying that there is some evidence even there that we have to be very sensitive as we approach these issues. I said that was the last comment, but I'll go with one more. I'm in an interview with Mel Gibson. He uses his own left hand to nail one of the nails. So he's taking his own responsibility? Yeah, I know. Mel Gibson's hand is there nailing Jesus. And so he's acknowledging his responsibilities and others. And I know that. Again, I'm not concerned about saving the movie or anything like that. But what I'm am pointing out is that there's a lot of sensitivity there. And so we have to be very careful as we're interacting with our Jewish friends. At the same time, I would say, and the church need to be very careful not to back off on this. Jesus is the Messiah. And there is no salvation outside of Jesus. He is the way, the truth, and the life. And so therefore, Jewish people need the gospel. There has been a major move in Christian theology since the Holocaust to try and say that we're all part of the same basic family. And so Jewish people don't need separate salvation. In part, because Jewish people say if you try and convert me to Christianity, that in itself is anti-Semitic. No, that's just true. So I want to say there needs to be a distinction there. But we need to be sensitive in how we do this. So he's actually stating why his miracles are actually miracles in the works of Satan. It's a bit of argument there. So I think we have to be careful not to make that too much of a thematic passage. That is there. And it is in fact the case that the miraculous spread of the church in the book of Acts has to do with the power that the Holy Spirit shows. But I would also say that the power that the Holy Spirit shows is seen in a whole variety of different ways. There's even a whole variety of different miracles. There's healings, yes. There is casting out of demons, yes. But there's also Philip miraculously showing up on a road with an Ethiopic eunuch out in the middle of the desert basically. And then after that he's miraculously taken up from the Holy Spirit and he's sent to do ministry in Samaria. And so there's the kind of miracles that some people who hold to a necessity of miracles happening in the church today. I don't know any of them who are saying and that means by the way that when I need to go to my conference in Dallas, I expect the Holy Spirit to take me there being. So there's a sense in which we expect some of these miracles to have some continuity with the present but others that we don't. Moreover, there's these miraculous dealings with people where hearts are changed and where Gentiles come to the Lord even before they hear the whole gospel. This happens in the Cornelius thing. And where the evidence of that comes in the manifestation of the Spirit in their life and the filling of the Spirit becomes evidence that God's already working in their life. And so the filling of the Spirit and some of the miraculous gifts that are given both show the proclamation of the gospel and they show that these different spheres of people that you would have never thought to be brought into the kingdom or brought into the kingdom. And so that's why some of these particular miracle stories are shown in the book of Acts. So what I want to say with regard to the miraculous in the book of Acts is yes, it shows the continuing power of the Holy Spirit. And there is no sense in the book of Acts that all of that is going to cease the power of the Holy Spirit even some of the miracles are going to cease. But we need to see a whole range of miracles going from just the mundane somebody coming to Christ which is much less mundane than we realize when we realize that it's the change of a person from the sphere of darkness held in the power of the language of the Ephesians, the prince of the power of this world into salvation. They're no longer dead, they're now alive and all of that. And so you see the miraculous working this way out in a variety of different ways. Did I interact with your question and some of the things on your gurting? Yeah, I think so. I think I'm just making a connection from Spirit Church the last thing. He's kind of thinking through it and wondering if it's the last reaction. I think you can just vote through it in some way. All right, continuing on to the book of Acts. After Stephen's conversion, obviously the work of Philip gets downplayed too much, I think, because ultimately a Philip is one of the ones who really shows to us and becomes a face on the ministry to the Samaritans. Remember the increase of the church starts with Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and then the uttermost parts of the earth. One of the striking things about the book of Acts is that the apostles are not the ones to first get a grip and leave and go to Judea and Samaria. It's like the Hellenized Jews are the ones who have become Christians or the ones who leave first. When the apostles actually, Luke makes a point, stay in Jerusalem. And that's why after the death of Stephen, the next most important figure is Philip. He's not in a apostle at all, and at least not in the classic sense of the 12 apostles. And so thus you have Philip becomes the face on the gospel that goes into the next stage to Samaria and ultimately to the Ethiopic Unic. So Philip is the one who brings the gospel to the hated Samaritans. Who after all had a separate temple, they worshiped Mount Gerasim instead of Mount Jerusalem. Who had a separate cannon, they only accepted the Pentateuch, and even that they had changed in some respect from Genesis through Deuteronomy as we knew it from Hebrew sources, from Jewish sources. Who have a separate history after the Pentateuch because they don't accept the canonical history of Joshua Judges Ruth for a second Samuel for second kings. They don't accept any of that, they have their own history. And there was constant enmity between Jews and Samaritans so much so that Josephus reports instances of them bringing up arms against one another. And of course you see this especially in the Good Samaritan account of Jesus that's a surprise that the Samaritan is the one who helps out the man who's been beaten. But in the book of Acts the surprise is the next place the gospel goes is to Samaria and Philip's the face on that. So that's very significant there. When we get to Acts chapter 9 we now have one of the most, another defining event in the book of Acts which is that Saul, the very person who had stood by and in his heart was glad to see Stephen martyred and then goes to the high priest and to the priesthood and asks for letters so he can pursue all these Christians who have run away from Jerusalem. And so on the Damascus road encounters Jesus as you know and that's his entire direction