Acts 24
OGCACTS TEST OVER THE THIRD MISSIONARY JOURNEY AND THE VOYAGE TO ROME
True or False
Paul visited numerous churches in Galatia on his third journey.
Among those visited in the above stated province was Berea and Thessalonica.
Apollos was a native of Corinth.
No, that is all wrong. He was from Athens.
Still wrong, his native home was Alexandria.
Apollos was mighty in the scriptures.
A woman helped to teach this man the truth.
Apollos became a famous preacher at Corinth.
Paul asked twelve men in Ephesus if they had received the Holy Spirit after they had believed.
Acts states that the twelve men were baptized into the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
The spiritual gifts given were tongues of knowledge.
Paul preached for six months in the synagogues of Ephesus.
He worked for three years in the schoolroom of Tyrannus.
Diseases and those possessed of demons were healed by handkerchiefs that were carried away from the body of Paul.
Seven sons of one Sceva really took a beating from a man possessed of a demon. (Read this carefully please)
The whole town of Ephesus heard about this and it caused a terrible reflection upon the standing of the church.
There were hypocrites even in the churches that Paul established.
A thousand or more dollars went up in smoke in the city of Ephesus.
Paul’s plan from Ephesus was to go immediately from there to Jerusalem.
Paul wrote II Corinthians from Ephesus at this time.
MULTIPLE CHOICE
Paul sent who from Ephesus to Macedonia? 1) Titus and Timothy. 2) Timothy and Erastus. 3) Aristarchus and Secundus.
What churches were established during the stay at Ephesus? 1) The churches at Corinth and Thessalonica. 2) The seven churches of Asia. 3) The churches at Troas and Philippi.
The work of Christ was called: 1) The church of Christ. 2) The Gospel of Christ. 3) The Way, in the town of Ephesus.
Demetrius was: 1) A goldsmith. 2) A worker in brass. 3) A silversmith.
Demetrius was angry most of all because: 1) Diana was losing devotees, 2) He was losing money. 3) The Jews were losing followers.
Who was carried into the mob in the Ephesian theater? 1) Timothy and Erastus. 2) Gaius and Titus 3:1-15) Aristarchus and Gaius.
Paul was kept from going into the theatre because: 1) He knew it was against the rules. 2) Friends warned him. 3) Jehovah warned him.
Alexander was: 1) The orator of the Jews. 2) A friend of Paul. 3) One of the Asiarchs.
The mob was quieted down by the: 1) City police. 2) City councilman. 3) The town clerk.
The assembly that was called out by Demetrius can be referred to in a general way as a: 1) Town meeting. 2) Church. 3) Camp meeting.
The town clerk gained his point by telling them that: 1) They would be only furthering the cause of Christ. 2) Called into account for their actions. 3) Dishonoring their reputation.
Paul departed from Ephesus: 1) At night. 2) After he had exhorted the disciples. 3) Early in the morning.
Paul went directly to: 1) Macedonia. 2) Greece. 3) Asia from Ephesus.
Paul wrote the following books from Corinth: 1) Romans and 2 Corinthians 2:1-17) Galatians and Philippians 3:1-21) Romans and Galatians.
II Corinthians was written from: 1) Rome. 2) Philippi 3) Troas.
FILL IN THE BLANKS
Paul expected _______________ to meet him at _______________with news from _______________________
Paul was taking up a collection on the third missionary journey for the poor _____________________________ in _____________
There were __________________ men who helped carry this money (the number of men).
Luke’s home-town was ________________________
Paul was in a hurry to arrive in ______________ before ____________
The meeting in Troas occurred on the ___________ day of the week.
The meeting was held in a three-story house and ______________ fell out of the window and was taken up for dead.
From __________________ he sent to __________________ and called to him the __________________ of the church. Acts 20:17.
UNDERLINE THE MISTAKES IN THE FOLLOWING:
Paul wanted the Ephesian elders to know that after his departing grievous wolves would enter in among them, not sparing the flock. And not only so, but that right from among themselves men would arise as partyists to draw away disciples after them. Paul gave a statement from Jesus that was not found in the four gospels. Rhodes is the name of one of Paul’s companions. There was a change of ships at Patara. They passed Cyprus on the right. The ship from Patara unloaded at Tyre. They stayed three days at Tyre. Some of these of Tyre were prophets. They stayed seven days at Ptolemais. Philip the evangelist was a convert of Paul. Philip was like Paul, and was an evangelizing bachelor. There came a prophet from Jerusalem whose name was Agabus. This man took his own girdle and bound his hands and feet and said that Paul would be thus bound in Jerusalem. Paul was to stay in the home of John Mark in Jerusalem. There were only two apostles present in Jerusalem when Paul arrived.
**CAN YOU MATCH THESE THOUGHTS?
Place the matching numbers in the two lists alongside each other.**
All zealous for the law.
The Jews from Asia.
He spake unto them in the Hebrew language.
Four men who had a vow.
Claudius Lysias.
The castle stairs.
… scourge a man that is a Roman?
The Egyptian who led 4000 Assassins.
… far hence unto the Gentiles.
No resurrection, neither angels nor spirits.
Neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul.
The command of Ananias.
Paul’s sister’s son.
200 spearmen, 200 footman, 70 horsemen.
The governor of Syria and Cilicia.
The Jews in Jerusalem.
The chief captain.
The words that set off the mob to cry: Away with him.
Those over which Paul was at charge.
Paul addressing the Jewish mob.
Those who stirred up the multitudes and laid hands on Paul.
Where Paul stood to address the Jews.
Smite him on the mouth.
Paul’s words to the centurion.
The one for whom Paul was mistaken.
The profession of the Sadducees.
The forty under an oath.
Paul’s escort.
Felix.
He who heard the plot.
WHO SAID IT?TELL WHERE
… We have found this man a pestilent fellow.
I appeal unto Caesar.
I also could wish to hear the man myself.
Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
Paul, thou art mad. Thy much learning is turning thee mad.
With but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian.
Sirs, I perceive that the voyage will be with injury and much loss.
By hearing ye shall hear, and shall in no wise understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall in no wise perceive.
We neither received letters from Judea concerning thee, nor did any of the brethren come hither and report or speak any harm of thee.
REVIEW EXAMINATION OVER THE BOOK OF ACTS True or False
Jesus promised the baptism in the Holy Spirit to 120 disciples.
One of the qualifications for the office of the apostle was to have been with Jesus from the baptism of John until the day of ascension.
The theme of the sermon on Pentecost was repentance from sin and faith in God.
The lame man at the gate beautiful had been lame since his birth.
Peter had the same type of men in his second audience as he did in the first.
All twelve apostles were arrested and put in jail as a result of Peter’s message on Solomon’s porch.
Ananais and Sapphira were carried out dead because of lying.
An angel of God released the twelve apostles from prison.
Gamaliel saved the apostles from a beating by a clever speech.
Stephen was stoned for blasphemy.
True or False
Philip and Stephen were scattered by the persecution.
Simon the sorcerer believed but was never baptized.
The Ethiopian eunuch was the treasurer of a queen.
Peter and John came to Samaria for the purpose of giving spiritual gifts.
Simon the sorcerer sinned in that he tried to impart the Holy Spirit when he had no right to do so.
Ananais baptized Saul of Tarsus after Saul had been without food or drink for three days and nights.
Saul did not preach immediately after his baptism, but went away into Arabia.
Peter’s first convert in Lydda was named Aeneas.
Cornelius was baptized in the Holy Spirit before he was baptized in water.
Herod made a speech in Jerusalem for which an angel of heaven smote him and he was eaten of worms.
True or False THE FIRST MISSIONARY JOURNEY
Elymas was one of the converts made in the town Iconium.
There were many who heard the word and believed in Antioch of Pisidia.
