Click Here to see Lesson 10 Photos

Click Here to return to CBS Home Page

Integration with Gentiles . . . And Renewed Persecution

This lesson has two main topics. The first is integration of Gentiles into Christian fellowship . . . and I chose that word deliberately because it’s such a good analogy for those us who experienced racial integration 40 years ago . . . because the 1^st century Jews were just as excited about integrating with Gentiles as whites of the 50’s were about integrating with blacks. The other main topic is a "second round" of Christian persecution . . . and this one can be dated: to the early 40’s.

Let’s review the events of Acts 10. In Joppa, Peter receives a vision in which God declares everything He has made is clean. Food is God’s example, but Peter’s interpretation is that no people should be called unclean . . . that all men are the same in God’s eyes, despite their race (Acts 10:34-35). Peter is then invited to Caesarea to the home of a Roman centurion named Cornelius; this is something no Jew should do, even though Cornelius is devout and "God fearing." However, because of his vision, Peter goes. While Peter is telling these Gentiles about Jesus, the Holy Spirit comes upon them . . . spontaneously and without warning. Peter reasons, "If God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 11: 17a), . . . "can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water?" (Acts 10:47a). So Peter baptizes them, observing, "Who was I to think that I could oppose God?" (Acts 11: 17b).

According to Acts 11:1-3, news of this quickly spread throughout Judea. That’s logical: it was an extraordinary event, witnessed by six Jewish-Christians (Acts 11:12), and each of the six probably had a slightly different "take" on what happened. We know what gossip is like; outrageous rumors may have reached Jerusalem.

Acts 11:30 and 12:17 imply the Jerusalem church is now led by Jesus’ brother James and a council of elders; which may mean Peter and the other apostles have become missionaries. Moreover, "peaking" ahead to Acts 15, we find that Pharisees—well known for their strict adherence to the Jewish oral law—have become influential in the church. It’s no wonder the Jewish-Christians in Jerusalem—especially the Pharisees—"criticized" Peter and demanded an explanation when he arrived there (Acts 11:2-3).

The narrative in the first half of Acts 11 seems a transcript of Peter’s defense before a council of church elders called to investigate his actions in Caesarea . . . and that’s my answer to the question why Luke reiterates in Acts 11 the story he already told in Acts 10 about Peter and Cornelius. The issue of Gentile fellowship and baptism is of critical importance. But would Luke have devoted so much space and detail to an informal report by Peter, readily accepted with little debate? It seems more likely there was formal discussion and heated debate.

And let me add one more ingredient . . . which I think will amaze you. For 21^st century western Christians like us: if we are certain God is speaking to us, each of us would do exactly what God says . . . without question. But Jews believe God turned things over to the rabbis as the sole interpreters of God’s law . . . and even if God speaks, the rabbis are free to accept or reject God’s advice. The Talmud contains a charming—though fanciful—homily about a time when the rabbis overruled God’s opinion in a dispute over whether a particular stove was kosher (B. T. B. Mitzia 59b).

Christianity at this time is a subset of Judaism. So picture Pharisee-Christians in Jerusalem debating whether or not to endorse Peter’s vision from God about associating with Gentiles and eating Gentile food . . . debating Peter’s decision to give the Gentiles a water baptism, even though that seemed God’s intent. The verdict must be based not only upon what God has just done . . . but also upon Jesus’ words on earth, as well as the words of other rabbis. Jesus had proclaimed all foods clean (Mark 7:19), and Peter recalls Jesus had said: "John baptized with water, but . . . you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 1:5). But if Jesus spoke on the other issues, it’s not in the bible.

Nevertheless, as the meeting concludes, everyone seems to agree:

But, as they say, "the devil is in the details," and we find in Acts 15 that Peter and the Pharisee-Christians agreed to very different things.

We discussed in the last lesson that for a Gentile, water baptism—along with circumcision—was the final step in conversion to Judaism . . . which included a commitment to live according to Jewish law. We also discussed that when the Holy Spirit came upon the Gentile believers before they were baptized with water in Acts 10, it was the reverse of the way things usually happened; water baptism usually came first.

