Keep sharing good news without ads.
Sovereign Grace Academy NT100 Survey of the New Testament Dr. M. Keith Foskey
All right, everybody. Take out a piece of paper. We're going to start with a short quiz. No, week five is the long quiz. This is your pre quiz. Quiz to get you ready for week five.
Yeah.
This is really not a quiz. I'm just. I don't want everybody to answer the questions out loud so write your answers. And then we'll talk about. I'm going to give you three questions. These are similar to questions that are on next week's quiz.
But I'm just wanting to make sure that I've covered these things and that there's no questions because it's not fair. I give you the quiz, and you don't know the information. I'd rather today clear anything up that way you you know a little bit of what to expect.
I think next week's quiz has 10 to 12 questions, so the three three of them three questions number one on your paper. Which books make up the synoptic gospels. Which of the gospels which ones do we call the synoptic?
Gospels according to church history and tradition. Because we don't know for certain, but church history and tradition. We've mentioned in the last few classes. Which gospel do we believe was written last?
According to church history and tradition which which gospel do we think was written last? That's the second question. Yeah, that's a good so the first question is which got which which ones are the synoptic gospels?
And the next question is which one do we think was written last?
Okay.
Third question. Who are the traditional authors of the Gospels and With whom with which Apostles are they associated? So if it's Matthew Matthew is the Apostle you don't have to put he's associated with Matthew because you're pretty pretty clear on that but.
Two of them are not Apostles. So what which Apostles would those two be associated with. We know Matthew and John are Apostles. You don't have to put it for them. So who are the four traditional? Writers.
And of the two that are not Apostles which Apostles are they traditionally associated with? Again, this is going to be on a form of this question will be on next week's quiz. So getting you ready. Doing you right as a as a professor and for those who aren't here.
They're not going to do so good. On the quiz. Yeah, well, they can always watch the video I guess.
You guys okay.
Is everybody as tired as I. You know, this is week four. What did I say? We start out big everybody's excited by week four, but he saw it's work. It's work. I forgot it's work. All right. Number one, which books are the synoptic Gospels Jackie?
What's the answer? All right. Thank you. She is right. It's Matthew Mark and Luke. Which gospel was written last miss Daisy. No, the four Gospels. You weren't here. I'm sorry. I forgot you weren't here last week.
Okay. All right. Anybody want to take that one? Brother John. Yeah, we believe John was written last we talked about that and last week. We did an entire class on John and we talked about why we think his gospel was last.
But in part who remembers part of the reason why? Yes, sir. Does he live the longest. That's one. There there's argument for that. I'll accept that but there was another reason why we think his was last yes.
Well, that's why that's why I would say it's before 8070, but there's you you guys may have missed what I said about this.
Remember.
There is some there's tradition that says he wrote his gospel as a request To to give more information. That wasn't in the synoptic Gospels that it was the church that had asked him to write because he was Personally involved with Jesus and that's why his gospel gives us more Variant and from various information rather than what the synoptics tend to be similar information he gives us.
What's one thing we know about Jesus's ministry that we wouldn't know if we only had the other three Gospels. What one major thing? Three years. The fact there's three years, right?
The.
Because John tells us about the annual feasts and you know that we see we see three-year ministry in John's gospel that we wouldn't have known about if all we had was the synoptic. So yes. All right.
So third question, who are the traditional authors? Yep. Okay. Very good. Very good. And of course Matthew and John so yes. And who they're associated with does matter. Next week on the podcast if I have a chance, I'm gonna do a lesson on the Gospel of Thomas so if you don't already listen to the podcast, I'm gonna do either one or two days in the Gospel of Thomas because the argument what's interesting about higher critical scholars is they all want to try to push the The dating of the of the four genuine Gospels as late as possible but they want to push the Gospel of Thomas as early as possible because they want to try to fit the Gospel of Thomas into the first century but.
There is no evidence that the Gospel of Thomas comes from the first century and there's no evidence that the writer of the Gospel of Thomas was in any way associated with the Apostles. If we know it wasn't Thomas who wrote it and we not the Thomas that we think of in fact.
It doesn't even claim to be it claims to be. Well, it does the Gospel of Thomas claims to be written by the twin brother of Jesus very strange argument right out of gate. So when you next week when I do the podcast if you get a chance to listen to it.
But my point is the Gospels the the four Canonical Gospels all have legitimate association with the twelve Apostles. Luke through as you said through Paul and Mark through Peter now who was Mark. John Mark who was went on the missionary journey with with Paul and Barnabas.
Got tired of it went home. Paul didn't like that. I mean, that's it. That's the that's a key standard version, but that's what that's basically what happened. Hey, he got tired went home. And and and and the next time Paul went out says I'm not taking him and that caused the division between him and Barnabas.
Also tradition says that John Mark was the was the man who ran away naked and The night Jesus was in the garden remember there was one who was watching and they grabbed him by his clothes and he and he and he and he broke away because and the reason why that tradition is Is because tradition says that the upper room was in Mark's home it was his mother's home and.
So John Mark was associated with the ministry of Christ while he was alive or while he was on the earth and it was John Mark who followed the followed them to the garden and was watching and. Again, this is all tradition.
This is all speculation the text the text doesn't say it was John Mark. But it's interesting that we had that little tidbit that there was a person watching who was there's some kind of emergency going on with 9 -1 -1 and that everybody's phones are probably gonna buzz at some point because it's Apparently 9 -1 -1 for Jacksonville is not working right now, which is a pretty big deal.
So.
No, all right criminals if you were looking if you were looking for this is your window. So so anyway. That all that I you know. These are all things that I think about after I'm done with the lesson.
I'm thinking about things I didn't say and that little tidbit about John Mark I always thought was an interesting piece of church tradition and history. And so We're going to move tonight into the history book of the New Testament.
Which book which book do we call the history book of the New Testament? It's acts. We could we could say that the four Gospels are all history. Because they are in a sense historical in nature. But they also would fall under the category of biography because they are history of one man particular.
That is Jesus Christ. But even still the Gospels tend to fall under a unique category of gospel. That they're not usually identified as biography or history they're used it's just like Think about the the writings of Moses.
Those are history, but we don't call them history. We call them the Torah or the law or the Pentateuch. You know, we say that's the books of Moses, right? And so when we refer to the Gospels, they're such a unique blend of history and biography and and and and because of who it's about we say they're unique and.
They're the Gospels the the four the the one gospel according to four different men. And then we have this book of Acts, which is the really the only book like it in the New Testament Acts is a Is a history book, but it's it's more than just a history book.
It tells us about the. As it were the birth of the church.
And.
Tonight we're going to examine this and you could you could you could title this lesson a study of acts or you could you could title it Luke part two because Luke is the author of Acts and we know that Partially because he tells us in the beginning that he's writing a second Book, in fact, everybody turn to Luke or to acts one and we'll read and you'll remember who was Luke written to Theophilus, right?
