Book of Acts & Interpreting Paul Pt.1

Q There seems to be some confusion and hotly contested debates going on in the Book of Acts but the "why" is not clear to me. Could you explain what was going on because there seems to be more to it than what is explained in Sunday School?

A. You are right that in most places you will not get a very good background on what was going on, not only in Acts, but in all the Scriptures. So, I will give you a brief history and synopsis so that you can get an idea of the context, First, let's go back to the Great Commission in Matt 28.19-20. Let's define a few things first. The "gospel" is known in Hebrew as the "basar" and it means "good news" or "meat, bread" and it is spoken of in the Tanach, or Old Testament (Isa 40.9-10,62.10-11).
The "gospel" was preached to Abraham and taught all through the Old Testament. So, the gospel was defined as the golden age of Israel, David's throne restored, Messiah has come, God reigns through him over the earth, peace has come, man and nature restored, the resurrection has taken place, righteousness in the earth, the day of the Lord has come, Torah goes forth, no idolatry, the exiles have returned to the land, true worship restored, Gentiles believe and much more.
The Messiah is the agent of God empowered through the Ruach ha Kodesh (Holy Spirit) to bring all of this about. His task is to redeem man and nature. We enter into this redemption by emunah (faith). The gospel message is that Yeshua (the Messiah) has come and the redemption of all things has been initiated.
Now, the headquarters for the faith was Jerusalem. In 30 A.D., Yeshua was resurrected and all this was centered around the 12 Talmidim (apostles). At this time, there was not a concept that the Gentiles would come into the faith "enmasse" nor was there a concept that they would without becoming Jews. So, the Jewish people believed in the coming Malkut Shamayim or the Kingdom of God. This was about the restoration and very eschatological. 1st Century Jews believed that only Jews would have a part in the Malkut Shamayim. This included the disciples of Yeshua. When they heard "go and make disciples of all nations" in Matt 28 they thought the Gentiles had to become Jewish and the God fearers (Gentiles who believed in the God of Israel) were well on that road. Their concept of their commission was to go into world to the Jew. The non-Jew would come into Judaism as a convert, then see that Yeshua was the Messiah. Some factions did not like that idea. There were many groups or sects in the 1st Century. The Pharisee's were the most popular group amongst the people and they were made up of two main schools called the school of Shammai and the school of Hillel. The question between the two groups was how should a non-Jew walk or live. The school of Shammai said that a Gentile should convert to Judaism through circumcision (Book of Galatians and Acts 15 deals with this), then keep the Torah. The school of Hillel believed that they should follow the Torah only where it applied to them, like festivals, Sabbath, sacrifices, food, uncleanliness laws and things like that. So, Acts moves along and and in Acts 10 Peter has a vision that the Gentiles did not need to be circumcised (means becoming Jewish) to have a part in the Malkut Shamayim. After he tells the story in Acts 11 the disciples change their doctrine and the issue was settled for awhile. But the issue crops up again and Paul has the same revelation and he explains this in Acts 15 and in the Book of Galatians. Now, the Messiah was not the "basar" but he is the agent of it (Psa 68.11, Isa 40.9-15, 52.1-40). Messianic Jews are going to take a different path than mainstream Judaism. So, with this background, we will pick up here next week and discuss the the Book of Acts up to approximately 70 A.D. and the first Jewish revolt against Rome. We will deal with the Jewish and non-Jewish believer and the issues and controversies that we read about and hopefully this will give you more insight into what was really going on. This area of study is largely ignored in most Bible studies and it has lead to a gross misunderstanding of what Paul was trying to say. So, we will look at the history and how these misunderstandings led to heresies and how Jews were eventually viewed as enemies of the Roman government and how these attitudes were reflected through the writings of the so-called "church fathers" which has influenced biblical doctrine to this day.

