Acts 5:3-4 Isn't it true that the question in verse 3 (“Why has Satan filled your heart?”) is fully explained by its parallel in verse 4 (“You have contrived this deed in your heart”)? And wouldn't that indicate that the other references to “Satan” in the Bible merely refer to the human heart, not some supernatural being?
I agree that these two questions are meant to be seen in parallel with each other. And actually, these verses occur within the larger literary frame shown below:
A. Why has Satan filled your heart
B. to lie to the Holy Spirit
C. While it remained unsold,
D. did it not remain your own
C'. After it was sold
D'. were not the proceeds at your disposal
A'. How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart
B'. you did not lie to us, but to God
However, just because the phrases are placed in poetic parallelism to one another, does not mean that each pair says exactly the same thing. This is rarely the case in Hebrew poetry or in the exalted prose of this passage. Thus, B and B' say practically the same thing, but B' expands the concept somewhat by bringing in the Second Person of the Trinity. This is quite common in Hebrew poetry where the second line adds to the first so that both lines need to be taken together to get the whole picture. We see even more of a departure from strict parallelism in CD vs. C'D'. A similar concept is being presented in each pair, but C'D' moves forward in time to explain how the same principle applies even there.
So the question is, does the pair AA' act more like BB' in describing basically the same thing, but with B' clarifying or expanding on the idea of B? Or is AA' closer to CD-C'D', in which case A describes the first phase of the temptation (an external force suggesting the action) followed by A' (Ananias acting on this suggestion due to the evil inclination of his heart). In either case, but especially in the latter, it is unjustified to reduce these verses to the simple equation: Satan = evil human inclinations.
And that equation certainly can't extrapolated to reduce all references to Satan in the Bible to evil
human inclinations only. Attempts to do that would fail especially in the case of the opening lines of the
Book of Job. Whose evil inclinations are being referred to in that case? God's?
Acts 6-7 Stephen takes a really long time to get to the point in his story. He basically retells the whole
story of the Jewish people since the flood. This is somewhat similar to what Matthew does at the
beginning of his gospel where he is trying to validate Jesus’ lineage. Why be so didactic about this?
Stephen is not only didactic, but purposely antagonistic. These are the words of the Holy Spirit to
accomplish His will—dispersion of believers and possible planting of a seed in Saul's mind.
Acts 7:8 I don’t get what the “covenant” of circumcision means.
See Genesis 17:9-14 for the explanation.
Acts 7:58 What is the significance of laying the garments at Saul’s feet?
Witnesses were the ones who had to cast the first stones. They needed to get rid of their outer garments
to be able to throw better. This dramatically introduces Paul as a bystander whom they trusted with
these garments.
Acts 8:3 What is the rationale for Saul’s inquisition?
Young believers are often the most zealous. Also, he was a Pharisee. Read Acts 22:3.
Acts 8:3 It has been said that Paul killed about 5,000 Christians. Is that number accurate?
There is not even the slightest evidence that he was responsible for any death at all except possibly
Stephen's, whose martyrdom is so important that the persecution under Saul, according to Acts, was
limited to his arresting Christians and driving them out of town. Jews under Roman rule were not
allowed to enforce the death penalty for any reason. Therefore it only happened in the rare case of mob
action. The somewhat later stoning of James (Jesus’ brother) was so rare that the Jewish historian
Josephus even remarks on it and says that many Jews later felt that the killing of such a righteous man
was the cause of the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. There is no mention of the killing of 5,000 righteous
men in Acts, Paul’s letters, or Jewish or Roman sources.
Acts 8:5-8 Why is Philip treated so differently than Stephen? He seems welcomed by all the foreigners, while Stephen was stoned by his own people?
Look at Jesus' words: “A prophet is not without honor save in his own land.” This fact is one of the overall themes of the Book of Acts.
Acts 8:14-16 The Samarians have not received the Holy Spirit because they were only baptized in the
name of Jesus? Was this an error on Philip’s part in how he was baptizing people?
Two-part conversion is not a pattern, only here and with Gentile converts later on. In both cases the
apostles needed to be physically present to witness the validity of the conversion (by giving of the
Holy Spirit). Philip did not necessarily leave out any magic words; it may mean that God had not
baptized them with the Holy Spirit at that time. This is somewhat similar to the apostles getting the
Holy Spirit from Jesus but having to wait until the Day of Pentacost for the descent of the Spirit in
power upon them.
Acts 9:1-2 Are the “letters to the synagogues” meant to be like “wanted” posters of the disciples to
justify his arresting them?
