Acts (Written)

Yee Haw. Again.

Tuesday, 5 April 2022

for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs which Moses delivered to us. Acts 6:14

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen)

You can also read this commentary, with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

False witnesses were presented before the council to speak against Stephen. They began with “This man does not cease to speak blasphemous words against this holy place and the law.” They will now state the actual words they claim Stephen said. That begins with, “for we have heard him say.”

In order to make a charge of blasphemy against another, the words that are claimed to have been said must be presented. Further, according to the law, there had to be at least two or three witnesses in order for the words to be accepted as true. Hence, they say “we.” It is not that two false witnesses have come forward, each with his own different statement. Rather, they combine their voices into one accusation. When this is not done, the charges cannot be accepted. This was seen at the trial of Jesus –

“Then some rose up and bore false witness against Him, saying, ⁵⁸ ‘We heard Him say, “I will destroy this temple made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.”’ ⁵⁹ But not even then did their testimony agree.” Mark 14:57-59

There must be a minimum number of witnesses, and if they are making the same charge, the charge must be consistent with any others coming forward with the same accusation. In this case, they jointly state their words, saying, “that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place.”

The first point of these words concerns the way the Greek is structured, there is great contempt for the name they refer to – “Jesus of Nazareth, this.” It sets the tone for their testimony as being biased against the Lord. Also, there are two possible references to what they are speaking about –

Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
²⁰ Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”
²¹ But He was speaking of the temple of His body. ²² Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said. John 2:19-22

Then, as some spoke of the temple, how it was adorned with beautiful stones and donations, He said, ⁶ “These things which you see—the days will come in which not one stone shall be left upon another that shall not be thrown down.” Luke 21:5,6

In the first example, the reference – as John notes – was clearly to Jesus’ body. It is something that could be easily defended against because the apostles had already proclaimed that Jesus resurrected on the third day.

The second point to consider is what “this place” means. As noted in Acts 6:13, it could be either the temple or the entire city of Jerusalem. Jesus also said in Luke 21 –

 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. ²¹ Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. ²² For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. ²³ But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. ²⁴ And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” Luke 21:20-24

Either way, Jesus did not say that he would destroy the temple or Jerusalem. Rather, His words were a prophecy against the temple and the city, confirming that they would be destroyed. As distasteful as that may be to the Jews listening to the charges, it is not something that they could condemn Stephen or anyone else over.

A comparable passage is found in Jeremiah 26:1-19. Jeremiah prophesied against the temple and the city. The people wanted to stone him to death, but then Scripture provided previous testimony that what Jeremiah prophesied would come to pass. Therefore, they could not stone him without being guilty of his blood.

With the first charge stated, the second charge is next given, saying, “and change the customs which Moses delivered to us.” Charles Ellicott says the following concerning these words –

“The words seem to have been used in a half-technical sense as including the whole complex system of the Mosaic law, its ritual, its symbolism, its laws and rules of life, circumcision, the Sabbath, the distinction of clean and unclean meats (Acts 15:1; Acts 21:21; Acts 26:3; Acts 28:17).”

He is correct in this analysis. It is an all-encompassing ending of the Mosaic Law. In whatever way Stephen worded his statement, it certainly included the words of Jesus that a New Covenant had been instituted. The author of Hebrews explains the meaning of this, and it is something that the young church took time to grasp. But it appears to be something that Stephen understood from the outset –

“In that He says, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” Hebrews 8:13

Again, the Jews may dislike what he has said, but it is nothing that was not already fully supported by their own Scriptures –

“Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— ³² not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. ³³ But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. ³⁴ No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” Jeremiah 31:31-34

As this is the case, and as Jesus claimed to be the Initiator of that New Covenant, the burden of proof now rested on the council to prove that it was not so. Stephen has past precedent and also the weight of prophecy in Scripture on his side, both from the same source – Jeremiah the prophet. When the accusations were rightly considered within the context of when and how Jesus spoke His words, there could be no doubt that Stephen was innocent of the charges against him.

Life application: The Bible is a big book, filled with wonderful stories, prophetic utterances, praises to God, insightful analyses of what God is doing in the stream of time and human existence, and so much more. It is a self-confirming word as well. One section may seem to bring in an impossible to resolve dilemma, and then another section will come along and take care of the issue, confirming that the Lord is in control of all things.

However, the only way you will ever be able to know how these various things are presented is to … … … read your Bible. Until you read it, you cannot know the treasure and wonder that is to be found in it. It is God’s gift to you. Open it up and revel in it. You can start today by reading Jeremiah 26:1-19 which is referred to above.

