Chapter 1
Book notes per MSB:
Luke is pretty much accepted as author of this book, as well as the gospel.  Early church fathers attributed it to him, including Iranaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius and Jerome.  So does the Muratorian Canon (ca A.D. 170), whatever that is.  If Luke wrote this book after AD 70, he certainly does not refer to the fall of Jerusalem, and he was a very good historian.  In fact, the book ends rather abruptly with Paul awaiting trial before Caesar.  This was Paul's first imprisonment there, and much happened after that.  Yet Luke writes of none of that.  Several notable events that occurred before AD 70 are also not mentioned at all.  Yet Luke apparently lived until the mid-80's AD.  I don't know how MSB knows that.   Luke is written as a narrative of historical events, not as a theological study.  The only theology in it is when someone gets up to preach or the apostles are discussing how things need to be done.

Acts records events that occurred during the first three decades of the church's existence.  Acts, in the NT, exclusively deals with this material.  

Addressed to O, Theophilus, as was Luke's gospel.  

2022 - Starts with "In the first book...", so this is the second.  The second ends abruptly.  Perhaps there was to be a third volume?  The first ends pretty abruptly also when you look at it, right after the ascension.  Volume 2 ends with Paul under house arrest in Rome.  Perhaps volume 3 was to have taken us to the end of the apostles lives, or some other milestone that just never presented itself as an "ending" to Luke's histories.  Or Luke got where he couldn't write.
Found this on a Catholic site:
Luke was martyred at age 84 in the Greek city of Thebes. His remains were taken to Constantinople about 338 CE and later moved to Padua, Italy, where they are kept in the Basilica of Santa Giustina. A rib is interred at his original burial place in Thebes.
Seems kind of macabre to leave just one rib in it's original spot and move the rest.  Many references call him the apostle Luke.  He was certainly not an apostle.  Also found this on another site:
There are also two versions of his death: that he was crucified in Edessa, Turkey, or clubbed to death.
These two accounts are pretty much mutually exclusive.  And that probably means we really have no idea how Luke died.  

It is interesting to note that Luke traveled extensively with Paul, and was even with him at Rome during Paul's first imprisonment there.  So as Mark would have been heavily influenced by Peter's experience of Jesus, Luke's experience of the early decades of the church would be influenced by Paul.  

Luke gives a very brief summary of his gospel, and ends that with Jesus' orders to his apostles to wait in Jerusalem and not leave until they have received the Holy Spirit.  Luke quotes what we can take as Jesus' last words to his apostles on earth, as follows:
8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." [Act 1:8 ESV]
This is much like the great commission that they were given while in Galilee, but I suspect that this is a repetition of it, as Jesus was about to leave.  It was after this that he was taken up in a cloud.  The other place we saw it was in Matt 28:18-20.  Matthew is very specific that what he records - the Great Commission - happened in Galilee.  And he would have been there to hear it.  Matthew does not speak of the ascension, however.  Luke is the only gospel writer who mentions the ascension.  He does so both in his gospel, and now in Acts.  Why only Luke?  Because he writes to Gentiles, and the Jews already knew the story?  You would still think one of the other writers would mention it?

2025 - This verse:  9 And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. [Act 1:9 ESV].  Note that this DOES NOT SAY he went up on a cloud, or standing atop a cloud...nothing like that.  He went up, and eventually, at some height, a cloud obscured him and they could no longer see him.  I always thought he was like standing on a cloud that rose with him as if a "magic carpet" or something.  That "vision" probably comes from all the painting over the centuries depicting the event.  But that is not what it says.  I also checked a number of other translations.  They all agree.  He went up, and eventually was obscured by a cloud.  Compare that to this verse about the Two Witnesses:
12 Then they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, "Come up here!" And they went up to heaven in a cloud, and their enemies watched them. [Rev 11:12 ESV].  In this verse, it was the cloud that took them up.  They were called to come up, and transportation was provided.  Jesus went up on his own.  Even in so minor a detail the Bible distinguishes between Jesus' power, and the power of man.  All power comes FROM Him.

This verse:
12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away. [Act 1:12 ESV]
Continuity would indicate that they are returning from Jesus' ascension, on the mount called Olivet.  Luke doesn't call it the Mt. of Olives, and in fact is careful to say that it was not "just outside the walls of Jerusalem", but was "a Sabbath day's journey away".  Sources I found quickly said this was 2,000 cubits, or 1000 "double steps", or in common vernacular, not very far.  It was measured from the gate or wall of a city, not from where you started.  Luke says Jesus ascended from Bethany, and that would put Bethany 0.6 miles, or a kilometer, from the gate of Jerusalem.  References all equate Olivet and the Mt. of Olives.  So Bethany was just outside Jerusalem, almost a suburb rather than a separate place.  And if all this is right, Jesus ascended from Olivet, one of his favorite places to go when he was in Jerusalem.  Which would mean that Jesus and the disciples came back to Jerusalem, after his resurrection, and after the time they spent in Galilee.

The 11 went back to the upper room, possibly where they had the last supper.  They were devoted to prayer.  It was the 11, "the women", and Mary.  Next verse says there were 120 people up there.  That's a pretty big room, or it was pretty crowded, or both.  Peter starts to talk about how it was necessary and prophesied that Judas do what he did.  There is a parenthetical insert here telling of the end of Judas - how he died.  It does not say he hung himself.  It uses the term "falling headlong" and there is a footnote that says this could also be translated "swelling up", which doesn't seem at all the same.  This is Luke letting Theophilus know what happened to Judas.  
2021-2, But this seems to be a very different telling of the last hours of Judas' life than was in the gospel account.  There, Judas gives the money back to the Pharisees and they buy a potters field with it, and Judas hangs himself.  The only way I see to resolve the two is that Judas learned what the Pharisees had done with the blood money, and chose that spot to hang himself.  Either he was there until the rope - and his body - rotted and when he fell he was so decomposed that he spilled out everywhere...or God rotted him in a heartbeat and he fell immediately, in the field bought with his blood money.  But...this whole retelling of the fate of Judas is in parentheses...which I am not sure were a thing back then.  Perhaps this retelling is an insert of a tradition that arose some time after Judas actually died.

2025 - This verse:  14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers. [Act 1:14 ESV].  Catholics say Jesus had no siblings, that Mary was a virgin until the day of her death.  She had no children by Joseph at all.  So they have interpret "brothers" here as Jesus disciples.  And there were 120 people in that room, so you can, if you have reason to do so, make the men among those 120 be called brothers, or brethren.  It has already talked about "the women, and Mary", and about the 11.  So the only group not mentioned to this point are the non-apostle men in the room.  Hmm...I think the way to look at it is that this passage may not be singling out Jesus' male siblings - or female siblings either for that matter - but is in fact a more general use of brothers, it also does not exclude any possibility that he had siblings - like James and Jude.  (In vs 16, the same word translated brothers in 14 is rendered brethren in the NASB95.  It makes sense in context to do it that way in 16...but it kind of does in 14 also.)  Remember also that Jesus' brother did not convert until after the resurrection, and would not have been considered leaders of the church at this point.  Though by the time Luke wrote Acts, he might well have thought it relevant to mention that Jesus' half-brothers were in that room at this time.

The verse in Psalms, often quoted about least favorite presidents, was actually a prophecy of Judas.  "Let another take his office".  So they cast lots to see whether Joseph or Matthias will join the 12.  Matthias is chosen.  Note that a qualification was that it had to be someone who had followed Jesus from the time John baptized him right up to the end.  There were apparently more than just these two that qualified, but they narrowed it down to them.  It is interesting to note that Peter seemed concerned that they "start with 12", based on that quote from Psalms about another taking his office.  However, there is never any mention in the Bible of any other Apostle needing to be replaced.  James is killed by Herod fairly soon after this, but they don't replace him.  There were to be the first 12, and then never again an Apostle, because none else could qualify, except the special case of Paul.

Chapter 2
ESV titles this section "The Coming of the Holy Spirit".
Day of Pentecost.  The time is clearly stated.  Sound of wind.  Divided tongues of fire.  Why divided?  There is an alternate translation in the footnote: And tongues as of fire appeared to them, distributed among them, and rested.  I suppose we add "on each one of them" to that.  This is less confusing.  And they began speaking in other tongues.  So windy noise, flaming tongues of fire resting on them but not burning them, and once indwelt, they spoke other tongues.  Other tongues seems to have the connotation of languages, not of gibberish incomprehensible to man or beast.  But that is another study.

Verse 2 says they were all together in one place.  
2023 - Back in 1:13 is the last place we were given a precise - sort of precise - geographical location in an upper room.  If we trace this back, those who return and enter this room are the "men of Galilee" addressed by the two angels following the ascension.  It even goes on to NAME those in the room.  Only 11 are named.  ONLY 11 but it says that Jesus mother and the women were also there. So...the 11 and some women?   In 1:15 though, Peter stands up to say something, and there we find him speaking to about 120.  So the 11 and 109 women?  That cannot be the right count, because Matthias and Joseph are "put forward" for the 12th spot.  Surely they were there at the time!
2023 - STILL, when Chapter 2 starts, we see that it is separated in time from the election of the 12th apostle.  We see that because it starts with "when the day of Pentecost arrived".  "They" were all together in one place.  So we have to ask ourselves if Luke meant "they all" as in all 12 apostles, or "they all" as in all the remaining followers of Jesus.  I think the latter is a bit much, and go with the former.  Again I emphasize that they were in one place.  No upper room is mentioned.  In 1:13, Luke tells us they were staying in an upper room, and perhaps that is where they were at this later time also.  And maybe there were still about 120 of them there.  Luke can be so precise at one verse and then make so many assumptions that you will know what he meant at another verse!  
2023 - NO!  Keep reading.  The "entire house" were they were sitting was filled filled.  So we know they were INSIDE when this rushing wind occurred, not outside.   

Does not say they were in the upper room.  Doesn't say there were 120.  We don't know.  But the "sound" part of the coming of the Holy Spirit was heard by a lot of people, and concerned them enough that they all gathered somewhere, presumably in the neighborhood of where the sound seemed to have originated.  The implication to me is that they all moved to a public square where information was regularly exchanged.  A social area of some sort.  And when they got there, those filled with the Spirit were speaking in lots of different languages.  

2023 - Those affected - those who had now received the Spirit - had gone OUTSIDE and were speaking in many languages.  What were they saying?  We were told back in vs 4 that they were saying what the Spirit gave them to say.  So that's that.  

Fifteen countries are named when they are talking about the languages they are hearing, one being Judean, another Roman.  It could be that the same language was spoken in some of these countries, for instance "Pontus and Asia", or "Phrygia and Pamphylia".  What I am trying to establish here is just how many people the divided tongues of fire landed on.  There were 12 apostles.  Given the list of languages that were heard, it is QUITE POSSIBLE that ONLY the 12 apostles received the Holy Spirit with power at this time.  It may have started ONLY with the 12.  Note also in vs 7 that ALL THOSE SPEAKING were Galileans.  Doesn't that greatly restrict the number of people who were present in that house?  The men present were hearing languages that they understood and not gibberish.  The apostles - or whomever was talking - were recounting the mighty works of God.  Also, we see in vs 37 that those who were repentant say "to Peter and the rest of the apostles", not "the 120 or so upon whom the Spirit fell".  Why would they only ask the apostles, unless it was ONLY the apostles who were present?  Again, in vs 43, we see that "many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles", not "through the 120 that were in the Upper Room on that first Pentecost".

In the face of all these questions about how Galileans can be speaking so many different languages, Peter stands up to explain.  It says he is standing with the 11 - perhaps because it was ONLY the 11 and Peter that were speaking other languages - and then he refers to "these people", inferring to me that he means other people beside the 11.  (2021-1 - It could just as easily mean the 11 besides himself, and probably does, as this is the easiest explanation.)  So this speaking affected possibly the whole 120.  Maybe they all came pouring out of that upper room, so filled they couldn't keep quiet, and what came out were languages.

2022 - This is interesting:
14 But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them: "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words. [Act 2:14 ESV].  Matthias had been chosen.  Why was Peter not standing with the 12?  Or did Luke mean Peter, and 11 others....Seems a stretch...but perhaps in Greek it is obvious that's what he meant.

Peter says this is a fulfillment of Joel's prophecies, in Joel 2:28, 29, 30-32.  But the things in Joel 30 and 31, quoted in Acts 2:19. 20, don't really come to pass here.  The signs in the heavens do not occur.  So while this may be a partial fulfillment, a confirmation of God's continuing work, it is most certainly not a complete fulfillment.
2021-2, Possibly the way to understand it is that the fulfillment of this prophecy "begins" on the day of Pentecost.  One result of this beginning is that EVERYONE who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.  Note how that seems to be where all the items mentioned are leading.  Not just the Jews, but everyone will be saved.  A sea change from what went before.  The fulfillment begins with the coming of the Holy Spirit and the prophecies and signs that accompanied that, and moves on ultimately to the heavenly portents in the Revelation, indicating that this time of "everyone" is nearly over.  I think this is the right way to look at these verses.

Peter gets right to the point.  Jesus, who's miracles prove beyond any reasonable doubt that he was sent from God, was delivered by you Jews to the Romans so they would kill him.  But God raised him from the dead.  This is how it had to be, and David wrote in Psalms 16 about this very thing.  (Invoking both the OT and King David.)  Peter explains that these verses in Psalms are not David speaking of himself, because David is long dead and buried.  He is a corpse, so David wasn't speaking of himself but prophesying of another - this same Jesus.  David's use of "my" is prophetic of someone descended from him.  He speaks of a descendant of his who will not see corruption.  Peter says they are all witnesses of this resurrected Jesus.  Way more than 2 witnesses.  

2022 - Vs 34.  Peter's point is that Jesus was seen  ascending into heaven to the Father.  No one saw David do that.  Peter is offering further evidence that David was not talking about himself, because he didn't do any of the things he's saying.  David was speaking of another, one yet to come, the Messiah...and Peter is hammering home that David was speaking of Jesus.

2022 - This verse:
36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." [Act 2:36 ESV].  A good Christological verse.  Peter says Jesus was both Kyrios and Christos.  Lord and Messiah.  These are the two titles that Peter asserts for Jesus.  It occurs to me that I don't know a lot about this title Kyrios.  I wonder if MacArthur's book on the gospel according to Jesus, which focuses a lot on Lordship, is a place to look that up.  It could also be a chapter in the Christology book...of course it is.  Chapter 7.

The crowd is convinced, convicted, and begging for information on what they can do to escape the penalty of such a sin as killing the Messiah.  And Peter says:
38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [Act 2:38 ESV]
Baptism in the name of Jesus is included.  There are 3000 added that day.
It would be very unwise to denigrate baptism in any way, given that the very first ever proclamation of the gospel after the Holy Spirit came to guide men's words included it.  How can we say it is not necessary?

2022 - A rephrasing of 38...Repent and be baptized...because of the forgiveness of your sins.  On this turn all the arguments about required baptism.  Some take it literally as it is written here in the ESV, and see no sense at all in reading it any other way.  Baptism is FOR forgiveness.  St. Augustine and many other early church fathers delayed baptism until as late in life as possible so that all the sins of their lifetimes might be forgiven in this ordinance.  They were much closer to the actual delivery of Peter's speech, and this is how many of them understood it.
I argue that there are too many references in the NT to "Christ alone" (one mediator comes to mind) for another person (the baptizer) to be required for salvation.  Separating salvation from forgiveness....as in you can be saved from hell though sin is still imputed to you until you are baptized, and then you will still have some unforgiven sins when you get to heaven because you sinned AFTER you were baptized...well look at all the implications of that...That can't be right.  God will not tolerate sin in his presence.  So when are these post-baptism sins forgiven?  Where is the verse for that?  Are those the sins we're judged for at bema?  Think of those implications!!!!  The biggest crowns go to those baptized latest in there lives since they come in with fewer residual sins?   Oh come on!
Still - what is says is "for the forgiveness of sins".  "Eis" is the little tiny Greek preposition on which all this turns.  Epsilon, iota, sigma.  It is used 1,774 times in the KJV NT, and we can't figure out from context what it means.  Here is the summary:
The KJV translates Strong's G1519 in the following manner:into (573x), to (281x), unto (207x), for (140x), in (138x), on (58x), toward (29x), against (26x), miscellaneous (322x).
You can go to the store for groceries.  Groceries are at the store, and you go there to get them.  This is the "baptism required" interpretation of "for".  
The party was for Tom's birthday.  BECAUSE it was Tom's birthday.  Tom isn't trying to obtain a birthday, only to memorialize it.  This is the "baptism as symbol" interpretation.
Oh my!!!  Just noticed the first word of the next verse.  Never connected it before.  Here is that verse:

39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." [Act 2:39 ESV].
There are four "fors" in this verse, immediately after the eis of 39.  None of the words translated "for" is from the Greek "eis".  Even so, the Greek word "eis" is in the verse, but is not translated directly.  It is almost like a fifth "for" that would be redundant in English if actually translated.  FURTHERMORE, the only "for" in vs 39 that is a conjunction, as "eis" was in vs 38, is that first one - "gar".  "Gar"  is translated from the Greek word spelled gamma alpha rho.  It clearly means "because of" what went before.  This word is used 1067 times in the NT.  Here is that summary:
The KJV translates Strong's G1063 in the following manner:for (1,027x), miscellaneous (28x), not translated (12x).
So, without looking up all 1027 "for"s, the question is obviously this:  if, in vs 38 Luke meant "for" in the sense of "because of", why did he choose "eis" instead of "gar"?
What if we translate eis as it is most commonly translated, and read the verse "be baptized into the forgiveness of your sins" and then try to work out the theology of that statement.  Right now today, I think that is what needs to be done here with baptism!
(Aren't there other verses that talk about being baptized into John, and into Christ?  Are those verses "eis"?  Those would be the ones to compare to 38 if you can find them...Here are three:
3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? [Rom 6:3 ESV]
27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. [Gal 3:27 ESV]
15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, [Eph 4:15 ESV]
The word translate "into" in all three of these is "eis".  Hmm... there is a LOT of insight here!
I didn't find anywhere that said "into John".  
Rom 6.3...baptized into Christ means baptized into his death.  Eis both places.  You certainly don't die when you are baptized, so into is not necessarily a literal physical displacement/change.  It is symbolic.  We are symbolically "in" Christ, so all that he does we participate in, as in his death.  So being baptized into forgiveness is to be symbolically seen as forgiven just as Rom 6.3 shows us symbolically dead.  We are "in" Christ who has no sin.  Christ is seen as "forgiven" because he never sinned, we are baptized into him, and so are seen by God as sinless.
Does that help?  Because that doesn't firmly establish whether water baptism is required or just a symbol, does it.
I have to move on so...
CONCLUSION:  Luke 10:21.  Little children can understand the gospel.  It is NOT a huge complex thing that takes years to understand.  Both sides overcomplicate it.  Just do it!  There is no denying that Peter said to do it, and then we can worry about what it actually means later.  It is the gospel.  Repent, be baptized, receive the Spirit.  One last note...both repent and be baptized are in the imperative mood.  These are commands, not suggestions.  
Well, actually there is a little more to the story...
41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. [Act 2:41 ESV].  How did those who heard Peter's instructions respond?  THEY GOT BAPTIZED!!!  Now how can we say it is ok to wait...even if St. Augustine and many others of his stature waited?!?!?!?

2023 - In vs 39, several of the "fors" are apparently implied.  Let's look at some other translations:
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call. [Act 2:39 KJV]
39 "For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call." [Act 2:39 NKJV]
39 "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." [Act 2:39 LSB]
Looking at these other translations, we don't find all those "fors".  I like the NKJV, because I think it shows much more plainly that there is really ONLY ONE "FOR" in vs 39...but all the NKJV did is put in "to" instead of "for".  In any case, "eis" is used only once in vs 39, and I am not enough of a Greek scholar to argue one way or another about where it ought to show up in English. The ESV didn't show it directly translated at all.
2023 - And "gar" is translated "for" almost exclusively.  Here is the BLB definition of "gar":
γάρgár, gar; a primary particle; properly, assigning a reason (used in argument, explanation or intensification; often with other particles):—and, as, because (that), but, even, for, indeed, no doubt, seeing, then, therefore, verily, what, why, yet.
The Strong's definition is here:  γάρ, a conjunction, which according to its composition, γέ and ἄρα (equivalent to ἄρ), is properly a particle of affirmation and conclusion, denoting truly therefore, verily as the case stands, "the thing is first affirmed by the particle γέ, and then is referred to what precedes by the force of the particle ἄρα".
Affirmation and conclusion.  "Be baptized "gar" the remission of sins" would have made it imminently clear that it was symbolic.  But Luke did NOT use "gar", he used "eis".  Why would he do that?  He was smart, the scripture is inspired, I believe down to the very three letter word chosen.  "Gar" would have been much more specific...so we might well conclude that Luke did not want to be specific.  He wanted to leave it loose, flexible in some sense?  We can go a lot of places with that!  Different methods of baptism are ok, baptism removed in time from salvation is ok, and so on.  Maybe he did it because there was no reason, at that time, to discuss whether baptism was required for salvation because NO ONE WAS ASKING that question!!!  They already knew that answer.  What Luke wanted to make certain was that this salvation, this gospel, was FOR ("gar") both Jews and Gentiles.  And why wouldn't Luke want to emphasize that!?!?!  So trying to use THIS verse - 2:38 - to make a doctrinal case either way about baptism being necessary or unnecessary, in contextually invalid from the start!  I think that, in 2023, is where I will stay on this issue.  The necessity of baptism is an important question, but that question is not going to be answered by twisting ourselves this way and that over 3 letter Greek words in Acts 2:38.  The conclusion ought to be reached from scriptures that more directly address SALVATION, not baptism.

