Acts (Written)

The Decker family with our little dog Hannah.

Wednesday, 12 July 2023

So Paul still remained a good while. Then he took leave of the brethren and sailed for Syria, and Priscilla and Aquila were with him. He had his hair cut off at Cenchrea, for he had taken a vow. Acts 18:18

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 are more closely translated as, “Now Paul, having remained many days more, having taken leave of the brothers, sailed away to Syria – and with him Priscilla and Aquila – having shaved the head in Cenchrea, for he had a vow” (CG).

In the last verse, Sosthenes had taken a pounding from the Greeks, right in front of Gallio. With that remembered, it next says, “Now Paul, having remained many days more.”

The exact timeframe is left unstated, but one can get the sense of several months at least. With the matter concerning the accusation of the Jews resolved, along with the pounding Sosthenes received, the times were again favorable for Paul to work unhindered among the Greeks. However, eventually, the time came for him to leave, go to Israel, and then finally come to the church in Syrian Antioch. That departure from Corinth is seen in the continued words, “having taken leave of the brothers.”

Paul eventually had to extend his farewells to the brethren in Corinth. It must have been a difficult thing for him to do, having been there for such a long time, but he would also be pleased that he could leave them to run things on their own. Unfortunately, the context of 1 Corinthians is an epistle being sent to a highly dysfunctional church. However, at this time and under his watchful care, he was able to leave them and journey forth. In having taken his leave of them, it next says he “sailed away to Syria.”

As noted above, this was not a straight sail to Syria, but the final leg of this particular journey. With that, it notes, “and with him Priscilla and Aquila.” Priscilla is noted first. Four times they are seen together, including this verse, Romans 16:3, 1 Corinthians 16:19, 2 Timothy 4:19. She is mentioned first three times. There is speculation as to why this is, but no definitive answer is available. Despite this curiosity, it next says, “having shaved the head in Cenchrea.”

The question that is raised among scholars is, “Who shaved his head?” The Greek is ambiguous enough to mean either Paul or Aquila. Aquila is the nearest antecedent and it would explain why he was mentioned after Priscilla. However, the context of the overall thought is focused on Paul. Because of this, the words are often taken as parenthetical. Despite this, some translations, such as the Latin Vulgate, say it is Aquila. The Syriac identifies it as Paul.

Either way, the shaving of the head was in Cenchrea. This was the port of Corinth. In other words, the shaving of the head is at the place of departure. Strong’s notes that the name Cenchrea is probably from kegchros, meaning millet. As for the act of shaving, it next says, “for he had a vow.”

This is surely not a Nazirite vow as found in Numbers 6, but rather something like what is mentioned by Josephus as “customary for persons in any affliction, viz. to make a vow that, for thirty days previous to that on which they intend to offer sacrifice, they will abstain from wine and will shave off their hair” (Pulpit Commentary).

What seems to be suggested is that the hair was cut as the result of having been safely delivered from the afflictions faced in Corinth. In other words, this is the fulfillment of a vow, not an act to initiate a vow. As Cenchrea was the town at the entrance to the haven belonging to Corinth, Paul (or possibly, but less likely, Aquila) was acknowledging the safe deliverance promised by the Lord. This is why “Cenchrea” and “vow” are specifically mentioned in the same thought.

Though not a Nazirite vow, the same process is seen. After the completion of the vow, the hair is cut off. If this was a Nazirite vow, the hair would have been cut off at the temple in Jerusalem and a set ritual would take place. Nothing of that is noted here or later concerning this vow. In other words, this cutting of the hair was an act of gratefulness to the Lord for something that had been vowed before, similar to what Jacob had said to the Lord in Genesis 28:20-22 –

“Then Jacob made a vow, saying, ‘If God will be with me, and keep me in this way that I am going, and give me bread to eat and clothing to put on, ²¹ so that I come back to my father’s house in peace, then the Lord shall be my God. ²² And this stone which I have set as a pillar shall be God’s house, and of all that You give me I will surely give a tenth to You.’”