They are probably more like open warrants.
Acts 9:7 Why didn't the other people traveling with Saul hear Jesus, but not see him?
It probably means they heard Paul's voice only (to avoid contradiction with Paul's later accounts of
same event). Most prophetic calls only involve voices and are to the prophet alone.
Acts 9:23-25 Why did the disciples rescue Paul in verse 23, but then avoid him in 26?
He had Ananias to vouch for him in Damascus. The Jerusalem disciples only knew of his reputation as
a persecutor of Christians.
Acts 10:12-13 From my perspective, God is telling to Peter to eat animals he hasn’t up to that time so
that he fits in better before going to Rome. The dietary laws were one thing that really differentiated the
Jews, but if Peter is to evangelize to the gentiles, he must be accepted by them……and in order to do
that, he must not turn up his nose at their food. Is this on target?
All of that is probably true, but it goes well beyond that as Peter recognizes in verse 28.
Acts 10:36-42 Why is Dorcas returned to life? Since Christians are to look at the world as some sort of an awful sentence before they are able to ascend to perfect fellowship with God, why would we take someone back from paradise and put them back on earth? This would only make sense if she were not saved, and this was giving her another chance.
Even Jesus did the same thing with Lazarus and others, probably out of feelings for the bereaved, to bolster faith, and for evangelistic reasons. The end result of the miracle is found in the last verse.
Acts 13:4-5 How many Jews were actually living in the Greek isles at this point? I would not have
guessed there to be such a sizable population that far from Judea.
According to NRSV notes, there was a large Jewish population on Cyprus. Remember the Day of
Pentacost and the list of different countries the Jews came from. Also Acts 4:36 introduces the Levite
Barnabas as being a native of Cyprus.
Acts 13:9 What do you think about the theory that Paul took his name from Sergius Paulus, his first Gentile convert?
It is possible since Romans sometimes adopted the name of an influential patron, but you would expect
the new name to be introduced after the conversion, not before. It is more likely that Saul already had
the Greek name Paul but now uses it exclusively since he will be traveling mainly in Gentile territory.
In any case, the common idea that Paul was his Christian name and Saul his Jewish name is unlikely.
Acts 13:13-14 Why Perga?
It has been assumed that perhaps there was a Jewish colony there, but no remains have been found at
the site. Recently, Jewish inscriptions from neighboring cities indicate that Perga did have a thriving
Jewish community. Also see Galatians 4:13: “You know that it was because of a physical infirmity that
I first announced the gospel to you.”
Acts 13:15 I assume “reading from the law and the prophets” is their way of saying that they listened
to the sermon…..?
The “sermon” may be a midrash (or commentary) on the Scripture readings for the day from both the
books of the law and from the prophets (which included what we would call the history books in the
Bible). That particular daily reading may have included 2 Samuel 7 since there are six references to
that chapter alluded to in Paul's words.
Acts 13:15 Why is Paul being asked to speak words of encouragement? Weren’t they despised by most
Jewish leaders of the day?
It was the standard practice in synagogues to hear from a prominent visitor (Jesus did the same thing).
Paul was treated as a visiting rabbi, not a Christian.
Acts 15:1-4 Is there something in the modern day that we could equate circumcision with? Also, how
would they know who was circumcised and who was not……I assume they weren’t running around
naked. It is hard for me to understand the depth that this seems to have to their cultural identity, and
especially what it has to do with faith.
On your first question, liturgical churches tend to equate circumcision with baptism even though there
is little real NT justification for that idea. As to your second question, it is a clearer indication of
religion than with any other religion and actually became important during the Hellenistic Period when
athletes would compete in the nude. In addition would be distinctions in clothing, hair style and dietary
habits. On your last point, Paul would agree with you. It was intended to be a reminder of the covenant
between Israel and God -- a blood sacrifice in a way. Therefore it was primarily a sign to the person
himself, not to other people.
Acts 15:20 There is a lot of emphasis on “sexual morality” in the NT, and that Gentiles must start
having some. Is there a specific thing going on at the time that is being addressed, such as the
prevalence of prostitution in Rome, or a lot of bastard children, or is it just general condemnation of
fornication across the board? Also it is typically mentioned with idolatry, I know that some idol
worship contained sex acts. Is there a link here?