Vs 43 says there were many wonders and signs done by the apostles.  This was to testify to their own selection by God to spread the gospel.  To confirm that what they were doing was appointed and authorized by God.  These signs and wonders came through the apostles - does not say others did miracles.  Christianity takes off.  The church takes off and is endorsed with miracles and wonders.  And the movement is in Jerusalem itself.  These first Christians broke bread with each other - which means they had meals together in their homes - and they also went to the temple together.  So they weren't just together at "church", but they purposely fraternized with each other.  These days, 2021-1, Christians certainly need to form stronger bonds, to know each other better, because it isn't going to be very long until...we may all be "in it" together.

Chapter 3
Peter tells a beggar lame from birth to get up and walk.  And he does.  The people in the temple - and there would have been a LOT of them since it was the "hour of prayer" - are astounded by this.  The beggar stays close to Peter and John, and people throughout the temple rush to Solomon's porch.  And Peter speaks for the second time.

Peter says that it wasn't he and John that did this in their own power.  He says that the God of them all glorified Jesus (I think this connotes Jesus as Messiah) yet they screamed for Barabbas to be released instead.  But even though they did that, God raised Jesus from the dead.  And faith in this same Jesus has healed the lame beggar.  Then Peter tells them what they must do:
19 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, 20 that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, 21 whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago. [Act 3:19-21 ESV]
No mention of Baptism here, in the Temple, among Jews.  

2025 - Before our sins can be forgiven, we must repent of them.  It is not a simple acknowledgement of Jesus as a real historical figure that does it.  A change in belief does not resuscitate a dead soul.  It is the decision to FOLLOW, to BELIEVE, and to OBEY the teachings of Jesus, and to put away all "attachment" to worldly things - not just our sins and the lusts of our flesh but all things physical - and become slaves who have nothing and own nothing except for loyalty and belief in our master.  In this country we have so much difficulty in letting go of these things because in this country we have so much.

2025 - Note that vs 19  says "repent" and it says "turn back".  These are two very different Greek words.  Repent is metanoeo, and is about a change of mind.  It is to adopt a different moral position.  Metanoeo is pretty much exclusively translated as repent.  It is a change in the way we think.    To "turn back" is almost always about a physical turn.  It is to "come home", it is to reorient physically as in turning 180 degrees.  Taken together, we see that salvation requires both a change in  how we think and a change in what we do.  We don't get to "think rightly but act wrongly", nor do we get to "act rightly while thinking wrongly".  We surrender everything or we aren't done yet.

I don't know what "times of refreshing" connotes.  
I see that God will send Jesus, the Messiah, yet again, but not until the time for restoring all things.  That is, almost certainly, restoring the old covenant.

Then these words:
22 Moses said, 'The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you. 23 And it shall be that every soul who does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people.' [Act 3:22-23 ESV]

So Jesus was like Moses?  Is that what this is saying?  And those who reject Jesus are destroyed.  In what way destroyed?  Hell, surely, but that is eternal punishment, not destruction.  MSB notes say times of refreshing refer to the Millennial kingdom.  And destruction refers to losing covenant blessings because of rejecting the Messiah.

2023 - Peter is quoting Moses' prophecy of a future prophet like him, the prophet that all Israel expected.  There is much about this in Cullman's Christology book, and about whether Jesus claimed to be that prophet.  We see here, clearly, that Peter believed Jesus was that prophet.  Peter also believed Jesus to be the Messiah.  So...was this a new concept that this prophet and the Messiah were the same person?  Had they just not expected that at all?  John the Baptist fits in here because he was Elijah, if you will, come to proclaim the coming of the Messiah.  Elijah was therefore a prophet foretelling both THE prophet and THE Messiah.  Here is a lesson in evaluating the present according to the scriptures of the past.  It was only after the fact, and after Jesus' post-resurrection elucidation of the scriptures, and then on top of that the coming of the Holy Spirit to reveal all things, that Peter understood the real meaning of those very old prophecies, and he understood that he had seem them come to pass with his own eyes, AND that he was an integral part of their fulfillment!

2025 - Vs 23 is still in the same sermon!  The exclusivity of Jesus as the way to heaven.  If you do not listen to Jesus - the prophet that Moses foretold and whom God sent as promised - you will be destroyed.  There are no multiple pathways here.  There are not "many ways to heaven", and there never were.
2025 - This is also a good lesson on how to present the gospel.  First the requirements:  Repent.  Turn back.  Change your moral perspective, and change what you do.  Do this, and God blots out your sins and brings you into right standing with Him through Jesus' death and resurrection.  Third, try this by any other method, through any other "door", and be destroyed.  Nothing else will work.  You have to put the consequences of rejecting this gospel out there too.  You can't leave that part off.

This verse:
26 God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness." [Act 3:26 ESV]
Peter says the Messiah came to Israel first.  They rejected him though, didn't they?  Yet, many Jews in Jerusalem are saved.  3,000 that first day.  So Jews can be a part of the church.  Are part of the church.  Jews are included in Jesus' offer of salvation.  Relationship with God is what changed.  The relationship before was only via the Holy of Holies.  Instruction was only through the law.  But now, each man has a personal relationship, each is a priest in his own right, and the religious elitism of that time was squelched, and put aside.  Because it was being used to distance people from God, not to bring them into closer relationship with him.  Does that sound like any church today?  If it does, they are suspect, no matter how nice their hats and rich their robes.

Chapter 4
Following Peter and John healing the lame man, and then speaking to many in Solomon's portico about Jesus' resurrection, the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees - who didn't believe in any kind of resurrection by anyone ever - show up.  The Sadducees are quite annoyed that they are teaching, and especially annoyed that they are teaching resurrection.  So they arrest them.  By them, I believe we only mean Peter and John.  They throw them in jail over night because it is already dark, too late to try them.  Many who have heard Peter and John that day believe in Jesus.  About 5,000 men are converted.  Interesting that their healing the lame man was so effective here, seemingly moreso than Jesus' miracles.  Jesus was saying "I am the way..."  and they are speaking of someone besides them.  Is that why it was different?  Or did Jesus also make many many converts away from Judaism, and we just aren't given numbers?  Also, the Holy Spirit is working now, convicting men of their sins.  That is different also.

The next day, they are questioned.  Annas is there, as is Caiaphas.  Peter and John knew these two men conspired to kill Jesus and accomplished it.  They were the ones who's influence over the crowd and over Pilate  had led to Jesus' crucifixion.  They knew how much trouble they might be in.  They could die for what they said.  

Peter does not deny  Christ this time.  Before the same man - Annas - that Peter denied before, he now proclaims Christ's message openly, publicly, and in the daylight.  Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit - as Jesus had promised they would be when dragged before officials, and so fulfilling that prophecy at least to some extent.  There isn't any subtlety in Peter's answer to them.  He says they healed this man in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified.  Wow.  They considered calling Jesus the Christ to be blasphemy, a crime worthy of death.  Peter accused the High Priest, AND his father, of murder.  Not smart.  And a very very long way from denial.

Peter goes even further.  He says that it is only through Jesus that salvation can come.  NOT through the High Priest or his court, and not through sacrifices made in the Temple.  Through Jesus' name only.  He is telling them that their positions and titles are now without any real authority or meaning.  

2025 - This verse from Peter's sermon should be memorized:
12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." [Act 4:12 ESV].
This is a core verse!

The officials are astounded at the reasoning and eloquence of uneducated men.  And with the evidence standing right there beside them - the healed man - they really couldn't answer what Peter had said.  So they send everyone out and confer in private.  How did Luke learn what was discussed during this part of the proceedings?  Had to be someone who was still on the inside didn't it?  

They realize that the healing of the lame man is real.  (2023 - Again, there is no charge of fraud after the miracle.  The proof of the miracle is standing right there, as a witness, walking and talking and praising the name of Jesus.  His healing miracle cannot be denied.) They know it is a bona fide miracle.  They don't discuss what they should believe about the message attached to the miracle.  Instead, they are worried about the message spreading further, to other people.  They realize that Peter and John are not just undermining and lessening their authority, but removing it completely as a meaningless thing.  They will come to nothing if this whole Jesus Christ thing catches on, so their objective is to squelch that name.

Is that the case today?  Is it Jesus' name that is attacked?  

Calling back Peter and John, they tell them to refrain from using Jesus' name in connection with what they say.  Peter's answer is a favorite of mine:
19 But Peter and John answered them, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, 20 for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard." [Act 4:19-20 ESV]

2025 - The order from the council - from the civil authority:
18 So they called them and charged them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. [Act 4:18 ESV].  AT ALL...Not even amongst themselves.  In England you can't silently move your lips in prayer in front of an abortion clinic.  They have been ordered not to pray.  So far, we aren't there...but we surely do seem to be headed in that direction!
19 But Peter and John answered them, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, 20 for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard." [Act 4:19-20 ESV]

2023 - Look at what Peter is really getting at in vs 19.  This is a subtle - yet not so subtle - contrast combined with an accusation .  The contrast is between what the council is telling them to do and what God is telling them to do.  Peter is saying that the orders of the council are in direct contradiction to the word they have received from God.  And so he is telling them to judge for themselves whether THEY are right OR GOD is right.  He is making it clear to all who listen that the council is setting themselves up as judges of God.   The evidence that what Peter and John were saying was true was corroborated by the miracle standing there beside them for any to see.  This is the same argument that Jesus made several times, as when he said "if you don't believe me, believe the works."  The healed man was Peter's witness that what Peter was saying was from God, and that Peter's words about Jesus therefore HAD TO BE from God.  The council was making themselves judges of whether God should do these things, not whether Peter and John should do them.  These are the deep, complex, logically irrefutable arguments made by a former fisherman in a court full of educated men.  What a change in Peter.  He got over his shame real quick.  And so should we all!!!
Possible FB post.

The council - or these officials anyway - threaten them further in the face of this statement, and then let them go.  Too many witnesses.

2023 - When they get back to their friends, they make a connection - a distinct and unmistakable connection - back to these verses:  1 Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? 2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD and against his Anointed, saying, 3 "Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us." [Psa 2:1-3 ESV].  David himself wrote this prophetic, messianic verse back when he was King.  That's how far back it goes.  And look at the verses that confirm it undeniably:  27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. [Act 4:27-28 ESV].  The Gentiles in Psalms are given names - Herod, Pilate, and the Gentiles - the Roman occupiers if you will - AND the peoples of Israel - Annas and Caiaphas and the rulers of the temple.  There was conspiracy here between Romans and Jews - perhaps more behind the scenes conspiracy than the Bible declares.  And despite the efforts of Gentiles and Jews alike in this conspiracy, all they succeeded in doing was carrying out God's predestined will in the lives of men.  
Another good FB post, after the one above.

Though brave in the face of of questioning, I think Peter and John must have been afraid at the thought of continuing to do what they'd been so directly warned not to do.  They went to their friends, to others who believed, and they prayed for courage.  When they did, the place they were gathered shook, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and continued to speak.  MSB calls the shaking a physical phenomenon to confirm the presence of the Holy Spirit, as the earthquake, noise and tongues of fire were on the Day of Pentecost.  This seems a big deal, but I don't recall ever hearing it preached.

We get a description of the earliest Christians.  They shared all things among themselves.  Food, goods, housing are all implied.  The apostles testified of Jesus' resurrection and did great works.  They took care of the needy among them.  There were apparently a lot of needy among the new converts, because people were having to sell land and houses to raise the money needed to take care of them.  I think most likely there were a lot of converts with small needs rather than a few converts with great need.  Barnabas sells a piece of land and lays the money for it at the apostles feet.

Chapter 5
In vss 1-6 we hear about Ananias.  He too sold some land.  But Peter makes it very clear that the land was his, and the proceeds of the sale were his - Ananias' - to do with as he wanted.  Peter did not require Christians to be socialists.  Many did because they were generous.  Because they knew God would provide.  But if you didn't feel like you needed to sell a house, that was fine with Peter.  Those selling houses were not selling the house they lived in, but selling the excess that God had provided for them.  Now there is a lesson of which we ought to take note!  We should take care of the needy out of our excess, not at the expense of our own needs.  Helping someone who is needy by making yourself needy is NOT what is encouraged here!
Good post for FB.

Ananias and Sapphira die because they so boldly lie to the Holy Spirit, expecting the accolades of men and the forbearance of the Spirit.  It is unwise to take the Holy Spirit for granted.  It is further unwise to expect no consequence for premeditated, ongoing, unrepented sin.  She had a chance to make it right  She didn't and there were consequences.
Also a good post for FB.

These verses:
12 Now many signs and wonders were regularly done among the people by the hands of the apostles. And they were all together in Solomon's Portico. 13 None of the rest dared join them, but the people held them in high esteem. [Act 5:12-13 ESV]

Is this saying that other believers were still afraid of the religious elite, and wouldn't risk the consequences of publicly proclaiming Jesus?  It also implies that only the apostles were doing miracles, not everyone who received the Holy Spirit.  
MSB note says it was unbelievers who wouldn't join the church for fear of reprisals.  Many did become believers, as it says a few verses on, so maybe this refers only to those who heard the apostles' preaching from Solomon's Portico, inside the temple grounds themselves.  This would be a very conspicuous place to make your profession of faith.

2023 - I think it is saying that none of the other church members were really to so boldly enter the Temple itself and proclaim Jesus.  They were afraid.  They didn't want to risk being kicked out of the synagogue, they didn't want to be considered "enemies" of the Temple.  I expect that talked freely to friends and neighbors, but none but the apostles themselves - the 12 - went into the Temple and as a group and settled and taught in Solomon's Portico.  I think that's what it means.

People in Jerusalem are aware of the miracles taking place, and bring their sick to be healed.  Even Peter's shadow falling on them as he walked by was curative.  Word spread further, into the surrounding towns, so that they too brought their sick and those having unclean spirits, and they were ALL healed.

Then this official reaction to the events and the church:
13 None of the rest dared join them, but the people held them in high esteem. ... 17 But the high priest rose up, and all who were with him (that is, the party of the Sadducees), and filled with jealousy [Act 5:13, 17 ESV]
Interesting that it is the Sadducees that get most  upset.  It says they were "filled with jealousy".  

2022 - This verse:
16 The people also gathered from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing the sick and those afflicted with unclean spirits, and they were all healed. [Act 5:16 ESV].  So the apostles are healing daily in the temple.  People are brought to them from the surrounding towns.  And we see from this verse that with Jesus resurrection and ascent into heaven, some demons were still around to possess people.  They did not all disappear...and perhaps that means that they are STILL here, but are far more "undercover" than they were in the days of the apostles, and we have next to no one who acknowledges that they even exist, much less who can cast them out.

They arrest the apostles, presumably here they mean all 12.  During the night, and angel releases them all, and the angel tells them what to do.  They are to go stand in the temple and "...speak to the people all the words of this life".  

Meantime, the whole religious elite gathers to question them, and once gathered, they send for them.  The doors of the prison are still locked.  The guards are still standing guard.  But when they unlock and enter, they don't find them there at all.  All 12 have escaped.  Someone reports that the escapees are standing in the temple and teaching.  They are sent for, and brought.  But not by force, because they fear reprisals from the public if they mishandle these men.  Imagine so much public support for the teaching of the word!  
The apostles are questioned.  This verse:
32 And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him." [Act 5:32 ESV]  Two witnesses.  These men, and the Holy Spirit.  The works are not mentioned here.
The council is enraged.  Gamaliel, Paul's teacher, calms everything down and puts the witnesses out for a bit.  Gamaliel gives them great advice.  Just let them do what they do.  If it is of man, it will die, and if it is of God, you can't stop it anyway.  Either way, letting them alone is the best plan.  It must have been of God since it survives to this day.  But how did Paul do the persecuting that he did if this man was his teacher????

But...likely to save a little face and to demonstrate their authority, they had the apostles beaten before letting them go.  The chapter ends saying that they didn't even slow down after this, and counted it an honor to be beaten for Christ's name.

Chapter 6
Starts with a separation of duties - to the apostles praying and teaching - and to the seven chosen to do so, ministering to the widows and needy in a fair and equitable way.  They are not here called deacons or elders either one.  Just men chosen to oversee the "daily distribution".  But they did have to be qualified.  They had to be of good repute, full of the Spirit, and full of wisdom.  So even this early, some were more "blessed" let's say, than others.  Stronger Christians than others.  

One of the seven is Stephen.  He was "doing great wonders and signs".  Were any other non-apostles?  What should we make of this?  Had the laying on of hands as Stephen was commissioned given him some power to do miracles?  If so, surely all seven got that power.  It makes sense, if they were ministering, that they would be able to heal and help those to whom they ministered.  That makes sense.

Certain religious elite - not the Pharisees this time but foreign Jews it seems - start to dispute with Stephen, but cannot win their arguments.  So they conspire to condemn him with false testimony.  People lie about what Stephen has been saying.  The same sort of kangaroo court that they used to try Jesus.  The difference is that the false testimony is accepted here.  Apparently the witnesses had their lies in common or the bar of justice was not set very high.  People watching said Stephen looked like an angel during the proceedings.

2021 - This is how it always happens with the powerful.  They cannot win the debate, because you cannot defeat the truth.  It was this way with Jesus, who's answers eventually shut up the Pharisees because he so often made them look foolish by comparison.  Stephen seems to do that same thing here.  And like the Pharisees, rather than embrace what they cannot successfully dispute, they turn to another way.  So they recruit liars to tell lies to the recruiters, who pretend to believe the lies, and so knowingly condemn an innocent man.  If we are going to take a stand for God, and do it powerfully, and correctly, and with his help, we too should be prepared for false accusations, for conspiracies against us, and we should understand that we may well lose everything if it goes to court.  How many Old Testament prophets and New Testament Christians died doing God's will as He revealed it to them?  They were in the center of His will, and they died.  Make no mistake, "take up thy cross" is not just a catchy phrase.  It means literally what it says.
Possible FB post.

Chapter 7
Stephen's trial continues.  The high priests asks Stephen directly if the accusations are so.  I think the implication is that the High Priest did not belong to any of the synagogues that were upset with Stephen.  Stephen's response is a sermon.

The first part of the sermon is a condensed history (the highlights) of the nation of Israel, beginning with Abraham in Mesopotamia.  vs 23 says Moses visited his brothers...so Moses knew that he was Hebrew at this point, and this explains his thinking in vs 25.  But he acted on his own, not in God's timing.  

2024 - This verse:
25 He supposed that his brothers would understand that God was giving them salvation by his hand, but they did not understand. [Act 7:25 ESV].  The implication here is that while Moses was in Pharaoh's house, he already saw himself as the deliverer of the Hebrews.  He knew who he was, and had in his head that he would become powerful enough to lead them out of Egypt.  He thought they would flock to him, but they did not.  They absolutely rejected him at that time, because it was not yet time!  What a parallel with the arrival of Jesus.  They were supposed to recognize him as their deliverer, but instead they made him an enemy, to the point of having the Romans murder him.  Jesus first appearance contained the potential for deliverance, as did Moses' attempt to rise to leadership, but it was not yet time.  In Moses day, the power of God needed to be shown to all the world, through the plagues, the plundering of all Egypt, the defeat of Pharoah's army not by the Jews but by their God.  All nations feared their approach when the timing was God's timing.  The rejection of Jesus by the Jews when he appeared, then, means that God will first show his glory to the whole world, and bring them home to the promised land, again, and all the world will look to them and fear them.  The stories of Moses "second coming" to Egypt and that of Jesus' second coming to earth will be parallels.  
Now think where that puts us, as Gentiles.  We are the middle, just an aside, that God in his great mercy decided to save though we are not Jews.  Gentiles demonstrate the justice, the fairness of God, in that he owes us nothing, he had promised us nothing, but he grafted in to his plan for the Jews, frankly to make them jealous and prompt them to come home to Him.