As such, this is a vow of conscience, not a matter of law. The vow was uttered, and in thankfulness for the petition having been granted, the hair is cut.

Life application: The Old Testament has places where vows are spoken of and the necessity to fulfill them. For example –

“When you make a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not delay to pay it; for the Lord your God will surely require it of you, and it would be sin to you. ²² But if you abstain from vowing, it shall not be sin to you. ²³ That which has gone from your lips you shall keep and perform, for you voluntarily vowed to the Lord your God what you have promised with your mouth.” Deuteronomy 23:21-23

The Psalms refer to vows being fulfilled by the one who made them. A valid question is, “Are Christians allowed to make vows?” Another question is, “Are Christians required to fulfill vows?” The answer to the first is, “Yes.” A person can make a vow between himself and God, himself and a friend, etc. But it must be considered that a vow is something that binds a person to what he has promised.

Borrowing money for a loan is a type of vow. “I am promising to pay back this money.” This vow is usually put into writing as a means of holding the person responsible. As for fulfilling vows. This becomes a lengthy subject depending on the context. If a person makes a vow prior to being saved that is contrary to Christian life, he obviously cannot perform that vow. “I vow to support the edicts and commands of the gang I have joined, up to and including killing our rival gang members.”

In Christ, a new direction must take place. However, if vows are made after becoming a Christian, and remembering that the idea of a “vow” extends to all aspects of our lives, such as marriage, borrowing money, being an employee, and so on, then we need to be responsible and fulfill our obligations in the capacity that we have promised.

This is more certain because Jesus, Paul, and James each refer to a Yes being a Yes and a No being a No. Paul’s is less specific, speaking of personal words and actions, but it is a precept that was understood concerning reliability. In other words, we are to be so trustworthy as followers of Christ that when we say Yes, it is a vow in and of itself. Honesty and integrity are to be the guides of our actions before God and men.

Lord God, may we be responsible followers of Jesus, fulfilling the words that come forth from our lips. We know that when we fail, we are forgiven, but help us to not fail in doing what we have promised. Help us in our daily walk to do so. Be glorified in our conduct, O God. Amen.

Crabs in Washington.

Tuesday, 11 July 2023

Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment seat. But Gallio took no notice of these things. Acts 18:17

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).

Gallio just drove from his judgment seat those who made a petition against Paul. With that noted, it next says, “Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes.”

Some manuscripts do not say Greeks. Further, the verb is an aorist participle. So, it either says –

“And all the Greeks, having taken Sosthenes…”

Or,

“And all, having taken Sosthenes…”

It is not necessary to take this person as being the same Sosthenes mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1:1. It is not impossible that it is so, but if it is the same person, he would have had to have converted after the events that now take place. At this time, he is noted as “the ruler of the synagogue.”

The meaning is that either the Jews turned on their own synagogue ruler, which is hard to figure out why they would do this, or that the Greeks came against him for having brought a case forward against Paul when it was obvious he had done nothing wrong. The latter seems more likely and it is from this perspective that the words will be evaluated.

Paul had been in the area for a year and a half and he would have been known as a man of integrity and uprightness. He associated with the Gentiles, did not expect them to be circumcised or converted, and proclaimed the message of salvation to all freely.  On the other hand, the Jews distanced themselves from the people, expecting converts to become Jews. In seeing the Jews’ treatment of Paul, they took their ruler, “and beat him.”

The verb is imperfect. To give the sense of the action, “were beating him” or “began to beat him” would be preferable. The Greeks seized him and started pounding on him for his failed accusations against Paul. And this was done “before the judgment seat.”

Whether these Greeks were converts or not, and whether they knew Paul personally or not, it is evident that they were not fans of the Jews. Charges had been brought against Paul, the charges accused him of something that was untrue and that had nothing to do with Gallio’s jurisdiction, and the Greeks who witnessed the matter were miffed at what they had seen. But more, one gets the sense that Gallio was thoroughly fed up with them and their conduct.

The Greeks, seizing upon this, realized that nothing would be done if they beat Sosthenes up, even right in front of Gallio. This they did, but Luke next notes, “But Gallio took no notice of these things.” Again, the verb is imperfect, “And Gallio was not caring about these things.”

