The Book of Acts 5:17-41 - Apostles in jail, preaching & beating

All right, so I've got a big, big section here of scripture today. And we have Acts 4, 5, 17 through 41. And so the title gives you an idea of what we're covering. Apostles in Jail, Preaching and Beating. That's Roger's title, and I don't own that title. But nevertheless, that's the title I've been given. And that's the one you have here. And I'm not being critical. I'm just saying it's a title to represent today's lesson.

So I'll tell you what we're going to do today. Unlike usual, I'm not going to have all the text on the handout. So there's just too much space. put in the handout but I think what we're going to do is we're going to look at sections of this and the first part of this of 17 through 41 is 17 through 28 and I've entitled that the Apostles in and out of prison but we need to read that okay so we need to read those 11 verses or 12 verses 17 through 28. We can do one verse at a time take turns and get it all out. No let's let's not do that. Yeah, that would take us the whole class, the whole class just to do that. OK, so remember what we dealt with last week.

The miracles were being performed again, all kind of miraculous events. And so verse 17, then the high priest rose up and all these who were with him, which is the sect of the Sadducees, and they were filled with indignation and laid their hands on the apostles and put them in the common prison.

But at night, an angel of the Lord opened the prison doors and brought them out and said, go stand in the temple and speak to the people all the words of this life. And when they heard that, they entered the temple early in the morning and taught. But the high priest and those with him came and called the council together, and with all the elders of the children of Israel, and sent to the prison to have them brought. But when the officers came and did not find them in the prison, they returned and reported, saying, Indeed, we found the prison shut securely, and a guard standing outside before the doors. But when we opened them, we found no one inside. Now, when the high priest, the captain of the temple, and the chief priest heard these things, they wondered what the outcome would be. So one came and told them, saying, look, the men whom you put in prison are standing in the temple and teaching the people.

Then the captain went with the officers and brought them without violence, for they feared the people, lest they should be stoned. And when they had brought them, they set them before the council, and the high priest asked them, saying, Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine and intend to bring the men's blood on us. Okay, so that's kind of the first section here.

And so what I'd like to do now is say that in response to the ongoing miraculous works, In the scripture, it says, then the high priest rose up, and all those who were with him, which is the sect of the Sadducees, and they were filled with indignation. It's not stated who's the high priest. Well, some of the commentaries say Caiaphas was the high priest, but we don't have that name delineated in the scripture. But Caiaphas belonged to the Sadducees.

At least that's the impression people had. I thought he was a Pharisee. But according to a lot of commentaries, he's not. He's a Sadducee. Who was a Sadducee? This was a religious party at the time of Christ among the Jews who denied the following doctrine. I think this is important. They denied the resurrection of the body. They denied immortality of the soul. They denied existence of spirits and angels. And they denied divine predestination and affirmed free will.

So boy, what a liberal view. I mean, you wonder whether they actually could really fit within the Jewish tradition. It's just like the liberal Christian, I should say Christian liberal ministers today. Maybe kind of mainline Christianity, quote unquote, which is just social gospel stuff. That's kind of what you get the idea of the Sadducees reference. Isn't that what most Jews believe today?

I think that fits a lot of them, doesn't it? They're for the land, right? The land and the holidays. Yeah, it's all about the land. All this other stuff is just made up. Any other thoughts about this? Okay. Based on this description, what was the indignation? All of the above. Yeah, exactly. All of the above. All of the above.

Tom, more detail. Resurrection of the body, immortality of the soul, existence of spirits and angels, divine predestination, firm will, but especially that last one. But the indignation relates to the ongoing activity of the apostles, doesn't it? You're right. It's all of them. Jeremy? Well, I mean, in the last chapter, the first time Peter and John were taken before them, they strictly commanded them to stop teaching this, and the disciples are continuing to teach this, and so that's part of it. OK, so who's supposed to be in control around here, right? And so when we think of indignation, we think of zeal, we think of embracing something, are we thinking of jealousy? And again, about what?