Well, we get the same introduction in the book of Acts and He references his gospel. Says in Acts chapter 1 verse 1 and in the first book Oh Theophilus I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach.
Until the day when he was taken up after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the Apostles whom he had chosen. He presented them alive to them after his suffering by many proofs appearing to them during 40 days and speaking about the kingdom so there is Reference to the first book reference to what it was about.
He said that was about Jesus and now we're going to look at the as it were part two and What's interesting is he begins with Jesus still on the earth in this notice look at verse 6. So when they had come together, they asked him Lord.
Will you at this time restore the kingdom of Israel? He said to them it is not for you to know the times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you'll receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and all Judea and Samaria and to the ends of the earth.
I would say that that verse verse 8 is the thesis verse of the whole book. Because what we see in verse 8 is we see the outline that the rest of the book is going to take God is going to give the the spirit to his church there.
He's going to empower them and they're going to become his witnesses first in Jerusalem. Then in Judea, which is the surrounding area then in Samaria. Which is the next surrounding area and then to the ends of the earth and that's literally the way acts is laid out Jerusalem first then Judea then Samaria then then on to Into Asia Minor and Macedonia and the ends of the earth right all the way to Rome.
Right. So so so literally verse 8 becomes sort of the thesis outline that Jesus is prophesying. This is what's going to happen. Spirit's going to give you power and this is how it's going to all work out so so don't lose the importance of that verse as a as a outline for for basically for the whole book and so Our outline our outline getting back to the lesson for tonight is going to be the same thing we have done for the last few Weeks, we're going to first look at authorship and purpose we're going to look then at theological insights and then we are going to look at difficulties and controversies that that will be the the three-part outline of tonight's lesson and Does anybody have any questions before we begin you all read your introduction, right?
Any questions about that one thing I do want to mention.
Your.
Textbook the believers Bible commentary that I had everybody purchase your that that particular book comes from what would could be called a dispensational perspective so as we get into certain aspects of Interpretation there may be times where I will disagree with the commentary as to the direction that it goes but Most of you have probably at least been some way influenced by dispensationalism especially if you have been part of a Southern Baptist Church and This will become very apparent when we get to books like Revelation because Revelation dispensational Theology make makes a big part of how you understand in times stuff but there's also some things in Acts that that that will possibly come up and in in the interpretation may be slightly different and And I did have one asked me.
Well, why would you why would you give a commentary that you disagree with? Why don't disagree with everything in the commentary? This is one area that I would say I would disagree but also I want you to be as Students exposed to these different concepts and if I have to correct something in class I will.
But ultimately this is you know, I hope hopefully your benefit. I think it's a good commentary. I mean John MacArthur is a dispensationalist if you don't know. If you have no idea what I'm talking about by dispensationalist it it's usually Contrasted with covenant theology and it simply is a hermeneutic for how to understand Israel and the church the distinction or Lack of distinction between Israel and the church and and why would that be important in Acts?
Yeah Axis the yeah, if you will the birth of the church, but see even that language. Because I said it already even the language birth of the church. From a covenantal perspective. The church has always been it was in Israel and now is in the the New Covenant Church so I I I did say birth of the church earlier, but typically I I I qualify that by saying I believe the church was in seed form in Israel and was By the coming of the Spirit to indwell the individual believers.
I think there was there's a unique And excuse expression a unique dispensation that we now enjoy of the Spirit. That was not enjoyed in the same way in the Old Covenant. I had this conversation I think this morning with the guys at set free I said, you know in the Old Covenant the Spirit of God regenerated the believer but I don't believe the Spirit of God indwelled the believer and The New Covenant the Spirit both regenerates and indwells and the distinction is in the Old Testament God dwelt among his people and the New Covenant God dwells within his people.
That's the promise of the New Covenant is that he will he will he will make his Home in your heart and you will be the temple of God rather than the temple being in your midst. It'll be in your heart.
And so there's a there's a major distinction there. And so I can still say there is something unique. There is something new about the New Covenant and there's something unique about the birth of this New Covenant body so that's why when I say birth of the church, I Don't have a problem saying as long as I'm able to qualify and say I think the church did exist in seed form in Israel whereas dispensationalist would say no.
They would say Israel was Israel and the church is the church and never the twain shall meet and that's where I have my biggest Problem with with dispensationalism because they would they would make the argument that the church in Israel have two different plans from God two different essentially two different Two different paradigms you have the the paradigm of Israel and paradigm of the church and they're not.
They are not one and I think so many passages of the New Testament would Disqualify that from as an interpretation most specifically Paul who said there is now neither Jew nor Greek but we are all one in Christ Jesus Galatians chapter 3, so so anyway, as you're reading your commentary if you come across things that make a hard distinction between the church and Israel and To the point that you feel like you have a question about that.
Please message me. Or ask it in class. I'd love to have that conversation. Remember this is supposed to be dialogical. We're supposed to be Interacting with one another if this if this weren't nothing but and that was great English, right?
This weren't nothing didn't you always tell I'm a country country fellow. If this was only me preaching this is why I didn't like doing this in the sanctuary. Back there in Cove it because it just felt like an hour-long sermon.
This is supposed to be you ask we interact dialogical study not just monologue. It was just me. I could record it and send it to you if that's all it was.
Yes.
Again that that actually goes to another issue that goes to the issue of how did how did The world in the first century view the church and I do think that there is a legitimate argument to be made that People outside of Judaism would have saw Christians as another form of Judaism.
Just a set and that's why it's saying a sect of Judaism. I think they would have seen the church they would have said okay. Those guys are. She's expression they're like a cult. They're they're they're not Jews, but they're not they're not Romans or or Greeks.
They're some kind of an odd Offshoot. I don't think the church ever saw itself as that. In fact, I would say the church saw itself as the true Israel. What what do we see in Acts? Where were they going?
They were going to the temple. They were still in the first few chapters, I think they saw themselves as the true Israel they The Messiah had come and we have not we're not the cult. We're the true Believers we're the ones we're the inheritors of the promise of all those old covenant Promises and you guys who are still sacrificing bulls and goats just don't understand that's over.
You guys who are still looking for something to come have missed it. Think about the first few sermons of Peter. You by wicked hands Took the Lord Jesus and crucified him. You know his sermons are are attacking them for what they did for not recognizing the parousia their visitation.
They had had the Lord in their midst and instead of saying Welcome King they said crucify him. Right, so. Yeah, I how the world would have saw the church. I think is different than how the church saw itself.
Am I saying the church was the plan of God? Yo, yeah, absolutely. The Bible says in Galatians that when the fullness of time had come God sent forth his son born of a woman born under the law that he would redeem those who are under the law and give them the adoption of sons.