of his life changes and he becomes the voice of Christ in the whole end of the book of Acts. So obviously that's a great significance. Chapter 10 and 11 are important because although up before this time there appear to have been at least non-Jewish people in the church especially in Philip's ministry. There has yet to be in the church a sense that the Gentiles are to be received in and I'm going to put this a little too extremely but there to be received in on their own terms apart from the food laws that Jewish people did. Gentiles eat pork therefore we can't sit around with them. Well Peter sees a vision and the whole nature of the vision has to do with eating which has to do with table fellowship which has to do with being able to be in communion with Gentiles. And Cornelius comes to Christ and he's a prime example of his whole house coming to Christ and the spirit falls upon them even before they're able to be baptized. Peter's you know he's heading to the end of his sermon but he's not quite done and the spirit falls on these people and he's like wow clearly the Gentiles are being brought into the kingdom. And the whole nature of that story is crafted in such a way as to say Gentiles are now part of the kingdom and they don't have to obey the food laws. There's then the ministry of Peter's arrest of course and all that but there's the first missionary journey of Paul that comes where Paul goes in to Asia Minor and does ministry alongside Barnabas. And there's a constant recurring theme in the first and second missionary journeys of the Apostle Paul. He shows up in a city. He goes straight to where the Jewish people are meeting. If there's a synagogue he goes there. If there's not enough people meeting in a synagogue he goes to wherever they're meeting beside a river or something like that as he does in Philippi. He shows up. He goes to the synagogue. He preaches. Sometimes he's invited back but eventually they get tired of him and they boot him out. He leaves with some of the Jewish people some of the believing Gentiles who are already attending the synagogue and eventually the proclamation starts spreading to other Gentile people. The Jewish people in the synagogue get jealous they chase them out of town and this thing happens again and again and this is part of that whole persecution theme of the church in the book of Acts. It's also part of the theme of the spread of the gospels to the Gentiles and in that regard perhaps another major landmark in the book of Acts comes in Acts 15 with the council in Jerusalem. Because the whole question that arises is and it's interesting that it arises especially from Christians who are from the Phariseic sect of Judaism. Is do we circumcise these Gentiles and I know I've talked before about this haven't I that if you were a proselyte you know there's three things you've got to be if you're a proselyte. If you're going to become a proselyte to Judaism you got to undergo circumcision you got to undergo baptism and you got to agree to keep the whole law. And effectively in Paul's ministry he says what Gentiles have to undergo is baptism and that's it. And this is what the whole council in Jerusalem is about is deciding that particular issue. And the council ultimately decides that the Gentiles do not need to be circumcised but then it also gives advice that the Gentiles be careful to not offend Jewish people and certain things like eating blood and such things like that. And so that's how the council in chapter 15 ends and this becomes a major part in the church. After that there is the second missionary journey of the Apostle Paul and this is important in part because he finally hits on a long term place where he can hang around for a while. Remember the theme show up be in the synagogue be tossed out be chased out of town go to the next city synagogue tossed out chased out of town he goes to Corinth after the great speech in Athens in 17. He goes to Corinth in chapter 18 he goes to the synagogue he's tossed out of the synagogue but he gets to hang around in Corinth for a few years. And so you have him actually having the chance to really found a church in chapter 18 which shows us as he moves out that there's increasing hope. Now of course there's the third missionary journey and then eventually Paul is there's a conspiracy to capture him and he's eventually captured while he's in Jerusalem and then there's the move out to Rome. Along the way he proclaims the gospel to even some of the greatest leaders of the ancient world certainly in Palestine and then it ends and this is a very striking ending in Acts 28. That Paul stops he's in Rome and some Jewish people come to him in verse 23 of Acts 28 and when they had said a day for him they came to him that is lodging in large numbers and he was explaining to them by solemnly testifying about the kingdom of God and trying to persuade them concerning Jesus from both the law of Moses and from the prophets from morning until evening. Now the strange thing about the book of Acts is that it ends with a lack of success if it were a continued kind of persecution and rejection and yet the gospel continues unhindered. Because what happens is the Jewish people ultimately in verse 25 and when they did not agree with one another they began leaving after Paul had spoken one parting word and he endites them with the very citation that is found in Isaiah that is similar to a citation that Jesus himself speaks at the beginning of his ministry as reported in the gospel of Luke and that is you're going to hear but you're not going to be able to hear. And thus you're not going to perceive everything and thus he says in verse 28 let it be known to you therefore that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles they will listen. And the whole ending of the gospel of the book of Acts is you can see why some people feel like it's someone anti-Semitic is you know what matters in the kingdom of God is not whether you have a Jewish ancestry or a Gentile ancestry it matters will you listen. And if you will listen then all the blessings and the benefits of the kingdom of God are yours but if you don't there is no hope. And yet as it says here verse 31 preaching the kingdom of God and teaching concerning Lord Jesus Christ with all openness unhindered and so even in the midst of his persecution the gospel continues to spread. Very quick overview of the book of Acts you will have gotten a lot more historical details and you're worked by FF Bruce and you will also have gotten some sense of some theological themes and you're reading in a lad and so I hope that's of some help. Next time we will quickly discuss one or two speeches in the book of Acts and then we'll move into John and spend the book of our time on Friday and John.