Virtual Vestry ~ The Book of Acts

You all are a gift to me.

Remember that you are valuable and valued.

I wish for you unexpected, gentle blessings.

Catherine

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

Please read chapter 28 of Acts before we start. If you wish, please also read the two articles in 'Resources', below about Paul possibly going to Spain.

Malta is an island in the Mediterranean, 80km south of Sicily, that is only 30 km long and with a population of some 519,000. The island is completely urban today. Given its location it is considered important as a naval base, with a succession of powers having contested and ruled the islands, including the Phoenicians and Carthaginians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Normans, Aragonese, Knights of St. John, French, and British.

While Christianity was present in Malta since the First Century, in the Middle Ages it was a Muslim country under Arab rule. The name Malta is a Phoenician name meaning Refuge. At the time of Paul, about 58AD, it was under Roman rule but was exempt from paying tribute to Rome.

Malta is very religious with 365 churches, one for each day of the year. The bay where Paul's ship ran aground is today called "Bay of Paul" or "St Paul's Bay."

• Why does Luke record the details of what happened in Malta in such detail?
• Why does Luke say that the Maltese showed them unusual kindness? Thinking about our previous segment on hospitality, comment on the hospitality of the Maltese.

I was interested as to why Luke mentioned that the figurehead on the boat was the twin gods Castor and Pollux. According to Wikipedia, they were also known as the constellation of Gemini and were regarded as the patrons of sailors, to whom they appeared as St. Elmo's fire (considered by sailors of the time as a good omen).

Luke gives a description of the journey and of Paul being met by Christian brothers and sisters (or finding them, having previously not known about them), by whom Paul was encouraged and for whom he thanked God. Kloske estimates that Paul travelled approximately 10,000 miles in his lifetime for the gospel, 7,000 by land and 3,000 by sea.

• The Christian brothers and sisters they met seemed to be a new or unknown group. Discuss.
• What do you make of the statement that Paul was allowed to live in his own house in Rome with only one Roman guard?

The NIBC commentary points out that the statement in v14 "And so we came to Rome" is like a climax - this is what Acts has been leading up to. Paul's coming to Rome.

• What do you think of this idea?

One of the first things Paul does when he gets to Rome is to call together the Jewish leaders. He makes his defence against the charges brought against him and that he bears his people no ill will but the Jews in Rome seemed baffled by his words. They hadn't heard anything bad about Paul. They did know about "this sect" as it was spoken about everywhere.

Paul spends a great deal of time and effort preaching to the Jews and showing them from the Old Testament that Jesus was the Messiah. In an increasingly familiar narrative, the listeners were divided with some believing and others not convinced.

• Luke includes the proclamation that the Gospel will now go to the Gentiles because they will listen. Discuss.
• Paul preached for two years in Rome, boldly and unfettered. Luke seems to imply that this was the true platform Paul needed to preach the truths of the gospel. Discuss.
• Why do you think that Luke ends his account of Acts here?

In Paul's letter to the Roman church, he mentions his intention to go to Spain after delivering the gift to Jerusalem. A tradition has built up that Paul did go to Spain. Clement of Rome, a co-worker of Paul later wrote that Paul preached in the East and the farthest reaches of the West, which would have been Spain (see the two articles in 'Resources', below).

• What do we think of the tradition that Paul went to Spain?
• Is it important?

• Did Paul go to Spain? Some additional material:
  • "Paul's Missionary Journey to Spain: Tradition and Folklore" by Otto F.A. Meinardus
  • "St Paul Went to Spain?" from 'Early Church History' website
• The culture of Malta
• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

• Acts 27
• Jonah 1-4

Paul has appealed to be tried by the emperor's tribunal (Acts 25:10). After a short time he appears before Agrippa II and arrangements are made for Paul to be transferred by ship to Rome. Acts 27 tells the story of the first leg of the journey from Adramyttium (close to Caesarea) to Malta via Sidon, past Cyprus and southern Asia to Myra. Paul is transferred to an Egyptian ship bound for Italy. This ship calls in at Cnidus, Fair Havens, across the Adria sea where a Mediterranean hurricane hits the vessel and it is shipwrecked. All the crew and other travellers survive and are beached on Island of Malta.

Familiarise yourself with the map shown below and note what happens where on the voyage.

map from biblemapper.com

Read the article "3: Details on the Mediterranean Season" in "The Sailing Seasons Around the World", noting particularly the paragraph headed "Medicanes".

If you are seriously interested in Paul's voyage you might like to acquire a modern reprint/updated copy of "The Voyage and Shipwreck of St Paul" by James Smith and W.E. Smith first published in around 1886. One review states

"James Smith, an accomplished yachtsman, has given a narrative of Paul's voyage. He follows this with dissertations on the wind Euroclydon, the island Melita, the hips of the ancients, and geological changes in St. Paul's Bay. Six appendices and a general index conclude the book. Maps, engravings, and line drawings illustrate it"

Questions for Discussion

1. What do you think of Luke's account of the voyage from Adramyttium to the place where they are shipwrecked?
2. Compare and contrast the stories of the two significant storms in the Bible as seen in Acts 27:13-44 and Jonah 1-44. Note any similarities, differences and the outcomes. In your opinion how does Paul's experience compare with that of Jonah?
3. What might Paul have meant by his statement in Acts 27:31? Can you see an allegorical meaning in this statement?

• PDF of these notes
• "The Voyage and Shipwreck of St Paul" by James Smith and W.E. Smith
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

The part of Acts scheduled for this week was significantly covered during last week's discussion. Rather than change the rest of the planned studies I think if we should have an honest discussion on the question of the RELIABILITY of the book of Acts itself.

I HOPE THE CONTENT WILL STIMULATE A GOOD DISCUSSION.

In my local Presbyterian church this year there have sermons significantly challenging the writings of Luke's Gospel and Acts, and other scriptural books. It has been asserted that the Lucan Writings were probably not written till late in the 2nd Century and that much of the material gives a distorted view of what happened in the early life of the church.

Last week Steve searched the internet and provided us with a document (see 'Resources', below) dealing with the Early Jewish Christian Church, and the Gentile church from the time of the Resurrection through till the beginning of the 4th Century.

Both above disturbed me.

As a group we have repeatedly focused on important realities:

1. Doctrine and Knowledge is less important than Relationship with God and each other.
2. Judgement re: SALVATION is God's Domain, not ours. Only God knows our hearts.
3. These two convictions allow us the freedom to communicate with respect. The ability to think aloud and learn from the mutual sharing that takes place.
4. These convictions allow us the freedom to respect other Christians, other religions, ethnicities, Language Groups, etc, etc, etc.

   Within this framework: JONATHAN SACKS has become one of my most respected spiritual commentators. The only thing that saddens me is that his understanding of Jesus, Paul, and Christianity had been tainted by the behaviour of CHRISTIANS throughout the centuries . Despite that I consider him to be INSPIRED and possibly PROPHETIC.

There are many spiritual giants who have blessed the world throughout the centuries. None have been without fault, even those who we know were called by God at special times in history.

Jesus is the only person who stands out in this regard, yet despite his total commitment to the way of LOVE, he was not afraid to challenge those who by their teachings or deeds were inflicting harm on others. The very fact that he returned to the Father, and left no constitution or church manuals, but examples of prayer, submission to God, love for others, and instructions to listen to the Holy Spirit suggests that he expected his followers to LISTEN, THINK, PRAY and OBEY.

I have read a very broad selection of Christian Publications and have been greatly blessed by many. Even when I disagree with their content, I can still recognize their attempts to be honest with the material being studied. I sometimes read Jonathan Sacks comments about Jesus, Paul, or Christianity and am embarrassed to say that if I thought that Jesus and Paul taught what much of Christianity says they do, I would be closer to Sacks than many of my fellow Christians. I remember Llew telling us about a book on the Sabbath he had read being better than anything he had found, but it had been written by a Sunday Keeper. I think we have probably all experienced this sort of epiphany.

Incidentally, I am working my way through Alden Thompson's "Inspiration". I have not finished it, but to date I believe it is the best quality study I have read from an SDA author for a LONG TIME.

One in a while I come across books or articles that blow my mind by their total lack of integrity. That has been my reaction to the article Steve found on the internet last week. ( 'How Many Jews Became Christians in the First Century' , by Dr David C Sim which was discussed at the end of last week's class)

I will document a few of the reasons for my assessment. There are so many examples that it would require too much time and space to document them all.

1. There are enormous levels of ASSUMPTIONS in the document.

   He uses Luke's record to assert that after the resurrection there were only 40/45 adult believers.

   He uses and estimated number of believers at the beginning of the 4th century, when there is no way of knowing the number.

   He then references the statistical analysis of the numbers by a Sociologist who compares the rate of grown over the decades with those same number of decades of the growth of the Mormon Church. He later backs off the value of that, but still uses it to grab everyone's attention.

   Having spent 20 years of my life doing detailed statistical analysis that trick blew a fuse!

2. Most of the scholars who insist that the Lucan literature is unrealiabe take the view that all the 7 DEACONS were GENTILES /OR HELLENISTS. The GENTILE assertion falls flat on its face when you read Act 6:1-7.

   • The selection was done by ALL THE BELIEVERS.
   • The names listed specifically tell us the last was a Convert to Judaism, who would have taken a vow to be loyal to the TORAH and TEMPLE.
   • Egypt was probably the most important of Judea's business partners. There were far more Jews in Alexandria than in Jerusalem. The Septuagint (OT in Greek) had been around for almost 200 years. To assume that anyone Judean who could speak Greek was a Gentile or Hellenist, beggars belief.
   • The successes led many PRIESTS to accept the faith. Highly unlikely considering the assertion.
   • He goes on to assert that these HELLENISTS (as he calls them) abandoned the LAW and TEMPLE.
   • The events leading up to the death of STEPHEN tell us that he was FALSELY CHARGED with speaking against MOSES and the TEMPLE.

3. It goes on to asserts that PAUL only ever acted against individuals who rejected the MOSES and the TEMPLE. He never attacked ARAMAIC SPEAKING CHRISTIANS.

   • Acts 9:1-19 covers the Conversion of Saul. The authority he carried from the High Priest would have been illegal if the arrestees were gentiles.
   • Ananias was sent to SAUL to commission him and baptise him as a believer.
   • v.15 tells us the commission covered the Gentiles and their kings and the people of Israel.
   • In Paul's own defence that we just studied he describes Ananian as someone "Zealous for the Law" and highly regarded among the Jews in Damascus.

4. When it comes to the "so-called council of Jerusalem" it takes on an even more sinister garb.

   • It asserts that JAMES and PAUL assumed exclusive responsibly for JEWS and GENTILES.
   • PAUL no longer ministered directly to JEWS, any converts among the Jews were accidental outcomes.
   • JAMES and the JUDEAN and church (including Peter) would only minister to JEWS and any converts of Gentiles were likewise accidental.

5. In 49AD (which is the commonly accepted date of the Council of Jerusalem)

   He asserts based on Galatians 2:5-21 and an oblique reference to a parable in Matthew.

   • That PETER TOOK OVER THE CHURCH IN ANTIOCH, turned it into an exclusive LAW AND TEMPLE church and drove out the GENTILE BELIEVERS. When PAUL rebuked Peter he quoted Peter's own statement about faith as the basis of salvation to the Jerusalem Council.
   • That Paul had to return and RESTART the Gentile church.
   • Such an interpretation is an insult any honest assessment of the passage.
   • There is a consistent pattern of cherry picking from the book of Acts to fit in with his views.

6. It asserts that the number of believers (either Jewish or Gentile) were so small that their impact was essentially non-existent throughout the 1st Century.

Once you ADD together the financial impact on the sale of idols in Asia Minor that led to the RIOT IN EPHESUS, together with the information provided by PLINY and TRAJAN and the other attached documents, the above assertion is HIGHLY SUSPECT. 

I am attaching 3 documents to do with the integrity of Luke as a historian (see 'Resources'), and the impact of the Christian message in the provinces.

• PDF of these notes

• Document from last week:

  • 'How Many Jews Became Christians in the First Century' , by Dr David C Sim, (referenced in Andrew's notes, above)

• Documents on the integrity of Luke:

  • Reliability of Luke: This article pertains mostly to the BOOK OF ACTS. Some content in THE GOSPEL OF LUKE is gleaned second hand and may not be as accurate in detail as they would be from direct witness.
  • Pliny's Letter: This is the correspondence between Pliny the Younger and the Emperor Trajan. It was written in 116AD, but references events that had been going on for at least 20 yrs. It once again demonstrates that Roman Justice had a fair amount of integrity, and specifically tells us that Pliny sent any Roman Citizens directly to the emperor. The documentation demonstrates that the presence of Christians had had a significant impact on the empire. THESE ARE OFFICIAL ROMAN DOCUMENTS
  • Jamieson Fausset Brown Bible Commentary: This document relates to both Luke''s Gospel and Acts.
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

My goal is for you to have a feel for the context, people and events of Acts 25 - to be there fully, as it were.

1. Change of Command - Felix to Festus
2. Tour of New Duty Station
3. Gaining favour??? - History of Pilot and Felix...and now Festus
4. Paul Presents his case - again...
5. Politics and the New Governor - Agrippa and Bernice
6. Stages of Roman legal system - for Romans
7. Paul's defense - or was it something else?

1. Portcius Festus
2. The Jewish Chorus
3. Paul
4. Caeser - in absentia
5. Agrippa II
6. Bernice

• The English word witness is translated from the Greek work martyr.

1. What do you think was the purpose of Festus' trip to Jerusalem?
2. Luke writes Festus was trying to gain favour with the Jews, given the history (mentioned above) of Roman's trying to gain favour with the Jews, why do you think Festus would at least look like he was trying to do so?
3. What could you find out about Festus?
4. Have you changed your opinions about the motivation of the accusers?
5. What do you think was Paul's mix of feelings about his appeal to Ceasar?
6. What do you think about what is described as Paul's defense? Do you think his goal was to defend himself?
7. What do you know about Agrippa II?
8. And Bernice?
9. What do you think about Agrippa's exoneration of Paul?
10. Which character do you find most interesting?
11. What do you think is the most important act or interaction of Chapter 25.

I know that this time of year and in our lives can be stressful. I wish for each of you unexpected gentle blessings - and look forward to seeing you soon.

Catherine

• PDF of these notes
• 'How Many Jews Became Christians in the First Century' , by Dr David C Sim, (referenced in this morning's discussion)
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

Notes will be posted at some point...!

• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

This trial took place around 59CE. Paul was converted around 34CE. During this period Paul had written the huge majority of his books. As we have studied, his theology had developed to the point that it completely undermined the traditional Jewish perspective. Paul was highly regarded by a number of Jewish Christian communities, as well as Gentile Christian communities. He was also very influential. From the Sanhedrin's point of view, Paul must have been regarded as very dangerous because of his 'subversive' activities and views.

This trial occurred just 7 years prior to the siege of Jerusalem. Jerusalem was in turmoil, with the Pharisees, Sadducees and Zealots having major disagreements with each other to such an extent that they resorted to violence on occasions. The Roman authorities were obviously very concerned, because the stability of their empire was always dependent on law and order being maintained.

1. Jewish theology was primarily based on the 613 laws, which not only incorporated statements on theology, but also on the criminal and civil code, as well as agriculture and other matters. They were paramount. How did Paul's teachings undermine the Jewish perspective on these laws?
2. "I have lived my life with a clear conscience before God". Should we add qualifications to this statement?
3. What can you find out about the nature and purpose of the Sanhedrin? "Do you dare insult God's High Priest?" Why was Paul apologetic after he was challenged?
4. Paul managed to sow dissension among the judges. Why do you think this was a good defensive strategy of Paul's? Do you think it would have been impossible to convict Paul, laying aside the advantage of being a Roman citizen?
5. We will touch upon the escort of nearly 500 soldiers, because that must tell us something about Paul and his mission. It's clear that God also wanted Paul to testify in Rome. Why do you think this was? Can you discover the difference of the position of Roman religious law vis-a-vis the whole of Roman law compared with that of Jewish law?

