We’re at a natural break in the narrative of Acts, so I thought I would touch on some issues that have absorbed this blog for months now.  In a sense, this momentary lapse from following the Biblical narrative is necessary to explain future events within Acts.

Throughout the history of the Christian church, the church has struggled with those who would redefine the gospel and promote their own beliefs in the place of orthodoxy. The church has deemed these people heretics. Unfortunately, the title of heretic has been flung at Biblical believers at times, so that the term requires re-examination to understand what it means. Ultimately, it comes down to a definition of the gospel, which prepares us for Acts 15, when the early church first undertook the task of making a definitive statement concerning the gospel.

It would be wonderful if God and the church had created some all-encompassing statement of faith during Jesus’ lifetime and had Him say, yes, this is the gospel. No such statement exists and that, in and of itself, proof that Christianity is the truth. Canned religions start out with statements of faith at the outset. The early church came to know God sort of like one gets to know their spouse – a little at a time. They dealt with issues as they came up. And, thus, what was heresy and what was orthodoxy was given to the early church, but dealt with in succeeding generations as outsiders and those from inside who had confused ideas challenged the basic beliefs of the church.

Dr. Harold O.J. Brown wrote an excellent book in 1984 titled “Heresies: The Image of Christ in the Mirror of Heresy and Orthodoxy from the Apostles to the Present.” This comprehensive book that traces the various heresies found in the church from the 1^st Century to the present.  Dr. Brown defined heresies as “those beliefs that are so at odds with orthodox Christian theology that they are a direct threat to the basic beliefs necessary for adequately understanding God’s plan for personal salvation.” They are more than differences of opinion. The heretic must have some claim on calling himself “Christian”, some real original relationship to orthodoxy. A non-believer cannot be a heretic. In a sense, some of what we call “heresies” are not truly heretical, but another religion entirely.

All the theological concepts subject to heretical interpretation are found in the Bible. These are primarily those surrounding the Trinity and the nature of Jesus, although other subjects have become the basis for some heresies. The earliest Christians generally understood these concepts in the natural course of their faith. However, when heretical beliefs started developing, there grew a need to formally refute them; thus, over time, these basic Christian beliefs were systematized in understandable ways.

It took several centuries for the early theologians to develop the ideas and vocabulary needed to present orthodox beliefs on the Trinity and the nature of Jesus. When this was done the results were the various major creeds (Apostles, Nicene [AD 325/381], Athanasian, Chalcedonian [AD 451]) created for popular use. Even this is not enough. For though some will generally agree with the particular postulations, the intellectual need to further explain these basics in the extreme leads to heretical thought. This led to the subsequent (to AD 451) one thousand five hundred fifty years of repeating heresies. Most, if not all, modern heresies are revivals of or share assumptions with heresies of the first 450 years of Christianity.

In Dr. Brown’s book, he explained this history in a logical, chronological narrative. He showed that in the early persecutions, some heretics were genuine martyrs. More importantly, he explained the ramifications of any particular heresy, not just dwelling on why it is wrong Biblically, but thoroughly discussing the logical implications, conclusions and even actions to which this variant belief brings the heretic.  

The story progresses to the political successes of the church when it achieves official state recognition and eventually becomes an official state religion. He recounts with sadness the change of the church of the martyred saints into a government organization persecuting, or when not yet official, having the government persecute, its “enemies.” These enemies were not always heretics, but often political rivals with minor differences of theological opinion. Even some of this difference of opinion was really the result of linguistic misinterpretation (willful or incidental depending on the goals of the personages) between Latin and Greek speakers. When the opponents actually were heretical there were instances when the persecutions strengthened opposition to orthodoxy much in the same way early persecutions strengthened the church. It was some of this attitude and prejudice that left varieties of North African and Middle Eastern Christians vulnerable to the wholesale conversions to Islam in the 7th and 8th Centuries.

This is one reason why apologetics is so important to modern Christianity. We live in a day and age when the Internet makes it very easy to spread heresies and Biblical ignorance makes the average Christian vulnerable to claims that are partially based upon the Bible, but not fully founded there. Without a firm understanding of Biblical truth and modern writers who can put ancient theological terms into understandable modern language, we face a situation in North America and Europe that is very similar to 7^th and 8^th Century North America and Middle East. We must guard against this and the first defense is an understanding of the meaning of the gospel.

The passage we’re looking at today is one of the foundational passages for the SBC Cooperative Program, whereby local churches voluntarily contribute money to the larger organization to be distributed as needs arise or are foreseen. Monies may be given generally, without designation, or designated to a particular area of ministry that a church may want to see targeted. It allows us to combine our funds and get more “bang for our buck” than we could ever manage as single congregations. Many of the principles I touch on in this study are drawn from CP literature which is drawn from the interactions we see working in this passage.

“Now at this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. And one of them named Agabus stood up and began to indicate by the Spirit that there would certainly be a great famine all over the world. And this took place in the reign of Claudius. And in the proportion that any of the disciples had means, each of them determined to send a contribution for the relief of the brethren living in Judea. And this they did, sending it in charge of Barnabas and Saul to the elders.” Acts 11:27-30

We know from Acts 13:1 that the Antioch church had its own prophets, but for some reason God sent several prophets from Jerusalem to Antioch. Why? First, because w have seen God working sovereignly in His church throughout Acts, we can assume that the Holy Spirit arranged this message to be delivered in the way that it was. The Jerusalem church was older and more mature, so it may be that the prophets from Jerusalem had something to teach the prophets from Antioch. God was perhaps demonstrating the unity of the body of Christ, the church, emphasizing the interdependence within the body of Christ. As in the human body, each individual member relies upon the rest of the body, just as the whole body needs the one member (1 Corinthians 12-14). This is as true of the world-wide Christian church as it is of the local church congregation. It applies to finances and prophesy and a myriad other situations. God gives gifts to some members of His body in one place so that they might minister to other members of the body in another place. The kids in my youth group wanted to know why it was necessary to send more than one prophet. A plurality of prophets confirmed Agabus’ words concerning the coming famine. Paul later addressed this in 1 Corinthians 14:29 “And let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment.” I think the prophets all had the same basic message so that the church could judge this revelation in light of God’s Word.

We will meet Agabus again in Acts 21:10-14, by the way. He foretells Paul’s arrest. Look at the prophesy and note that the famine wasn’t just going to hit Jerusalem. Antioch was going to suffer from it also. Neither Agabus nor any of the other prophets told the Antioch Christians what to do about this prophesy. It seems from Luke’s account that they decided to save up and give money to the Jerusalem church all on their own. Go ahead and re-read it if you don’t believe me. The Christians at Antioch apparently reckoned that the famine would hit Jerusalem hard because of the persecution they were already experiencing and they purposed to be prepared for the coming hard times and to help the Judean saints when it came. This should be a pattern for ministry of any kind. The Antioch Christians felt an obligation to minister to fellow believers first, something we later see in Romans 12:16 and again in Galatians 6:10. Christians are “our brother’s keeper.” The generosity of Antioch was a ministry from one church to another, not the act of a few isolated saints to a few isolated saints. The gifts were sent through Barnabas and Saul to the elders in Judea. It was an intentional ministry, undertaken by strangers on behalf of strangers, from believers in one country to believers in another. The unity of the body of Christ necessitates ministry which crosses racial, social, political, and economic lines. We see far too little international ministry today. The ministry of the Antioch church to the Jerusalem church was a demonstration of unity and inter-dependence that was voluntarily undertaken to meet a future need. Often we moderns respond to a need as it arises, once a church or organization is teetering on the edge of disaster. The Antioch Christians saw a crisis coming and they prepared for it. This could apply not just to money, but to ministry in general. Wise ministry looks ahead and anticipates trouble, preparing to minister to needs as they arise through planning and preparing. In the spirit of interrelatedness, the Antioch Christians and the Jerusalem Christians ministered to each other from their strengths to each other’s weaknesses. They were reciprocating one to another, but not in like-kind, because they did not have the same needs.

