Weeks 8 & 9 (2/12/12)

Acts 16-20

Last week, 2/5/12, the church group Acts study was cancelled due to a conflict in the pastor’s schedule.  The group was on target to end Sunday, March 4^th, just a few days before Purim when Pesach cleaning and removing leaven from the home begins.  With this in mind, it is difficult to extend the conclusion of the study any further, as working full time, and observing Shabbat, leaves one dedicated day for such cleaning – Sunday.  Therefore, to stay on schedule the group doubled up lessons this week, considering Acts 16-20 and the selected topics for weeks 8 & 9.  

The first topic considered was Paul’s circumcision of Timothy in Acts 16:1-5.  The commentary I chose to use understands that Timothy, having a Jewish mother and Gentile father, was not considered Jewish by the standards of the first century.  Therefore, Timothy’s circumcision proves that Gentiles can be circumcised as long as it is not understood as a sacrament necessary for salvation.  In my mind this is an unsatisfactory understanding and I would not have included this topic if I had more closely reviewed the commentary.  The writings of Philo and Josephus prove that there were varying understandings of mixed marriages and Jewish identity in the Apostle’s time.  Philo understood that any mixed marriage of Jew and Gentile produced illegitimate children regarding Judaism.  Josephus says that the marriage of a Jewish man to a Gentile woman produces children that are “half Jewish”.  

Paul, being a Pharisee, would have likely taken the view of Jewish identity as being matrilineal –a view that is understood to have begun with Ezra after the Babylonian captivity, and is the majority view of the Talmud and Orthodox Judaism today.  To Paul, Timothy was a Jew, having a Jewish mother.  Therefore, he needed to be circumcised, especially if he would be accompanying Paul as a traveling companion and speaking in the synagogues on the Sabbath.  To the group Timothy’s circumcision was a mildly interesting topic.  Although, I did express my view as given above, this really mattered little.  

Next, we considered Paul’s haircut and Nazirite vow in Acts 18:18.  The group was very interested to know the details of the vow as given in Leviticus 6.  After explaining the vow to abstain from grape products, not cut one’s hair, and to avoid corpse contamination I added; “why in the world would G-d establish such a vow”?  One lady smiled and said “thank you for saying that, I was just wondering the same thing – what does it all mean”? 

With this I had opportunity to explain the opinion that the Nazirite vow enables a non-priest Israelite to take on the dedication, holiness and separation of the priests and the High Priest.  Like the priest who is forbidden to drink wine when serving in the Tabernacle, the Nazirite refrains from the fruit of the vine.  Like the High Priest who can have no contact with corpse contamination, the Nazirite vow is nullified if the participant comes in contact with a corpse.

I also offered an additional tidbit regarding Yeshua and his statement at the last supper (that he would not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of G-d comes) as being a Nazirite vow.  This vow perhaps was taken in anticipation of Yeshua serving as our High Priest in heaven.  The pastor especially found this to be a very interesting and inspiring thought, adding that this is exactly why it is important to understand the Jewish context of the Gospels.

Next was considered the meeting of the believers in Troas found in Acts 20:7-8.  Typically, this scenario is understood to prove that the believers had substituted Sunday (the first day) for the Sabbath, and that the meeting took place as part of Sunday worship.  The understanding that this meeting took place at Havdalah time [after Sabbath conclusion, post-sunset, which by Jewish reckoning would have begun the 1^st day of the week] was considered.  Also, Jewish tradition regarding the Havdalah ceremony and its theme of resurrection was given and compared with Yeshua’s probably resurrection from the dead at Havdalah time. 

The pastor found this all very relevant and was especially interested in the Havdalah ceremony and the idea that smelling of the spices which can be understood as a “type of resurrection”,  revivifying a person as the Sabbath has departed.  He found this quite amazing as; “the Jews never speak of resurrection”.  I commented that the New Testament shows that certainly the Sadducees did not believe in resurrection, but the Pharisees did, as did the common Jew of the day.  At the raising of Lazarus, Martha expresses this central belief.  I also added that today, devout Jews proclaim the 13 articles of faith at the conclusion of the morning prayers.  The 13^th article is belief in the resurrection.  Resurrection is so central to Jewish belief that the Mishnah states  a Jew who does not believe in the resurrection of the dead is “an apostate” who will not “have a share in the world to come”.  The pastor found this very pertinent and indicated that he would like to study further the concept of the resurrection as found in (or derived from) the Old Testament.

However, the pastor again had difficulty with the commentary saying that “traditional Christianity” uses Acts 20:7 to prove that the early believers were meeting on Sunday.  The pastor indicated that while he was in seminary he was taught the Jewish calendar and the Jewish reckoning of days/time.  The literal rendering of Acts 20:7-8 makes evident that the believers were meeting on Saturday night (considered Sunday by Jewish reckoning), and that the early believers were keeping the Sabbath day of worship.  He therefore disapproved of the “general labeling” of “all Christianity” believing errantly about this passage and wondered “where does the author of the commentary come up with this understanding”. 

To this I couldn’t help but refer to comments in the large denominational bible that the pastor had loaned me to use a couple weeks ago, which states;

“Sunday, the day of Christ’s resurrection, became the regular day of worship for Christians.  This would ultimately distinguish Christians from Jews, who worship on Saturday”.

The pastor commented that this was a correct statement, although at the time of Acts 20 Sunday had not yet become the regular day of worship.  The comment therefore is just stating a fact he concluded.  Perhaps because the evening was drawing late with the double lesson, I did not challenge this further.  Of course, that this comment is made regarding Acts 20:7 indicates the understanding that Sunday as the regular day of worship is evidenced in this verse.  

The pastor then related that Sunday as a day of worship and commemoration of the resurrection is seen as “the eighth day”.  He had difficulty trying to describe this exactly.  Although I was quite certain that it was not the seminary view of the eighth day, I offered some understandings from Jewish commentators I have read regarding this concept.  

The eighth day is generally seen as a time that transcends the physical limitations of this world.  The created order was completed in seven days which represents our present physical existence.  The eighth day describes a time beyond our current time, which transcends the physical and embraces the eternal.  This is seen in circumcision as commanded on the eighth day and also in the themes associated with the 8^th day festival (Shemini Atzeret) following the seven day Feast of Tabernacles.  For believers, Yeshua’s resurrection on the “8^th day” (i.e. the day after the 7^th day was concluded) is pertinent in that this event transcends the physical and embraces the eternal.

 The pastor’s eyes lit up as I explained this; “yes, yes, exactly” he said.  Yet, the question still remains; as beautiful and pertinent as commemorating Yeshua’s resurrection on the eight day is – does this justify setting aside the Sabbath, which is one of the Ten Commandments?

 Next week 2/19/12, the study will be cancelled due to personal travel.  The group will meet again on 2/26/12 for a double lesson covering Acts 21-26.