Acts 5:26-32 Bible Teaching

Welcome
Prayer
One Song of the Word
And then a short tutorial.

Acts 5.26-32
February 14th 2016
Milk
Okay, last week Seth thought that it would be beneficial for our group and those who tune in at home to actually know the process I go through to prepare these teachings.

So I am going to show you for the purpose of you also being able to apply this method to your own scripture study and then for a video tutorial we will use on the site.

Now understand that I do not have a lock step process but honestly allow the spirit to lead.

Additionally, what I am about to describe is not inflated or padded – it’s what takes place week end and week out for the two verse by verse milk and meat teachings.

The good news is you can adopt a few, some, or all of the methods that I appeal to as a means to prepare your teachings in the future.

Some of the things will not be possible for you to do but all of them can be adopted and implemented in time.

So I am going to present them in terms of steps and the first step is to decide what method you will use to teach the word.

I am committed to verse by verse for the following reasons:

It puts the verses being discussed in a contextual setting rather than allowing me to cherry pick as a means to present topics I like best.
It will not allow you to skip over the hard stuff but instead forces us to plod through the good, the bad and the downright ugly.
It teaches you the hearer the whole Bible and not just parts or subjects.
It allows the rest of the Bible to be taught over and over again as stories from it are used to support the verses being discussed.
“For example if our verse was trust in the Lord with all our heart” we could then use stories from the Bible of people trusting the Lord with all their heart (Moses, Noah, Abraham, Peter etc etc) and therefore you are learing those stories over and over while discussing our verse at hand.
This approach keeps personal anecdotes at a happy minimum because there are so many stories from the word that really touch on Christian principles.
Personal anecdotes are good but if and when a principle can be equally presented from the Word that, in my estimation, is a superior reference to a pastors own experiences.
We’ll get to the insertion of your own experiences in a minute.
The Second thing I do to prepare to teach is I read the Word without any intent to teach it. All of it, Old and New, and daily when possible (but never) by compulsion.

I do not use study Bibles nor commentaries when reading the Word. I just read it. And over the years themes pop up that link the verses read. These themes are personal insights which cannot be found in many commentaries because they are founded on my personal study and not the studies of others.

Finally, I have never and I never will appeal to sermons prepared or given by others.

I rarely listen to the Word being preached because I cannot agree with or think the way those who preach it think. I’m not against them nor their right to preach as they see fit but to hear them creates something in my head and heart that is so for me inauthentic – so I rarely do it – and if I do, I find myself tuning out really quickly.

I am not suggesting that you need to be the same way – most people are not. They love to listen to preachers preach.
If you are one of them seek it.

Okay, so
I choose to teach verse by verse.
I try to support passages with references to other Bible stories while limiting anecdotal insights.
I study the Bible without aids to discover thematic threads that link the materials from both the Old and the New Testaments,
And I do not listen to nor read the sermons of men who have gone before me.

Then, all through the week prior I read and re-read the text for the verses we will study the coming week.

I try to remember what we have covered before hand and what we will cover in the future – so I re-read where we have been, what we’re on, AND where we are going.
Then I set my page up into two columns and then copy and paste the verses to be covered that week on the left side.
At this point I decide which translation I will use. Now, I almost always read from the King James but on passages that are either not clear or do not match the Greek I then read other translations of the text to be covered.
Those translations include:

The New and Modern King James
The American Standard
The Revised (which is the mother to most modern versions like ESV, NIV, etc)
The Textus Receptus (which is where we get the King James)
Weymouths
Twentieth Century
Darby
Montgomery
And Young’s (which I really enjoy because it is known as Young’s Literal Translation and it translates the Greek directly to English without any type of messing around)

So I consult these translations as I read through the text which I have (again) placed on the left hand side of the page.

This is what we read at the start of each study.

Then on the right column I then find a commentary that I believe represents the best general examination of the verses we will be covering.

The scholars I choose to read are almost all older -like way older and all but two could read Hebrew and Greek.

The commentaries I choose to read include:

Adam Clarke
The Geneva Bible Notes
Jamisson Fausett Brown
John Wesley
Albert Barnes (I appeal to him a lot but do not agree with him on many points)
Matthew Henry
Robertson’s Word Pictures (Which I also appeal to a lot because it helps me with the Greek – which we’ll get to)
William Burkitt’s notes
The fourfold Gospel
Charles Spurgeon’s
Devotional Commentary
Chuck Smith through Blue Letter Bible, and at times
Vernon McGee through the Bible.