It is almost certain that these two very different churches would have experienced a tendency for friction and dissension, at least among individuals within each church, if not the leadership. Yet God providentially arranged for these two churches to be able to transcend their barriers to show unity through Jesus Christ. This is God-inspired agape love, similar to what will later be seen in the Macedonian church 2 Corinthians 8 and 9. 

How gracious God was to bring these two churches—so diverse and different, so easily inclined to drift apart or contend with each other—together. He first brought them together by salvation in Christ, then He brought them together through ministry, one to another. The saints in Jerusalem ministered through their gifted men, and the saints in Antioch ministered through their money. What a wonderful union God wrought there. We should pray that God manifests this same unity among us in our church and between our church and other churches, locally and worldwide.

Good leadership often requires a recognition of teamwork. I know some pastors who are “one-man shows”, but rarely do they do as well as those pastors who form a ministry team with their church, whether it be the general congregation or a handful of lay leaders. Some might do well in their generation, then their church falters when they pass from the scene. Barnabas was a good pastor.

“And considerable numbers were brought to the Lord. And he left for Tarsus to look for Saul; and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And it came about that for an entire year they met with the church, and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.” Acts 11:24-26

Quickly recognizing God’s work in the saints in Antioch, Barnabas encouraged the new believers to remain strong and growing in the faith. Even as he sized up the situation, more Gentiles were being saved and Barnabas was faced with the very real knowledge that these Gentiles lacked the Scriptural knowledge of Jewish disciples and were likely to become lax in the disciplines of the spiritual walk. Sanctification, like salvation is God’s work, but it is a work in which Christians must cooperate.

In the past, we saw Barnabas encouraging Saul as a new Christian. Some scholars think Barnabas and Saul were students of Gamaliel together before their respective conversions and this was the genesis of their friendship. Maybe so. Or maybe the Holy Spirit just gave Barnabas discernment to recognize that Saul was now God’s man.  Being a man who did not seek to build an edifice or empire for himself, Barnabas sought to find the best ministry partner possible to work among this wholly new and unique church. Barnabas, for whatever reason, had faith that God could minister to this body of believers through Saul. And, the need for such ministry was great, for the church continued to grow both through evangelism (verse 21) and discipleship (verse 24). Some churches think these two are mutually exclusive; a church is either an evangelistic church or a discipling church. I disagree, partially based upon the Antioch experience. As the Antioch church grew spiritually it also grew in its evangelism which made the need for spiritual growth even more pressing.

Barnabas did not just go seeking any ole ministry partner. He deliberately sought Saul. Why is this important? Well, I think it might have somewhat to do with Luke’s seemingly incidental statement in verse 26: “… and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.” Luke didn’t waste words; every statement in Acts has a purpose. Names are meant to identify things and distinguish them from other things. Saul’s would soon change to Paul, indicating some significant change. God often gave new names to men, indicating a particular future or destiny. Abram (exalted father) was renamed Abraham (father of a multitude), before he was even a father at all. It is significant that the disciples needed a name and the name itself is significant.

Prior to this, most of those who were saved were Jews. When they were saved, they remained Jews. They were what we now call “completed Jews,” but they were still Jews. They continued to observe the Jewish holy days and festivals, and to worship in the temple or to gather at a synagogue. Those who were Gentiles were, up until this point in time, proselytes, or God-fearers. They too became Jews.

At Antioch, Barnabas was dealing with Gentiles, pure pagans. They were not Jewish, and when they came to faith in Jesus they did not go to the synagogue nor did they associate with the Jews. They were very different and distinct from the Jews, and their faith did not make them Jewish. These people had no recognized identity. What would you call this new large body of people who had been saved, but were not a part of any established religion? They needed a name which depicted their essential uniqueness and characterized them. The name which people in Antioch coined was “Christians” because the one thing which characterized every one of these new believers was their faith in Christ.

The point of this naming of the saints is that the people of Antioch recognized that the church was distinct from Judaism. Israel and the church differed. Luke signaled that the people of Antioch recognized the reality of the church as a new entity, distinct from Judaism, with the unifying element being its belief in Jesus. This pagan city saw what many in the church still hadn’t recognized -- the church as a separate entity, a body which is united in and by Christ, belonging to Him, neither Jewish nor Gentile.

Saul was a Hellenistic Jewish Christian who had a distinguished background in Judaic law and had shown a zeal for preaching the gospel. Barnabas, faced with a wholly untaught congregation, recognized that Saul’s unique background qualified him to teach the Antioch Christians all they needed to know to become mature Christians. Barnabas, and apparently Paul, did not seek to turn these Gentiles into Jews. The gospel message was the same, but the practice of Christianity varied. These Gentiles needed to have some framework for morality, but they didn’t need to follow Jewish ceremonial law, which hadn’t exactly worked for the Jews.  Thus, Barnabas found a like-minded Jewish Christian with formidable understanding of the Jewish law to teach the formerly-pagan Antioch Christians how to be Christians, using the Jewish laws as mere guides. As Barnabas was the exact right man for the job of pastoring this new church, he chose the exact right man for training this new church.

My mother-in-law may be moving from New England to Alaska. So, my husband and I have been investigating what it will take for us to move her and her stuff to Alaska.  It’s nearly 5,000 miles, which is no big for me because I already have to drive 800 miles round trip for an Arby’s sandwich or a high-quality office suit. It means one week of driving. For Alaskans, road trips are a necessary inconvenience that we embrace. I’m actually looking forward to it, U-Haul and all, because it means traveling I-90, a route I have mostly managed to bypass in my travels.

However, as we research the trip (which currently would be taken by myself with Bri riding shot-gun – my construction worker husband would stay here to make money while the sun shines) we’re discovering that we know of a lot of the cities we’ll be passing through, but not a lot about the cities. Somehow, I never knew that Buffalo is a stone’s throw from Niagara Falls or that Minneapolis is less than a day’s drive from my mother’s hometown in North Dakota.

In a similar fashion, as I began this study, I realized that the term Antioch was just a city to me. I knew precious little about the community itself. It seems like such an important city in the history of the church ought to have more of an identity. We all know about Rome, which is to me of far less importance to the church than Antioch. So, it seems like a good idea to focus on the city where God chose to sovereignly plant the Gentile church.

Antioch still exists as Antakya in the Hatay province of Turkey, about 18 miles upstream on the Orontes. It was founded by the Seleucid dynasty in 300 BC and was named after Nicator’s father, Antiochus, whose name had also been used for the port city of Antioch at the mouth of the Orontes.  As the capital of the Seleucid monarchy, Antioch quickly became a prominent city. When Pompey (Julius Caesar’s partner in tyranny) reorganized Western Asia in 64 BC, he made Antioch a free city and the seat of administration for the Roman province of Syria. It was the third largest city in the Graeco-Roman world (surpassed by only Rome and Alexandria). The produce of Syria and more eastern lands passed through Antioch on their way to the west, making it a commercial center as well as a political capital. Situated between the urbanized Mediterranean world and the eastern desert, it was more cosmopolitan than even other Hellenistic cities, so here is where Christianity first displayed its cosmopolitan character.

Jewish colonization of Antioch began almost as soon as the city was founded and by the beginning of the Christian era, proselytes to Judaism were especially numerous in Antioch. Nicolaus (Acts 6:5) was a proselyte from Antioch, for example. Many other nationalities resided in the city. The city’s reputation for moral laxity was enhanced by the sex cults of Artemis and Apollo at nearby Daphne, though this cult actually had started as ritual prostitution under the Syrian goddess Astarte. The Roman satirist Juvenal was referring to Antioch when he wrote “the sewage of the Syrian Orontes has for long been discharging itself into the Tiber.”

Yet God had other plans for this city of debauchery.  The dispersed disciples of Christ followed the great trade routes by land and sea northward to Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch. Here Christianity contacted and came to grips with Roman and Greek civilization. At the point of our lesson, it’s maybe AD 40-45, barely a decade after Jesus’ death. Antioch soon superseded Jerusalem as the center of Christianity and remained so for a great many years, producing a famous school of theology and theologians like Ignatius and John Chrysostom. By the time of the Council of Nicea in AD 325, the reported Christian population in Antioch alone was 200,000. Between AD 253 and 380, Antioch was the seat of no less than 10 church councils and its patriarchs took precedence over those of Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem and Alexandria.