Timothy was converted by Paul at Derbe.
No persecution was encountered at Derbe.
Upon the return trip they did not have time for preaching.
True or False TROUBLE OVER CIRCUMCISION
The trouble was caused by the Jews from Antioch.
Paul and Barnabas had a difficult time in being accepted as sincere by the brethren in Jerusalem.
Peter’s speech told of the miracles God had wrought through his ministry.
James told how prophecy was fulfilled in the conversion of the Gentiles.
The letter stated that it was wrong to eat blood.
True or False THE SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY
Paul took up a collection for the poor saints in Judea on this journey.
Paul established the work in Galatia on this journey.
The woman with a spirit of divination lived in Philippi.
Paul refused to leave the jail at Philippi without a proper escort.
Paul stayed in Thessalonica to reason three Sabbaths.
Jason lived in Thessalonica.
There was a good work done in Berea with no opposition.
An Epicurean is one who does not believe in showing emotion.
There was no one converted in Athens.
Silas and Timothy joined Paul in Corinth.
True or False THE THIRD MISSIONARY JOURNEY
Priscilla and Aquila met Apollos in Corinth and corrected his teaching.
The seven sons of Sceva were interested in casting out demons.
Paul wrote the book of I Corinthians from Ephesus.
Demetrius was interested in stopping the preaching of Paul.
Paul took a collection from Galatia, Macedonia and Achaia for the saints in Judea.
True or False THE VOYAGE TO ROME
Paul was purifying himself in the temple when the Jewish authorities stirred up the people against him.
Paul made a defense before the council that had no answer by those of the council.
Paul was tried before Festus with Tertullus as the lawyer for the Jews.
The ship drifted for fourteen days before the breakers of Malta were heard.
Paul stayed two years both in Caesarea and in Rome.
SPECIAL STUDY ON THE HOLY SPIRIT THE PERSONALITY AND DEITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
The Holy Spirit is a person and is so described in the Word of God.
A.
The personal pronoun is used when speaking of the Holy Spirit. John 14:16-17; John 14:26; John 16:13. Romans 8:16.
B.
The Holy Spirit is said to have a mind. 1 Corinthians 2:9-11; Romans 8:26-27.
C.
The Holy Spirit can be grieved. Ephesians 4:30.
D.
The Holy Spirit can be lied to. Acts 5:3.
E.
The Holy Spirit is said to speak. John 16:13; Acts 8:29; 1 Timothy 4:1.
F.
The Holy Spirit is said to have the power of choice. 1 Corinthians 12:11 (Not best ref.).
G.
The Holy Spirit has the power to forbid. Acts 16:6.
H.
The Holy Spirit has the power to love. Romans 15:30
The above attributes are ascribable only to a person; hence, we can say the Holy Spirit is a person. 2.
The Holy Spirit is a divine person. One of the Godhead.
A.
The Holy Spirit is called God. Acts 5:3-5; Genesis 1:11; Genesis 1:26; Job 26:13; Psalms 104:30.
B.
The Holy Spirit is said to be eternal. Hebrews 9:14.
C.
The Holy Spirit is spoken of as omniscient or all wise. 1 Corinthians 2:10-13.
D.
The Holy Spirit is spoken of as omnipotent or all powerful. Acts 1:8; 1 Corinthians 2:4-5.
E.
The Holy Spirit is spoken of as omnipresent or everywhere present. Psalms 139:7-10; John 14:16-17.
F.
The Holy Spirit is placed on an equal with Christ and God, Matthew 28:19; Romans 15:30; 2 Corinthians 13:14.
The above attributes are ascribable only to God. Hence, we can say that the Holy Spirit is divine or one of the Godhead.
THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE LIFE OF CHRIST
John 3:34; Colossians 1:19; Colossians 2:9
We need but make a brief statement to understand the relation of Christ with the Holy Spirit; the same statement that John made concerning Him, i.e. Christ possessed the Spirit without measure. John 3:34. God placed no limitations on the power of the Holy Spirit in Jesus-’ life. The Holy Spirit exercised in Christ’s life and ministry all of His inherent power. This truth is demonstrated when we consider the following facts:
A.
The Holy Spirit prophesied of His coming. 2 Peter 1:21; Micah 5:2; Isaiah 7:14; Genesis 49:10; Isaiah 53:4-6.
B.
The Holy Spirit brought about His birth. Luke 1:35; Matthew 1:20-25.
C.
The Holy Spirit was present at His baptism. Matthew 3:16; Luke 3:22; Mark 1:10.
D.
The Holy Spirit aided and empowered His ministry. Matthew 12:28; Luke 4:18-21; Acts 1:2; Luke 10:21.
E.
The Holy Spirit raised Him from the dead. Romans 8:11.
F.
The Holy Spirit was with Him at the ascension. Acts 1:2.
In truth then we can say that the Holy Spirit abode with Christ and the fullness of His power was in and with Christ at all times.
THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
What is it?
The answer can be found in the meaning of the word baptism. This word means to dip to plung, immerse. We can say then that this experience would be the dipping, the plunging, the immersion in the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the element of the baptism and man is the object of this baptism. Concisely stated, the baptism in the Holy Spirit was the complete immersion or subjection of the spirit of man by the Holy Spirit. The experience is one of the spirit of man not of his body, only as the body is effected by the condition of the spirit.
Where is this experience recorded in the Scriptures?
A.
On the day of Pentecost in the city of Jerusalem. Acts 2:1-4.
B.
At the household of Cornelius in the city of Caesarea. Acts 10:35-48.
Who received it?
A.
On the day of Pentecost. The apostles.
Reasons why we can know the apostles were the only ones baptized in the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost.
a.
Because of the promise made by Christ concerning this event. Acts 1:5 (please read the preceding four verses of this chapter), for John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence. Notice now the specificness of this promise made by Christ.
Made to certain persons unto the apostles whom he had chosen. Acts 1:26; Acts 2:4.
It is concerned with a certain event, shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit.
It was to take place at a certain place, not to depart from Jerusalem.
It was to happen at a certain time not many days hence.
Notice a parallel to this and draw your own conclusion.
I promise twelve boys in a class of one hundred
That they will receive $1.00 apiece
Here in the classroom
Tomorrow morning when class convenes.
Would it seem reasonable that any more than twelve boys would receive the money promised? Would it be consistent with the specificness of the promise to give the money to more than twelve? This thought is all based upon this simple truth or rule of understanding:
Whenever certain persons are specified in a promise to be the recipients of that promise this specification excludes all others.
This is found to be true in the promise of Gen 3:15. Two persons were involved in this promise or prophecy; none others could consistently participate in the action described. The promise of God to Abraham that through his seed would all the families of the earth be blessed (Genesis 12:3), could not be accomplished by any other seed but Abraham’S. For the seed of some other family to expect God to bless the world in the way that he promised to bless it through Abraham’s seed would be ridiculous.
Here is the way it happened:
Jesus, on the fortieth day after His resurrection, appeared to His eleven chosen apostles on the hill of Olivet. He spoke to them things concerning the kingdom of God and in the midst of these words concerning the kingdom of God, He made a tremendous promise. Taking the statement of John the Baptist, made some years ago, He pointed out to them the when and where and who involved in this promise. He told them at a certain place, Jerusalem, at a certain time, not many days hence, a certain event would take placethey would be baptized in the Holy Spirit. Well, His apostle showed their inability to really grasp the meaning of the King and His program by their inquiry into the restoration of the kingdom of Israel. He answered them and drew their minds back to the all important promise He had made and the results of it.
His ascension took place in their sight; the angels appeared with their message. They returned with joy to Jerusalem to wait for the promise of the Father. (See Luke 24:49). When they reached Jerusalem, they went into the upper room and had a prayer meeting.