Although nothing is stated in the text about the reaction of the Jews to Gallio’s decision, because all people react to such things in their own way, it can be speculated that the Jews showed disdain for the ruling, even if they didn’t verbally state it. The Greeks, being fully aware of what transpired and probably seeing the negative attitude of the Jews after Gallio had decided, were moved to teach them a lesson. Gallio was indifferent to this and so Sosthenes got a pounding.

Life application: In Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 it says –

“I know your works, tribulation, and poverty (but you are rich); and I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.” Revelation 2:9

“Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie—indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you.” Revelation 3:9

The Bible says that all people are either under the dominion of the devil or they are under the rule of Christ. There are no other options. To this day, the Jews have rejected Jesus as a nation, even if there are individually believing Jews. Any synagogue that gathers in the world that is not one directed to Jesus is, by default, a synagogue of Satan. Those in attendance are no closer to God than a gathering of Hindus, Muslims, or Buddhists.

Jesus’ point is that those in synagogues who have not come to Him still claim that they are the true worshippers of God. They rely on Moses, the Talmud, Jewish tradition, etc., claiming that they have the true and proper worship of the Lord. But they have rejected Jesus and so He rejects them. He told them this explicitly –

“You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. ⁴⁵ But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me. ⁴⁶ Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me? ⁴⁷ He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.” John 8:44-47

Sosthenes got a good whooping in this life. And unless he later came to Jesus, he will bow before those he persecuted in the next. This will be true of all who have persecuted saved believers in Christ. When you read about those martyred for their faith, or if you are persecuted for your faith, know with all surety that those wrongs will be made right. Jesus will reward those who are His faithful, and He will repay those who have persecuted His own.

Lord God, we have a job to do while we are here. Urge us to talk to all who have not yet heard the good news of Jesus. Whether Jew or Gentile, if they have not accepted His gospel, they cannot be pleasing to You. May we be bold in telling others about what He has done and the gift of grace that is extended to all because of it. Help us to speak out while there is time. Amen.

A meal with old friends. Washington State.

Monday, 10 July 2023

And he drove them from the judgment seat. Acts 18:16

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).

Gallio just completed his words to the Jews about their appeal against Paul. He wants nothing to do with it. Therefore, Luke next records, “And he drove them from the judgment seat.”

In this statement is a word found only here in Scripture, apelaunó. It is not found in the Greek Septuagint either, but it is used in the same manner as Luke uses it by the classical writers Demosthenes and Plutarch. The Pulpit Commentary says, “It implies the ignominious dismissal of the case, without its being even tried.”

Although we can’t know what the word fully implies, it was probably first accompanied by a curt note of dismissal –

“Now beat it or I’ll have you thrown out.”

That may have been followed by a warning from Gallio as well –

“And don’t bring this nonsense to me again or you’ll regret it.”

It may have even been accompanied by a nod to the lictors, indicating that they should come forward and escort the Jews out of the tribunal.

As for the judgment seat, it is, as seen elsewhere, the word béma. Again, the Pulpit Commentary gives a short description, saying it “was properly the ‘raised space,’ or ‘tribune,’ on which, in the case of a consul, proconsul, or praetor, the sella curulis was placed on which he sat and gave judgment. It was usually a kind of apse to the basilica. In Matthew 27:19; John 19:13, and, indeed, here and elsewhere, it seems to be used, generally, for the judgment-seat itself (see Acts 25:10).”

Life application: The case has been presented and the decision has been rendered. As has been the case, and as will be the case throughout Acts, Christianity is considered a religious expression derived from the faith of the Jews. It is not something different entirely but is so closely associated with their faith, based on the Law of Moses, that it was considered a legitimate religious expression under Roman rule.

This is important to remember. God has ensured, right in His word, that this is to be understood. It is thus a huge shame that so many within the church attempt to disassociate the church from the teachings of the Old Testament. This happens in varying degrees as well.