I think we just described that, about the fact that these individuals are not responding to the command of not to preach the gospel. Well, the other thing is that since the Jews are very much on attesting miracles, the apostles are doing the attesting miracles that show God's power. And here are the leaders, and they're Nothing much is happening. So they got the people doing these attesting miracles of God's power and here's the mainline group and nothing's happening. So they're jotting the word jealous. They're like a threat to them. Their whole position, their beliefs. It's kind of like, how dare you? Plus it would mean if the apostles were right, it would mean they were wrong.

Good. Jeremy? Well, like what Roger said, my translation is jealousy. I think that works. I mean, you see that even in our modern government. You have your two sides. Somebody will come up with something, a bill, and then the other side will come up with almost identical bill, just suddenly different. But it's theirs. They're the one that's presenting. It's the same thing.

Even if they agreed with them, you get the sense that they would be upset because, well, they're listening to them, they're not listening to us. You get the sense that the Sadducees were really kind of a political group, don't you? These are more politicians than they are spiritual people. And politicians like power, don't they? These ongoing miracles are in defiance of that authority.

Okay, good. Well, I would say, even because I've had this personal experience in the last week or so, what Bonnie's saying too, it's like, even besides being political, it's like even Christians who are kind of like the, you know, kind of do what we think is right sort of thing, it's really a threat to them that that you know you would just have this stance of what's in the Bible and maybe what they're doing isn't right and it's a threat to their own behavior. Do you know what I'm saying? Sure. Yeah well that gets into, we could go down a rabbit's trail here on that. Yeah.

I understand what you're saying although you know the Bible can be interpreted by by people very differently and yet they believe they're correct, right? Yeah, that's a whole new thing to me. When I became a Christian, before I was a Christian, I thought all Christians thought the same. It was all the same.

Well, we're going to get to this in today's lesson. What? Try to control yourself, please. I'm trying to control myself. I'm keeping my mouth shut. No, you're not. You and Holly are carrying on. Never mind. No, but we're going to get to the basics of the gospel message in this text today, actually. And that's an important part of it. OK, so the next point here is the result was imprisonment.

By the way, this was a city jail. This is kind of a common prison. This wasn't kind of some special place for white collar workers who in some way were fraudulent or something. I mean, these people were put in. And when Martin and I have had the privilege of looking where Paul was in prison in Rome. And that's a pretty, pretty barren place. down in the ground. A hole.

A window, although the way people describe this prison, it may have had one window in it, but they were all in a very small corridor and not much. And by the way, you know, they didn't, no one even fed them. I mean, you didn't get fed or you didn't get a blanket. And unless somebody brought you food, you didn't have food or water. I mean, there was nothing in there. It's pretty bad.

So during the night They were released by angels and they were told to go stand and speak. This will be relevant here. Three verbs. Angels of the Lord tell them to go, stand and speak. Let's see what happens from there. What were they to speak about? The sister says it. I don't have the verse right before you. Words of this life. That's what it says. What life are we talking about here? What life is this?

Well, the Greek term is zoe, which is the eternal life. It's everything wrapped up in Jesus Christ is really what it is. And John 1.4, in him was life and the life was the light of men kind of thing. And we could probably give 40 verses here about zoe in terms of life eternal. So this is the life. And keep in mind, this is before Paul. Paul uses this term a lot in his epistles. But yet, I think Peter was really tuned in, I think, to what the life of Christ was really all about. He witnessed it, and ultimately he used this term, I think, very appropriately.

In Acts 21, the trip to the temple was at daybreak and appeared to be predictive of further discussions about the fate of the apostles. I put daybreak in bolds because this was Jewish tradition. And when the sun came up, that's when the high priests went to the temple. I mean, this was standard stuff. And so that fits the tradition. In Acts 22 and 23, it says, but note that when they, and that means plus the elders of the senate, arrived at the prison, not only were the apostles not there, but the gate had been shut and the guards were oblivious to what had occurred.