How precious is Your word, O God! It is more delightful than the sweetest honey. Thank You for Your wonderful word. Amen.

Yee Haw.

Monday, 4 April 2022

They also set up false witnesses who said, “This man does not cease to speak blasphemous words against this holy place and the law; Acts 6:13

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen)

You can also read this commentary, with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

Stephen has been seized and brought to the council. Now that he stands before it, charges will be laid against him. However, Luke sadly notes that “They also set up false witnesses.” This is not unlike Jesus’ trial –

“Now the chief priests, the elders, and all the council sought false testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, ⁶⁰ but found none. Even though many false witnesses came forward, they found none. But at last two false witnesses came forward ⁶¹ and said, ‘This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days.’” Matthew 26:59-61

The description of them as false witnesses is based upon twisting the words that he surely spoke, in order to make them say something he actually would not have said. The charge against Stephen is stated in this verse, but then the explanation of what is said will come in the next verse. They are words that bear some truth, and yet they are cunningly manipulated. For now, the charge is, “This man does not cease to speak blasphemous words.”

The word “blasphemous” is not in some ancient texts. Rather, it simply says, “This man does not cease to speak words.” Either way, the intent is the same. The false witnesses are making a claim based upon words only. Stephen has actually done nothing other than speak, and because this is so, his words can be easily manipulated to reflect something that will raise the ire of the council. The words they claim he has said are, first, “against this holy place.”

The meaning is “against the temple,” or the words may even extend to the holy city itself. Exactly what they claim Stephen said is yet to be noted, but it is true that the temple in particular, and the location of it in general, is considered holy –

The temple:
“O God, the nations have come into Your inheritance;
Your holy temple they have defiled;
They have laid Jerusalem in heaps.” Psalm 79:1

Jerusalem:
“Now the leaders of the people dwelt at Jerusalem; the rest of the people cast lots to bring one out of ten to dwell in Jerusalem, the holy city, and nine-tenths were to dwell in other cities. ² And the people blessed all the men who willingly offered themselves to dwell at Jerusalem.” Nehemiah 11:1, 2

But the accusation doesn’t stop there. After noting that Stephen spoke words against “this holy place,” they next add, “and the law.”

The “law” specifically refers to the Law of Moses. It was considered as divinely inspired by the Lord and written out by Moses. This would explain the earlier words of verse 11 that said, “against Moses and God.” The law is the covenant that established Israel as the Lord’s people, and it is the foundation of their society, culture, and lives. Everything Israel did from day to day, throughout the months, annually, and even throughout their lives rotated around precepts found in the law. To speak against the law would be considered both blasphemous and treasonous.

Life application: To speak against the word of God by those who profess to be Christians is something that should not be tolerated. It is the document that establishes the faith, and it is the document that records what God has done, is doing, and will do in order to bring men back to Himself.

As it is the document that details this, the implication is that it is divinely inspired. If it is not so, then what is the basis for the faith of the Christian? Man’s word? If so, then how can it be an accurate record of God’s workings? In other words, the Bible is either the word of God or it is not. The person who claims to be a Christian, and yet dismisses it, is basing his faith on pretty much nothing.

And this disbelief in the word will be true in varying degrees as well. Some claim that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are not an accurate record of what actually occurred. Some hold to the New Testament, but not the Old. And so on. And yet, these stances show a complete disconnect in how those people perceive God.

Jesus clearly held to the absolute integrity of the first eleven chapters of Genesis, as well as all of the Old Testament. The apostles did as well. And it is they who have explained the life of Jesus to us. Because of this, those who say that they believe in Jesus suddenly believe in a false (or maybe incompetent) Jesus. How can someone put their faith in a man who was wrong about something so basic as what the word of God actually contains? If this is so, He is not God. And if He is not God, then why on the earth would anyone follow Him?

The thinking is unclear at best, but it carries the same blasphemous undertones that are presented in Acts 6:13. To speak against the word is to speak against Jesus who confirmed the word. It is a scary place to be while claiming to be a Christian. Have faith. Trust the word of God as it is presented, and let God sort out for you the things you may not currently understand on the day come before Him.

Lord God, we may not understand everything that is in Your word, but we can take what it says as absolute truth when we accept it by faith. And so, help us to be people of faith. Your word confirms Your doings, and Your doings are bringing us back to You. Thank You for the glorious and precious gift that tells us of these things. Amen.

