BIBLE IN TEN

Acts 23:10

Thursday, 28 December 2023
 
Now when there arose a great dissension, the commander, fearing lest Paul might be pulled to pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go down and take him by force from among them, and bring him into the barracks. Acts 23:10
 
The Greek more literally reads, “And great dissension arising, the commander, having feared lest Paul should be torn apart by them, commanded the detachment – having descended – to seize him from among them and bring into the barracks” (CG).
 
In the previous verse, the scribes of the Pharisees protested Paul’s treatment, defending the fact that he could have been spoken to by a spirit or an angel. This upset the apple cart, and things immediately devolved, as seen in the next words, “And great dissension arising.”
 
It is the same word just used in verse 7 that indicated a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees. Now, the entire council is in an uproar. This was so much the case that “the commander, having feared lest Paul should be torn apart by them.”
 
Here is the second and last use of the word diaspaó in Scripture. It was only seen elsewhere in Mark 5:4, where it noted that the demon-possessed man tore apart the chains that bound him. This is now what the commander feared would happen to Paul.
 
This argument between the two parties grew to such a state that each side was probably grabbing onto Paul and pulling him in either direction – one to rescue him and one to pummel him. In the tugging, he could actually be ripped apart. But, being a Roman citizen, the commander was responsible for him. Therefore, he “commanded the detachment – having descended – to seize him from among them and bring into the barracks.”
 
The soldiers would be necessary by this time because of the violence of those who meant Paul harm. This included the high priest himself, and it shows the level of depravity that they had fallen to, despite being the supposed representatives of the Lord on earth.
 
In securing Paul and taking him to the barracks, it could be that Paul had been in and out of the very same room that had been used for Jesus on the night before His cross. In contrast to the sufferings He faced, Paul would be kept safe in that same location.
 
Life application: The conduct of the council seems entirely out of place, and it is. However, it is not uncommon. Innumerable fights have broken out in parliaments, congresses, and other bodies that rule the people. Many of them are recorded and can be seen on YouTube.
 
It is not unlikely that if you pick a country at random and do a search for a fight in that country’s government, you will find a video of a fight breaking out. An arbitrary search immediately brought up a lively brawl in Kosovo’s cabinet, including men and women, older and younger, etc. Following that came a long list of similar videos. The Indian parliament went full throttle, into chaos throwing microphones and lamps; the Taiwanese were throwing chairs; and there was a lot of slapping and punching in the Jordanian parliament.
 
Anytime you deal with religion or politics, tempers are bound to get out of control. In the council where Paul stood, it was a mixture of both. Thus, it was an explosive environment that Paul was able to successfully divide, taking the focus off of him and demonstrating the hypocrisy of those who stood over him with their accusations.
 
If you attend any large gathering to defend your rights as a Christian, such as a state or local meeting, you should be prepared to have accusations fly, angry people demanding your silence, and possibly fighting to break out. In the place where civility is most expected, it often is not. Thus, it is a clear indication that things will only continue to devolve in the world around us.
 
The message of Christ is the only true hope and saving message in the world. And yet, it is becoming less and less tolerated because it deals with the underlying problem in man: sin. Because it does, in highlighting this defect, people will continue to strengthen their enmity toward the message it proclaims. Be aware of this as you head out and speak about the goodness of God in Christ. Many will find it offensive.
 
Glorious Lord God, we were all at enmity with You at some point. But because of Jesus, we were reconciled to You. Help us to be willing to share this message, even if it brings about trouble in our lives. Without addressing the problem of sin, all people remain Your enemies. Give us the ability to explain this and to effectively speak about the goodness of what You have done in sending Jesus to fix the problem. Amen.

Acts 23:9

Wednesday, 27 December 2023
 
Then there arose a loud outcry. And the scribes of the Pharisees’ party arose and protested, saying, “We find no evil in this man; but if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him, let us not fight against God.” Acts 23:9
 
The Greek more precisely reads, “And there was a great clamor. And having arisen, some of the scribes of the part of the Pharisees were contending, saying, ‘We find nothing evil in this man. And if a spirit spoke to him, or an angel, let us not fight against God’” (CG).
 
Luke just included an explanatory sentence to detail why the reaction in this verse now came about, “For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection—and no angel or spirit; but the Pharisees confess both.” Because of this division of thought between the sects, it now says, “And there was a great clamor.”
 
The loud outcry mentioned here was probably a lot of “harumphs” from one side and “here here’s” from the other. The word is kraugé. It is used, for example, to describe the loud cry in Matthew 25:6 and the crying noted in Revelation 21:4.
 
It indicates loud crying done with great emotion. Each side defended what they believed was possible based on Paul’s words. As it was a cry among many, the word “clamor” is well-suited to the intent. Next, it says, “And having arisen, some of the scribes of the part of the Pharisees were contending.”
 
The scribes are the learned men, whether from the Pharisees or the Sadducees. They were not an independent group but were simply those who were well educated and performed a scribal role. Being educated, they would be more disposed to protesting over the din of others and getting them to quiet down while they made their case.
 
In this situation, they probably sided with Paul more on a theological basis than on whether they agreed with him personally. In this case, they were saying, “We find nothing evil in this man.”
 
He had said nothing that was impossible from their worldview, and so, they defended his right to present his case based on that. Their protesting then shows they had a greater disdain for the opposing party than they did towards Paul’s misdirected (as they perceived) faith in Christ. Therefore, as a jab in the eyes of the Sadducees, they next called out, “And if a spirit spoke to him, or an angel, let us not fight against God.”
 
It should be noted that the final words of this verse, “let us not fight against God,” are disputed as to whether they are original or not. Many scholars see them as an insert to match what was said by Gamaliel in Acts 5:39. For this reason, they are not included in many translations.
 