And my question to you, does this remind you of anything? Does it remind you of the tomb of the Lord Jesus Christ? And it's going to happen to Paul too. And there's another neat reference that goes back to the gospel account too, we'll come to that in a second. Acts 5, 24-28. Notice the hierarchy you were gathered here. High priests, the captain of the temple, and the chief priest.

Boy, they had all the powers. The big guys there. The big mucky mugs. This is capital city. This is being on the hill. With all the Congress and the President there giving his annual address. And also there were the people who were being taught. Now that's kind of interesting. I mean, think of the political nature of these Sadducees, these high-end Jewish leaders, so-called, and now we've got all these people out here. It's kind of like being on the mall in Washington, right? So you've got, you know, the hill, and then you have the mall, and you've got all these common people out there, but then you have all the leaders who are up on the hill. Does this explain why they were taken to the council without violence?

What do you think? Absolutely. Absolutely. There were too many witnesses. Well, you know, they dab at the authority and I think they fear the people, lest they should be stoned, is what the scripture said. I mean, who's going to be stoned? It sounds like the high officials. We're used to having others stoned, right? Not them. So these people are sufficiently mob-like. And I'm going to maybe take a look at this. It reflects, I think, the sentiment of a large number of people. Look at Acts 4 for a second.

These are the 5,000 people we talked about last week coming to the Lord. Now keep in mind, this mob, there's no way we can say what percentage of them were new believers. But you've got a sense that of those 5,000, maybe some of them are there. So the idea of them being stoned, I guess the question I might ask, which is not in your handout, would new born believers stone the Jewish authorities? Sure. And you know why? Because they're still so ingrained in their Jewish tradition that when their anger got up, that's what they did. They stoned somebody. You may be right Margaret, but all the scripture says that they feared being stoned.

So I guess the question is, was part of the mob, and this is entirely speculation, was part of the mob people who were there to be taught, who were not saved, but yet they were bonding with the apostles in terms of the message that was being given. They may not have come to the Lord yet, But they were sentimentally connected to the public teaching of the apostles, whereas these Jewish leaders, who are these guys anyway? We're now bonding more with the message we're hearing from the apostles. I mean, that's speculation.

Did they have a military? I mean, in a way it seems interesting how God chose them because if they had a military, I mean, they could have just ordered them to go in and kill all those people. The Romans were the military. They had a military presence. They could have said, right, get rid of all these. They have to go to Rome to do that. They would. Rome, just like did you remember for Christ's crucifixion, they appealed to Rome to crucify Christ and actually Rome resisted crucified Christ.

Pilate says this man's not guilty, this man's not guilty. It went over and over and over. Keep in mind we have no hint that Rome is involved here at all. This is simply the common people and the Jewish leadership. We don't know if Rome must have been looking on in some way, but they certainly aren't scripturally documented as playing a role here. Good point though, Holly.

That's great. Okay, the accusation. Did we not strictly command you not to teach in his name? And look, you've filled Jerusalem with your doctrine and intend to bring this man's blood on us. Notice the accusation. Okay, in what name? Christ. In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. That's the life, right? The words of life is the Lord Jesus Christ.

How should we interpret being filled here? They filled Jerusalem. Is it in fact that means they were abounding in the message? Does it mean that their action was complete, which is also a Greek interpretation? Or does it mean they were bringing the message to the realization of the people? What do you think? I mean, not that we need to spend a lot of time here, but filling. filling Jerusalem. They were all over the place. They were all over. I don't think this is a completed act. I don't think that's the way we interpret it.

By the way, again, you go to the Greek New Testament, you look at all the opinions. Opinions only are so worthwhile. But here I think we just have to look at the three interpretations being filled and think that it could be that the gospel is abounding. I mean, that's possible. Was it complete? Well, you could say that the message was clear and the truth of the gospel was completely recognized.