These scholars bring a wealth of information to the verses we study and sometimes the enlightenment is how wrong they were on some of their opinions.

So, for examples sake, let’s just say that our verses for the day are John 3:16-18.

I cut and paste the verses from the King James and put them in my mss. I read the other translations of the verse to note any marked differences.

I then cut and paste an acceptable rendering of the verses from one of these established bible commentators (or more) and I do this to create 15-20 full pages of un edited and uncorrected content.

Once the length has generally been established, I get to work.

And I begin by reading the first passage

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Then I read whatever the commentator has said about the passage. Then I read what the other commentators add. The more complex the passage the more commentators are consulted.

Then I read the Greek from the Interlinear:

For God
so
loved
the world
that
He gave
His
only begotten
son
that whosoever believeth
in
him
apollumi
not
perish
but
have
everlasting
life

And then I look to see if the commentaries I’ve consulted are in harmony or at odds with both the Greek, the tense of the Greek, and the traditional definitions of the words that are in question.

This is what I would call “red and white” flagging the scripture.

The white flags often tie us back into other biblical platforms, but the red cause me to wonder what the heck is going on and why.

For instance, if we read For God so loved the World and the Greek for world was NOT kosmos but was “Ghay” or OiKUMENE” then we would have evidence that God doesn’t really love the whole world but only the Jews.

Fortunately its Kosmos so anyone who says that God only loves the Jews is mistaken.

Things like this.

Often it is the research into the Greek terms that opens me up to ideas and views that are otherwise unheard of or taught – this might be summed up as poor scholarship on my part or inspiration of God.

As these insights come to me I add them and either alter what the commentators have said or add them to what they have missed.

From here, taking all of this into account and having done my homework I then try and let the Holy Spirit get to working by allowing God to lead where He wants in terms of focus, emphasis, and added information.

I typically do not add in poems or stories or anecdotes to fortify the message with the Words of Man not because it isn’t effective and won’t please most people but because in my estimation what we all need is not less of the Word but more and not more of Man but less.

Once I have completed twenty pages (give or take ten percent overage) I print the teaching and then sit on it for however many days are left until its Sunday morning.

I do not work on it once it is written neither do I look to refine the content nor do I ever practice it out-loud, in the mirror.

Then on Sunday Morning I go to McDonalds and for four hours I read through what I have prepared and edit, omit, and add flourishes to the text as they come to me by pen directly on the paper.

It is often in these moments when some of the best insights pour forth.

And that is how I do it. Use what you want.

Okay . . . we left off last week where the leaders of the Nation had placed the apostles in a common jail and in the morning asked that they be brought forth to be tried to teaching and healing in Jesus name – but they were gone – freed by an angel.

We left off reading at verse 25 of chapter 5

“Then came one and told them, saying, Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are standing in the temple, and teaching the people.”

So let’s read our text for today beginning at verse 26:

26 Then went the captain with the officers, and brought them without violence: for they feared the people, lest they should have been stoned.
27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them,
28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.
29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

Alright back to verse 26

26 Then went the captain with the officers, and brought them without violence: for they feared the people, lest they should have been stoned.

Last week I said that I thought that Jesus was enjoying this. I based this off the fact that the Holy Spirit released these men to go and preach but the Sanhedrim recollected the apostles and brought them back giving them a chance to preach to them.

But the fact that the angel let them out in the first place is evidence that God was sending a clear message to these religious men.

And so without violence (or not with force or binding them) did they collect the apostles back up and bring them before this religious tribunal. The approached them this way because they feared that an uprising would result if they went in and took them forcibly.

Notice that the apostles complied and went peacefully with the guards of the Sanhedrim. There was no resistance nor opposition.

In other words they did not resist the law but they did not back away from stating their case clearly before their accusers.

Verse 27

27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them,
28 Saying, “Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.

The word straightly here is para (which means near) compounded with angleos, which means message – “Did we not command you with a straight-up commandment or directive or even the message of a threat?”

Again, this goes back to a principle we discussed several weeks ago which was as believers we obey the law and commands of those in governance over us UNLESS it conflicts with our heart and mind for God.

And if it does we willfully disobey fully conscience and accepting of the fact that we will individually pay the consequences for the rebellion.

This is exactly what the apostles did here.
They broke their straight-up directive and when called before the leaders responded without attitude or rebellion but instead openly went and faced the music without shame OR anger.

The threat was that they were NOT to

“teach in this name?”

And having broken this command the leaders were now convinced that they had

“filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.”