The fullness of time tells us that God had planned from the beginning to send his son at a certain time in history and when that time came God sent Jesus, so Jesus is not a Second plan or a backup plan.
Jesus isn't you know drop back and punt you know Israel didn't do what they were supposed to do so we're gonna drop back and punt and Jesus is going to come in and he's Going to run the ball. That's not the point.
Jesus is the plan from the beginning. How do we know this. Because the Bible tells us he was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. So the plan to send Christ was never a second option. It was always the primary in him all things hold together.
Colossians tells us yes, sir. You had your hand up. Yeah, in fact, I would argue. In fact, I will be arguing this Sunday in my sermon that Christ is the true Israel. Hosea 11 1 out of out of Egypt. I call my son, you know, that whole passage is about Jesus.
We know that because Matthew Cites that passage and in relation to Jesus Jesus is the seed of the woman. Genesis 315. That's my sermon this Sunday. Jesus is the seed of the woman who crushed the head of the serpent.
Jesus is the blessing promised to Abraham and you all the nations of the world will be blessed. Paul tells us in Galatians. That's directly about Jesus. It's not about all the descendants of Abraham. It's about one seed.
Paul makes the point to say it's not seeds plural. But it's seed singular and the one seed that matters is Jesus Christ in him. It's all about him all of the things of the Old Testament point to him. They the fulfillment.
This is again this is where my biggest issue with dispensationalism because it seems as if they have a secondary set of promises that they want to make sure Israel receives and when all of the promises are yes and amen in Christ and and that and and so.
Yeah, I I take issue with with that for sure.
Yeah, Christ is the is the true vine. I'm the true vine. I'm the bread come down from heaven. I am the gate. I am the way the truth in life. I am I am and that's what we've talked about last week in.
John.
All right. Well, let's move on to our study of Acts several years ago I preached through the book of Acts the title of my message was beyond our borders and I did that. I think I did. I Remember how many sermons I did to get through the book of Acts, but the the subject of it was that the one of the things that we see in the book of Acts is That the gospel did not have borders.
It wasn't kept in the in the one location of Jerusalem among the one people of Israel. But it was for every tribe tongue people and nation. Now acts Follows the ministry of Peter first and then the ministry of Paul throughout the latter part but there are other apostles going other places and That is important.
There are churches being established in Alexandria there's churches being established in India. There's churches being established all around. We just happen to have the We happen to have the Inspired text of what happened with Paul, but that should not eliminate our reminder that there was no borders.
It wasn't if they it wasn't as if they only went to to Asia Minor Which is Turkey now or they only went to Macedonia, which is you know, there is around Greece. No, they went everywhere. What was the first languages?
The Bible was translated into Coptic just Egyptian Syriac.
Arabic.
These are the earliest translations of the New Testament. In fact, we have we have about 5700 Greek manuscripts that are available to us to study and look at now. But if you combine also all the other languages Syriac Coptic Arabic and then you get to the fourth century you have Latin.
There are so many there are more manuscripts that can be counted. Because now you've gotten away from the original language, which you're looking at the original translations of those languages. No borders.
It was going everywhere. The good thing about that the blessing of that is when you have such widespread and massive proliferation of an idea. Then there's no one who can change it without that change.
Being part of the history and we see the change. You see if you only had five guys in a room who know the story. And they're the only ones who know. Then that story can be changed. But when that story has been told to 5 ,000 people and they go every direction.
Well, if somebody comes along and says no, no. No, here's what the real story is. Somebody says no. No, I'm part of the 5 ,000 that heard the true story you are wrong. You see this is the blessing of the copious amounts of manuscripts that we have nobody could come along and collect all the manuscripts and and Change them all.
You see it was it was Expansion and the proliferation of the information that. Was a blessing that comes with a difficulty too because there are manuscripts that have mistakes. In fact, there's a lot of mistakes in the manuscripts.
We see we can trace those mistakes back to a source. In fact, I'm preaching next Monday at the fire conference Fellowship of independent reformed evangelicals. I'm preaching on Romans 828. What's Romans 828?
Yeah, all things work together for the good of those who love God and are called according to his purpose. Did you know there's a major textual variant in that passage? It says in ESV all things work together for the good of those who are called according to his purpose in The New American Standard Bible it takes the variant reading and it says God causes all things to work together.
For the good of those who love him. You say that's not much of a difference. It's not much of a difference, but it is a variant in the manuscript tradition. And so part of what I'm going to be teaching on is why do I think that variant exists?
I don't want to get into it right now. But the point of the matter is this is that we can find we can.
I.
I'll be honest with you. I think I think that there's a very good chance that that that was What we call a scribal emendation. See, there are times when scribes will include Information in their copies to clarify things we do it with our translations.
Sometimes they're dynamic translations. Yes, and sometimes we see those commentaries get introduced into the text and I think that it's very possible that the phrase God caused all things to work together is a is a is an attempt by a scribe to clarify what Is being said.
It's the longer reading. But I can't I can't tell you it's not the actual reading. I prefer that actually I think I think it's nice. Yeah, but either way God's sovereign right no matter how you no matter which Version you you think is the correct one.
God's sovereign. By the way, would anybody in here be interested in a seminar class on textual variation the history of the New Testament? Okay, because that's something I thought about maybe doing because we you know.
We take two months off around Christmas time and I thought about maybe doing one class on Textual variation. Textual variation is a very important subject that so few people have ever done any study on.
And if you if you never have it's very useful because it answers a lot of the questions that people have. About the the reliability of the text the text is reliable. But that doesn't mean that there aren't Questions that we have about certain passages and so that the whole class would just be going through the major variants of the New Testament.
So if you're interested, let me know and maybe we'll do something. All right, so I've kind of got off the subject let me get back to axe. Axe this is from your actually, this is from the introduction introducing the New Testament by Doug moon and D a Carson they say axe is a whirlwind tour of three decades of church history.
The story moves through various areas including Asia Minor Macedonia Greece and Rome and it focuses on two main figures. Who are the two main figures in the book of Acts? Other than the Holy Spirit Paul and Peter and I would say Peter chapters 1 to 12 focus mainly on the ministry of Peter chapters 13 to 28.
Primarily on the ministry of Paul. Are there others? Yes, there's chapter. You know where Philip is sort of the main focus and then there's other other chapters. But the the first 12 chapters deal primarily with the ministry of Peter.
In fact, there was a film About Peter and Paul, I don't know what the name of it was, but it was a film about those two men and Peter was working on a boat and John went to him. It's like John Peter. Why aren't you preaching anymore?
And he said Jesus took it away from me. He gave it to Paul and like like this was like some random thing that the movie creator came up with as if when Paul Came on the scene Peter just just just went away and I was like, I don't know where that idea came from.