• A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments) from the web site 'Judaism 101'
• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

This is the final letter of Paul that we will be looking at in this series. It was written jointly by Paul and Timothy and was written from an unidentified prison - possibly Rome in the time of Nero. Colossae was about 100 miles from Ephesus, around 12-15 miles from Laodicea and Hierapolis. His letter to the church in Colossae was also to be read to the church in Laodicea, and his letter to the Laodiceans was to be read in Colossae. There is no record of this letter. Laodicea is one on the churches addressed in Revelation 2-3 but Colossae nor Hierapolis are not (they were probably too small - see resources.) Paul almost certainly never went to Colossae (Col 2:1).

• Read Colossians 1-4 in a Study Bible and also in an Easy-read version (Contemporary English Version?)
• See also Philemon 10-12 and 23
• Read Colossians 1:15-20 and John 1:1-18 in 2 or 3 different translation several times (see below)

1. Detective work: Epaphras worked in Colossae before going to Rome, he is in prison there with Paul (visiting? prisoner?) He gives some troubling news regarding problems - or perhaps heresies - to Paul. Paul writes to the church in Colossae and argues to counteract them. But in his letter he counteracts these issues before as well as after he writes what they are.
   • What are the problems?
   • How does Paul counter-argue against them?
   • Note the 'before' and 'after' layout.
   • Why did Paul format his letter in this way?

2. Col 3: 5-11 contain negative instructions ("don't do this"), whereas 3:1-4 and 12-17 are positives.
   The subjects in Col 3:18-4:1 are now well familiar to our discussions.
   How do these instructions fit in with the over-arching theme of Col 3:1-17?

3. Paul's final greetings (Col 4:7-18) occupy a relatively large number of verses, Romans being top of the list. What (if anything) might we learn about the relationships between Paul and his named associates with the believers in Colossae?

4. John 1:1-18 is widely known, frequently read and occasionally referred to. This passage of scripture provides a unique picture of Jesus, the Christ. By contrast, Col 1:15-20 provides a very different, but still unique picture of Jesus, the Christ, yet it is (I reckon) nowhere near as well known or used as John 1. Why might this be?
   What can we learn from Col 1 that we could not learn from John 1?
   And what can we learn from John 1 that we could not learn from Col 1?
   

   (Please read and re-read these passages as found in the NRSV and the Contemporary English Version, shown below before considering your answer.)

5. And on a very personal level...

   Having read the John 1 and Colossians 1 passages as suggested, has what you know and believe about Jesus changed in any way? If so, how? Is there a danger that either we are too pally with Jesus and forget his supremacy, or hold Jesus with such awe that we forget that he is our friend? How do we strike a happy medium?

• For further information about Colossae see:
  • Bible Places
  • "Background on Colossae and the Colossians" from the Theology of Work Project
  • Wikipedia entry on Colossae
• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

This section of Acts pulls together a lot of strands in the teaching and behaviors of Paul. By the time Paul makes this final journey to Jerusalem certain events have already happened.

• He has arranged with the predominantly Gentile churches to collect money to help the believers in Judea, who are under extreme pressure, because of famines and opposition from the more radical Jews. The representatives of these churches are travelling with him. This is an act of solidarity and unity towards their Judean brothers and sisters.
• He has already written book of Romans probably in the 3 months he spent in Greece after leaving Ephesus for the last time. Phoebe, a woman DEACON at Cenchrea, carries the book to Rome as his personal representative, and in Rom 16 he recognizes all the people who have played an important role in his mission, including many women. He even acknowledges a husband-and-wife team (Andronicus and Junia), relatives of his, who were believers before himself and recognized as an Apostles.
• Paul originally planned to sail direct to Syria. As a safety precaution he decided to divert from Corinth up to the Macedonian churches but primarily Phillipi strengthening those churches on the way, as he also did at Troas. The precaution signifies that in Paul's mind this journey to Jerusalem is incredibly important. It also tells us that for Paul (like Jesus) the management of itineraries could be important in the attainment of goals.

In your own experience have you ever found that the TIMING of what you did OR how you did it, is a significant factor in the ultimate outcome? ##TIMED DISCUSSION

It was always God's intention to reach out to the whole world.

The gospel that Paul preached was that God had provided Salvation for the whole of humanity in Jesus (God's Son and the world's Messiah). That necessitate the preaching of the gospel to the Gentile world.

Dealing with change has always been a challenge: a source of confusion, distrust, pain, and conflict. Luke is recording the reality of this in the life of the early church, and its relationship with traditional Judaism.

It was decided last week that these points should be discussed today.

• What did Paul believe about the Mosaic Laws in relationship to Jewish Christians?
• Did Paul believe that Jewish believers in the Gentile world should abandon their devotion to the Laws of Moses?

Paul's relationship to the Mosaic Law was the crux of this whole story.

• V.20-21 What accusations were made against Paul?
• Did James and the other leaders think he was guilty?
• Was Paul reluctant to participate in the sponsoring of the four men who were taking a vow that involved a process including paying Temple taxes, and sacrifices in the Temple?
• Is it significant that Paul never spoke publicly until after his arrest?

## Timed Discussion

• Is it significant that the accusers were from the province of Asia (Ephesus was the capital)?
• Luke describes the accusation of bringing a gentile into the Temple as based on an assumption. What's the difference between an assumption and a lie? Note: the Gentile identified was from Ephesus - one of the representatives carrying the money.
• Did Luke deliberately use that expression as a way of calming down the reaction?
• Is it possible these men thought the had a greater chance to 'get rid of him', in Jerusalem than when they had tried in Ephesus?
• Could they have been part of the PLOT mentioned earlier?

## Timed Discussion

...you wonder how many riots he had already had to deal with. I wonder if they got any form of hazard pay.

• Paul speaks in public for the first time since arriving in the city.
• The Roman Commander probably didn't speak Aramaic.

• Would it be true to say that PAUL simply told him how he had changed from believing as they did to become what he was now?
• Would you classify this as a Sermon, or a story of his life journey?
• What significance does v12-14 about Ananias have in terms of today's study?
• Why were they so antagonistic towards his assertion that God commanded him to go to the Gentiles?
• Was Paul asserting that he had a revelation directly from God, which made him a Prophet as well as an Apostle?

## Timed Discussion

• This poor commander at best was having a 'bad hair day' at worst a 'nightmare'.
• Did Paul display any anger when he brought this issue to the fore?

## Timed Discussion

Remember the Sanhedrin were the official rulers of Judea in a contract with Rome that made them responsible for maintaining Law and Order.

• Is it possible that Luke mentioning them for the first time in the story, he is implying that they did not know these Asian Jews were going to start a riot.
• The whole story starts with the LEADERS OF THE JERUSALEM CHURCH having a major dilemma and finishes with the JEWISH SANHEDRIN with a major trauma.

## Timed Discussion

Would it be true to say: (Whenever we lock ourselves into a mindset that says: "my beliefs are the only way of salvation" we automatically tell everyone else that they cannot be saved until they believe as we do. "I'm right, you are wrong")?

## Have you seen the outcomes of this dilemma? TIMED DISCUSSION

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

We're getting towards the end of Luke's account of Paul's journeys. The group of travellers is now off to Jerusalem, something Paul feels compelled to do. "And now I am bound by the Spirit to go to Jerusalem. I don't know what awaits me, except that the Holy Spirit tells me in city after city that jail and suffering lie ahead" (Acts 20:23-23).

After a spot of geography and travel reporting Luke tells us, almost in passing, some remarkable accounts of prophesying.

• v21:4
  Upon arrival in Tyre, on their way to Jerusalem, they looked up the local disciples in that area and "these believers prophesied through the Holy Spirit that Paul should not go on to Jerusalem".
• v21:9
  The four daughters of Philip, in Caesarea, who were 'unmarried, and had the gift of prophecy'.
• 21:10-11
  Several days later a man named Agabus, who also had the gift of prophecy, arrived from Judea. He came over, took Paul's belt, and bound his own feet and hands with it. Then he said, "The Holy Spirit declares, 'So shall the owner of this belt be bound by the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem and turned over to the Gentiles.'"

This week's section of the Book of Acts appears to me to be in two parts. Firstly we have the prophetic stories, outlined above, which act as a sort of warning preamble to what's coming up for Paul - numerous arrests and trials, much legal wrangling (where Paul has some surprising supporters) and eventually on to Rome.

Then we have the arrival in Jerusalem and the meeting with James - which I imagine was a profound experience for both men. A discussion, by now familiar, follows on the rights and wrongs of Jewish practices for Gentile believers. Then a rite of Purification. Then yet another riot.

But we're getting ahead of ourselves...

I'd like us to think on the texts listed above. How do you think Luke intends us to understand what is going on?

1. Taking the second reference first - the comment about Philip who had "four unmarried daughters who had the gift of prophecy". Parse that sentence! What is being said here?
   • Does Luke define the 'gift of prophecy'?
   • Is it defined anywhere else?
   • Have a go at defining it yourself... What 'baggage' are you bringing to your definition from your historical understanding of that phrase?
   • Can you separate a definition from your own personal 'baggage'?

2. In the context of this chapter, prophecy is used to, essentially, warn Paul about what will happen to him. In v4 Luke tells us that "through the Spirit they told Paul not to go on to Jerusalem"

   • In 20:23 Paul says the Spirit is telling him to go to Jerusalem. Here the Spirit is telling people to tell Paul not to go to Jerusalem. Have a go at reconciling those two statements!

   • Is it possible that the Spirit said different things to different people?

   • Many years ago I was a regular attendee of (and occasional organiser of) a Wednesday night quasi-Bible study at the New Gallery church, right in the middle of London. We were a ragtag collection of students, itinerant world travellers and young-ish folks who liked arguing about things and particularly liked getting together to argue about things.

     It was good fun. (I would consider our very own Virtual Vestry to fulfil much the same purpose, though it has to be said that we're all somewhat, ahem, older...).

     One evening a new person came along - a young Australian lady. At the end of our rambling discussion about something or other in the book of Romans she stood up and declared that "the Spirit was not here tonight". And then turned around and left.

     We were dumbfounded and had no idea what to say or, indeed, what to think. Was the Spirit with us that night? We were definitely two or three (probably closer to twenty) "gathered together", and so we reckoned that Matt 18:20 applied to us.

     Who was right?

3. Agabus adds to the confusion with a piece of theatrics in which he borrows Paul's belt and ties up his own feet with it and declares that this is the sort of thing that's going to happen to Paul - but it won't be a belt, it will be chains.

   Agabus clearly had to travel to see Paul. Luke casually declares him to be a prophet. And Agabus starts his performance by invoking "Thus says the Holy Spirit...".

   What are we to make of this...?

   • It can be argued that Agabus' prophecy is not an instruction from the Spirit to Paul to stay away from Jerusalem, but, rather, a prediction of what will happen when he does go. I think that's a possible and fair interpretation. But in the wider context of the verses around the Agabus story is it not easier to interpret it as a request for Paul not to go to Jerusalem (eg v14 "Since he would not be persuaded...")?

I want us to think about how we interpret the instructions from the Spirit. Try and be both deeply personal and intensely practical. How do you distinguish God talking to you from the ramblings of your own internal monologue? What does it sound like to hear the Spirit talking to you? Is such a thing something that you should expect to happen to you? Why/why not?!

I suspect the discussion of the above will take most of our time. But, should a miracle happen, and we get past the first couple of questions(!), please take a look at the remaining verses up to v36. What is Paul doing, going through the rite of Purification? What does this say about Paul's careful management of the Jewish/Gentile situation?

Paul ends up, yet again, relying on the Roman occupiers for his safety. Is this ironic?! To be continued next week....

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

Titus was a Greek, apparently from Crete who is said to have studied Greek philosophy and poetry in his early years. He served as Paul's secretary and interpreter. In the year 49CE Titus accompanied Paul to the Council held at Jerusalem.

Titus was a troubleshooter, peacemaker, administrator, and missionary.

The book of Titus along with 1 and 2 Timothy are called the pastoral epistles because they deal principally with heresies and church discipline.

The letter urges Titus to appoint worthy elders to positions of responsibility, to preach sound doctrine, and to exemplify in his own life the virtues that are expected of all Christians. It works against the disruptive influence of "Jewish Myths" and teachings put forward by "those of the circumcision".

(A 4th Century CE epitaph from Crete identifies a Jewish woman named Sophie who is both elder and synagogue leader. Some churches in the 21st century still leave these rich qualities of at least half their congregation sitting in the pews, and both in leadership and pastoral quality, are the poorer for that.)

1. Titus 1:6-9.

   Should these qualifications to be church elder apply today?

2. Titus 1:10,11.

   To what extent should alternative views be tolerated by church leadership today?

3. Titus 1:12.

   "Cretans are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons." Can this language be justified today?

4. Titus 2.

   Do you think advice given in this chapter still applies today?

5. Titus 3, especially verse 5.

   Do you think this chapter has got the balance of salvation by faith and the application of good works about right?

6. Titus 3:9.

   Do we measure up to this in our discussions on Virtual Vestry?

Philemon is the shortest of Paul's letters at 335 words.

It names a slave in a Christian household???

Paul wrote the letter from prison but there is some debate over which prison. Consequently, it is hard to date the letter. This is one of what is termed "captivity letters" because it was written from prison.

Apparently, some scholars inform us that the broad structure of the letter is consistent with Paul's style of writing.

Catherine mentioned last week about the love Paul had for Timothy. This may well have been replicated in his attitude towards Onesimus the slave, who may have served Paul while he was in prison.

If you can, please read the 335 words. We should perhaps discuss the tension in Paul's mind, perhaps wanting to free Onesimus from slavery and his civic duty towards Philemon.

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)
• Titus 3:12 refers to a place called Nicopolis. What/where/when?

This week I'd like to look at these two letters through a few different lenses:

1. Timothy is the first second-generation Christian mentioned in Acts - maybe in the entire New Testament. The relationship is described as a parent/ child one.

   How could this affect what Paul wrote to him?

2. Stages of Spiritual Development: This is the only time I can think of, at the moment, that a Biblical writer was writing to someone with a similar stage of spiritual development.

   How would this affect how Paul wrote?

3. Stages of personal growth: When we are younger, we tend to be more fundamentalist in whatever view point we have. I am thinking of myself and all the marches I went to in my twenties and early thirties. As we get older, we see more shades of grey. These days I do not canonize people just because they are left-wing socialists. (Sorry Joan Baez).

   What would be the best way for an older mentor/parent figure to address issues with his younger protegee?

4. Social culture of the 1st Century CE Roman Empire.
   1. Marriage was a strictly monogamous institution. A Roman citizen, male or female, could have only spouse at a time. Note the word spouse. Dalliances of various and sundry kinds were common.
   2. There is some extant evidence of Judaic polygamy being practiced in the New Testament period. It was only 1,000 years ago that Rabbi Gershom banned polygamy but even then, the ban was not accepted by Sephardic and Yemenite communities.
   3. Women in First Century Rome, free or enslaved, could be: an empress, priestess, goddess, shop owner, midwife, prostitute, daughter, wife, mother. They did not have an open voice in public life.
   4. Women or men could initiate a divorce by simply saying they wanted to end a marriage.
   5. It was legal to treat slaves terribly: even killed for any reason. Slavery was generally accepted though some people, such as Seneca, argued publicly that slaves should be treated fairly.
   6. Livia Augusta, Agrippina the Elder and Agrippina the Younger - had overt influence and visibility.
5. How would we negotiate these factors if we were developing a new Way?

The resources I found say Timothy was somewhere between his early 20s and 30. Just a reminder; in Judaism of the time men became full adult at 30.

• 1st Timothy 1:3-5,8,15:

  What does this say to you about Paul's way of being a mentor?

• 1st Timothy 2:4

  What does this say about Paul's priorities?

• 1st Timothy 2:8-15

  How is this instruction affected by the culture of the time?

  How do you think a man who was raised in a home by two women who taught him not to follow the beliefs of his father (and then sent him off to promulgate those beliefs) would have thought about Paul's teaching here about roles.

  Do you think this might have something to do with Paul's assessment of Timothy's stage of personal or spiritual development?

