from Google Images
Chapter seven of Acts represents Stephen’s defense, but not just for himself, but of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God with Jesus as Lord or the Messiah. The accusation against him is stated twice in Acts 6, once in verse-13 and then for a second time in verse-14. It is worded differently, but, nevertheless means the same, and in reference to this the high priest (probably Annas) asks Stephen: “Are these things so?” Read the rest of this entry »
from Google Images
Why would a nice guy like Stephen get arrested and then executed, either by rule of the Sanhedrin or mob violence? Acts 6:8 tells us he was a miracle-worker, and the people seemed to love the believers among them who healed their ailments (Acts 5:12a, 15-16, 26), but something seems to have occurred here that kept Stephen from being protected by the power of the people. What was it? Read the rest of this entry »
from Google Images
When we come to Acts 6 Luke immediately plunges us into a controversy within the now multiplying body of Messianic believing Jews (Acts 6:1). In fact, in Acts 6:7 Luke offers us his fifth church-growth report up to this point in time, but the first of six multiplication records that divides his thesis into three major sub-themes addressed in two parts each. The point is that in Acts 6 Luke shows us that the body of believers is no longer simply Jews of Palestinian origin, i.e. Jews who grew up in Judea and Galilee. The Church has become what we call today bicultural. That is, a major portion of it is made up of Hellenist Jews who have resettled in Palestine, and when one adds two cultures together, there is bound to be some friction. Read the rest of this entry »
from Google Images
This represents the third in a three part series in which I intend to show how I think Luke constructed the Book of Acts. He did so by presenting the theology and the practicality of specific problems the Church had to face in its infancy—from Pentecost 31 AD to the culmination of Paul’s mission cir. 62 AD or roughly a span of about 30 years. When Luke adds what he does to Acts, he always ends his submission by giving a summary of the growth of the Church. He does this six times showing he organized his thesis into three two-part summaries of what the Church began to do and teach (cp. Acts 1:1). Read the rest of this entry »
from Google Images
This is the second in a three part study that shows how I believe Luke constructed his thesis, the Book of Acts. What he did was structure it in three pairs of subject matter or sub-themes. The first pair unveiled the Temple built without hands that was not stationary, but moved about the world, just as the original Tabernacle in the wilderness did (see Stephen’s argument in Acts 7 concerning the international, non-stationary God). Luke’s second pair concerns how the teaching of circumcision affected the Church, once gentiles began to be received into the predominantly Jewish body of believers. We are in the middle of this study now. The third and final pair of teachings will show that the Gospel and the Church are totally innocuous. Preaching Jesus is not against any political sphere nor will the presence of the Church upset the community at large. We are harmless and our existence is not against any law. Read the rest of this entry »
from Google Images
In ancient times when a book was a scroll, how was the book put together; more specifically, how was Luke’s Acts put together? Did Luke simply begin writing, stopping only when his work was written? It seems to me, if this were true, error would be rampant and confusing due to themes begun and left unfinished. There must be a better way to write a scroll. As I was reading the Book of Acts, I believe I stumbled upon a possible solution to my own query. I am uncertain if my theory has been put forward by others, but it appears likely that Luke wrote Acts in six parts, and more specifically according to three sets of themes of two parts each. When I stumbled upon this idea I had one of those “Ah-hah!” moments. Read the rest of this entry »
from Google Images
When we come to Acts 5 we find the Church of God between a rock and a hard place, or nestled between the hidden enemy within (Ananias & “the others”) and the formidable enemy from without (Annas & the Jewish rulers). God struck down Ananias and Sapphira, giving “the others” pause to think over what they were planning to do. However, Annas struck out at the Apostles and imprisoned them, intending to have them slain (Acts 5:17-18, cp. v.33). Nevertheless, the power of God was with them, and no one could harm them for their time had not yet come (cp. John 7:30; 8:20; 21:18-19). Read the rest of this entry »
from Google Images
We discover in Acts 5:17 that the high priest and the Sadducees rose up against the Apostles (v.18). The officiating high priest at this time was Caiaphas, but Luke tells us in Acts 4:6 that he means Annas, because he calls him high priest, while placing Caiaphas as one of his family who was with him. In his Gospel Luke also names Annas as high priest together with the officiating Caiaphas (Luke 3:2). What this means is that, simply because Rome removed one man as the high priest and named another in his stead, did not remove that man from the office of high priest according to God. According to Scripture, the high priest was anointed for life. Aaron was Israel’s first high priest, and though his sons also officiated in that office (Numbers 3:3-4), he retained his office for life and was head over them (Numbers 33:38). Therefore, Annas retained all his power as high priest in the eyes of the Jews. His official title was Captain of the Temple (Acts 4:1).[1] Read the rest of this entry »
Smoodock's Blog 