But I can understand I guess if you don't really know anything about church history that there is a point in Acts where the focus shifts right you go from the focus of Pete of Paul or Peter who is of course the mouthpiece of the Apostles.
I would say the big mouth of the Apostles. I love Peter because we are a lot alike don't know when to be quiet but he was a big mouth and then along comes Paul and. And the latter part of acts is about him.
What's interesting is? Paul has a mission according to his own words. This is in Galatians 2 7 and 8 his mission is to the Gentiles and Peter's mission I'll read it to you acts 2 7. When they saw that I had was entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised.
Just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised. For he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised works worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles.
So that's that's Paul writing and he's saying Peter has a unique ministry to the to the to the circumcised to the Jews. I have a unique ministry to the Gentiles now that doesn't mean that Paul never preached to a Jew and it doesn't mean that Peter never preached a Gentile because Peter preached to Cornelius and Paul every time he went to a new City, where did he go?
To the synagogue because it was to the Jews first and then to the Greeks. So he's not saying I there there was not some crossover. But his point is there's a unique ministry given to Peter for the Gentiles or to for the Jews and Unique ministry given to Paul and what and and one of the things about that when we get to this the book of Galatians which would be actually next week the first the first part of Paul's letters and Most of our time next week's going to be on Romans and Galatians because those two books sort of a lot of hinges a lot.
Hinges on those we'll look at the others, but the primary focus and our first night on Paul Galatians. This is what I consider to be his first book and it's more biographical. It's very very important book.
And then of course Romans. This is magnum opus theological work. But in Galatians, there's that that little biographical piece about him and Peter having an issue. What was the issue between Peter and Paul?
That's right Peter it says when certain men came from James who is James. James is the pastor of the Church of Jerusalem Brother of Jesus and it says when certain men came from James Peter would stop eating with Gentiles and he would separate himself.
And a lot of people give Peter a hard time for that one of those being Paul. He said you're wrong and he was wrong. But have you ever wondered why he did it? Some people think he was afraid of What they would say about him but I think there's also a more I Want to say gracious way of Understanding it.
I think Peter understood his role as a minister to the Gentiles and he did not want to Interrupt that relationship. So when they came they he's like no, I'm not going to do what's going to offend them.
Right because eating with Gentiles would have offended these Jews. But Paul Paul comes in says Matt. No, even if you're really gracious with Peter, which I'm trying to be he was still wrong and Paul totally Publicly called him out on it.
But you know no matter his motivation whether it was better or worse. It was the wrong thing to do because he was making a division where there shouldn't have been and it's a distinction where there shouldn't have been so When we look at the Book of Acts and getting back to what we're talking about here.
We see Paul has the latter half. Peter has the first half but the but the primary primary focus of the whole book the the person who is the focus of the whole book is the Holy Spirit if If you could say we have four Gospels of Jesus Christ you could say we also have one gospel of the Spirit.
Because the book of Acts provides for us The Spirit being unleashed on the world and providing what Jesus said he would he will come and convict the world of sin and righteousness and The Spirit comes and does that all right?
Let's move that was all introduction. Let's look now very quickly authorship of purpose. I've already explained I believe Luke is the author based on Acts chapter 1 it also in in chapter 16 20 21 and 27 there is a switch to the first person I and we and Luke is the one apparently in that group in all four chapters, so that's another reason why.
What's that? Yeah, it's it's it's at 16. There is a reference to I and we acts 20 Acts 21 and acts 27. He talks about we and us and again, there are several companions there. But there's there's one that sort of is in all four and that's Luke.
So that's where part of part of where we're getting that and other external evidence says it's Luke as well. Yes. That's yeah, yes, that's what I'm saying when we when we read through he's the only one that Seems to make sense as the one yeah, absolutely.
So again, that's that's what we would call internal evidence for authorship and then we have external evidence, which is church tradition says Luke wrote it so. Both that when you have when you have two pieces of internal and external evidence that that fit together.
So well, there's really no no reason to to argue. Okay. Next is the dating of the writing. We know that It was after Paul's house arrest in Rome, how do we know that? Because that's mentioned. It's like it's like in there.
So yeah, it could have been written before that because that's what it was written. So Others so we know that that happened and that would have put it Somewhere after 62 63. And I would say definitely before 70.
Definitely before 70. What what is it? What is one thing that it's that it Absolutely, you would think it would have but it doesn't the searching temple. That's true that and and that's usually the answer.
But that's not the answer this time. That's a good answer. What's another thing that you would think that it would have?
What?
Okay. Well the answer I'm looking for is the death of Peter and Paul. Next time go for it. Yeah, you you can only be wrong it won't hurt. Well, yeah, yeah, we don't we don't see the death of The two men that the book was primarily about first chapter for first 12 chapters is about Peter.
The last latter half is about Paul. Neither one of us mentioned their death, which tells me It was probably written before they died. That's that's that again is a helpful indicator of dating, right? Yes.
No a before 8070. Certainly would have probably been into the persecution of Nero. So this would put the book of Acts prior to that, huh? 80 before 8070 before 8070. Yes. I'm sorry. I said 80 like sound like 80.
Yes. Yeah before 8070. I Want to read from Adam Clark's commentary. He says this he said it is commonly believed that when a general Persecution was raised against the Christians by Nero both st Paul and st. Peter sealed the truth with their blood.
So that is one commentary opinion. But certainly it makes sense that under the neurotic persecution Which you guys are familiar with that a little bit of history with Nero Claiming the Christians had been responsible for the burning of Rome and therefore he was it.
Huh? Yeah. Well, yeah. We think so.
Again.
Most likely he did it. There was a lot of evidence that said he did it. But he needed a fall person. Christianity wasn't sort of new kid on the block and blame them and get away with it and everybody hates him.
Anyway, they're there. The first Christians were thought to be atheists. And that's an interesting point because If you think of think of yourself as a first century Roman you believed in the gods. The Christian said no, we don't believe in the gods we believe in one God.
Oh, yes, well the Roman Pantheon you had. The Greek Pantheon. The Roman Pantheon. There's a lot of cross over there. Sometimes the Roman God the Greek God will have different names, but they're looking to the same God.
You have the Christians. They won't worship those guys they won't go to the temples they won't go and pray. They're not Jews and they're not Romans or Greeks, so they're. They're different. And again, one of the terms one of the ideas was that they don't worship the gods.
Therefore, they're atheistic. Christians were accused of a lot of weird things. Christians were accused of sexual orgies. It wasn't true. But think about their what would they call their feasts. Love feasts agape feasts, right?
So they were accused of sexual orgies. They were accused of cannibalism. Because well, but but think about their their what do they eat the body and blood of Christ? So so their enemies their atheists their cannibals their sexual deviants, right.