Now who do you suppose the apostles anticipated would received this baptism in the Holy Spirit? Do you think for one moment that they thought that this promise which Jesus had made only to them was going to be poured forth upon any and all who might be gathered together at the appointed time and place when the event was to be fulfilled?
b.
Because the grammatical construction of verses Acts 1:26 and Acts 2:1 prevent any but the apostles from being the recipients of this experience.
We have already made comment upon this point. We only repeat here briefly the facts: The grammatical rule referred to in this discussion is the rule relating to the antecedent of a pronoun. Let us read the verses and then note the application of this rule, Acts 1:26, Acts 2:1. And they gave lots for them and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. And when the day of Pentecost was now come, they were all together in one place. The question is: Who does the pronoun they refer to? The rule of English grammar governing the discovery of the antecedent of pronouns reads as follows:
A pronoun should not be made to refer to an antecedent placed inconspicuously in the sentence (or in the paragraph, to say nothing of the preceding paragraph), if another noun is so prominent that the reader naturally connects the pronoun with it. (Handbook of Effective Writing by Walter Kay Smart, pages 103-104.) Words in the parenthesis are those of the writer. The rule given in the previous notes refers to this point also but the rule quoted here is so much to the point and so clearly points to the solution to the question that it was thought best to quote it without further comment. The only question that needs to be answered honestly by every person interested in the truth is, Which noun is prominent and the one the reader naturally connects with the pronoun?
c.
Because other scripture references concerning the baptism in the Holy Spirit apply only to the apostles.
- John 14:26. In this reference we have the following words:
But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you.
We know that Jesus was addressing His apostles and thus gave this promise to them, for the circumstances of the conversation took place at the passover feast in which Jesus instituted His Supper. (See John 13:1). We also know that only the apostles were present at this feast. Note then that the words of this text are addressed to the apostles and that Jesus is speaking of the coming Holy Spirit which they would receive. When did this promise to the apostles find its fulfillment? At Pentecost of course. What did Jesus say the Holy Spirit would do for them when He came? The words of the text say: Teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you. How could any but the apostles qualify for this promise? Jesus had taught but very little to others, whereas the apostles were instructed thoroughly by His life and teachings. Compare John 16:13-15 and Matthew 10:20.
-
Acts 1:8. In this verse we have the words of Jesus concerning the purpose of the Holy Spirit baptism. These words were only -given to the apostles-’. Nowhere in the New Testament is there one word given as to what purpose there would be in baptizing any others in the Holy Spirit.
-
Mark 16:14-18. Note the situation: In Mark 16:14 we are told that the persons present were the eleven apostles and the risen Lord. Jesus upbraids them for their unbelief and hardness of heart because they believed not. Then follows His commission to them, every word of it addressed to the apostles. In Mark 16:17-18, we have the promise of signs accompanying them that believe. Now, I ask candidly, who was in need of faith or belief? Was it the persons to whom the apostles were to preach the gospel? No. Such persons had already believed. The persons in this situation that were in need of faith were the apostles. Jesus had just rebuked them for their unbelief; hence, the promise of the accompanying signs addressed as it was to those who believed, was a promise to the apostles, the ones in need of faith.
This is confirmed beyond doubt when we read the 20th verse which describes the carrying out of the commission of Jesus. Note: Jesus said, Go ye into all the world; Mark 16:20 says, And they went forth preaching everywhere. Jesus said, these signs shall accompany them that believe; Mark 16:20 says the Lord working with them (the apostles) and confirming the word by signs that followed, Amen. This thought is further established when we read in the book of Acts of the signs promised and in each and every case they were performed through the apostles hands. There is not one reference in the entire book where He that believed and was baptized exercised more faith and thus performed the promised signs.
d. The fourth reason for saying that the apostles were the only ones to receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit upon the day of Pentecost is found in Acts 2:7; Behold, are not all these that speak Galileans?
We know that all the apostles with the exception of Judas Iscariot were from the province of Galilee. We cannot give it as a demonstrable fact but it does seem very unlikely that the 120 persons spoken of in Acts 1:15 were all from the province of Galilee, which lay some sixty or seventy miles north of the city of Jerusalem.
B.
The baptism of the Holy Spirit of the house of Cornelius. Acts, Acts 10:4-48; Acts 11:15-18.
Who were baptized in the Holy Spirit upon this occasion? We answer that the whole household, those who were akin to Cornelius, the servants that might have been present, or those who came as interested listeners. The significant fact is that they were Gentiles.
- Reasons why this incident is not an example for the Holy Spirit baptism today. a.
Because the purpose of the Holy Spirit baptism upon this occasion sets it aside as a special act of God. Hence, it could not be a general example for all Christians. Acts 11:15-18 states in plain words the purpose for this event. (Read this carefully please.) The Holy Spirit through Peter tells us that the reason for this whole circumstance was to convince Peter and all other Jews that the Gentiles were to have the benefits of the gospel. What better method could have been used than to send upon the Gentiles (the first Gentiles to ever hear the gospel) the same gift as was sent upon the apostles in the beginning? The baptism in the Holy Spirit of this Gentile household was intended to so overwhelm the prejudice of the Jew that he would receive them as being on an equal with them in the kingdom of Christ. This very purpose was accomplished. Acts 11:18 states: And when they heard these things (the recital of the baptism of the household of Cornelius) they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life.
How could it be said that this is an example for us today? According to some the purpose of the baptism in the Holy Spirit today is to better fit the Christian for service (which thing the word of God is said to do, 2 Timothy 3:16-17), whereas, here the purpose was entirely different.
There is a very trite axiom that applies very well at this point: The exception proves the rule. The rule in this thought is that only the apostles were baptized in the Holy Spirit; the exception is the household of Cornelius, which is an exception only because it accomplished a special purpose and thus only proves the rule.
b. Because those of the household of Cornelius were baptized in the Holy Spirit before their sins were washed away. Acts 10:48, compare Acts 22:16; Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:21; Mark 16:16.
This again points to the fact that this was a special case and not an example for us today. If this were an example, then Holy Spirit baptism would precede baptism for the remission of sins and thus would God grant to sinners a greater blessing in the Spirit than to the Saints. There were several secondary or subordinate purposes:
In enabling the apostles to establish the church, wisdom and power were needed. These were to be theirs through the Holy Spirit. Matthew 10:19-20; John 16:13-15; John 16:14-26.
In setting up the church they must bear witness of the resurrection. The Holy Spirit baptism empowered them for this task. Acts 1:8.
While building the kingdom in the hearts of men, certain Jewish prejudices had to be overcome. The natural aversion or prejudice of the Jews with the Gentile was surmounted through the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Acts 11:15-18.
To establish the truthfulness of their claims in the minds of the unbelievers, the apostles were granted through the Holy Spirit Baptism, the power of signs and wonders. Mark 16:14-18.
The apostles were enabled by virtue of the Holy Spirit Baptism to lay their hands upon the heads of certain individuals and by this means, impart to the Holy Spirit within the person certain specified powersthese powers were called spiritual gifts. (1 Corinthians 12:1-9). These persons, thus endowed, were capable leaders in the early church. Thus again, do we see the hand of God in the establishment of the church through the Holy Spirit inspired apostles.
Why was the baptism in the Holy Spirit?
A.
There was but one primary purpose and that was to prepare the apostles for their task of setting up the kingdom of God on earth, or of building the church Jesus promised.
How long did it last?
The answer can only be that the power of the baptism lasted long enough to fulfill its purpose.
SPECIAL GIFTS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
-
What is meant by special gifts of the Holy Spirit? We feel that we could do no better than to repeat what has already been said on this point. The apostles because of the baptism in the Holy Spirit given to them by Jesus were enabled to impart through the laying on of their hands certain special powers to the Holy Spirit within the persons upon whom they would lay their hands. The apostles did not impart the Holy Spirit, but they did enable the Holy Spirit within the individual to accomplish certain acts that he could not previously accomplish. The powers thus granted through the imposition of the apostles-’ hands were called gift. A person who could perform any one of these miraculous works was said to have a spiritual gift.