And I think C is best to bring to realization. But you know, Jerusalem isn't very big. I mean, it's a small place. You could have an apostle on every street corner. And it would be filling Jerusalem with the message. By the way, just along that line, Margaret and I went... Somebody mentioned Jerusalem last week at the IMAX.

You've got to see it. You've absolutely got to see it. It's a secular view of Jerusalem, but it brings into bear Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. It's really well, well done. They have three young women who represent each of the faiths and their own personal experience. The Christian end of it is very Roman Catholic. I would say it's more Coptic. Nevertheless, it's really worth seeing. If you get a chance, go see Jerusalem. It's very, very unbiased. It's not trying to sway anybody in any direction. It's just a story of the history of the city. It's the facts.

Did the apostles intend to bring this man's blood, meaning the Lord Jesus Christ's blood on them? Was that their intent here? That message that they point out, we'll see it again. You crucify. They point to the Jewish leader. You're the one that gave him to Rome to crucify him. So there is a guilt. There's a guilt across the Jewish leadership. That's what you guys did. You turn him over to be crucified. You force them to crucify. Do you think that was appropriate for them to take that approach?

I'm not sure they were focusing on that though. I think the Jews just felt guilty. Let me remind the class, which you know darn well, but who is righteous, no not one. I'll never forget after I came to the Lord, I had an opportunity to get to know a Jewish man and ultimately I took this position that ultimately it was his faith that crucified the Lord and he corrected me because he knew enough about the Bible and I said, thank you. And I think if they were really using this as a tool to make the Jews feel guilty, they were successful because that's what the scripture says. But boy, I think we are the ones who crucified the Lord Jesus Christ, not the Jewish leadership.

Jeremy? Well, I mean, historically, the high priest there, they're the ones that started the process of his. So what's fascinating here is I think we have to look at this from an understanding of what their perspective is. There seems to be a lot of guilt. Notice they say, to teach in this name. I think it's interesting.

They don't even say the name. They're afraid to even say the name. And they say, you have filled Jerusalem. And it's almost like, what was it? Is there somebody that everyone has turned us away and I'm the only one that's left that's falling in God. So it's that same type.

You're filling because they're starting to feel, they're starting to sense that they're Well, we've looked at it before. There's no indication that the apostles are necessarily trying to indict them, other than stating the fact that you guys were involved in the crucifixion of Christ. And they interpret that as, you're trying to bring His blood on us. So, how much of this is the Spirit's conviction, and how much of it is them stating what's actually happening?

Well, let me build on that. It says this was their perception, right? of self-righteousness. And they didn't want to be called down. But move that into today. And Christians are that way today, until they really find out that self is. I think we all in this classroom put in perspective that each and every one of us is unrighteous, right? There's no not one.

But in context here, this was the perception of the Jewish leadership. And in fact it may have been intended very much by Peter and the Apostles that you guys started this whole process running, right? But they fully recognized themselves that it was just not the Jewish leadership that put Christ on the cross. It was the sin of all men for all time. And that certainly exemplified the Apostles. All right, let's read 29 through 33. I'd like somebody else to read this. This is what I'm entitling the Apostles' Defense. Someone please read that.

But Peter and the apostles answered, we must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him at his right hand as leader and savior to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. We are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him. When they heard this, they were enraged and wanted to kill them.

Boy, OK. So the apostles stand up to what's going on here. What did Peter and the other apostles mean when they said we ought to obey God rather than them? And to build on that a little bit, what is this obedience to? Is it to go stand and speak? And or, notice I put and or, does it go beyond that?

Well, they knew that this could be to the death, to their death. I mean, but they they had seen their master go to the cross. OK. And he was willing to go to the cross for but also he had told them that they weren't going to have a rosy life. All right. That this was, you know, they were going to be challenged.