Despite this, Paul’s diversion was successful. Their words, “And if a spirit spoke to him, or an angel,” are likely referring to Paul’s claim in Acts 22:17-21, of which they would be aware by now.
 
Unless they accepted that Paul’s vision was real and from a divine source, the words “let us not fight against God” seem to be out of place. Demons can speak as well as the Lord. And so, for them to include God in the statement would imply that they accepted his words, including being sent off to the Gentiles. This seems less likely, and the words may have been inserted at a later time by someone attempting to give additional credence to Paul’s case.
 
Life application: The old saying, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend,” seems to apply to this verse. The Pharisees stood against Jesus, and they continued to stand against those who followed Him. However, the theology behind the Sadducees’ religion was so aberrant to them that they were willing to use Paul as an ally to poke at what they perceived as a completely misguided approach to Scripture.
 
This is not uncommon in Christian circles. There may be two completely divergent approaches to a particular concept, and yet adherents to one or the other may join together to defend a third, unrelated issue.
 
For example, Dispensationalists and Calvinists may be at odds over the state of Israel, but they may be united in their dismissal of evolution. Therefore, they may put aside their unhappiness concerning the former issue and unite in a letter to a Christian college that has recently hired an evolutionist professor.
 
Some things are worth setting aside differences over in order to secure an intended goal in another area. Looking for common ground in this manner is not caving to one side or another. And yet, protestations by others may rise to a crescendo, calling out charges of apostasy or compromise – “I didn’t get a harumph out of that guy!” This is inevitable. Some people feel so passionately about a particular issue that it will cloud their thinking in other areas.
 
Be on the lookout for such things and be ready to defend why you take particular actions. If feelings are hurt, or charges of apostasy are thrown at you, for standing up for the truth, so be it. You can’t please everybody, and some seed pickers will never be pleased with anything. Ignore them, and you will do well.
 
Heavenly Father, may we be willing to stand up and speak out when it is right to do so. Help us not to be timid or pusillanimous in our approach to sound doctrine and right conduct before You. Strengthen us in our resolve to stand for what is right. To Your glory, we pray. Amen.
 

Acts 23:8

Tuesday, 26 December 2023
 
For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection—and no angel or spirit; but the Pharisees confess both. Acts 23:8
 
Luke just noted that a dissension had arisen between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Now, as an explanatory thought concerning why, he records, “For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection.”
 
Although it has been said in a jillion sermons over the years, this commentary would be remiss if it didn’t include the words, “This is why they are sad, you see.” Like evolutionists today, the Sadducees believed that this life was all one got, and thus, they were to personally make the best of it.
 
The difference between Sadducees and evolutionists would be that Sadducees believed that there is a God, and He rewards men in this life for right conduct. Thus, it would have been a religious expression filled with self-righteousness and works of the law to justify oneself before God. Along with this failed view, Luke continues describing their theology, saying, “and no angel or spirit.”
 
The doctrine of the Sadducees is hard to reconcile with the writings of Moses. As the rest of the Old Testament is an extension of the dispensation of the law, their doctrine is simply irreconcilable with what God had been doing in the stream of time concerning Israel’s history. It is generally believed that they believed, as described by Charles Ellicott –
 
“For them the ‘angels’ of the Pentateuch were not distinct beings, but evanescent manifestations of the divine glory.”
 
In other words, when an angel is referred to in the books of Moses, it was to the Sadducees actually God manifesting Himself in a supernatural way to those He encountered. It is true that, at times, this is the case. The angel of the Lord appeared in human form to Abraham in Genesis 18, for example. However, this doesn’t explain the two who came with the Lord.
 
Their explanation of such things was certainly out of line with a right reading of the words of Moses and later biblical writers. To complete the explanation of why the dissension arose, Luke next says, “but the Pharisees confess both.”
 
As for the word ‘both,’ it shows that the Sadducees are denying two things: 1) the resurrection and 2) any non-corporeal being. Hence, this stand lumps in angels, spirits of dead men, etc. It also, by default, means that they would not be able to accept God as Spirit. Their entire theology was twisted, just as Jesus demonstrated in Matthew 22:23-33.
 
Because of this, there was a great divide between these two camps. Both would have been extremely passionate about their view, and it is surprising they could even stand to be in the same room with one another at times. Such was the case now. Paul had effectively separated the two through his masterful use of understanding the layout of things and then taking advantage of the situation at hand.
 
Life application: The doctrine of the Sadducees is hard to reconcile with the writings of Moses or of any of the rest of the Old Testament. It took a great deal of presuppositional bias and cognitive dissonance to come to such views and then stand by them.
 
However, the doctrines of the Catholic Church, the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and many other sects and cults are just as convoluted today. It shouldn't be surprising that there are those who claimed to follow Moses and yet denied or allegorized his words.
 
In saying that this is the only life, they would then have a special type of control over those whom they taught: “If you want God to bless you and make you rich and comfortable, you will do what we say.”
 
When the Roman Catholic Church teaches works, they have far greater control over man than when grace is proclaimed. Understanding grace means understanding that Christ has done all the work necessary to be saved and to keep being saved forever. This obviously leads to the understanding that wielding monetary control over people is wrong, as is having control over their afterlife.
 
An acceptance of, and then gratefulness for, God’s grace should alone direct where one gives. And a confident anticipation of glory because of faith in Christ should alone direct the steps of those who have been bestowed that grace through Him.
 
The doctrine of the Sadducees was one of bondage and denial, just as all heretical doctrines are. They are manipulative. They are set up to serve those who are in positions of power within the particular expression.
 