Nummy food. Deep in the heart of Texas.

And they stirred up the people, the elders, and the scribes; and they came upon him, seized him, and brought him to the council. Acts 6:12

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen)

You can also read this commentary, with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

Charges of speaking blasphemous words against Moses and God have been made against Stephen. With that, it now reads, “And they stirred up the people, the elders, and the scribes.” The word translated as “stirred up” is found only here in the Bible. It comes from two other words signifying “together” and “move.” As such, it is to take the entire mass and to stir, resulting in an excited mixture.

The sense then isn’t that it was just the common people, but even the elders and scribes had been stirred up. It was as if the entire population was brought to a frenzy. A good example of the resulting mayhem is found in Acts 21 and 22 where Paul found himself in a similar pickle as the people beat him and shouted accusations against him. There is somewhat of an irony in the matter though, because Paul refers to this exact event in Acts 6 & 7 while stating his case concerning Christ –

“And when the blood of Your martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by consenting to his death, and guarding the clothes of those who were killing him.” Acts 22:20

For now, the crowd around Stephen has been stirred up against him. Therefore, Luke next records, “and they came upon him.” The verb is an aorist participle and should be rendered, “and having come upon him.” That then naturally leads into the action whereby they “seized him.”

The word used here is found only in Luke and Acts. It is a compound word coming from sun (together with) and harpazó (to snatch away). In other words, it wasn’t that a group of people came upon him, and then one grabbed him. Rather, a whole group grabbed him. Maybe one took an arm while another took a leg. Pretty soon, he was lifted up and hauled away. Or it could be that they surrounded him like a mob, everyone laying a hand on him, and he was manhandled like someone in the process of being tackled in a football game.

The entire scene is active and alive as they jostled with their captive “and brought him to the council.” It is the same council that the apostles had been taken to, and it is the same council to which Jesus had been brought.

Life application: During the January 6 rally in Washington, there were people who stirred up the crowd, somewhat like what happened to Stephen. They were government informants and government operators who purposefully stirred up the people in order to later target those in the crowd as insurgents and insurrectionists.

Those who were otherwise innocent were brought into the fray and taken along with the miscreants who riled the people up in the first place. From there, those who actually stirred up the crowds were carefully ignored and any photos of them were excised from the public’s attention.

This is how such things get started. The tactics are recorded by Luke so that we can see that this is how humans work against one another in order to meet a set and perverse agenda. As this is so, it is wise to always be aware of your surroundings. If you suspect someone is stirring up the masses in order to incite them in an inappropriate way, be watchful and attentive to their actions.

This will probably become a more common tactic to be used against Christians in the days ahead. So, watch and be prepared to call out anyone who is seen to be setting up those of the faith for later accusation. Be alert and be ready to record any such person so that he can be identified when it is necessary to make a proper defense.

Heavenly Father, people have been wrongly accusing Your faithful all along. Help us to be prepared at such times to have a proper defense for our words and our actions. Today we have cameras on almost every phone. Help us to take advantage of them when needed so that we can single out such miscreants, thus protecting Your people from unjust accusations and harm. Amen.

The horses at Las Colinas.

Saturday, 2 April 2022

Then they secretly induced men to say, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.” Acts 6:11

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen).

You can also read this commentary, with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

The words prior to this verse revealed that those of the Synagogue of the Freedmen were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which Stephen spoke. As this is so, they were obviously filled with jealousy, and they were also surely miffed at the surety of what he was saying, finding it wholly distasteful.

But this brings in an immediate problem. If Stephen’s words could not be resisted, and if they were based upon what is stated in Scripture, then what is stated in Scripture supports Stephen’s words. As this is so, who are they resisting? Stephen or the one Stephen is proclaiming. But the situation is unpalatable to them and so Luke records, “Then they secretly induced men.”

The word translated as “secretly induced” is found only here in Scripture, hupoballó. It comes from hupo, meaning “under,” and balló, signifying “to cast down.” As such, it gives the sense of throwing something in stealthily or introducing by collusion. A word that gives the proper sense is “suborn.” Vincent’s Word Studies gives examples to better understand its meaning –

“The verb originally means to put under, as carpets under one’s feet; hence, to put one person in place of another; to substitute, as another’s child for one’s own; to employ a secret agent in one’s place, and to instigate or secretly instruct him.”