The number of gifts. 1 Corinthians 12:1-11.
a)
The word of wisdom (divine wisdom) 1 Corinthians 12:8 a.
b)
The word of knowledge (divine knowledge) 1 Corinthians 12:8 b,
c)
Faith (supernatural faith) 1 Corinthians 12:9 a.
d)
Healing 1 Corinthians 12:9 b.
e)
Working of miracles 1 Corinthians 12:10 a.
f)
Prophecy 1 Corinthians 12:10 b.
g)
Discerning of spirits 10c; 1 John 4:1-3.
h)
Diverse kinds of tongues 1 Corinthians 12:10 d.
i)
The interpretation of tongues 1 Corinthians 12:10 e.
Who received these gifts?
a)
The seven. Acts 6:1-8.
b)
The Samaritans. Acts 8:14-23.
c)
The twelve at Ephesus. Acts 19:1-7.
d)
Timothy. 2 Timothy 1:6.
e)
Possibly many of the church leaders. Acts 11:27; Acts 13:1; Acts 15:32; Acts 21:8-14
How given? Through the laying on of the apostles-’ hands.
b)
c)
d)
e)
Could these powers or gifts be passed on?
a)
They Bible says no. Acts 8:14-21; Romans 1:11.
b)
History says no. Read the article of the McClintock and Strong Historical Encyclopedia, Vol. 6, page 320.
What was the purpose of such gifts?
The answer should be evident to all who have studied the previous notes. These spiritual powers were given to reveal divine direction in the establishment of the church in the absence of the New Testament. The message was kept pure until the day in which the revealed written word could be completed. In addition to this purpose, they confirmed the word by the signs they enabled the possessors to perform. Cf. 1 Corinthians 14:22; Acts 13:4-12, 1 Corinthians 12:28; 2 Timothy 1:5; Romans 1:11.
When did they close?
a)
When the apostles and those on whom they had laid their hands died.
b)
When that which was perfect was come, the Word of God, then that which was only in part, that which belonged to the childhood of the church, was done away. 1 Corinthians 13:8-10;
c)
**THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE CHRISTIAN
THE HOLY SPIRIT INDWELLS THE CHRISTIAN.**
This indwelling received at baptism.
a. Now when the apostles that were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John who, when they were come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit: for as yet it was fallen upon none of them: only they had been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Acts 8:14-16
b. And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper country came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples: and he said unto them, Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed? And they said unto him, Nay, we did not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit was given. And he said, Into what then were ye baptized? And they said, Into John’s baptism. And Paul said, John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on Him that should come after him, that is, on Jesus. And when they heard this they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Acts 19:1-5.
c. This only would I learn from you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing (or message) of faith? Galatians 3:2.
d. And Peter said unto them, Repent ye and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, (even) as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him. Acts 2:38-39. Cf. Acts 2:33 Being therefore by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath poured forth this which ye see and hear. Cf. Ephesians 1:13 … ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.
e.
We are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God hath given to them that obey Him. Acts 5:32.
In this indwelling our bodies are used as His habitation.
a. Or know ye not that your body is a temple (sanctuary) of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God? and ye are not your own; for ye were bought with a price: glorify God, therefore; in your body. 1 Corinthians 6:19-20.
b. But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwelleth in you, he that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall give life also to your mortal bodies through His Spirit that dwelleth in you. Romans 8:9; Romans 8:11.
c.. in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God in the Spirit. Ephesians 2:22.
d. Or think ye that the scripture speaketh in vain? Doth the Spirit which he made to dwell in us long unto envying? James 4:5.
Other references that plainly state our relation to the Spirit’s indwelling:
a. Therefore he that rejecteth, rejecteth not man, but God, who giveth his Holy Spirit unto you. 1 Thessalonians 4:8.
b.
That good thing which was committed unto thee guard through the Holy Spirit which dwelleth in us. 2 Timothy 1:14.
c.
For as touching those who were once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit. Hebrews 6:4.
d.
And he that keepeth his commandments abideth in him and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us by, the Spirit which he gave us. 1 John 3:24.
e.
… hereby we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. 1 John 4:13.
f.
… that upon the Gentiles might come the blessing of Abraham in Christ Jesus; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Galatians 3:14.
But to some I know there are other questionsSuch questions arise in a consideration of such passages as given above. In these we see that both God and Christ are also said to be abiding within us. Now to the question: How do God and Christ live within? Is it literal or figurative? Surely you could not say that God literally lives within you. Neither could you say it of Christ. If then their presence within us is only figurative, what of the presence of the Holy Spirit within? Is His presence also a figurative indwelling?
I do not want to be guilty of over-simplification but the answer to this question with me is as simple as this:
(1)
Where is the home of God now? Answer: Heaven
(2)
Where is the home of Christ now? Answer: With the Father in heaven.
(3)
Where is the home of the Holy Spirit now?
Answer: On earth. Previous to the day of Pentecost His home was also in heaven, but since that time He has been here in the world. (Cf. John 14:16).
Now note: He is here, not His representation. If He is here, and we know He is, where does He dwell? That has already been answered, earnest brethren, sincere Christians,
We might approach the same subject from a little different viewpoint. Back in 1864 the same subject was being discussed among earnest brethren. Here is the comment of Moses E. Lard on the subject: Being now through with stating preliminaries, I proceed to make an application of them to the position or doctrine which it is the more especial object of this article to defend. That position is this: That the Holy Spirit dwells in Christians. But let it be first settled that the holy Scriptures assert this position. It will then be in place to inquire in what sense they assert it, i.e. whether literally or figuratively.
The verse cited at the commencement of this article may, for the sake of being very distinct, be divided into three parts, each having its separate meaning and value. The first part is a hypothesis: If the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you! The second asserts a fact: -He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies.-’ The third states how this fact will be effected: -By His Spirit that dwelleth in you.-’
Now in regard to the first part, I hold it to be indisputable that the apostle would never have used the language, If the Spirit dwell in you, had it not been both the rule and the fact that the Spirit does dwell in Christians. The hypothesis is not false and it can have no other foundation. But we need not treat the position even as indisputable. The following passage clearly asserts it: Know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you? 1 Corinthians 6:19. And this language is addressed not alone to inspired men, but to Christians generally. Let us now note the several items which it contains. First, we have the body, the human body, the body however not of men out of Christ, but of men in Him, the body of Christians, and this body we have as a temple. Second we have the Holy Spirit represented as being in this body, as dwelling in this temple. This much is absolutely certain. From these premises, therefore, it clearly appears that the New Testament, and that, too, in a part of it relating to Christians, actually and positively asserts that the Holy Spirit dwells in them. On these premises and this conclusion arise several questions demanding notice.
1st. Is the translation of the preceding passages true to the sense of the sacred original? I answer, it is; strictly so, and while it might admit of mere verbal alternations, it can admit of none in the least affecting the sense. The literal word-for-word translation of the second passage is this: Know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit in you? The verb which is to follow the Holy Spirit is not expressed, and is hence to be supplied. Analogy clearly requires that it should be enoikei and not esti. The passage would then read: Know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which dwells in you? But this clearly does not alter the sense. Against the translation therefore no objection can be urged.