And so the enemies of the church. Used all that in regard to the persecution. This is why it's always it's always dangerous when you're studying history to only study history from the side of the of the victorious because often the if the victorious one writes the history of the Defeated they write it in the worst possible way that they can.
Doesn't mean they're wrong always. But for instance the Gnostics the Gnostics was a second century and Second century group that was well, they were in the first century too because I think first John we get to first second third John, I think there's some references to the Gnostics there, but they were a they were a group.
That.
Tried to abscond with Christianity tried to use Christian language. This is where the Gospel of Thomas and others I believe came from and Their their points was that they were they they didn't believe.
They believe matter was bad. They believed so the body was bad and only spiritual things are good, and they had a dualistic view. But we really know very little about them. Because what little we do know about them was written by their enemies.
And so it's hard to know exactly what the Gnostics believed because we don't have their writing. We have some The Nag Hammadi library and things like that. We have enough to be able to draft some.
Conclusions.
But if you only look at the enemies of the church, you would think the church was sexual deviants cannibals and Atheists, there's just of course. None of those things are true. All right, so. Moving on.
Oh, well, I didn't finish this. We talked about the death of Peter and Paul happened under Nero. We believe tradition says That Peter was crucified upside down. But we don't know that you probably all seen paintings of that though, right?
The paintings of Peter being crucified upside down. Church tradition says Peter was crucified upside down because he was not willing to be killed. In the same way that his master was killed. So when they went to crucify him, he said no crucify me upside down so not only was it a Request that he made.
I don't know that's true. There is nothing. There's there's very little history. Sounds good. Yeah, I'll go with it, but we don't know Paul is more likely accurate. Paul was likely beheaded because Paul was a Roman citizen.
Roman citizens were not subject to crucifixion that was considered to be an ignoble death and therefore if you were a Roman citizen you escaped Crucifixion and they simply lopped off your head. So the most most likely scenario Peter probably was crucified.
Because that is how insurrectionists and and a lot of Christians were crucified in the first century. So there's a good chance Peter was crucified but not much chance Paul was Because of his Roman citizenship and that's one thing Paul liked to do.
He liked to hold. I mean, you know, he pointed out. This is why there are times when I I think it's okay if we you know. We talk about our rights as Americans. I think sometimes it's alright to point out that we have some rights.
I mean Paul pointed out his rights. I mean, you know, we have to be we have to be we have to be good citizens and not be jerks but we do have rights that are afforded us by the fact that we are Americans and Paul certainly made use of his rights.
You beat me. Not supposed to do that when they found out he was a Roman citizen. Well, they're like, oh we're in trouble. Let him go. No, no. We're gonna stay right here. You know, so there's a there's a lot there's a lot to that.
I Hope I'm not being I'm a little I'm being a little more relaxed than I hope you guys are. Enjoyed you learning something enjoy it as I there's a lot there's so much in acts to get through in one class.
But let's let's quickly now let's move from The authorship and the dating to the the purpose. What what is the purpose of acts? Well, I think the purpose of acts is similar to the purpose of The purpose of Luke in that when Luke wrote his gospel He was giving a biography of Christ a gospel biography and in acts He's given a biography of the birth of this new covenant Church and I'll read to you from introducing the New Testament says perhaps loose Luke's most fundamental purpose and acts is To help Christians answer the question who are we.
I'll go on 2 ,000 years of church history sometimes prevent us from seeing just how basic that question was for first believers as long as only Jews Were among the faithful others could think that this new group was just another sect of Jews with a crazy idea about who the Messiah was.
But as soon as Samaritans and Gentiles began entering the picture it was impossible to identify Christianity as a subset of Judaism. Christianity was now something new and Continuity with the old of course, but distinct from it as well.
Thus a new name had to be coined for this group. It was first called the way. But what was it called in Acts 11 26? It was an Antioch that they were first called Christians Acts 11 26.
Luke's purpose is Identity in one sense. Who are we? We are Christians. Acts begins the historical record of 2 ,000 years of church history when I teach church history. Those of you who took it a year and a half two years ago whenever we started.
What did we start first night? Book of Acts we started with Pentecost moving from Pentecost to The expansion. Don't remember in a long time. But that church history if a good church history begins there.
And it expands for 2 ,000 years. All right. Let's move now to theological insights. Your commentary says this. You're in the introduction to acts. It says acts is a bridge. Not only between the life of Christ and the Christ life taught in the epistles.
But it's also a transitional link between Judaism and Christianity. Between law and grace. Acts is the transition between Judaism and Christianity,. I think I showed you this already but for the sake of.
Just in case I didn't this is a brand new marker. How do I do this?
It's brand new.
Yeah, not today. Satan that's right I brought two. This one ain't great either. It might be the board. Okay if we think of time as a.
Line.
And I'm not going to go into all the creation. We give creation all the way up to. We did that in the last class. All right, so we say let's start with the cross as.
Introduction to the new covenant, right? Jesus said the new covenant is In his blood, right? So the new covenant is ratified in the cross and it is Vindicated in the resurrection, right? He he he dies for our sins.
He's raised for our vindication, right? So we see this this the new covenant has begun. Now some people don't believe that. Some people believe that we're not part of the new covenant. Dispensationalists believe that it's only for the Jews.
It's a new covenant with the house of Israel doesn't involve the church. The church is something else that there's a Greek word for that. It's baloney.
Go ahead.
Yes, so for the day of redemption that's Ephesians thinking Ephesians 1. But my point is this. Here's where the New covenant begins and one could argue. Here's where the old covenant ends.
But.
There is a moment of grace which ends with the destruction of Jerusalem in 8070. So this is somewhere around we'll just say around 30 ish. So we have a 40 year period of transition Where the the new covenant has come therefore the old covenant is functionally over but there's a gracious if You will a grace period.
Where they will still have the temple in their midst. But Jesus did say not one stones gonna be left upon another. Right. He made that prophecy very clear this this is going to end and it did and since 8070 there's been no Sacrifices there's been no temple.
There's one wall left and it's to call it a wall. It's being a little generous. It's just a bunch of stones laid up on top of each other and it's being held together with prayer. Literally, they write prayers and they stick them in the holes and that and so that's called the Western wall of the wailing wall.
So this 40 year period this is the period of Acts. Right because it ends with Jesus's ascension or it begins with Jesus's ascension, right? And it ends with with Paul and Rome and. So it it it it's the history of the transitional point it's the it's the history of the transition and.
So if somebody said what's acts about it's it's the transitional history the of the church moving from The Old Covenant to the New Covenant and because it is historical in nature. It does not provide us with as many direct Theological propositions as do some other books if you compared the direct theological Propositions and acts with those and Romans is not even close if you compare the direct Theological propositions and acts with Hebrews.
It doesn't even touch it as far as the propositional statements of truth because what we have in Acts is is descriptive and.
