Yesterday I shared my thoughts on Stephen’s speech in Acts 7.2-54. Today I am doing the same with Paul’s speech in Acts 13.16-41. The connection between the two is both provide a “history of Israel” if you will.
St. Paul preaching in the synagogue.
As with Stephen’s speech the audience is Jews in 13.16-41, but this time there seem to be non-Jewish “God-fearers” (οἱ φοβούμενοι τὸν θεόν) present as well. Paul is the speaker this time in a synagogue in Pisidian Antioch. Paul mentions God “choosing” their ancestors (which could be a veiled reference to Abraham’s call), that the people grew, that they were “foreigners” in Egypt, and that God led them to freedom (v. 17). This is a quick summary of what Stephen gave the first half of his speech to addressing. Joshua is not mentioned by name in this speech, but the conquest of Canaan is (v. 19). Unlike Stephen Paul mentions the judges, Samuel, and Israel’s request for a King, which resulted in the selection of Saul (v. 20-21).
For Paul David is the most important figure. In v. 22 he mentions that God chose David and he quotes Psalm 89.20 and 1 Samuel 13.14 to remind his audience that David was special to God. Paul focuses on the Davidic Covenant and then connects it to Jesus in a way similar to how Stephen focused on Abraham, Joseph, and Moses before connecting them to Jesus. Jesus is presented as the fulfillment of the promises to David and to the descendants of Abraham (vv. 23-26).
Like Stephen Paul rebukes his fellow Jews. Stephen went to route of idolatry. Paul says his fellow Jews read the prophets every Sabbath yet they do not see that their prophecies are fulfilled in Jesus (v. 27). Instead, they killed him unjustly (v. 28), but this allowed Scripture to be fulfilled regarding him since he was crucified, buried, and raised from the dead by God himself (vv. 29-30a). Paul claims that there are many witnesses to this event (vv. 30b-31) and this is why Paul and his companions “proclaim to you” that the King foreseen in Psalm 2 has been chosen, and that the “promises of David” (Is. 55.3) has been fulfilled, and the “holy one” of Psalm 16.10 did not see decay (vv. 32-35). As Paul explains (like Peter in Acts 2): David is dead, buried, and decayed so the psalm had to have been about another. God raised Jesus from the dead, so he is the one (vv. 36-37).
As with Stephen so Paul: Israel’s history reaches its climax at the arrival of Jesus. Although Stephen doesn’t go the same route and he doesn’t explain the resurrection (likely Luke knows that Stephen’s audience would have known of the events while Paul’s may have not), the resurrected Christ standing at the right hand of God to welcome Stephen in 7.54-60 has the same effect.
Paul ends with a warning applying the words of Habakkuk 1.5 to his current audience: God is doing something new so don’t be like the scoffers who didn’t believe Habakkuk in his day by failing to believe Paul in the present. The results will be similar (vv. 40-41)!
July 22, 2012 at 10:51 am
Not all Israelites were Jews. ‘House of Judah’ Israelites and Edomite converts were ‘Jews’. Biblically (and historically) ‘House of Israel’ Ephraimites were never called or known as ‘Jews’, though they were sometimes called Ἕλλην (Greek), though they were really only Greek speakers, not actually Greek (and ironically seen by real Greeks as Assyrian (says Herodotus as the Leuco-Syrians)).
These God-fearers were indeed descendants of Abraham, Israelites and God’s chosen (read [Jer 7:12-15] which also relates it Shiloh); therefor co-inheritors of the same promises as ‘Jews’ (House of Judah).
July 22, 2012 at 11:54 am
I agree that not all Israelites are Jews, but post-exile it seems that the remnant that survived became identified with the label “Jew” either because the survivors of the exile were from Judah-Benjamin or because the region Judea gave them their label. I don’t know that Luke would have divided “Jews” from other possible survivors of the exile and their descendants.
July 22, 2012 at 4:53 pm
Perhaps except what ‘seems’ can easily be shown to be unwarranted, and false.