Who would have thought that the quintessential heathen city would become the vanguard for the gospel in the ancient world? Certainly humans wouldn’t have expected that. How God’s ways always surpass ours! An unnamed group of Christian men went to a God-forsaken place, preaching the gospel. God worked then as He works today, in ways we would never conceive or even request. Always His ways are above and beyond our own.

“And the news about them reached the ears of the church at Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas off to Antioch. Then when he had come and witnessed the grace of God, he rejoiced and began to encourage them all with resolute heart to remain true to the Lord; for he was a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And considerable numbers were brought to the Lord. And he left for Tarsus to look for Saul; and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And it came about that for an entire year they met with the church, and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.” Acts 11:19-26

The apostles were not infallible or perfect. They had displayed prejudice toward Gentiles and God would be correcting that error soon as Peter met Cornelius. The overall leadership of the apostles had helped those who followed them to see beyond their leaders’ prejudices and to obey God rather than men, even their own leaders. Despite their prior negative leadership, the apostles took a very positive step in their response to the news of the Antioch conversions. I suspect Peter had already arrived with his news and explanation of the Cornelius affair, so that the apostles now responded more positively to the Antioch situation. The Jerusalem church was able to accept the salvation of the Antioch Gentiles. In response, they sent Barnabas to Antioch as their representative, in much the same way they had sent Peter and John to Samaria (Acts 8:14).

The first question is not why Barnabas was sent to Antioch rather than one of the apostles (as was the case in Samaria), but why the Jerusalem church sent anyone at all. After all, they didn’t seek to evangelize Antioch; that had been done by others. Why not simply leave Antioch alone to thrive on its own? Well, the Jerusalem church had certain Biblical leadership functions. Jesus gave His disciples, the apostles, the responsibility to make disciples of every nation. His commission to them was the foundation for leadership in the church. While the apostles did not initiate the preaching of the gospel at Antioch (God did that!), they did respond to God’s leadership by following up on these new converts as per the Great Commission. It was their responsibility to assure that the pure gospel was preached and to assure that these people in Antioch had truly turned from idols to worship God. I think the church at Jerusalem was very sensitive to the truth being proclaimed. They rejoiced at hearing the “gospel” was preached and that others believed, but they wanted to make sure they believed the right gospel. Up to this point, it had mostly been the Apostles and men they knew teaching the gospel; with new preachers on the scene, they wanted to assure that they were still preaching as apostolic men, sent out from Christ with Christ’s message of salvation. Not only did they want to assure the purity of the gospel message, but they also wanted to investigate the sincerity of the professions of faith. Remember when Peter rebuked Simon? A false or distorted gospel would have gotten instant attention from Barnabas and the apostles. Barnabas was also sent to witness whether these new believers had experienced the baptism of the Holy Spirit. If the Spirit had not yet descended upon these saints in Antioch, then the church in Jerusalem was obligated to facilitate it.

There may have been some transfer of authority through Barnabas. We are not told until Acts 11:26 that the group at Antioch was considered a church. Up to that time, they seem to be merely individual Christians perhaps meeting together, but afterward they are called a church. Because this was a wholly Gentile church, such incorporation may have been considered necessary by the apostles. The church must be established according to God’s requirements, and it would seem that this was one reason why the church at Jerusalem so quickly and eagerly responded to the report of the salvation of many at Antioch.

The Jerusalem church also seems to have sent Barnabas to Antioch in order to facilitate and communicate the essential unity which existed between the two churches. Becoming a Christian means to become a member of the body of Christ. To become a church was to become one with other churches, especially the church at Jerusalem. Barnabas was sent to teach, facilitate and strengthen the unity of the body of Christ and the unity between these two churches.

I don’t think we should consider Barnabas as the “apostle of the church at Jerusalem, sent to take charge of the church at Antioch and to see to it that things are set in order.” This was, I think, not a dictatorial or hierarchical step. Barnabas was sent not as a taskmaster, but as a gift from the Jerusalem church to the church in Antioch. He went not so much to rule as to serve by exercising God-given, God-appointed leadership. I think the church in Jerusalem had a very simple reason for sending Barnabas—the situation in Antioch required spiritual leadership, and the church there was leadership poor, while the church in Jerusalem was overflowing with leaders. Just as the church in Antioch would share its material wealth in order to alleviate the economic poverty of the saints in Judea (Acts 11:27-30), the church in Jerusalem would share its wealth in spiritual leadership to alleviate the leadership poverty of the saints in Antioch. Simply put, the church in Jerusalem sent Barnabas to Antioch because there was a need for the kind of leadership which Barnabas could offer.

Why Barnabas? Why not one of the apostles, as in Samaria? Was Barnabas a kind of “second class” apostle, chosen because none of the apostles would go, or because the Jewish believers in Jerusalem did not think these heathen brethren were worthy of full-fledged apostles? Quite the contrary! I think Barnabas was the very best leader they could choose for Antioch! Unlike the apostles, Barnabas had been raised in a culture that was similar to the Antiochians. He spoke their language. He could relate to them much more than the apostles, being Judeans, could. The church at Antioch was founded by Hellenistic Jews and it’s likely the apostles (Judeans) would not have wanted to stir up the old Judean versus Hellenistic widows controversy. Hellenistic Jews were every bit as good Christians as Judean Jews. Barnabas was a highly esteemed Hellenistic Jewish Christian. He was a man of godly character and spiritual vitality (Acts 12:24). He had the charisma for the task at hand. He found great joy in the grace of God, particularly as he saw it working in the lives of others. He was a man whose personal life was characterized by faith and in whom the Spirit of God was producing spiritual fruit. He was the right man for the job!

Luke emphasized Barnabas’ character, not his methodology. We moderns have an undue fixation with methods and are quick to imitate any program we think is successful. Luke didn’t mention Barnabas’ methods at all, but focused on his character. We can always find someone to imitate technique, but we need more Christians with character, “full of the Spirit and of faith.” We should seek to find ministers for God who meet God’s requirements rather than those who are successful in their church building. Numbers mean less to God than depth of spiritual maturity. Churches that catch onto that idea are much more likely to be around and thriving in a generation than those who focus on numbers and the “flavor of the month” preacher.

If this passage seems a bit familiar it is because Luke took a step backward here to pick up a story line he had left behind in order to pursue the one following Philip and then Peter. During the Jerusalem persecution more than one group of Christians scattered across the Holy Land. There were many such groups. So, here, Luke paused and took a step backward in order to follow another line of church growth. We moderns would probably have made more of an emphasis on this backtrack, but that’s not how things were accomplished by historians in the 1^st Century.

Stephen’s death and the persecution that followed brought Christians to Phoenicia and Cyprus, but also Antioch in the southern part of Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey), with Cyprus not far off the coast. The first group consisted of Jews who shared the gospel only with other Jews, but then another group of men, mainly from Cyprus and Cyrene, began to speak with the Greeks of Antioch. Antioch was a Gentile city. Many Hellenistic Jews lived there, but the majority population was Gentile. The Scriptures don’t tell us who these men were beyond where they were from. They would Hellenistic Jews.  When word reached Jerusalem that large numbers of Gentiles in Antioch were being saved, they sent Barnabas to investigate. Barnabas was a Hellenistic Jewish Christian from Cyprus, so his choice seems practical. Send a Hellenist Jewish Christian to check out the activities of Hellenistic Jewish Christians in a Gentile city. Barnabas found nothing to object to and rejoiced at the salvation of the Gentiles, but quickly recognized the need for teaching. These new Christians likely knew nothing of Judaism beyond what they had learned from their standoffish Jewish neighbors. Seeing the need, Barnabas sought out the most qualified teacher he could think of – Saul of Tarsus – and brought him back to Antioch to help teach these new Christians. It was at Antioch that the word “Christian” was first coined. Before that, the saints were called “people of the Way.”