You need to understand the distinction between what in the Bible is prescriptive and what is descriptive. Prescriptive is a command. Descriptive is this is what happened. Not everything that happens is a command so one of the things I have to explain to my Pentecostal friends because they read the book of Acts as it is a manual for church behavior and this is the way the church is supposed to look in all ages and for all times and thus they take the descriptive and they make it prescriptive and.
It's not and One of the reasons why we need to understand this is because acts rests within a transitional moment history. Therefore things happened in that 40-year period that would not be for all time and we're not intended to be for all time.
Prescriptive is a Command to prescribe and descriptive is Describing what happened it's telling what happened If we look at Acts in the transitional period. We are actually watching Hebrews 8 13 come about.
Hebrews 8 13 says this and Speaking of a new covenant He makes the first one obsolete and what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. I'll say it again in speaking of a new covenant.
He makes the first covenant obsolete and what is becoming obsolete and Growing old is vanishing is about there's ready to vanish away. Why does the writer of Hebrews say it's ready to vanish away. Because Hebrews is being written right around here.
And when's it gonna vanish away? Right here. I Had an argument with a guy that set free about this. There was a guy that set free who was a Torah observant. And I said I am a. And he caught me after one of my lessons one day and he I want to talk to you.
Okay, so we stopped and talked and and he said he said, you know, I want to know your view on Keeping of the dietary laws and all that and I began to we went back and forth for a few minutes. And I finally just said I said stop.
I said your biggest problem is you don't understand Hebrews. I Said really don't understand the New Testament. You don't understand the New Covenant. I said, but primarily you don't understand Hebrews.
I said because everything you're saying Hebrews says is wrong and the biggest issue is you don't understand the distinction between the New Covenant and the Old Covenant and I said everything you're telling me to do Hebrews tells me has passed away and He says no, it's about to pass away, but it hasn't passed away yet.
I Said say what? He said he said that passage says it's ready to vanish away. It doesn't say it has vanished away. I said well this just tells me you don't understand history. I said because When it says it's ready to vanish away.
It meant.
Within two years not two thousand the writers writing about something that's just about to happen not two thousand years later or more. Hebrews is all about this guys when we get to our study of the General epistles.
We're going to spend some time in Hebrews and see That Hebrews is the it's the book. You must understand to really understand what we have in Christ. We have a better covenant everything is better so.
Looking at Acts. Because I'll give you an example. We had a lady at our church. She ended up leaving our church years ago to go to the Seventh-day Adventist movement and the reason why she went was because she became convinced that she should worship on Saturday and.
Y 'all know my position on the Sabbath, that's that's another conversation but the issue for her was I want to do it the way the Apostles did and The Apostles went to the temple on the Sabbath, so I want to do it like the Apostles did it and I said well.
If that's your argument, where's your temple if you want to do it like the Apostles did it? You can't because that time has passed. That moment in time was a very particular moment and it began. I Didn't say like that.
Yeah, well that yeah, yeah a good point yeah that we won't worship on that mountain or this mountain yeah, so. Understanding acts as a transitional period in time is very important when we get to our study of Revelation.
Put your seatbelt on because that's gonna be a busy night. But I'm gonna argue that The whole book of Revelation I think is about what happened in 80 70 because it's a it's a closing the door on the Old Covenant.
It is closing the door on what Christ came to fulfill and therefore we now live on this side of The finished work of Christ. And we don't have to go back under the law. What is Hebrews all about? What's the and I know we're an axe tonight, but what's Hebrews all about.
Don't go back under that. Don't abandon the the new covenant to go back to a dead. Unusable covenant it doesn't work anymore. Sorry I get excited. Once we recognize acts occupies a transitional moment in history certain things become evident.
Number one the signs and wonders which accompanied the ministry of the Apostles were not meant for all times. I think that that part of the argument for the transitional period now not everybody agrees with me on that but I do.
I take a cessationist position which means I believe that at the death of the last Apostle that the The sign gifts that were intended to accompany the work of the giving of Scripture. Similar to the signs that were given to Moses and to others who gave Scripture.
I think that that was a transitional period not meant for all time. That period is often referred to as the Apostolic Age. Why we call the Apostolic Age? There's time of the Apostles. He has not a hard one.
So it would have ended not with AD 70. But it would have ended with the death of the last Apostle which would have been John who lived into the 90s. So I Would say.
I'll say this brother, and I know you I know you're I know you're you're ribbing me, but I I didn't know. No I'm glad you asked. I Would say there's no more capital a Apostles and that's where I think the distinction has been made.
There are a few people who are called Apostle that are not given. The designation of Apostle. James the pastor of the Church of Jerusalem is called an Apostle, but he was not one of the twelve. Barnabas is called an Apostle, but he was not one of the twelve and so we can see a distinction between the Apostles capital a twelve and.
The what we would say is simply of the generic term of the word which means ones who are sent. And so if a man today said he wanted to be called Apostle I don't like it. Personally because I think that it's from I think that you're.
Because I think that they think that they're part of that apostolic group, and that's the you know like the new apostolic Reformation. I think it's dangerous because they really believe they're the new part of the twelve.
But if a person just sees it as the generic little a Apostle and they understand the meaning, but they like that title. I still wouldn't like it. But it wouldn't be as big a deal as someone who was saying I have the apostolic gifts.
And I'm I have the authority of the Apostles. The big issue though the big issue for a lot of people is the question of.
Paul.
Because Paul is an Apostle capital a But he's not one of the twelve unless you accept the theory that the church was wrong in choosing Matthias and They were presumptive because God had chosen Saul of Tarsus.
I Don't take that position, but that is a position some people take that Matthias was not the twelfth disciple. But it was the twelfth Apostle, but it was Paul. Actually in the upper room it was to have been with him from the beginning and so Paul would not have qualified for that, but that was that was the qualification given within the church.
We want to choose men who've been with Christ from the beginning. As far as we do we know Paul saw Christ risen. And so in that sense Paul calls himself something though very interesting. He calls himself one born out of season.
Remember that in 1st Corinthians 15. He says you know Jesus appeared to the 500 and he appeared to Peter and he appeared to Me as one born out of season so he refers to himself as a as a unique specimen in the church.
Maybe not one of the twelve, but as this unique form of Apostle and so I think I think in that there's a there's almost a recognition of his of the unique character of his. Of his apostolic ministry, but some people do believe he's the twelfth and then Matthias was a mistake.
I don't believe that yes. You got my first Corinthians 15 and the born out of season. I think that I think the context would bear out he's referring to his regeneration not his physical birth. I think he's talking.
I think he's talking about when he was when he was born again. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying we would need to sit down look at the text more. I think so are you saying it's his physical birth?
Okay, then then maybe we still agree then yeah, that's why I think yeah, that's yeah. That's that's what I'm saying is he didn't come to Christ when the rest of the Apostles did he was born out of season.