Click here for Part 2

Q. Is there a contradiction between Paul and James?

Q. Is there a contradiction between Paul and James? Paul says that we are justified by faith but James says that faith alone doesn't save you and faith without works is dead.
A. There is no contradiction between the two. Whenever you read the Scriptures you have to keep in mind the context in which it was written. Paul, for instance, was writing to people who thought that self-justification was attainable by their Torah observance. This, of course, is never taught in the Torah itself. A man can never be justified before God by works. But, just like some denominations today, the Jews had a well developed system of works righteousness and Paul had to deal with that everywhere he went. He says in Rom 9.32 that the Jews did not pursue righteousness by faith but by works. They thought that when they obeyed God they earned righteousness and that is just not the case. That's why Paul says that we are not "under the Law." Now, that term in Greek is "upo nomou" and it means that we are not subject to a system of works righteousness. He also says that we cannot earn righteousness through "works of the Law." That term in Greek is "ergo nomou" and that means a system of works righteousness. You cannot earn righteousness through obedience to God nor are we subject to a system that says we do. We approach God through "emunah" or faith.This Hebrew word is related to the word "amen" which means "so be it" or "let it be done." Now, faith is action and it is made up of three components. First, "ahav" or love. You obey the Lord because you love him. You must have the right attitude. Secondly, there are "mitzvot" or commandments. This word can also be translated "works." We should obey the Lord because we love him and let our good works shine, which glorifies our Father in Heaven. Third, we have "da'at" or knowledge. God tells us to do something and we act. There is no such thing as blind faith in the Bible. So, biblical faith is made up of love, works and knowledge. So, Paul is saying that a man is not justified by works but he does not say you shouldn't have any. James is saying the same thing. James is dealing with an audience that was anti-nomian, which means they were forgetful hearers of the Law. James is saying that if a person has genuine faith he will have genuine works as evidence of that faith. He is not saying that you need works to be saved, he's saying that you will have works when you are saved. Now, these works are not what man says are good works, it is what God says are good works and those works are described in the Scriptures. Paul and James are not contradictory but answer the question of how a component of faith (works) fits into salvation. Paul says that good works does not earn righteousness because that is a free gift of God and James is saying that one who is truly saved will have good works following as evidence of that saving faith.

Q. I heard a minister say that adultery was the only reason for a divorce. Is that true?

A. We are going to look at several verses and you will get a good idea of what the Lord requires. In Deut 24.1-4 it gives the biblical requirements for a divorce. There are four things that have to be established. First, there has to an indecency found in the individual. The word translated indecency in Hebrew is "ervah" and it does not mean adultery or any of the uncleanliness issues in Leviticus 18 because they were punishable by death. Ervah basically means"improper" and something that makes their life together impossible because it would lead to cruelty and abuse. There is no cause for divorce in the Torah for sexual sin, only death was prescribed. After "ervah" was established, the individual must write a certificate of divorce, put it in the hand of the other and then send them out. They can remarry only if neither one marries someone else. If they do then there can be no remarriage. The bottom line is you did not get a divorce for adultery, that was a death penalty. But let's look at some of the verses in the New Testament that deals with this subject. In Matt 5.32 it says that "every one who divorces his wife, except for uncleanliness (Gk="porneia") causes her to commit adultery (Gk="moichao") and whoever marries a woman who is separated but not divorced commits adultery." Now, the Greek "porneia" is the equivalent to the Hebrew "ervah" and what the Lord is doing is freeing Deut 24.1 from all the false interpretations of the Pharisee's. They took the word "ervah" to extremes and said that a person could divorce for very little. Do some research on 1st Century divorces and you will see what the Lord was trying to do. Exodus 21.10 gives us a little more insight into "ervah" because it says a divorce can be granted for non-support or reduced conjugal rights. This is not an exhaustive list but where life together becomes impossible, then there is cause for divorce .Matt 19.9 says the same thing. Some Bibles translate "porneia" as fornication but that is a very limited view .Mark 10.11 and Luke 16.18 has another concept to understand. It says "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery." Now we know from Deut 24.1-4 and Matt 5.32 that divorce is allowed so what does it mean. Divorce also carries the idea of "separation" and in these passages it means that if you only separate you are not free to remarry yet. You go back to Deut 24 and Matt 5 and it says that unless you have a proper divorce/separation with a certificate and it's put in the others hand and you send them out, then there is no divorce or proper separation and you are not free to marry someone else. What has happened today is people have little or no understanding about the Torah and the New Testament has been translated to fit in with the biases of the translator and confusion is the result, much like what happened in the 1st Century. One can be too loose about divorce, but one can also have a very narrow view and both are extremes. So, the bottom line is adultery is not the only reason one can get a divorce and the Bible does not teach that either. Next week we will look at this law of divorce and tie it in with eschatology and why the Lord wrote the law the way he did. This will give you a proper understanding about this law of divorce and will give you insight into the coming of the Lord and his dealings with Israel.