2nd. In what acceptation are we to take the term Spirit in the first passage? Can we possibly take it to denote, not the Holy Spirit, but a mere frame of mind or disposition? This latter position is sometimes assumed, but is it correct? We emphatically deny it. He would be deemed a bold man truly who should venture to render the passage thus: If the disposition of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also make your mortal bodies alive by His disposition which dwells in you. Yet if this be the meaning of the passage, no injustice would be done it by such rendering. But even granting the possibility, which we do not, of thus rendering the word Spirit in the first part of the verse, still clearly it could not be so rendered in the last part. For surely our bodies are neither kept alive now, nor will they be made alive at the resurrection, whichever view we take, by any mere disposition dwelling in us, though it were even divine. But did even the slightest doubt exist as to the import of the word Spirit in the first passage, none can exist in regard to its meaning in the second. Here we have not the single word Spirit, but the combination, the Holy Spirit, both in the translation and in the original; and this combination, as is universally admitted, stands only for the Holy Spirit proper, and never for a disposition or frame of mind. We are therefore to take the word Spirit as meaning strictly and properly the Holy Spirit.
3rd. In what sense must we take the clause, dwelleth in you? To this inquiry we have two different replies involving two opposing theories. The first is that we are to take the clause literally; and hence to hold that the Holy Spirit actually and literally dwells in Christians. The second is that we are to take the clause not literally, but figuratively; and hence to hold that the Holy Spirit dwells in Christians not actually and literally, but representatively or through the truth. But what kind of dwelling is this last? Let the language be understood. When it is said that the Holy Spirit dwells in Christians not actually and literally, but merely through the truth or representatively, the implication clearly is, that the Spirit itself does not dwell in them at all. On the contrary, the truth only dwells in them, and this stands for or is in the place of the Spirit. This unquestionably is the meaning of the language. Which now of these two theories are we to accept as the correct one? Of course the answer must depend on the acceptation in which we take the clause, dwells in you. In what sense then shall we take it? The rule by which the answer to this question is to be determined is this: A word, whenever met with, is to be taken in its common current sense, unless the subject-matter, the context, or a qualifying epithet forbids it. This rule is universal and imperative. What the phrase dwells in means is perfectly clear; namely, to live in or inhabit as a home. This, then, is the sense in which we must take the clause unless prevented as the rule requires. Now, as to a qualifying epithet there is none, and a glance of the eye at the context is enough to satisfy us that there is nothing in it to prevent the clause being taken in its common acceptation. The only item then, remaining to be considered is the subject-matter. But what is this? The subject of the sentence in hand is, the Holy Spirit; the thing said of it, that it dwells in Christians, and these together constitute the subject-matter or the thought presented in the sentence for consideration. Now if the subject-matter involves anything to prevent the clause being taken in its ordinary sense, it must be the Spirit itself. Does the Spirit itself, then, prevent it? And, if so, on account of what? 1st. It cannot be on account of anything in its nature. For of the nature or substance of the Spirit strictly speaking, we know nothing. Of course, then, we cannot affirm that it is such as to prevent the Spirit dwelling in Christians. From this source, therefore, nothing can be deduced forbidding the clause being taken in its usual sense. 2nd. It cannot be on account of its inability or want of power. Surely no one will deny that the Spirit dwells in Christians on the score that it cannot. We know no limits to its power; hence we must use no language which implies any. 3rd. Nor can it be because it will not. To assert this would be presumptuous indeed. We know nothing to justify it; neither does the word of God teach it. It is hence inadmissible. 4th. Neither can it be owing to anything in the office of the Spirit in the work of redemption. For all we know of this office we learn from Holy writ; and it is simply certain that we learn nothing there against the notion that the Spirit dwells in Christians; and hence nothing to forbid the clause being taken in its usual sense. (Lard’s Quarterly, Vol. I.) But why is the body called a temple? Is it one literally? Of course not. Why then is it referred to as such in this passage? Because of what immediately follows. Your body is to be regarded as a temple because-’ the** Divine Spirit of God dwells** in it. You are to look upon your body as the sacred habitation of the Holy Spirit.
Romans 11:33-36 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past tracing out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counselor? Or who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed unto Him again? For of Him, and through Him, and unto Him are all things. To Him be the glory for ever. Amen.
Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds have been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen hath not been made out of things which appear. If the Holy Spirit is a person (and we know He is) how could He be broken up into 10,000 parts and thus be present in each individual Christian at the same time? Or as one brother of my acquaintance put itDoes each Christian have a separate Holy Spirit all his own?
Here we have a problem concerning the nature of the Holy Spirit and more specifically a problem concerning the omnipresence of His nature.
How, then, can we explain how the Holy Spirit as a person can be everywhere present? Do the scriptures affirm this fact? Yes, the very circumstances already described suggest that. If He is present in you as a person and you live in New York and He is present at the same time in me and I live in San Francisco, you are forced to a conclusion involving omnipresence.
How then can we explain this phenomenon? How can we understand it? The answer is in Hebrews 11:3By faith we understand that the worlds have been framed by the word of God.
Now I ask a question or two:
(1)
How do we understand by faith?
Answer: Easy. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:17.
(2)
What are you to understand by faith here?
Answer: That the worlds have been framed. We understand this because we have read the account of it in Genesis.
So far everything looks perfectly obviousbut another question or two!
(1)
How much concerning the framing of the worlds do you understand?
Answer: I must answer only what is revealed in God’s word.
(2)
How do you understand the creation? i.e. Do you under stand the use of God’s power and wisdom?
Job’s words in modern garb also ask: Were you there when I formed the world? Job 38:4.
Just how was the wisdom of God employed in the creation of the earth? Just how was God’s power exercised in the creation of this universe? Come now, can you explain the omniscience and omnipotence in the nature of God? This word from Lard is so much to the point we reproduce it here for consideration: But the position, that God dwells in Christians not literally but through the Spirit, instead, it seems to me, of disproving that the Spirit dwells literally in them, establishes it. For how can God dwell in Christians through the Spirit if the Spirit itself does not dwell in them? When men say that the Spirit dwells in Christians through the truth they claim for the truth a literal indwelling; yet when God is said to dwell in them through Spirit, they deny of the Spirit a literal indwelling. Are they consistent? But why should any one doubt that the Holy Spirit dwells literally in Christians? It cannot be on the ground that it is not clearly enough asserted. Still by some it is doubted, and we repeat, why? Is it on the ground of our inability to comprehend and explain the fact and mode of such indwelling? We fear that this has much to do with the case. But is this a legitimate ground of doubt? In some cases it is, I grant, but not in this. Such is the nature of the fact asserted that we cannot comprehend it. This we are compelled to confess. Now instead of this inability being a just ground for doubt, it seems to me that it should be the very reverse. For the more sensibly we feel that we cannot and do not comprehend a fact, the less reason have we to question what the Bible says respecting it. Of all the possible grounds upon which a doubt might be founded, this should be the last.
Surely a literal indwelling is not doubted on the ground that we have no sensible evidence of the Spirit’s presence. Nor from the Bible have we any reason to conclude that such evidence would be afforded us. And gratuitously to assume it, and then make the assumption a ground on which to doubt the indwelling, is most unwarrantable indeed. (ibid)
II.
THE HOLY SPIRIT SEALS THE CHRISTIAN.
This sealing is identical with regeneration.
a. Ephesians 1:13-14 … in whom ye also, having heard the word of the truth, the gospel of your salvationin whom, having also believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is an earnest of our inheritance, unto the redemption of God’s own possession, unto the praise of his glory.
This sealing should last until the day of redemption.
Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, in whom ye were sealed unto the day of redemption.
This sealing carries two ideas:
a.
Something that is sealed is. authentic.
b.
Sealing declares ownership.
**III.
THE HOLY SPIRIT INTERCEDES FOR THE CHRISTIAN.** Romans 8:26-27.
And in like manner the Spirit also helpeth our infirmity: for we know not how to pray as we ought; but the Spirit himself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered; and he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
-
Note the meaning of infirmity. While referring to our human weakness in general, it has special reference here to our weakness in prayer.