Therefore, considering Acts 15, the Pharisee-Christians seem to expect Gentiles who agree to be baptized with water have also agreed to be circumcised and to follow the oral law of the Pharisees. In other words, their unspoken assumption seems to be: "OK . . . we’ll endorse the retrospective water baptism Peter gave Gentiles in Caesarea . . . and we won’t criticize those who go into the homes of baptized Gentiles and eat with them. But that doesn’t change the meaning of Gentile baptism; Gentiles who accept baptism ‘in the name of Jesus’ (Acts 10:48) are making a commitment to follow Jewish law and to be circumcised later." But Peter did not attach these conditions when he baptized the Gentiles in Caesarea . . . he reasoned that since the Gentiles believed in Jesus—and had been baptized by the Holy Spirit—they should also be baptized with water. Period. Peter felt when God leapfrogged ahead and baptized the Gentiles with the Holy Spirit, God had "trumped" the requirements of circumcision and the oral law; these weren’t required.

These different assumptions grew into a major misunderstanding about church policy . . . so significant the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 was called to resolve it. If we understand this we can much better understand the balance of Acts 11 and Acts 15, and also many other intrachurch conflicts evident in Acts and in Paul’s letters.

Concluding Acts 11 . . . when Christians fled Jerusalem after the stoning of Stephen, one destination was Antioch, the third largest city of the Roman empire, with one of the largest Jewish populations outside Israel. Some of the Hellenized Jewish Christians thought the gospel of Jesus was too good to tell just to Jews; they told it to Gentile Greeks as well as. And many Gentiles became believers (Acts 11:19-21)!

Word of this reaches Jerusalem, and Barnabas is sent to Antioch to check things out (Acts 11:22-23), as Peter had done in Samaria (Acts 8). Barnabas finds "evidence of the grace of God" (Acts 11:23), so he goes to Tarsus to get Saul to help him. Their task now? To meet and teach Antioch’s new Gentile believers (Acts 11:26b). The Jerusalem church is encouraging Gentile converts, but they also want to make sure new Gentile-Christians receive comprehensive instruction in the faith to prevent false doctrine from slipping in. They are right on that—church history shows how quickly false doctrine can slip in!

Barnabas and Saul seem ideal partners for this task. Barnabas’ name means "Son of Encouragement," which appears to match his personality; he seems to be one of those people who likes everyone and is liked by everyone. Moreover, the people evangelizing the Gentiles in Antioch are Hellenized Jews from Cyprus and Cyrene (Acts 11: 20), and since Barnabas is a from Cyprus, he may know some of them. Also after five or more years with the church is Jerusalem, Barnabas knows the "norm" of Christian belief and practice. Saul has an intense belief in Jesus, and as a SuperPharisee, he’s expert in the oral law. Perhaps Barnabas’ role is to direct the evangelism efforts, and Saul’s is to set up a program of instruction. And for a year Saul and Barnabas "met with . . . and taught great numbers of people" (Acts 11: 26b). And there’s a key line to note:

The Jerusalem church also sent prophets to Antioch. Recall the two facets of prophesy: "forthtelling" of the word of God, and "foretelling" of the future. "One (prophet) named Agabus"—remember that name, we’ll meet him again in Acts 21—excels in foretelling, and he "predicted that a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world" (Acts 11:28). Faced with this prophesy, the believers in Antioch take up a collection to help those apparently least able to provide for themselves: the church in Jerusalem. Saul and Barnabas are assigned to take the money to Jerusalem.

In Acts 12 . . . King Herod is Herod Agrippa I, grandson of Herod the Great. Agrippa helped make Claudius emperor in 41 AD (cf Acts 11:28), and as a "thank you," Claudius granted him the kingdom of his grandfather. Agrippa was raised in Rome, and was a "puppet king" with total loyalty to Claudius . . . but he was descended from the last Jewish king/priests of the Maccabean period, and he behaved like a devout Jew when in Jerusalem. That's important in understanding the first verses of Acts 12:

James—one of Jesus’ original disciples (Matt 4:21-22, Mark 9:2, Luke 5:10-11) and one of the three who witnessed Jesus’ Transfiguration (Matt 17:1, Mark 1:19-20, Luke 9:28)—was an unfortunate casualty of Agrippa’s efforts to demonstrate his "Jewishness" to the people of Jerusalem. This is the first time Christian persecution is sanctioned by the Roman government . . . 10 years or so after it was begun by the Sanhedrin. Not a good sign!