These deceivers then are bringing a false accusation against Stephen, replacing the true intent of his words with a different meaning. It is what happened several times to Jesus, such as –

“Now the chief priests, the elders, and all the council sought false testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, ⁶⁰ but found none. Even though many false witnesses came forward, they found none. But at last two false witnesses came forward ⁶¹ and said, ‘This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days.’” Matthew 26:59-61

However, in John, the true meaning of Jesus’ words is explained, there it says, “But He was speaking of the temple of His body” (John 2:21). The same type of false accusation will be brought forth by those who have been induced “to say, ‘We have heard him speak blasphemous words.’”

The exact words in the charge against him are found in verses 6:13, 14. They are words that have certainly added spice to those presented by Stephen, even if the substance of them may actually be close to what he said. This is because what Stephen said was, as already noted, surely in accord with Scripture. If it was not, then his words could have been easily resisted. However, they are falsely charging him with blasphemy “against Moses and God.”

The Greek has an additional force that is left untranslated. It reads indefinitely at first and then definitely, building to a climax by saying, “against Moses and the God.” As such, it is comparable to saying, “against Moses and God Himself.” The NLT gives the sense by saying, “We heard him blaspheme Moses, and even God.”

To this day, what is recorded as Stephen’s words (in verses 6:13, 14, and which will be evaluated as the commentary arrives at them) are charged by both Jews and unschooled Christians as being points of blasphemy. And yet, it is certain that they are words that are in accord with what is stated later in Acts and the epistles. As such, they are not only not words of blasphemy, but they are proper statements concerning the final, forever, and finished work of Jesus Christ.

Life application: Finding something distasteful to our senses in the word of God is not an excuse to argue against the word of God. In fact, it shows a rather dull sense in a person to do so. We might look at the actions of those from the Synagogue of the Freedmen as ridiculous – “If God’s word clearly reveals that Stephen’s words are correct, then why would they attack Stephen? It doesn’t change God’s word!”

But that is how we are. We will shoot the messenger, even when the army he represents is a thousand times larger, as if shooting the messenger will solve the problem. But the army is still outside the city, and it will only be more enraged and ready to destroy because of the offense against it.

The same is true with God’s word. We find the Freedmen’s actions ridiculous, but do we do the same thing? There is a point of doctrine laid out in the New Testament that we just don’t like. We disagree with it, and we hide it away or ignore it. For example, maybe the church we attend has a female pastor. The Bible is explicit that this is not allowed, but we don’t like that part of the word, and so we ignore it.

This does not change what the word says. Rather, it demonstrates an unwillingness to be obedient to the very word we have wrongly used to allow a female pastor. This is because she claims to be a Christian. Being a Christian is something that is derived from precepts laid out in the Bible. She claims to follow Jesus. But the proper way to follow Jesus is laid out in the Bible. She reads Scripture from the Bible each week. But she ignores the parts of the word that she disagrees with that are found in the same book from which she reads her Scripture and of which she bases her sermons on each week.

All of what she does ignores precepts in the very same book that she claims as the authority for her ordination, instruction, faith, and practice. It is confused, it is illogical, and it is as common as cans in the soup section of the grocery store.

When something is explicit in the word, we are to be obedient to it. It doesn’t matter a hill of beans if we agree with it or not, God is God. His word is our instruction. And we are to be honoring of the sanctity of the faith we profess by being obedient to His word.

Lord God, help us to be molded into Your image by being obedient to Your word. We are humans, and it is in our nature to buck against things we don’t like or things we find unpalatable. And so, Lord, change us from within. May we be pleasing to You in all ways and at all times. Amen.

The Horses at Las Colinas.

Friday, 1 April 2022

And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke. Acts 6:10

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen).

You can also read this commentary, with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

The previous verses referred to Stephen. It next referred to some arising from the Synagogue of the Freedmen who disputed with him. With that noted, it next says, “And they were not able to resist.” The word translated as “resist” signifies “to withstand.” It is a compound word coming from anti (opposite) and hístēmi (to stand). It is a 180 degree, opposing position on a matter. And so here we have Stephen laying out his case, and those who oppose what he says are completely unable to stand against it.

As they obviously must be dealing with Scripture, because they are arguing a position concerning Christ, Stephen is giving his evidence and the men of this synagogue are unable to refute the evidence that is presented. One can have a stand on a matter while another may oppose that stand when it is merely a philosophical argument. Either side can claim that their idea about what is stated is better than the other. However, when there is an established basis for a claim, such as Scripture concerning an issue involving the Messiah, there will ultimately be one side whose argument cannot stand against the other.