Some churches limit their focus solely on the New Testament. Some will take anything seemingly too Jewish in the New Testament and say it only applies to the Jews. An example of this is to say that the seven letters to the seven churches are written to end times Jews and not to the church. Their main argument is that the symbolism is all Jewish – lampstands, mentioning of synagogues, noting Balaam, etc.

The problem with such ideologies is that Jesus is Jewish. He came through the people of the Old Testament, He came under the law, and He came in fulfillment of their prophecies. Faith in Him cannot be ripped out of that context. When we see the lampstand, we see a foreshadowing of Jesus in typology.

The stories of the Old Testament, the implements of worship under the law, the sacrifices of the temple, etc., are all anticipatory of Him. To cut ourselves off from studying those things is to leave a complete void in our understanding of who He is and of what He has done.

This does not mean we are to return to the worship of the Mosaic Covenant, as others teach, but we are to know how things worked under it so that we can then understand Jesus’ fulfillment of those things. Be sound in your understanding of dispensational theology, be willing to study each of the dispensations, and while doing so, consider how each aspect of it points to the Person and work of Jesus.

The Bible, from beginning to end, is about Jesus. Cherish it and study it all the days of your life! In doing so, there is wonder and delight.

Lord God, what a wonderful treasure Your word is. Help us to understand it more fully with each reading through it. Fill us with the knowledge of Jesus that is so richly on display in its pages. Thank You for Your precious word! Amen.

Visiting a High School friend in Seattle.

Sunday, 9 July 2023

“But if it is a question of words and names and your own law, look to it yourselves; for I do not want to be a judge of such matters.” Acts 18:15

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).

Gallio has just stated to the Jews that if the matter they had presented was something within his jurisdiction, he would put up with them. But he refused to be a judge of what they had brought forward. With that, he next says, “But if it is a question of words.”

Rather, it is singular – “But if it is a question concerning a word.” Paul preached a word concerning God. There was no reason for Gallio to get into semantics over how the Jewish faith was interpreted. He was not a religious scholar and had no care for listening to the two sides play Scripture tennis as they lobbed one verse or text across the court while the other lobbed a different one. Next, he says, “and names.”

It seems apparent that Gallio was aware of the Christian claim that Jesus is the Messiah of the Jews. If he had heard that, then he had heard counterclaims bandied about. “No! Jeremiah the prophet said…” or “But the prophet Zechariah said.” Each would claim a name from one of the prophets claiming the Messiah would be given a particular name. Maybe some Jews, as it is to this day, heralded a famous rabbi as the Messiah.

Gallio had heard enough to be completely uninterested in such squabbles. Next, he says, “and your own law.”

The Jews had come forward saying, “This fellow persuades men to worship God contrary to the law.” They were attempting to disassociate what Paul taught from their religion, thus making what Paul taught illicit under Roman law. But Gallio knew better and shoved Paul’s stand right back in their faces by saying “your own law.” He has clearly noted that what Paul is preaching was an extension of Judaism. Thus, it is thus a legitimate form of worship according to Roman law. With that, he next says, “look to it yourselves.”

Rather, the verb is future, “you will see to it yourselves.” In other words, “This is not going to be addressed here. I know you will continue to bicker over this, and so you will see to it after you depart, but not now.”

He has no doubt based on his past experiences with the Jews and their whining about Jesus that he is not going to give them any foothold in his court. They will do what they are going to do, but they are not going to do it with his court’s concurrence. This will be exactingly seen in just two verses. For now, he next says, “for I do not want to be a judge of such matters.”

The Greek is emphatic, placing the word “judge” at the beginning of the statement, “Judge I of these not intend to be.” The matter is not within the jurisdiction of his seat, even if he could wade into it to try to help resolve it. Rather, they were on their own and would have to deal with it accordingly. It is a wise move because this is how Pilate got boxed in during the trial of Jesus. Gallio completely removes himself from such a possibility.

Life application: In the church, it is as common as bristles on a brush for people to argue over the true name of Jesus. They will adamantly condemn others for saying “Jesus” and then argue whatever name they think He should be called – Yeshua, Yahshuah, Yehoshua, etc. ad nauseam, as if that is the point and purpose of their faith.