Lord God, please keep us from the twisting and manipulative minds of those who would lead us away from grace and toward bondage and self-righteousness. With grace, there can be no bondage because it is bestowed freely and without conditions. Simple faith alone results in the eternal blessings promised in Your word. Thank You, O God, for Your word and for Jesus who is revealed in it. Amen.
 

Acts 23:7

Monday, 25 December 2023
 
And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the assembly was divided. Acts 23:7
 
In the previous verse, Paul, standing before the council, had called out in the assembly that he stood before them because of “the hope and a resurrection of the dead.” With that remembered, it next says, “And when he had said this, a dissension arose.”
 
His words had the exact effect he intended. The council had the hope that he would be quickly voted as an offender of the law and punished according to the law. Before such a decision was rendered, the congregation instead had divided right down the middle of the two parties. As Luke said, the dissension was “between the Pharisees and the Sadducees.”
 
Rather, the Greek literally reads, “and there was a dissension, the Pharisees and the Sadducees.” Therefore, rather than “between,” it should say, “and there was a division of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.” In other words, there was always a theological disagreement between the two. However, this separated their ability to sit and reason together any longer.
 
One can see the same effect today in various situations. For example, if there is a gathering of Christian leaders to discuss the state of the nation of Israel, there will be obvious disagreements during the discussion. However, as long as the main subject, that of the state of the nation of Israel is addressed, things will normally go well.
 
However, if an instigator wants to start a division, he might inject something – such as the doctrine of the rapture – into his discussion. By doing this, he will uncover an underlying disagreement that will divert the attention away from the original topic. As it was not the main point being addressed, people will passionately divide into factions. With that, the dam will break loose, and a complete lack of control over the gathering is bound to ensue.
 
This is just what Paul did, knowing what the outcome of such a proclamation as his would bring about. And just as he had hoped, Luke records, “and the assembly was divided.”
 
The word translated as divided comes from the Greek schizo. It is where our modern word schism is derived. The rending of the veil in the temple at Jesus’ death uses this same word. In this case, it signifies that a complete division of thought on the subject was the result.
 
Life application: The example of introducing the rapture into a discussion about the state of the nation of Israel is bound to cause trouble because the two issues are actually interconnected. If someone thinks Israel has been replaced by the church, then he will normally dismiss the doctrine of the rapture.
 
In Paul’s case, he was originally accused of violating the Law of Moses. However, if his hope is in the risen Messiah, Jesus, then that means the words of Jeremiah 31:31 have been fulfilled in Jesus’ work. As such, the Law of Moses – which is a part of the Mosaic Covenant – has been superseded by the introduction of the New Covenant.
 
Therefore, Paul could not be a violator of the law. He had moved from Moses to Jesus. The council could still charge him and have him punished, but it would be based on a faulty rendering of their own law, which foresaw and planned its own obsolescence.
 
Even if the Pharisees disagreed with him over this, their own doctrine was still sided with Paul’s overall worldview. If one wants to get to the heart of a matter in such a forum, by knowing the underlying reason for holding onto the various views being discussed, that knowledge can be used to one’s advantage.
 
On the other hand, if one wants to avoid getting trapped in someone else’s machinations in such a situation, it can be done by quickly noticing the ploy and stating something like, “You may have a point on that issue, but this is not the time or place for it to be addressed. It is a red herring. We need to get back to the main issue of discussion.”
 
If you are on social media, this type of diversionary ploy is brought in with almost every topic that is introduced as a main matter of discussion. Within a very short time, matters completely irrelevant to the original topic will be introduced, cyber punches will fly, and friendships can quickly be destroyed.
 
Pay attention to such things, and you can easily weed out miscreants who love to stir the pot by watching how they sneakily enter into any given discussion.
 
O God, we often fail to think logically about matters we are involved in. People may want to divide others for their own perverse purposes and so they introduce a fallacious argument, hoping it will take root and cause a schism. Help us to identify such things and work to quash their intentions before they become established. Yes, Lord God, give us wisdom in such things. Amen.

Acts 23:6

Sunday, 24 December 2023
 
But when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!” Acts 23:6
 
Paul just proclaimed that he was unaware that the one who ordered him to be struck was the high priest. Now, before anyone else could chime in, he continued his words. Luke notes, “But when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees.”
 
We are not told how Paul perceived some to be Sadducees and some Pharisees. It is possible that they maintained certain seats Just as Congress does for those on the right and those in the wrong. It could be that they wore garbs that identified them. He also may have recognized some of them, even after these many long years.
 
What may be more probable, based on what had just occurred, is that the attack by the High Priest prompted the Pharisees to react negatively towards him in their words or demeanor: “Is this how Sadducees act in the Sanhedrin?” Whatever brought the fact to his attention, he was ready to act quickly in order to take advantage of the situation. Perceiving this division as he did, “he cried out in the council.”
 
Paul was not the timid sort. He obviously had a quick temper. Jesus was also not timid, but His time before the rulers was markedly different. Isaiah prophesied that Jesus would stand before His accusers and not open His mouth. That is confirmed in the gospels –
 
“Now Jesus stood before the governor. And the governor asked Him, saying, ‘Are You the King of the Jews?’
Jesus said to him, ‘It is as you say.’ 12 And while He was being accused by the chief priests and elders, He answered nothing.
13 Then Pilate said to Him, ‘Do You not hear how many things they testify against You?’ 14 But He answered him not one word, so that the governor marveled greatly.” Matthew 27:11-14
 
Other than responding to direct questions, Jesus remained silent. Paul, however, openly spoke out at his trial. His words to them are next recorded by Luke, saying, “Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee.”
 
His declaration is given with express intent and purpose. He first cordially addressed all. This would help him gain the upper hand through his gracious address. Those disposed to his coming words will feel the fraternal bond more closely.
 