When Judah came back from Babylon it was the House of Judah only that returned to the region of Judah, not Israel (says [Ezra 1:5] and [Ezra 10:9]); Benjamin, Judah, and (part of) Levi were the ‘House of Judah’ [I Kings 12:21][2 Chronicles 11:1][2 Chronicles 25:5] and the House of Israel was never in Babylon. They went to Assyria [2 Kings 15:29][2 Kings 17:5].
Josephus would also disagree, saying in his day ‘ten tribes are beyond Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude’ – Book 11, Chapter 5, Section 2. Also the Pharisees also knew that only Judah had returned from Babylon making reference to the ‘dispersed’ meaning Israel elsewhere [John 7:35] recognizing the dispersed amongst the Greeks.
However, exposing the presupposition ‘Jews’ included Ephraimites as false has a few benefits. This recognition is a necessary step in understanding prophecy . Prophetically, the reunification of the the two houses would be a messianic role [Eze 37:11,15, 21-22]:
“I shall take the people of Israel from the nations amongst which they have gone, and will gather them from all around, and bring them to their own land. And I shall make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. And one king shall be king over them all, and they shall be no longer two nations, and no longer divided into two kingdoms.” [Eze 37:21-22]
About Luke, if you’ve ever read [Acts 1:6], you’ve seen Luke distinguishing Ephraimites as outsiders, recording how the early believers worried about when the Israelites would be brought back into the fold. Likewise [Hosea 2:23], who Paul quoted in [Rom 9:25] as messianic, and explained in all of [Romans 9], is also messianic (from [Hos 2:16]) I shall say to Not My People, “You are my people”; and he shall say, “You are my God.”’
Both Paul and Luke divide “Jews” from other possible survivors of the exile and their descendants. It is only modern scholars influenced by somewhat anti-Semitic church fathers, who do not, which explains why they haven’t a clue about much of the OT (and prophecy). This affirming this presupposition, or not, that Israelites and Jews were one and the same is somewhat important – at least for those who wish to understand the bible.
July 22, 2012 at 5:52 pm
I find your exegesis of Luke hard to follow. Are you saying Luke sees a difference between the Jews and Israel or are you saying he shouldn’t convolute the two? Do you think Acts 1.6 is Luke saying that the Jewish disciples are “worried” about when the other Israelites will be restored? Worried as in they don’t want it to happen? Worried in that they do want it to happen? Why doesn’t the Lukan use of Israel seem to portray this anywhere, e.g., Lk 1.16, 54, 68, 80 (esp. this one where Jesus’ appearance is said to be before “Israel,” not just Jews…making it seem like Luke equated the Jewish remnant with Israel proper at this stage); 2.25, 32, 34; 7.9; 22.30 (where the twelve disciples seem to be Israel reconstructed); 24.21; Acts 2.36 (where Peter seems to think he is addressing “Israel” even if the representatives are Jews); 4.10; 5.21 (the elders represent “Israel”); 7.23 (Stephen claims to be addressing “Israel”); 9.15; 10.36; 13.17, 23, 24 and 28.20. I have a hard time reading Luke as not equating Jews with Israel, or Jews as a nation with Israel. He doesn’t seem to have an opinion on other survivors from the other tribes. That is out of the scope of his message in my opinion.
July 22, 2012 at 7:10 pm
Strictly speaking, the hermeneutic is not being driven only by exegesis but also very much being held accountable to an acute awareness of actual history. You mistake something – the House of Israel was different from the House of Judah which were all part of a united Israel – except that Israel hadn’t been united since Solomon. All were of Israel, but not all were House of Israel, just as not all were Jews. (Are all Americans Yankees? Canadians, who the rest of the world call ‘Americans’, would say ‘no’).
So, Yes, I’m saying the apostles, including Luke, and Paul, understood the House of Israel to be separate and distinct from the House of Judah biblically and historically, and treated them as such by not convoluting the two (remember, Judah NEVER inherited Jacob’s name which he bequeathed to Joseph’s children around whom other tribes aggregated:
[Gen 48:15-16] And he (Israel) blessed Joseph and said,
‘The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked,
the God who has been my shepherd all my life long to this day,
the angel who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the boys;
and IN THEM LET MY NAME (Israel) BE CARRIED ON, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.’