-
Note the meaning of helpeth. This is a queer word, a compound in the original, composed of three different words, and literally means to lay hold of in connection with. Cf. Acts 10:40.
-
Note the meaning of the word intercession. It is the same word used of Christ in 1 John 2:1, If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
How does the Holy Spirit make intercession for the saints? a. This intercession is said by some to be altogether independent of our spirit, and that the unutterable groanings in our heart are His, the Holy Spirit’s and not ours. Here are five reasons given for holding this position:
Since the groanings of Rom 8:23 properly belong to us, the likewise of Rom 8:26 must introduce a new thing, and the groanings therefore are not ours as in Romans 8:23, but the Spirit’S,
The word of intercession is the same as used in Romans 8:34, and since Christ’s intercession is wholly His own, why is the same not true of the Spirit?
One of the prepositions (anti) in the word helpeth confirms this explanation. The word helpeth is made up of two pretions and a verb. The word is sunantilambano; sun (with), anti (over against, or in place of), and lambano (to take hold).
Romans 8:27 says that God knoweth the mind, not of man, but of the Spirit who maketh intercession.
The intercession is made according to the will of God and this can be said of the Holy Spirit alone. (This view and these arguments are given by Kuyper in his work The Work of the Holy Spirit, page 636). The conclusion to this position is stated in these words:
If we were brought at once by regeneration into the condition of perfect holiness, such intercession of the Spirit for the saint would not be necessary, for the saint then being himself all that he ought to be could pray as he ought to pray. Such unutterable groanings of the Spirit in the Christian’s behalf are therefore to be thought of as taking place in proportion as the Christian fails to properly pray for himself. Such we are to believe to be especially the case in the heart of the young Christian, because in his early Christian experience, being yet a babe in the new life he knows neither how nor what to pray for as he ought. (W. E. Biederwolf in A Help to the Study of the Holy Spirit page 147.)
I do not agree with the previously stated interpretation, but rather believe that the groanings are the Christians-’ and that the intercession is made by the Spirit through such inarticulate signs. Here are the reasons why I so believe:
The scriptures teach that the spirit of man and the Holy Spirit can cooperate in expressing the will of God. Note Matthew 10:19-20 (spoken to the apostles) Be not anxions how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you. In Galatians 4:6 it is said, Because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying Abba Father and in Romans 8:15 it is said, But ye received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. What in one passage the Holy Spirit is said to do, in the other is predicated (affirmed) of ourselves.
The idea then that it would not be possible or scriptural for the Holy Spirit to dwell in us must be abandoned.
The words We know not how to pray as we ought which serve to introduce the particular help given by the Spirit, strongly intimate an effort on the believer’s part.
The words cannot be uttered favor this view. The thought here is that the groanings cannot be expressed in words or distinct terms. Now this could not be predicated of the Holy Spirit. Why should He have trouble expressing Himself?
The idea that the groanings are the words of the Spirit’s language to the Father would surely put a strange meaning on the word groaning. Note please that the Spirit’s intercession is not to be accomplished by these groanings or by the means of these groanings; but rather with them.
There is an argument in the soul’s experience. What child of God has not been in the place of uncertainty when he was not sure of the Father’s will; in the place of a straightened soul when he could hardly find the heart to pray?
The conclusion to this position:
The Spirit helps our infirmities in prayer in the following manner: When we come before the throne of grace with a burden too heavy to bear alone, and at the same time we do not know how to express the desires of our hearts for the good we want to come out of the circumstances, it is then that all we can utter are the groanings here spoken of, the real deep wants of the human nature. It is then that the Holy Spirit intercedes by translating, so to speak, these inarticulate sighs into the true expression of the soul’s need. He that searches the hearts of men, i.e. God, sees this intelligible petition in the mind of the Spirit and receives this petition as the true request of the soul. Thus does the Holy Spirit make intercession for the saints.
**IV.
THE HOLY SPIRIT BEARS WITNESS WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE CHRISTIAN THAT HE IS CHILD OF GOD. **Romans 8:16.
It will help much if we consider the previous three verses in this connection. Note them: For if ye live after the flesh, ye must die; but if by the Spirit ye put to death the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For ye received not the spirit of bondage again unto fear; but ye received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit Himself beareth witness with our spirit that we are children of God. Romans 8:13-16.
Consider carefully the following points: The text does not say that the Holy Spirit bears witness to our spirits, but rather with our spirits. This would suggest then that testimony is being borne to God and not to us. The Holy Spirit knows whether we are children of God or not, and He bears this witness to God, The Holy Spirit has told us what to do to become a child of God and also what to do to stay a child of God. The New Testament is His witness on these matters. The spirit of the Christian can now bear testimony or witness as to whether he has thus become and is now continuing as a child of God.
V.
BY THE HOLY SPIRIT THE CHRISTIAN IS TO PUT TO DEATH THE DEEDS OF THE BODY. Romans 8:13.
For if ye live after the flesh, ye must die; but if by the Spirit ye put to death the deeds of the body, ye shall live. How does the Holy Spirit enable the Christian to put to death the doings of the flesh? First of all let us say that there is some question as to whether the Holy Spirit is meant here or the human spirit. Lard says: The clause itself is without any veritable marks determining what is meant. But it does seem to be even as Lard also remarks, that what follows in Romans 8:14-16 would allow no such thought to the human spirit.
Considering then that this is indeed speaking of the Holy Spirit, how is this to be accomplished? First let me quote from two of the finest scholars I know: So then, brethren, because of the relation which we sustain to Christ, and because of the opposite effects of living fleshly and spiritual lives we, though free from the law, are under no obligation to be lawless, and to live after the flesh; for if ye so live ye must pay the penalty of such a course by dying; but if by the exercise of your will, and the aid of the Holy Spirit, ye put an end to the sinful practices of your fleshly nature, ye shall live. The testimony of Christian experience is that the aid of the Holy Spirit, though real and effectual, is not so obtrusive as to enable the one aided to take sensible notice of it. To all appearance and sensation the victory over the flesh is entirely the Christian’s own, and he recognizes the aid of the Spirit, not because his burdens are sensibly lightened, but because of the fact that in his efforts to do right he now succeeds where lately he failed. The success, moreover, though habitual, is not invariable for invariable victory over the temptation breeds self-consciousness and self-righteousness, and other sins perhaps more dangerous than the ordinary lusts of the flesh. (Philip Y. Pendleton. Standard Bible Commentary. Page 360.)
Still the will is to be your will, the effort your effort, and the result your deed. To you the whole is to seem to be your own unaided act. You will hence approve or blame yourself whenever you. succeed or fail, just as though wholly unassisted. Nevertheless the Holy Spirit will aid you. But this aid will be tendered back out of sight. It will not be pushed out so as to come under the eye of consciousness. You will hence never be able to take any sensible notice of it. You will be conscious of the effort, and you can know the result. But you are told merely that you are aided. Hence the fact that you are so is matter of belief, not of knowledge. (Moses E. Lard, Commentary on Romans, pages 263.)
To my way of thinking and studying this presents the case of the aid of the Spirit in a most wonderful manner.
VI.
THE CHRISTIAN IS TO BE LED BY THE SPIRIT TO WALK BY THE SPIRIT. Romans 8:14; Galatians 5:16; Galatians 5:18; Galatians 5:25.
VII.
THE HOLY SPIRIT IS TO PRODUCE HIS FRUIT IN OUR NATURES. Galatians 5:22.
VIII.
HE IS ACTIVE IN THE NEW BIRTH. John 3:5.
IX.
HE IS TO QUICKEN OUR MORTAL BODIES. Romans 8:11.
X.
HE IS TO FILL OUR LIVES. Ephesians 5:18; Acts 6:3; Acts 4:32; Acts 13:52.
XI.
TO STRENGTHEN OUR INWARD MAN. Ephesians 3:16.