Other sins were just as common in the Roman Empire: violence against women and slaves, gladiator
shows, total lack of charity, lavish giving for public honor, widespread sale of profitable priesthoods,
constant religious festivals accompanied by drunkenness, gluttony, animal torture and prostitution
(usually not of the sacred prostitution kind, a practice that was dying out except in Phoenicia). “In the
second and third centuries, accepted sexual practices in the Roman Empire had a range and variety
which it has never attained since.” (Robin Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians) This included marriage
between siblings, sex with slaves, bisexuality (“the Greek vice”) between young men or between men
and boys, especially slaves. Also abortion and exposure of unwanted children were common. Male
prostitution and pimping were generally outlawed, and resorting to a female prostitute was felt to be in
bad form and a waste of money.
Regarding your last question, The OT is full of references in which idolatry and sexual transgressions
against monogamy are equated. This is not because of any specific sex acts connected with idol
worship. Instead, it is because both acts represent being unfaithful to your one intended love.
Acts 15:29 Are these laws binding on Christians today?
There are various opinions:
A. Moral laws are absolutely binding: The Western Text of Acts interprets these as idolatry, murder,
and sexual abominations (Rabbis generally felt that a Jew could disobey any other laws to save his life.)
But why would these have to be pointed out to Christians?
B. Ritual Laws: Abstaining from eating blood and strangled animals--see Leviticus 17:11-12. These
were prohibited either due to pagan practices or because "life is in the blood" and the life of animal
belongs to God. Revelation 2:14,20 indicates these were observed by early Christians. Abstaining from
blood was also observed in Tertullian's day (3rd cent).
C. Others feel that only the general principles behind the laws need to be observed. See Acts 15:21
and I Corinthians 8;10:25 (on food sacrificed to idols).
Acts 15:29b along with phrases in verses 23 and 28 shows gentle instruction, not a strict, official
decree. It is a pattern for today's spiritual leadership.
Acts 15:34 Why is this verse missing from my Bible?
It is obvious from the fact that you caught the problem with the missing verse in Acts that you are reading your Bible very carefully and not just skimming through it as so many Christians do. You will really get a lot more out of the Scriptures that way, but inevitable questions will also arise that must be wrestled with.
Unfortunately, we do not have any of the original documents in the New Testament in the actual handwriting of the authors. However, we do have over 10,000 different Greek manuscripts (handwritten copies of copies) of New Testament writings, some dating to relatively soon after the originals were first written. Because of this, we can be much more certain of the wording of the New Testament books than of any other ancient document.
It is the first job of translators to have the best Greek text in front of them before they begin to translate it into English. They reconstruct this text by carefully comparing all the manuscripts available with one another. Where there are differences in wording between any of the manuscripts, they must make a judgment call as to which one has the most likely wording. Of the many differences in wording that they have found, most can be discounted immediately as either (1) obvious mistakes in copying (i.e. typos) or (2) places where one copyist probably added an explanatory note into his copy and a later copyist mistakenly thought that the note was part of the original writing. Of the remaining cases where the translators are not sure of the exact wording in the original Greek document, only a handful make any real difference in our understanding of the text, and none affects any basic belief of Christianity.
When the translators of the King James Bible began their work around 1600 AD, they decided to go with the “majority rule” to determine the Greek text they would work with. In other words, they went with whatever reading was present in most of the manuscripts they had available to them. The words “But it seemed good to Silas to remain there” in Acts 15 were present in most of the Greek manuscripts, and so they included them and assigned them the verse number 34. [Of course, there is nothing special about verse divisions since they were only first added to the Bible as a convenience in the year 1555 AD.]
The Greek text used for most modern translations differs from the text used for the King James Bible for at least two reasons. In the first place, we now have access to many more manuscripts than they did. In the second place, few modern translations rely on a “Majority Text” since it is felt that more weight should be given to the earlier manuscripts than to later copies.
It turns out that the words “But it seemed good to Silas to remain there” are not present in the earliest Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, and therefore they are not included in most modern translations. Also it was felt to be more likely that (a) a copyist at some time had added these words to make the account more consistent with Silas' appearance in verse 40 than that (b) other copyists had purposely or accidentally omitted those words from the original text. However, in adding these “explanatory” words, the copyist created a clear contradiction to verse 33 instead.
If you are still uncomfortable with the fact that some group of scholars has made the decision for you as to which Greek words they chose to translate, I strongly suggest that you get (if you haven't already) a good study Bible to read. Besides a wealth of useful background information, it will contain translator's footnotes for each word or phrase in the Bible where there is a sizable difference of opinion regarding the original Greek wording and/or its translation. Thus, you will be given possible alternative readings to consider for yourself, wherever they happen to exist.
Acts 16 How long of a period does this chapter represent? This is a lot of traveling.