He then carefully noted his position within the society. Not only was he a Pharisee, but the tradition in his family preceded him. This was intended to bind him directly to one party while separating him theologically from the other. This was the Roman tactic known as divide et impera, divide and rule.
 
The words “son of a Pharisee” can have one of a few meanings. It could mean that his father was literally a Pharisee, or it could mean that he was a student of the Pharisees, just as a “son of the prophets” indicates one who was in the school of the prophets. It would then indicate an adherence to the tenets and traditions of the body.
 
The latter seems likely, as any Pharisee standing there could make the latter claim. However, it is still possible that he was claiming that his present doctrine matched that of the Pharisees, even if he had diverted from a future messianic hope to a hope that was fully realized in the coming of Christ Jesus. That is something that would sync with his next words, “concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead.”
 
In order to fully identify with the Pharisees, he openly avowed one of the tenets to which they ascribed but which the Sadducees denied, meaning this hope and resurrection of the dead. The fact is that most or all of the Pharisees probably didn't have a full understanding at this point of what he was being questioned about.
 
He was accused of certain things while in the temple. He was then arrested by the Romans. When the commander of the Roman contingent couldn’t fully determine how to handle Paul’s situation, he was brought before the council. Paul, without fabricating a thing, says that he was standing there before the council because of this hope.
 
This is a true statement because it was the sole purpose of his apostolic ministry. Jesus had become the reason for everything he did. Therefore, regardless of the surface reason why he was arrested, it ultimately came back to the thought in these words. It was for this that he proclaimed, “I am being judged.”
 
In proclaiming his hope and the resurrection of the dead, he would completely divide the assembly down party lines. At this, no other tenet would matter to the Pharisees. At the same time, it would be objectionable to the Sadducees who stood against any such notion.
 
As for Paul’s status before them, it is debated whether his words were actually correct in the fullest sense. Was he really a Pharisee at this point? The answer is that he was no less a product of his training than a graduate of a university.
 
A person with a degree from Yale is an alum of Yale, regardless of whether he continued to accept the tenets of his training or not. Paul cannot be said to have lied or even stretched the truth in his claim, at least from the perspective of the tenet concerning the resurrection. His masterful proclamation here can be tied back to Jesus’ words in Mark 13:9-11 –
 
“But watch out for yourselves, for they will deliver you up to councils, and you will be beaten in the synagogues. You will be brought before rulers and kings for My sake, for a testimony to them. 10 And the gospel must first be preached to all the nations. 11 But when they arrest you and deliver you up, do not worry beforehand, or premeditate what you will speak. But whatever is given you in that hour, speak that; for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit.”
 
Life application: Paul was in a bit of a pickle until he avowed his faith in the hope and resurrection of the dead. In this, he made a clear delineation between what he believed and what he rejected. If you are willing to speak about your faith, you must be prepared to do the same.
 
Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe Jesus is God. Do you? If you do, you need to be willing to state this, correcting their deceit. In his second epistle, John writes –
 
“Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; 11 for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.” 2 John 1:9-11
 
We are not to greet such people or welcome them because when we do, we implicitly condone their evil deeds. However, this does not mean we cannot stand in the same doorway and speak against their false doctrine.
 
There are churches that do not support the modern nation of Israel. In fact, they openly speak against it. What is your stand on this issue? One thing is for sure: if you openly express what you believe, either way, you will be initiating a divide.
 
Some will claim, “We shouldn’t talk about such matters. Rather, we should focus on love.” That is simply an attempt to make the issue, which actually exists, and which is theologically important, go away. Theology, by its very nature, is divisive. There is a right way and a wrong way in all major biblical themes.
 
Decide now what points of doctrine you will stand on and whether you are willing to debate them or not. That way, you will be prepared to either pass on the issue or defend it.
 
One more point to consider is the timing of such a debate. If you are evangelizing someone who knows nothing about the Bible, it would be important to defend the deity of Christ right then and there. And yet, it would not be profitable to get into the details of why you support Israel or not unless that was the reason you got into the conversation in the first place. The first issue is of paramount importance in gospel-related discussion. The second is not. Learn to use tact and prudence, remembering the forum in which you are currently speaking.
 
Lord God, give us wisdom in our discussions about our theology and particular points of doctrine that we ascribe to. May we speak when it is necessary and refrain from speaking when it is not. Our goal should be to be helpful and productive in whatever situation we find ourselves in. So, Lord, help us in this. Amen.
 

Acts 23:5

Saturday, 23 December 2023
 
Then Paul said, “I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’” Acts 23:5
 
In the previous verse, those in the council questioned Paul’s words to the high priest, saying, “Do you revile God’s high priest?” In response, it next notes, “Then Paul said, ‘I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest.’”
 
Rather, Luke records it exactly as Paul would speak, first using a pluperfect verb and then a present tense verb, “I had not known that he is the high priest.” He is indicating that at the time he said his words, he was unaware of the fact that he was addressing the high priest. However, he now sees, based on their response, that he is the high priest.
 
There are various ways that his words might be taken. They may have been a note of sarcasm, stressing his words as if he was fraudulently appointed as high priest. Or it could be that he didn't know who had made the statement as his attention was elsewhere. It could also be that he couldn't identify who it was that had spoken because of bad eyesight.
 
No matter which is correct, he immediately pulls back from his impulsive response and cites the law which had been ignored by them, saying, “for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’”
 
His words provide the substance of a portion of Exodus 22:28 –
 
“You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people.”
 
If the high priest was legitimate, calling him a plastered wall might be taken as a curse. If so, they could have legitimate charges brought against him. By his response, this was no longer the case. Also, in citing the law that they ignored, Paul has gained the upper hand in the matter, regardless of how the situation turns out. He will have shown that he is aware of the law and is able to properly apply its precepts when situations arise that require him to do so.
 