With this the blessing of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, fell to Joseph (and Israel became a promised Abraham’s promised multitude, many nations, not one. To disprove this you need simply show me when Israel an Judah ceased to be divided.
So, yes I’m also saying [Acts 1:6] is to be interpreted as referring to the same people Jesus mentioned in [Matt 10:6][Matt 15:24] as well as those denoted in [John 10:16]; also those dispersed of [James 1:1] and [1 Peter 1:1], except they wanted it to happen (the two houses united) – and so did Paul. How else can [Eze 37:15-22] or [Eze 37:1-14] be interpreted, except as [1 Cor 12 (especially vs 12-14,18,20)] given that [Eze 37:8,19] are both [Eph 4:4]?
Before too much more, also consider the apostle’s, and Luke’s, and Paul’s, perspective was primarily an old covenant one, since their scripture was old covenant scripture. The old covenant absolutely differentiated between the two – or else you could show me even one instance in the OT (after Solomon) where the Jews weren’t at war with the Israelites; or where the Israelites were denoted as Jews; or where major or minor prophets were not worrying about or predicting some future reunification. I contend this cannot reasonably be done.
So, if even you find yourself disagreeing with me about the new covenant text, at least it should be reasonable to agree that new covenant characters we read about there possessed the same view their scripture did – which differentiated between the two Houses. If so, the question is did that view change because of Jesus, and I believe we can also show he also possessed it (thus reinforced it). Or another way to say this is, if Paul possessed it, it can be shown that that view never disappeared.
Therefore, I would clarify ‘Jew’ by saying at most it could mean ‘citizen of Judea’ because Edomites, when they were converted to Judaism in habited all of the Kingdom of Judah, and greatly outnumbered the Israelite Judeans. (Evidence of tension between these groups is also evident in such scrolls such as 1QM and 4Q491-497).
Besides, I don’t see any of the verses you cited [Luke 1:16, 54, 68, 80] disprove this. The death of the messiah (the husband) resulted in the adulteress being freed from the law of marriage [Rom 7:2]. That means that once Jesus was crucified the re-establishment of all of Israel under Christ could be begin (the marriage supper of the lamb) and the covenant that would write God’s laws in the hearts [Heb 8:8] of both houses Judah and Israel.
That the messiah came to Benjamin and Judean Israelites first doesn’t disprove existence of non-Jewish Israelites (the Galatians, for example were non-Jewish Israelites). Your [Luke 2:25] is particular supportive since Simeon is recognizing that this divide you deny is coming to and end by way of Jesus (that’s what the consolation of Israel means, where grief was for the lose of the House of Israel – the prodigal son). Even so, if all Jews are Israel, I challenge you to show me how Israel is redeemed today.
July 22, 2012 at 7:16 pm
Reading your response one more time – it seems you’re accusing me of saying those of the House of Judah were not of Israel. I’m not saying that. I am saying that those of the House of Judah (Jews) were not the only ones of Israel and that simply being a ‘Jew’ did not make one an Israelite then as now.
July 22, 2012 at 7:21 pm
Andrew
Again, no one is denying that Judah wasn’t the whole of Israel. You don’t have to continually quote passages from the Hebrew Bible to prove a point with which I agree. What I am trying to figure out if how you get this much out of Luke, especially out of Acts 1.6. I agree that the various references to Israel don’t deny your point, but I think that it is very difficult to see in Luke any hint that he doesn’t see the Jews as sufficient enough to speak of Israel. I am not saying that Acts disagrees with your point that there were other descendants of the other tribes still alive. Rather, I don’t think it factors into Luke’s thinking at all. So it is fine that you see what you are saying as an “acute actual awareness of history.” But again, not my point. My point is that Luke doesn’t seem to address this at all.
As to 1QM and 4Q491-497 are you equating the Kittim with Edomites?
July 22, 2012 at 7:23 pm
Andrew
No, I am not “accusing” you of saying that. Why do you use the word “accuse?” You act like I am saying you stole something from me.