But that puts him in a unique place. That's what I'm saying is by by Christ coming to him on the road to Damascus. Which is something we don't we don't know of any Christ doing that for anybody else. All right.
There's nobody else that we know of that Christ appears to in a unique way to save the way he did Paul. And so Paul not only it's the timing but it's the circumstance of his Coming to Christ and so I think his out of season is not just referring to timing.
I think it's referring to the whole. The whole fullness of the way that he came he had a unique he had a unique. You know, he didn't have somebody witness to him. Jesus witness to him, right? He had a unique coming and a unique ministry and and so I so I'm not saying you're wrong.
I'm just saying I think there's more than just the timing. I think it's is all that.
We talked about the transitional period. Yeah, well I said there were signs and wonders that were specific to that time. We call that the apostolic age and. What I have in my notes is I have a little.
But I don't have time to do. I was going to do a little lesson a quick lesson on the tongues. Let me just say this. And because we need to take about three minute break and. Then we're going to come back and we're going to look at.
We're going to look at the difficulties and controversies for the last 15 minutes. Very quickly though. When it talks about the tongues There are only three times in the Bible the gift of tongues is mentioned book of Acts Book of 1st Corinthians and possibly the book of Mark depending on how you read the latter chapter of Mark.
The book of Acts tells us something about the tongues that the other ones don't. It tells us what the tongues did. They were. They enabled the people to speak in a language that they did not know and the people heard them in their own native.
Tongue.
1st Corinthians. People use 1st Corinthians to argue for a different kind of tongues an ecstatic speech that only God understands. But I think that is. I think that that is an unnecessary reading of 1st Corinthians.
I think that the the method and the purpose of tongues is given to us in Acts and. Then the practice of tongues is given to us in 1st Corinthians. And I think seeing it seeing it two different types of tongues creates a creates somewhat of a problem.
Ultimately though there is no doubt what tongues was in Acts. Because when they spoke with tongues the people heard them in their own language. It was a real human language and when I've taught on tongues.
And if you're interested I can post some of my lessons on this because I've taught several times on this subject. Why I would argue that the the tongues in 1st Corinthians 14 is the same tongues in Acts 2.
That it's not two different gifts because Pentecostals have to argue. Because nobody is getting Pentecostal blessings and going to Spain and talking in Spanish who ain't never studied Spanish. Ain't no but see but see this is the thing when the Pentecostal Church was birthed.
It was birthed on that promise. The man who was responsible. The earliest man who was responsible the Kansas City prophets, and then it went into the Azusa Street mission and all that. He argued that they would speak in languages they had never studied and He even had people say they were writing in Chinese.
Never studied Chinese and later those writings were looked at and it wasn't nothing but a bunch of scratches on the paper. There was no and They said oh, but that's the Holy Spirit's language. See it's even the answer to the question of what it is is a response.
Based on it. We can't do what we said we could do and that's speak in other languages. Now if somebody came to me and never studied French and started speaking in French, you know what I'd say, that's a miracle of God but it does not take a miracle to make Repetitive monosyllabic sound and that's what well or writing chicken scratch.
Yes, sir, brother Tim.
Language but.
Well, I think that that came later. I think they always thought it was until they couldn't do it.
No, I'm not sure I'd have to go back and look at what they would how they would interpret that phrase. Is they say The sign of judgment on Israel, you know is the. Isn't that what it says in 1st Corinthians 14 that it's a sign of judgment.
I tell you let's take our break. We'll talk about over the break. Everybody take two minutes. All right. We have very little time left. Maybe you give me an extra five minutes tonight. But I want to ask this question before we get to the difficulties and controversies.
Because there are a few. Do you have any questions about acts that you were hoping I would answer tonight and I haven't dealt with. Did you come in with tonight saying boy? I hope he talks about this and I didn't deal with it.
You mean just just to explain it.
Well, I mean.
Well, I the the the coming of the Spirit and the Falling as it were divided tongues of fire and and that that you know I talked about the fact that I think that was the birth of that Promise that the promise of the New Covenant would was that every believer?
Would have the Holy Spirit within him. You will not have to tell everyone know the Lord because they will know him. Why. Because everybody in seeing the Old Covenant you could be in the Covenant and not be a believer.
Because you were born into the Covenant. This is my big issue with Presbyterian theology because they believe you're born into the Covenant now and I say oh nay nay. Because in this Covenant everyone is a believer because the promise of the New Covenant.
Yeah. Oh, they know you like that. Yeah, the promise of the New Covenant is You don't have to tell the other person know the Lord.
Right.
Because they already know the Lord. If you're in the Covenant, it's because you know the Lord and so it's. That doesn't mean you don't have to proselytize or evangelize outside. But if you're in the Covenant, it's because you know the Lord there's there that's there.
All right. So that's the I think that's the the One of the important things about the coming of the Spirit. All right, let's look at a few difficulties. Because acts as a historical work with no other Books containing the same exact material.
We don't have the same issues of harmonization that we do with the Gospels. We don't have four different stories that we have to harmonize. We have the one written by Luke. But there are there is some extra biblical history that has to be harmonized.
But the most important piece of harmony, I think that we Must understand is the harmony between Galatians and Acts because Galatians is the most autobiographical of Paul's letters and in Galatians we we read About something that is never mentioned in Acts.
In fact turn in your Bibles to Galatians. I did want to point this out tonight because I think it's important for you to understand as a survey of Acts. Paul gives us a bit of information in Galatians that we don't have in Acts.
And it's in Galatians chapter 1 verse 15 Says but when he who had set me apart Before I was born and who called me by his grace was pleased to reveal his son to me in order that I might preach Him among the Gentiles.
I did not immediately consult with anyone nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me. But I went away into Arabia and returned again to Damascus. Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him 15 days.
But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother. All right, so right there we have Paul saying.
He he didn't there was a three-year period That Acts never mentions. In fact, the corresponding passage is Acts 9 turn to Acts 9 and Acts 9 verse 18. This is after Paul is converted. He's at the house of Ananias, no, no, this isn't the Ananias who died in chapter 5.
This is a different Ananias of course. He's at the house of Ananias. It says. And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized and taking food.
He was strengthened for some days. He was with the disciples at Damascus. And immediately he proclaimed Jesus in the synagogue saying he is the Son of God and all who heard him were amazed and said is This not the man who made havoc in Jerusalem and those who were called upon his name?
And has he not come here for a purpose to bring them bound before the chief priests? But Saul increased all the more in strength and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Christ.
When many days had passed the Jews plotted to kill him, but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night in order to kill him. But his disciples took him by night let him down through an opening in the wall lowering him in a basket.