2021-2, This verse:
34 I have surely seen the affliction of my people who are in Egypt, and have heard their groaning, and I have come down to deliver them. And now come, I will send you to Egypt.' [Act 7:34 ESV]
It seems interesting to me that God came down to deliver them.  It implies that He had been in heaven, letting the wheels turn on their own, but when He decided to do something, He came down to earth to accomplish it.  In the same way, when Jesus appears much later, can we say that this was God coming down to save all those who would be saved?  Sort of a hidden type there.

Beginning in vs 35, it says this:
35 "This Moses, whom they rejected, saying, 'Who made you a ruler and a judge?'--this man God sent as both ruler and redeemer by the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the bush. [Act 7:35 ESV]
Jed told me about this one time, but it didn't click, because I'd never noticed this verse.  Moses was rejected by his people.  When he showed up to lead them out of Egypt, he was very often not welcomed.  He performed signs and wonders as testimony to his divine appointment by God.  He continued to do these things for the whole 40 years in the wilderness. Moses told them this:
37 This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, 'God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers.' [Act 7:37 ESV]
Moses prophesied about Jesus.  He told them way back then that Jesus would come.   Stephen continues the history of Israel, through construction of the tent of meeting and then of Solomon's temple.  Then he quotes Isa. 66:1, 2:
48 Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made by hands, as the prophet says, 49 "'Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord, or what is the place of my rest? 50 Did not my hand make all these things?' [Act 7:48-50 ESV]

2022 - There is much in "The Christology of the New Testament" about this prophet.  The conclusion there is that Jesus was not really seen as this prophet, either while he was on earth or by the early church.  Perhaps this prophet is still to come, or this prophet is Jesus upon his second coming, when he will indeed lead his people "like" Moses did.

So Stephen is quoting from Jeremiah's Temple Sermon in Jeremiah 7.  He is referencing the sermon Jesus had preached, also in the temple, and also referencing Jeremiah's sermon.  The point Jesus was making, and that Stephen is now making, is that this second temple won't protect them any more than the first temple did.  He is equating those now in authority with those of Jeremiah's day.  (See Bobby Kelly Jeremiah notes from 1/13/20.  Amazing how things come together.  This also goes along with the "double punishment" idea.  Even to the point of the same message being delivered to the elite of Jerusalem that this revered, inviolable building is in fact NOT God's, because you can't build for him out of the things that are already His.  The Temple was not a sanctuary from the wrath of Him that commissioned it's building!!!  Stephen also references that these people are uncircumcised in heart and ears, and are depending on the circumcision of the flesh.  Then, in vs 52, Stephen seals his fate:
52 Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, [Act 7:52 ESV]

2022 - Here is a title for Jesus as it was applied to him in the very early church.  He was "the Righteous One", "ho dikaios".  The definite article is there.  This title only appears 6 times in 5 verses in the NT, and as a title for Jesus, it only appears in this verse.  In the other references it references a sort of generic "righteous person".  BUT, there are also these verses, where the text is translated into "righteous one" in English:
12 The Righteous One observes the house of the wicked; he throws the wicked down to ruin. [Pro 21:12 ESV]
16 From the ends of the earth we hear songs of praise, of glory to the Righteous One. But I say, "I waste away, I waste away. Woe is me! For the traitors have betrayed, with betrayal the traitors have betrayed." [Isa 24:16 ESV].  The Hebrew word here is lassadiq, translated "Righteous One", vrom the root word  sadiq, an adjective meaning "righteous".
11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. [Isa 53:11 ESV].  It is interesting that "sadiq" is not capitalized here.  The adjective shows up only as "sadiq", and "las-" does not precede it.  So it may be that "las-" is like a definite article, referring to a specific person, and it is this prefix that leads to capitalization.  Still...why, of all places, would it not be written that way in Isa 53, and cement the relationship between Messiah and Righteous One, as the exact same person?
14 But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, [Act 3:14 ESV].  Not sure how, but the search above missed this usage, though it is constructed exactly the same as in Acts 7:52.  In this verse, in his first sermon after the coming of the Holy Spirit, Peter uses this title of Jesus.  
14 And he said, 'The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear a voice from his mouth; [Act 22:14 ESV].  That first search above also missed this NT use of dikaios.  In this verse, Paul says that Ananias referred to Jesus as the Righteous One on their first meeting.  This was quite a bit further into early church history, and Ananias, who was not an apostle at all, was using this term as a "known" identification of who and what Jesus was.  Surely the connection is firm in Isa 53:11.  He shall bear our iniquities.  So the early church - the VERY early church - connected Jesus' death on the cross with the substitutionary bearing of iniquities predicted in Isaiah 53.  It will be interesting to see what the Christology book says about this.  For me, at least at this time, this seems to represent the way the early church viewed and understood the life and work of Christ.

2021-2, Footstool.  Isn't Ezekiel's Temple called God's footstool, and here we see it will be on earth.  Ezekiel's Temple is not in heaven, and it is not allegorical.  It is a temple on earth if it is God's footstool, because this is where His footstool resides.

When you start calling the highest authorities in the nation traitors and murderers, it is probably not going to go well with you.  They are enraged at Stephen, refuse to listen further, throw him out of town and then stone him to death.  They lay their garments at Paul's feet.

Chapter 8
Starts with this verse:
1 And Saul approved of his execution. And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. [Act 8:1 ESV]
A brilliant segue.
There is a little more information about Paul's actions, dragging people off, ravaging the church.  The tolerance of the elite towards them didn't last very long.  Stephen's stoning was like a trigger that fired the blast of persecution against the church.  I wonder if that is a pattern down through history when persecution breaks out?  Is it always an "explosion" triggered by an event, or is it like a vise, slowly tightening, making open worship gradually more difficult?

2021-2,  Ask the church in Afghanistan today how it works  Biden pulled out the troops, the Taliban descended on them, and started house to house searches, dragging Christians out and executing them in the streets.  They are checking cell phones.  If they find Bibles instead of Qurans, they kill you in the street.  Persecution seems sudden and explosive.  We may think we will have time to prepare for it if it comes here, or maybe even that we can dodge it if it comes our way.  History says no.  Afghanistan says no.  The Uighurs say no, and the Christians in Pakistan say no.  Persecution bangs on your door in the middle of the night, when you are NOT ready.  That is how it works.  
Possible FB post.  Prepare for sudden persecution.

Philip, the first given the title "Evangelist".  NOT an apostle.  Philip went to Samaria to preach.  These were not considered Jews by those in Judah.  They were a diluted race, part Jewish, and part Gentiles relocated into the region by the Assyrians.  Philip did "signs", though he may well have never even seen Jesus, much less was he an apostle.  The Holy Spirit at that time empowered many with supernatural signs.  Many.  

2023 - 4 Now those who were scattered went about preaching the word. ... 6 And the crowds with one accord paid attention to what was being said by Philip, when they heard him and saw the signs that he did. 7 For unclean spirits, crying out with a loud voice, came out of many who had them, and many who were paralyzed or lame were healed. [Act 8:4, 6-7 ESV].  These verses show that Philip was performing miracles on par with what we saw Peter and John do in Acts 4.  Further, we see that there are still demons around, though Jesus has returned to heaven and is now reigning as King of the spiritual realm on earth.  But it seems these demons have very little resistance to expulsion by those who have received the Spirit.  Maybe this is the answer...maybe at this stage almost all the remaining demons - which would have been concentrated in the Middle East to oppose Christ's work there - are now expelled by those who have received the Spirit.  It could be that pretty much ANY saved person could evict a demon at this time.  And so most of them were sent to the abyss.  But a few, from other areas, from remote areas, from the Americas for example, escaped this time, and that is why here and there, we still hear of demons today.  And that "special dispensation" of the Holy Spirit with power, has now gone out, and only a few can still cast out demons.

The Jerusalem church hears of this "awakening" in Samaria and they send Peter and John to see about it.  These verses:
15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. [Act 8:15-16 ESV]
What is this???  They believed, and then they were baptized, but still no Holy Spirit?  I had always used the Cornelius thing, where the Holy Spirit fell on them before they were baptized as a proof text that baptism is not necessary to salvation.  But surely belief AND baptism leads to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  We are going to have to "invent" a distinction here between the indwelling Holy Spirit, and the conveyance of power by the Holy Spirit.  And here is the MSB note about it:
"This verse does not support the false notion that Christians receive the Holy Spirit subsequent to salvation.  This was a transitional period in which confirmation by the apostles was necessary to verify the inclusion of a new group of people into the church.  Because of the animosity that existed between Jews and Samaritans, it was essential for the Samaritans to receive the Spirit, in the presence of the leaders of the Jerusalem church, for the purpose of maintaining a unified church.  The delay also revealed the Samaritans' need to come under apostolic authority.  The same transitional event occurred when the Gentiles were added to the church (10:44-46, Cornelius).
So MSB says this event, and the event with Cornelius and the Gentiles, is an exception, not the rule.  MSB says we shouldn't be building doctrine on this, even though it happened twice.  I am not so sure that's right...

A man named Simon, a magician who had previously amazed the people Philip preached to, impressed them, and was considered a man with the "power of God" because of the things he was able to do.  We don't know where Simon was getting this power.  Upon hearing Philip's preaching though, Simon believes - it says he believes, I wonder if there is a further connotation based on verb tense - and got baptized and "continued" with Philip.  
2025 - Believe and baptize are both aorist.  Continues is a present participle.  So...the aorist disconnects believing and baptism from time.  Past, present, future...none of them are implied.  We just know that he believed, and the narration tells us that it had already happened.  It was in the past to Luke, that we know.  

2023 - I guess we ought to ask what exactly Simon believed.  Perhaps he believed that Philip was doing more spectacular miracles than he himself could do, and so Simon believed Philip was tapped into a more powerful source.  Perhaps Simon's magic was all tricks and slight of hand and such as that, but he was expert enough to realize that Philip's magic was the real deal - so he believed this was real magic.  We can take either of those viewpoints and so explain what happens next, with Simon wanting to be a conduit for this power.  How much would someone pay you if you could give them the power to heal their child from cancer?  Simon knew where the real money was.  And if his belief was merely that Philip's miracles were real, perhaps he only hung around to find out "how" these miracles were done, merely to advance his own skills.

2025 - I do not believe the above paragraph from 2023 is actually the case.  There doesn't seem to be anything in the text to imply that Simon's belief had the wrong object or was in some other way not a "saving" belief.  Not that I can see.  So what we have is genuine salvation and discipleship overwhelmed almost immediately with...what do we call it?  Simon wanted to be like the Apostles.  Remember, they were laying on hands and at this time, that resulted in the coming of the Holy Spirit to those who were saved, but had yet to receive the Spirit.  Simon wanted to be able to "grant" that Spirit by laying his own hands on people.  Before believed, he received money from people by doing magic.  We don't don't if it was real or not, but I think we should assume that it was.  He had power, from demons or from Satan, that deceived people into believing he was from God.  That is what was wrong with what he was doing previously.  The demon granting him power previously had no problem with Simon enriching himself off that power.  That demon had no moral or ethical restrictions on how the power could be used.  If Simon could say, heal a sickness, he could extort money from a mother if she wanted him to heal her child.  He was saved out of that.  But then he saw Peter and John able to not only do as Philip had been doing, but also able to grant the power to do miracles to others, he knew he was seeing something new.  He was a new Christian.  The baptism in the Spirit was new.  He misapprehended what was going on.  He missed that the Spirit could not be used by anyone for their own private purposes.  He wanted to use this new "Spirit" to support himself financially, as he had done in the past with his magic, and that was the problem.  He was putting himself in charge of God.  He wanted to make the decisions.  Verse 21 is the key to this:  21 "You have no part or portion in this matter, for your heart is not right before God. [Act 8:21 NASB95].  In the first part of that, we see Peter tell Simon that what he wants - financial gain - has not got one thing to do with how the Holy Spirit operates.  It is all about God and the Holy Spirit and not at all about Simon.  He cannot grant the Spirit, nor can he deny it until the right price is paid.  He misunderstood.  His heart wasn't right.  Verse 23 tells us that Simon still needed to straighten himself out.  He had come from a terribly irreverent background.  He had likely consorted with and been favored by a demon or demons.  There was much to overcome, much to relearn, and Peter tells him directly that he needs to work on this.  Peter does not tell him he isn't even saved.  Peter is clear that this is a sin from which he must still repent.  And Simon's answer tells us that he IS a believer, because he sincerely wants to repent.

2023 - Looking at vs 16...I see that this verse could be used as the foundation of a doctrine that says you get saved, and you get baptized, but you are not yet done.  You also ought to seek this third part, this "falling of the Holy Spirit" on you.  But why then does that doctrine not include the laying on of hands by those who already have this Spirit of power?  Like MacArthur above, and really along the lines of how I have always heard this explained, this miracle performing, tongue speaking, Bible explaining, prophetic power that came with the Holy Spirit in those days was something confined to the early church, there to confirm that what the apostles and their disciples were teaching was also from God.  Once that was established, the "power" part faded away, and the gap left when the power was no longer there is today filled by faith.  We just have to believe these things happened, because we have not seen them.  We either believe that, or we must believe that something is horrendously wrong with today's Christianity and that no one at all is being saved, or that no one at all is able to convey the Holy Spirit to others.  I certainly do not want to go there!  But let's also not forget Joel.  This "power" is going to come back to proclaim the second coming of Christ, even as it announced his first appearance.  But I suspect that by the time that begins the church will be long gone, and the signs will be for the unbelievers of the end times.  I also suspect that like most in Jesus' own time and in the first century church, the meaning of the miracles will be rejected.  
2023 - Why is it that none of the early church fathers wrote about seeing miracles performed?  I mean, we have an account that I have read that says someone - in the first century - knew someone who had personally known the Apostle John.  The one who knew John had personally informed this second guy that John lived in Ephesus at the end, and was over the church there.  Did he also say that John was still healing people or casting out demons?  Wouldn't that have still been a huge deal if that was going on at the church in Ephesus?  Wouldn't people have been traveling there for relief from their ailments, even that late in the first century?  And since, so far as I know, there are no such records, had the power of the Holy Spirit left even the apostle whom Jesus loved?  I think it is an interesting question, with many many long term implications....

2023 - Did the Spirit with power have to wait to see whether the apostles would "bind on earth and so bind in heaven, or loose on earth as it would be loosed in heaven"?  Remember, the Samaritans were not considered to be Jews, and God had not yet sent his sign signifying that Gentiles - Cornelius et al - were included in the gospel.  Therefore, we might say it was sort of "up to the apostles" at this point to confirm the work of Philip...well no...the miracles was doing would have confirmed.  Ahh!  That is what Peter and John went to see, and once they saw Philips work confirmed by miracles, they assented to the coming of the Holy Spirit with power to these "heathen" Samaritans.  I think this makes sense.  And then the deal was that well yeah, ok, I can see the Samaritans being included because, dilute as their ancestry might be, they pretty much all have at least SOME Jewish blood in them.  But the Gentiles did not, and so Peter's vision of unclean food, and the trip to see Cornelius is God Himself opening the door of salvation to ALL men everywhere, not just to those with a couple molecules - at a minimum - of Jewish blood.

Simon tries to buy the ability to "convey" the Holy Spirit, after seeing the things people do after receiving it.  Two thoughts.  First, this passage is not about doctrine, it is about Simon and his erroneous understanding of the Spirit.  Hmmm...Second, Simon obviously sees that these saved and baptized believers can achieve another level if they receive this power.  He wants to be able to convey the power, not to receive it himself...

I think there are many lessons in what we are told here about Simon in vs 18-25.  But MSB barely mentions it, except to say that Simon did not repent of his sin, but only wanted to escape the consequences of it.  

The Ethiopian eunuch.  Philip snatched away.  Preaches from Azotus to Caesarea.

2025 - I wondered if Candace was a secularly verified historical person:
Found this from Gemini AI on the Queen mentioned in vs. 27:
Candace, often referred to as Queen Candace of Ethiopia, was a title held by powerful female rulers of the ancient Kingdom of Kush, which was located in Nubia, south of Egypt, not modern-day Ethiopia. The biblical Candace, mentioned in the Book of Acts, is believed to be a specific queen named Amanitere, who reigned from around 25 to 41 AD. She is known for her military prowess and for successfully defending her kingdom against the Roman Empire. 
So Candace is a title, not a proper name.  AND, here is a region, a nation, where women were the head of government.  It would be a good study to see how long that lasted and how that nation did with women in charge instead of men.

2023 - Here is an interesting thought...note that we have this very specific notation:  26 ..." This is a desert place. [Act 8:26b ESV].  This tidbit of information gets a whole sentence.  It is important.  It is possibly there because of this later verse:  36 And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?" [Act 8:36 ESV].  Isn't it interesting that the ESV puts an exclamation point here after water?  And I think that is the point of the sentence back in vs 26.  There shouldn't have been water here.  That water was there to make sure this Ethiopian, who was going to go home and preach the gospel, had fully followed the procedure required.  If baptism is not that big a deal, why would God put a pool deep enough for a full immersion baptism way out there in a desert place on that particular day?  Baptism goes with it.  I still don't think it is required for salvation, but it is hugely important, and it ought not wait!
2025 - So "Look!" is a "particle, disjunctive particle".  BLB defines it this way:  Expressing a choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities.  E.g. or, rather than.  This doesn't exactly fit the present verse.  I know there is no punctuation in Biblical Greek...but perhaps this pdp form of a word is also commonly used to express surprise, and so an exclamation point really is justified.  I asked ChatGPT and this is the response:  Yes — in Biblical (Koine) Greek, certain particles (including disjunctive particles) can indeed be used to express surprise, incredulity, or emphasis, depending on context.  So I am right.  There should not have been water here, but there was!  For a reason.  To tell us that baptism is a bigger deal by far than we Baptists often make of it.

2025 - This is also interesting:
27 So he got up and went; and there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure; and he had come to Jerusalem to worship, [Act 8:21, 27 NASB95].  The eunuch had gone to Jerusalem to worship.  He believed in God, the God of Israel, at this very early time in the first century.  The Jews had already been to Kush and evangelized there, and this very high ranking official had converted to Judaism.  And now, he is converted from Judaism to Christianity.  After this session with Phillip, this man believes not only in God, but in Christa as Messiah.  So you have the Christian church in Kush a very very long time before the crusaders and their ilk began to evangelize.  Africa was not "invaded" by missionaries in say the 800's.  They had already been Christians for centuries by that time.

2024 - This verse:
4 Your words have upheld him who was stumbling, and you have made firm the feeble knees. 5 But now it has come to you, and you are impatient; it touches you, and you are dismayed. [Job 4:4-5 ESV].  Hmm...I am reading the NASB95 this year.   Here is how it is translated there:
39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; and the eunuch no longer saw him, but went on his way rejoicing. [Act 8:39 NASB95].  The word translated "snatched" here in the NASB is the Greek work "harpazo".  This is the word that is translated "caught up" here:
17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. [1Th 4:17 ESV]
...and here:
5 She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, [Rev 12:5 ESV].
Phillip was "transported", snatched, "raptured"! from the baptism in the desert to a city called Azotus.  This was several miles away and on the coast.  It is interesting that it says Phillip "found himself at Azotus", as if he sort of woke up there as if from sleep.  Maybe this rapture thing happens without our being aware of time passing.  Maybe we too will just sort of "wake up" with Christ in the air, or already in heaven, and have not memory of the process by which we got there?

Chapter 9
We go from Philip's arrival in Caesarea after the conversion of the Ethiopian Eunuch to Saul's aggressive persecution of the church.  Paul had letters from the high priest in Jerusalem - who apparently  had authority over the heads of the synagogues elsewhere, in this case Damascus - and the letters give Paul the authority to bring any members of "the Way" that he finds there to Jerusalem, bound for trial.  Note that these things are going on even though the civil government of Rome in and over this entire region is still in place.  Rome seems to be turning a blind eye to what the Jews do to each other, even to the point now of letting the religious court system sentence people to death.  

Paul sees the light on the road.  Ananias comes and lays his hands on him.  Paul's sight is restored.  Ananias tells him to be filled with the Holy Spirit, but no outward signs of this are mentioned.  Paul doesn't speak in tongues or anything like that.  This filling with the Spirit seems more akin to the earnest of salvation, the presence of God inside us that makes His will and His way clear to us.  