July 22, 2012 at 7:46 pm
To return to your main point in your first comment, why do you find it better to read φοβούμενοι τὸν θεόν as Israelites when Luke makes a distinction between the Israelites present and those who fear God in both 13.15 and 13.26 and when he uses the φοβούμενος τὸν θεόν to speak of Cornelius in 10.22 when it seems quite apparent that he was a non-Jew, a Roman who worshipped Israel’s God? I find this confusing.
July 22, 2012 at 9:12 pm
Brian, sorry. I don’t mean to emphasis points where there’s no controversy – and rather than ‘accuse’ should have used something like ‘attributing’.
On your question about Luke – I treat Luke as the faithful scribe – so I believe he’s likely documenting the views of others more than his own. There is little doubt Paul’s view reflects an awaiting of the unity of all of Israel (Judahites and Ephraimites) under the banner of Christ, and the sense that this has already begun to come about. I expect that Paul could have influence Luke.
Therefore I see [Acts 1:6] reflecting this belief as widespread amongst the apostles (from [Acts 1:2]). Verses like [Luke 24:21] may be read semantically narrow as merely personal redemption, but more likely read as referencing broader expectations such as [Isa 41:14] and [Hos 6:1-7] which necessarily raise the question of both Houses. Likewise [Luke 1:68:70] may also be seen in the same broader sense as [Psa 25:22] and [Psa 130:8] (also [1 Chron 17:21]) which were national expectations not personal one. Therefore Luke’s words are consistent (IMHO) in semantic scope with the prophetic OT.
So, as an Israelite ‘οἱ φοβούμενοι τὸν θεόν’ would have been true to all who sought to honour God (by default) because of [Exo 12:49],[Lev 24:22] and [Num 15:29] established one standard and Stephen’s treatise was on righteousness. That said, I believe it was intended to the non-Jewish Israelites who had come to Jerusalem even if it was inclusive of others since that was a primary Israelite concern which is why [Acts 13:26] mentions Abraham.
Awaiting Judah to become ‘the nation’ and the House of Joseph to become the ‘company of nations’ from [Gen 35:11]:
[Gen 17:4-5] “Behold, my covenant is with you, and you will be the father of a multitude of nations. No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a MULTITUDE of nations.
[Gen 48:9] “Nevertheless, his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his offspring shall become a MULTITUDE of nations.’
Now read [Romans 11:25-27] along with the OT scripture being intrepreted (with massacred Greek salvaged through a comparison of the Greek to the underlying Hebrew from the Septuagint):
“For I would not have you ignorant of this mystery, brothers, lest you be wise in your own conceits; that a partial blindness has befallen Israel, until the ˻multitude of nations˼ comes about. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,
The Deliverer will come from Zion,
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob’;
‘and this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.’
(Quoting [Isaiah 27:9][Isaiah 59:20-21][Jeremiah 31:33-34]
WRT to Cornelius (in [Acts 10.22]) I don’t dispute he was a God-fearer, nor do I dispute he was from Italy (where there were lots of Israelites incidentally). I won’t however speculate on his ethnicity though he was a heathen, because the bible is silent on it, and because foreigners who bound themselves to the lord would receive Israel’s. I doubt you could prove Cornelius WAS NOT an heathenized Israelite (long cast off by Jews) in the Roman Empire either, but I would not expect that of you.
July 23, 2012 at 6:49 am
Brian said “As to 1QM and 4Q491-497 are you equating the Kittim with Edomites?”
No. Like most, I take the Kittim to be an eschatological reference to the Romans – or the 4th and last of the Babylonian Beasts to pursue the House of Isaac. In the wilderness of Jerusalem, I was considering the illegitimate rulers who need to be over thrown (apparently a precondition for the reunification of all 12 tribes) to be Edomites.
1QM has two conflicts, one (Col. 1) denoted “War against the Kittim” and (Col. 2) “War of Divisions” (also ‘Day of Calamity’). There are some who read both to be descriptions of one conflicts, different sources redacted into 1QM.
I don’t take it to read that way because in the War against the Kittim it is only three tribes fighting (House of Judah) whereas in War of Divisions it is all 13 Tribes (counting Joseph as 2). Similarly War of Kittim is against the Kittim, where as War of Divisions against everyone.