The high priest, on the other hand, either didn’t know the law or he flippantly disregarded it. Either way, it demonstrated his unworthiness to be in the position he filled.
 
Life application: When reading words, there are times when it is hard to know what a person is saying. By placing the stress on one word or another within a sentence, we can come to a completely different conclusion about what is being said.
 
Quite often, this will not be the case in the original language. Therefore, precision of translation is necessary. However, this is often lacking. Hence, reading multiple translations may provide clarity for the reader. However, there are times when vagueness or ambiguity may lie in the original. Thus, the words must be taken in the greater context of what is being said.
 
Therefore, knowing the Bible through constant reading is necessary to know where there is an error in thinking about how a set of words should be translated. Be sure to keep reading the word, keep referring to other translations before coming to unfounded conclusions, and check with commentaries when you are still not sure.
However, it is still common for those fully trained in the original languages to come to completely opposite conclusions about what is being said. Therefore, it again may be up to you to know what they have missed by knowing the rest of the word. Be sure to read the word, pray for the Lord to be with you in your study, and don’t be quick to come to conclusions or accept the conclusions of others.
 
What a large and complicated word You have given us, O God. It is filled with things that are often quite complicated or hard to understand. And yet, it is a word that gives a simple overall message of love, reconciliation, and our need for Your grace. Help us to have the basics down properly. From there, we can pursue the rest of the word in its proper light. Help us in this, O God. Amen.
 

Acts 23:4

Friday, 22 December 2023
 
And those who stood by said, “Do you revile God’s high priest?” Acts 23:4
 
In the previous verse, Paul rebuked the person who ordered him to be struck, saying that God would strike him for his hypocrisy. Now, it says, “And those who stood by said, ‘Do you revile God’s high priest?’”
 
In the response, the word “God” is in the emphatic position. According to their words, the high priest was the one who sat as God’s representative to the people. There are two views on this statement. Either he was actually ordained as the high priest and was qualified to act in that capacity, or he was an illegitimate high priest who didn’t possess the ordination necessary to execute the duties of this job.
 
If he was legitimate, the Law of Moses indicated that he was, in fact, the one to mediate between God and the people. He was due honor and respect because of the position he held. If he was illegitimate, then he was not worthy of the title or respect of the job. However, Paul could still be punished for not giving it simply because of the power held by those who supported the high priest.
 
As for Paul’s response to this charge, it can also be taken then in more than one way, as will be seen.
 
Life application: In the 2020 elections, an incredible amount of fraud took place. To this day, a sizeable portion of the electorate feels the election was stolen away from President Donald Trump.
 
The power of the progressive left has tentacles that extend to every corner of society, deviously and cunningly doing things that are outright illegal. However, they also possess the power to allow themselves to get away with almost anything, no matter how egregious the violation of law.
 
At the same time, people who have committed no crime at all have been paraded before the public and charged with serious offenses, such as insurrection. They have been incarcerated, and their lives have been ruined. Joe Biden has committed great crimes against the nation and against its people. And yet, after three years in office, nothing continues to be done about these things.
 
This is a fallen world, and such things are to be expected. Christians must use wisdom in how they approach such matters. While being responsible for upholding the laws of the nation, they should also work within the framework of those laws to root out wickedness and stand against evil. Pray for wisdom in how to conduct your affairs in times such as this.
 
But also know that the wicked shall have their end. A day lies ahead for the redeemed of the Lord where righteousness will rule forever and ever. God will remove all that is unclean and defiled, and life without the wicked will be our eternal state. Thank God for Jesus, who makes these things possible.
 
Heavenly Father, thank You for Your wondrous plan of redemption. You have brought a people out of this fallen, sin-stained world and back to Yourself. We praise You for what You have done. Be glorified forever and ever, O God! Amen.

Acts 23:3

Thursday, 21 December 2023
 
Then Paul said to him, “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! For you sit to judge me according to the law, and do you command me to be struck contrary to the law?” Acts 23:3
 
The Greek more literally reads, “Then Paul said to him, ‘God is set to strike you, you plastered wall. And you, you sit judging me according to the law, and law-transgressing command me to be struck?’” (CG).
 
In the previous verse, the high priest Ananias commanded that Paul be struck on the mouth. Now, in response to that, it says, “Then Paul said to him, ‘God sets to strike you.’”
 
The verb melló gives the sense of “about to happen.” It is variously translated, but it carries with it the idea of expectation. Being in the present tense, and as a single word to define it, “sets” get the idea across. With that, Paul next says, “you plastered wall.”
 
This is the second and last use of the word koniaó in Scripture. It is derived from konia, dust. Its only other use is found in Matthew 23:27 –
 
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness.”
 
The word, though coming from dust, also signifies lime used to plaster something over. Paul uses this expression to describe this terrible person. It was either an idiom of the time which was used by Jesus, or it was something that Jesus coined and became known among the disciples.
 
If coined by Jesus, it was now idiomatically used by them. In essence, it means a hypocrite or having a hypocritical attitude. The reason for this is seen in Paul’s continued words, “And you, you sit judging me according to the law, and law-transgressing command me to be struck?”
 
Paul cites the intent of the law in his defense, though not a particular passage. In what he says is a word found only this one time in Scripture, paranomeó. It is a single noun derived from para, by or alongside, and nomos, law.
 
In the sense used by Paul, it means law-transgressing. This is justification for using the idiomatic expression. The high priest was giving a law in violation of the law. His actions were hypocritical. It was as if he was a dirty wall that was simply plastered over to hide the defilement below.
 
In John 7, in his words to the Pharisees, Nicodemus said, “Does our law judge a man before it hears him and knows what he is doing?” (John 7:51). This was understood and taken as an axiom within Israel. Before a judgment for guilt and/or punishment was rendered, there had to be a trial to determine the facts. Paul was denied this and given a punishment before he had even spoken in his defense.
 