• 1 Timothy 3

  Where do you see, in this counsel the mix between Paul being raised as a Pharisee and yet now mentoring someone who will be a leader in The Way in a 1st Century Roman environment.

• 1 Timothy 4:1-13

  If you were in Timothy's shoes, what how would Paul's warnings be helpful to you?

• 1 Timothy 4:13

  What do you think was his spiritual gift?

• 1 Timothy 5

  Where do you see the voice of Judaism here; where do you see the effect of building a community in first central Roman/Hellenic culture?

• 1 Timothy 6:1.2...

  This counsel reminds me of Proverbs 25:21, 22

  I could go on a bit about the insurrection of this but I am wondering what you think?

Pursue doing right. Live in a sacred way; trusting, loving, never giving up. Walk softly in a humble manner.

The sources I have read believe that this is the last letter Paul wrote. Other sources said Timothy was around 40 when he received this.

What would you want to make sure you said in similar circumstances?

What I read here is Paul's very last chance to strengthen, encourage and comfort. (I Corinthians 14:3)

1:5-7 - Timothy's spiritual legacy.

1:8-10 - Death will be defeated

1:-14 - Turning shame on end... in some ways the same counsel he gave about slaves he gives about himself.

1:15, 2:10 - Letting Timothy know what can happen to leaders of The Way.

And final words: May the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit and may the gift of his great kindness rest on you.

• PDF of these notes
• Additional notes from Catherine:
  • Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development
  • Spiral Dynamics of Personal and Organizational Growth
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

The previous 2 weeks have been slightly out of sync "for literary and planning reasons".

Luke ends Paul's 2nd missionary journey very abruptly in Acts 18:22 with Paul's return to Antioch, his visit to Jerusalem and seemingly immediate return to Antioch. Then "after some time", Luke informs his readers, Paul leaves Antioch and heads off again to commence his 3rd missionary journey. On the outward leg he does not call in at Ephesus on his westward journey - hence in VV we treated Acts 19 as a separate unit. Acts 19, however, does provide potentially useful background information regarding both the letter to the Ephesians and his asking to meet with the elders of the church in Ephesus on his return leg to Antioch and then Jerusalem.

This week we will follow his 3rd missionary journey (rather rapidly) and note some of the issues that Luke raises in Acts 20 before finally trespassing very briefly into Acts 21 to note the conclusion of this journey.

Please read

• Acts 18:18-23; 19:1, 21-22; 20:1-21:3;
• Romans 15:18-26;
• 1 Cor 15:32;
• 2 Cor 1:8;
• 2 Tim 4:10

Resources: for more information on Illyricum click here.

Questions for discussion:

1. Why might Paul NOT have written to the believers in the churches in Derbe, Lystra, Iconium and Antioch/A?
2. Paul stays in Troas for a week. Why does Luke mention "meeting to break bread on the first day of the week"? (Acts 20:7)
3. Paul stays in Troas for a week - maybe through choice, or perhaps because of boat unloading/loading or connections. Why do you think Luke includes the story of Eutychus?
4. Paul asked the church elders to come from Ephesus to meet him at Miletus. What is/are the main point(s) of their meeting. How do you think the elders responded to what Paul was saying?
5. Does Acts 20:25-28 imply that Paul is "washing his hands" of the church in Ephesus/Asia? Why/Why not?
6. Williams¹ states that "We are under a divine necessity to work hard in the interest of others - or so the word must seems to imply". If he is correct, how might we apply Acts 20: 34-35 to ourselves individually?

• PDF of these notes
• Slides from the discussion, in PDF format and in PowerPoint format
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

Cenchreae: was the port outlet for Corinth. There was a church there (Romans 16:1 identifies Phoebe as a deacon in the church)

Achaia: was the regional name for the whole area in which the Corinthian Churches were based.

Priscilla and Aquila: Unusually both Paul and Luke repeatedly indicate that Priscilla was probably the real missionary and Aquila's role was the financial provider for their mission. It has been suggested that Priscilla may have had personal family status and that freed her up for this role.

Apollos: (v24-28) Josephus records that John the Batist had groups of disciples in the larger cities of the diaspora. Alexandria was the largest of these and was also the most important Jewish community outside of Judea. They had even translated the Jewish Scriptures into Greek, a process over time but climaxed in the Septuagint in the early 2nd Century BC. Paul constantly quoted from that translation.

• Would this explain why he realized Jesus was the Messiah, but only knew of John's Baptism?
• What does the role of APPOLOS teach us about the flexibility and openness of the early Gentile church communities?

His first visit to Ephesus is of particular importance because it reveals the ongoing commitment he had to Judaism and his own personal Jewishness.

• (v19-21) Paul visits the Synagogue in Ephesus, speaks there, and is invited to spend more time with them, but refuses to stay.
• Why would Paul of all people make that decision?

Paul will defend to the utmost the privilege of Gentiles becoming Christians, without the burden of being expected to be burdened by Jewish Culture and the expectations of the Torah. The church leadership in Jerusalem accepted and promoted that view (Council of Jerusalem)

At the same time the Jewish Christians still saw themselves as Jews, worshipped and prayed at the Temple, celebrated Jewish Festivals, practices circumcision and much more.

John the Baptist had taken the Nazarite vow (Nu 6:1-27) which was often a lifetime commitment. There were shorter voluntary vows which were more limited, but often done to affirm a commitment to the service of God. Josephus records that the vows had to be ratified in the Temple with 30 days.

Both types of vows entailed shaving of their heads, paying of a tax to the Temple Treasury, and offering sacrifices to complete the process. There was a subsequent example of this , on the recommendation of the Jewish Christian leaders in Jerusalem (Ac 21:24).

This would suggest that the Early Jewish Christians believed the Torah had importance and value, but not as the way to salvation . Paul seems to have the same view. It is still the view of many Messianic Jews in our time. Yet these Messianic Jews are often denigrated by both fundamentalist Christians and radical Jews.

• Have you seen evidence of this in your own experience?

v18:21-23: in 3 verses Luke covers the climax of Paul's 2nd missionary journey, his return to Antioch and the beginning of his 3RD missionary journey including additional support to the churches in Galatia and Phrygia. That's brevity in the extreme. He makes no further comment about the vow. In his mind it's obvious what Paul was doing!

Paul discovers believers who, like Apollos, needed to build on their understanding of the gospel. (v1-7)

• Is this a surprise in the context of the communications of the time?
• Does it still happen?
• Is re-baptism sometimes acceptable?
• Was speaking in tongues necessary for salvation?

Did Paul leave the Synagogue because:

1. They "refused to believe"?
2. Because they "publicly maligned the WAY"?

Point to note: throughout the NT the common description of believers was "followers of THE WAY" The common view was that they were a part of Judaism! Albeit a dangerous part!

The exact location is unknown, but it was a common practice in the Greek world for locations to be available for social, physical, and intellectual pursuits. Many of them had discussion and study times between 11 am and 4 pm, when the discussions took place in the heat of the day in cooler buildings.

• OUTCOMES OF THE MINISTRY

  1. v10 "all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord." Imagine accomplishing that in our day - the province of Asia was about the same size as England.
  2. v11-12 Did Paul encourage this third-party activity or was it simply the reaction of the people based on their background of sorcery?
  3. v13-16 This copycat approach, even by the sons of a Chief Priest produced bad outcomes. What do you think of these events?
  4. v17 Would an event like this stimulate a similar response today?
  5. v18 Please Note: The Scrolls were burned by BELIEVERS who had not let go of their practices of sorcery. This was not a mass burning of scrolls owned by others. It was a voluntary act of repentance. A drachma was the equivalent of a day's wages... they burned the equivalent of a year's wages for 137 people. This confirms that the number of believers in total must have been quite large since most of them would never have been wealthy enough to buy scrolls.
     • Is there a mandate here for burning the property of OTHERS?

• Paul begins to think of where he will go on leaving Ephesus.

  Acts 19:21-22 He plans to go to Jerusalem and visit Rome. Timothy and Erastus go to Macedonia and Achaia to prepare.

  The best laid schemes... Paul was familiar with God reorganizing the agenda.

• Acts 19:23- 20:1 (THE RIOT IN EPHESUS)

  What a difference a day makes!

  • What happens when sections of the community are under FINANCIAL PRESSURE? These tradesmen and related traders were angry.
  • Is this scenario not regularly happening in our own times in varying contexts?
  • Were they correct in identifying the teachings of THE WAY as the prime reason for their problem?
  • v32 is it a surprise that "Most of the people did not even know why they were there."?
  • v33 Why would the Jewish leaders want to encourage and defend them?
  • v34 Why did it all go wrong when the crowd see Alexander and recognize him as a Jew?

  The local believers and City Officials who were Paul s friends begged him: NOT TO GET INVOLVED.

• ROMAN LAW TO THE RESCUE!

  THE CITY CLERK

  The province of Asia was the only province in the Roman Empire that never had a standing Roman Legion. Occasionally a Legion would be deployed on a temporary basis to assist with special problems. There were proconsuls who ruled as representatives of the people, and every city had officials to implement the proconsuls' instructions. All were accountable to Rome for the application of good governance and the maintenance of peace.

  There were legal systems in place that allowed grievances to be addressed. Rioting was considered as insurrection.

  In unstable provinces like Judea, and cities like Jerusalem, there were permanent legions that would respond to riots with ruthlessness . Sometimes that could cause thousands of deaths. The NT itself documents some of these.

  The City Clerk was a cool customer.

  He gave them a reality check:

  1. He commends them for their loyalty to Artemis but tells them to calm down!
  2. These people of THE WAY have not robbed temples!
  3. They have not blasphemed our goddess!
  4. If you have complaints, that's what the courts are for!
  5. "We are in danger of being charged with rioting, because that is what happened today."
  6. The whole province is in trouble if you don't STAND DOWN!

• PAUL and his companions are FREE TO CONTINUE THEIR MISSION

  How many times in our story so far has ROMAN LAW saved Paul's life?

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

I was asked to do a summary of the Epistle to Ephesians. Paul is a prisoner, chained to a soldier. Timing is around 60-62 AD, so it is not so long before his death. He knows that fact (Agabus prophesied it in Acts 21:10-11), and this is a good time to write a word of encouragement to people who were dear to him.

The above passages mainly focus on the church of Ephesus. They are well-known to most readers, and probably we could spend hours on just each of them. Because it is a summary, I don't think we will study everything in great detail because there won't be enough time to do it.

1. While you read the epistle, try to think of the main themes of the letter.
   • Is there any topic you will not find in any other epistle?
   • Why do you think Paul decided to compose his writing that way?
     • What do you think these themes were based on?
2. If someone asked you "is it worth studying the book of Ephesians over other NT books?", how would you encourage that person to do so?
   • Is Ephesians important to understand?
     • How is it relevant or not relevant for us today?
   • What do you think is a big idea of the Ephesians? (core message)
     • Can you find the gospel in Ephesians if this would be the only piece of Scripture you possess?
3. I am sure there are many parts of the epistle which are well-known, but I venture to say that chapters 2:1-10, and the second part of chapter 6 are probably the best known by far.
   • Was it a problem in this church regarding the way it works? Why yes or no?
   • Do we, as Christians, still have a problem between works and faith?
     • Can we have faith only or works only?
     • Can works help us with our salvation or prevent us from it if we are saved by faith only?
   • Look at the chapters 4, 5, and first part of chapter 6. What are they talking about? Why do you think Paul "jumped" to the conclusion of Armour of God after what he wrote in those chapters?
   • Is the metaphor of full armour still relevant in 21st century world? Why yes or no?
4. While reading chapter by chapter, idea by idea, is there anything you struggle to understand, something you find difficult to explain, or you feel your ideas don't have firm ground to stand on?
5. What are the "dangerous" ideas "hidden" in the epistle to Ephesians?
   • Subjects that are controversial within the Christian community
     • Slaves, submission of wives to husbands, etc.
6. Read the passage in Rev 2:1-7. Is it just a metaphor/vision of the church of Ephesus regarding the future or is there a lesson hidden in these verses?
   • How accurate is the above passage with the condition of the church in Ephesus? (do we have any record?)
   • How accurate is the above passage with the condition of today's Christianity; your own church; and even further, with your own state of heart?
7. How relevant it the epistle to Ephesians, especially to you? Do you find It compelling in your search for God in your life?

As you can see, the first two questions can be taken as summary questions. Further ones can be taken as singular subjects. I am not sure whether we even scratch them at all, but I find it difficult to create all the discussion around summary of 155 verses.

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

The City:

• Since the 8th Century BCE, famous for artistic and architectural innovations, including the invention of black figure pottery.
• Administrative and trade center.
• Center of Aphrodite cult prostitution.
• Known as a city focused on selfish pleasures. I am picturing Las Vegas here.
• Diverse population included Romans, Italian Jews, Greeks, people of Asia Minor. There were also transient populations of athletes and their spectators, philosophers, industrialists and artists. When I think spectators, I think Manchester United and Taylor Swift types.

The Christian Congregation:

• See diverse population above.
• People used to the cult of Aphrodite.
• People accustomed to a very different concept of power than Jesus taught.
• People accustomed to a very different concept of love than Paul taught and lived.
• People who loved Paul.
• ...and were trying to follow his teachings.

Paul

• Knew in the cells of his own memory the taste of the misuse of power.
• ...and remorse
• Focused on the creation of a community that replicates Heaven.
• Knew personally what it was like to have an agape loving community rescue him.
• Concerns about some of the effects of his first letter to them.

Me

I had not spent much time studying 2 Corinthians before this assignment. Since it would have been read aloud, I have listened to the book several times (NIV version). I have read it in the First Nations Version. By the time we get to the lesson I will be home and have studied it also in the New English Translation.

What interests me at this point is what it would have been like to stand at a meeting and hear it. The whole letter takes only 39 minutes to read aloud. I've experienced longer sermons.

Discussion

1. The first section greeting (1; 1-3) talks about a kind, peaceful and merciful Father.

   Why do you think Paul began this second letter with that opening?

2. Paul talks about his sufferings as the reason he has not come back. "I don't want to sadden you with another painful visit"

   What do you think was his intent in writing this?

3. I was struck by 2:4.

   What is your reaction? Why do you think he wrote that to these church members?

4. Chapter 3 - The indigenous translation shifts the word most of us read as covenant to "Peace treaty". It helps me see the concepts from a slightly different angle. I must admit here, that I don't think there was anything particularly wrong with the Mosaic covenant (except for all those sacrifices which would have been very very difficult for me.) It seems to me that the Spirit of God would have helped the Israelites keep the commandments with generosity of heart in the same way we can follow God these days.

   What are your thoughts on what Paul describes as the two covenants or peace treaties?

5. Chapter 5 - And now we come to a discussion of bodies: Paul's own suffering, our bodies being tipis, the new body, living or dying with trust, being a new creation.

   What do you think would be the importance of this message in a city where there was a focus on pleasure, prostitutes and athletics?

   Why would Paul write this message to this particular congregation?

6. In 7:2 Paul writes Open your hearts and let us in. We have wronged no one; we have harmed no one. There is some iteration of this in 7:11,12.

   Why do you think he would feel the need to say this?

7. Chapter 8 talks a lot about giving sacrificially - I think of Paul's focus on building community; in the local church and in having a sense of the larger body of the people who follow The Way. I also think of it as an antidote (the Camino discussion that just popped up about a viper might have triggered the use of this word) to the stresses of being a follower of The Way in Corinth.

   Your thoughts?

8. In the last part of the letter Paul takes a chunk of space to talk about himself, the way he thinks, his own spiritual experiences, his own care.

   At the end of this particular epistle, why do you think he would take time to do that?

9. What was one verse or section you found particularly interesting? Why?

   I am saving the last 15 minutes of our discussion so each person can have one minute or so.

I am looking forward to seeing you all soon.

Take good care of yourselves for you are valuable and valued.

Catherine

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

I recommend that you read or listen to the whole book, more than once if possible

The whole New Testament was written in a historical and cultural setting alien to our own. Many of these realities still exist in parts of the world.