2022 - This:
4 And falling to the ground, he heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" 
5 And he said, "Who are you, Lord?" And he said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 
6 But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do." [Act 9:4-6 ESV]
Consider this salvation experience.  There is no long period of conviction by the Holy Spirit, as we often hear about, culminating in Paul walking down the aisle to be saved.  
Saul falls to the ground because he is afraid, not because he is repentant.  He is just afraid.  We might argue that he knew what the light represented, but the next verse denies that.  "Who are you?".  Saul didn't know who or what was happening.  He was in mortal fear, and not very much more than that was going on with him.  He uses Lord, not in the sense of "I answer, my King", but the sense of "You can obviously kill me if you want, what is it I should do"?  And the voice does not answer, "Saul, you have to believe in me", Jesus answers "I am Jesus".  I am the one you have devoted yourself to wiping out".  But he doesn't answer "I am the Shepherd, and you are the lost sheep I am looking for."  He doesn't do that at all.  Jesus says get up, go into the city, and I will tell you - whether you like it or want to do it or not - what you are going to do.  There is no sudden change of heart and mind on Paul's part.  His bones are shaking.  He feels "caught in the act" by the one he is trying to hurt, and he realizes that he is a putrid goo compared to this one he thought to stamp out.  I do not believe that Paul was saved on the road to Damascus.  I believe that he had a profound experience, profound enough to begin a re-evaluation of the purpose and meaning of his life.  If he recognized anything, he recognized that he was a worm, and that the one he pursued was pure power.  He learned his place, but this does not yet indicate a change of heart.  He will be TOLD what he MUST do.  Not asked to follow Jesus.  Where is Paul's agreement - other than abject fear of doing otherwise - in this scenario?  Jonathan Edward's sermon about sinners in the hands of an angry God comes to mind.  I think Paul recognized that he was in the hands of an angry God, but he is too afraid to consider his choices.  He just doesn't want to die on that dusty road, or indeed anytime real soon.  So he does what he is told!

2024 - So we might say that a fire and brimstone, hell awaits if you don't repent sermon which puts mortal fear into the hearers is an ok strategy for conversion, right?  Paul was shaking in his sandals, afraid to even look and see who was talking.
2024 - This verse:
6 But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do." [Act 9:6 ESV].  Jesus does NOT say, if you are okay with this whole salvation idea, then rise....  There is no implication here that Saul is being given a choice, not even an ultimatum.  Jesus has decided that Saul will be saved, and so that is exactly what happens.  I think the real thing is something like that.  I think it is something that happens, not something we choose.  Perhaps some can decide they want salvation and pursue and eventually Jesus saves them...but for most, when we feel that "urging" we really don't decide, we just do.

2022 - Followed by this very different reaction:
10 Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Ananias. The Lord said to him in a vision, "Ananias." And he said, "Here I am, Lord." [Act 9:6, 10 ESV].  We can reasonably believe that Ananias was saved.  When God called him, he does not fear.  He does not fall and grovel.  This is very different from Paul out on the road.

2022 - In vss 13, 14, we see that Saul of Tarsus has a very widespread reputation, and much authority.  We see that already in Damascus the local Jewish religious hierarchy has given him authority to take Christians prisoner.  But as I read it, he could not force them to leave Damascus.  The priests in Damascus retained sovereignty in such matters.  I think the implication is that even though it would be bad to be brought before the chief priests of Damascus, it would be far better to stand before them than before the priests in Jerusalem, who would have no reason to pity or be lenient.  They wouldn't know you at all except as a criminal to be judged, and the more harshly the better since you are not even "from here".  I don't believe Ananias knew that Paul had been given this authority.  I wonder if the civil government in Damascus was going to be consenting in that matter?  Damascus is, after all, Syria - not Judah, not Israel.  For them, this was like allowing the Ayatollah to gather up Christians in Dallas and return them to Iran for religious trial.  This is hard to conceive, but tells us just how powerful the religious elite in Jerusalem were.  Kings of other nations feared their influence.

2022 - This one:
15 But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. [Act 9:15 ESV].  There is nothing here about how "Paul has decided to follow me, and you are going to help him get started".  The Lord - Kyrios - a name very much associated with Jesus - as contrasted with Theos - the Father - has CHOSEN him, and he will do as Jesus tells him.

2022 - Vss 17-19.   Saul had seen a vision of what was to come, and Ananias fulfilled that vision.  Ananias says two things are going to happen.  You'll get your sight back, and you'll be filled with the Holy Spirit.  But then, we see the detail of his sight returning, but there isn't anything here about the Holy Spirit filling Saul.  And it isn't like we haven't already seen the tongues of fire, and the further effects of Holy Spirit filling.  Acts does not say that the Spirit filled Saul at this point.  It does say he was baptized right away, once he could see.  The distinction here is that Jews were not baptized.  There is no part of the Law that says the faithful must be baptized.  The Jews - the men - are circumcised.  This circumcision is the outward sign of devotion to Judaism.  Only men have it - obviously.  The first thing Saul does is get baptized, which is the outward sign of devotion to, in this case, "The Way".  So even without information about the Spirit filling Saul - which ought to be a real serious bother to those who say there has to be outward evidence of Spirit filling - we see that Paul "dons the clothing" of those who follow Jesus.  This is the first "voluntary" thing that Saul has done in this story.  I would also say that this "ritual" in which Saul participates is a watershed moment.  No Jewish "spy" would ever have agreed to "fake" loyalty to the Way.  To them, it was likely a dirty thing akin to thumbing your nose at God.  They just would not have done that any more than they'd have eaten pork.  The "witness" of being baptized would have lent sincerity to Saul's change of loyalty.  This would have made people believe he was "saved" to a much greater extent than if he just said so.  Here is even more reason for immediate baptism.

2022 - This one:
20 And immediately he proclaimed Jesus in the synagogues, saying, "He is the Son of God." [Act 9:20 ESV].  The belief that saves, proclaimed by Saul.  This is now a baptized believer proclaiming the gospel.

Once he can see, Paul is immediately baptized.  That's the next thing he did.  That is the next thing all of us should do.  

Paul spends several days afterward in the synagogues of Damascus, where he was supposed to be arresting those who follow "the Way", proclaiming Jesus instead.  He is preaching "the Way".  This verse:
22 But Saul increased all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Christ. [Act 9:22 ESV]
He proved it to them.  He had to have a very extensive knowledge of the scriptures, and the brilliant mind to retain and collate those scriptures, in order to do this.  The apostles had 40 days with Jesus to have all this explained to them.  Once filled with the Spirit, Paul already had the knowledge to put it all together.  

Make no mistake.  Those who oppose the church are not all ignorant morons.  Some are smarter than we are, more studied, and more brilliant, and these can be a great danger to the church.  These are the kind we are warned against.  

Paul was so effective in his arguments that Jesus was the Christ that the Jews decide to kill him.  This seems a common strategy of religious leaders.  They did it to the prophets.  They did it to Jesus.  They did it to Stephen, and now they are plotting to kill Saul.  I wonder if we could make a case that any religious leader who advocates killing dissenting voices instead of convincing them is not a follower of God.     
...No...can't go this far.  Israel was told to wipe out the Canaanites, man woman, child, and beast.  

Paul escapes by getting himself lowered down the wall in a basket because the gates are all being watched to capture him.

Saul arrives back in Jerusalem, and the believers there are afraid of him.  They believe his confession to be a fake, a ruse to infiltrate their ranks.  One named Barnabas is convinced of Saul's sincerity, and vouches for him to the disciples.  Barnabas must have been pretty trusted among them.  Saul particularly disputes with the Greek speaking Jews, and so effectively that they too decide to kill him.  So the "brothers", hearing of this plan, send Saul to Caesarea and thence to Tarsus.  Seems like Tarsus is where Saul is from.  So they sent him home.

This verse:
31 So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was being built up. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it multiplied. [Act 9:31 ESV]
With Saul's conversion, and then with his departure, persecution of the church almost completely stops.  This one man had been the driving force in the persecution.  Even after his conversion, his preaching still brought persecution on the church.  His departure brought peace.

Peter heals a man bedridden for eight years.  So even back then, people were not totally cruel.  Someone had to have been taking care of Aeneas for all that time.  Here is the verse:
2024 - 35 And all the residents of Lydda and Sharon saw him, and they turned to the Lord. [Act 9:35 ESV].  This was the reaction to Peter healing Aeneas.  This says that witnessing a miracle prompted these people to be saved.  Doesn't say they saw this healed paralytic, sought out Peter, heard the gospel and got saved.  It is more like they were already familiar with the gospel, and the "proof" of validity - the evidence of it as "the way" - turned their unbelief to belief, which is what salvation is.  This is good old Old Testament "his faith was counted as righteousness".

2024 - This is now twice in this chapter that we have seen salvation more as an unplanned change of heart, a sudden change in personal fundamental belief, that in fact saves...or maybe a better way to say it is a change that is saving.  There are no long drawn out invitations in these two instances.  Salvation was instantaneous.  Street preachers know this...

A woman named Tabitha, or Dorcas, was a good woman, and she gets sick and dies in Joppa.  Peter is nearby so they send for him and he comes.  Peter raises her from the dead.  Many believe as a result.  Peter stays for a long time in Joppa with Simon, a tanner.  I believe this is the first resurrection of the dead since Jesus ascension.  I think only an apostle could have done this, and I think it went away as they all died.  It was a power given only to them to testify that their message of Jesus as Christ was true.  Jesus used miracles also to testify to the truth of his own message.  Speaking in tongues seems to be a sort of "second tier" power of the Holy Spirit in that many non-apostles had this power.  The writing about Stephen indicates that he was able to heal the sick, so that might also be a second tier.  It is hard to draw a line.  We just don't have the details.

2024 -First, note the details in vss 40-41.  Peter had sent them all out of the room.  There were no witnesses to any of this.  Yet we are told what Peter said, that she sat up, that he gave her his hand...Luke is writing all this but he was not there.  Luke, at some point, must have interviewed Peter and Peter gave him these details.  Luke was unreservedly trusted by Paul and Peter at least as a man worthy of recording and so preserving these details.

2024 - This is now the third example in this chapter:
42 And it became known throughout all Joppa, and many believed in the Lord. [Act 9:42 ESV].  It was not when they heard Peter preach that they were saved. It was the direct knowledge of this miracle - it was the proof to these people who KNEW Dorcas had died and yet here she was alive, that gendered unreserved belief in all these people, and it was that belief - NOT their understanding of the gospel, that saved them.  Faith - belief.  That's the verse!  Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness!  You need not be able to recite the ABC version of of the gospel...or any of those other acronyms...in order to be saved.  It happens at the moment of belief.  That is why it can happen to little children and to 102 year olds on their death beds.  It can be from hearing, it can be from belief due to overwhelming proof of a miraculous event.  Or it can be that Jesus hits you with a 2x4 and then starts giving you orders.  
Perhaps the modern church has put God in a box with our "rules" and expectations and requirements for how to be saved.  What it is really about is changing from unbelief to belief.  It is about some "proof" that once and for all convinces us that God is really there, that Jesus really rose...that all that Bible stuff is more than myths and bedtime stories but is a true history of God in the world.  Belief is what saves, no ritual, no rote, no written test to pass.  It is about belief.
What a good Sunday School lesson from these three events!

2025 - Peter stays "many days" in Joppa with a tanner named Simon.  A tent maker and a tanner.  The two Simon's.


Chapter 10
Cornelius, a Centurion in the Italian Cohort.  A believer in God, a good man.  His family also were believers.  This verse:
4 And he stared at him in terror and said, "What is it, Lord?" And he said to him, "Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God. [Act 10:4 ESV]
So God heard the prayers and saw the works of this man who did not know Jesus.  BUT, because of his devotion, God sent Peter to him with the gospel.  This good, devoted, God-fearing man was still short of what he needed to be truly right with God.  How many Muslims would this message reach?  Surely they are devoted, offering up sincere prayers in immovable faith.  Yet they lack Jesus...

Peter's vision of the "unclean" animals coming down, and God telling him that there is nothing unclean to eat any more.  What clearer sign could there be that the Sinai Covenant was no longer of any force and effect.  It is not gone forever, but is set aside for now.  The new covenant is now in effect.  

The messengers Cornelius had sent arrive right after the vision.  The next day Peter leaves for Caesarea with them, and some "brethren" from the church there in Joppa go along also.  

These verses should be shouted from the housetops:
34 So Peter opened his mouth and said: "Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, 35 but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. [Act 10:34-35 ESV]
God cares nothing about culture, skin color, traditions, or diets.  All are acceptable to God if they fear Him and do His will.

This verse:
38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. [Act 10:38 ESV]
Wish I knew enough Greek to look at the construction of this sentence.  It seems to say that anointing with the Holy Spirit and with power are two separate things.  But that may not be what  the Greek construction says.  It may say these two things are concurrent and equal.  Wish I knew how to find out.  MSB has no note about it at all.  I could try Zodhiates...
Zod says that Holy Spirit in this verse is anarthrous.  No definite article is present.  Could read it as anointed with Holy Spirit and power.  saying the Holy Spirit is a translation thing, but the word "the" isn't there.  I don't know if "power" is also anarthrous, but I looked in the NT Interlinear and don't see a word that could be "the", which should make power anarthrous also.  The Greek connector "kai" is translated "and" between Holy Spirit and power.  The same connector is used between doing good and healing in the same sentence.  Are doing good and healing referring to separate things?  They seem to be separated by kai...but he was giving a speech to a room full.  Anyway...moving on....

2024 - This interesting phrasing:
40 but God raised him on the third day and made him to appear, [Act 10:40 ESV], and here is another translation:
40 "God raised Him up on the third day and granted that He become visible, [Act 10:40 NASB95].  All the translations seem to try and express something specific here.  To me, the implication is that not all who are raised from the dead are visible - become visible - are allowed by God to be seen by those still living.  Yet they might still be there.  Like a ghost, in the room but invisible, and yet somehow sensed.  Now I doubt seriously that this is what is meant...but looking at the variation in how this verse is translated, it is obvious that something is being said that was understood in Luke's time but which we have kind of lost the sense of today.  Luke was from Antioch in Asia, not a Jew, and may have had some unusual teaching himself...maybe while at med school.  MSB makes no comment on it at all.
Vs 41 goes on to say that the appearances of Jesus post-resurrection were not universal but only to the those chosen as witnesses.  Witnesses are people who have knowledge of things to which they can testify.

Peter ends his sermon with these words:
43 To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." [Act 10:43 ESV]
Peter tells these devout believers in God that believing in Jesus grants forgiveness of sins.  It is through the NAME of Jesus that forgiveness flows.  Their belief and devotion to this point are insufficient to have their sins forgiven.  Jesus Jesus Jesus!!!  ONLY Jesus.

The Holy Spirit "fell" on those who heard this sermon.  They spoke in tongues.  Peter says they've received the Holy Spirit the same as he and those who came with him have received it.  And Peter had raised a dead person...And then he says they all need to be baptized, though they were already miraculously speaking in tongues.  Baptism is important.

It would seem that having the Holy Spirit fall on us is something that happens to all who believe in the name of Jesus.  The extent and specifics of the power that come with that can be different from person to person, according to God's will.  It does not seem to be at all about "how much Spirit" each has earned, but on God's sovereign plan for that individual.  God gives us power in the measure that we need to accomplish His will for us.  No more, and no less.  It cannot be purchased, as Simon tried to do, nor can those who have the Spirit in quantity and who go about healing and raising the dead decide how much of it to convey to others by laying on hands.  God decides.  It would also seem that God can decide after salvation to convey additional ability to the saved at a time removed from the original indwelling.  As in a revival, a great awakening, and so on.  This finally seems to fit.

2024 - This is also another example of the situations we saw back in Chapter 9.  These people were ALL listening.  They were not being individually counseled.  They did not ask to be saved - they had no training or experience at all with altar calls.  But when Peter said "...everyone who believes in him...", like a clap of thunder the Holy Spirit fills them all, right where they're sitting.  

2024 - And come on!  The first thing Peter does when he sees that they are indeed saved is to order that they all be baptized.  Right now.  I still say that they were saved the instant they believed, but it was crucial, vital, REQUIRED that they also be baptized right away.  We Baptist under-emphasize Baptism.  Which seems very contradictory.

Chapter 11
Word gets back to the Jews in Judea that the Gentiles have received the gospel.  No doubt they heard about Cornelius, his household, the ministry of Philip in Caesarea to the Gentiles and the many Samaritans that were converting.  When Peter gets back to Jerusalem, the Jews "accuse" him of eating with Gentiles.  So Peter lays the events out chronologically.  

Vss 14-16 should clear up any questions as to what the falling of the Holy Spirit was about:
15 As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. 16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' [Act 11:15-16 ESV]
Baptism of the Spirit is a supernatural event whereby the Spirit of God Himself covers/immerses/empowers us with the gifts God intends us to use in his service.  It would seem to me that Baptism of the Spirit has degrees and distinctions that vary by individual, but all receive this Baptism.  Whatever it is, it was at that time an external proof of God's salvation to those so affected.    At this point, I think Baptism of the Spirit is a separate thing from indwelling by the Holy Spirit, though both may occur simultaneously.  We have examples in Acts where they are not simultaneous...don't we???
While Baptism of the Holy Spirit is an external proof of salvation, it is not a prerequisite of salvation without which we should believe still that we are lost.  The earnest of salvation is the indwelling Holy Spirit, not the Baptism of the Spirit.  I think I could make a case for all this.  It wold be a good study.
Peter uses the Baptism exactly this way.  He concludes saying that having seen this baptism with his own eyes, any doubts as to the salvation of these Gentiles went away.  People can claim to be saved, and we don't really know, but the Baptism of the Spirit and the supernatural abilities that go with it are undeniable.  Again, miraculous events bear witness to the work of God.

2025 - Look at vs 16.  Peter acknowledges here that water baptism and baptism with the Spirit are distinct and different.  Peter says that baptism by the Spirit grants the gifts of God to the person so baptized.  Water baptism did nothing like that.  It was a symbol when John did it, and it is still a symbol.  Baptism in the Spirit, when visible to those nearby, is an evidential argument that the person so affected is truly saved.  So...does baptism in the Spirit even happen anymore or was that something that happened to affirm, was it visual evidence, that what was happening was God's own will, a sign on the same order as the miracles of Jesus to confirm that God endorsed what was done?  If we look at it this way, we have an argument that baptism of the Holy Spirit and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in all saved people are in fact separate things.  What did Grudem say about this???

2023  - "the Holy Spirit fell on them".  That is one thing.  The "earnest of our salvation" is another thing.  I believe the first one can happen even to the lost so that God can carry out His will.  God can use the lost.  I think of Nebuchadnezzar and the King in Ezra that sent Israel home.  Remember the reply of Salmaneser or whoever it was... who told Judah's King to go away because he was already doing God's will?  And that King didn't, so he ended up dead.?  Well maybe he was already doing God's will.  The Spirit also fell ON Saul, but it could still leave him, and did so.  An earnest of salvation - which happens only in the NT - cannot be taken back.
Several good lines above.   Underlined and bolded the best one, and put a tag below.
2023 - This verse:  15 As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. [Act 11:15 ESV].  So...were the apostles - the 12 - not saved until the Holy Spirit fell on them?  That cannot be right, and the only way to say that it is right is to go full-on dispensational and say that soteriology took a different form in the NT than it ever had in the OT, and those caught in the overlap had to be saved BOTH ways!  What a can of worms that opens up!!!
2023 - John's baptism was to be immersed in water.  The water stayed on the outside.  You got wet, and others saw that you were dripping with water.  Baptism of the Holy Spirit's outward sign, at the beginning, was speaking in tongues, healing, all sorts of gifts.  We STILL get those, just not often as observably as it was in those days.  But all are now INDWELLED by the Holy Spirit.  Absolutely all, and that is all that is necessary, and the rest can be entirely invisible forever, and that does NOT mean you aren't saved!
2023 - But then this verse gets thrown in:
17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?" [Act 11:17 ESV].  It's good reasoning...but I wish it was better stated.  Need to analyze the Greek more closely...and if that fails, I guess what is left is that it is imprecise because Luke is writing a history book not a doctrinal book.  AND, consider how the hearers would have understood this statement.  Would they have seen it as distinguishing between "in" and "on"???

vs 19 says those who scattered because of Stephen's death preached only to the Jews, though they scattered widely.  Some however, from Cyprus and Cyrene, also speak to Greek-speaking non-Jews.  The Hellenists.  This verse:
21 And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number who believed turned to the Lord. [Act 11:21 ESV]  Does this verse imply that one can believe, yet not turn to the Lord?  (2025 - Of course it does.  Even the demons believe, and tremble.)  I know Acts is a history, not a doctrinal book, but Luke traveled with Paul so you still have to wonder about verses like this.  MSB has no comment on it at all.