These guys were getting a wee bit concerned not only with the news of Christ Jesus spreading but that they were being blamed for his death summarized by the line

“and you intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.”

Upon the first read we might think, oh your paranoid. They weren’t trying to do this. But we would be mistaken. It seems very clear to me that this is exactly what the apostles were doing.

If we think back there are several instances in Acts where the Apostles did exactly what they were being accused of doing.

In Acts 2:22 we read about Peter saying:

“Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.”

Then we read again in Acts 3:15 when Peter said:

Acts 3:14 But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; and killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.

And then we will read about Stephen, before they kill him, saying in Acts 7:51-52:

Acts 7:51 “Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers.”

And these are just the accounts that have been recorded so it could very well be that then the apostles taught they brought down the house on the Jewish leaders and published abroad the guilt of the Nation’s leaders in killing Christ.

What we need to ask ourselves is were they doing this with venom and vindictiveness or was it to motivate the leaders and those under them to repent?

I would suggest the latter because to be doing it for revenge would be opposite all the King preached about forgiveness and letting God mete out justice.

I would add, however, that these factors do not prohibit believers from speaking the truth about guilt and or culpability.

It is a good thing to speak frankly and honestly with each other about our guilt in matters. It shines light as long as its done with love and in an effort to help the person see and grow and change.

So that the apostles did intend to charge the Sanhedrim with the murder of Jesus is clear.

But it appears they only charged them to their faces and it would be conjecture to suppose they ran about the city spreading the accusation.

There is a lesson for us as well because it appears that they spoke the charge directly and only in the presence of the guilty (about their guilt) and didn’t appear to speak of it to others as a means to cause insurrection.

Obviously these leaders knew they had Jesus put to death and with news of his resurrection they could have really been under some fear, guilt and pressure.

So we might imagine that every time these apostles faces show up, and then the apostles fearlessly defy them, and preach Jesus (whom they killed) these men were really getting concerned.

So they’ve brought them forward and said:

“We clearly told you to cease preaching and teaching Jesus.” (verse 29)

29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, “We ought to obey God rather than men.”

I love this response and seek to maintain the attitude in life. Get really disappointed in myself when I fail. And then they AGAIN do exactly what the leaders said they were doing – they put the blood of Jesus directly on their heads.

“Hey apostles, we told you to stop teaching Jesus!

Hey Sanhedrim, you may have commanded this of us but we ought to obey God instead of you. I mean, don’t you get it? (verse 30):

30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you slew and hanged on a tree.”

The term hanged on a tree is a phrase that means IN THAT DAY to be crucified. Why?

Crosses (in the shape of a Tau by the way and not like the symbol of the cross I have on my hand) were made of wood. That was to them being hanged on a tree.

The phrase goes all the way back to Moses.

In Deuteronomy 21:22-23 we read:

“And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: his body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.”

Did they have crosses back in Deuteronomy? Of course not. So what Moses said referred to men who were literally hung from the limbs of an actual tree.

But the Jews did not practice hanging as a form of execution. The law prescribed stoning. So why would a body ever be hanging from a tree as described here in Deuteronomy?

In all probability this refers to what is known as gibbeting, which is the practice of displaying bodies publicly – either while they are dying or after they are dead.

You can walk through certain towns in Italy today and find these iron cages hoisted about the ground and their purpose was to display either dying or the dead.

God permitted the bodies of the guilty dead to be displayed from a tree – which served as a natural gibbet in ancient Israel but for no more than a day, meaning from sunrise to sunset.

To do otherwise was considered unjust and merciless and would end up defiling the land, according to the law of Moses.

The idea of gibbeting was of course to bring shame to the one hung but it was also quite symbolic as the one suspended between heaven and earth represented someone was neither worthy of earth life nor of heaven.

Moses therefore, in what was certainly a prophetic utterance pointing to the Roman practice of crucifixion, said,

(for he that is hanged (gibbeting) is accursed of God)

This phrase of Moses is recited here by the Apostles who are telling these men that they hung the Lord Jesus on a tree, and it is also referenced by Paul in Galatians 3:13 when he wrote:

“Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree,”

And is again referenced by Peter in his epistle when he says, speaking of Jesus in 1st Peter 2:24

“Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.”

Back to the situation the apostles were in, this seems to be Peter’s argument.

He starts off by responding to their complaint that they were disobedient to their direct command to NOT teach Jesus by saying clearly:

“We ought to obey God rather than you.”