XII.
TO SHED ABROAD THE LOVE OF GOD IN OUR HEART. Romans 5:5.
XIII.
HE CRIES ABBA, FATHER. Romans 8:15.
XIV.
WE ARE TO PRAY IN THE HOLY SPIRIT. Jude 1:20.
XV.
WE ARE NOT TO GRIEVE OR QUENCH THE HOLY SPIRIT. Ephesians 4:30.
Acts 24:1-22
b.
Paul’s trial before Felix the governor. Acts 24:1-22.
And after five days the high priest Ananias came down with certain elders, and with an orator, one Tertullus; and they informed the governor against Paul.
And when he was called, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying,
Seeing that by thee we enjoy much peace, and that by thy providence evils are corrected for this nation,
we accept it in all ways and in all places, most excellent Felix, with all thankfulness.
But, that I be not further tedious unto thee, I entreat thee to hear us of thy clemency a few words.
For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of insurrections among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:
who moreover assayed to profane the temple: on whom also we laid hold:
from whom thou wilt be able, by examining him thyself, to take knowledge of all these things whereof we accuse him.
And the Jews also joined in the charge, affirming that these things were so.
And when the governor had beckoned unto him to speak, Paul answered,
Forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of many years a judge unto this nation, I cheerfully make my defence:
seeing that thou canst take knowledge that it is not more than twelve days since I went up to worship at Jerusalem:
and neither in the temple did they find me disputing with any man or stirring up a crowd, nor in the synagogues, nor in the city.
Neither can they prove to thee the things whereof they now accuse me.
But this I confess unto thee, that after the Way which they call a sect, so serve I the God of our fathers, believing all things which are according to the law, and which are written in the prophets;
having hope toward God, which these also themselves look for, that there shall be a resurrection both of the just and unjust.
Herein I also exercise myself to have a conscience void of offence toward God and men always.
Now after some years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings:
amidst which they found me purified in the temple, with no crowd, nor yet with tumult: but there were certain Jews from Asia
who ought to have been here before thee, and to make accusation, if they had aught against me.
Or else let these men themselves say what wrong-doing they found when I stood before the council,
except it be for this one voice, that I cried standing among them, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question before you this day.
But Felix, having more exact knowledge concerning the Way, deferred them, saying, When Lysias the chief captain shall come down, I will determine your matter.
**Acts 24:1 **The forty men in Jerusalem were going to have a long fast if they were going to eat nothing until they killed Paul. But when word got to them that Paul had left the city, they probably gave up their vow. But not the high priest Ananias. He was not one to be thwarted. When the Christians fled Jerusalem, Saul pursued them to foreign cities. Saul went to the high priest for permission to do so. This time the high priest was himself in pursuit. (Not of Christians, but of the very one who was once the pursuer.)
It is probable that Lysias sent word to the high priest that since Paul was a Roman citizen his case had been referred to the governor, Paul had been in Caesarea five days when his accusers came, Here is an interesting chronology of the 12 days that had elapsed since Paul came to Jerusalem.
1May 8th Paul arrived at Jerusalem. 2May 9th Pentecost and council held. 3May 10th Paul goes to Temple with the four Nazarites. 4May 11th Second day of Nazarite week. 5May 12th Third day. 6May 13th Fourth Day. 7May 14th Fifth day and Paul is apprehended in the temple. 8May 15th Before the Sanhedrin. 9May 16th The conspiracy against Paul; at nine o-‘clock at night
Paul is dispatched to Caesarea.
10May 17th Reaches Caesarea. 11May 18th)
19th) 20th) At Caesarea. 21st)
12May 22nd Trial before Felix. (This chronology is taken from Lewin, as quoted by Dallmann).
Show the great difference in the relation of Paul to the high priest here from that of previous times.
How did Ananias hear that Paul had left Jerusalem and was now in Caesarea?
When Paul was tried before Felix how many days elapsed since he first arrived in Jerusalem?
**Acts 24:2-9 **Ananias was prepared to make the most of this appearance. With this in mind he had brought along a Roman orator who understood better the procedure of Roman law. Of course this lawyer or orator was paid, but he was determined to do his mercenary best.
Paul was called out of the prison and all were summoned before the governor and the trial began. Tertullus was the first to speak and his first effort was to secure the good will of Felix. This Roman orator said everything he could in favor of Felix. It wasn-’t what he did say that mattered, it was rather what he did not say that suggested flattery. Indeed: (1) By the effort of Felix the country did enjoy a measure of peace. He even called himself The Pacifier of the Providence yet there was much discord and Felix was the cause of a good deal of it.
(2) And it was true that evils were corrected. Yes, and how many other evils were promoted by this one? And some of the corrected evils resulted in the slaughter of numerous Jews.
Felix like other kings felt he had divine right in his rule, hence the use of the world providence in Acts 24:2.
Tertullus says that it was not only here before the governor that the nation made mention of these things, but at all times and in all ways with thankfulness. (What a liar.) This smooth speaker says in essence that: I could go on like this for hours but I do not wish to bother you with it. What is the meaning of clemency? It refers to compassion or remissionjust another word of flattery. Now to the charges against Paul.
We (the Jews, since he was speaking for them) have found this man a -pestilent fellow-’.
This was but a general charge as much as to say that this man is a monster or this one is a desperate character, a dangerous criminal. This was only given to throw a dark aura around the apostle.
He is a mover (originator) of insurrections. Not confined to one location, but among the Jews throughout the world.
When the Jews were pressed for a charge against Jesus they resorted to that of insurrection. This would be a very pointed appeal to a Roman ruler.
A ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.
This was a military term applied to those who were in the front rank of the army, a foremost manof the sect. The term Nazarenes was a term of contempt referring to Jesus of Nazareth. This sect was mentioned by Tertullus as if it were a low class of people. Thus Paul then was a ringleader of this rabble.
A profaner of the temple. Literally attemptedendeavoredto profane the temple.
Why would a Roman governor be interested in this thought? Because it was a capital offense in both Roman and Jewish law. The accusation they had against Paul had to do with bringing a Gentile into the Jewish quarter. This was strictly forbidden on penalty of death. This the Roman ruler knew.
To put the Jews in the best light, Tertullus insinuates that left alone the Jews would have tried the case and settled it in justice and law, but Lysias interfered and made it ultimately necessary to appear here in Caesarea.
Why bring Tertullus along?
In what way was Tertullus deceptive in what he said to Felix?
Mention two of the sins of The Pacifier of the Providence.
What is the meaning of the word providence in Acts 24:2?
What obvious lie did Tertullus tell?
Why call Paul a pestilent fellow?
What is the meaning of the term insurrection?
Why call the Christians Nazarenes?
Why mention profaning the temple?
In what way did Tertellus attempt to put the Jews in a favorable light? How false?
**Acts 24:10-21 **Of course a greater falsehood could hardly be imagined, for far from being about to judge Paul, they were about to murder him when Lysias interfered.
The orator adds in conclusion that a simple examination on the part of the governor will substantiate all that has been said. The Jews led by Ananias, although they knew how the facts had been perverted were so full of hatred they joined in assailing him. Notice how carefully and completely Paul answers the false charges and note also his adroit introduction. When the governor gave Paul the nod of assent to speak he spoke after this fashion: Since you have been for many years a judge of this nation (from 6 to 10 years, a long time when the average term was 2 years or less) I am glad to make my defense before you for I can be more confident of a fair judgment. Then follows the reasons why the things whereof he was accused were not so.
(1)
A pestilent fellowThis general charge was passed over by Paul as not even worthy of notice. Anyone who actively objected to the belief of another would be considered by the one opposed as a pestilent fellowa monster of wickednessThis proved nothing.