Stephen’s position is obviously the one that is supported by the very writings the sides are striving over. Specifically, they were not able to resist “the wisdom and the Spirit.” On several occasions, the Bible repeats this same general sentiment, such as in Proverbs 9:10 –

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,
And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.”

In order to fear the Lord, one must know who the Lord is, what He is capable of, what He expects, and so on. The same is true with having a knowledge of the Holy One. There must be a source for understanding the knowledge of Him. That source is, first and foremost, Scripture. Stephen obviously possessed this knowledge.

Further, as the Spirit is the One who inspired men to write out and compile Scripture (2 Peter 1:21), then it is the Spirit who will illuminate it in order for it to be properly understood. In other words, there may be two (or more) sides arguing over the meaning of Scripture, but they cannot all be correct. The Spirit inspired it, and the one who is properly in sync with the Spirit’s intent concerning the passage is the one whose argument is sound. Stephen’s handling of the word could not be refuted by these others.

None of this is explicitly stated, but it is to be inferred from the passage. There is a claim being presented, there is an argument against it, and there is an inability to support the argument against it or to dismiss the argument itself. As such, there must be a basis for the claim. That basis must be Scripture. This must be the source “by which he spoke.”

If it were not, he would be making claims pulled out of the thin air. There would be no basis to argue with such a person because one cannot argue against something that actually doesn’t exist except in the head of another. Stephen is speaking words that cannot be withstood. They are words of wisdom, and they are Spirit-led. What will be the outcome of it? Jesus gave words to those who followed Him concerning this –

“And He said, ‘Woe to you also, lawyers! For you load men with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers. ⁴⁷ Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. ⁴⁸ In fact, you bear witness that you approve the deeds of your fathers; for they indeed killed them, and you build their tombs. ⁴⁹ Therefore the wisdom of God also said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and persecute,’ ⁵⁰ that the blood of all the prophets which was shed from the foundation of the world may be required of this generation, ⁵¹ from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation.’” Luke 11:46-51

Stephen is not specifically identified as either a prophet or an apostle, but his words of the coming chapter demonstrate that he fills a role suitable to at least that of a prophet. He will speak out the word of God to the people and there will be a resulting reaction to what he says that is in accord with what Jesus says in Luke 11.

Life application: In the proverbs, one right after another, the two seemingly contradictory proverbs are given –

“Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
Lest you also be like him.
⁵ Answer a fool according to his folly,
Lest he be wise in his own eyes.” Proverbs 26:4, 5

The meaning here is that there is a time to argue a point and there is a time to not argue a point. In the case of the first proverb, Solomon is asking us to be wise. When there is a fool out there spouting off nonsense that is obviously nonsense, we are admonished to not even respond to him.

The reason why is that if we do, there will be nothing that is valid that we can say to refute him. His words come out of his own head and so it doesn’t matter what you say, more retorts will continue to come out of that same vacuous place. You will be arguing against a maker of wind. When you do this, you will end up just like him with petty little arguments blowing back and forth. As such, you will only look foolish.

However, if a fool is arguing over something that can be refuted, especially something as important as Scripture, and if a defense against his foolish interpretation is not given, then he will walk away feeling vindicated in his stand. Anyone who sees his challenge go unmet will think that this fool is actually correct. Soon, a whole cohort of fools will be out claiming what is utterly foolish, simply because no one is there to correct what is obviously incorrect.

Stephen demonstrated wisdom and the filling of the Spirit. These men stood against him. However, because he was Spirit-filled, and because it is the Spirit who gave Scripture in the first place, they were unable to stand against his wisdom. The opposite must have been true as well. They foolishly tried to make their own case, and Stephen stood against them so that they would not be vindicated in their heads and feel wise in their own eyes.

In all such matters, be careful to evaluate the situation and respond with wisdom. Is this person a bag of hot air? Ignore him. Is this person foolishly handling Scripture to the detriment of himself and others? Respond to him. Consider, contemplate, and respond accordingly. Demonstrate your own wisdom by demonstrating the wisdom of God.

Lord God, help us not to get caught up in endless ramblings against fools who do not have the sense to listen to reason. It is unproductive and unhealthy. But, Lord, give us the wisdom to refute those who are simply following the wrong path and making an error in their thinking. Maybe they will listen. Yes, give us wisdom in such things. Amen.