2025 - I think the real point of vs 19, what Luke wants Theophilus to catch here is yet another "expansion" of the mission field, and this not at all led by the Apostles.  We just saw where Peter's visit with Cornelius had indisputably affirmed that the gospel of repentance was to be preached to the Gentiles.  BUT...those who had previously scattered from Jerusalem after Stephen was stoned were long gone before this broader mission was recognized.  But as the persecuted continued moving out. SOME OF THEM, not apostles but those scattered from Jerusalem, ALSO BEGAN to preach to the Greeks - that is, to the Gentiles, and God was also behind that effort, leading many to both believe and be saved.  Word of this gets to Jerusalem, and they send Barnabas up to see what's happening.  Jerusalem had sent no one up there with this new directive to preach to the Gentiles also, it just kind of sprang up there, and those in Jerusalem would have been concerned that it was a false gospel.  Barnabas found out otherwise.  Barnabas adds his voice to those already preaching the gospel to the Gentiles and "considerable numbers" were brought to the Lord.

Word of this also gets back to Jerusalem and they send Barnabas to Antioch, where this is taking place.  Barnabas is glad at what he finds, exhorts them to stay faithful, and then goes on to Tarsus to see Saul.  Barnabas brings Saul back to Antioch with him.  Together, they teach for over a year.  It is here in Antioch that Jesus' followers are first called Christians.  2021 - So Paul had gone to Tarsus several chapters back to escape persecution.  He must have just stayed there where he was from, perhaps making tents.  We have no record of any evangelism while Paul was "home".  But when these Gentiles start to be converted, Barnabas for some reason, fetches Paul back.  Paul had shown no interest in Gentile conversions to this point, and seems to have been pretty fed up with the Jews.  It was Peter and his vision of unclean food that was the big impetus to evangelize non-Jews.  So the word to Antioch did not start with apostles, but by others, and as a result of persecution.  But Barnabas goes and gets Saul, and they stay there for over a year.  

2023 - Barnabas knew what had happened with Paul and the house of Cornelius, so he had no trouble believing that these Hellenists were indeed saved, and that WITHOUT having to see the confirming sign of the Holy Spirit's gifts.  To argue the other side, we must only say that the gifts were immediate and had died down by the time Barnabas got there.  But then, what of all the rest that got saved after Paul got there also.  Why nothing about confirmation by signs?

Agabus, in Antioch, foretells a famine in Judea.  It does not say here that Agabus is a prophet.  The famine he foretells is not in his home city or country, but another place.  The result of this is that those in Antioch send relief - food?  money? - to the church in Jerusalem.

2024 - Did not read this whole article, but it represents itself to be a proof from extra-Biblical sources that a very widespread famine did indeed occur during this time, as recorded by Luke:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/harvard-theological-review/article/abs/universal-famine-under-claudius/C8361B61A9ACCB99ED4312906938955D
I hope to read it later today.

Chapter 12
This chapter starts with Herod escalating persecution of the church.  We read earlier where there was a time of peace following the stoning of Stephen and the scattering of the Christians, but now it begins to heat up again.  MSB note says this is Herod Agrippa I who reigned from 34-44 AD, the grandson of Herod the Great, who had remodeled the Temple, and had killed all the males under two years old.  As part of this wave of violent persecution, James the brother of John is killed.  He was one of the first four called, a fisherman from Galilee.  Killed so Herod could curry favor with the Jews.  Then Peter is also arrested, likely with the same plan.

The night before Peter is to be brought before the people, which most likely would have resulted in a death sentence, an angel shows up and leads him out of the prison and into town.  We get a lot of details about how this was done, even including a gate that opens by itself.  Luke very likely got these details from Peter himself since they spent so much time together.  A rare insight.  We even know the name of the servant girl who answered Peter's knock.  Those praying are gathered at the home of Mary, the mother of John Mark, who will figure prominently later on.  This is the "Mark" that wrote the gospel of that name, as recounted to him by Peter as they traveled together.  Also this verse:
17 But motioning to them with his hand to be silent, he described to them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he said, "Tell these things to James and to the brothers." Then he departed and went to another place. [Act 12:17 ESV]
This "James" must be the brother of Jesus who is prominent in the Jerusalem church.  We surmise this because Luke just told us in vs 2 that Herod had killed James the brother of John - making James the first apostle martyred.  Peter knew that.  So he is not referring to his fellow apostle, but the head of the Jerusalem church.

Herod had all the soldiers who were guarding Peter killed.  This is an evil man.  What did he suppose they'd done, helped Peter escape?  But that's what Herod did.  Peter goes to Ceasarea for a while.  Probably a really good idea to get out of Jerusalem just then.

Herod is praised by the people of Tyre and Sidon and a god.  Because of his pride - his belief that they are right - an angel strikes him, and he is eaten by worms and dies.  Implication is that this was a sudden thing, perhaps even while he was receiving the praises of these people.  I found a brief of this event in Wikipedia..yes, I know, but it fits very well:
After Passover in 44, Agrippa went to Caesarea, where he had games performed in honor of Claudius. In the midst of his speech to the public a cry went out that he was a god, and Agrippa did not publicly react. At this time he saw an owl perched over his head. During his imprisonment by Tiberius a similar omen had been interpreted as portending his speedy release and future kingship, with the warning that should he behold the same sight again, he would die.[5] He was immediately smitten with violent pains, scolded his friends for flattering him and accepted his imminent death. He experienced heart pains and a pain in his abdomen, and died after five days. [11] Josephus then relates how Agrippa's brother, Herod of Chalcis, and Helcias sent Aristo to kill Silas.[12]

In this last verse of the chapter, we see John Mark associated with Saul and Barnabas:
25 And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem when they had completed their service, bringing with them John, whose other name was Mark. [Act 12:25 ESV]
2021 - Some manuscripts say "to Jerusalem".  So we don't know if this is written from the point of view of someone in Antioch (which I believe is where Luke is from, and so would make sense) or from the point of view of Jerusalem.  We don't know what this "service" is.  It would seem the work in Antioch would be service and they'd be returning "to" Jerusalem.  But Paul didn't go to Antioch from Jerusalem in the first place.  Barnabas did!  So maybe Barnabas left Antioch to report to the Jerusalem church and Paul went along with them.  After their report, perhaps they returned to Antioch.

Mark is pretty important, though Luke, at this point at least, just kind of mentions him in passing.  MSB notes on Mark, including a discussion of "The Synoptic Problem".
Mark was a close companion of Peter, and is often mentioned in Acts as "John, who was also called Mark".  Mark was Barnabas' cousin.
The early church fathers attributed this gospel to Mark.  Hieropolis in  about 140 AD, talked specifically about the book.  He says that Mark was  not with Jesus, but was ever with Peter.  He says Mark undertook to  write down the things Peter told him, but as he was recording what someone  else said, the book is not necessarily chronological.  
In AD 150, Justin Martyr, referred to the Gospel of Mark as the memoirs of Peter, committed to writing by Mark while in Italy.
It is interesting that if this is so, we have canonized as scripture the writings of one who didn't "stick it out" on the first missionary journey.  Such things carry extra weight with me as to the divine nature of scripture in that it says "Yes, this guy had some problems, but God in his sovereignty breathed His Words onto paper by his hand.  Imperfect men wrote the Bible, but imperfect men were not writing independently.  In that book I'm reading, it says the writers were not inspired, the words they wrote were inspired.

Chapter 13
2021 Opens with this verse:
1 Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a lifelong friend of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. [Act 13:1 ESV]
Spiritual Gifts, given by the Holy Spirit, are in full operation in the church at Antioch, a church with probably a large majority of Gentiles.  If we go by MacArthur's book on Spiritual Gifts, then I think what we are talking about here are gifted men, and not the gifts themselves.  I think so because the men are named, the men are in view here and not the gifts themselves.  Again, based on references from MacA's book, "prophets and teachers" are a single office, and corresponds to those called pastors and teachers elsewhere.  Pastors and teachers are today's "preachers", so prophets and teachers were what we today would call the "staff ministers" at the church in Antioch.  It is quite an interesting list when viewed in that light.

While Saul is still in Antioch, the church there, in prayer and fasting, receives direction from the Holy Spirit to set Saul and Barnabas apart, and send them off on to the work God has for them.  So they pray some more, lay hands on them, and send them off.  
2021 - Note that ESV puts it "and the Holy Spirit said", while they were worshiping the Lord and fasting".  While they may have been seeking God's direction, it does not say that they had a problem that needed solving, nor were they trying to decide whether or not to send Paul and Barnabas off.  They were worshiping, and fasting - that is, depriving themselves of earthly things in order to be more in the spirit.  We don't do this anymore.  I am thinking that we most certainly should.

They set off, going first to Seleucia, and take a ship to Cyprus.  In Salamis, a city of Cyprus, they preach in the synagogues.  Note that it is synagogues, plural.  Also remember that there were several synagogues mentioned in the stoning of Stephen.  The beginning of denominations?  Or just differences in language?  Likely some of both by this point.  John Mark is there to assist them.  He wasn't "sent", but went anyway.  

2021 - ESV does not say "John Mark", it just says John.  Twice previously we have seen John and Peter travel together, and I believe the first time was when they went to Antioch together to see the converted Gentiles?  Why do we not think this is the apostle John?  MSB note here refers us back to Acts 12:12, where the phrase used is "John who was also called Mark.  John Mark is Barnabas' cousin (Col. 4:10).  There are many other references to John Mark listed in this MSB note.  So a "preponderance" of the information we have indicates that this was John Mark.  And I suspect that as we read further, it is going to get even more obvious who he is.

They get to the other end of the island and the proconsul there - a Roman official - wants to hear what they have to say.  But a Jewish false prophet named Bar-Jesus (Elymas) opposes them and tries to prevent this.  ESV says Bar-Jesus was a magician - implying that his "power of prophecy" was an imitation derived from Satan and his angels, and not a Spiritual gift.  It is interesting to see this contrast, and the different labeling applied to it.  These men - Paul, Barnabas and John - recognized that Bar-Jesus was a fake right away.
vs 9:
9 But Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him [Act 13:9 ESV]
Is this the first place Saul is called Paul?  Right after Bar-Jesus is also called Elymas?  Did a search and this is indeed the case.  Just kind of slips it in there, no big deal.  This verse:
8 But Elymas the magician (for that is the meaning of his name) opposed them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith. [Act 13:8 ESV]
By his actions, even if you didn't have a gift of discernment, you would identify this Elymas as false because he is opposing the gospel.  I doubt it is always so obvious, but in this case, as an example for us perhaps, it was.


(Found this map at https://www.christianbiblereference.org/imagefiles/PaulsTravels.jpg)
Came back and added this from MSB on 1/23/21:
1st Missionary Journey:  Acts 13:1 - 14:28
2nd:  Acts 15:36-18:22
3rd:  Acts 18:23-21:16
Journey to Rome:  27:1-28:31

Paul calls the man a son of the devil, full of all deceit and villainy.  Paul tells him he won't be able to see for a while, and the man is blind and has to have someone to lead him around.  The Pro-consul believes over this miracle.  This is very different from any previous miracle.  Jesus never did a "negative" sign.  

They get on another ship and sail from Paphos to Perga.  Here, John left them and returned to Jerusalem.  Not to Antioch where they'd left from, but to Jerusalem, where his mother lived.  This comes up later, because Paul no longer feels he can count on John, after he abandons them here.  It will be a long time before the two resolve this, and Barnabas will take John's side, perhaps because being cousins, he knows John better.  At any rate, after he leaves, they arrive in Antioch in Pisidia.  Is this the same Antioch they left from?  (The map above indicates not.)  They go to the synagogue there and are offered a chance to speak.  Paul does so.

Paul recounts God's choosing of Israel, their growth in number while in Egypt, the conquest of Canaan, the progression of their governments, and then speaks of Jesus, son of David.  He says John came proclaiming a baptism of repentance, but John said he was not "the One". 

2024 - These verses:
24 Before his coming, John had proclaimed a baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel. 25 And as John was finishing his course, he said, 'What do you suppose that I am? I am not he. No, but behold, after me one is coming, the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to untie.' [Act 13:24-25 ESV], or like this in NASB95:
24 after John had proclaimed before His coming a baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel. 25 "And while John was completing his course, he kept saying, 'What do you suppose that I am? I am not [He.] But behold, one is coming after me the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to untie.' [Act 13:24-25 NASB95].
This is worded as if the whole baptism of repentance BEGAN with John.  It implies that this had never been done before - this identification of people with a teaching by public immersion.  But then that phrase "while John was completing his course" makes it clear that baptism of repentance ended with John.  We know that Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ continued - or was adopted as a sort of continuation of the immersion ritual that John had started.  I think that word "course" is important.  It is the "dromos", and the same word Paul uses here:  7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course,[G1408] I have kept the faith; [2Ti 4:7 NASB95].  It means "career", or perhaps "life's work".  We know that as that message of John goes on, it says "He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire".  So John told them that another baptism would replace the one he was doing.  I believe John referred only to the baptism accompanied by signs that we see on the day of Pentecost and on a few other occasions.  John was not talking about continued water baptism.  Water baptism in the NT church was an identification of those who did it as having received the baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire...even though those physical manifestations seen earlier did not always, and with time never, accompanied that baptism.  So water baptism said publicly that even though we don't speak in tongues, and we don't heal people with a touch as they did in the beginning, WE TOO have received the Holy Spirit, and we too have received gifts from God according to His purpose for our lives in Him.  This is our testimony that the Spirit is already within us, and that we have gifts according to the Spirit.  

2024 - After all these years, this explanation, based on these two verses, seems to clearly and concisely explain why baptism continued into the church age, though it is not a necessity for salvation.  

2021 This verse is part of Paul's sermon:
27 For those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers, because they did not recognize him nor understand the utterances of the prophets, which are read every Sabbath, fulfilled them by condemning him. [Act 13:27 ESV]  What a good verse.  Though ignorant of the full meaning of what was right in front of them every day, they still were "players" in that script.  As are we.  This is a FB post!
2021 - And another verse from the sermon:
30 But God raised him from the dead, [Act 13:30 ESV]  This earth-shaking, mind-boggling statement of the event so foundational to Christianity is just "inserted" right into the chronological retelling of events in Jerusalem.  Then Paul begins to prove that this should have happened, was predicted to happen by the old prophets, and that in Jesus those predictions were fulfilled.  So it does become the core of the sermon.  Paul's audience were the members of the synagogue and those who feared God.  So they would have been familiar with the OT prophecies.  That is why Paul's statement of his being raised from the dead was so innocuous.  He says it, then he immediately proves it with OT prophecy.  If someone is unfamiliar with the OT, how do you present the gospel?  That is what I'll be paying more attention to when I get to Mars Hill!  That is why it is in here!

Then he tells them about Jesus, and sets about proving by the scriptures that events surrounding Jesus were the fulfillment of OT prophecy, and showing that Jesus was the Messiah.  He also warns them using OT references that they should not reject Jesus, though the old scriptures say that many will.  

2025 - Wednesday nights Dr. Jordan is teaching from Habakkuk.  Because of that, I recognized this verse:
41 "'Look, you scoffers, be astounded and perish; for I am doing a work in your days, a work that you will not believe, even if one tells it to you.'" [Act 13:41 ESV].  Paul is preaching and he quotes Habakkuk.  Paul's point is that the resurrection of Christ - really the incarnation and life of Christ in total, is a work that many will not believe.  When Habakkuk said it, it was about the coming Chaldean invasion.  So even though Paul is quoting Habakkuk here, he is not saying that the current situation is like what Habakkuk was a part of.  Paul is saying that the magnitude, the almost incomprehensible complexity and perfection in all its aspects of the incarnation of Christ, of the arrival of the Messiah at the precise point in history required for all those prophecies to play out exactly as written, will be just as difficult for some to believe as was the coming Chaldean invasion, predicted at a time when it was Assyria that dominated the world.  But the rise of Babylon was prophesied, and few there were who believed it when Habakkuk began to preach it, just as few among the Jews were going to believe that Jesus was the Messiah.  The stone, the tiny stone that appeared so inconsequential at the beginning that it was more likely to be discarded than incorporated, turns out to be the chief corner stone.  

For a change, they are invited back to the synagogue the next week so they can hear more.  Many believe.  The next Sabbath, almost the whole city gathers to hear them.  But jealous Jews, seeing that their authority is undermined by the message of Christ, contradict and revile Paul and Barnabas.  Paul says fine, we talked to you first, but since you choose to reject Jesus, we will go to the Gentiles.  This is Paul's statement that if the Jews will treat him this way, then he and Barnabas will return to the Gentiles:
46 And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, "It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. 47 For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, "'I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.'" [Act 13:46-47 ESV]
And again he quotes OT scripture to them, combining Isa 42:6 and 49:6.  I have often wondered why this is "ok".  Jesus also did this on at least one occasion that I remember and probably several - I am just not positive how many.  What are the rules about doing this?  The MSB note on this says that Paul is turning to the Gentiles to preach because the Jews have rejected the gospel, but based on these verses he quotes, this is not just Paul leaving in a huff.  It was always intended that salvation be offered to the Gentiles.

The Gentiles are overjoyed at this turn of events.  This verse:
48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed. [Act 13:48 ESV]
As many as were appointed....You don't have to like  this, but this verse is not arguable without sounding like you're trying to overturn the truth.  Proof test for limited atonement, irresistible grace maybe, unconditional election.  I would say this verse is foundational to Calvinism

The Jews mount a strong opposition, and manage to run Paul and Barnabas out of the region.  They shake the dust off their feet and go to Iconium.  
2021 - I believe this is still talking about Antioch in Pisidia.  It seems odd that after receiving such a strong positive response from the Gentiles in this place, and after saying they are turning to preaching to the Gentiles, they don't just leave, but they shake off the dust, as if they intend never to return.  But looking at the map above, they do return and do so twice.  Looking at the last verse of this chapter, vs 52, we see that many disciples, certainly saved if filled with the Spirit, were left here.  I wonder if it is this Antioch, or the other one, that was home to Luke?

2025 - Reading this chapter about Antioch of Pisidia, seeing that the Gentiles converted in great numbers and began to preach themselves and to evangelize that whole region, we have to wonder why there is no NT Book called Antiochians.  This surge of Gentile conversion was a huge event as Luke relates it to us, and yet we find no letters to them from Paul.  

Chapter 14
2022 - It occurred to me last night that this is the first missionary journey, and Paul and Barnabas have no idea how it ought to be done.  So they do what they think they should, what God leads them to do.  Wouldn't it be interesting to compare the "methodology" employed on this journey with that of subsequent journeys to see if there were changes, and possibly understand why the changes were made.  I am thinking of the "all things to all men that I might win some".  Which trip was that on?  Was it something that became apparent, or something used in a last desperate attempt to win over the Greeks?  Perhaps everything else had been tried?

Paul and Barnabas enter the synagogues of Iconium to preach.  2021 - So think about the context this gives to what Paul said in Antioch and the way he left.  He said he was turning to the Gentiles.  But the very next town he goes to sees him first in the Synagogue of the Jews preaching the gospel to them again.  SO, we conclude that it was specifically the Jews in Antioch Pisidia that he gave up on, and he shook the dust off about them.  But he left a body of true believers there in Antioch that he would return to at least twice.  And he continued to preach first to the Jews.  
2022 - So at this point, a little further into the first journey, Paul still goes to the Jews first as he enters a new town.  He preaches always to the Jews first.

In Iconium, many Jews and Greeks believe.  But the unbelieving Jews recruit and incite the Gentiles against them.  Still, they stay for quite some time, and do signs and wonders.  This verse about that:
3 So they remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands. [Act 14:3 ESV]
They do miracles in front of these people.  Paul and Barnabas, neither of whom was with Jesus, doing miracles that seemed to me to be reserved for the apostles.  Just not so.  The Holy Spirit conveys power according to the will of God, not according to place or position.  And the purpose for these signs is clear here.  The signs are witness to the truth of what Paul and Barnabas are saying, because as in Jesus' time, who but God to make these things happen.  BUT, this is also gives an understanding of why there are no such signs today.  The gospel is worldwide,the sources of information readily available.  So many know the truth and preach the truth.  Signs are no longer needed to confirm it, it was confirmed in the past.  We have only to believe.
2022 - The "expected" results of correctly proclaiming the gospel?  Polarization of the religious?  My guess is that both the Jews who opposed them, and the Jews and Greeks who believed were all "church goers" when Paul and Barnabas arrived.  My further guess is that those who were stirred up against them were not church-goers at all, just thugs and sinners with nothing better to do.  The situation was divided, with neither side able to "take over".  So while things were up in the air, Paul and Barnabas stayed and "fought the battle".  But ultimately the opposition pulled in the thugs - who only wanted to destroy - and incited them to break the law - both civil and moral - and plot/plan to stone Paul and Barnabas.  When their lives were threatened, and they became aware of it beforehand, they left town.  This is now the second time that they have left rather than submit to violence.  They seem to me to be placing their continued ministry above their pride and bravery, and so moving on to a more receptive location rather than fall on their swords.