OK, so I would suggest to you that the obedience to the command of the angels was to go stand and speak, which they clearly responded to. But I think there was a perception that it extended beyond that. When we think of obedience as believers today, what do we think about? I think of agreement with what God said. It's sort of agreeing with God, recognizing that God's right. It's obedience to the faith. I think that's the simplest way to put it. Our obedience to the Lord today is to the faith. He's called us by faith to be saved. He's called us by faith to grow in grace and be saved currently. He's called us by faith to believe that we have eternal life.

And that relates to the sufferings that they're going to be going through. The obedience is not to go stand and speak only. It's also the faith that God is working through these circumstances to bear his fruit in their lives and bring glory to himself. Everybody okay with that? Okay. Examine verses 30 to 32. Is there anything missing here? I'm going to list them for you.

The first is God of our fathers who raised up Jesus. The second point is whom they murdered by hanging on a tree. The third, him God has exalted and in his right hand. The fourth is to be prince and savior. The fifth, to give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. And the last is apostles being his witnesses.

I'm sorry, one more. As was the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey. All right. So my question, again, obedience here. I'll raise that in terms of the response to all of these components. Is there anything missing here in terms of the gospel? The rest of us, the Gentiles. OK. Anything else?

The truth of the resurrection is here. And the historical fact is that they murdered by hanging him on a tree. And he's at the right hand. And Prince and Savior is Prince Morgan, the initial of Israel, Savior to the entire world, right? To give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. Here's where Tom has an issue. It's certainly beyond Israel. But in context, that's who he's talking to.

And the apostles being his witnesses, which is true, and then the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, right? And does this look like it's conditional? As was the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey. Well, what's the obedience to? Right? Back to the question of obedience.

Yeah, there's no grace there. And it doesn't, you know, talk about, it doesn't go further to the church. The church is not, but the church has been formed, has it not? You just don't know yet. Other thoughts about this? Do you think this message was sufficient in terms of documentation of what they were all about?

I certainly do to the people that they were addressing. I'm guessing that since it's the Bible that it's probably complete and nothing missing. I'm sorry I asked a question. This is kind of an iterative process. They've been given this message in different forms. Peter has presented the case for who Christ is and what he's done. This is the third or fourth time this message has been given. These people, and it's a small place, they've heard this message multiple times. And many have responded, but some have not.

But we're going to see later that some of the priests That's a fun part of this section. I think Jeremy's point was a good one too. They wouldn't even say his name. They certainly knew his name, right? So this truth, there's a barrier here of most of these Jewish leaders to the truth and what it is.

You talk about it's complete. This matches up pretty nicely with 1 Corinthians 15. The gospel of Christ died for our sins and the baby rose again in his seat at his right hand. Well, all those facts are here, are they not? It's pretty complete in that regard. Crucified and risen from the dead, positioned at the right hand.

There's a lot of biblical truth here in what Peter's telling the Apostles of Projection. So he's not going to try to give an encyclopedic full blast, everything at once. And keep in mind, we have the people of the world or perhaps new believers that are, you know, witnessing this whole sequence of events.

Acts 5, 33 to 39, Gamaliel's Council, I'm not sure that pronunciation is correct. Let's read that. Margaret, will you read 33 to 39, please? Sure. When they heard that, I guess I did 33 twice, but we did it anyway. When they heard that, they were cut to the heart and took counsel to slay them.

Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space, and said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men. For before these days rose up Theodos, boasting himself to be somebody, to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves, who were slain, and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered and brought to naught. After this man rose up, Judas of Galilee, in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him, he also perished, and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone, for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to naught. But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it, lest haply ye be found even to fight against God. All right, thank you.

So maybe Gamali allows a better pronunciation, I don't know, but let's look at this gentleman's counsel. So the plans to kill the apostle is clearly stated here, but Gamaliel steps forth. And what does he do? Well, apparently he's a Pharisee, and he's mixed with Sadducees here. So I find that kind of interesting. And we're told that he's a teacher of the law, held in respect by all the people. And this is a man who taught Paul the law of Moses.