As for Paul’s words to Ananias, although extra-biblical, Josephus says that he was eventually killed by the Sicarii. (Flavius Josephus, Wars ii 17 2-9).
 
Life application: Our world today is becoming more and more corrupt. Unlawful renderings of judgment permeate the nations of the world. Set laws are flagrantly ignored, and those in positions of legal authority demonstrate overt biases against particular ideologies. And yet, they refuse to recuse themselves. Instead, they convict the innocent and acquit the guilty.
 
This type of corruption will only increase as the world continues to devolve into anarchy and chaos. As this occurs, decent people are harmed, Christian rights are removed, and unrighteousness will eventually permeate the world.
 
It is frustrating and even maddening to behold, but it is not the end of the story. Just as Paul said to Ananias, we can rightfully assert that God will strike them as well. Their teeny little victories will not be remembered when they are brought to an end. Someday, they will be raised before God at the Great White Throne. There, they will be judged and condemned. Their destiny is the Lake of Fire.
 
We shouldn’t rejoice that they will be condemned, but we should be comforted that their actions will be judged and the people of God will be vindicated. From that point on, righteousness will rule for God’s people for all eternity. Don’t look at what is happening now as a failure of God. He is allowing what shouldn’t be saved to destroy itself. What is of value will be purified and will then go forth in perfect goodness forever and ever.
 
Thank You, O God, for the precious hope we possess. This fallen world is perishing and will pass away. But those who have called on Jesus shall be raised to live in a state of perfection and glory forever and ever. May that wondrous day be soon, O God. Amen.

Acts 23:2

Wednesday, 20 December 2023
 
And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. Acts 23:2
 
Chapter 23 began with Paul telling the council that he had citizened in all good conscience before God, even until that day. With that, a violent reaction occurs. What Luke records begins with, “And the high priest Ananias.”
 
This Ananias would have been the son of Nebedæus. He had been suspended from his office during the reign of Emperor Claudius for an offense. At that time, he was sent to Rome (Josephus Ant. xx. 6, 2).
 
The Pulpit Commentary says, “He was a violent, haughty, gluttonous, and rapacious man, and yet looked up to by the Jews.”
 
Vincent’s Word Studies says, “He is described as a revengeful and rapacious tyrant. We are told that he reduced the inferior priests almost to starvation by defrauding them of their tithes, and sent his creatures to the threshing-floors with bludgeons to seize the tithes by force.”
 
This repugnant man then “commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth.”
 
The words more exactingly read, “to strike his mouth.” It is referring to Paul’s mouth. He was brought before the council to state his case. With his opening words, this violent reaction from the vile high priest of Israel was to strike the place from which his words uttered.
 
The conduct of the high priest bears out that he was at least a law-breaker and a violent man. Paul had done nothing wrong, and he had not been convicted of any wrongdoing. And yet, he was punished in violation of the law. There was first to be a conviction before any punishment could be meted out.
 
Life application: In once Christ-honoring countries of the world, the radical and violent left, just like Ananias, has taken over to the point that laws are flippantly disobeyed. Those who commit horrendous crimes are given little or no sentences at all, and those who defend themselves and their families are counted as criminals.
 
Violence in the left-leaning cities is completely out of control, the citizens live in fear, and God is mocked at every meeting of the city councils. Nations are becoming ripe for judgment because of these ungodly people. And what is worse is that they are only getting worse with each passing day. They have lost any sense of moral reason and have become like those described by Jude –
 
“But these speak evil of whatever they do not know; and whatever they know naturally, like brute beasts, in these things they corrupt themselves.” Jude 1:10
 
Various translations say, “unreasoning animals,” “irrational animals,” “unthinking animals,” “wild animals,” “creatures without reason,” etc. The point is that they have devolved in their thinking to the point where they no longer carry any sense of human cognition, morality, care for others, etc.
 
And more, these people have moved into the pulpit and the classroom. They are rearing a generation of people just like them, spiritually dead and morally without care or cognition. This cannot end well.
 
It is incumbent on all to do their utmost to stand against this unholy tide of violence and perversion, even if it means being ostracized or labeled in a manner that is untrue concerning the faith they possess. We cannot remain silent about our convictions or in our votes without being guilty of allowing these things to devolve further.
 
O God, help us to be strong in our resolve as we stand against the moral perverseness of those who have taken over much of our societies in the world today. If we must pay a cost for our speech, may it be to Your honor and glory that we do so. Help us to be fixed and firm in our doctrine, standing on Your word as we conduct our lives before You. Amen.
 

Acts 23:1

Tuesday, 19 December 2023
 
Then Paul, looking earnestly at the council, said, “Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.” Acts 23:1
 
The Greek is more literally translated, “And Paul, having looked fixedly at the council, said, ‘Men, brothers, I – in all good conscience – have citizened to God until this day.’”
 
In the previous verse, Paul was brought by the Roman commander and set before the council. With him there, Chapter 23 begins with, “And Paul, having looked fixedly.”
 
Paul’s fixed look implies a staring gaze. HELPS Word Studies says it signifies “to fix one’s eyes on some object continually and intensely – ‘to look straight at, to stare at, to keep one’s eyes fixed on.’” It was used in Luke 4:20, Acts 6:15, and Acts 7:55, among other times. If his eyesight was bad, as speculated, it would be all the more relevant to show that he diligently was attempting to meet the eyes of his accusers. Therefore, he having looked fixedly “at the council, said, ‘Men, brothers.’”
 
In his address, he greets them as equals, “men, brothers.” This would have been the first time in a quarter of a century that he stood in this place, sometime around the stoning of Stephen. There, after all these years, he begins his defense with the words, “I – in all good conscience.”
 