But the Lord is both the Messiah of the Jews and the Christ of the Gentiles. A person named Charlie will be called Karl by Germans, Carlos by Hispanics, Chuckles by his close friend, and Chahdee by Asians who have difficulty with the whole “r” and “l” thing. Only a Charlie-dolt would be upset about the variety of names he is called, as long as he is called on time for dinner.

Jesus will not be unhappy with you if you use the name suited to your language. He is the One who divided the languages in the first place. Don’t get caught up in the ridiculous. Rather, honor the Lord with your life and He will be pleased with that. And, by the way, the correct Hebrew name is Yeshua.

Jesus, precious Lord Jesus, thank You for being the Savior of all mankind. May we honor You with our lives and bless You with our lips in whatever language You have given to us. Be glorified in our love and devotion to You, O exalted One! Amen.

Tune up. Washington State.

Saturday, 8 July 2023

And when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, “If it were a matter of wrongdoing or wicked crimes, O Jews, there would be reason why I should bear with you. Acts 18:14

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).

Paul has been taken before the judgment seat of Gallio and has been accused of persuading men to worship God contrary to the law. With their accusation stated, it next says, “And when Paul was about to open his mouth.”

It is a present participle, more correctly reading, “And Paul, being about to open the mouth.” The meaning is that Paul was just about to speak in defense of himself. However, without even being given the opportunity to get a word out, it next says, “Gallio said to the Jews.”

The obvious meaning is that what they have stated to him either first needs clarification, more information, that he is uninterested in what has been presented, or some other similar idea. The charge against Paul is insufficiently addressed for him to even allow Paul to speak. With that initial address complete, he next says to them, “If it were a matter of wrongdoing or wicked crimes, O Jews.”

There is a stress that is left out of the translation. It more rightly says, “If, indeed, it were a matter of wrongdoing or wicked crimes, O Jews.” It isn’t that he doesn’t care about being thorough in his job, and it isn’t that he doesn’t care about their complaint because they are Jews. Rather, he doesn’t care about their complaint because it has nothing to do with his jurisdiction.

The word translated as “wrongdoing,” adikéma, is introduced here. It speaks of a matter doing evil, committing iniquity, doing wrong, etc. This wrongdoing can be a crime in a society or it can be an offense against God, such as in Revelation 18:5 where Babylon’s iniquities are remembered by God.

The second word, translated as “crimes,” is found only here in Scripture as well as in classical Greek, rhadiourgéma. It comes from rhadios, meaning easy or reckless, and ergon, work or a deed. Thus, it is to work recklessly. Added to it is the word wicked. Hence, it would be an action of wickedness that is recklessly worked out. One can think of thugs on the street who are skilled at doing wrong.

Gallio has noted that such things are within his purview. He then bolsters that by saying, “there would be reason why I should bear with you.” One gets the sense of Gallio being impatient with the Jews over such a petty matter, and it is probable that this was not his first encounter with their whining. They had made themselves intolerable to him and he was fed up with it. This seems likely based on what lies ahead in the narrative.

Life application: Gallio rightly placed the matter back on the Jews where it belonged. They were bringing a matter forward that was obviously between them and Paul and had no bearing on civil matters.

In the church, such things are to be handled by the church. This is explicitly stated in Scripture. If a matter arises between believers that needs mediation, it is to be handled by a body of believers. This extends even to civil matters. Paul explains this in 1 Corinthians 6:1-7. Take time to read those verses and consider what they say.

If you are wronged by a fellow believer, Paul says that it would be better to accept the wrong or let yourself be cheated than to take such matters before unbelievers. Before doing anything rashly, consider the words of Scripture and take your actions in accord with what is recorded there.

Lord God, give us wisdom in how we handle our interactions with other believers. May we do our very best to faithfully uphold the sanctity and sacredness of Your word at all times. May our actions not bring the name of Jesus into disrepute. Help us with this. May our actions always glorify You. Amen.