If you look at Acts 22.3, it says, I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus, of Silesia, but brought up in the city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the strictness of our father's law, and was zealous towards God as you all are today. The scripture said this guy's played a role.

And Paul hasn't become surfaced yet in terms of what's going on with him. We're going to come to that probably in a month or so. But anyway, this person is known among the Jewish people. And let's now review his advice. So point number one, take heed, men of Israel. So in other words, wake up here a little bit. I mean, if you will, I'm trying to think of this in the political kind of scenario. Who would this be in today's political process?

Someone who is this is this someone in a party who's taking somewhat of a different view, trying to wake up the party in terms of maybe where they might go into error. Let's take the Republican Party just as an example of kind of the more liberal end of the party, the more conservative end. And let's say a liberal candidate is awfully moving forward. Here's a conservative spokesman who steps forward to give advice to the overall party. That's the way I'm kind of thinking of this guy's performance. Is that is that reality?

Yeah. OK. Well, what's cool is that this guy is very knowledgeable and very. But you're going to get to it here. It's very. He knows that if it's of God, that's significant. That's one of the cool voices. He really says, if this is of God, watch out. He's a smart guy. He is. I think he's level-headed. I think wisdom is what he's demonstrating here.

He thinks, I think, that a lot of the Sadducees are being kind of hot-headed, as opposed to responding, they're reacting. to the situation in a negative way and he's trying to calm the situation down. All right, let's proceed. So take he, Israel, wake up here a little bit.

And he uses Theodos as an example. So who's this guy? We really don't have any more information on him, although Josephus mentions a guy named Theodos too, but the temporal sequence of who Josephus references is not this guy. So the person Luke is referencing here in Acts is not the same Theodos that are Josephus. Like they're separated by three decades. And I don't want to go into detail, because that's Josephus.

And Josephus is not spiritually ingrained. But this is unique, and we don't know really anything more about him. And we know that 400 men joined him, and he was slain. And all who obeyed him were scattered, what the scripture says, and came to nothing.

So I think Gamaliel is going to use that to make a point here. So we have a second example. And the second example is Judas of Galilee. This is not Judas Iscariot. This is Judas of Galilee, who is a man who apparently led a rebellion against Herod's imposing tax law on the Jews. And that's documented historically. We don't have much scriptural evidence of that, but I think this person is identified, I think again by Josephus, but there's other references to this person being someone who kind of was a charlatan who was out there objecting to the tax law that was imposed on the Jews by Rome. And it says, who rose up in the days of the census and drew away many people after him. He also perished and all who obeyed him were dispersed. So here's another worldly leader who makes a point and has some leadership and have people following him.

And it comes to naught, right? I mean, I think we could go back in history and probably reflect on numerous people who brought attention to themselves with no lasting permanent effect. Like Bullwinkle. Bullwinkle has had a big influence. True. And also it's not necessarily I don't think like these people like put themselves out. Some people just hook up to people. You know, they make them like, oh, you're going to, yeah, you're going to save us. Right. Well, there was a cause for both these guys, I guess. And they had a purpose.

But yet, you know, how many people today study Thaddeus at school? I mean, you know, I mean, you study Napoleon. Well, I mean, you could say Hitler, you know, people hooked up to Hitler and, you know, they kind of went by the wayside. So then Gamaliel goes ahead and says keep away from these men and let them alone for if this plan or this work is of men it will come to nothing but if it is of God in bold you can't overthrow it. So that's really profound advice, lest you even be found to fight against God. So in other words, if you're going to take on the Lord, that's fine, but the Lord's going to live on here.

So there must have been something going on in him, right? To provide a little bit more insight to what's going on. And Luke 11.23, let's take a look at Luke 11.23. Whoever gets it, read it. He that is not with me is against me, and he that gathers not with me he scattereth. Seems pretty relevant. Who's not with me is against me, and therefore you scatter, right? Welcome to Acts 5 truth, right?