They leave when they learn of a plot to stone them.  It says they "fled".  This is worth thinking about.  They didn't stay and become voluntary martyrs even though they saw it coming.  They dropped everything and took off to preach in another place.  Stephen was imprisoned, and had no chance to leave, and was an involuntary martyr.  Hmm...

2024 - We saw this back in John somewhere also - 16-18 when Jesus addressed the 11 in the upper room.  He told them to get out when rejected, not to hang around.  Well...I went and looked for it in John and did not find it.  Perhaps now that it is tagged I will find it next time.

They go to Lyconeum, and preach there.  Paul heals a man lame from birth.  The people there are amazed, and being great worshipers of Greek gods, they say that Paul and Barnabas in fact ARE the Greek gods Zeus and Hermes, sent down to men.  They want to make sacrifices to them.  The head of the temple of Zeus is in agreement.  
2021 - Never noticed this before:
14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out into the crowd, crying out, [Act 14:14 ESV]
Barnabas is most definitely called an apostle here.  ESV puts it in lower case, signifying that it is the lesser meaning of apostles (messengers) that is used here, rather than the Office of the 12.  But...it is stated this way.  There is an MSB note for this verse, but it is about tearing their clothes, and doesn't mention this use of the word apostles.  Even in his book, MacA does not cite this scripture as an example of the secondary sense of the word, perhaps because you'd get into an argument about Paul's apostle title and whether it is truly primary.  This is a verse to argue that he wasn't "that kind" of apostle.  Other verses using the secondary sense of the word are Rom 16:7, Gal 1:19, 2Cor 8:23, Phil 2:25.

2022 - There is no information that Paul and Barnabas went first to the synagogue in Lystra.  There may not have been a synagogue there at all - after all it is just a hop down the road from Iconium, and Derbe just a hop on down the road from there.  A few miles at best, an easy walk.  We can't definitively say they didn't try preaching to Jews first, but we have no evidence of it.  And look what happens?  They are mistaken for "gods".  Seems like  we could make a good argument that while Iconium was predominately Jewish, in Lystra, Greek idolatry was the primary religion.  This might also be why no synagogue had been - or maybe could not be - established there...Yes.  It says there was a temple of Zeus at Lystra, and it had its own priest in residence.  

Paul and Barnabas deny that they are anything but men, and Paul says this:
15 "Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them. 16 In past generations he allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways. 17 Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness." [Act 14:15-17 ESV]
2021 - Paul here says that nature itself is a witness that God created all.  He is saying, in effect, that things could not work together for the good of man as cooperatively as they do by pure random chance.  All creation cooperates to bring satisfaction and gladness to all that lives, and especially to mankind.  This is the eternal, perpetual, direct observable evidence of God to all men.  It proves his existence, and so condemns those who do not believe, even if they  have never  heard!
This needs to tack on to the "wisdom" posts on FB.

Turn from vain things - worshiping Greek gods - and worship a living God, creator of all things.  He appeals to nature in the face of the pantheon of Greece.  A real god creates.  God "allowed" the Gentiles to do their own thing up to that point, but he made it clear that He was present with general revelation.  He sent them rain and fruitful crops and gave them happy lives.  Is Paul saying that God didn't condemn those who had not heard of him but looked on them as well as his own?  What is Paul's point here?  MSB says in the note on 16 that "The path that they all have walked is described in Rom. 1:18-32.  MSB goes on with this note on vs 17 - God's providence and His creative power testify to man's reason of His existence as does man's own conscience, which contains His moral law. (Rom 2:13-15).

2022 - The message Paul delivers here indicates that his entire audience believed in the Greek gods.  Paul does not mention Jesus at all  here, on God, and his creation of all men, and so their obligation to Him for his care of them, for the blessing of nature in the form of rain and abundant crops.  Paul's first task is to turn them from these false and capricious gods that they worship to the living God, the God of Israel.  That is his approach to those who have never heard of God.  

Jewish troublemakers come from Antioch (shook off the dust of the Jews but left a body of saved people) and Iconium (a divided city that they left to avoid a plot to stone them there, though there were many who believed) to Lystra and incite the crowds against Paul and Barnabas - even after they wanted to sacrifice to them they now turn so against them that they stone Paul, trying to murder him.  So unexpected riot and unrest led to Paul being stoned.  He didn't see it coming, so didn't try to escape.  Those doing the stoning drag his body out of the city, supposing him dead.  And perhaps he really was.  This may be the time Paul refers to elsewhere as the time when he saw "the third heaven".  People back in this time knew dead when they saw it.  He was probably dead.  

2022 - Once again the religious establishment recruits the un-churched to do the dirty work.  Just as they had done to get Jesus crucified.  They probably said that Paul was trying to undermine their long held devotion to Zeus in favor of this new religion.  They'd have made it seem like he wanted to subjugate them to this new religion with himself as the new priest in the hierarchy.  This happened very suddenly, without the restraint that the many new converts in Antioch and Iconium would have exerted.  There was no "protective circle" around Paul and Barnabas - and no available intelligence as to the plans of the opposition - as there had been in Antioch and Iconium.  Paul didn't know they were planning to kill him.  
And when their intent was obvious, Paul and Barnabas left this town also and moved on.  

But when the disciples gather around, Paul gets up and goes back into the city, likely for medical attention, and next day gets out of there to Derbe.  What was Barnabas thinking, and what was he doing during this time?  Was he trying to stop the stoning, and they beat him up and/or knocked him out?  Or did he go and hide, and hoped they wouldn't stone him also?  What a traumatic time it would have been for Barnabas in either case.  He most definitely qualifies as facing persecution for the cause of Christ.  

But after many are converted there (in Derbe), Paul retraces his steps through Lystra, Iconium and Antioch even, encouraging those just converted.  2021 - Couple of things.  There was no trouble in Derbe.  Things went smoothly there as Paul recovered from being stoned in Lystra.  But what kind of courage and faith did it take for Paul to go from Derbe back to Lystra and face those people that had "killed" him the first time he was there?!  He stays long enough to encourage these, then goes on to Iconium and Antioch, where the very people who had stirred up Lystra to stone had come from.  There are people in all three of these cities that so oppose what Paul and Barnabas are doing that they will commit murder to stop it!  And Paul goes right back to those towns, to encourage the new converts there, and can you imagine what a "pep talk" that was for them to see such faith?
2022 - There is a contrast though, between the first and second visits to these towns.  On the return visit, Paul goes to those who believed the first time.  He is not face to face with the opposition.  It does not say he returned to the synagogue.  I am not saying that it was any less bold of him to return to these cities after what had happened, but that we see a different strategy when there are believers already present.  Different from what he does if there's a synagogue there.  Different than what he does if there is idolatry there.

Paul and Barnabas appoint elders in every church as they retrace their steps.  Churches, not synagogues.  Two religions in the Gentile world now in direct competition.  Either/or, not both.  This will be the pattern from here on I suppose.

They continue making their way back to Antioch in Syria - the church that had commissioned and sent them out.  They report on all that has happened, they say that God "opened a door of faith to the Gentiles".  This would be after Peter had already said this in Jerusalem following the conversion of Cornelius and his household.  

Paul and Barnabas remain in Antioch for some time.

Chapter 15
Men come from Judea to Antioch, preaching that you still have to be circumcised to be saved.  They added this "law" to the gospel.  Jesus nowhere said it, nor had any of the apostles up to this time.  We are not told who these men are, whether they were from the Jerusalem church, whether James was in agreement with them, or any of that.  There is hot debated between these men and Paul and Barnabas.  So Paul and Barnabas and others are appointed to go to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders.  So there is some sense of a governing body over the church.  There is some sense of the central church, which in this case is the one they left from.  No denying that the Jerusalem church was central.

They are welcomed at the Jerusalem church.  But some Pharisees rise up and say that circumcision is still required, PLUS, they have to keep the law of Moses.  The whole thing!  This verse, at the beginning of Paul's speech:
8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, [Act 15:8 ESV]  You only bear witness of something that has already happened.  The Holy Spirit fell on the Gentiles at Cornelius' house as God's testimony that they were as saved as the Jews were.  This was much the same reason that the Spirit came with such power in the upper room.  It was God's testimony through miracles that he had endorsed and sent the disciples, and that the message they brought, though new, was from God.  The works are a witness of identity of the original sender, NOT an endorsement of any specific messenger.  Paul says it to show that uncircumcised Gentiles were demonstrably saved.  Baptism in water was NOT in view, but the same argument certainly holds.

2025 - So...if God saved those Gentiles, who were uncircumcised at the time and who had never kept the law, then on what basis should they have to now be circumcised and keep the law?  It does not save.  It was not sent to save but to reveal sin.  But with the Holy Spirit indwelling, the law is no longer needed to reveal sin.  Distinguishing good from evil is now internal, with the guidance of the Spirit, which we can never lose.  So keeping the Law is not required.  But circumcision?  That was about uniquely identifying men who were born into the physical family of Abraham.  It was a mark on them that they could not deny.  But Cornelius, and Samaria, were about God saying the light was come to the Gentiles.  That is, to those who are NOT blood relatives of Abraham and yet were saved for eternity. To circumcise Gentiles therefore glosses over the universalization of the gospel.  Requiring it would in fact diminish the change that the coming of the Holy Spirit to Cornelius was confirming.

Then James speaks:
14 Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. [Act 15:14 ESV]
Abraham himself was called of God before there was any such thing as circumcision.  God only required that at a later time, and even then it was not part of the law, but of the Abrahamic covenant that pre-dates them all.  James quotes Amos 9:11.  Reading that, it seems to me to be a Millennial passage about the restoration of the Davidic covenant.  This would have seen a fulfillment in Jesus coming - but looks further to his coming as conquering King.  The verses are these:
16 "'After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, 17 that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things 18 known from of old.' [Act 15:16-18 ESV]

MSB notes says of verse 17, James' point is that Amos makes no mention of Gentiles becoming Jewish proselytes.  If Gentiles can be saved without becoming Jews in the kingdom, there is no need for Gentiles to become proselytes in the present age.  So James is agreeing with Paul.

Then James makes a sort of final judgement, as though he has the authority to decide when debate is over, and to pronounce the findings.  There was no vote.  Surely some disagreed.  Maybe all disagreed.  James comes up with a compromise, not an agreement between all.  He decides that circumcision will not be required teaching of the church, but that some of the law will be taught.  What they will teach is that they shouldn't eat meat offered to idols, they shouldn't participate in sexual immorality (Jesus taught this directly), they shouldn't eat meat that has been killed by strangulation (I think this goes back to Moses), and from blood (this also goes back to Moses).  
2023 - Several things.  The point above about James having the final say is very important.  It was not a vote.  There was a "head" that made the final decision after hearing all the debate.  James didn't retire into an inner room and then come out saying "Here's what God told me - and me alone rather than all  you assembled - we ought to do."  James listened to it all, and made his best decision based on the discussion.  He does not claim to have some back-channel direct line to God himself.  Second. James says they are going to keep a few things because they go so very far back.  Circumcision will not be required, because obviously Abraham was called before he was circumcised.  No meat to idols...I don't know the theological history of that particular teaching.  We might infer from what Paul says about it being no big deal later on in the NT that it was previously a pretty rigidly enforced law.  They may have seen it as originating in the wilderness - or in Balaam's time - as a way for pagans to infiltrate...and so it was a very old position.  Immorality no one would disagree with.  Strangulation and blood...Confusing here.  Not eating strangled meat goes way back in the law, but but I don't know how emphasized it was in the first century.  Is it like some halal approach?  They don't have to keep all the Mosaic dietary laws, but this one is super important, so they should keep this one?  But that last...the Lord's supper is drinking Jesus' blood.  How then can NOT drinking blood be required of the Gentiles.  Won't they ask how they are supposed to keep that law AND participate in the Lord's supper?  I think that understanding the final edict of the Jerusalem Council requires a lot more understanding of the historical context of Jewish laws - and their priorities - than I know at this time.  AND, it looks for all the world as if "compromise" on "small doctrines" if perfectly acceptable, if conducted and decided upon in the right way, and so long as no direct and unequivocal Scripture is violated.  BUT...not drinking blood looks to me like it is going to lead to some problems...though in the NT I don't think it ever does.

That line that Brian showed me about this being for your health is not in the ESV.  Not one of the translations in BLB has that line about health.  Not one.  But the Jehovah's Witness bible did.  They've added it from somewhere.  What do they claim as their source?  And what was the context in the Mosaic law about blood?  Wasn't it just about eating raw blood?

"MSB note explains it this way:  James and the other leaders did not want the Gentiles to revel in their freedom in Christ, which could cause the Jewish believers to follow that same liberty and violate their consciences.  So James proposed that the Gentiles abstain from 4 pagan, idolatrous practices that were violations of the law of Moses, so as not to offend Jews."  James sort of adds his justification for adding these rules:  The Jews were everywhere, and they practiced these every day laws.  

I so disagree, but I was not there.  It opened the door to further compromise.  It gave the Pharisees a linchpin to teach that the old ways should still be incorporated, if they could just find a good enough reason.  This also established the appeal to the authority of a central church, and the final authority of the head of that central church.  

MSB says the blood thing was part of dietary law.  Healthcare was not in view at all.  Even if you take the view of the JW Bible and add that the dietary laws were for their health, it was NOT about medical care in any sense.  But where JW's are concerned, this isn't really the main issue.  What is, and how do we answer it?

2022 - The things that James "keeps" from Jewish law are ancient.  Strangulation and blood....why these?  Food offered to idols and immorality were/are/should be universal concepts.  But why strangling and blood?  Because they'd be easy to keep?  Because they might satisfy the Judaizers without offending the Gentiles?  Dietary restrictions that really caused no inconvenience whatever?  To interpret it this way is to say that James' proposal was a compromise to keep the peace.

2025 - Historically, it may have been that these four rules were considered sacrosanct to the Jews.  These may have been considered the worst offenses there could be against the Law.  The most "in your face" for the Gentiles to do.  All James was trying to do was keep the temperature down by not letting these four sources of gasoline get close to the fire!  For me, I wouldn't compromise on women teaching in the church or on homosexuals - or alcoholics or gamblers or serial polygamist...ok there are a lot I wouldn't compromise about.  Which is the point.  There were "deal breaker" things in the Law that would make a majority of the Jews walk away from the the fledgling church.  James proposes that the Gentile converts be taught to just avoid these deal breakers.  He isn't saying these are necessary for your salvation, but they will go a long way towards keeping peace and unity within the church as we try to unify two groups that have historically been oil and water.  Yes.  This finally makes sense as an explanation for what was done at the Council of Jerusalem.

In the letter that is sent, the final sentence is this:
29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." [Act 15:29 ESV]
Maybe it is here that the JW's put in the health thing?  The "for your health" phrase is not in other translations here either.  In context, he means doing well with respect to worship, to salvation, to being members of one body.  Each background is accommodating the other in matters that surely neither disagrees with anyway.  It would not be a compromise of Jesus' teaching to abstain from immorality.  Surely Jesus would not eat food offered to idols, and so on.  

The letter is delivered back to Antioch by Paul, Barnabas, and two from Jerusalem - Silas and Judas.  All goes well.  Then Judas and Silas return home but Paul and Barnabas stay in Antioch.

Paul and Barnabas decide to revisit the churches of their first journey.  Barnabas wants to take John Mark, Paul is adamant that he shouldn't go.  So after this huge disagreement and compromise, Paul and Barnabas separate over John Mark.  So Barnabas and Mark go to Cyprus while Paul recruits Silas to go with him to Syria and Cilicia.  How do we know this is the same Silas mentioned earlier?  It says he went home?

Chapter 16
Right after the break with Barnabas, Paul has Timothy circumcised so as not to offend the Jews, since Timothy's father is Greek.  So here we go.  Another compromise, the very same that Paul got so riled up about that the went all the way to Jerusalem to debate, and now he requires it of Timothy.  As he revisits previous stops, Paul passes on what the Jerusalem church had decided, and strengthens those churches.  
2021-2 This verse:
4 As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions that had been reached by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem. [Act 16:4 ESV]
So this tells us that central authority is not all bad.  It is how they did things from the beginning.  Authority to make interpretations and set the rules was, at this time, in the apostles, most of whom were at Jerusalem.  Further, the church at Jerusalem was considered the central, focal church of Christianity.  Appeals were to the apostles, elders, and brethren at that church.  It makes sense that if those elders and brethren were trained under the apostles, then they would be best qualified to be making policy decisions.  Remember too that there were no NT scriptures at this time.  They had only the OT, and the law was abrogated at this point and didn't necessarily apply to anything, they had this new far-reaching freedom in Christ, they had to deal with "all things are lawful for me".  But the thing was, there was major disagreement within the church on certain matters - circumcision being one of them.  And to keep the church together in a Godly and perfect way, sometimes decisions had to be made on subjects not covered in scripture.  This was about prayer, the Holy Spirit, and Christian Unity.  It can also happen today.  We have the NT, so a lot of things these people struggled with now have instructions in scripture.  Hmm...they made the decisions as best they could, but now those decisions are codified in scripture.  What was a peace-keeping measure is now the way things must be done.
Even after the Jerusalem council decided that circumcision was not required, Paul circumcises Timothy.  He didn't do this as his own rebellion against the council.  But he realized that more could be accomplished by this than by uncircumcision.  It was a move of expediency, and likely Timothy had a choice.  Paul never intended to make it universal policy.  But like that Chinese missionary, he adapted to local custom that he might reach the locals with the gospel.  We have to remember that we have more freedom than we think we do.  We need to watch the rules we try to impose.
2022 - So the first part of this second journey is as a messenger from Jerusalem, in addition to continued teaching and preaching.  It says the churches were strengthened in the faith as a result of Paul's second visit to them.  

2024 - It is clear that Timothy was not circumcised to comply with Mosaic Law.  He was circumcised so the Jews would have one less thing for which they could criticize him.  His father was Greek...so Timothy was a pagan.  But circumcision made him a proselyte in the eyes of those who would otherwise have accused him.  But it was never ever about salvation or requirement.  
2024 - Since it was Paul that carried the decrees (or the decisions) of the Jerusalem Council.  Peter was still in Jerusalem.  But clearly, Peter was not the one in charge there.  James was head of that church, though most of the apostles attended there.  Why would you make Peter the first Pope, when he submitted to the authority of James?

As they travel, the Holy Spirit directs them.  The wording is that the Spirit forbade them to go to Asia or to Bithynia.  

2022 - So they continued to Troas.  Troas is a new place, not visited on the first journey and well along and further than anywhere they've gone before.  They are getting further and further from Jerusalem, and I would think there were fewer and fewer Jews...but that may not be so.  

But then Paul has a vision that sends him to Macedonia.  To the Greeks.

2022 - Paul has this vision while he is in Troas.  He could have turned south from there and stayed in Turkey - and he does go to the these cities to the south along the coast in a later journey.  But at this time God leads him to skirt around the north end of the Aegean Sea and go into Macedonia.  Some of the early part was likely by ship as Turkey and Macedonia are not strictly connected by land.  We will see if the details of their travel plans are available.

2025 - I think there is a lesson here in vss 6-10.  They were prevented by the Holy Spirit from going into Asia.  Then the Spirit of Jesus prevents them from going into Bithynia.  But when they get to Troas, Paul has a dream about what he is to do.  When the Spirit says no, it is because there is a God-blessed plan that goes in another direction.  We ought not be disappointed when we cannot go where WE think we should go, understanding that a much greater good is accomplished when we are in the will of God for our fruit bearing.  We see this verified in just how fast and trouble free they get all the way to Phillippi in Macedonia.  Got makes their way straight.

2022 - This verse:
10 And when Paul had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go on into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them. [Act 16:10 ESV].  Note the pronouns.  "we" sought to go, God had called "us".  This tells us that Luke traveled with Paul and Silas on this trip, but he really never says that he was there in the text.  We know that Luke was from Antioch, so likely as they went through there, Luke joined them.  It is also interesting that we are told nothing of their visit to Tarsus, Paul's own home town.  Did they stay with  his relatives there or was he not welcome?
2022 - They did indeed sail from Troas to Samothrace, which is not on my missionary journey map...It is a little island out in the Aegean.  So they stopped there, probably just overnight, and continued the next day to Neapolis, on the mainland, and then they went right away to Phillippi.  A very large city was Phillippi.

They go to Phillippi.  They land elsewhere and then travel, but they move unerringly to Phillippi, the leading city, and a Roman colony.  Apparently there is no synagogue here.  They preach by the riverbank, and Lydia is saved and baptized.  They agree to stay with her.  

They meet a slave girl who had a spirit of divination (a demon that had ability to foretell?) and was used by her masters to make money.  She pesters them for days, though her pestering is to announce that Paul and Silas are messengers of the Most High God.  She apparently is so vocal that she prevents their preaching.  So Paul, in anger, casts out the demon.  