His whole second journey goes through chapter 18 and lasted about three years.
Acts 16:1-3 Why did Paul circumcise Timothy in Acts 16:1-3, when in Acts 15:13-29 they had agreed at the Jerusalem Council not to burden Gentiles with circumcision?
I will rely mainly on T. R. Schreiner for my answer here (Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, p. 139):
The standard interpretation given for Paul's seemingly inconsistent action is that according to Jewish law Timothy would have been considered a Jew since one's “Jewishness” was solely determined through the mother. Therefore Paul was not circumcising a Gentile at all.
The reality is a little more complicated. In fact, even though Jews today do use this criterion to determine whether one is a Jew, that ruling is only evidenced by writings much later than the time of Luke. It may or may not have been in effect during the first century AD.
In any case, Timothy's status was ambiguous. “Paul wanted to show that he did not forbid circumcision if there was any connection with the Jewish people...But when circumcision was required for salvation, then Paul resisted it adamantly.”
However, the main motivation behind Paul's actions is implied in the verses under question. “Paul circumcised Timothy for cultural reasons so that he could bring his Jewish brother with him into the synagogues when he preached the gospel.”
This is an extension of Paul's overriding principle: “For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law...I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel...” (I Corinthians 9:19-23)
Acts 16:6-7 Why would they have been forbidden from speaking the word in Asia?
“The missionary journeys of Paul exhibit an extraordinary combination of strategic planning and keen sensitiveness to the guidance of the Spirit of God.” (F. F. Bruce) One supposition based on Peter's letter to Asia in I Peter 1:1 is that God had reserved that region for Peter himself.
Acts 16:9 How did he know the man was a Macedonian?
1. The man was Luke himself.
2. by his distinctive clothes or accent
3. He was Alexander the Great, whose picture was on many coins of the time.
4. by the context of his speech (“come to Macedonia and help us”)
Acts 16:16-18 Why was Paul mad?
(1) exploitation of slave girl; (2) her negative witness because of its source; (3) distortion of the
message (can be translated as "a way of salvation"); (4) “Most High God” may be a reference to Zeus;
(5) it reflects Paul's general outlook on using supernatural means to make money (as in 8:18ff and
19:25).
Acts16:16 So reading that an evil spirit has given the woman powers of divination, should we attribute
some validity to people who claim to have this power today?
The girl was either (a) possessed, (b) demented, or (c) a ventriloquist. Assuming there is a real spirit
possessing her, I would not want to rule out the possibility of such things occurring today. This is
especially in light of current stories from Christian missionaries working in third-word countries. Also,
see Revelation 20:3.
Acts 16:36 So they take Paul’s word that he is a Roman citizen………? Was there no other proof necessary?
Diplomata and libelli were provided for new citizens. For the mass of the citizenry, for whom censorial
registration at five-yearly intervals was an inefficient instrument, adequate provision was finally made
by the creation of an official system of compulsory birth registration under the social legislation of
Augustus (A.D. 4). The Roman citizen was required to register the birth of his children within thirty
days before a Roman official, and he received a wooden diptych recording the declaration, which acted
as a certificate of citizenship for the child for the rest of his life. Like the military diplomata, this
contained the names of seven witnesses and provided a presumptive proof of citizen status. Similarly,
the enfranchisement of freedmen, which depended upon a formal act, was recorded in a documentary
tabella manumissionis. Citizens of diverse origins thus came to have some form of written evidence of
their status.
Possessing a Roman name was usually taken as a good sign that the person was a citizen. Most people
did not travel far from home and the local magistrate had the citizenship records kept there. Also there
was a great penalty for falsely claiming citizenship, and so not many people did it other than runaway
slaves who had little to lose.
Acts 17:4 It is very interesting that the Bible refers to the “leading women.” Most of what I’ve read
seems to indicate men as the leaders; what would the women’s role have been?
The phrase literally means “first women.” It may refer to their dignity or social position as wife of a
prominent Roman citizen. Another intriguing possibility, however, is that they were actually serving as
elders in the local synagogue. Strong archeological evidence has been uncovered recently to confirm
that reality in several locations during New Testament times. (Dictionary of NT Background, pp.
1232-1233)
Acts 17:17 The ESV reads “he reasoned.” This isn’t a word I’ve seen before to describe evangelism.
What is meant in the translation?
NRSV similarly says “argued.” The word dialegomai (“dialogue”) appears many times in Acts. See
17:2, 18:4, 18:19. It can mean to dispute with others, to have a discussion with, or give a sermon with
the people asking questions.