Alright, so does Gamaliel remind you of anyone else in the Gospel account? That's what I alluded to a little earlier. Well, he reminds me of Nicodemus. Doesn't he? And I think I think the scriptures since the substantial academic scandal. Right. So I think we may see one day. I don't know. I mean, it's possible.

But also, this is a very pragmatic approach. Considering how I mean, the fact that they didn't want to take them violently. So tensions are running pretty high here. So when you can look at this from either side, he's he's using wisdom and maybe thinking this is true or he just realizes that if we go in this too hard, it could cause a whole lot of problems for us, and he's just looking at it very pragmatically. If this really is of God... it's going to be fine. But if it's not, and that could have very well been his opinion, then it's going to fizzle out. And us stoking the flame is not going to really help us at all.

But that's a tradition of wisdom, isn't it? It's having insight that goes beyond the facts. It brings into consideration all of the issues, then having an opinion to render that ultimately may have prophetic value. I mean, it's hard to define wisdom, but it's more than knowledge. And that's what this seems to reflect.

And I guess, too, if, you know, let's say you didn't do that and they did kill all of them and whatever, God would have found, just used another way, right, to get it spread. Exactly. We see the same thing, like, even with some of these extreme atheists nowadays.

They won't even debate. creationists or Christians, because they think, what's the point? It's a myth, it's going to fade out, I don't need to worry about it, so why stoke the flame by giving it any attention? That's their philosophy, because they're so confident in their belief. and their understanding of the world that they don't feel. Just because you have wisdom and pragmatism doesn't necessarily mean you're moving from a good position. It can be cockiness that these guys are fools. They're going to fade off and I don't need to worry about them.

It's still an act of faith, isn't it? The whole creation evolution argument is one by which path of faith you choose. I mean, our path of faith that the Lord created the heavens and the earth and each creature after its kind is an act of faith. We're not going to repeat that experiment. In the evolution of the claim, I've got plenty of scientific data that this is a process that occurred over millions and millions of years.

And so he or she is going to take a position, you know, I'm responding by faith, although they think it's fact. I know, but the other side doesn't buy into this faith. They think it's fact. But I would say this is a bit different in that these miracles continue to be performed. through a power that cannot be explained.

Our faith today is based on the word of God, is it not? If we didn't have the word of God, I must admit from an intellectual perspective, I think this may not all be true. But the fact that we have a historical document, the Bible is historical. There's more to history than the Bible, but the point is that we look at it as a historical document.

If Christ was in the tomb and risen from the dead, I've got to start opening my mind as to what's really going on here. So a good analogy, it's a little different because of what's happened here before their eyes. The experiment of creation versus evolution will never be redone. And in science, we'd like to do things repetitively to prove the hypothesis is correct. All right, good. OK, we're going to finish up now.

And by the way, Acts 5.42, Roger didn't include.

And that's because some people believe that some people believe Acts 5.42 is not part of the early biblical text. I didn't actually realize that. I have in my notes that acts 542 may not really be in the original text. So I didn't. So I thought Roger was a step ahead of me.

So we can look at 42 after we look at 40, 41. Somebody read 40 and 41, please. Just two verses, not a big burden. And they took his advice and after calling the apostles in, they flogged them and ordered them to speak no more in the name of Jesus and then released them. So they went on their way from the presence of the council rejoicing that they had been considered worthy to suffer shame for his name. OK, we'll stop there and we'll do 42 in the last 30 seconds.

All right, so I've entitled this The Apostles Beaten but Privileged. And that seems kind of contrasting, but it's in the text. The Malileal's plea is heated here, so the Jews let him go. Yet the apostles suffer beatings, which really is scourging and flogging, before being released and told not to speak in the name of Jesus.