Agrippa arrests Peter . . . probably in the temple for Passover. Agrippa intends a public trial and execution after Passover worship is completed (Acts 12:3, 11), so he can once again show "solidarity" with the Jews of Jerusalem.

We’ve heard the story before. Like Agrippa, God waits until after Passover; Peter cools his heels in jail and the church fervently prays . . . right up to the night before Peter’s scheduled trial. But then an angel appears and a light shines in Peter’s cell . . . Peter’s chains fall off . . . locked gates open as the angel leads Peter safely out of prison to the streets of Jerusalem. Then the angel disappears.

Peter goes to the home of the mother of John Mark, the author of the gospel of Mark, and here we receive an important lesson in faith. According to Christian tradition (cf Eusebius), Jesus’ brother James spent so much time in prayer "that his knees became hard, like those of a camel"; this implies prayer was very important to the Jerusalem church led by James. Yet although the Christians have been praying for Peter’s release, they are apparently praying with so little conviction that when Peter arrives at Mark’s mother’s home, at first they deny it’s him (Acts 12:12-16)!

Their attitude reflects a serious lack of faith in their power of intercessory prayer. What’s going on here? What happened to the power of the Holy Spirit in the Jerusalem church . . . which allowed them to do such stunning miracles not long ago? Don’t they remember the other time an angel released Peter from jail (cf Acts 5)? Prayers for James did not prevent his murder . . . but surely one unanswered prayer can’t cause such an attitude!

Is the answer that Peter and the apostles received a greater gift of intercessory prayer . . . that their successors in the Jerusalem church have a lesser gift . . . and so on down until today our gift is pretty small? Some would argue that. I don’t . . . because I don’t know! But I do know that Jesus instructed us to pray assuming our prayers will be answered (Matt 7:7) . . . to boldly pray for miracles! And that’s today’s lesson in faith.

Nevertheless, Peter seems to decide that to stay in Jerusalem any longer might be testing God’s providence, so he leaves . . . as James and the elders of the church apparently have already done (Acts 12:17). Peter is able to witness for Jesus for another 20 years, before he is crucified in Rome during the Christian persecution by Nero.

The execution of Peter’s guards for dereliction of duty has always intrigued me. Some people try to read God’s mind . . . saying things like: "A just God wouldn’t do (such-and-such)." They see bad things in the world and claim God isn’t in charge—or God isn’t just—and they use this as an excuse for non-belief. We’re not in that category. But today it’s not popular to say a "just God" would consider Peter’s life worth more than the lives of Roman guards . . . sacrificed so he might live. These Roman soldiers probably aren’t nice people, but they aren’t guilty of the crime for which they are executed. Is this justice? Yes, it is . . . even if it doesn’t seem fair, because God does things to make a point—even though sometimes we don’t understand!

And Luke does seem to understand God’s point by the death of King Herod Agrippa I, as Acts 12 comes to an end. Agrippa has reached an alliance with the people of Tyre and Sidon in modern Lebanon—then, as now, a province of Syria. Feeling "pumped up" with his power, he calls them to an audience in the theater of Caesarea. Always extravagant, Agrippa wears glittering royal robes, and gleefully accepts high accolades from the people: "This is the voice of a god, not of a man," they shout (Acts 12:22).

But Agrippa is not a god; and the one true God strikes him dead on the spot. The year is 44 AD; Agrippa has reigned three short years. He killed James, but not the Christian movement: "the word of God continue(s) to increase and spread" (Acts 12:24)

Next week, we see the beginning of Paul’s missionary journeys throughout the Roman world. Accompanied by Barnabas, he goes to Barnabas’ home of Cyprus, then to Pisidian Antioch in central Turkey. We read Paul’s first recorded major speech as a Christian . . . to Jews and God-fearing Gentiles in Pisidian Antioch. And we see the beginning of a familiar pattern: the message of Jesus is first warmly received, but Jewish Pharisees undertake a campaign of "attack ads," which causes Paul and Barnabas to be run out of town.