Acts 17:22-27 Is worshiping an “unknown god” a common thing for the Greeks, or was this a unique
community to worship this deity?
In the 6th century BC in order to stop a plague in Athens, the Cretan poet Epimenides told the people
to release sheep and sacrifice to any gods whose altar a sheep lay near. If none was near, they were to
sacrifice to the “unknown god.”
Acts 17:31 Paul says that Jesus is the final judge, not God……whereas Jesus doesn’t specifically state
this about himself that I remember.
At least two examples could be cited: Matthew 7:21-23—those who call “Lord, Lord” are told, “Depart
from me, you evildoers.” Matthew 25:31-46: “The Son of man comes and sits on the throne to separate
sheep from the goats...these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Acts 19:19 Why is the monetary value of the books important?
Monetary issues pop up several times in this chapter. See vv. 23-27 in this chapter with silversmiths,
Paul's denial that he had taken any money, and his determination to return to Jerusalem to deliver
money. It each case it shows either the proper or improper use of money.
Acts 19:2-6 So did everyone who was baptized by John have to be re-baptized? Was there no way to
receive the Holy Spirit other than that?
Actually they received the Holy Spirit when the apostles laid hands on them. The real problem was that
it is not clear they even knew who Jesus was since John's baptism was only one of repentance, not for
salvation.
Acts 20:13 Why did Paul proceed by land alone?
Perhaps he needed time by himself to pray (as did Jesus on several occasions). He needed to decide
whether to proceed to Jerusalem.
Acts 20:22 Doesn't Paul incorrectly predict that he will die in Jerusalem?
He doesn't really prophecy that he will die in Jerusalem, only that he will face grave persecution
(which happened). Also, remember that in Acts 19:21 he said that he wanted to go to Rome after
Jerusalem.
Acts 21:4 Why is Paul refusing to follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit? (“through the spirit they were
telling him not to go to Jerusalem”). Did they mean that the Spirit came to him (them) in a dream?
Paul was determined to go to Jerusalem even though he knew perils would be facing him there. The
guidance was advice, not a command. Comparing other places in Acts to Paul's letters, it seems as if
guidance from the Spirit came to a group after prayer, discussion and reaching a consensus.
Acts 21:7-14 This passage notes they reached Caesarea and stayed at the house of Philip and called him one of “the Seven.” “Seven” is capitalized as if we should know who they are. Who are the Seven?
Although there was no capitalization in the original Greek, it is obvious that Luke is designating a particular group of people. In this case, it refers to the seven men appointed by the Twelve in Acts 6:5 to distribute food to the needy in the community. They all have Greek names so they were probably specifically chosen to make sure that the Hellenists' complaints about discrimination were addressed (see 6:1).
The overriding reason for appointing these men was so that the Apostles could devote more time to spiritual matters. That did not mean, however, that the Seven limited their ministry to food distribution. From the examples of Philip and Stephen, we know that they had larger roles to play in the early Church.
The Seven have often been identified as the first deacons, but it should be pointed out that this term is not applied to them in the Acts 6 passage.
Acts 21:27 So why was it bad for the Romans to rough Paul up as a citizen, but the people in
Jerusalem can do what they want? He was a citizen either way.
This was a tricky legal situation. The Jews could enforce their own punishments on other Jews (up to
execution), but the Romans would not stand for civil unrest. At this point no one knows that he is a
Roman citizen.
Acts 21:28 The Jews are upset because they believe that Paul brought Greeks into the temple.” Were
Greeks considered a lower class by the other Jews?
They were considered to be ritually unclean. They were allowed to go as far as the Court of the
Gentiles in the temple, but no further. The Roman government actually approved Sanhedrin death
sentences for trespassing by a Gentile even if he was a Roman citizen.
Acts 21:39 Why does the crowd hush when he mentions he is a citizen?
He actually doesn't reveal yet that he is a Roman citizen, only a citizen of Tarsus. He gives that
information to the Tribune only. The crowd hushes when they hear Paul speaking in Hebrew,
something they hadn't expected.
Acts 28:30-31 Why does Luke end his account so abruptly?
Several possibilities have been suggested, including the following:
Luke intended to write a third volume.
Rome, the center of civilization, had been reached.
Most likely, it was written before the trial occurred. If a judgment had already been reached,
Luke would have recorded it in any case. It has even been suggested that Luke-Acts was written
to Paul's lawyer or a prominent member of the Roman court in hopes that it would help ensure a
“not guilty” verdict.
Posts