2022 -  Interesting that it says Paul got so annoyed that he cast the demon out.  Why didn't he do so in the first place?  Was his anger "spiritual"?  Did the Spirit have him throw out the demon?  Hard to figure why he let it go on so long.  Did he make a mistake in not throwing it out immediately or in getting mad about it?  Or did he do exactly as he was supposed to?  Luke does not speculate on this.  In any case, they end up in prison that night.

The girls owners are angry now, having lost their source of revenue. The whole town is incited against them.  The charge is that Paul and Silas are teaching things that are not lawful for Romans to do.  So it is not the Jews this time so far as we can tell.  The charges are not specific either.  Maybe they are saying to only worship one God, while Roman law says to worship many, and also to worship the current emperor.  Was that a Phillippi thing?  They are publicly stripped, then beaten, then thrown into an inner prison.

2023 - We saw a little earlier in the pronouns used that Luke was apparently with Paul and Silas at this time.  Was Luke also beaten and imprisoned, and is too modest to say so?  Or was he just off to the side, recording events, and so was not perceived as part of the problem.  Never noticed this before...but we ought to wonder where exactly Luke spent this night.  It is very clear from Luke's use of "we" that he was in Phillippi with Paul and Silas.  And...where had they dropped Timothy?  He started out with them, but where is he now?  Is he mentioned anywhere later on this journey?  Ahh...in vs 19, her owners specifically seized Paul and Silas.  Luke was still there with them, but apparently was not seen as part of the problem.  The pronouns are very clear that Luke was not in prison, and that "they" were only Paul and Silas.  I see no way to put Timothy in prison with them.  Luke would have said so.  Hard to get a handle on where Timothy was though.  

There is a midnight earthquake.  The jailer is urged not to kill himself, because all the prisoners are still in the prison.  None has chosen to take advantage of the open doors the earthquake unlocked.  He asks how to be saved.  Paul gives him the short answer in this verse:
31 And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." [Act 16:31 ESV]
2022 - Surely vs 31 is where it starts.  The gospel cannot be distilled to less than this.  So simple.  Just believe in the Lord Jesus.  Lord.  Jesus.  AFTER all the additional talk, to both the jailer and his household, THEN they are baptized.
It goes on to say that they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to his entire household.  So much  more was said, and we don't know just what exactly.
2023 - It is interesting that several presentations of the gospel in Acts begin with "believe".  But it also seems that a lot of preaching takes place after that.  I think a lot of other things get filled in before these people are saved.  In this case, look at vs 32:  32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. [Act 16:32 ESV].  So beyond "believe", they talked to him probably about "Lordship", about faith alone, about Christ alone, about the prophesies of Jesus in the Old Testament....it would vary from case to case depending on the background of the one wanting to be saved and their specific knowledge of scripture.  You wouldn't say the same things to an unsaved person in Niger who'd never even heard of Jesus as you'd say to one in a church school who'd been in Sunday School their whole life.  We ought not consider "Believe" to be the whole gospel.  Is that why the birds can snatch it away?  If the only part of the message that is proclaimed is "believe", what is there really to build on?  Maybe "believe" is the door, but it is the rest that is foundation.  So...if we say that, then the rest of the jailer's family got a much bigger picture, and perhaps a completely different message.  Maybe these "decided" to follow Christ, but their actual regeneration was somewhat later and Luke just lumps it all together as if it all happened in one night with this man's entire family.  I guess what I'm getting at is that we so very often view salvation as an instantaneous thing, and we forget that it is a lifetime process.  We are "being saved", though we are saved.  Lots in Grudem about this process that I would like to read again.

The magistrates apparently realize they've gone too far with the beatings an imprisonment, and sent word to let Paul and Silas go.  But Paul refuses, and requires the magistrates themselves to come and apologize for what they've done.  They themselves have violated the law by beating un-condemned men.  There is enough truth in this that they do come, and they do apologize, and then Paul leaves in peace.  Is this Paul's pride at work?  Or was this the right thing to insist upon? 

Chapter 17
After Paul gets his apology from the rulers of Phillippi, he and Silas go to Thessalonica.  Paul speaks in their synagogue three Sabbaths running.  What he does first is show by the OT scriptures that when the Messiah appeared, he had to suffer many things at the hands of men.  This was not how the rabbi's had taught it, this was NOT what the Jews expected from their Messiah.  Paul "proves" from the Bible - not from his own opinion - that this was necessary.  Only then does he testify of the life of Jesus, showing that all that was foretold about the Messiah was fulfilled by Jesus during his life, death, and resurrection.  So he doesn't just throw Jesus at them and try to displace Judaism, but instead to show that their awaited Messiah has come, and that because of this, the covenant has changed.

Many believe, but there are always those who want to hold onto their power and who saw the teaching about Jesus as undermining their power, and in fact making them obsolete.  They understood the gospel.  They may even have believed that Jesus was in fact the Messiah.  But they rejected him, refused to bow to him, because they wanted to be the big dogs.  Jesus taught humility, and they had none.  It is hard to humble oneself.  

So those who are about staying in power recruit lowlifes to stir up the city, to riot and generally cause trouble.  You know they destroyed property and stole TV sets and burned down business...because they'd been given encouragement to do so by those in power.  I would bet that the ruffians went a lot further with their riot than those who recruited them intended.  But there's no stopping such a thing.  The perpetrators have no "brakes" but fear of authority and this had been removed.  Unable to find Paul and Silas, they bring the man who has put them up in his house before the town leaders.  The accusations mimic those made about Jesus.  They claim that Jesus is being proclaimed as King in place of Caesar.  When Jesus was accused of this, he answered that his kingdom was not of this world.  He was not there to compete with civil authority.  We aren't told what Jason answers.  But luckily this time, they just take a deposit from the innocent to pay for all the damage done by the guilty, and then let them go.  
This might make a good FB post on the right day.

It is interesting that they leave under these circumstances, and yet Paul writes two letters to them in the NT.  Paul was only there for a month, yet they came very far, and persisted despite the kind of civil opposition they faced.

Paul and Silas are sent away to Berea in the night.  Doesn't say Paul and Silas decided to leave, says the brothers in Thessalonica sent them away immediately, for their own safety.  They repeat the Thessalonica procedure.  They go to the synagogue first.  It says the Berean Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica.  They checked Paul's facts against their own copies of the OT.  They were looking for the truth, not protecting their positions.  The less noble in Thessalonica hear that Paul is over in Berea preaching again so they go and make trouble there, probably blaming the unrest and property damage in T on Paul and Silas rather than on those who incited it in the first place.    The Bereans likely believe these messengers, rather than looking at what Paul and Silas are actually doing.  They send Paul away, but Silas and Timothy stay there.  There are no NT letters to Berea.

2024 - This verse:  11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. [Act 17:11 ESV].  This should train ourselves to be like this.  Christians are so often labeled close-minded, unwilling to listen to alternatives, unwilling to change, and so on.  We don't like new music, preachers without suits and ties, emotionally demonstrative worship practices....but look at how these Bereans, called noble in the Bible, reacted to this revolutionary interpretation of the OT Scriptures.  They didn't just accept it outright for its novelty...but they did give it a fair hearing and they studied and compared and contrasted and looked for evidentiary proof of what Paul was saying.  We too ought to have that attitude.  Rather than refusing to listen, or running people out of town without a hearing, we ought to study and see if God has revealed something that was not previously recognized.  Jesus was always in the OT, his death on the cross was always there.  But even he 12 did not comprehend that until after the resurrection.  There are surely things in the Bible that remain unraveled even to this day.
Possible FB post...if I ever do another one.

2023 - These verses:
14 Then the brothers immediately sent Paul off on his way to the sea, but Silas and Timothy remained there. [Act 17:14 ESV].  This verse indicates that Timothy was still there with Paul and Silas.  I infer from the wording that Luke went with Paul.  But here in Berea is where they split up.   That also makes it fairly clear that only Paul and Silas had been arrested earlier and thrown into prison in Phillippi.  Only those two.  As it goes on, we see that Paul (and Luke?) sends for Silas and Timothy and sends orders that they come to Athens where Paul is as soon as possible.  
(2023 -Later.  Timothy and Silas do not catch up with Paul until he is in Corinth, as seen in the next chapter.  Paul never returns to Athens.  It seems probably, though I cannot say certain, that Luke was with Paul in Athens, and then went on to Corinth with him.)

Some go with Paul as far as Athens.  Paul sends back word with them to tell Silas and Timothy to come asap to Athens.  

Paul sees all the idols being worshiped in Athens and begins to reason with the Jews in the synagogue and with people in the streets and is eventually noted by the Stoics and the Epicureans.  These are curious about the "new teaching" of Paul and want to hear about it.  They are curious in an intellectual sense, but since their own philosophy has already elevated them to a higher plane than other people, they are just looking at how the new teaching will be cubby-holed into their own all-encompassing philosophy.

2022 - There was a Jewish synagogue in Athens also.  Paul started off teaching there, probably according to his usual formula.  But when he saw the proliferation of idols, and understood the contradiction between knowledge and idol worship, he came up with a new approach, first establishing that God created the heavens and the earth, and all men through one man.

Paul preaches.  Part of what he said is in these verses in the ESV:
26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28 for "'In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, "'For we are indeed his offspring.' 29 Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. [Act 17:26-29 ESV]

Since they know nothing of the OT scriptures, being steeped instead in Greek philosophy, Paul begins by establishing God's credentials as creator of all that is.  All men, even Stoics and Epicureans, are descended from the one man God created.  God allotted to various men, nations, and times the extent of their domains.  He is saying that history itself was what it was because God had established it so.  I like the verse that says men "feel their way toward him and find him".  That's what these philosophers are really seeking is this creator God who is the "reason" that all is as it is.  Philosophers seek rational explanation for all that they observe, and Paul gives them God as that reason.  Then he quotes two of their own poets to them - respected poets I would imagine - as evidence that some who are feeling their way to God have reached valid conclusions about him.

Having established God as the "reason" behind the whole world, he shows the inherent fallacy of idol worship with these words:
29 Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. 30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead." [Act 17:29-31 ESV]
Since in their own philosophy men are the offspring of God, how illogical is it to project ourselves backwards as offspring of inanimate objects - idols made of gold, stone, and wood, instead of offspring of like, but greater and more powerful One.

2024 - I like the NASB wording better here:
30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead." [Act 17:30-31 ESV].
Does this not imply that for most of the world, God let things move along on their own, though he was aware, and yet for millennia He did not require anything of man.  The Jews had the Mosaic, but faith saved them, not ritual.  But at God's chosen time, more was required of the Gentiles.  Now, he requires that they repent of their offensive behaviors and thoughts, and follow the one sent to save them.  Never again would God allow any Gentile, indeed any person, to just "live and let live".  MORE IS NOW REQUIRED.  It seems that when Christ came, the time of a last judgment, was fixed in human time, and the proof of God's actions and decrees in this matter is in Jesus' resurrection from the dead.  A thing unprecedented before or since.  He rose glorified and perfected, never to die again.  This makes Him unique.

Then Paul tells them that Jesus rose from the dead - did the impossible - as God's proof of Jesus' divine appointment as judge of the world at some future appointed time.  On this point - reanimation - many of the Greeks mock Paul.  Don't just disagree, don't seek some proof that this actually happened, but reject it based on their own pre-existing view of how things work.

Still, some believed.

Chapter 18
Paul leaves Athens after being mocked as to the resurrection of the dead in Chapter 17.  The Chronological Bible puts both 1 and 2 Thessalonians into the gap between Acts 17 and 18 also.  Per the MSB outline, these events occur during Paul's second missionary journey.  Re-looking at the map (shown in the entry for Acts 13, 14), Paul's second journey went in a clockwise manner.  He had been to Thessalonica in Acts 17, and then went on to Berea and then to Athens.  So what the Chronological Bible is implying is that Paul wrote back to those he'd left in Thessalonica from Athens.  Acts is unclear about just how long Paul was in Athens, but he waited there for Timothy and Silas for more than just a few days it seems.  But in Thessalonians, it says that Paul was so anxious to get back to them that he'd sent Timothy in his place, and Timothy had been and come back before Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians.  I don't see how you can fit this all in between Acts 17 and 18...So I'm going to disagree with the Chronological Bible that Paul wrote them from Athens.  MSB says the letter to the Thessalonians - the first anyway, was written from Corinth - where Paul goes from Athens, and I believe stays for an extended time.  So maybe the chronological put it in before the place it was written instead of after.  That makes fine sense, and is something to keep an eye out for in the future.

Is the point that they weren't worth the time it would have taken to undo this?  That the whole culture was like this, and there were were other places more receptive?  Or was Paul just anxious to get back with his friends?  

Paul goes to Corinth and meets Aquila and Priscilla.  Jews who live there.  It says they were in Corinth because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome.  Not Christians...Jews.  So they were being persecuted also at this time.

Since they are tent makers, as Paul is, he moves in with them and works there to support himself, while teaching to both Jews and Greeks in the synagogue each Sunday.  So he was sort of a "bi-vocational pastor" during this time.  He worked, he studied, and on Sunday he preached.  Isn't it interesting that Paul preached to religious people, not to street rabble, not in the civil gathering places like the Areopagus.  There was little return on those places.  Preaching to those who already believed was a big deal.  There were places without synagogues where he preached at the river bank and such, so it wasn't that he wouldn't do that, it was seemingly about how many he could reach, and about how far "out of touch" they were coming from.
2021 - This is still an interesting thought - that he preached to the Jews and not to the rabble - but it occurs to me that these "religious people" often ran him out of town, accused him of crimes, and once, stoned him nearly (or completely) to death.  The street rabble gets incited to riot by the religious.  So...still an interesting thing to think about.

Silas and Timothy catch up with Paul in Corinth.  They never got to Athens, but Paul seems to have gotten word to them that he's gone on to Corinth...of course, they might have passed through Athens on the way to Corinth if they walked.  But they may have sailed.  We don't know.  Paul works hard in the synagogues, but they reject him, and there is this verse:
6 And when they opposed and reviled him, he shook out his garments and said to them, "Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go to the Gentiles." [Act 18:6 ESV]
I guess all that about teaching to the religious didn't work out at all in Corinth.  However, the part about going to those more likely to be receptive still holds.  I believe this is the second time Paul has done this.  There was another place, on the first journey I believe, where Paul left off preaching to the Jews and went to the Gentiles.  Where was that?  It was Antioch of Pisidia.  And in the next town, Paul went straight to the synagogue and again preached to the Jews.  BUT, when they are un-receptive, he has no qualms about talking to Gentiles also.  To the Jew first....

God tells Paul in a dream to stay in Corinth for a while.  He is there a year and a half, preaching and teaching.  Here are the verses:
9 And the Lord said to Paul one night in a vision, "Do not be afraid, but go on speaking and do not be silent, 10 for I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you, for I have many in this city who are my people." 11 And he stayed a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them. [Act 18:9-11 ESV]
How interesting is this?  God has "many" in this city.  And we know from Paul's two letters back to them later that they were about as messed up a church as you could be with their error filled ideas about Spiritual gifts.  Yet these were God's people, and he protected Paul and his friends from any Jewish retaliation here for 18 months to establish and ground this city in Christianity.  And yet...they were so messed up...what happened to them after those two letters I wonder?  So much time was invested here...

The Jews unite against Paul, and try to have him condemned by the Roman Pro-consul, Gallio.  This is also how they tried to get rid of Jesus - by charging him with civil crimes.  Gallio sees through it, knows it is about a religious disagreement, and runs them out of the tribunal.  In their rage, they beat Sosthenes right there in the tribunal chambers, and the Romans do nothing about it.  They tolerate violence if it is motivated by religion.  As we do today.  If it is about race it is a hate crime.  But about religion?  

After some more time, Paul sets off for Syria, and takes Priscilla and Aquila with him.  They stop in Ephesus, and Paul returns to the Synagogue to reason with the Jews.  So apparently vs 6 above applied only to Corinthian Jews?  (2021 - I have seen the overall pattern now.  Paul always went to the Jews first in a new place, no matter what had happened in the last place.)

We have a pretty short paragraph of Paul's travels from Corinth to Ephesus to Ceasarea and then to Antioch in Syria.  Basically, he "hurries" back to Antioch.  We aren't told much that happens, other than he promised those at Ephesus that we would return if he could.  It seems to me, from reading. that he isn't in Antioch very long before he is on the road again with his third journey "strengthening all the disciples".  This is a reprise journey it seems, going back the way he'd been before, dealing with problems, setting things right, and so on.  He follows the same route as he did on the second journey until he gets to Antioch Pisidia, and then he cuts across straight to Ephesus, making good on his promise at the first real opportunity to do so.

(2021 - Looking at this map of his journeys, it seems he visited Thessalonica three times.  He went on the second journey, then on the third he went through there to Athens (all by land) and then returned through there, also by land, and so with all those cities at the north end of the Aegean.  Phillippi and Berea were also visited three times each.  Paul bypasses Athens entirely on this third journey.)

We are introduced to Apollos, a powerful speaker, eloquent, and competent in the scriptures.  He refutes the arguments of many Jews in Achaia (the southern "island" of Greece, across the channel.)  when they will not accept that Jesus was the Messiah.  It says that Apollos knew only the Baptism of John.  He was also Jewish.  So should we think that when we first meet Apollos, he was unsaved, unbaptized in the Holy Spirit?  MacA's book on gifts says this was the case with those in Acts 19 when some were asked if they'd been baptized in the Holy Spirit.  They said only into John's baptism, and they got baptized again.  So if that is going to be the case in Acts 19, shouldn't it also apply to Apollos?  We are not told that Apollos got another baptism, not told he "became a true Christian" under the tutelage of Aquila and Priscilla...none of these things.  So...we could make the argument that MacA's whole assessment of Acts 19 is wrong because Acts 18 doesn't handle this very situation the same way.  Makes no big deal of it at all.  And in this verse:  25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. [Act 18:25 ESV]  Ahh.   Here is the answer.  Apollos understood that Jesus was the Christ, which is fundamental to salvation.  Those in 19 clearly had not connected that the Messiah had come, and that it was Jesus.  That's how this is explained.

I would also point out that Apollos is a non-apostle missionary.  He is an evangelist then, using the "gift" terms.  

2025 - And here is one more thing.  Alexandria is in Egypt, and at this very early time in the very first century, Christianity had already spread to that area.  It had been preached, it had been learned, and based on what we're told here about Apollos, understanding of the detail, of the depths of the Word, had been expanded.  Christianity did not spread to Africa by the white guys in the 12th Century.  It had been there a thousand years before they brought it.

Chapter 19
So, to set the scene...Paul met Aquila and Priscilla at Corinth.  When he leaves there for Antioch in Syria, they go with him.  They get to Ephesus.  Paul leaves Aquila and Priscilla there in Ephesus and he goes on to Syria.  While Paul is gone, Apollos shows up in Ephesus and meets Aquila and Priscilla.  Aquila and Priscilla perfect Apollos' understanding of scripture, and send him off as a missionary from Ephesus - not Corinth - to Achaia, where there is already a church, and he greatly helps them along in their understanding.  Now 19 starts with "While Apollos was at Corinth..."  But we didn't know that he was there, and we don't know when exactly he was there.  Was it before or after Achaia?  Paul arrives in Ephesus...and it almost seems as if Priscilla and Aquila have left that place also.  

