Week 4 (1/8/12)

Acts 6-7

After a five week “holiday break” (as requested by the church group in November) the Acts study began again on Sunday evening 1/8/12 with lesson 4, covering Acts 6-7. To my surprise, instead of a full group of eager participants, well rested and happy after the extended break and intervening holiday festivities, only three people attended.   Two bowed out for the evening due to other “family commitments” and one participant completely dropped out of the study altogether citing “busyness at work”.  So it was me, the pastor, and two other people to consider the topics of priests entering the faith, as well as the false accusations leveled against Stephen as compared with similarities found in traditional Christian doctrine.

There was no doubt that the long break had affected the momentum and enthusiasm of the group.  The pastor was mellow and seemed tired.  The others had lessons completed but were hesitant to answer or discuss. Unfortunately, it is often true, that one needs a “holiday” after the “holidays”, which seemed to be the case on this first night back.

Regarding “a great many priests” becoming “obedient to the faith” (Acts 6:7) the point was made through commentary and question that such priests would have continued to offer animal sacrifices in the Temple. Instead of rejecting such sacrifices as unnecessary due to Yeshua’s atoning sacrifice, the priests instead would have found greater meaning in the sacrificial rites than ever before.  One participant agreed with this thinking, as  “a priest could not remain a priest” if they abandoned the offering of sacrifices and their role in the Temple.  The pastor related that he had difficulty finding any written commentary or doctrinal thoughts on this topic but stated that likely “at first” the “believing” priests would have continued in their role of offering sacrifices.  As things evolved and changed however, the priests would have given this up.  At least; “some would have stopped being priests and some would not have stopped being priests”.  

I pointed out that in Acts 21 we see Paul sponsoring the conclusion of a Nazirite vow for individuals from the community of believers in Jerusalem.  To end a Nazirite vow required three animal sacrifices.  Since the timeframe of Paul’s final visit to and arrest in Jerusalem is placed at 57 CE we can deduce that believers were participating in animal sacrifices in the Temple some 27 years after Yeshua’s death and resurrection.  The pastor found this convincing, but then went on to say that “later” such sacrifices would have stopped being offered by believers.  I agreed, citing the fact that once the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE animal offerings could no longer be made according to Torah law.  The pastor admitted that he had forgotten about that detail, of no more animal sacrifices after the Temple destruction.

Next, in considering Stephen’s speech before the Sanhedrin, six false allegations made against him were highlighted.  The question was asked as how these allegations agree with or parallel historic and traditional Christian theology.  All three participants, including the pastor, said they didn’t understand the question.  The pastor thought it was an attack on Christianity.  The other two asked what was meant by “traditional Christian theology”?   I went on to give two examples of what the question was looking for.

Regarding the false accusations that Stephen spoke “blasphemy against Moses” and “spoke against the Torah” is the similar understanding in historical Christianity that the Old Covenant (Old Testament) is superseded and replaced by the New Covenant (New Testament) and faith in Jesus Christ.  This idea is very ancient being expounded by Justin Martyr in his “Dialogue with Trypho” (160 CE).  The pastor related that “Dialogue with Trypho” was a later work of Justin Martyr at a point in which he succumbed to the “error of Gnosticism”. According to the pastor, the early writings of Justin were “right on the mark” but later writings fell into error, and were not held by the “church at large” (as seen by the fact that the Old Testament was included in the Canon as inspired Scripture). The pastor said that in his denomination the Old Testament laws are considered “G-d’s instructions” that cannot be separated or nullified from the New Testament.  “Jesus came not to nullify the Law but to fulfill it” he related.  Two others agreed, with one participant remembering back on her upbringing in Catholicism and the extensive “examination of conscience” prior to making one’s confession to the priest.  The examination related numerous possible sins based on the 10 commandments. 

Having read some doctrinal writings of this particular denomination, I was familiar with the “uses of the Law” proposed by its founder.  Such “uses” completely separate out and consider practically nullified for the believer, the “ceremonial” aspects of the Law including the biblical calendar and festivals as well as dietary and purity regulations.   The same view holds true in Catholicism.  I did not bring up this point however.  It seems that I too was lacking the momentum to pursue it further.

A second example was related to another accusation against Stephen; that he taught Yeshua would destroy the Temple.  In like fashion, historic Church theology includes the idea that the destruction of the Temple was G-d’s punishment upon the Jews for their rejection of Christ.  The Temple destruction is also seen as a sign of G-d’s rejection of the Jewish people who are now replaced by the “New Israel”; the Church.  This idea was expounded upon by Chrysostom and his “Eight Homilies against the Jews”, and was a motivation behind the Crusades.  The pastor again concluded the Chrysostom was in error and said that his denomination does not hold to such views, although he was aware of other factions of Christianity, even today, who teach this.  The Jews are “still G-d’s chosen people” in the pastor’s opinion.  He went on to say that at times in history, due to Jewish disobedience, “G-d abandoned some of the things He gave them” such as when they went into exile in Babylon and the Temple was destroyed.  But “G-d gave them back the Temple” when they came out of exile, and in his opinion G-d will “give them back” things in the future that are now being “withheld from them” too.  

At this point the discussion had lasted at most 15 minutes and there was plenty of time remaining.  I also felt a bit guilty that I hadn’t pursued the topic of nullification of the “ceremonial” laws of Torah when I had a chance earlier in the discussion.  So I decided to address this in a very benign way.  I simply pointed out another accusation against Stephen was that he taught Yeshua would change the customs of Moses.  With this in mind I asked “how did the Church move away from and stop celebrating the Biblical festivals that G-d commanded to Moses”?  The pastor said that this was a “cultural thing” that evolved over time.  I asked if he thought it had to do with the Church and the Jews being against each other and therefore the Church wanting to separate from anything that “looked too Jewish”.  He responded that this was likely the case.  Then the pastor added; “when we get to Heaven we may very well be keeping those Holy festivals again”.   

I related Isaiah 2:3 that prophesies the nations (Gentiles) as going up to Jerusalem and being taught the Law from there.  I presented the idea that “Heaven” will be on earth and that Yeshua will teach the Law to the whole world upon his return, based on what the Scripture says in Isaiah.  The pastor responded this was an interesting thought, but we can’t be dogmatic about it, because we don’t know how it will “all flesh out in the end”.  

 Next week the group will consider Acts 8-9 including “The Servant of the L-RD” as understood in Isaiah 52, and what is meant by Paul’s (Shaul’s) name change.