So this beating, really, if you look at what was occurring at the time, was a whip consisting of two lashes knotted with bones and short bronze hooks. This is not just a whip. I mean, this is the same kind of thing that the Lord was scourged with. We can look back in Matthew, but we don't need to. We know that story. And Paul also was beaten whip like this five times. And that's documented in the verses that are stated here. So this was common in the time in terms of, you know, a whip would be one thing, but you think of all these metal devices and bones on the whip. I mean, this is tough stuff. But what was the response? Well, the response was rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name. What shame? What's the shame here? Clothes ripped off from his hooks and everything else. All right.

So there's the. Well, this was a wasn't this a punishment that was reserved for pretty bad criminals. This was not just something that they did on a normal basis. This was a pretty intense kind of punishment and reserved for serious crimes. I like both. The personal shame that Tom alludes to in terms of their own clothing and bodies being scourged, but secondly the public embarrassment of being identified with a criminal class that was probably worthy of death anyway, right? Any other thoughts about the shame?

How is this for obedience to the faith and walking in the power of the Spirit? I should have put a question mark after that, but in a sense it is a statement. How is this exemplary of what the Lord calls us to? The privilege of suffering, 2 Thessalonians 1.5, which is manifest evidence of the righteous judgment of God that you may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God for which you also suffer. So the idea of being worthy of the kingdom would expect some suffering.

2 Thessalonians 1.12 For this reason I also suffer these things. Nevertheless, I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep what I have committed to him until that day. We have a hymn.

And then the last example, by the way there are many more, I just chose three in 1 Peter 3.14 But even if you should suffer for righteousness sake, you are blessed. And do not be afraid of their threats, nor be troubled. So this concept is repeated multiple times in the epistles of both Peter and Paul. Christ had said it as well in his own words, that you will suffer in my name.

And if you don't, I guess this is exactly where the point, if, what's his name, was correct, Gamaliel or whatever, if he was correct, that's where the disciples, if they didn't have true faith, they would have said like, let's just beat it out of here and go like, you know, eat crumpets on the beach. Isn't it amazing that they would let them go but then beat them before they let them go? We're just going to show everybody. That's authority isn't it? That's kind of earthly authority. Use them as an example.

Isn't it wonderful that we don't have to be scorched like this today? Not yet anyway. Well but you know in other parts of the world people are. Is that still occurring? Not with that kind of a whip, but there are people beheaded. There are people who are, I mean, in some countries things do go on where their faith is really challenged.

Okay, let's look at 42 even though I didn't cover it. It's a pretty straightforward verse and why there's some argument as to whether this is really in the text or not, I'm not sure. And daily in the temple and in every house they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ. Well, I mean, that's not surprising. I think, you know, it seems perfectly consistent with...

Except for one thing, if they were let go and then they still stayed around to continue to preach, that would be a different story. I mean, they probably wanted to get some first aid for whatever they were suffering from. Yeah, whatever first aid was available, right?

Well, what's neat is we're going to see actually in the coming weeks and we're going to see how they move to a place where they actually will will slay a person. A person will be slain for their faith. It's going to move. Things escalate here. They don't get better. I mean, better in the sense of being quiet. But, you know, we get to Stephen here. Yeah. Stephen the story. Stephen is very, you know, zealous one.

Okay, so today we've kind of covered the whole issue of the political scenario of the times and ultimately how the apostles were, by the power of God, let loose out of prison without anybody knowing about it. They were preaching against the will of the Jewish leaders and accused thereof, but yet the Jews were scared for their own hide. and ultimately let them go, release them. I think the power of the people were influential here and ultimately the beatings preceded their continued operation and the power of the spirit spread the gospel. So good section, it kind of fell together I think as I continue and I think we're ready to move on. Any questions about today at all? Okay, good discussion. Jeremy, close this and start reading.

Lord, we thank you for the truth of your word, for the encouragement that we have, that we're privileged to suffer for your name, Lord. And even though we don't have to go through the persecution like the apostles did, Lord, we still can have confidence that what you said is true and that that can carry us through whatever may happen to us on this earth. And we just thank you so much for the gospel and the privilege to be witnesses of it. We pray this in your name. Amen.