“So then those who were scattered because of the persecution that arose in connection with Stephen made their way to Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except to Jews alone. But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who came to Antioch and began speaking to the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a large number who believed turned to the Lord. And the news about them reached the ears of the church at Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas off to Antioch. Then when he had come and witnessed the grace of God, he rejoiced and began to encourage them all with resolute heart to remain true to the Lord; for he was a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And considerable numbers were brought to the Lord. And he left for Tarsus to look for Saul; and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And it came about that for an entire year they met with the church, and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.

“Now at this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. And one of them named Agabus stood up and began to indicate by the Spirit that there would certainly be a great famine all over the world. And this took place in the reign of Claudius. And in the proportion that any of the disciples had means, each of them determined to send a contribution for the relief of the brethren living in Judea. And this they did, sending it in charge of Barnabas and Saul to the elders.” Acts 11:19-30

In some ways we’re seeing a fading of Jewish Christianity. Antioch as the first Gentile church is an interesting point of change for the church because it was dynamic. It was from Antioch that God would launch the gospel to many nations. Antioch is from where Barnabas and Saul were first sent out as missionaries. The Jerusalem church certainly ministered to Antioch, but Antioch financially supported Jerusalem. Antioch would be the first church to respond to the heretical teachings of some from Judea, sending Paul and Barnabas back to Jerusalem to settle the matter. By Acts 12, we bid farewell to Peter (more or less) as Luke begins to follow the narrative of Paul and Barnabas as they go forth with the gospel, always to the Jews first and then to the Gentiles. We see a great stride being taken by the church as the Holy Spirit begins to work in a larger community. It is a stride taken primarily by Hellenistic Jews.

There are those who would like to conclude that the initial evangelism of the Gentiles was a happy accident caused by Christians so overflowing with joy and love for God they could not be selective with whom they spoke. This may be the case in some instances, but I think Luke deliberately inserted verse 19 to show that the Judean Jews were not going to the Gentiles initially, and then the Hellenistic Jews began to preach deliberately to the Gentiles. One of the commentators I read noted that there are two Greek words used here – one laleo which means speaking and the other evangelize which means “preaching”.  The Judean Jewish Christians perhaps were willing to talk with their fellow Jews about their belief in Jesus, but they stayed away from Gentiles, while the Hellenistic Jews were deliberately spreading the gospel to Gentiles. It might be noted that those who were from Jerusalem might have been inclined to pattern their behavior after the practices of the apostles. The apostles, despite all they had been taught by the Holy Spirit, seem to have remained reluctant to reach out to Gentiles. Why would these Jews be willing to incur the anger of unbelieving Jews and some Jewish Christians as well? What made them live the exception rather than the rule?

The sovereignty of God was most definitely at work here. God had used the unbelieving opposition of Saul to scatter the church and force the proclamation of the gospel to unreached areas. He used men like the apostles in spite of their limitations and disobedience. God does not need us to achieve His purposes. He is a sovereign God who can even use the rebellion of men to praise Him. The success of their evangelism efforts shows that God was guiding them and establishing their ministry. What God sovereignly purposes, He also accomplishes by means of His Holy Spirit. He did this through the use of His followers’ backgrounds, languages and cultures. Hellenistic Jews were much more comfortable with interacting with Gentiles than Judean Jews were. Perhaps the stress on ceremonial cleanness was not as great. Certainly they might have spoken the native languages. God used the best resources at that time.

An easily missed point is that these Christians lived their lives by what the Word of God taught rather than what men taught. This is a critical truth! The events in Acts indicate that the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles occurred at a time when the Christians and even the apostles were not seemingly aware of the necessity to do so. God gave Peter a revelation and prepared the church in Jerusalem, but that was not the cause of this evangelistic outreach to Antioch. Recognizing that Luke has stepped back in time, it’s good to realize that Antioch was being evangelized at the same time as Samaria, when the Jerusalem Christians were happily nested in their bigotry. These Hellenistic Jews did not allow the limitations of their leaders to limit their evangelism. While the apostles were still working out whether or not to talk with Gentiles, the Hellenistic Jewish Christians were already talking to Gentiles. In a very real way, Peter’s encounter with Cornelius was God saying “this work over here is MY work, accept it.”

Christians should never be limited in our spirituality or our doctrine by our teachers and leaders. God does not excuse us for failing to do right or for doing wrong simply because that is the way we were taught or led.

A fundamental difference between Christianity and cults rests in our conception and practice of leadership. Cults almost invariably are founded by some “charismatic” leader who wants to do all your thinking for you.  You need not trouble yourself to discern the “will of God”; the cult leader will tell you what God wants you to do. The apostles founded the church, but the church grew beyond them and did just fine. How is that possible?

First and foremost, Christ is the Leader of His church. Peter’s words to Cornelius sum it up “He is Lord of all” (Acts 10:36). Paul frequently made reference to the headship of Christ. (See Colossians 1:15-20). For this reason, leaders in Christian churches are meant to be servants, not “lords”. Christ is the Head of the church, and therefore its Leader. His leaders are servants. Paul spoke of himself as a servant (1 Thessalonians 2:1-12; 2 Corinthians 11:19-21), and Peter taught elders to lead by example rather than dictum (1 Peter 5:1-4). The apostles had confidence that God was the Author and Finisher of our faith. His work is accomplished through the Word of God and the Spirit of God (Philippians 1:6; Acts 20:32). The apostles clearly believed that leadership is God’s working through the Word and the Spirit in men’s lives. Paul worked to persuade others to accept doctrine, but indicated that it was God Who would do the final work (Philippians 3:15).

Cultists and false teachers do not want men to be left alone with the Bible because people might find out what’s really in it. They want to tell men what the Bible teaches, thus promoting their own distortions of the Word of God above the Word itself. John warned of this in 1 John 2:24-27, exhorting his readers to abide in the Word of God and the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Word of God, illumined by the Holy Spirit Who indwells every Christian, is all that we need. We don’t need to listen to would-be teachers, especially if what they teach doesn’t line up to the Bible.

It seems that because of their confidence in God’s working in Christian lives through the Word and the Holy Spirit, the leadership of the apostles tapered off over time. Initially, they were the center of the church, the ones who taught, preached, and led. As time passed, leadership began to pass to the hands of others who have grown and matured in their faith. Peter’s leadership seemed to fade, and James became more dominant (or at least prominent). Barnabas moved from the “driver’s seat” to the “passenger’s seat” in Acts. The apostles, who initially seemed to make all the decisions regarding the church in Jerusalem (Acts 6:1-6; 8:14), gradually gave way to the elders of the church and others, who took a more aggressive leadership role as time went on (Acts 11:1-2, 18, 27-30; 15:1-2).

I think this was a healthy choice. As the apostles grew older and faced the approach of death, they continued to express confidence in God’s working in and through those they would leave behind, particularly if they remained grounded in Scripture (2 Timothy 4; 2 Peter 3:14-18). The apostles had confidence in those who trusted in God, knowing the Word of God would adequately equip them for any work God called them to do (2 Timothy 3:14-17; Hebrews 4:12-13; Romans 15:14). By teaching their disciples to follow the Word of God rather than the words of men, they prepared their followers to take up the reins of leadership. By allowing the new leadership to step up beside them before their passing, they provided a transition that was neither traumatic nor fraught with the risk of heresy asserting itself from new leaders who weren’t exactly sure what their predecessors had taught. It was a dual training system that worked very well in the years prior to the full publication of the New Testament.