• There were no democracies as we know them.
• There were no welfare or health care systems as we know them.
• Slavery and Indenture were the mechanisms of the day for dealing with many social needs.
• Multiple Gods, and Religions dominated the thinking and actions of the majority.
• Mechanisms for freeing slaves were mostly in the hands of the slave owners.

• Slavery and the cultural reality of its acceptance.
• Stark divides between rich and poor and the class distinctions involved.
• Converts to the faith of polygamous families.
• Converts with cultural and spiritual heritages incompatible with the faith.
• The human desire for power and control has always been a destructive force.
• The factional impact of identifying with personalities constantly produced division, in society, and displays itself in the Corinthian church: 1 Cor 1:10-17 "I am of ..." Peter (Cephas) had already visited Antioch, and as the Apostle to the Jews visited other Jewish Christians in the diaspora. He and Apollos had obviously spent time in Corinth.
• What others could be we add to this list?
• How many still exist?

Paul had already written a letter to the church which we don't have (1 Cor 5:9) and it specifically addressed the issue of sexual immorality . Since that issue was stressed so firmly in the decision of the Jerusalem Council and communicated to all the Jewish and Gentile believers by Paul and the other apostles, it is not surprising that was treated as important.

Paul is answering questions that have been sent to him by a letter (or letters) from Corinth. We do not know what those questions were, which means we must be incredibly cautious when examining his answers. It becomes imperative that we take those issues and address them in the context of all his (teachings and actions) pertaining to those same issues.

In addition, he even uses the expression "I, not the Lord" (1 Cor 7: 12) indicating that he was open to giving advice even when he knew there was no clear mandate or teaching to affirm it. The simplistic views of VERBAL INSPIRATION totally fail to take these realities into account. There was significant division and confusion on numerous issues affecting the life of the church.

TO AID OUR STUDY, I will address all these issues later in the notes.

1. The Cross as the focus of Salvation history. (1 Cor 1:18 - 1 Cor 2: 2) "I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified".
2. Christ and the Holy Spirit as the powerhouse of the Christian Church. (1 Cor 2:3 - 16)
3. Spiritual Gifts and Spirit filled Leaders. (1 Cor 12:1 - 14:40)
   • Spiritual Gifts (1 Cor 12: 1-12)
     • Are Spiritual Gifts for every believer?
     • Do we choose the Gifts, or does the Spirit choose?
   • The Scope of Spiritual Gifts (1 Cor 12:12-30)
     • Do all the gifts have a place in the life of the church?
     • Are the roles of Spiritual Leadership Gifts of the Spirit, or natural talent? Apostles, prophets, teachers, etc...?
     • Is it wrong to desire specific gifts?
   • All the Gifts must be weighed in the balance of LOVE. (1 Cor 13:1-13)
     • What is the importance of this Chapter THEN and NOW?
     • How has this chapter impacted your personal walk with God, and your relationship with others?
     • Does Love bind the church together and provide the integrity the church needs?
   • "Follow the way of Love and eagerly desire the gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy" (1 Cor 14:1)
     • Why would Paul make such a BOLD STATEMENT?
     • Does it require a much broader definition of the gift?
     • Do you think it is relevant TODAY?

   • Gifts in Church Meetings (1 Cor 14:2-39)

     As you read this passage pay particular attention to how it impacts the flow of communication within the church.

     • Can you see any resemblance to what goes on in a good Sabbath School Class, a good Bible Study, or indeed one of our VV SESSIONS?
     • Does Paul encourage a spirit of openness, respect, listening, and thinking as part of this sharing?
     • If this pattern was more prevalent in our communications as Christians, would we avoid some of the divisions within the Christian Faith?

4. Lord's return, resurrection, judgment, final victory over Sin and Death (1 Cor 15)

   This is one of the most comprehensive teachings on the final completion of God's Plan of Salvation. There is no scope here for the Platonic View of the Immortality of the Soul, which in essence makes the concept of resurrection pointless.

   John Stott, N.T. Wright with other scholars have contributed to a wider appreciation of the final resurrection.

"I am of Paul, Apollos, etc..." (1 Cor 1:10-12) Paul does not spell out the exact nature of the divisions, but the letter suggests they are many and varied.

• Were the appeals being made to be followers of the PERSONALITIES (None of whom were physically present to correct the behaviour) a way of claiming support for their OWN beliefs?
• Are there "I am of ... ? used today?
• (1 Cor 1:13- 3: 22) What do you think of Paul's response?

LAWSUITS (1 Cor 6: 1-9)

• Do you think this still has relevance today?
• Have you ever made decisions based on these principles?

Issues such as marriage, the unmarried, virgins, sexuality, etc. 1 Cor 7:1-40 (NOTE: v1 'for the matters you wrote about').

Paul is still living with the expectation that the RETURN of JESUS is probably associated with the coming destruction of the TEMPLE. Jesus has specifically identified that those days will be tumultuous.

That conviction shapes his whole understanding of the practical realities of living.

In these areas his own conviction about remaining unmarried is clearly displayed, yet he acknowledges that the need for sexual fulfilment cannot be ignored, and that current changes and challenges make many decisions complex.

He even used the phrase 7:12 "(I, not the Lord)" to give some guidance where there is nothing Jesus said about the subject.

• Do you find it refreshing he didn't pretend that his advice was anything more than the best he could think of at the time, and that some of his advice was negotiable.
• He also appeals to current practices within the church!
• Do you think Paul would have been flexible enough to encourage CHANGES in how things are done?

FOOD SACRIFICED TO IDOLS

• The Jerusalem Council instructed the believers: "You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things."

  1 Cor 8:1-13 PAUL significantly expands the range of complexities that apply regarding this issue.

  1 Cor 10:14-22 Some lines shouldn't be crossed!

  1 Cor 10:23-33 He adds even more freedoms into the mix!

  • What do you think he is really saying about this issue?
  • Does this indicate a more open-minded approach on these matters

SEXUAL IMMORALITY

Paul focuses on one clear incident of Sexual Immorality. (1 Cor 5: 1-12)

It appears that this issue has been around for some time, and he had even addressed it in general in his missing letter. (1 Cor 5: 9-12)

To ensure that we grasp what Paul is really saying, we need to put it within the total picture of the book, and his teaching generally, and the total story of this one incident.

There are two important issues in this passage.

1. SOCIETY IN GENERAL

   The church has NO CALLING to try and impose MORALITY on society as a whole! Jesus told us clearly that we would be IN THE WORLD, not OF THE WORLD. Scripture makes it abundantly clear that the idea of building a pure society in this current age is an irrational dream. Paul is affirming that reality here in Chapter 6.

   If you can find anything in Scripture that suggest the above statement is incorrect, please let us know!

   Attempting to change the values of the world against the tide of human behaviour has always been a fruitless exercise, but there are times when the influence of god's people can unite with societal reform movements to bring about meaningful change. We saw this in the movement to abolish slavery, prison reforms, and other beneficial changes in society. In some cases, the reformers were being impeded by fellow Christians.

2. THE CHURCH (1 Cor 5:11-13; 6:9-20)

   Don't forget this is the book that contains the great chapter on LOVE!

   Paul's concern here is not only for the individual involved, but for the church itself. The general attitude pervading the church was "I have right to do anything, you say" . It was being applied to various areas of life, including sexual issues. In Chapter 6 above Paul challenges that notion, as contrary to god's will. The instruction he is giving is NEEDED by the church, as well as by the individual. (Gal 6:1-10) spells out the spirit in which church discipline needs to take place. In (2 Cor 2:2-11) Paul affirms that this was a hard thing to deal with, and that both the church and the individual needed to find healing having been bold enough to face the problem head on.

   To take all this and formulate a system for discipline within the modern church would require a lot of humility, prayer, and love.

   This whole area needs much study and attention.
   "FOOLS RUSH IN WHERE ANGELS FEAR TO TREAD" ANY COMMENT?

3. THE LGBT+ QUESTION

   • I really believe we should not beat about the bush in this area.

     There is no doubt that PAUL consistently identifies this area as being off-limits to the church.

     The problem we have is what was Paul's understanding of this issue as he witnessed it in his day. The Torah unquestionably condemned it, and Judaism did likewise.

     We have already discussed the relationship of the church and society, and on that basis:

     • Would you agree that there is no justification for any discrimination or violence against the LGBT+ Community?
     • Should that be a worldwide principle?

   • The next question is more challenging.

     • Is there a basis in which members of the LGBT+ Community who identify with the Adventist Church, or other Christian Churches can find acceptance within the church?
     • Is that possible in a way that respects and accepts the fundamental concept of Sexual Immorality.
     • Have there been any developments within the LGBT+ scenario that could open a way for that to happen?
     • Can the heterosexual community impose standards which they don't want to apply to themselves?

For the next month there will be some of us travelling here and there, and we may not be able to have as broad a discussion as these questions deserve. I hope we will explore some of these areas later.

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

Thanks to Paul we know more about Corinth than any other 1st century city in Greece.

He leads us on a journey to Corinth, demonstrating the challenges and questions arising in his presentation of Christ as the Messiah.

Corinth was situated on an isthmus between Greece's two most important cities, Athens and Sparta. It was initially sacked by the Romans in 146 BCE and refounded in 44 BCE as a Roman colony by Julius Caesar.

There were temples to the imperial cult, Aphrodite, Poseidon, Apollo and the healing god, Asclepius.

Like every other city, the mix of the population consisted of Roman freedmen, ex-slaves, and Roman businessmen. Most probably there was a huge social imbalance, with a few rich, many poor, and at least half of the population en-slaved.

Aquila and Priscilla originally came from Pontus on the Black Sea. They had been living in Rome until Claudius banished the Jews for rioting. This occurred somewhere between 41 CE and 53 CE. It has been stated by some historians that the cause of the disturbance was likely the preachings of Hellenistic Jews in Rome and their insistence that Jesus was the Messiah.

They arrived in Corinth as part of the Roman business community. Like Paul they were tent makers. Their friendship with Paul was close, because he lodged in their house.

Paul begins his apostolic work in the synagogue. His focus is on the Messiah who died and rose again. He quotes scripture to substantiate his claims. The Jewish world was not expecting a crucified Messiah. Much of the Roman non-Jewish world found it hard to take that a crucified Jew is the overall Lord (Kurios).

Gallio's tenure as proconsul of Achaia can be fairly accurately dated between 51-52 CE. Therefore, the events of Acts can be dated to this period. This is significant because it is the most accurately known date in the life of Paul. It appears that Paul was in Corinth for some time over a year, according to Acts, one year and six months.

1. "He reasoned in the synagogue..." What does this imply about Paul's style of preaching?
2. Verse 5: When Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia, Paul devoted himself exclusively to preaching. What were the changed circumstances that permitted this to occur?
3. Some of the Jews opposed and abused Paul. I feel a certain degree of discomfort from the following phrase: "Your blood be on your own heads". Can you help me to be more comfortable with the phrase?
4. "From now on I will go to the Gentiles". How long should we persevere with a group if they don't respond positively to our message?
5. "Crispus, the official of the synagogue, became a believer in the Lord". Can you speculate as to why the author mentioned this conversion?
6. The implication of verses 9 and 10 was that Paul may have been experiencing the threat of serious violence. We live in an era and country where violence and intimidation for speaking about our faith are unheard of. However, we may face mockery. How would you deal with this?

John Stott, has this to say on Acts 18:12-18 (original here):

Paul is vindicated by Roman law.

At some point during these eighteen months Jewish opposition to the gospel, which had earlier led Paul to turn to the Gentiles (6), erupted again: "The Jews made a united attack on Paul and brought him into court" (12b), or 'before the tribunal' (RSV, JB), the "bema", which was 'a large, raised platform that stood in the "agora"... in front of the residence of the proconsul and served as a forum where he tried cases'. It was in keeping with Christ's promise that no-one would harm Paul (10) that the Jews took him to court "while Gallio was proconsul of Achaia" (12a, almost certainly AD 51-52), for Gallio proved to a friend of justice and truth. He was the younger brother of Seneca, the Stoic philosopher and tutor of the youthful Nero, and Seneca spoke appreciatively of his brother's tolerant kindness. Incidentally, Luke was correct to call Gallio 'proconsul', since 'Achaia was at this time a "senatorial" province of the Empire, and therefore governed by a proconsul - as opposed to an "imperial" province, which was governed by a legate'. The province's status had changed only in AD44.

Of what offence did the Jews accuse Paul? 'This man', they charged, 'is persuading the people to worship God in ways contrary to the law' (13). But which law was he supposed to be contravening? Gallio understood them to be referring to what he called 'your own law' (15), but they knew as well as he that debates about the Jewish law were beyond his jurisdiction. So they must have been trying to make out that Paul's teaching was against Roman law, because it was not an authentic expression of Judaism. Judaism was a "religio licita", an authorized religion. But Paul's teaching was 'something new and un-Jewish...; it was, they urged, a "religio illicita", which accordingly ought to be banned by Roman law'.

The proconsul gave the accused no opportunity to reply to this charge, for he refused to hear it himself. Just as Paul was about to speak, Gallio said to the Jews, 'If you Jews were making a complaint about some misdemeanour or serious crime [that is, an obvious offence against Roman law], it would be reasonable for me to listen to you (14). But since it involves questions [NEB, "bickering"] about words and names and your own law - settle the matter yourselves. I will not be a judge of such things' (15). Having made his decision not to hear the Jews' case, Gallio "had them ejected from the court" (16). An unpleasant example of mob rule followed. Although it is not certain who is meant by "they all" in verse 17, it seems to be the crowd of Gentile onlookers who, 'in an outbreak of the anti-Semitism always near the surface in the Graeco-Roman world', now "turned on Sosthenes", who had evidently succeeded Crispus as the synagogue ruler (see also 1 Cor. 1:1), and beat him in front of the court (17a). Luke's addition that "Gallio showed no concern whatever" (17b) does not mean that he was indifferent to justice, but that he considered it judicious to turn a blind eye to this act of violence.

Gallio's refusal to take seriously the Jewish case against Paul or to adjudicate was immensely important for the future of the gospel. In effect, he passed a favourable verdict on the Christian faith and thus established a significant precedent. The gospel could not now be charged with illegality, for its freedom as a "religio licita" had been secured as the imperial policy. Luke's concluding comment is logical: "Paul stayed on in Corinth for some time" (18a), not now because of his vision of Jesus, but because of the judicial decision of Gallio. Jesus would keep his promise to protect him; the chief means of his protection would be Roman.

The John Stott Bible Study is taken from The Message of Acts: Becoming a Christian. The Bible Speaks Today John Stott. Used by permission of Inter-Varsity Press UK, Nottingham. All rights reserved.

7. Corinth was a prime Roman town. Paul was brought before the proconsul, Gallio for judgement. Gallio dismissed the case. How significant was this for Paul and his companions?
8. Yet, after the trial, Sosthenes was beaten by the mob, in front of the tribunal. Why was this permitted to happen?

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

(Ashmolean, Oxford)

Paul, having left Berea in something of a hurry, went to Athens. He was apparently waiting for Timothy and Silas to join him (v15).

Paul, being Paul, engaged immediately with the local synagogue and "God-fearing Gentiles", expressing his dismay at the number of idols in the city (a Roman satirist had declared that, in Athens, 'It is easier to find a god than a man').

He got into some debates with some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers. Then he was invited (not sure if this is a strong enough word?) to speak to the High Council of the city, in the Areopagus.

• Read up on the Epicurean and Stoic schools of philosophy.
• The Aeropagus was both a place and a 'council'. Read up on it, to get some idea of what Paul was engaging with.

Paul then claims that he has the answer for the 'Unknown God' statue that he had seen earlier in his visit. Read the texts v22-33.

• What is your mental picture when you think about the Aeropagus and the various schools of philosophers, apparently wandering around, thinking and talking (v21)? I confess to thinking of this and this...
• Are we a bit sniffy about philosophers? Too much thinking and not enough actually doing? Or as my good lady wife would put it 'They need to get out and grow their own vegetables'. Discuss!
• If you had to talk to Epicureans and Stoics about the meaning of life, what would you say?
• The 'Unknown God' idol is stereotyped by many Christians as being the ultimate intellectual indulgence of the pampered and confused Greek thinker. What do you think of this quote?