(2)
A mover of insurrection. Hear Paul on this charge: Take knowledge, O Felix, it has been but 12 days since I came to Jerusalem. A mover of an insurrection against Rome? Where? Did they find me in the temple? Did they? Can they prove that I stirred up a crowd in the synagogues? Prove it. Or in the streets of the city? I have been here in Caesarea five days. Stir up an insurrection in seven days? Ridiculous! For proof of what they have said, they have nothing.
(3)
A ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.
Guilty! But I am only serving the God of our fathers by this means. Far from introducing a new god, I am following the law and the prophets who hath told of these days. I have the same hope as these, my accusers, the hope of the resurrection of both the just and the unjust. Far from being some kind of a heretic I do so thoroughly believe these things that I constantly exercise myself (a term alluding to athletic exercises at the Grecian games) so as to have a conscience void of offense before God and man.
(4)
A profaner of the temple.
This was a charge of sacrilege. As to being sacrilegious Paul had this to say of his relationship to the temple at Jerusalem: I was in the temple to worship. I had no thought of profaning the temple or insulting my people. Indeed, I brought alms and offerings to them from foreign places. There was no tumult or crowd. This was how they found me in the temple. Certain Jews from Asia also found me in the performance of these rites. They should be here today to accuse me now as they accused me then. But since they are not here let the ones that are here say what wrong I have done. I was examined before the Sanhedrin and they found nothing against me. On only one point could I be called in question and that has to do with a point of doctrine and not of law. I cried before the council: Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question before you this day.
Show the advantage of the introduction given by Paul?
Why not answer the first charge?
How did the mention of the twelve days answer the charge of insurrection.
How did Paul show that being a Nazarene was no offense against God?
Who should have been present at the trial to substantiate the charges?
Why make the point that the charge was not one of law but rather of doctrine?
Acts 24:22 If either Paul or Ananias thought a decision was to be made at this time they were to be disappointed. Felix knew very well of the relationship of Christianity and Judaism. Felix was not thinking primarily of justice, but like a certain other, Pilate, about his job. He was afraid to incur the disfavor of the Sanhedrin and yet he could not condemn this innocent man. A pretext was used to relieve the pressure.
When Lysias the chief captain shall come down I will determine your matter. He was a long time in coming for Paul stayed two years in Caesarea.
How account for the indecision of Felix?
Why did Felix make the statement that he did?
Acts 24:23-27
c.
Paul’s two years imprisonment in Caesarea. Acts 24:23-27.
And he gave order to the centurion that he should be kept in charge, and should have indulgence; and not to forbid any of his friends to minister unto him.
But after certain days, Felix came with Drusilla, his wife, who was a Jewess, and sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ Jesus.
And as he reasoned of righteousness, and self-control, and the judgment to come, Felix was terrified, and answered, Go thy way for this time; and when I have a convenient season, I will call thee unto me.
He hoped withal that money would be given him of Paul: wherefore also he sent for him the oftener, and communed with him.
But when two years were fulfilled, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus; and desiring to gain favor with the Jews, Felix left Paul in bonds.
**Acts 24:23 **He seems to have been in what was termed -military custody-’ in which the prisoner was bound by a long, light chain to his arm, the other end of which was fastened to the officer. (Jacobus, page 375)
There was a thriving work for the Lord here in Caesarea, headed up by Philip, the evangelist. And so it was that Philip must have been among those who came to see Paul while he was held here. This could have been a renewing of the friendship that was established when the house of Philip was opened to Paul and his companions on the return of their missionary journey. (Cf. Acts 21:7-8)
Others from Jerusalem also could have visited the apostle. It could have been that during this time he wrote the epistles of Colossians, Ephesians and Philemonsome authorities so believe. I am no authority and can only say that the evidence seems to point to a later date than this for these three books.
What is meant by military custody?
Who would be logical to expect as a visitor while Paul was in prison?
What about the writing of three book from Caesarea?
**Acts 24:24 **It will be well to tell just now a little case history of the prospects for the gospel that Paul had in Felix and Drusilla.
First, who was this man Felix? What was his background? The story starts with two slave brothers, Paullus and Felix. For some reason not known to your writer, Paullus obtained a fortune. Through this he was able to engineer the placement of Claudius as emperor. Naturally upon the ascension of Claudius to the throne, Paullus prevailed on him on behalf of his brother, Felix. Thus was Felix, the slave, made governor of Judea, with residence in the marble house of Herod in Caesarea. He indulged in all kinds of cruelty and lust, exercising regal power with the disposition of a slave.
Felix was the husband of three queens or royal ladies. His first and last wife were both named Drusilla. The one mentioned in the text was the daughter of Herod Agrippa I(the one that beheaded James and put Peter in prison (Acts 12:1-2). She was the youngest of the three daughters of Herod Agrippa and also the most beautiful. When but a child she was betrothed to Epiphanes, son of Antiochus who refused to undergo the necessary rite to become a Jew. She was then married to Azizus, king of Eunesa (a small kingdom in Syria). From this marriage a son was born whom she named Agrippa.
Felix met Drusilla when he first became governor and fell in love with her. (The wife of Felix at the time was the granddaughter of Anthony and Cleopatra). With the aid of a magician in the court of Azizus, Felix persuaded this 18 or 19 year old girl to become his wife, for as he said, If you do not refuse me I will make you a happy woman. She accepted his offer and was prevailed on to transgress the laws of her forefathers and marry this profligate. Felix plainly was a sensualist and Drusilla a hypocrite of the deepest dye. Before such persons was Paul called to speak. Felix asked Paul to outline the Christian faith. This Paul did but he also fitted the material to the one listening. Paul spoke of righteousness of which Felix had none. The ancient historian, Tacitus, stated that Felix felt he could commit all crimes with impunity.
Tell in your own words of the rise of Felix from a slave to a governor.
**Acts 24:25 **The apostle spoke of self-control. Drusilla, while seated beside Felix, was evidence of his lack of it.
The third thought was that of judgment which Felix faced unprepared. How Paul developed these thoughts we do not know but this manner of development was so real and personal that terror took hold of the heart of the governor and lest he should give in to the truth that was pressing upon him he cried out: Go thy way for this time; and when I have a convenient season, I will call thee unto me. The convenient season was upon him. Although Felix did call for Paul many times, the subject of salvation and the faith never came to light as it did here. No word is given how the message affected Drusilla.
Tradition has it that she and her son perished in Pompeii upon the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 A.D. What a tragic death for an unrepentant sinner.
What of a Biblical interest is given here of Drusilla?
To whom was Drusilla married when Felix asked her to marry him?
Show the appropriateness of the message of the Apostle to those who heard.
**Acts 24:26 **Strange that a wealthy man like the governor of Judea and Samaria should hope to receive a bride from a poor Jewish prisoner. But was Paul so poor? I have of late read some discussion suggesting that at this period Paul had come into some little money.
It cost money to appeal to Caesar as Paul did. It cost money to have two slaves or attendants (Luke and Aristarchus). This is but the reasoning of man, but it is an interesting thought. However it happened, Felix hoped that some day it would be convenient for him to obtain a bribe from the apostle for his release. But Paul saw to it that it was not so. What were the subjects discussed by the apostle and Felix? I cannot imagine that Paul changed his method or message here, but that he did all he could to obtain the conversion of this notorious sinner.
What was the response of Felix to Paul’s message?
Did Felix ever call Paul to speak to him again?
What was the final fate of Drusilla?
What motive was there in asking Paul for money? Did Paul have it?
How is it that Paul was not approached on the subject of a bride?
**Acts 24:27 **When two years had passed, Felix in his public and political life had gone from bad to worse and was called to Rome to give an account. He was dismissed from his office and Porcius Festus took his place. The last act of Felix as governor was to gain favor with the Jews (who were the ones who were bringing the charges against him at Rome) by leaving Paul in bonds.
How did Felix lose his job?