The apostles were not sinless or infallible. Jesus had taught them to lead in a self-correcting way, so that their personal failures would not destine those under their tutelage to failure. God had taught them to lead as servants, in humility rather than as authoritarian dictators. They pointed men to God and to His Word rather than force any sort of dependence upon them as leaders. Thus, even when the apostles were wrong, those who were under their authority need not fall prey to the same evil. To me it is incredibly comforting to know that our confidence is not in fallible men, but in a perfect and powerful God, a God Who has given us His Word, which is adequate, sufficient, infallible and inerrant! He has also given us His Spirit to interpret and apply the Word to our hearts and lives. While teachers may expand our understanding and challenge our shallow or erroneous understanding of Scripture, we are not doomed without them, and we are not to blindly follow them. We are to “search the Scriptures,” like the Bereans (Acts 17:11), to follow God rather than men, when men depart from the Word of God, like these Hellenistic Jews, who preached to the Gentiles, even when Peter and the apostles refused to do so.

This handful of noble saints who preached the Lord Jesus to the Gentiles knew the difference between the “teachings of men” and the “teachings of God.” No doubt they had a great love and respect for their leaders, the apostles and the elders. But their grasp of God’s Word, His goals and purposes, and His commands, was not limited to that of their leaders or teachers. They were limited only by their obedience to God.

One of my former pastors was a gear-head who bought a cool sports car used, fixed it up and drove it on pastoral visits.  On occasion, it would be reported to members of the church that the car had been seen outside this or that bar and weren’t we concerned with the company our pastor was keeping. Of course, we all knew that PW was a very sincere man who was incapable to telling a falsehood, so when asked point-blank, “Were you drinking alcohol in the Mecca?” we could be assured that his answer of “No” was truthful. He had reasons for being there, primarily that Native churches often have members who are recovering alcoholics who, when they fall off the wagon, return to drinking and their old haunts. Sometimes their spouses would call, once in a while the bartender or a concerned patron would call, sometimes they themselves would call, but usually too deeply entangled to remove themselves from the situation.  PW would go get them, get them home, take them to rehab, take their car keys, etc. Some of those people are now active and very sober members of our congregation. Understanding that sometimes ministry to challenging populations means taking some social risks, our church never “called him on the carpet” the way Peter would be called to account in Acts 11. We understood that appearances aren’t always reality.

Peter lived in a society where appearances were everything. His fellow Jews took the laws surrounding ceremonial cleanness very seriously.  To violate them in even a small way meant you could not worship God (in the Temple, which was the only place “good” Jews believed you could really worship God). Even associating with someone who was ceremonially unclean could result in ceremonial uncleanness and banishment from the Temple. His fellow apostles were still very Jewish in their thinking and very concerned with worshipping God. Thus, evangelizing Gentiles (who were always considered ceremonially unclean) put Peter in hot water with his brethren.

Peter had referred to his actions as illegal, which was true if one gave weight to Jewish interpretation and application of the Old Testament laws (Acts 10:28). Peter was neck-deep in risky business accompanying Gentiles to a Gentile house then remaining as their guest for several days.  Peter himself had initially refused to partake of anything “unclean”, showing the rift between Gentiles and Jews. The two could not touch one another. Peter’s change of mind and heart becomes a turning point for the church in Jerusalem in its attitudes and actions toward Gentile converts.

Throughout the Old Testament and then during Jesus’ ministry, there had been hints that the gospel message applied to the Gentiles as well as the Jews, but the Jews seem to have had difficulty with that concept.  They left Jerusalem only when persecution forced them to do so. The revival in Samaria caused Peter to leave the close confines of his very Jewish church and to travel and do things he would not normally have done.  As news returned to Jerusalem, perhaps in advance of Peter’s arrival, the apostles heard only partial information. Gentiles had receive the word and been saved? They were amazed at this news. Peter had stayed with them and even eaten with them? Oh, my! This sounded untoward. The apostles were shocked that one of their own would sully himself so. Didn’t Peter know how this might affect the reception of the gospel among Jews?  Now that made them angry. He hadn’t discussed this course of action with them and it really did sound like he’d gone too far.

The New Jerusalem Bible aptly catches the tone of this anger and frustration with Peter:

“The apostles and the brothers in Judaea heard that the pagans too had accepted the word of God, and when Peter came up to Jerusalem the Jews criticized him and said, “So you have been visiting the uncircumcised and eating with them, have you?” Acts 11:1-3, (New Jerusalem Bible)

I found myself wondering where the rejoicing was. People were coming to the Lord. Why were the apostles angry in that circumstance? Why the strong negative reaction to the conversion of Cornelius and those Gentiles in his house?

I believe the root of the opposition rests with the opposition itself. Christians are not perfect and we do not become perfect when we accept the Lord. We bring our baggage with us. Peter had not done this in the “usual way.”  The Old Testament had provided a means for a Gentile to become a Jew through the process of becoming a proselyte. There may already have been some Christians who had come to the church in this fashion.  Because they were Jews before their conversion, they were not considered to be Gentiles. Peter, however, preached the gospel to the Gentiles as Gentiles. Cornelius and his household were received into the faith as Gentiles. They’d skipped Judaism altogether. Salvation suddenly didn’t seem to be just for Jews anymore.

First, Peter was no longer ceremonially clean, which meant that interaction with him might make the other apostles ceremonially unclean, preventing them from worshiping in the Temple. Second, however, was the very real difficulty of Jews simply not liking Gentiles. They practiced purity in a way to justify their prejudice (something that still occurs today), but what it really came down to was that Gentiles were different and they didn’t like that. Of course, the whole lesson here was that “what God cleansed, man must not regard as unclean.” This referred to the food animals, but more, it referred to salvation. If a Gentile were saved, then a Gentile was also clean. If clean, then the Jewish Christians could not refuse to fellowship with him. Salvation requires fellowship and Jews, even believing ones, did not want to fellowship with Gentiles.

Second, Peter acted independently of the apostles and did not seek their approval. In a precedent-setting move, he had obligated all of them to a course that the rest of them seem to think was wrong. To a certain extent, they were right to be consternated, because if they felt revulsion and discomfiture at interacting with Gentiles, they also knew that the unbelieving Jews, particularly the Pharisees, would experience a strong reaction to this news. Christianity was still largely a sect of Judaism. By admitting Gentiles as Gentiles, Peter was turning it to something else. This difficulty would eventually culminate in the Jerusalem Council.

Peter was asked to give an account of himself and his actions in Caesarea.  His defense was “God made me do it!”

Peter described his vision while in Joppa – how he’d seen something like a sheet being lowered from the sky, how there’d been four-footed animals, wild beasts, crawling creatures and birds on it. A voice had called him by name and told him to kill and eat, but Peter had been firm, for he had never eaten anything unclean before and there were apparently unclean animals on that sheet. The voice had insisted that “what God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.” Three times (the number three was considered significant by Jews as an indication of God’s presence) this process occurred and then the sheet was drawn back into heaven. Just as the vision completely, three men from Cornelius arrived at Simon the tanner’s door requesting Peter to go with them and the Spirit had told him to do so without misgivings. Peter had taken others with him and had heard Cornelius’ vision concerning Peter.

“And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, just as He did upon us at the beginning. “And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’  “If God therefore gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” Acts 11:15-17

Peter did not defend himself so much as he presented the details of his actions and placed the “blame” on God.  Who was Peter to argue with God? God had determined to do this and Peter was determined to align his actions with God’s plans. God thought and acted differently from Peter and it was Peter who needed to adjust, not God. Peter focused on what God had taught him through this experience. God had worked with both Peter and Cornelius to bring about this meeting. Peter had preached the same gospel that he’d preached to Jews. The Holy Spirit dramatically bore witness to the salvation of the Gentiles, visibly baptizing them in the presence of Peter and his six Jewish companions in a way similar to Pentecost.

The events surrounding the salvation of Cornelius and his household were all of God’s doing, Peter testified.  He just obeyed what God had told him to do.  Peter noted that he hadn’t even finished his sermon before the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius and his household.

“If God therefore gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” (Acts 11:17).

For Peter to have done anything other than what he did would have been for him to stand in God’s way. Peter did not initiate anything; he responded to the clear directives and actions of God. Peter simply conformed to God’s way, obeying that which God had clearly revealed he must both think and do.