So, the War against Kittim reads as though it was the initial stages of an eschatological sequence which leads to the War of Divisions. It’s hard not to see this as the Siege of Jerusalem (AD 70) given that Rome (Kittim) fought against the House of Judah (3 tribes) while the leadership of the House of Judah was NOT the House of David, but the House of Edom (speaking of Herod and his line) .
The War of Division seems to be towards the end of this eschatological period. Without agreement on the foundation of these prophetic principles there will be little agreement about the outcome – so explaining Column 2 would be premature.
July 23, 2012 at 7:02 am
I would add that I also see Column 1 (War against the Kittim) of 1QM to be a detailed description of how [Dan 2:34-35] comes about.
Likewise I find it highly significant that the siege of Jerusalem happens shortly after the final pascal lamb is offered for the sins of the people by having God’s Annointed one (the rock and the stone) falsely accused and murdered, first by the false (Edomite) leaders of the temple, and then later by Rome, which ended the daily temple sacrifice incidentally.
Then to have Rome’s destruction assured by the emergence of the faith Christ taught (the mountain) – I see evidence that Dan’s words are true.
July 23, 2012 at 8:22 am
I don’t see Rome falsely accusing Christ. That was “the Jews” sarcastically used by John who did that.
In fact it appears in John that they have threatened Pilate with a deadly accusation and literally forced him to murderer Jesus.
July 23, 2012 at 8:43 am
Agreed. Rome was only the tool of the Sanhedrin. Even so, Rome was still responsible for carrying out the act.
Even so, a Rome would come under God’s judgement for other reasons as the fourth beast, and for sins she freely undertook of her own.
July 23, 2012 at 9:22 am
Andrew
I will have to go back and reread those documents to see if I see what you see.
Patrick
What part of the post are you addressing?
July 23, 2012 at 9:31 am
Brian
Thus validating your Berean qualities.
July 23, 2012 at 11:40 am
Well beyond all of the above, I think this is the most edifying of your observations, Brian:
… so Paul: Israel’s history reaches its climax at the arrival of Jesus.
So Jew or Gentile, all of Israel is all of Christ, and the “ethnic” borders have been blown open at Pentecost. That is not to discount that there are and were still ethnic Jews, but it is to notice that the point of ethnic Israel was not her ethnicity, per se, but instead it was Jesus (who of course is a Jew).
July 23, 2012 at 12:35 pm
Bobby the discussion above is not about personal reflections on Pentecost, but about exegetical justification for certain hermeneutic positions which plays into the development of proper theology.
For example, one’s theology might hold that “The ‘new covenant’ was established with the world.” Is that theological position justified biblically? Look at a verse one the matter such as [Hebrews 8:8-12] which says:
“For he finds fault with them when he says: ‘Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I shall establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant that I shall make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I shall put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I shall be their God, and they shall be my people.”
This verse says that the ‘new covenant’ would be established with the House of Israel and the House of Judah NOT the world. It goes on to say that it won’t be the same as the one previously established ‘with their fathers’. It then identifies that they (meaning the House of Israel and the House of Judah) will be His people, and He their God. Clearly this is not the same as saying it would be established with the ‘world’, so that theology appears to needs some scrutiny against the bible.
Now interestingly, these [Heb 8:8-12] verses happen to quote, nearly verbatim, the only OT verses which mention the ‘new covenant’ [Jeremiah 31:31-34]). So a hermeneutic question might be is the author of Hebrews quoting Jeremiah correctly. He appears to be, and if so [Jeremiah 31:31] makes an even strong case saying that God’s plan to establish this covenant with Israel and Judah would remain true at least until the stars and moon cease to shine, the sea ceases to roar [31:35]and that the nation of Israel would be cast off only when the heavens could be measured [31:37], and the foundation of the earth explored etc.
So any theology which says ‘ “ethnic” borders don’t matter is directly contradicted by the bible. Apparently the ones around Israel and Judah matter at least to God according to Jeremiah and the (author of Hebrews).