  Because the Jewish God could not be named, it is possible that Paul's Athenian listeners would have considered his God to be "the unknown god par excellence". His listeners may also have understood the introduction of a new god by allusions to Aeschylus' The Eumenides; the irony would have been that just as the Eumenides were not new gods at all but the Furies in a new form, so was the Christian God not a new god but rather the god the Greeks already worshipped as the Unknown God. His audience would also have recognized the quotes in verse 28 as coming from Epimenides and Aratus, respectively.

• The gospels are full of stories of Christ's dealing with the 'common man' (and woman). Is it easier to talk to the plebs than it is to the intellectuals? Why/why not? What has been your experience?
• Lastly - the Big Questions!
  When I requested that the VV Telegram group "bring your best rationalist, scientist self to the discussion!" there were immediate (friendly!) retorts that we're not in the rationalist business.
  • Are we Christians rational beings?
  • Is a certain degree of mysticism necessary for a true Christian experience? (I use the word 'mysticism' lightly - think of it as being the quasi-opposite of 'rational'...)
  • Is talking philosophy a waste of time?
  • Is Christianity fundamentally anti-intellectual?

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

Two weeks ago we read and discussed the visit of Paul, Silas and Timothy's to Thessalonica in or around 50-51 AD. It was Paul's only visit. Last week Jim led us through Paul's 1st letter to the believers there, possibly written 51-54 AD when in Corinth. It is widely held that this was the first written document of its type to be circulated and eventually accepted as part of the Canon of Scripture. This week we will consider his 2nd letter, probably written quite soon after the 1st. Many recent scholars consider this letter to be pseudepigraphal (written by another author pretending to be Paul - a relatively common practice in those days). For further information on this matter see under Resources. This matter need not detain us today.

Lots of reading this week, so start early!

Please re-read

• Acts 17:1-9
• 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
• 2 Thessalonians (preferably in at least two different translations)
• Read John Stott's "The dynamics of the rebellion" (see Resources, below).
• ...and finally, a very quick scan of Revelation 13, 14:14-20 and 19:17-20:15

1. How do you think the Thessalonian believers reacted when they heard 2 Thess 2:1-12 having recently heard 1 Thess 4:13-18
2. Read 2 Thess 1:4-2:12 (about half the letter). It makes rather grim reading. How do you square this picture of God with the picture of God presented in John's gospel?
3. Read 2 Thess 2:13-16; 3:3-4 and 16-17. Is this enough to "balance" 2 Thess 1:4-2:12 in the minds of the hearers? What would you have written? What thoughts, suggestions, prayers etc. might you convey today (personal visit, email, texting, video-link etc.) to anyone you know who is seriously suffering - not for medical, financial, relationship matters etc. - but for their faith?
4. What connection (if any) do you see between 2 Thess 2:1-12, Dan 12:1 and the closing chapters of Revelation? Read Stott pages 163-173.
5. 2 Thess 2:3,11. Given the state of the world and the tumultuous proliferation of fake news, the global dominance of social media, the spread of AI etc. How can we always be certain we are not being deceived?
6. 2 Thess 3:6-15. Nowadays most employees (church and secular, employed and self-employed) in the "western world" - and maybe elsewhere - will receive a pension when they retire. How much "church work" should such people do after retirement? Without naming specific names or churches what have we observed in reality?
7. 2 Thess 1:3. Have you ever received this sort of commendation? Is it valuable? Have you ever given it?
8. If you had been a "believer" in Thessalonica how would you have reacted to hearing this pair of letters? As a 21st century believer, what has been your reaction to our study of 1 and 2 Thessalonians?

• 2 Thess 1:3-4
  Paul gives thanks to God for faithful believers, he does not thank the believers themselves - but he does encourage them.
• 2 Thess 1:5-12
  Suffering seems to be unavoidable for the Christian, but God will see that justice is carried out at the 2nd coming.
• 2 Thess 1:10
  God will be glorified - not like the star in a movie or a mirror but like a permanently glowing filament in each believer (see Stott, p149).
• 2 Thess 2:2
  Day of the Lord: the 2nd coming / return of Jesus to planet earth.
• 2 Thess 2:3-4
  Lawless one: defiant of all law - moral (no moral absolutes), civil (total freedom leading to anarchy), total opposition to God. (see Stott p163-173) Trying to identify this being is a futile exercise. Attempts have been made for almost 2000 years, but no-one knows. End of discussion.
  Son of perdition: son of destruction; the one destined to be destroyed; the one who belongs to hell; son of hell.
• 2 Thess 2:8-9
  Coming of the great (greatest?) Antichrist - a parody of the 2nd coming of Jesus. The lawless one will be revealed (parousia), then destroyed (instant annihilation - by breath of Jesus at the 2nd coming). Working of Satan - power, signs, wonders. (See Scott p.172)
• 2 Thess 2:15-16
  Paul is not panicking! Instead gives simple instruction: God chose you, so stand firm, hold fast to our teachings (those of the apostles, not of the later church) ... may Jesus and God father comfort your hearts and strengthen in every good work and word.
• 2 Thess 2:16-17
  Note 3 verbs (loved, comfort, strengthen) are all singular (Greek). Signifies that Jesus and God are One, see John 10:30. Not obvious in 1:1-2.

• The Message of Thessalonians. Stott, J. Bible Speaks Today.
• 1 and 2 Thessalonians. M Mitchell in The Cambridge Companion to St Paul. Editor James Dunn.
• 1, 2 Thessalonians. R. Thomas in The Expositors Bible Commentary. Editor F Gaebelein.
• Introducing the New Testament - Its Literature and Theology. Achtermeier, Green and Thompson.

• PDF of these notes, with additional material from Stott, referenced above
• Powerpoint slides, from the discussion
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

It was a port, in present day Greece, at the head of the Thermaic Gulf. It was not, in Paul's day, a Roman colony, but it was a major centre of Roman influence.

Unlike Philippi, it had a Jewish population of sufficient numbers to sustain a synagogue.

The message of 1 Thessalonians can be summed up in two basic points: first the scriptures point to the suffering, death, and resurrection of Israel's Messiah; second, Jesus was and is that Messiah.

The message was accepted by some of the Jews, several of the God-fearing Greeks, and quite a number of the leading women.

It appears that many in the young church had been polytheistic pagans.

Half a century before Paul arrived, their Roman coins had designated Caesar as THEOS, ie 'god'. Undoubtedly, because the emperor was viewed as 'lord', Paul's declaration that Christ is Lord, and there is only one God, was bound to be a source of future, potential harassment for Paul. The Romans had no problem with a group declaring worship in a god. Their issue, outside their toleration of Judaism, was another group declaring that there was only one God.

Paul understood the danger of his message deeply driven by his conviction. This threat hung over him throughout his journeys. However, the aim of the study is not to discuss the threat, but with this in the background, his unrelenting focus on his care for his sheep.

1. A big deal was made of Paul going into the synagogue in Thessalonica and reasoned with them from the Scriptures for three sabbaths. No mention of this in 1 Thessalonians. I need an explanation please?
2. Can we discuss the psychological thrust of Paul's leadership to the Thessalonians converts? What implications does it have for in terms of our relationship with fellow believers? [1 Thess. 1:2-7].
3. Paul indicates that the gospel is not only spread by the word, but also by miracles, and the conviction of the teller himself, 'who stood as a living, inimitable emblem of the faith he professed. [1 Thess. 1:5-6; 2:8]. Discuss!

4. However, the community of believers that Paul had left behind may not have been a stable community, hence the reason Paul had to write to them from Athens. There may have been different emphasis on beliefs. Some of those in our Christian communities challenge other groups on their doctrinal perspectives. Mainly conservatives on progressives. Sometimes, the other way round. [Adventist Today]. I have been challenged in the past, in some cases because there has been a genuine concern that I may end up in a place where thermals are no longer required.

   Can we learn from Paul the proper Christian protocol for dealing with different perspectives in our religious communities? [1 Thess. 5:15-22, among others.]

5. 1 Thess. 1:3 is reminiscent of which well-known and famous statement? These virtues were in evidence in the early days of the Thessalonian church. How do we retain them within our Christian community? Also read 1 Thess. 5:8.
6. Chapter 4 alludes to discouragement and wavering because of death in their midst. What was Paul's suggested antidote?
7. SANCTIFICATION. Please read 1 Thess. 4:1-12. Can we ever please God by our actions?
8. The 'Day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night'. 1 Thess. 5:1. Discuss!

THE MORE I STUDY THE WRITINGS OF PAUL THE MORE I UNDERSTAND HIS IMPORTANCE IN ESTABLISHING THE CHRISTIAN FAITH.

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

After having 'suffered and been insulted in Philippi', Paul and his co-travellers are off on the 100 mile journey along the Egnatian Road, from Philippi to Thessalonica.

(map source)

Thessalonica was an important town in the area. Positioned on the coast of the Aegean Sea and well placed on the Via Egnatia, it was a flourishing commercial centre and was proud of its status as a free city. This provided certain tax advantages which assisted its prosperity, so much so that Thessalonica became a prolific producer of coinage.

It had a cosmopolitan population with a large Jewish community - the visit to whom is the subject of this week's study. Attesting to the importance of the city in the early spread of Christianity, Aristarchus, a disciple of the apostle, became the first bishop of Thessalonica. By the time of the fall of Rome in 476CE Thessalonica was the second largest city of the Eastern Roman Empire.

Paul wrote two letters to the new church here, the first of which is reckoned by scholars to be the first written book of the New Testament.

All texts from the New Living Translation

As seemed to be the norm for Paul, he made for the local synagogue, and spent three Sabbaths in a row where 'he used the Scriptures to reason with the people. He explained the prophecies and proved that the Messiah must suffer and rise from the dead. He said, "This Jesus I'm telling you about is the Messiah."'. The response was divided! As always...

Paul's approach here was his standard Christian apologetic towards the Jewish people, following the precedent set by Christ himself.

The Son of Man must suffer many terrible things," he said. "He will be rejected by the elders, the leading priests, and the teachers of religious law. He will be killed, but on the third day he will be raised from the dead.
Luke 9:22.

His efforts were rewarded and some Jews, along with 'God-fearing' Greek men and 'quite a few prominent women' joined him. The translation used here is interesting. According to Stott, 'God-fearers' was a generic term for Gentiles, thus Luke may be referring to four different groups - Jews, Greek, God-fearers and well-known women. The implication, to me at least, is that the initial preaching in the synagogue went well beyond just the Jewish attendees.

As per usual, the political trouble starts. Some of the Jews 'were jealous, so they gathered troublemakers from the marketplace to form a mob and start a riot'. They tried to find Paul and Silas, but failed, so dragged their host, Jason (a Hellenised version of the Hebrew name 'Joshua'), and some others, and brought them to the city council. Luke uses the word politarchs to descibe these officials. It appears that a body of five politarchs ruled the city at this time.

This was a serious legal problem. It was not a lynch-mob. The rule of law was at work here. Paul and Silas were advocating an alternative king. Not Caesar but Jesus Christ. This was treasonous. Stott states that v8, often translated as 'turned the world upside down' misses the mark. Paul and Silas were causing 'radical social upheaval'. 'The verb anastatoo has revolutionary overtones and is used in Acts 21:38 of an Egyptian terrorist who started a revolt. In particular, Paul and Silas were charged with high treason'.

Stott goes on to point out the obvious. 'The ambiguity of Christian teaching in this area remains. On the one hand, as Christian people, we are called to be conscientious and law-abiding citizens, not revolutionaries. On the other hand, the kingship of Jesus has unavoidable politiclal implications since, as his loyal subjects, we must refuse to give to any ruler or ideology the supreme homage and total obedience which are due to him alone.' See the discussion questions, below!

The plot follows a familiar path. Paul and Silas leave town. Jason has to put up bail and provide an undertaking that they would not return. Could this be why Paul states in 1 Thess 2:18 that 'We wanted very much to come to you, and I, Paul, tried again and again, but Satan prevented us'? They were smuggled out, under cover of night, and headed off the fifty miles to Berea.

On to Berea.

Again, they head for the synagogue. An unusual phrase appears in v11 in most translations - the people of Berea 'were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica'. Stott remarks, and some other translations concur, that the phrase 'noble character' could equally well be translated 'open-minded'. I find that nuance interesting!

The Bereans seemed very keen on making Paul work hard for his converts. They were open-minded, but that didn't mean they'd accept anything. So concerned were they that Paul's ideas matched their understanding of scripture that the very word "Berean" has come to mean a serious bible student.

Similarly, as in Thessalonica, they had some success. Both with the Jews and, again, "prominent Greek women and many Greek men".

But the unfriendly Jews of Thessalonica caught up with them (they must have been really annoyed! Why...?) and Paul was forced to move on, heading off to Athens, leaving Silas and Timothy behind.

With reference to the Bereans, Stott quotes from Bengel, p662

A characteristic of true religion is that it suffers itself to be examined into, and its claims to be so decided upon.

• Paul made straight for the synagogue. Why? Think back to previous studies when Paul did not have a group of local Jews with which to discuss Christ. What did he do there? Think about the differences in approach.

• Though the word 'mob' is mentioned in the text, and that might imply a lynch-mob or similar, it would seem that the accusation against Paul and Silas was rather more straightforwardly legal. Paul and Silas were pledging allegiance to someone other than Caesar. What would a modern equivalent of this be?

  • We Brits witnessed the coronation of a new King earlier this year. I was struck, and disconcerted, by some of the language used in the ceremony. It seemed as if me, a UK citizen, were to be required to pledge my allegiance to 'my' King. Should I do that?

  • It is still the case in the UK that, in order to be admitted to Parliament, a democratically elected person must pledge allegiance to the Crown:

    " I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God ".

    (Interestingly, there is a version of this oath that does not reference God. However all versions reference the monarch)

    Famously, this means that all correctly elected members from the Irish nationalist party, Sinn Fein, cannot take their seats - to swear that oath of allegiance directly contradicts Sinn Fein's purpose. If you were in charge of things what changes would you make, if any, to remedy this situation?

  • "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands..."

    ...states the US Pledge of Allegiance. This phrase is daily recited by many schoolchildren in the US and, from my reading anyway, is much beloved by American evangelical Christians. Should it be? Is there a problem with this pledge? Should a Jesus-follower say such words?

  • Do such pledges matter in today's world anyway?

  • There is a rise in the US of 'Christian Nationalism', a mashup of American Christian origin myths with a rather particular reading of scripture. But surely we Christians should be in favour of merging the political and the religious? Declare that Christ is the head of the State and require that all citizens (subjects?) pledge allegiance. What could possibly go wrong?!

• Look back at the quote from Bengel, above.
  • Does your religion 'suffer itself to be examined on'? How do you know that?
  • What specific actions/events can you point to that might prove you had examined your own religion and found something that needed action, and then acted accordingly?
  • Some Christians are very keen on 'holding true to the faith'. Does that mean they can't change? What does holding true mean anyway?

• I made heavy use of John Stott's book The Message Of Acts in these notes.
• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

Time to continue our discussion of Philippians. Last week we had some introductory conversations, this week it's time to look in more depth at Paul's theology in the letter and what the Philippians would have taken from it.

Read the letter (it's only a few pages!) and try to notice when Paul talks about the following topics, and what he says:

• Christ
• The Church
• Paul's history, identity and future
• Righteousness
• The end of the world, death and the afterlife
• Joy

Finally, try to make a list of the things, teachings and actions the Philippians must avoid.

We'll be running through some major parts of the letter and looking at Paul's theology and thought.

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

This week the first of 2 sessions on Paul's letter the Philippians. This letter, despite being one of Paul's shortest letters, has been extremely influential to Christian theology.

Read the letter (it's only a few pages!) and try to notice when Paul talks about the following topics, and what he says:

• "The gospel" (Can you try to define what he means with that?)
• The Trinity (Which roles does Paul assign to the 3 persons?)
• Christ
• Epaphroditus
• The Church
• Paul's history, identity and future
• Free will
• Death and the afterlife
• Joy

I'll begin our discussion by introducing the letter in detail and then we will look at this letters theological contributions based on your notes!