“And when they heard this, they quieted down, and glorified God, saying, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.” Acts 11:18

This one verse is vitally important, for it reveals to us what the real error was in the thinking of both the Jews and Jewish Christians. The apostles came to understand that the primary issue was the gospel and the salvation of the Gentiles, not any Jewish ceremonial law. They don’t even mention food or eating as they conclude the matter. Ceremonial cleanness would continue to be an important issue with the Jewish Christian community, but it was not the central issue. Fellowship was a secondary matter to the gospel. Our lifestyle choices are dictated by the gospel, not the other way around.  Peter seems to have forgotten this by the time that Galatians was written, but in his rebuke of Peter, Paul emphasized that Peter’s error was a functional denial of the gospel. Peter fell back into old habits, forgetting the lessons he’d learned.

Now we see rejoicing as the apostles stopped complaining to give glory to God.  Salvation was the Lord’s to give as He saw fit and they recognized that the Gentiles had been saved as Gentiles through God’s sovereign action.

This is a crucial event in the development of Acts because it shows that God had purposed the salvation of the Gentiles. The saints had been slow of heart to move beyond the “salvation is for the Jew only” mode, but God had made it clear that He was having none of that. The prejudice of the Jerusalem “circumcised saints” with regard to the Gentiles goes a long ways in explaining the refusal of other Jerusalem saints to preach the good news to Gentiles (Acts 11:19). Conversely, the precedent of Peter and Cornelius does much to explain the response of the church at Jerusalem to news of the salvation of many in Antioch (11:22).

It should be noted that Peter relied on the Holy Spirit here, but that the Holy Spirit does not immediately produce instant maturity, doctrinal accuracy or spirituality in individual Christians or the churches they attend. The Book of Acts strongly testifies against such an idea. We see the Holy Spirit working in the apostles at Pentecost when they were empowered to proclaim the gospel, but they were not immediately delivered from their prejudice toward Gentiles nor were they immediately tuned in to God’s purpose and command that the gospel be preached to all men of every nation. Their slowness of heart shows that God does not instantly perfect His saints. Sanctification remains necessary. The Spirit of God works through processes as well as through immediate changes. We do well to remember that and cut ourselves and our fellow Christians some slack. God’s not finished with us yet.

The passage points us to the essence of the gospel and its necessary expressions. The central issue in the salvation of Cornelius was the gospel. The gospel is God’s promise and God’s possession; it is therefore His to give to whomever He chooses. The gospel is for sinners, Jew or Gentile. The gospel is God’s means of providing salvation for the whole world, and not just for the Jews. It was for them to accept then to proclaim to the nations. Salvation came through the Jews, because Jesus was a Jew, a “seed of Abraham” (Genesis 12:1-3; Galatians 3:16), and it was through Him that salvation was made available for all mankind. Those who are saved have nothing to boast about, other than in what Christ did to save us. Those who obtain salvation are to think of themselves as stewards of the gospel, with the responsibility and duty of sharing it with others. The grace of God is the grace which should characterize those who have obtained salvation through it. Thus, the saint should rejoice in the salvation of any sinner.

The reluctance of the Jewish Christians to preach the gospel to the Gentiles is strikingly similar to the reticence of today’s saints to carry the gospel to “sinners.”  We are as selective in our evangelism as the Jewish saints were. The Jewish saints didn’t like Gentiles, so avoided contact and intimacy with them. We today are afraid if we share the gospel with a heathen, we might have to accept that person into our fellowship or, gulp, invite them home to dinner. Think about it! How many of us would willingly invite a drug addict, homosexual, etc., to our home? Yeah, we might do so after they’ve accepted Christ and spent a few years cleaning themselves up, but would we do it if they were fresh from their sin?  Those we want to keep away from are often those who need the gospel most and would, surprisingly, be the most receptive. Why is it that we, like the disciples, are quick to tell our relative and friends about Jesus, and so slow to share Christ with those whose lifestyles we disdain?

Because the scope of the gospel is universal, there is no Biblical basis for categorically excluding any group. I know of groups within Christianity who dogmatically believe that homosexuals, as a group, are excluded from the gospel because they have already fallen under God’s wrath. Yet Paul referred to this group of sinners as those among other groups of sinners, all of which had had some plucked from their sin by faith in Jesus Christ (1Corinthians 6:9-11).

The church was never intended to be a club of homogeneity. There was never supposed to be a Jewish church or a Gentile church and there should not be black churches and white churches today. Yes, there may be some ethnic, language-based missions, but churches should recognize that often language-based ethnic congregations come with English-speaking spouses and children who require an English-based church in order to fellowship and grow. Perhaps instead of creating stand-alone missions that only meet the needs of one or two members of a family, churches should promote side missions that allow all members of a church to attend on the same campus, just in collateral congregations. Sadly, most successful churches today subscribe to the “birds of a feather flock together” scenario. I think it is to their detriment, because even churches that establish mission churches still fail to reach the English-speaking members of their congregant families.  This is why my church has remained an odd patchwork quilt church that provides both language-based missions and English services. We did it by accident, but kept it on purpose. Diversity within a congregation is a good thing. God can bring diverse people groups together for their spiritual health.

If we will only allow it.

While the distortions of the Old Testament held by both unbelieving Jews and the apostles were the focus of my last study, this study focuses on truth.Peter learned that God does not play favorites. God providentially led him away from Jerusalem, through increasingly less ceremonial "clean" situations until he was ready for a thorough change of heart and mind by the work of divine revelation. A cleansing had been accomplished by Jesus Christ and there was nothing else required. Peter was not to allow his concern for ceremonial cleanness to keep him from associating with Gentiles, especially not to keep him from proclaiming the gospel to them.

"The word which He sent to the sons of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all)— you yourselves know the thing which took place throughout all Judea, starting from Galilee, after the baptism which John proclaimed.

"You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good, and healing all who were oppressed by the devil; for God was with Him. "And we are witnesses of all the things He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. And they also put Him to death by hanging Him on a cross. "God raised Him up on the third day, and granted that He should become visible, not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us, who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. "And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead. "Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name every one who believes in Him has received forgiveness of sins."

You might note that Peter didn’t really finish his sermon. It’s brief! I think he managed to finish the introduction before the Holy Spirit fell upon his audience (Acts 11:15). That was enough! His audience heard the gospel, they believed the message, they were saved and the Spirit descended upon them.

Characteristic of Peter’s sermons, there was a reference to the Old Testament, assuring that his audience knew that the gospel was good news, but not new news. Peter focused on Jesus as the promised Messiah and Lord of all. The core of the gospel is the person and work of Jesus. The gospel is the good news of His coming, ministry, death, burial and resurrection. Without Jesus, there is no gospel.

Cornelius and his household didn’t need more than Peter’s gospel in order to believe and be saved. Brief though his introduction was, Peter proclaimed all the essentials of the gospel. It was sufficient to be saved and the results were strikingly similar to those at Pentecost. I think God ordained that, to teach the Jewish Christians that there was nothing special about their Jewishness.

Following the salvation event, Cornelius and his household were baptized, not circumcized. The Judaizers would require circumcision, the gospel requires baptism. Christians do not need to become identified with Judaism to be saved, but we must identify with Christ to testify of our salvation through partaking in his death, burial and resurrection.

Sometimes salvation produces instant changes, but sometimes God has to work on some people or some aspects of people for a while. When we are saved we move from darkness to light, from death to life. The apostles still needed to change their theology over time. Peter’s sins and prejudices lingered. Salvation changes our status with God instantly, but it doesn’t instantly eradicate all sin, error or prejudice. Even as an apostle, Peter was not infallible nor was he free of al the errors of his past. We are no different. God changes some things instantly and others gradually. We call that the process of sanctification. Our need of sanctification remains a reality in our lives even after salvation.

Being true to the systematic study system, I should probably address the story of Dorcas before going to Cornelius, but I see the death and resurrection of Dorcas as God’s means for putting Peter in the right place, geographically and spiritually, for his meeting with Cornelius. Thus, I’m going to concentrate on Acts 10:1-35. I’ll deal with the actual events at Cornelius’ house in a second lesson. I think this is a natural dividing point, because we will see that Peter explained what lessons he’d learned on his journey to that point. I think those lessons are important and usually overlooked in lay studies. As I think these lessons can teach modern Christians a lot, I have chosen to focus on them.