Here, a new word is introduced into Scripture, suneidésis. It signifies “joint-knowing.” It thus signifies “conscience which joins moral and spiritual consciousness as part of being created in the divine image. Accordingly, all people have this God-given capacity to know right from wrong because each is a free moral agent” (HELPS Word Studies).
 
Paul is summing up all of his time during those intervening years and his ministry to the Gentiles, whom they so despised, as right and appropriate. He asserts that his moral conduct in this regard was above reproach and that it would have been approved of by the higher moral power before whom he conducted his affairs. That is next expressly stated in the words “have citizened to God until this day.”
 
Another new word is brought into Scripture here and is defined by a new Charlie word now gifted to the English language, politeuomai. It means to behave or live as a citizen, coming from polités, a citizen. Thus, it means to citizen oneself. As it is a perfect participle, “have citizened” fits the meaning exactly. The word is found only elsewhere in Scripture in Philippians 1:27 –
 
“Only let your conduct [lit: citizening (another new Charlie word)] be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of your affairs, that you stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel.”
 
This word is an idiom of the times to mean that he had lived properly, and his conscience was clean, even before God. This would have riled up those before him to no end, having been aware of his efforts among the Gentiles and of his walk with the Messiah they had rejected.
 
For some other times Paul speaks of conscience, see 2 Timothy 1:3; 1 Timothy 1:5; Romans 2:15, 13:5; 1 Corinthians 4:4, 10:25; and Acts 24:16.
 
Life application: As noted in previous commentaries, Paul never denied his citizenship either before God or as a citizen of the empire (Rome) or country (Israel) to which he belonged. He used each according to the rights and benefits conferred upon him because of that citizenship.
 
And more, he claimed his rights to a heavenly citizenship as is indicated elsewhere in the New Testament. Of this status within a society, Wikipedia defines the word politeia. It is a help in understanding one’s rights within a particular society –
 
According to Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon a meaning of politeia is ‘the conditions and rights of the citizen, or citizenship’, analogous to the Latin civitas.
 
Politeia, in Greek means the community of citizens in a city / state. ...
 
Politeia is derived from both the root word polis meaning ‘city’ or ‘state’, and from the verb politeuomai that means ‘I am living as an active citizen of the polis.’
 
People living in a Greek city/state were not necessarily citizens. A person that was ostracized from the active matrix of the city was an example of such. Another example was people who lived in the city but were not active citizens who had a say in the political processes of the community. Women, slaves and others who Greek men deemed unworthy were not in the active matrix of the political formations of that city state, making them not-citizens, so not part of politeia.
 
In countries of the world today, many illegal aliens are brought in. And yet, they do not possess the rights of the nation in which they live. In the visible church, there are unbelievers. They are in the church, but they are not of the church. Thus, they have no right to the citizenship of the church.
 
Paul held the rights of a Roman, a man of Israel, and a member of the church. He thus possessed the rights of the heavenly citizenship found in Christ. The Jews who had rejected Jesus do not possess those rights. This continues to this day.
 
This is an important point. Dual Covenantalism claims that Jews are saved by adherence to the law. This would be like saying that the illegals, or even legal immigrants still on visas or Green Cards, in the US have rights to citizenship because they work in jobs earning money.
 
Anyone with a modicum of sense can tell that such a notion is false. Only a person who is made a citizen can have the rights of a citizen. This is the false dichotomy set forth by people like John Hagee, who teach Dual Covenantalism. They claim rights for others that do not exist. The only way to possess the heavenly rights of citizenship of the New Covenant is to enter into the New Covenant through faith in the completed work of Jesus Christ.
 
But this also again shows the sad state of those Christians who do not participate in the political decisions of the nations in which they live. They fail to understand that God has placed them in those nations to be active members of them.
 
Understanding the nature of the Hebrew or Greek writings from the perspective of the people who lived during those times helps shed light on what we are being told in Scripture. Be sure to pay heed. Be sure to participate in each body of which you are a citizen. And be sure to never acknowledge others’ rights to citizenship that they do not possess, lest you lead them to a false sense of security that they do not enjoy.
 
Lord God Almighty, may we diligently study Your word and show ourselves approved before You by adhering to the precepts You have laid out for us there. May we carefully consider our state before You and never waffle in conducting our lives accordingly. We have been granted heavenly citizenship because of Jesus. Help us to live in accord with that truth. Amen.
 

Acts 22:30

Monday, 18 December 2023
 
The next day, because he wanted to know for certain why he was accused by the Jews, he released him from his bonds, and commanded the chief priests and all their council to appear, and brought Paul down and set him before them. Acts 22:30
 
A literal translation would be, “And the next day, desiring to know for certain why he is accused by the Jews, he loosed him and commanded the chief priests and all the council to assemble. And having brought down Paul, set him among them” (CG).
 
In the previous verse, the Roman soldiers withdrew from their plans to scourge Paul. Now, the words continue with, “And the next day.”
 
Without any delay, and certainly because Paul was a Roman, the commander acted. He surely didn’t want to keep Paul incarcerated if he had done nothing wrong. Continuing, it says he was “desiring to know for certain why he is accused by the Jews.”
 
This refers back to Acts 21:34, which occurred on the previous day –
 
“And some among the multitude cried one thing and some another.
So when he could not ascertain the truth because of the tumult, he commanded him to be taken into the barracks.”
 
The circumstances following need to be carefully considered. If Paul was a Roman, then the commander would certainly have talked to him about what happened and asked about the situation. No charges had been filed against Paul that we are aware of. He was in the midst of a ruckus and was carried out of it. At this point, the commander just wants to know for certain why he was accused.
 