Then they reiterate that God raised Jesus from the dead – (again to many people who hated the notion of resurrection) after they hung Him on a tree!

Now they break the very command they were commanded not to break and teach in Jesus name yet again, saying:

31 Him (Jesus) hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Let’s wrap out time up talking about the implications of this passage.

First, note that Jesus here is being spoken of as a Man. This reference does not speak to Him being God in the flesh but clearly speaks of Him as Man.

Why can we say this? Because Peter says to these leaders:

“Him (Jesus) hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior.

Jesus Godly nature was always exalted – because it was God. His Godly nature was always a Prince, always a Savior. But having His flesh pass through the trial of human existence the human born-Jesus, the hu-man, fully us, WAS exalted by the right hand of God TO BE a Prince (as the human representative of the human race to God) and a Savior.

Looking to the Greek we get some added clarification of this passage as it says:

Jesus hath God exalted

HOOPSO-O means to elevate, to lift up. What or who did God “elevate or lift up”

Jesus, the man, who was yet to be elevated and lifted up.

with his right hand to be a Prince.

The Greek translated prince is “archegos,”

It is translated as “Chief,” “leader,” “guide” in other translations but the term archegos gives us a much better platform to interpret the true meaning.

He is the primary, the first, the arche. There is NONE before Him. He, representing the human race in it relationship to God, is first.

The first and only begotten of the Father, the first fruits of the grave, the first at the right hand of the Father, the first and primary heir.

But remember His purpose is reconciliation to the Father and having gone forward and first in overcoming sin and death the rest of us have access to the true and living God.

For this reason Peter describes him not only as our archegos but also says that God has elevated Him to be both the primary and first guide but has also “elevated Him to be a savior.”

“soter” in the Greek which means, “deliverer.”

God has elevated Jesus to be the archegos and the deliverer.

When we speak of soteriology we speak of the means or way that something is delivered – in the case of God and Christ – the means by which human kind gets or is delivered from sin and death.

Here we see this means is by and through Jesus Christ, elevated by God to be our soter or deliverer.

And then Peter adds something that is really important for us to understand in context. Ready?

“Him (Jesus) hath God exalted (with his right hand) to be a Prince and a Savior . . .

“for to give repentance to (the whole world? NO!) to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Now, it is thought that Peter specifically mentions Israel here because of the setting and times in which he spoke.

He was a Jew sent to Jews and was speaking to the leadership of the Nation of Jews – so this is naturally what He would say.

He was not aware that Jesus had come to save the whole world. This would be made known to him later when he goes to the house of a man named Cornelius.

Reading this today however, I believe that we can see this last line for today in a couple of ways.

First, we might see it as Peter, through the Holy Spirit, saying that Jesus came specifically to call literal Israel to repentance. Which He did. This was His first objective and having been possessors of the Law and the prophets and prophecies they needed to repent for missing the Messiah and putting Him to death.

And then we might understand that second line (“and the forgiveness of sins”) to be applicable to all those in Israel who would repent AND as a result receive the forgiveness of sins.

But additionally, reading the passages today I think we can also read this verse as saying that Jesus came to bring Israel to repentance” AND AND AND to give forgiveness of sins to all who are not of the house of Israel but would subsequently believe on Him – meaning us.

Last verse for the day as Peter adds to his retort:

32 And we (the apostles you have imprisoned) are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

According to the Law witnesses were vital to the testimony of a person and so Peter tells them that this is the function that they serve – we are witnesses to all we have just said.

Then he adds:

“And so is also the Holy Spirit.”

Now, we are witnessing a transition of the Former economy of the Material coming out of the Old Testament to the Spiritual economy in the New Testimony.

Witnesses are important and so in this transitionary period God provided both to the World – a group of material witnesses in the apostles and a spiritual witness in the Holy Spirit.

At the death of the apostles the material witnesses will end, be replaced by the material witness of the Word of God and the witness of the Holy Spirit will take over bringing people to God even without the presence of the written Word.

Finally Peter adds that the Holy Spirit was given (by God) to people who “obeyed Him.”

Obeyed Him how? IS this saying that God only gave the Holy Spirit to those who obeyed His Law?

To answer this we have to ask, “what was it that God wanted people to do, to obey? In other words in the days of His Son how did people do the will of God? How did they obey Him?

In John 6:28-29 the people came to Jesus and said, “What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?” Jesus answered and said unto them, “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.”

Who God has elevated to the primary position among men, whom God has placed all things, by whom God saved the world – believe on Him and you are obedient to God.

Q and A
Greek