Jews in Jesus’ day had an attitude problem that went way beyond mere bigotry. They measured holiness by the distance they kept from "sinners". This didn’t engender them to Jesus, and His words and teachings so violated their sensibilities that they could not conceive of Him as the Messiah. Defilement, Jesus taught, was not ceremonial in nature, but a matter of the heart. Sin begins in the heart and works outward. It doesn’t penetrate you from without. Peter had been around for those teachings, but it hadn’t yet sunk in that this applied to him.

Peter loved Jesus and he had grown immensely in the faith, but he still held the same views of his unbelieving Jewish brethren. None of the other apostles had better insight into their racism. Although Peter’s coming change of mind was as dramatic as the conversion of Saul, it was progressive in nature. The geographical element involved travel – Jerusalem, Samaria, Lydda, Joppa and then Caesarea. Eventually, Peter would return to Jerusalem. This journey would prepare Peter for his invitation to Cornelius’ home. Had he gone directly from Jerusalem to Caesarea, he would have balked at going to a Gentile home, but he’d already been traveling among the Samaritans and seen salvation taking place there. God had worked the sequences of events to remove Peter from Jerusalem with its legalistic separatism, thus removing him from a support system for his racism. He had further been in contact with a dead body and a tanner, so that ritual cleanliness had become impossible Luke spent considerable effort in showing that Peter was involved in ministry. He had not simply become carnal and decided to rub elbows with the unwashed. His ministry brought him into contact with circumstances outside of his usual experience, preparing him for a vision.

God had already prepared Cornelius, for this Gentile was seeking to know Him and wanted His salvation. Cornelius worshiped God not as a ceremonial idol, but in truth. All he needed was to know Jesus. Upon receiving this vision, he sent servants as instructed, to request Peter’s presence. God would remove Peter’s prejudices by sending him to a Gentile home.

Peter recognized the prejudice endemic in his people. It was a fundamental barrier to the proclamation of the gospel. The Jews felt Christianity belonged to them as Jews. If Gentiles wanted to enjoy the benefits of salvation, they would have to become Jews and then trust Jesus as their Savior. The concept of preaching the gospel to Gentiles as Gentiles never entered their minds.

God had been dealing with people in this general way down through the ages, but the Jews had somehow missed it or were deliberately ignorant. I vote for deliberately ignorant. They considered themselves superior to Gentiles and expected God to bless them because of their superiority. Peter now understood that Jews and Gentiles are equal. Both are equally guilty of sin and equally lost. Neither group is deserving of God’s love. The gospel is the good news that cleansing has come to both groups on an equal basis.

Peter’s experience with Cornelius was a quantum leap for the gospel, another major turning point for the church. Eventually Peter’s example would be followed by the early church. The principle set at Cornelius’ house would be used to correct the Judaizers. The door of the church was swinging open to admit Gentiles.

We don’t live in the 1^st Century, so what does this have to do with us? It indicates that even the righteous works of a man like Cornelius won’t save him. Good works don’t save, else it would not have been necessary for Peter to go to Cornelius’ house and preach the gospel. Cleansing is done by the blood of Christ, not by the deeds of men. We also see that mere belief does not constitute faith, for Cornelius clearly believed in the God of the Hebrews. He worshiped Him! That was not enough. He required a knowledge of Who God is, including Jesus, the Savior God. There is no salvation possible unless we understand Who Jesus is, and He is God. Peter had already been preaching this, but he now knew he must preach it to everyone.

Aren’t we just as selective, though? What sort of cleanliness restrictions do we put on ourselves? In our twisted doctrine and practice of holiness and separation, we are guilty of the same legalism and externality that Jesus condemned in the scribes and Pharisees. We judge holiness more by what a man or woman does not do than by what they do. I asked my youth group to list a few of these and this is what they came up with:

God doesn’t smoke cigarettes. God doesn’t drink alcohol (but Jesus did). God doesn’t associate with known sinners (but Jesus did). God doesn’t wear makeup, jewelry, tattoos (or whatever).

God’s holiness was demonstrated in Jesus, Who came to the earth to associate with sinners, so He might save some. How can we do otherwise? Do we think we know better than God?

Falsely judging and practicing separation by the avoidance of certain "unclean" things was not just a characteristic of the Pharisees and Jewish Christians like Peter. It persisted in the New Testament. There are all sorts of references to external avoidance in an effort to seem "holy", advocated by false teachers, but not the apostles (Hebrews 13:9-14; 1Timothy 4:1-5; Colossians 2:20-23; Romans 14:20).

Only God can produce true holiness in us. Like Jesus, practicing holiness may mean associating with sinners, for they’re the ones who need to hear the good news of God’s cleansing and salvation. We must learn to do this while also learning to live pure and blameless lives before sinners. It is not what we put in ourselves that makes us unholy, but what proceeds from us. We must always remember and live by that, being prepared to step out of our comfort zone in order to stand in God's righteous zone.

Saul clearly was intent upon aggressive and severe action against all Christians he could find. Yet, God had plans for him of which Saul was unaware. "The mind of a man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps" (Proverbs 16:9). "Many are the plans in a man’s heart, But the counsel of the LORD, it will stand (Proverbs 19:21).

God once more revealed His sovereignty by using Saul to further the gospel, first by his opposition (scattering the church and spreading the gospel), and then by his conversion (which created a most powerful preacher for Jesus).

Cults target Christians! It’s a sad truth. A second sad truth is that all too many cult members appear to be genuinely saved, but lack appropriate grounding in the Scriptures. Some cult members might even be Christians who were easy marks for cult leaders who preached just the right message. We can note that many cult founders had some involvement with evangelical Christianity. Many cults also communicate their professions and propaganda in language that makes it difficult to determine whether they are really Christians or not.

Simon the magician may have been the founder of Gnosticism, a very dangerous cult which dogged the heels of Christianity for about 250 years of its history. .It is difficult to determine whether he was even a Christian. From Luke’s words ("even Simon himself believed," verse 13) we would conclude that he was saved, but from the words and actions of Simon himself, and from the severe warning of Peter, ... I don’t know. It seems doubtful..

Jesus had said "while you are going" (Matthew 28:18-20, called the Great Commission), indicating that they would spread the gospel during a journey that was a foregone conclusion.

The persecution resulted in a massive missionary expansion requiring no missionary board, no special offerings (recorded) and apparently lacking the leadership, or even presence, of the apostles. Acts 1:8 was being fulfilled in Acts 8:1 in an unexpected way.

Don’t you love God’s sense of irony? The ringleader of the opposition to the gospel and the persecution of the Jerusalem church, Saul, was instrumental in the first "missions thrust" of the church. God used the "wrath of men to praise Him" (Psalm 76:10). We usually ascribe the evangelization of the Mediterranean to Paul’s preaching, but he also encouraged it through his persecution of the church. The sovereign God can just as easily employ the intense opposition of an unbeliever to spread the gospel as He can the faithful preaching of one of His saints. God does not need the obedience of men to achieve His purposes; we are blessed when we obey and become willing participants in God’s plans!

I see a great deal of significance in Stephen’s ability to perform "signs and wonders" for it seems to imply that Stephen was functioning similarly to an apostle. Up to this point, only the apostles performed miracles. Since the twelve apostles would remain in Jerusalem after the church was scattered (Acts 8:1), it would seem that Stephen, Philip and later Paul would serve as apostles to a more diverse group.

Conversely, these two charges were absolutely correct. Hellenistic Jews, who may have spent their life’s earnings to return to the "holy land" (including, especially, the temple), must have believed that no one could worship God as well from foreign soil as from the sacred soil of Israel and the temple. This worship, they no doubt believed, was rooted in the Law of Moses. The coming of Jesus did mean that radical changes were afoot. Since the Law of Moses was fulfilled in Christ, rigid observance to the Law was no longer required. For example, Jesus told the woman at the well (John 4-42) that worship was no longer a matter of being in the "right place" (whether that were Mt. Gerazim or the temple in Jerusalem) but a matter of the "right person." To worship "in spirit and in truth" meant to worship the Son of God, Jesus Christ. This meant the temple was no longer set aside as the only place of worship.