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

Show Courage in the Face of Those who Oppose You...
Philippians 1:28

Context: What kind of city thinks it's normal to have someone walking the street, with her Delphic pimps, shouting mind readings and fortune-telling?

Originally named Krenides (Fountains) in 360 BCE (ish) by its Thasian colonists, the village must have been desirable enough that Philip of Macedonia renamed it after himself four years later. It was desired for its nearby gold mines and was part of the royal route than ran east-west across Macedonia.

Philippi shows up in Roman documents around 43-42 BCE when Caesar's heir Mark Antony and Octavian confronted Brutus and Cassius in the final battle of those who represented a Roman republic. It was then designed to be a miniature Rome and governed by two military officers appointed directly from Rome.

In the first century the population was about 10,000. Twenty percent of those people were slaves.

Our story begins about 100 years after the death knell of the Republic. Since many of here are "over thirty", we can have a sense of how recent a 100 years can feel.

1. What was it about Philippi that allowed for this "business"?
2. Why do you think it took Paul several days before he used his position as a representative of Creator Sets Free to cast out the evil spirit?

The word used for spirit in verse 16 is Python, the serpent who protected the Oracle at Delphi. There is an interesting parallel in Hebrew nahas. This word for serpent (also used for bronze or copper) has as it's root the mythical creature of chaos who is opposed to God. It is the same word used in the Sinai desert for the vipers that attacked the children of Israel. It is the same word used to describe the brass of the serpent put on the pole for the children of Israel to see and live.

3. Do you think there is any significance in the Paul using the "name of Jesus Christ" to cast out Python?

1. I cannot imagine the kind of response described in verses 20-23 happening in London, Edinburgh, Sydney, Perth or Los Angeles. How do you account for the fervor of the village council?
2. What do you think the jailor's reasons were for putting Paul and Silas (with no history of violence) in the depths of the prison in shackles?
3. Why do you think God allowed it?
4. What do you think were some of the benefits of Paul and Silas choosing to sing?
5. This being me, I clearly think there is metaphoric significance/ parallel to God using an earthquake to free Paul and Silas from the depths of a prison. What do you think?

vs 30 - One of the translations of this verse is "What must I do to be set free and made whole?" The response in that version is "Believe in Creator Sets Free; He will make you whole and set all your family free".

1. In Hebrew culture concepts are concrete; actions, people or objects. How will the jailor change if he believes and is made whole?
2. What do you think is the point Luke was making for his readers?

1. What do you think are the mix of reasons Paul wanted their release to be public?
2. What do you think happened to the other prisoners?
3. From the text, it seems that Lydia, her friends by the river, along with the jailor and his family are the core of the church at Philippi. What do you think are the qualities they will bring to the new church?

• What are the lessons of this story for us?

I wish for you unexpected blessings,

Catherine

• PDF of these notes
• Prisons in Paul's time, from Paul, An Apostles Journey, by Douglas A. Campbell, pp 79-83.
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

Paul and Barnabas had returned to Antioch/Syria from their first visit to Phrygia, Antioch/Pisidia and beyond. The Council of Jerusalem had taken place and its letter to the believers had been delivered to Antioch/S. Judas and Silas (who we meet here for the first time here) are there, encouraging and strengthening the believers. Paul and Barnabas had remained in Antioch/S teaching and preaching the Word of the Lord. "After some days" Paul wants to get going again, and this is where we pick up the story of his Second Missionary Journey. This week we will follow the first section of this journey, accompanying him as far as Philippi.

Please read Acts 15:36-16:15 and 1 Peter 1:1-2

Note the various regions referred to in Acts 15-16

• For information on Neapolis read the entry on the Roman History website.
• For information on Philippi read the entry on the World History Encyclopedia website and the Bible Odyssey website.
• For information about the "purple cloth" referred to in Acts 16:14 see the entry on Tyrian Purple on the World History Encyclopedia website .

1. Acts 15:36-40
   Was Paul unreasonable in not giving John-Mark a second chance; thereby causing a rift between himself and Barnabas? How should we apply this event to church life today?
2. Acts 16:1-5
   It would appear that Timothy was an asset to the churches in Lystra and Iconium, yet Paul takes him as a team member and they travel together as far as Berea (Acts 17: 13-14). Was Paul reasonable in depriving the churches in Lystra and Iconium of Timothy? How should church administrators apply Paul's decision today?
3. Acts 16:6-7
   Why does Luke write about both the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of Jesus? What's the difference? (Note there are only four other similar references: Rom 8:9 = Spirit of Christ; Gal 4:6 = Spirit of God's Son; Phil 1:19 = of Jesus Christ; 1 Pet 1:11 = of Christ)
4. Why might Paul, Silas and Timothy have been forbidden to preach in the very large area of Phrygia, Bithynia and Asia (see map) ? What might 1 Peter 1:1-2 indicate?
5. Acts 16:7
   We might conclude from the text that Paul had no firm plans having been prevented from going into Asia and Bithynia, but as there was a main Roman road to Troas it might not be unreasonable to assume that he just followed the road while waiting for a plan to develop or be revealed. What should our approaches be when faced with brick walls in our journey through life?
6. Acts 16:11-12
   What made Paul head for Philippi instead of stopping in Neapolis? (See information on the websites listed under Resources above)
7. Acts 16:13-14
   What is suggested by the statement that "the women met by the river for prayer" in Philippi? Why does Luke mention this?

• PDF of these notes
• Slides/maps/etc referred to in the discussion
• Additional information on
  • Neapolis
  • Philippi #1 and #2
  • Thyatira
  • Tyrian purple
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

Last week we explored the unique connection between Paul and Peter. They both were given special Apostolic Commissions by Christ. They both had revelations about Christ's desire for the gospel to be preached to the Gentiles. They both were totally committed to the idea that Salvation was by Grace through Christ and could never be attained by keeping the Law.

We also saw that Paul considered that adding Law Keeping to Salvation by Faith, distorted the gospel and was totally unacceptable. Peter and other Jews witnessed the Gifts of the Spirit in Cornelius and his household, even before baptism. Paul reminded the Galatians that they too had been saved and baptised in the Spirit long before these new teachers came along and tried to enforce a FAITH plus Works, version of Salvation .

The historical growth of the Church demonstrates very clearly that the Jewish Synagogues throughout the Roman Empire played a significant role in the growth of the church.

The Jewish communities were constituted by 3 groups:

• Natural Born Jews
• Gentiles who had converted to Judaism, were committed to the Torah and circumcised.
• Gentiles who worshipped Yahweh.

Without that springboard, the growth of the church beyond Judea may have been impossible.

Accommodating different views within the faith has NEVER BEEN EASY- even today.

Last week we observed what Paul states in his criticism of Peter, that Peter was comfortable fellowshipping with the Gentile believers, but failed to do so after the representatives came from James. The Judean Christians were obviously still finding the transition to the decision of the Council of Jerusalem very difficult in practice.

This is the reality that Paul is addressing in Galatians.

• What is the significance of v: 15-16 and v 19-20?

Paul identifies 3 COVENANTS in Galatians.

1. Abrahamic Covenant.
2. Sinaitic (Mosaic) Covenant.
3. New Covenant.

Paul takes the view the PROMISES by God to Abraham could not be subordinated to the Mosaic Laws given 430yrs later. Jewish history portrays a constant pattern of turning away from the Mosaic Laws by the worship of other gods, and repeated intermarriage. That's why Peter at the Counsel of Jerusalem points out those failures as a good reason not laying the burden of the Law on the Gentiles.

• Would it be true to say that ABRAHAMIC COVENANT was based on Faith and Relationship?
• Did the Torah (Law) contain valuable MORAL PRINCIPLES?
• IF the answer to the above is YES, then why does Paul refer to it as a CURSE?
• Was it possible to have a Faith, Spirit led relationship with God from the time of Moses to the time of Christ?
• Why did the TORAH block the promise made to Abraham that God intended to BLESS ALL NATIONS (GENTILES)?
• Was the MOSAIC COVENANT primarily intended to KEEP THE JEWS as a VIABLE presence in the world till the time of the NEW COVENTANT?
• Is this why the LAW was a "Guardian"?
• How did the MOSAIC COVENANT help the preservation of ISRAEL?

"In Christ: neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value" is used more than once by Paul. Last week we talked about the implications of TIMOTHY being circumcised.

• Would it be true to say that PAUL taught by word or deed that MOTIVATION or REASON is more significant than the ACTION ITSELF?
• Would it be true to say that Sabbath Keeping, food laws, etc are fine in and of themselves, but as soon as they are considered NECESSARY FOR SALVATION the line has been well and truly crossed?

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

The next two weeks on Galatians are not intended to be a detailed verse by verse study, but an attempt to provide a summary of view of the book that will contribute to our ongoing study of Acts and the development of the early Christian Church.

When Mike linked the book of Galatians with Acts 15 and the Council of Jerusalem it was an "inspired" decision. There are so many links between the two that it is by no means a diversion.

Last week we began to examine the unique characteristics of the Jewish Christian Community and the Gentile Christian Community. That relationship dominates much of the ministry of Paul and the book of Acts as well as the Epistles.

Gal 1:11-2:10

...is often cited as a discrepancy, because we know for a fact that Paul visited Jerusalem on multiple occasions.

• Why does he only mention two visits to Jerusalem in Galatians? I believe there is a simple explanation for this but challenge you all to ask the question.
• Why do you think that Paul had a particular interest in Peter that explains the first visit (Gal 1:18)?
• What unique contribution did Peter make to the Council of Jerusalem?

Gal 2:11-14

(This must have been after the Paul's Second Missionary Journey)
v11-12 tells us that Cephas (Peter) was eating with the Gentiles prior to "certain men who came from James". He withdrew from eating with the gentiles and only ate with the Jewish Christian group and James' representatives.

• Would there have been Jewish Christians already in Antioch before these visitors arrived?

Gal 2:15

Paul was reminding Cephas about what he had said himself at the Council of Jerusalem.

• Was this evidence of how hard it was to transition from traditional Jewish practices to new Jewish Christian ways?

The book of Galatians was all about the assertion that Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians were committed to the belief that both Jews and Gentiles were saved through the Grace of the Lord Jesus (Acts 15:11)

Last week we never discussed how Paul dealt with the reality of Circumcision by what he did?

CIRCUMCISION

• Gal 2:1-5 is a record of what happened when Paul went to the Council of Jerusalem and rejoices that Titus, who was a Gentile, was not required to be circumcised.
• Acts 16:1-5. Just months later Paul and Timothy go on the Second Missionary journey to carry the decision of the Council of Jerusalem. He and Timothy (whose mother was a Jewish) decide that Timothy should be circumcised.

• Can you suggest why Paul and Timothy did this?
• Does this affect how we look at the book of Galatians, and the act of circumcision?

If you ask the correct questions of scripture, you have fighting chance of getting close to sensible answers.

If you ask the wrong questions of scripture, you have a high probability of getting wrong answers.

DISCUSS this observation!

• Could it be related to bringing our own preconceived ideas to our study of scripture?
• Could it be related to our doctrinal prejudices?
• Could it be related to our understanding of 'Inspiration'?
• Could it be related to our inability to read scripture within its historic and cultural context?
• Could it be related to our dependency on English Translations?
• Etc, Etc, Etc?

Gal 1:6-10

In this section he is comparing the NEW TEACHINGS with the original gospel he had taught them.

• How would you categorize the importance of this issue in the light of what he here?

Gal 1:11-2:10

Paul emphatically asserts that the version of the Gospel he was given was directly from Christ who called him to be the Apostle to the Gentiles.

He identifies only two visits where there was any real dialogue between him and the Apostles. His initial visit to Peter (Cephas) and his visit at the council of Jerusalem.

• Why did God choose a Jewish Pharisee to be an Apostle to the Gentiles?

Gal 3:1-14 (Faith or Works of Law)

• Why does PAUL draw such a sharp distinction between Works of Law and Living by Faith?
• Paul points out they had the GIFTS of the Spirit before anyone told them that keeping the law necessary for salvation. Was that a valid and important point? What does this remind us of?
• Why does he suggest here, and later in the book that the LAW OF MOSES got in the way of God's long-term plan to BLESS THE GENTILES?
• Do you think PAUL is defending the idea of Salvation by Faith, or ASSERTING IT AS THE ONLY GOSPEL?

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

The relationship between the Jewish Christian Community and the Gentile (or Hellenistic) Christian Community is critical to our understanding of the New Testament and the development of the Christian Church as a whole.

Our texts for the day give us a basic understanding of a period of tension and controversy in the development of the Christian Church as it spread beyond the borders of Judea and Samaria. It is believed that this was probably in 49AD.

Provides the background to the Council. The CONTEXT must always determine the meaning of "certain people."

v5: Provides that context as the "Party of the Pharisees"

• Is this definitive evidence that FACTIONS existed in the church from the very beginning?

v6: The Council did not involve the whole community of believers, but the APOSTLES & ELDERS.

• What do you think is the significance of this in comparison with what happened when the all the believers participated in the selection of the Deacons?

v7-11: Peter's assessment.

• What are the KEY POINTS of what he says?

v12: Paul and Barnabas testify to the reality of the work of God among the Gentiles.

v13-19: By this time, James (Jesus' brother) seems to have become the leader of the JEWISH CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

• With the history of multiple parties within Judaism itself, is this understandable?
• What do you think of his COMPROMISE?

v22-35: The Response

• Was the DELEGATION and LETTER important?
• DOES THE COUNCIL clearly define the reality of a JEWISH CHRISTIANS and GENTILE CHRISTIANS?

Remember, because of the Jewish Diaspora these groups had to co-exist within the church communities in different locations!

The relationship of the Judean Christian Community must be seen in the light of the relationship they had to the TEMPLE. The temple services continued as normal till the destruction of the City and Temple in AD 70. What relationship did the early Judean Christians have with the TEMPLE and the TORAH (or Law)?

If we fail to ask these questions the story that unfolds becomes incomprehensible, because we start making assumptions that may not be correct!

The questions below are pertinent to our understanding of the Council of Jerusalem:

• Did the Judean Christians continue to honour the LAW, and continue sacrificial acts of worship in the TEMPLE?
• Did they continue to follow circumcision, the keeping of the Festivals, the food laws, and all the other requirement of the Torah?
• Did the Judean Christians have a FUNDEMENTALIST FACTION that insisted that the TORAH and CIRCUMCISION were required for salvation even for the Gentile Christians?
• Did the Judean based APOSTLES continue those practices, but exempt the GENTILE CHRISTIANS from the need to do so?
• What did PAUL as the Apostle to the Gentiles by his WORDS and ACTIONS contribute to our understanding of his relationship to the JEWISH CHRISTIAN BELIEVERS and the GENTILES CHRISTIAN BELIEVERS?
• Let's not forget that there were GENTILE converts to JUDAISM who had been circumcised, obeyed the LAW and were irrevocably JEWISH!

The following passages have implications as we consider the above.

I am listing the passages and invite you all to ask what the connections might be.

GENERAL

1 Cor 9:19-23 - One of Paul's general principles.

THE TEMPLE

Acts 21:17-26 - This is the last time PAUL was in Jerusalem.

What are the implications of what James asks Paul to do, and Paul's response? (Acts 21:27 - Acts 26:32 - is an incredible record of how Paul ended up going to ROME)

CIRCUMCISION

Gal 2:1-5 is a record of what happened when Paul went to the Council of Jerusalem and rejoices that Titus who was a Gentile was not required to be circumcised.

Acts 16:1-5 - Just months later Paul and Timothy go on a missionary journey to carry the decision of the Council of Jerusalem. He and Timothy (whose mother was a Jewish) decide that Timothy should be circumcised.

THIS LIST COULD BE MULTIPLIED AT LEAST 10 TIMES FOR OUR DISCUSSION TODAY THESE WILL SUFFICE.

For the NEXT TWO WEEKS we will be summarizing the BOOK OF GALATIANS. ALL OF THE ABOVE ARE DIRECTLY LINKED

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

Erm... What with one thing and another we have no notes for this week. But we did have a good discussion, so listen to the recording instead.

• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

The focus of Acts now moves to Saul/Paul and, his missionary journeys and trips back to Jerusalem. Acts continues its mad dash around the Roman Empire filled with adventures, trials, successes and failures as the early church spread and grew. So much was not recorded, so we will just have to make do with what Luke did write and try to avoid too much speculation!

Skim-read Acts 13 in an easy-to-read version (such as Contemporary English Version or similar) so you can get a general idea of what's going on, then re-read in a standard version (such as NRSV, New King James or similar) to get a better idea of the details, some of which we will be studying this week

Also read Galatians 1:13-2:14.

Check out the map of Paul's first missionary journey and familiarise yourself with the places that Paul and his team visited.

Map of Paul's first missionary journey (from the Thompson Chain Reference Bible)

1. Paul, Barnabas and John (Mark) arrive in Paphos in south-west Cyprus and meet the pro-consul Sergius Paulus and his magician (sorcerer) Elymas. What do you make of the story as written in 13:6-12?
2. Paul and his team cross to Perga and travel up-country to Antioch/P. What does v5 tell us about Paul's methodology?
3. In 13:16-41 Paul preaches a sermon in the synagogue in Antioch/P. What is missing from verses 26-30? What effect on his audience did this NOT have? (Clue: read Acts 2:22-23)
4. How surprising (shocking?) was Paul's statement about forgiveness (vs 38, 39) to his hearer's?
5. Vs 43 and 48 suggest that Jews, converts and gentiles were seriously interested in what Paul was saying. Why?
6. Why were the Jews filled with jealousy? (vs 44-45)
7. How many "responses" can you find in vs 47-52? Based on your finding would you consider Paul's visit to Antioch/P a success or a failure?
8. How interested in/supportive of the "Mission to the Jews" movement should we be?

• PDF of these notes
• PowerPoint slides referred to in the discussion
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

What with one thing and another we have no notes this week...

Listen to the recording!

• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

Today's story of Cornelius and Peter, of two visions and two long walks, is so good it is told twice.

Chapter 10 tells of Cornelius and his mid-afternoon vision, in which God tells him to send for Peter. The next day we get Peter's vision of the sheet or sailcloth coming down from the sky, full of animals of all descriptions, with the instruction to eat them - regardless of their clean/unclean status. And to reinforce whatever point is being made, Peter gets that vision three times. Right on cue, the envoys from Cornelius arrive and plans are made to return to Caesarea the next day. Back they go, walking the 50+km to Caesarea.

Peter meets Cornelius, a sermon is delivered, the Holy Spirit is received, and baptisms happen.

Chapter 11 recounts Peter telling the church in Jerusalem the story again. A story that confronts the Jewish exclusiveness in such a way that, at the end of his telling, "they stopped objecting and began praising God. They said, 'We can see that God has also given the Gentiles the privilege of repenting of their sins and receiving eternal life.'" (v11:18).

To get straight to the conclusion of the story let me quote Stott...

"The fundamental emphasis of the Cornelius story is that, since God does not make distinctions in his new society, we have no liberty to make them either. Yet, tragic as it is, the church has never learned irrevocably the truth of its own unity or of the equality of its members in Christ. Even Peter himself, despite the fourfold divine witness he had received, later had a bad lapse in Antioch, withdrew from fellowship with believing Gentiles, and had to be publicly opposed by Paul. Even then, the circumcision party continued their propaganda, and the Council of Jerusalem had to be called to settle the issue (Acts 15). Even after that, the same ugly sin of discrimination has kept reappearing in the church, in the form of racism (colour prejudice), nationalism ('my country, right or wrong'), tribalism in Africa and casteism in India, social and cultural snobbery, or sexism (discriminating against women). All such discrimination is inexcusable even in non-Christian society; in the Christian community it is both an obscenity (because offensive to human dignity) and a blasphemy (because offensive to God who accepts without discrimination all who repent and believe). Like Peter, we have to learn that 'God does not show favouritism' (v10:34)."

"The Message of Acts", part of "The Bible Speaks" series, John Stott, p.197

Phew!

As we view this story, which we've all heard a hundred times, how can we cut through our own smugness? We know it's fine to enter the house of a non-believer, we know better than them.

I recently finished listening to the podcast series "The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling". Nominally the subject is that of Rowling's well-known arguments with Twitter opponents on the nature of being a woman. What raises the series well above the usual podcast fare is that the fact that the interviewer is Megan Phelps-Roper, formerly of the notorious Westboro Baptist Church. So, rather than a straightforward discussion on trans issues the series morphs into an introspective analysis of 'what if I'm wrong?'. Phelps-Roper, with her tremendous backstory - an almost Saul/Paul-like Damascene conversion from a Westboro Baptist Church zealot to what we'd all recognise as a 'normal' person - asks the hardest of hard questions. "How do I know that I'm right?"

I think Peter had to go through that sort of experience. An experience that culminates in the story we're covering today.

Do we have the courage to examine ourselves and identify our own deep-rooted prejudices and admit that we might be wrong? And that God might be telling us something different?

Bring your thoughts to the class...

I find Megan Phelps-Roper and her story fascinating. I thoroughly recommend her book, 'Unfollow'. Parts of it will be horribly familiar to those of us who have had to engage with religious fundamentalism. If you are quick, you can find an abridged audiobook version on the BBC web site.

See also 'At 5, She Protested Homosexuality. Now She Protests the Church That Made Her Do It.', a review in the New York Times of 'Unfollow'.

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

After his conversion and healing experience, Saul spends several days with the disciples in Damascus. He is strengthened first with some food and then with his interaction with the disciples.

It's likely that Ananias is one of the disciples talking with Saul. Saul already knew a lot about the scriptures, he didn't need a whole series of studies on however many fundamentals they had back then. What he needed was the power of God to open his eyes to the gospel. God already did that in dramatic fashion.

• What were the disciples talking to Saul about in those few days?

Then it says immediately he begins to proclaim Jesus saying "He is the Son of God."

• It doesn't seem like much time between his conversion and powerfully preaching for Jesus - why is this?

Last week Catherine's Indigenous translation of Acts talked about Saul being a "man who questions." It implies that he was not only questioning people to find out where the Christians are but that maybe he is also questioning God about who Jesus is too. Perhaps this had some bearing on his dramatic conversion as well.

• If you were one of the Jews in Damascus, what would you think of Saul's turnaround?

Seems like the 'same old same old', though, when the Jews plot to kill Saul (verse 23).

• How do you think Saul got to hear about their plot to kill him?

I'm guessing that Saul, having been a leader in tracking down and having Christians put to death, knew what their game was.

• What do you think of Saul's dramatic escape?

Coming to Jerusalem was not a triumphal experience for Saul. The disciples were still extremely wary of Saul and no doubt Saul realises how much work he still needed to do to overcome the past.

• Who steps in on Saul's behalf and why?
• What do you think of Barnabus' actions? Maybe compare them to Ananias.
• What is the result of this interaction?

Now that Saul has been properly introduced, Barnabus is on his side and he has shown he is changed by going in and out among the disciples. Of course, things don't go smoothly. Saul speaks boldly. He argues with the Hellenistic Jews - who were still trying to kill him. So the church had to rescue him again (there seems to be a theme here). They send him down to Ceasarea (on the coast of the Mediterranean) and then off to Tarsus (where he came from). Then verse 31 says there was a time of peace and growth for the church.

• Why is this? Is Saul a disruptive presence? (Maybe in both a bad and good way)

Saul first incites and commits persecution and then with his bold preaching he is the target of persecution.

• How did Saul's bold preaching add to the church?
• What do you think Saul learned from all of this?
• What did the Apostles/disciples learn from all of this?
• What can we learn? (see vs 30 - note that it talks about brothers and sisters making decisions here.)

While Saul has been in Jerusalem delivering a mighty witness, as well as causing a certain level of chaos, Peter is travelling about. Peter was going here and there among all the brothers and sisters (noting here again that it's inclusive of men and women) doing healings and miracles in this section of Acts. Verse 34 says that in Lydda Peter finds a man named Aenus who had been paralysed for eight years.

• Do you think Peter went looking for someone to heal (Peter finds a man) or was this a coincidence - was he just passing by.
• What do you think of the results of this healing?
• What do you think of Peter's command to get up and make his bed? Do we need a command to do something to aid healing? Contrast with Jesus.
• Sometimes well-meaning people corner people with disabilities and insist on praying for and healing them (usually with no more result than making the person with a disability annoyed or taking up their time). Compare this to what Peter is doing.

Joppa is a little north west of Lydda on the Mediterranean coastline. I found conflicting distances from 6-12 miles/24-27kms. A 24 minute drive according to what I read but I don't know what that is at walking speed.

Tabitha/Dorcas (name means gazelle) is a much loved disciple and is described as "devoted to good works and acts of charity". She is prepared for burial but not yet buried. Having heard that Peter was in Lydda (probably have heard the story of Peter healing the paralyzed man) they ask him to come quickly. Given that Tabitha would likely be buried the next day it was important that Peter get there quickly.

• Comment on Tabitha/Dorcas importance, given that they sent for Peter when she died.
• What do you think they were hoping Peter might do? Peter had healed living people but raising from the dead was a different matter.

When he gets there, he finds a sad scene. It's obvious to him (and us) the kind of person Tabitha/Dorcas was.

• What's the importance of pointing out Tabitha's good works?

There are a number of similarities between Tabitha/Dorcas being brought back to life and the story of Jesus bringing Jairus daughter back to life (Mark 5:21-24 Luke 8:49-56).

• the use of messengers to call the person who will raise the dead,
• the milling about of crying bystanders,
• the excluding of outsiders from the room,
• the call to the dead person to rise,
• the taking of the revived individual by the hand.

Comment on the different steps, particularly Peter's command "Tabitha get up" (verse 40).

• What do we think of the differences between Paul's work for the Kingdom and Peter's work. Had Peter stopped preaching and just devoted himself to performing miracles or is this just Luke's habit of skimming through the details to focus on what seems important to him?
• Are there any similarities or differences between Peter's early experience of preaching in Jerusalem and Paul's early efforts at preaching?
• Does powerful preaching always bring a certain level of chaos?
• What effect did the miracles Peter performed have on the church as a whole?
• What might be the purpose of all of these different efforts by Peter and Paul to spread the gospel?

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

(Texts are from the First Nations Version of the New Testament)

I would never hire a mass murderer to be one of my primary public relations representatives. I wouldn't ask someone I cared for to be part of their rescue. I still have a thing or three to learn about God's ways - and about faith.

Man Who Questions was on a rampage, breathing threats and murder against the followers of our Honored Chief, Creator Sets Free. He went to the chief holy man and asked for written documents to give to the tribal gathering houses in the village of Silent Weaver. This would permit him to take any followers of The Way, men or women, bind them in chains and take them to the Village of Peace.

I find this short section packed with irony. A "man who questions" was seemingly without them in his focus to murder. A chief holy man was anything but. Mass murder by legal document turns the notion of law upside down. In a rare time where men and women are equal in Biblical writings it's because they are victims of conscience. The Village of Peace has become a place of terror.

• What's it like for you to read this introductory section?
• Do you think Saul was questioning anything?
• Do you think Saul's focus on both men and women is part of his later belief that "There is neither Jew nor Greek, male or female..." as part of his description of the community of Jesus; hate turned upside down?
• Where does this fit into your understanding of theodicy?

• Why do you think Saul fell to the ground?
• Why do you think the voice in the vision made Saul's actions personal to Him? What does this say about Heaven's knowledge of Saul's psyche?
• What do you think is the significance of the Voice in the Vision telling Saul to stand up?
• What was the purpose for Saul's blindness (I think it was cataracts by the way)?

In our readings for this week there are two parallel vignettes where God talks to people directly. The name Ananias means Creator shows Kindness.

• What do you think was the message to this follower of God when a vision that will address dealing with a mass murderer begins with "Creator shows Kindness"?

I find it interesting that Saul's vision focused on Jesus as the Persecuted One and the vision of Ananias begins with a focus on showing kindness.

• Do you think Luke had a purpose in setting up this parallel?

One of my favourite interactions in the Bible is this one with Ananias's interaction with God.

• What does this tell you about Ananias's relationship with God?
• What do you think were the reasons God told Ananias Paul would suffer "in order to represent who I am"?

• Why do you think Ananias placed his hands on Saul?
• Do you think there is a reason why Ananias used the nomenclature for God of "Creator Sets Free" to describe who sent him to visit Saul?
• What do you think is the significance of Saul becoming baptized immediately?
• Do you find any significance that those stories of baptism are sequential?

I find it an interesting parallel in Luke's story that the baptism of the eunuch and the baptism of Paul are told back to back.

• Do you find any significance that those stories of baptism are sequential?

• Were there aspects of this story that are lessons for you?

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

Can you assess the likely impact that Saul's imprisonment/persecution of Christians had on the early church?

The proclamation of the Messiah in conjunction with 'signs and wonders' appeared to be a successful evangelistic formula in a city in Samaria. Can you speculate as to why the city's inhabitants were so ready to receive the messianic message?

This gentleman appeared to have magic powers which gave him status and influence among the people of the city. I expect it brought him considerable wealth also. However, he was impressed by the powers which Philip expressed in his ministry. Simon "was amazed when he saw the signs and great miracles that took place".

Simon was a man who had 'magic powers'. Was something lacking?

Peter and John made the trip from Jerusalem to the city to lay hands on them as they had not received the Holy Spirit. Did the Holy Spirit not lead them to an understanding that Jesus was the Messiah?

If I examine my own personal experience, I expect that I never reached the stage where a 'Peter and John' laid their hands on me. Have I not received the Holy Spirit?

Simon, I suspect, had an eye for a business opportunity because Philip's unique power trumped his sorcery. He was even willing to pay for it as a man of means.

• Is Christianity transactional?
• If there wasn't hope of eternal life, would you still be a follower of Christ?
• Did Philip blunder in baptising him?
• Was the language which Peter and John use to chide him justified?

Compare Deut 23:1 and Lev 21:20 with Isa 56:3-5 and Acts 8.

Discuss!

The Ethiopian had come to Jerusalem to worship.

It appears there had been a community of Jews in and around present-day Ethiopia, 4 or 5 centuries before the birth of Christ. The Eunuch may have come from that tradition. This sub-Saharan, black -skinned African was obviously learned and well read, due to the influence of an olive-skinned semitic tribe, at a time when my own white-skinned, iron-age ancestors, were informing the Romans where to put their writing, law, road-building, language, grand building designs and culture.

• Why do you think the Ethiopian was ripe for conversion to the Jewish Christian sect?
• He asked for baptism. Why do you think he was ready, unlike Simon?

Map of Jewish diaspora at the time

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

The appointment of the 7 deacons opened doors of opportunity to the development of the new church. It began to shift the focus, in the direction of the universal mission of the Kingdom of Christ. At this time the Apostles would probably not be Greek speaking. That, in and of itself, was a limiting factor in their part of the mission. Of the seven deacons only one (Nicolas) was of a gentile background, and became a Christian, having already converted to Judaism.

Large swathes of Judaism outside Judea were already multi-lingual and many of them Hellenistic. Pentecost itself testifies to this multi-lingual reality.

The new deacons were probably comfortable with the spoken Greek of the day, which opened new doors for the long-term mission of the church.

At this point they had no specific plans for expansion beyond Judea, even though Jesus had instructed them to do so.

Of the 7 deacons only Stephen and Phillip feature prominently in Luke's account of the developing church. Acts 6:7 tells us emphatically that their initial mission (the problem of the widows) was handled so well that it had a profound impact.

• If you had been selected as one of these deacons, what other things would you have wanted to see on the Agenda. Would you have assumed that your range of responsibilities was limited to waiting tables?
• Was the ministry of Stephen outside their remit?

DISCUSS!

Does it surprise you that the opposition to Stephen came from the Synagogue of the Freedmen. The province of Cilicia was Saul's homeland.

Later in our study we will find that it was the Jews from Asia that stirred up the crowd that led to Paul's imprisonment.

• Is there something here we need to understand? Did these Jews from outside of Judea need to prove something?
• What about the tactics used?

