Commentary on Acts 5:26-32

By Bob Myhan

²⁶ Then the captain went with the officers and brought them without violence, for they feared the people, lest they should be stoned.

The captain and his officers were afraid of being stoned because more than 10,000 Jews and proselytes had become disciples of these twelve men. The apostles had to be stopped for the reason mentioned earlier – the Jewish leaders were losing their influence with the people and their pride could not stand it. But they loved life and did not want to die.

²⁷ And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them, ²⁸ saying, “Did not we strictly command you not to teach in this name? And, look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man's blood on us.”

The members of the Jewish council considered themselves the guardians of Jewish orthodoxy, which was not based on the proper exegesis of the text of the Law of Moses but on the interpretations and traditions handed down by past Rabbis and scribes—the elders.

¹Then the Pharisees, and some of the scribes came together unto Him, which came from Jerusalem.

²Now when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault.

³For the Pharisees and all the Jews o not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders.

⁴When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, and pitchers, copper vessels, and couches.

⁵Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?”

⁶He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

‘This people honors Me with their lips,

But their heart is far from Me.

⁷And in vain they worship Me,

Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

⁸”For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”

⁹He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.

¹⁰”For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’

¹¹But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—(that is, a gift to God),

¹²”then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother,

¹³”making the word of God of no effect through your tradition, which you have handed: down. And many such things you do.” (Mark 7:1-12)

But, instead of teaching and keeping the traditions of the elders, the apostle were teaching and preaching that Jesus, who chastised them for their traditions, was the long awaited Messiah, that the Jewish rulers had put Him to death via the perversion of justice but that God has raised Him up and given Him a place at His own right hand.

It is extremely interesting that they accused the apostles of intending “to bring this Man's blood on us.” It is interesting because, when Pilate tried to disassociate himself from the illegal execution of Jesus by washing his hands saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this just Person,” the Jews replied, “His blood be on us and on our children.”

²⁹ But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men.

³⁰ “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you murdered by hanging on a tree.

³¹ “Him God has exalted to His right hand to be the Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.

³² “And we are His witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.”

This is reminiscent of what Jesus had told the apostles as He sent them out on the limited commission a few years earlier. (See Matt. 10:16-26) The details of the actual carrying out of the Limited Commission are not given. As far as the record is concerned, it was vey brief. Some of what Jesus then said surely pertained to the treatment they would receive during the Great Commission. He who had thrice denied knowing Jesus, much less being His disciple, had now stood up to the Jewish authorities on two separate occasions—once with only John by his side but now with the eleven. It was not their number, however, that gave them courage but the conviction wrought by the Spirit of God, who was speaking through them the wonderful works of God and confirming the words He spoke with the miracles, signs and gifts He enabled them to perform. Jesus said that they would be witnesses to Him of all that He did and taught. (See Acts 1:1-8) He did not leave them to their own intellect and powers of recall. He and the Father, as they promised, had sent the Spirit to overwhelm and fill them, to speak to them and through them, and to confirm that which was spoken via their mouths as the very word of God. Thus, they and the Holy Spirit were witnessing together of the things of the kingdom/church of Christ.

(To be continued)

Benevolence and Relief (Part 9)

By Bob Myhan

The epistle of Paul to the churches of Galatia was not written to deal with things they either were doing or were to be doing with money from their respective local church treasuries. Rather, it was written to the members of those churches help them understand the dangers of “turning away so soon from Him who called (them) in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel.”

This “different gospel” had nothing, nada, zilch to do with the local church treasury. It had to do with their individual relationship to God and to one another.

There were teachers among the churches of Galatia who were perverting the gospel by adding elements of the Law of Moses thereto.

Because what they were teaching was admittedly different from what Paul had taught, they had to undermine his apostolic authority. This they did by claiming that he had not seen God but was taught what he preached through natural means and even misunderstood much of what he was supposedly taught. 

In answer to his critics, he rehearses his early days as a Christian. Far from having a material motive for converting from Judaism to the Way, he had much to lose and nothing of a material nature to gain by such. He had been envied as a Jew but maligned and persecuted as a Christian and an apostle.

His call to the apostleship was enabled by his being allowed to see the risen Savior on the road to Damascus. He had been preaching the gospel for three years before meeting Peter and James and even then had spent only two weeks in Jerusalem. From there he went into Syria and Cilicia and was unknown by face to the churches in Judea for some time. While he did visit those churches later, preaching and delivering the funds sent by the saints in Antioch, Peter was not there.

The next occasion he had to be with Peter was at the Jerusalem meeting, which was held to show that Paul and Peter preached the same gospel, and did not bind circumcision on Gentile converts. He next saw Peter in Antioch of Syria, where he openly rebuked him for hypocritically withdrawing from the Gentiles due to pressure from some who had recently come from Jerusalem.

These matters have been reviewed here in order to ask, “Why would Paul mention these things if his purpose in writing was to tell the Galatians what they should or should not do with the local church’s money?”

Continuing now from the last issue, Paul quickly admits that he is not criticizing the Judaizing teachers for being zealous.

¹⁸ But it is good to be zealous in a good thing always, and not only when I am present with you. (4:18)

As mentioned in the comments on Acts 5:19 in the issue of Faith Builder prior to this one, Paul had once had the same zeal as those who were now his detractors. His was so zealous that he “persecuted the church.” But now, however, he was zealous for their souls.

¹⁹ My little children, for whom I labor in birth again until Christ is formed in you. ²⁰ I would like to be present with you now and to change my tone; for I have doubts about you. (4:19-20)

He did not want to write such a stern letter but it was necessary. A weaker tone might have been mistaken for weakness on his part. He need to be stern in a letter but, if he were present, they could see his love for them in his eyes though he would speak with a weaker tone than that in which he now writes.

(To be continued)