As he had not been able to satisfactorily determine what the Jews were in a tizzy about, and because he could not “examine” Paul through torture, he needed to set the record straight before he could take any further action. Therefore, “he loosed him.”
 
The word is luó. It means to loosen. Thus, he may have been bound, or he simply may have been in a cell from which he was released. Either way, once he was loosed, the commander “commanded the chief priests and all the council to assemble.”
 
A general meeting of the leadership was called. This probably would never have been needed if Paul was not a Roman. Instead, the scourging would have revealed what they needed to know. However, that could not take place, and so this meeting was necessary. There is still the consideration that if Paul was telling the truth in whatever they had discussed, he would still be open to attack and harm. Therefore, the verse and the chapter end with, “And having brought down Paul, set him among them.”
 
In order to both protect Paul and also to get the leaders to tell their side of the story, he had Paul escorted to them for all to openly work through the matter. The commander had made a giant mistake in his handling of Paul the previous day. He would not allow such an error to take place again. Therefore, Paul was to be carefully escorted and protected during the entire process.
 
Life application: The account of the Roman commander shows that cutting corners is not the best way to go about things. He was given the responsibility of maintaining the peace, but he was also given the responsibility of protecting the citizens of Rome from those among whom they dwelt.
 
It may have been unexpected to find a Jewish man in the middle of a ruckus to be a Roman citizen, but it was something he should have checked anyway. This is especially so because putting anyone through a scourging would be a serious matter. But to put a Roman citizen through that ordeal would be a life-changing ordeal for both of them.
 
He didn’t stop to check. Now he must make an extra effort to determine what he might have found out the day before without the additional grief. We can learn from this. When we have a matter that is set before us, the least we can do is think through what the outcome of being hasty may be. Small things can turn into big problems if we don’t consider how our decisions may adversely affect the result we are trying to obtain.
 
Go slow, think through your actions, and then act in a wise and prudent manner in the matters you are involved in. Be sure this is especially so when others may be negatively affected by what you do. Stop and pray about matters as well. James tells us that if we lack wisdom, we should ask of God, “who gives to all liberally and without reproach” (James 1:5).
 
Glorious Lord God, may the decisions we make and the actions we take be carefully considered before we act. Give us wisdom to not cause harm to others as we go through life. May we carefully think through the steps we take so that harmony will reign, and You will be glorified through the wise conduct of Your people. Amen.
 

Acts 22:29

Sunday, 17 December 2023
 
Then immediately those who were about to examine him withdrew from him; and the commander was also afraid after he found out that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him. Acts 22:29
 
The words are more literally rendered, “Immediately, therefore, those being about to examine him departed from him. And also, the commander was afraid, having ascertained that he is a Roman, and because he had bound him” (CG).
 
Paul just confirmed to the commander that he was born a citizen. With that, it next says, “Immediately, therefore, those being about to examine him departed from him.”
 
Oopsie. As soon as the words left Paul's lips, they stepped back from his “examination.” The word here is used in a euphemistic sense for scourging him. They would have done so until he spoke whatever they wanted to hear. Hence, it was an examination.
 
This is the second and last use of the word anetazó in Scripture. The first was in verse 22:24. As noted then, it signifies thorough examining, as if a person were on trial, such as a witness. In Paul’s case, the examining was to be done in conjunction with torture. There is a point where even the hardest of men will yield under such inquisition, although that point may lead to death.
 
As for Paul, any thought of the examination continuing was ended. One might ask why he didn’t object to the punishment he and Silas received in Acts 16, but he objected now in Jerusalem. The reason is that their beating in Acts 16 was with rods. Though painful, it would not be life-threatening. This treatment in Jerusalem would have resulted in a great loss of blood and an extended period of convalescence, or possibly death.
 
Therefore, and knowing that he could use this to his advantage, he appealed to his citizenship. Understanding this, it next says, “And also, the commander was afraid.”
 
The word afraid could be an understatement, depending on those appointed over him. He had almost degraded a fellow citizen in one of the most humiliating and painful examinations that could be imagined. Having even prepared Paul for this by stretching him out and readying the scourges was intolerable treatment. He knew this, “having ascertained that he is a Roman, and because he had bound him.”
 
One thing is certain, it would not be wrong to bind him in chains. This is known because Paul will be in chains later, even though a Roman. Therefore, the illegal binding is rather having strapped him into a position where he could be tortured and then binding him there with leather straps.
 
Life application: Imagine yourself in a crowd, and the authorities were about to execute a baby in front of her mother. Because of your position within society, you have the ability to appeal on behalf of the child, thus saving its life. Would you remain silent, or would you speak up for the child?
 
Any person with even a modicum of God-centered morals would immediately speak out. To not do so would mean you were actively complicit in the murder of the child. In Proverbs 3:27, it says –
 
“Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due,When it is in the power of your hand to do so.”
 
This sentiment is not unique in Scripture. Rather, we are to speak up and speak out about such matters. So why should you think your vote is any different? You are a citizen of a nation. If your nation allows you to vote and you withhold your vote, knowing that an ungodly person may prevail in the election, you are working against what is good.
 
Likewise, if you vote for a person who supports abortion, you are actively working against God’s intent for human life. In the US, for example, abortion on demand is the platform of the democrat party. If a Christian votes for a democrat, he is – by default – supporting the murder of the unborn.
 
Do you not fear God? There is a judgment coming, even for believers. We cannot be held guiltless when we work against the moral principles God has laid out in Scripture. Be wise and be discerning. Use your citizenship through the power of the vote to glorify God.
 
Lord God, please give us wise and discerning hearts concerning matters of morality as outlined in Your word. May we apply our lives and our decisions in such matters to uphold what is right and good and to stem the tide of wickedness that will arise if we fail to act. Yes, Lord, give us wisdom in this way. Amen.