• Did Luke have an INSIDE SOURCE in the Sanhedrin? What other evidence do we have that suggests this?

Please read this who section and ask yourself, what is Stephen saying and why?

v 48-50:
Is Stephen playing down the importance of the TEMPLE?

v 51-53:
Why does Stephen make such an aggressive condemnation of the Jewish Leadership in their treatment of the prophets?

Is Stephen's assessment of the history of opposition to God's Prophets true?

Is it possible that Stephen is trying to wake up the nation, and its leaders, in view of the pending destruction of the Temple as Christ predicted?

Who do think is on Stephen's mind when he says, "They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One"?

Was he correct when he accused then of not obeying the law as it had been given to them?

We already know that there were individuals in the Sanhedrin and among the priests who were believers at this time. We must realize that it only takes a few powerful individuals to lead a whole nation to destruction. God will always have saints among the powers of men. That's why antisemitism is totally wrong. Would we, as Christians, want to be held accountable for the monsters who have masqueraded as Christians?

• Did Stephen die in a way that was a credit to his faith?
• In what ways did he follow the example of Jesus?
• Is it possible that the Holy Spirit led Stephen to this destination?

Saul was directly involved in the whole affair of Stephen's death, but God hadn't finished with him yet. There was another Pharisee yet to be redeemed, and how many others may have joined him?

On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the Apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria.

Acts 11:19 later tells us that the scattering was even broader than mentioned here. The believers scattered the word, "only among the Jews" in Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch.

OPEN DISCUSSION ON THIS SECTION!!!!

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

When I got this assignment, I wondered why Mike had given me a seven verse topic... and then, oh dear... here we are back to the power and importance of xenophilia. To share a sense of how confusing and frustrating it can be to address this issue in a mixed culture community I will share with you some issues connected with:

1. The Location of Time: describing the past and the future
2. Food: particularly at holidays.
3. Story Telling - Semitic and Hellenic
4. Gen Z use of language. (I could impress you with how slay it is to teach you this topic but will stick to simple terms about gender and attraction)

As an object lesson of working with mixed cultures, every text I use will be from The First Nations Version: An Indigenous Translation of the New Testament.

Since this is about hospitality here's the list we have used from other discussions of the topic:

1. Hospitality welcomes the outsider, the stranger, or the vulnerable traveler.
2. In every story but one there is a possibility of some sort of danger or disaster
3. Beings who are hospitable make a choice to take personal risks.
4. A primary core value of a hospitable person, locale, or choice is that they are safe for the guest but also for others of the environs.
5. Nurture is involved.
6. Guests can be any sort of being.
7. There are often unexpected results or blessings.

I believe it is important to remember the importance of and need for hospitality in Hebrew history, beginning with Genesis.

In those days, when the sacred family was growing in number, the Tribal Members who spoke the language of the Wisdom Seekers grumbled against the Tribal Members who spoke their own language. They complained to (the twelve) that their widows were being overlooked during the daily meals. The twelve message bearers invited everyone to a council meeting.

1. What does it say about the situation that who got fed at the daily meals was an issue in a Hebrew culture?
2. What do you think Luke (a physician and a probably a Greek) was feeling as he researched and wrote about this issue in the early church?
3. What do you think about the process of gongystes (grumbling, complaining, muttering and whispering) that brought this issue to the twelve message bearers.
4. Why do you think the message bearers invited everyone to a council meeting?

They said to all, "It is not a good thing for us to give so much of our time to seeing over these meals. This gives us little or no time to teach about the Creator's message. We want you to choose seven men of good reputation who are filled with the Creator's Spirit and wisdom who will serve in our place. Then we can give ourselves to prayer and to the teaching of the Creator's message". This seems like a good thing to all the people and so they chose:

Stephen: (victor's wreath or many feathers)
Philip (lover of horses)
Prochorus (leader of the dance or presides over choirs)
Nicolas: (victor over people)
Parmenas: (steady, reliable)
Timon: (precious, valuable)
Nicanor: (victory)

They stood these men before the message bearers, who then placed their hands on them and sent their voices to the Great Spirit.

1. If they were supposed to just wait on tables, what was Stephen doing preaching the sermon that gets him killed in next week's lesson?
2. What do you think the job description of the seven men included?
3. Do you think their names, or the meaning of those names, were part of the solution; if so, in what way?
4. What, to you, is the meaning of the message bearers placing their names on the seven?

Creator's message was told far and wide. In the Village of Peace the number of followers continued to grow, and many holy men believed and began to walk in this new way.

1. What do you think there was about this event/process that allowed the message to be told far and wide?

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

There's no let up in the pace of the story...

This week we discuss three rather different short stories

• Communal living (Acts 4:32-36)
• Severe punishment for telling lies (or was it?)? (Acts 5:1-11)
• An interesting technique for dealing with new ideas (Acts 5:17-41)

I've always been fascinated with alternative ways of living. I am a child of the sixties. I read Tom Wolfe's "The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test", the story of Ken Kesey and The Merry Pranksters, at an early age. I was fascinated by the Deadheads (the fanatical followers of the Grateful Dead). In addition to all the chemical experimentation practiced by these groups, they had some very different ideas of what it meant to live well. "2.2 kids, a house, and a Ford Cortina" seemed to the goal of the world in which I grew up. These 60's experimenters were doing something else entirely.

In recent years I've become interested in more ancient community experiments. Monks and monasteries, abbeys and silent retreats, pilgrimages. Such experiments have been around, in one form or another, for over a thousand years. They must be doing something right.

One thing the hippies and the religious have in common is an understanding that capitalism is not the end goal. There are alternative ways to exist that don't depend on me making sure that "I am going to be OK, and, incidentally, good luck to you".

Do these few short verses in Acts hint at the early church experimenting with something along the same lines? Looking at the way the Book of Acts is written I reckon that when Luke makes a note of something it's because it's notable - ie it's not the norm. These people were trying something new, and that is worth noting. We don't hear much more about this way of living. There are stories, later in Acts, of the apostles setting up the deacons to look after the practical aspects of the community. And there are some commentators who think that Paul took up collections on his travels to assist this community. Perhaps, even back then such groups couldn't support themselves?

All the believers were united in heart and mind. And they felt that what they owned was not their own, so they shared everything they had... There were no needy people among them, because those who owned land or houses would sell them and bring the money to the apostles to give to those in need  ^{ref 1}.

Questions

1. Is this an instruction to us to live in the same way? Or does Luke write about it because it was unusual?
2. How would you feel about living in such a way?
3. Have you any experience of living in such a community? What was it like?  ^{ref 2}
4. The prognosis for those looking to live outside of conventional society isn't good. Most of the experiments from the sixties failed - and some failed very badly. The same can be said for many religious groups ( eg Waco, an example close to Adventism). Why do you think such projects fail?
5. Equally some succeed. Why are many ancient religious communities still going strong? Is there something fundamentally different about a religious community that insulates it from failure?
6. Should we aspire to create such communities?
7. What do you think of this quote from Thoreau's "Walden"?

   "If one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavours to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours. He will put some things behind, will pass an invisible boundary; new, universal, and more liberal laws will begin to establish themselves around and within him; or the old laws be expanded, and interpreted in his favour in a more liberal sense, and he will live with the license of a higher order of beings."

Again, is this story here because it is unusual? Surely, this must be the case! I can think of several - how shall we put it? - 'financial irregularities' within the Christian church that maybe resulted in nothing worse than someone losing their job. And often they got to keep their ill-gotten gains.

Questions

1. Why did God do this?
2. Was it actually God that did this?
3. If this was an exceptional incident what was its purpose? What was God doing?
4. Pretend you are a Church Board member and you found the treasurer fiddling the books. Would you go all Ananias-and-Sapphira on them? Explain your reasoning!

I like this story! The high council were very angry with Peter and the apostles and didn't know what to do. They were afraid of the anger of the crowd if they killed the Apostles, but they were equally afraid of what would happen if Peter & Co didn't shut up.

Questions

1. What were the high council afraid of if the apostles kept on going?
2. Put yourself in their shoes and be kind in how you judge them! You are responsible for the spiritual wellbeing of your congregation and your congregation is being horribly stirred up. What would you do and why?

Gamaliel, a Pharisee and member of the high council, tells the tale of Theudas, a rebel who, as Gamaliel puts it, 'pretended to be great'.

Some time ago there was that fellow Theudas, who pretended to be someone great. About 400 others joined him, but he was killed, and all his followers went their various ways. The whole movement came to nothing. After him, at the time of the census, there was Judas of Galilee. He got people to follow him, but he was killed, too, and all his followers were scattered.

So my advice is, leave these men alone. Let them go. If they are planning and doing these things merely on their own, it will soon be overthrown. But if it is from God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You may even find yourselves fighting against God!

Questions

1. What do you think of the advice to, essentially, leave it to God?
2. Why do we find that so hard!?
3. Have you ever sat on a Church Board, or similar, and had to make a decision when you'd no real idea of what to do? What strategy did you use to decide?
4. In most human endeavours or organisations I'd suggest that the default answer to the question "Shall we do X?" is "No, unless we can prove that X is better that what we're currently doing". An alternative answer would be "Yes, unless you can prove that what we're currently doing is better than X". Choose your answer. Discuss!

• From the New York Times: "The New Generation of Self-Created Utopias" , a fascinating piece on 'intentional communities'.
• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

As we study the Book of Acts what is not recorded interests me as much as what is recorded. Why do we never hear anything more about Nicodemus, or Joseph of Arimathea?

• Nicodemus: John 3:1-10, John 7:50-52, John 19:39-40
• Joseph of Arimathea: Matt 27:57, Mark 15:43, John 19:38, Luke 23:50

Both these individuals were Disciples of Jesus, and members of the Sanhedrin/Council. They both tried to defend Jesus, and both involved themselves with the Burial of Jesus, in Joseph's own new tomb. Because he was a rich man and a member of the council, Pilate would have been fascinated and probably delighted by his request. They had a prominent part of the story just less than six weeks before today's passage.

Any suggestions as to why this may be?

My own personal journey had been part of that fascination. How those in leadership deal with problems, and the ways they do so, gives us significant insight into human nature.

What was the POWER STRUCTURE in ISRAEL at the time of the events that we are studying today?

1. ROMAN AUTHORITY
2. THE CHIEF PRIEST & HIS FAMILY
3. THE SADDUCEES
4. THE PHARISEES
5. THE SANHEDRIN
6. THE ZEALOTS
7. THE PEOPLE.

Is this a fair representation of the main power groups at the time?

Would you add or subtract anything?

I would like us to discuss what we know about each of these groups and their relationships to each other.

The basic relationship between Rome and the Jewish leadership is foundational to this.

• Who arrested Peter and John, and why? Their Trial, on the following day, included #2, #3, #4, #5 of the power groups.
• Why did this change the dynamics.?
• Why is the High Priest and the male members of his family so significant?
• What do you think of Peter's response to their questions?

What exactly did Peter mean when he emphatically declared that Jesus was the only way of salvation?

• Why did they have a hard time knowing what to do?
• What other power group played a vital role in their decision making?
• Were they barking up the wrong tree by ordering them to stop preaching?

What do you think of what happened among the believers?

Verse 31: why was 'boldness so important, that the power of the Holy Spirit manifested itself so powerfully at this point in time?

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

The Evangelist

What does Acts 3:1 inform us about Peter's attachment to Judaism and why did this enhance his suitability to be an evangelist in his day, in his geographic location?

The Miracle

The miraculous curing of the lame man had a major impact on the observers. (Filled with wonder and amazement....)

• What impact do you think this had on the audience when they heard Peter's message?
• If you read Acts 5:12-16, you discover that 'signs and wonders' played a major role in attracting new believers. Do you think the outcome of our evangelistic endeavours today is somewhat limited because of our inability to introduce the message through such dramatic, eye-catching events?
• If you saw a preacher perform equivalent miracles today as a precursor to presenting the gospel message, how would you react?

The Sermon

As presented in Acts, it is short, sharp and to the point.

• At the beginning of the sermon in verse 12, what is Peter attempting to establish with the crowd?
• Verse 13:

  "The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our ancestors..."

  Would you commence a sermon with this introductory statement to a British audience today?

  "Whom you handed over and rejected."

  Was Peter the John Knox of his day?
• Verse 14-15: He pulls no punches. Condemnatory!!! Is there a place for such a tone in today's pulpit?
• Verse 17: A note of conciliation perhaps? Do you agree?
• Verse 19:

  "Repent therefore and turn to God so that your sins may be wiped out...."

  What are the conditions necessary for repentance? Why do you think the audience understood this language?
• Verse 21:

  "who must remain in heaven until the time of universal restoration that God announced long ago through His prophets."

  What does this statement mean?
• Verse 25:

  "And in your descendents all families of the earth shall be blessed."

  Has this, in the literal sense, taken place fully, partially or not at all? Is it figurative?

The Conclusion

What was the sermon attempting to establish?

The Challenge

We have touched in past weeks about how best to transmit our message to the people of our country today. Progressively, through my decades, I have found it increasingly difficult. Some have said that we should just leave it to the Spirit. Yet, successful evangelism appears to be aided by gifted men and women, coupled with contemporary strategies that may resonate with significant portions of our population. Perhaps we have a responsibility to give the Spirit a head start.

Discuss!

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

An extremely long chapter - the coming of the Holy Spirit, Peter's sermon, the first mass baptism, and a utopic view of the early church.

Before you start, take a moment to think about the Holy Spirit in Luke's first book. In Luke the Holy Spirit is only really in the beginning of the book, look up these passages and consider what we (as modern day Theophilusses) know about the Spirit:

• Luke 1:15; 35; 41; 67
• Luke 2:25-26
• Luke 3:16-22
• Luke 4:1
• Luke 11:13
• Luke 12:10-12

I have some reading for you, which I hope will lead to some good discussion this week!

• Chilson, Adriel. "Pentecostalism in Early Adventism."
  Adventist Review 169 (December 10, 1992): pp18-19.
  You may need to find the correct page in the online PDF!
• Read, W. E. "The Gift of Tongues: Some Experiences in the History of the Advent Movement."
  Ministry 37 (August 1964): pp18-23.
• F. Scott Spencer. "Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4)"
  Bible Odyssey, Society of Biblical Literature

As you read these, consider some of these questions:

• How does the Holy Spirit at Pentecost build on what we learnt in Luke?
• What do you think happened on Pentecost?
• How do these descriptions of early Adventist gatherings resonate with you?

Map of 'tongues' mentioned in Acts 2

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

We start a new series in which we will attempt to cover the Book of Acts (in detail) and many of the Pauline Epistles (in slightly less detail). Jesus has departed physically; the Holy Spirit is about to 'descend' and the gospel is about to be taken to 'all nations'. We will follow its journey as it takes place from around the early 30's to the late 60's AD along with Paul's letters which are associated with it.

This week we will take an overview of the text and focus on some parts of chapter 1. The first part of our time will be spent on the overview then we will move on to chapter 1.

Please skim-read through the whole of the book of Acts in an easy-to-read version such as the Contemporary English Version, (CEV), available here at Bible Gateway. Ignore the chapter divisions and verse numbers but be aware of the paragraph headings. Look for broad brush-strokes, not details.

Then read Acts 1 more carefully in a 'quality' translation.

Have a look at the other resources (a map, a timeline and a summary of the book) listed in the 'Resources' section below.

The Book of Acts

1. Having skimmed rapidly through Acts what was your overall reaction to the book?
2. How does the book of Acts compare with Luke's gospel?
3. What would the church be missing if Acts were not in the Canon of Scripture?
4. How do you rate Luke as a historian, diplomat, theologian?
5. What threads do you see running through Acts?

Acts 1

6. What is the difference between a disciple and an apostle?
7. What do you understand by the phrase 'to the ends of the earth'?
8. What is meant by the 'kingdom of God' in Acts 1:3?
9. What was the power that would be received (Acts 1:8)?
10. What characteristics of the apostles are revealed in Acts 1?

• PDF of these notes
• Maps, referred to in our discussion
• Spread Of Christianity Map
• Light Of Word Timeline
• Summary of Acts
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)