As Stephen, inspired by the Holy Spirit, led his accusers through the history of Israel, he sought to demonstrate two fundamental concepts. The history of Israel shows that much of the life of the Jews was spent outside of Israel. For all their smug self-righteousness, the Jews had rebelled early and often against Moses and the Law they claimed to reverence above all else.

Following an examination of the history of Israel and the Law, Stephen turned to the prophets, citing two who had interpreted the events of Israel’s history in light of the law.

How blasphemous it must have seemed to the Jews m to hear Jesus (first), the apostles, and now Stephen speaking of the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem! They understood this as a rejection of the kingdom. With the dashing of Jerusalem, all of their messianic hopes were dashed.

"Now when they heard this, they were cut to the quick, and they began gnashing their teeth at him. But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; and he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.’ But they cried out with a loud voice, and covered their ears, and they rushed upon him with one impulse. And when they had driven him out of the city, they began stoning him, and the witnesses laid aside their robes at the feet of a young man named Saul. And they went on stoning Stephen as he called upon the Lord and said, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!" And falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them!"  And having said this, he fell asleep.

"Now Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and miraculous signs among the people. But some men from the Synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called), both Cyrenians and Alexandrians, as well as some from Cilicia and the province of Asia, stood up and argued with Stephen. Yet they were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit with which he spoke. Then they secretly instigated some men to say, "We have heard this man speaking blasphemous words against Moses and God." They incited the people, the elders, and the experts in the law; then they approached Stephen, seized him, and brought him before the council. They brought forward false witnesses who said, "This man does not stop saying things against this holy place and the law. For we have heard him saying that Jesus the Nazarene will destroy this place and change the customs that Moses handed down to us."

Similarly, in chapter 6, Stephen was "full of grace and power" and "performing great wonders and miraculous signs among the people" (Acts 6:8). It sounds as though Stephen had been granted powers restricted to the apostles earlier in Acts. His preaching ministry, then, appears to arise out of these gifts, and not out of his ministry as a deacon.

Certain Greek-speaking Jews were strongly opposed to the preaching of a fellow Greek-speaking Jew. These Jews were obviously not Christians. Saul (later Paul) likely was among them. I wish Luke had given more detail here. Where were the 12 apostles during Stephen’s preaching and later trial? Were they absent because they were Hebraic Jews and he, as a Hellenistic Jew, was preaching in Hellenistic synagogues, which seems to be where the opposition to Stephen’s preaching originated? Did Stephen perhaps preach sermons that were more directed to Hellenistic Jews and perhaps even approachable for Gentiles? That might disturb an unbelieving Jew more than Peter’s sermons. Luke didn’t tell us the exact content of Stephen’s sermons, so we have to draw conclusions from his sermon before the Sanhedrin. Scholars suggest that Saul was either a member of the Sanhedrin or present as Gamaliel’s guest, which is why Stephen’s final sermon was recorded when the others were not. I would note that Greek-speaking Jews had been debating Stephen without much success. I think Stephen’s opponents may only have succeeded in looking foolish and furthering Stephen’s assertions by trying to argue with him. There is, after all, that precedence with Jesus and the Jewish leaders who always ended up with egg on their faces. Jesus had predicted this (Luke 21:12-15) and now we see it coming to fruition.

Argumentative people become desperate when their arguments prove less than effective and thus turn to desperate measures. Stephen’s opposition claimed to have heard Stephen "speaking blasphemous words against Moses and God," (Acts 6:11). There is a long Biblical history of such false accusations, employed often because it is an effective strategy. (Consider the nightly news and you’ll understand what I mean.) A carefully orchestrated conspiracy resulted in a near-riot and the arrest of Stephen and a subsequent trial before the Sanhedrin. The witnesses against Stephen used many of the same accusations that were falsely hurled at Jesus before His crucifixion. Jesus had actually predicted the destruction of the Temple by supernatural means, but His enemies twisted His words so they could accuse Him of plotting terrorism and now they were doing the same with Stephen. The message of these mercenary witnesses was, "Jesus of Nazareth whom Stephen preaches (quite successfully!), threatens to destroy Jerusalem and the temple, and to cast aside Moses and his teachings." This was anathema to devout Jews, and they responded accordingly. Note the delicious irony in verse 15. "All who were sitting in the council looked intently at Stephen and saw his face was like the face of an angel." (Acts 6:15) as Luke inferred a reference to the Old Testament (Exodus 32:27-32). Luke described Stephen’s face as aglow with the shakinah glory of God, as Moses’ face was when he returned from the mountain, yet the witnesses against Stephen were claiming he was preaching against Moses. Ironic, indeed!

In light of this God-touched countenance, perhaps we should ask a vital question. How do we know that the gospel as we have it – the gospel set forth by the apostles – is really the gospel? As we read through Acts, we see passages that demonstrate the authenticity of the apostles, who believed in Jesus and spoke under His authority and power. Jesus performed many authenticating miracles during His earthly ministry (Mark 6:1-2; Luke 19:36-38; Acts 2:22-24) that served to legitimize His claims to be the Messiah and God Incarnate. The apostles, including Stephen, performed signs and miracles to legitimize their own claims (Acts 2:43; 5:12; 6:8).

In many ways, ministry is an authenticating sign also. James would later say that ministry was the foundation of worship before God (James 1:27, paraphrased). When the priests and others looked at how the church cared for its widows they saw it as true religion and began to become Christians. The words and works of the apostles were the words and works of Jesus, indicating that both He and they were true servants of God, who spoke for God with full authority. As the apostles acted and taught as Jesus had taught, they were opposed in the same way that Jesus had been, further legitimizing their ministry. The opposition was intimidated by Jesus’ success and popularity with the people (John 11:47-48) and by the apostles, including Stephen, growing success (Acts 5:14-17; Acts 6:8-11).

When debate failed with Jesus, they resorted to false charges which led to His death. The apostles had narrowly avoided that fate and Stephen would not, for he would die in a similar fashion to Jesus.

Although the details of Acts 6 made it useful to separate the text into halves, there are obvious connections between the two. Stephen appeared in both halves, first as a servant and then as a mighty evangelist. The conflict in the beginning of the chapter involved the cultural divide in the Jewish world. The conflict in the second half of the chapter involved the same divide. There is also a strong connection between hearing the gospel and doing the gospel. This characterized Jesus’ earthly ministry and it would continue to characterize the church’s ministry. Jesus preached a lot of fine sermons, but He also ministered to the needs of others. Jesus’ deeds were as important to buoying John the Baptist’s wavering faith as His doctrine (Matthew 11:1-6). The sermons of Stephen and Peter were accompanied by service – both miraculous signs and simple charity. Words and works walked in close concert, though words usually led the way. We find in the Letter of James that words and works were meant to go together (James 2:14-20).

Sometimes we think we can debate people into Heaven. We can’t, as we will see with the outcome of Stephen’s sermon. Our Holy Spirit-empowered words might make our hearers think, but our lives must also reflect the truth of our words. We are, after all, studying the Book of the Acts of the Apostles. Action would seem to support preaching.

What does that mean for our world today? Well, many liberal churches launch social programs that sever any ties to the gospel message known through the Word of God. Perceiving the ministry of physical need to be far greater than the gospel of spiritual transformation, they deliberately don’t preach the gospel. People’s physical needs are met; they have full stomachs, but their lives are empty. Conversely, some conservative Christians stress taking the gospel to the lost, but neglect their pressing physical needs. Neither is true to the Christian faith and both are counter-productive to the gospel. We must maintain a balance between preaching and practice.

We see this in the life of Stephen. He walked upon the Biblical stage for a very short time, but his life and his message worked together to advance the gospel. In our next study, we will look at Stephen’s message.