In your comment above, you used a word I believe is theologically meaningless ‘Gentile’. Gentiles obviously an English translation for a Greek word. Say ‘Gentile’ in English and you assume ‘non-Israelite’, except that the underlying Greek word doesn’t mean non-Israelite. For example look at [Matt 4:15] which says “The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations;” The word translated into English as ‘Gentile’ actually means ‘nations’ not “non-Isralite person” according to your usage. Fortunately [Matt 4:15] is a Greek quote of the Hebrew [Isaiah 9:1]. From it we can not only the nations were not only Israelites but we know which ones; specifically because we know those Israelite tribes who had their homeland in Galilee (Issachar, Zebulun, Naphtali, and Dan).
If you read the [Matt 4:15] in English you think “hmm ‘Gentiles’ meaning non-Israelites”, but if you read the Greek you think ‘hmm ‘nations’, sounds like an OT meaning Issachar, Zebulun, Naphtali, and Dan”. Your use of ‘Gentiles’ has given you false doctrine.
Nothing you said above, according to a rational hermeneutics, can be supported as true biblically.
July 23, 2012 at 12:50 pm
Andrew,
I am not sure what you are talking about (by the way I know Greek). I am referencing a Pauline usage of Gentile or Greeks (which he uses interchangeably in correspondence with the Corinthians in I Cor 1.17-25). I am referencing something like Paul does in Eph. 2.11ff, that both Jews and Greeks [a Pauline merism noting the totality of humanity from a Jewish perspective in the period] (or Gentiles) are now one in Christ.
And at the end of the day I am not a rationalist hermeneute. I don’t really understand what you’re on about, really. I didn’t assert that ethnic borders don’t matter (like I said, Jesus was a Jew); instead I said that those borders have been blown open in Christ (just like Paul does in Eph. 2).
July 23, 2012 at 1:15 pm
And by the way, Andrew. You don’t seem to be cognizant of the fact that the NT authors reinterpreted OT Promises in light of their Fulfillment in Christ (like Paul does in II Cor 3 cf. Ez 36 or Peter does in I Peter 2.8-9 cf. Ex. 19:6 etc.). Are you a dispensationalist?
So if your definition of following a “rational hermeneutics” precludes the FACT that the NT does reinterpret through, often times, sensus plenior and midrash; then indeed, I am not your kind of rational hermeneute! But I would contend that neither are the NT authors … so you’re on your own I’m afraid.
July 23, 2012 at 1:28 pm
Ok.
No. “Dispensationalism” is another meaningless word (as far as I’m concerned).
July 23, 2012 at 3:14 pm
Andrew,
Okay.
I am no longer a dispensationalist either. But there are plenty who would argue with you about that! The only reason I thought that was because of your reading of the New Covenant for ethnic Israel (both kingdoms); you reading would be completely compatible with a Dispensational reading.
July 23, 2012 at 4:39 pm
Dispensationalism requires too many presuppositions I reject. I hold presuppositions they don’t and the word is designed to pigeon-hole people anyway.
So, if you’re not a rationalist hermeneute, does that make you an irrationalist hermeneute? (Just joking)
July 23, 2012 at 5:45 pm
@Andrew,
I don’t think the word is designed to pigeon-hole. Dispensationalists came up with the designation themselves. In fact when I was Dispy, I was proud of the name, and it served as short-hand for identifying some basic contours of my belief and approach at that moment in time.
When I say I am not a rationalist hermeneute, I mean that I don’t follow the positivistic method of hermeneutics that I was trained in known as the Literal, Grammatical, Historical approach. I still follow the Grammatical-Historical, but framed in what we as Evangelical Calvinists call a ‘Depth Dimension’ approach (when comes from Thomas Torrance’s parlance), and/or a principial Christ-conditioned approach. So I see the canon (and yes, I do follow canonical criticism as well) shaped by its ‘rule of faith’ as it finds its inner-reality as it bears witness to Jesus Christ. So I reject the enlightenment rationalism that funds a historist literal grammatical approach to biblical interpretation. By the way, I do see a difference between being rational and rationalist; the former is simply noting that communication will happen under coherent and orderly and realist constraints, while the latter stems from a certain kind of intellectualist anthropology played out in biblical interpretation, theologizing, doing ethics, etc.
July 23, 2012 at 6:17 pm
Way over my head man .. sorry.