And when he had come to Jerusalem He attempted to join the disciples and they were all afraid of him for they did not believe that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him and brought him to the Apostles and declared How to them how on the road he had seen the Lord who spoke to him and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus, so he went in and Went in and out among the among Different Jerusalem preaching boldly in the name of the Lord.
All right, so so right there go back with me to back to verse 20. It says immediately he proclaimed Jesus and the synagogues saying he's the Son of God. Verse 19 says for some days. He was with the disciples at Damascus and then later in that same paragraph it says but Saul increased all the more in strength, this is verse 22 and Confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Christ and then verse 23 when many days had passed the Jews Plot to kill him that that's probably the three years the many days.
That's just weird that that Luke would describe three years as many days but if you if you follow the order of events that Paul gives us in Galatians He says I was in Damascus. I went to Arabia. Came back to Damascus spent three years then I went to Jerusalem in this story.
It doesn't mention Arabia it says he was in Damascus for many days and Then he went to Jerusalem so so the comparative thing is that we have another example of.
Not.
Necessarily telescoping but it's similar to telescoping just condensing. Telescoping is literally.
Almost.
Truncating story. This is just leaving a part out completely. He's just left out apart like I like I did this a few weeks ago, but for those who weren't here I don't remember, you know, what did I do today?
I Went to set free then I went to get my hair cut. And then I went home. Is that true. Yes, but in the middle of all that I came here to the church. I picked up my paycheck. I went to Best Buy. I bought some speakers for an interview.
I'm doing tomorrow. I went home those speakers didn't work. So I had to go back to Best Buy and now I'm trying to figure out how to make the second set of speakers work. I didn't tell you anything about the speakers because it didn't matter.
What matters is the part I wanted to tell you was I went got my hair cut and I went home. All right, so I didn't tell you a lie the first time. I just didn't tell you everything. That's that that's the point of understanding harmonization.
Paul is being autobiographical in Galatians. So when he says I spent I went to Arabia. We don't know how long he was in radio people say he's in Arabia three years. That's not what it says. It says he went to Arabia and came back to Damascus then after three years.
So it was likely and we don't know how long it was. But we know from the time of his conversion to the time of his Jerusalem Interaction which is in Acts. He goes to Jerusalem. They're scared of it. Was a three-year period whereas if you only had acts it would seem like it was a.
Only a few days.
Galatians provides us a more audio autobiographical view of Paul's.
Story.
So so that's the first one that is a it's not a controversy. It's just it's a difficulty if you read Galatians you say well, that's not an axe. Why is it not an axe? Because Luke didn't put it in acts.
It was his choice to not include that. It's it doesn't make it wrong. It's just not there. The one that is a little more difficult and I would say it's only a little bit difficult but it is more difficult is when Paul retells his conversion story.
Several times in the book of Acts he varies his amount of detail and There seems to be a contradiction. There's not but I'm just giving you the reason for the argument. There seems to be a contradiction in what he says in Acts chapter 9 and Acts chapter 22.
Now for a moment, I Just want to throw this out there. I Don't believe there's a contradiction. But even if there were a contradiction and don't you dare throw anything? Don't you get your tomatoes ready?
It wouldn't be a contradiction in the Bible. It would be Paul telling the story wrong. It would be it would be an accurate account of a mistake that he made. You understand that that's still the Bible's not wrong.
Paul was wrong. I don't believe that's what happened. But but there are some who make that argument. It's not that the Bible's wrong. Paul's just wrong. He just forgot what happened. I don't think Paul forgot what happened but there is there are some who make that argument.
Here's this. Here's what happens in chapter 9. It said in fact, let's go there. I'll show you what the issue is in Acts chapter 9 verse 7. You're already in 9. We were just there go back to verse 7. It says the men who were traveling with him stood speechless hearing the voice but seeing no one.
Notice that it says hearing the voice. But seeing no one. Now go to chapter 22, this is Paul recounting his conversion experience Acts chapter 22 and he's recounting his conversion experience verse 9.
Now those who were with me saw the light but not did. Well I hate when the ESV does this the ESV tries to make it tries to fix it. But it doesn't need to be fixed. It says now those who are with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking.
That's that's what it says in the Greek and that's why I don't like the ESV makes that change because the the the text in the Greek says they heard not the voice and that's where the issue comes of the accusation of Conflict because in chapter 9 they heard the voice in chapter 22.
They didn't hear the voice. All right, and so now you have an issue of harmonization in the same book. Did they or did they not hear the voice now the ESV translators are trying to fix the problem by saying they did not understand the word akuo in the.
Greek.
Means to hear but just like in the English language the word to hear can have a variety of semantic meanings. So like if I get my daughter My daughter has this terrible thing that she's been doing. She runs and jumps on the couch and I and I say don't do that and She'll few minutes later.
She runs and jumps on the couch. So now we have to discipline right? But what's the first thing I say? Did you hear me? All right. What do I mean by that? I know she heard me. Did you understand what I said to you did you understand what that meant when I said and she goes yeah.
But you did it anyway, yeah so so so we understand akuo in the Greeks as a similar semantic range as here in English to Understand and I do believe what Paul was saying in this particular instance. Was that the men who were with me did not understand the words that they heard.
Now, why wouldn't they have understood? Well, maybe Paul heard it clearly and they heard some form of an echo or a sound or maybe Jesus was speaking to Paul in Hebrew and the ones who were accompanying him would not have understood his native language.
We don't know. We don't know. But there's not a contradiction and I don't think Paul's missing. I don't think Paul's misremembering. I think Paul's making a point. They heard something but they did not know what they heard whereas in Chapter 9 it just says they didn't hear and I think when it says they didn't hear I think it means they did not understand what they heard so.
That is the or in chapter 9 says they did hear in chapter 22. It says they they heard but I think it means they didn't understand. Such a small thing, but I tell you what Atheists have a field day with it.
Anybody who's trying to attack the Bible they use little things like that and they'll say oh, do you know about this great contradiction in an axe? And I say no. This is not a contradiction it words have meanings words have words have to be understood in their context and Context is king.
Yeah, so that is one of the ones so if you ever look at difficulties in acts. That's one that'll come up as I conclude. I want us to remember that axe is the major transitional work of the Bible. It takes us from the Old Covenant into the New Covenant.
We see this modeled in the transitions made by people involved. Common men became empowered evangelists fishermen became Apostles and a hater of the church became its most powerful ally. Axe is all about transition.
Jesus told his disciples this transition would come in John chapter 16 verse 7. He said I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away for if I do not go away the helper will not come to you.
But if I go I will send him to you and axe recounts the fulfillment of that promise by Jesus. All right, everybody this ends tonight's lesson next week we go into the first part of the Pauline writings and Be prepared Got a lot to talk about.
Let's pray Father thank you for your word and may it be that your word continues. To remind us every day of how much you love us that you would give us your word. We thank you for it in Jesus name.