Paul meets some believers who had not received the Holy Spirit.  They didn't even know there was one.  They had been baptized into John's baptism.  Paul explains things to them this way:
4 And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus." [Act 19:4 ESV]
So John's baptism was a forward looking baptism, and if that's where you are, then you have missed that the one to come after has already come.  You are still looking for the one who has already arrived.  As the Jews still do to this day.  These, who had been prepared for the one coming, upon learning that he had come, are baptized again, this time in the name of the Lord Jesus.  After this baptism, Paul lays his hands on them, and they prophesy and speak in tongues.  So the Holy Spirit comes, and does so in an externally demonstrable way.  When we have seen this before, it was associated with a precedent.  In the house of Cornelius, it was to show that the Gentiles were able to be saved.  What is the precedent set by these twelve men?  MSB notes say it was to show their inclusion in the church.  Those who had already followed John were believers in God, but not in Jesus, because they hadn't been told the One had come.  Upon hearing about Jesus - the gospel - they believed in Jesus and so were saved.  Followers of John the Baptist were not "complete" but also needed to join the baptism of Jesus, as part of the church, and at that time, they received the Holy Spirit.  This is a good argument that you are not part of the church until you receive the Holy Spirit, and once you receive the Holy Spirit, you are part of the church.  Necessary and sufficient in both directions.
2023 - But how are these Ephesians different from say the OT saints?  Those could only believe in a Messiah who had not yet arrived, just as those John baptized believed.  The difference must be that that these Ephesians were in that transition time.  They were saved by faith, in the measure of the working of the OT Holy Spirit - which fell on but did not indwell the regenerated.  But by the time Paul meets these men, the Holy Spirit had  come in NT power.  So maybe...in each case where the Holy Spirit is so visibly manifest...the real point is that the "state of salvation" of the receivers was insufficient.  Where they were was not "complete", not up to the New Covenant standard.  Does that work?  
Start with the Day of Pentecost.  The disciples, all 120 of them, we can assume had been regenerated.  They mostly  had believed in God before Jesus came along in their lives, but some had not - we have to wonder about the zealot, about Matthew.  But by the time of Pentecost they all had believed in God, and not only in a coming Messiah, but they also believed that Jesus WAS that Messiah.  They believed that the physical person Jesus  was the long awaited Christ.  They were already there on all this.  So WHEN the Holy Spirit came that day, and indwelled them all simultaneously, there were signs that said here is the promised Comforter, given to you, for all to see, that all may know the much increased extent of the power of God that MAY be given you in the world under the New Covenant.  I think it is important to note that NO ONE ANYWHERE had ever received the Holy Spirit as the indwelling earnest of salvation prior to this single day. AND, so far as we know, ONLY the 120 received it that day.  But isn't it reasonable to assume that ALL the truly faithful regenerate Jews - in Samaria, in Galilee, and Judea - received the Spirit that day, AS PROMISED TO ALL who believed?  Didn't that have to happen, even if Luke's interviews all over that part of the world at the time didn't reveal the indwelling of those who didn't speak in tongues, who weren't in big groups, and so on.  Just because Luke doesn't write it doesn't mean it didn't happen.  And remember, we are just exploring a possibility here...
2023 Continuing - Who's next then?  Acts 8 is next, where the preaching of Philip the Evangelist has been going on.  What state were these in?  Well...some of them believed in God, though they did not offer sacrifices in Jerusalem.  Some were not Jews, many were only partly Jews, and I suppose some old families had survived intact since the Assyrians.  Philip preached Jesus to these.  So let's talk about the ones among them who already had faith in God, had heard of Jesus since he had preached among them, but who did not understand that Jesus was THE Messiah until Philip told them so.  So these were regenerate believers who knew Jesus only as man before, but were now convinced by Philip that he was physically the Messiah of God.  It seems to me that upon believing this, they would have been indwelled with the Holy Spirit.  Apparently not in the visibly spectacular way the 120 were indwelled, but upon believing in Jesus, they received the earnest of salvation.  So Peter and John go to Samaria after hearing a report of what Philip is doing.  They see saved Samarian believers there.  They recognized that these were saved, and that the Holy Spirit was already in them.  BUT, to confirm this for all to see, during this critical time, Peter and John "impart" power to them via the working of the Holy Spirit.  The two apostles who had been there on the Day of Pentecost "pass on" some of the outward manifestations of the New Covenant Holy Spirit.  What was their reason for doing this?  They can apparently do this when they want, but they do not have to do it, and I think it is important here that Philip could not do it.  Could any of the 120 besides the apostles "pass on" the power at this volume?  We don't have ANY example of that.  
2023 - Still working on it - Next is Cornelius.  This man was saved under the Old Covenant most likely.  But we cannot be sure.  What we know for sure is that Cornelius was NOT a Jew.  But like Rahab, like the slaves of the Jews who adopted their beliefs, his faith saved him.  It is also likely that he had heard of Jesus and his miracles.  It is reasonable to assume that EVERYONE in JUDEA AND SAMARIA AND GALILEE at this time had heard of Jesus.  But they did not all understand who he was.  As Cornelius did not.  Peter goes to see him.  Peter preaches Jesus to him, Peter "perfects" Cornelius' knowledge, and what happens?  Upon hearing about Jesus and coming to believe in Jesus, Cornelius is indwelled by the completing presence of the earnest of his salvation, the Comforter indwells him, and his family who all believe at the same time.  And they speak in tongues.  So no laying on hands this time.  The Holy Spirit indwells and power is manifested upon full understanding of who Jesus is by Cornelius and his household.  Now this seems to be the same sort of completing knowledge the Samarians received when Philip preached Jesus to them.  The difference, the one and only glaring difference, is that no apostle was present in Samaria - until Peter and John came there.  The gifts, the tongues and the prophecies, only show up - so far - when an apostle is present, even though in Samaria, many were New Covenant saved by grace as a result of Philip's preaching.  So...we seem to be onto something here....
2023 - Keep going...Next is Paul at Ephesus in Acts 19 - today's reading.  These were believers in God.  We can safely say they were saved by faith, as much as any OT saint was saved by faith.  PLUS, they were expecting the Messiah.  Perhaps they had left Israel and gone "home" to Ephesus in the past, or maybe they were Jews who moved to Ephesus for other reasons.  The point is that they were a long way from where the crucifixion and resurrection took place, and so had not figured out, nor been told, that Jesus was the Messiah in the flesh.  They were saved, but Old Covenant saved.  Paul fills them in on who Jesus was.  Once they understand and believe, the would receive the infilling of the Holy Spirit, as all New Covenant believers receive him.  Following their belief, they are re-baptized in WATER first, as that was "required" for those who believed in Christ.  THEN AND ONLY THEN, Paul - an apostle - lays hands on them, and "passes on" the more intense power of the Holy Spirit to them and they speak in tongues and prophesy.
2023 - Summary of the above discussion.  Four events.  The original Spirit with power and tongues of fire, talking in tongues, and prophecy.  No healing, no knowledge, no wisdom....no other gifts beyond these two...the two spoken of by Joel.  Both apostles and non-apostles affected together at the same time.  This is the only instance where the tongues of fire and a rushing wind are mentioned.  In two places, the message of John the Baptist was that the one coming after him would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire.  I think we can safely say that John was only talking about the Day of Pentecost.  Exclusively.  This was a unique, one time event, not a "pattern" to be repeated forever.  The fire is the confirmation of that.  Now...in two of the remaining three, an apostle lays hands on people before the tongues and prophecy are manifest.  It was not a spontaneous thing.  Either Paul or Peter and John, DID something to "impart" a more powerful manifestation of the Holy Spirit.  They could do that BECAUSE the Apostles, the original 12, were unique and have never been "renewed".  So these incidents are not "patterns" for us to repeat either.  The power to convey the tongues and prophecy died with the apostles.  Then there is Cornelius.  I note that it says in Acts 10:44 that the Holy Spirit "fell" on them.  In vs 45 the Spirit was "poured out" on them.  There were no tongues of fire, no rushing wind, no laying on of hands. Since no fire and wind, this is NOT baptism in the Holy Spirit as foretold by John and it is not power passed on by the apostles.  BUT - when Peter reports on this back in Jerusalem, he characterizes what happened this way:  15 As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. [Act 11:15 ESV].  So from that, we have to conclude that this was a heaven sent annointing of the Holy Spirit - this was also baptism in the Holy Spirit.  Peter tells us it was the same.  But there are differences.  This was not the receipt of the Holy Spirit indwelling after salvation, but an outpouring from heaven on the Gentiles in this household.  BUT EVEN SO, no tongues of fire and no wind...this was NOT as powerfully manifest as what happened on the Day of Pentecost.  I think I will choose to understand this as confirmation from God that the Gentiles also are able to, and WILL receive miraculous power direct from God when and as he chooses to give it.  So...two of the incidents are "power in mission" incidents, and two are at what we might call apostolic discretion.  In the latter cases, the gospel message had been "perfected" by preaching, and we can make a good case that water baptism had occurred in both cases.  These only spoke in tongues after the laying on of hands by an apostle.
2023 - So what does this mean for us today.  First, don't expect any more Day of Pentecost events.  John gave us ONE of those, and I think Cornelius is a "God" thing, with the same visible results as Jewish Pentecost but showing that power is also given to the Gentiles.  Second, don't expect to speak in tongues after someone lays hands on you, because there are no apostles around to do that.  So to my thinking, none of these four incidents give us anything that we can reasonably say is a pattern for future believers.  
2023 - And that brings us to the original question.  What then is going on with the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements?  And is it valid to "require" speaking in tongues as a proof of baptism in the Spirit?  There is much in the NT about the gifts of the Spirit.  They come with indwelling.  We do not need to go to extravagant lengths to explain them in terms of the Day of Pentecost.  These are NOT that.  Therefore, no second experience is required of anyone, and most certainly speaking in tongues is not a "proof" of any second experience.    The Pentecosts, deliberately or not, exert great pressure on their members to display the gift of tongues.  They train their members in how to do it, in what it ought to sound like to be real, they are encouraged/pushed/coerced even, to just do it.  SOME, but I would say a low percentage, may be true spiritual gifts showing up...but I think most of it is more akin to "mass hypnosis".  As for the charismatics...yeah, I think they are along the same lines as those in the first century that were into "ecstatic" experiences - dervishes, chant induced trances, transcendental experiences and so on.  These are looking for the physical experience.  Some are surely saved.  But I distrust their "signs".  And the Vineyard?  I would want to know a lot more about it than I do, but I suspect that is about money.  that it is an experientially based mega-church that exists to make a few people very very rich.   And lastly...baptist don't do a lot of speaking in tongues because we don't seek after non-Biblical expectations of what God "ought" to do.  We are not the only ones that don't do much speaking in tongues.  A lot of denominations don't do it either.
COPYING THIS to the notes on Grudem Chapter 39.

It just seems very clear from all this that Aquila, Priscilla, and Apollos had left very little in the way of a church in Ephesus.  Even Paul's teaching had not caught on enough for organic growth.  He gets back, and it is almost as if he had never been there.  He seems to just have to start over.  

Paul stays in Ephesus, where he met these twelve men, for two years.  Many are converted.  He is run out of the synagogue, and teaches instead in the Hall of Tyrannus.  Apparently a public building that served for a time as a church.  Paul taught them daily!  It says right here that from Ephesus, "...all the residents of Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks."  What an epicenter - from which the word reached all that region, every person.  So we also see that Paul spent the most time - at least so far - with the church at Corinth and the church at Ephesus - where the apostle John is going to end up also.

Paul is doing miracles while he is in Ephesus.  This would be to confirm his teaching was from God.  We have not been told that Paul did these sorts of miracles at Corinth, but from the place that reached all of Asia, many extraordinary signs and wonders.  They rub handkerchiefs on him, and take the hankys to the sick, and they are healed of their diseases.  Testimony to Paul's legitimacy as an apostle.  

Some craftsmen who make a living creating statues of Artemis (Diana) are concerned that if everyone abandons idol worship, they will all go broke.  So for financial reasons, they conspire.  Ephesus was home to a large temple dedicated to Diana.  Likely it was an attraction that brought "pilgrims" to Ephesus and they spent their money on statues of Diana.  Naturally, they would have been more powerful if they came from the city where Diana's temple was.  Makes sense, right?  So they fleeced a lot of tourists this way and became wealthy.  Paul is so successful preaching the gospel here, and the miracles he's doing are so widely known, that these artisans consider it a real possibility that the demand for their hand made idols may drop to zero.  Worse, they may be looked down upon for having made these idols for their living.  This enrages these men and they stir up the whole city, likely with rioting and shouting in the streets and such.  They grab Gaius and Aristarchus, traveling companions of Paul's.  Guess they were just unlucky enough to be located.  There's a "mob" in the theater, all in an uproar with a lot of them not even knowing why they are there.  The town clerk finally gets everyone's attention and tells them if they have evidence of a crime, they can present it, the courts are open.  He reminds them that everyone knows the temple of Diana is in Ephesus.  And he tells them if they don't look out, they are the ones who will be charged with crimes this night.  

And they all calm down and go away...

Chapter 20
Chapter 19 ended with the town clerk quieting the mob in Ephesus, who were upset that Paul et al were going to convert so many from worshiping Artemis to worshiping God that they would go out of business.  They had truly gone "mob" and rioted and done damage to private property and so on.
(MSB chapter notes indicate that Romans was written from Corinth.  The way the Chronological Bible is broken up would indicate that both 1 and 2 Cor and Romans were written from Ephesus on this second missionary journey.  Note that the end of Acts 19 says that Paul was doing tremendous miracles while he was in Ephesus - implying that he was exactly where God wanted him to be during this time.  I really really need a better chronology of Paul's journeys, showing not only where he went, but how long he stayed and what letters he wrote from there.  I felt like Paul's chosen topics in Romans made very much sense in light of that book being written from Corinth during all the problems there.  But now I'm back to The Chronological Bible, which seems to say it was written from Ephesus.  Barclay's little green book on Romans also says it was written from Corinth, in 58 AD.  So I'm going with that.  Makes really good sense to me that way.  So when, in his journeys, was he in Corinth?  He was there on his second journey and again on his third.  My map with dates for each journey says that in 58 AD, he was not traveling at all.  58 AD was after his third journey.  The long stay in Ephesus was before he went on to Corinth, via the churches in Greece/Macedonia and then down to Corinth, in Achaia.  Then all the way back to Jerusalem to deliver the offerings from all the churches.  So...pretty much had to be this third trip, whatever the dates were, if he wrote from Corinth.)

Once things are quiet, Paul meets with the disciples there in Ephesus, and then he leaves for Macedonia.  He sort of circles through Macedonia, encouraging the believers in the churches there, and ends in Greece, where he stays for three months.  As he prepares to return to Syria via ship, he learns of a Jewish plot against him, and so goes instead by land, back through Macedonia.  

Paul preaches until midnight in Troas, and a youth named Eutychus falls asleep and falls out a third story window to his death.  Paul raises him from the dead.  In ESV, it says of those gathered that they were "not a little comforted" by this.  It does not say they were amazed and thousands were converted.  This seems not to have been done as a witness but as an undoing of a random accident.  Could be Paul didn't preach so long after that.

The journey's details are given, each days stop.  Paul is in a hurry to get to Jerusalem by Pentecost, and so skips stopping in Ephesus/Asia.  However, he does send word to the elders of the Ephesian church and asks them to meet him in Miletus.  He tells them that he doesn't know what will happen exactly in Jerusalem, but he knows he will meet with imprisonment and afflictions.  He also tells them that he knows he will never see any of them again.  He tells them to be on guard because the wolves are coming in to their church, and they must be ever alert.  Paul won't be around to help them.  He is handing the reigns over to the elders.  At the end of the meeting Paul kneels and prays with them all, and they are very sad that they won't see him again.  They go to the ship with him and see him off.

Chapter 21
On this ship they go all the way to Patara.  They change ships there and embark to Phoenicia.  They pass Cyprus on the left and arrive at Tyre.  In Tyre, they were telling him "through the Spirit" not to go to Jerusalem.  Perhaps they knew he would be imprisoned and afflicted, just as Paul was already aware.  How though did he know to over ride their warnings and go on?  How was the message not "If you go this will happen" instead of "this is going to happen but you must go anyway".  I don't know how you would ever be able to tell, and surely having others warn you not to go would make the right course even more difficult to determine.  But Paul goes on.

2023 - Note that Luke is telling this in narrative format.  In vss 1-6 he uses "we" 9 times.  Luke is telling us about these events as a first hand observer, not as an interviewer.

Once he arrives in Ceasarea, they stay with Philip.  (2023 - Philip the evangelist, who was sent to the Ethiopian eunuch, and went to Samaria where John and Peter came and laid their hands on them later.  Philip had apparently settled in, or was from, Ceasarea.  It says Philip is one of "the seven".  What does that mean?  Where did that come from?   I did a search on "the seven" and it is surprising how many times the term is used in the Bible.  Here are a couple:  11 saying, "Write what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea." ... 20 As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches. [Rev 1:11, 20 ESV].  Seven churches, stars, lampstands, and angels.  Philip is none of these.  So...MSB refers us back to Acts 6:3 and the selecting of the first seven deacons.  One of them was named Philip, and Stephen was another.  Presumably, this is the same Philip.  MSB also argues that the seven were all evangelists.  MSB says "Stephen and Philip clearly were evangelists, not deacons."  But...weren't they choosing deacons?  I do feel pretty sure though that "the seven", as used here, includes Philip in the seven chosen that day.)  A prophet named Agabus does the belt thing, telling Paul he will be bound in Jerusalem.  They all urge him not to go. But he tells them he is going anyway, and is willing to die there if that's what is coming.  So again, he sets aside the counsel of many and does as he believes God is leading.  How did he know?  Did he have it right?  We really don't know.  2021 - He had it right.  Of course he did.  He was an apostle, and all the prophets that told him not to go, the friends, and so on, were subject to him, not the other way around.  We saw in 20:22 that Paul was "bound in the Spirit" from the time he started back to Jerusalem.  (2023 - one of the definitions of the Greek word translated "bound" in this verse is "put under obligation, of the law, duty, etc.  So Paul understood that just because others also had insight into what awaited him in Jerusalem, didn't mean he could shirk his obligation to go, as revealed to him by the Spirit.)  He knew first hand from God what he was to do, and no prophecy would or could over ride what God had revealed to one of His Apostles.  So these prophecies of doom and gloom were just confirmations of what was to come.  Paul said he didn't know what awaited him, he just knew he had to go there, and had prepared himself for anything - up to and including  his own death.  The word from these prophets just filled in the part God had not imparted to Paul.  To perhaps allow him some clues as to what to prepare for.  Surely this prophecy from Agabus, saying that Paul would be bound and turned over to the Gentiles, eased his mind a little as to whether he faced death in Jerusalem.  First, at least, he would be bound and imprisoned.  That's what all this was about.

Paul reports to James, in the church at Jerusalem, and all the elders of that church, and they hear his report.  They glorify God at the converts that have resulted from Paul's ministry.  And then this:
20 And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law, 21 and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs. [Act 21:20-21 ESV]
Many in the churches Paul has started, and many in the Jerusalem church,  are Jews who still hold rigidly to the Law of Moses.  James is allowing this...which is sort of what we saw at the end of Romans.  Don't weaken the immature Christians who are not able in good conscience to forsake the Law, though it is expired.  But now they are discussing what "must be done" to keep the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem itself from turning against Paul.  How could it be in this state?  
They urge him to support four men monetarily who have taken a vow "under the law" in some way, and so show that he, Paul, himself is still an observer of the Law of Moses.  They want him to recant, basically, all he has taught the churches abroad about the Law, both Jew and Gentile, and about freedom in Christ.  They want him to deny he's done so!  

2022 - So here is the way they justified this.  It was here all along, I just hadn't seen it:
24 take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law. 25 But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality." [Act 21:24-25 ESV].
In Jerusalem, they were allowing JEWS to continue in JEWISH adherence to the Law of Moses.  In their way of thinking, the decision of the Jerusalem Council, years earlier, had only been about what Gentiles were required to do.  Gentiles did not need to be circumcised or make sacrifices or observe the dietary laws.  But it was OK with the Jerusalem church if the Jews there - thousands of them - continued to belong to two churches.
They ask Paul to pretend that he himself is still a practicing orthodox Jew, and has only allowed this relaxation of the Law where Gentiles are concerned.  And Paul agrees to do this.  Was he in distress over being urged to do this?  After all it was Jesus' own brother and the elders of the "home church" who are urging him to do so.  But he had to know it was wrong.  How many other apostles were also still at the Jerusalem church when this all happens?  Do we know the year?  Do we know who was left?  John might well have already been gone to Ephesus, Matthew could have left town...perhaps it was only James that was still there.  It is hard to read this acceptance of the two-church system as anything but a local compromise to keep the peace, and it is hard to see it as anything but a grave error.  
It perhaps makes some sense in the context of God's greater plan to blind the Jews during the Age of the Gentiles, so that even this founding church, in the city of the Temple, was doomed from the start to failure, and it was in fact the distributed churches which were to maintain the true gospel.  Christianity was given to those in darkness, NOT to the hometown Jews, who had so aggressively rejected it.
Do we have any evidence, from smarter readers than me, that Paul had an inkling that this is what was really going on?  Looked at from the long view, Paul ends up taking the gospel to a lot more Gentiles as a result of what went on in Jerusalem that day.  All the way to the seat of Gentile government and power, and in fact he makes many converts in that Gentile church in Rome.  Finally, pulling back to this much broader context, I can see some sense in Paul's actions.  Perhaps his refusal to do as the prophets in the various places were telling him as he made his way toward Jerusalem is foreshadowing that when he did take the advice of James and the elders, disaster followed immediately - and provided him transport all the way to Rome, and many opportunities to witness in the various halls of power in the Gentile world.

2021 - I just plain do not understand this.  Paul hasn't taken anyone's advice about how he shouldn't go to Jerusalem.  But when he gets to Jerusalem, he takes the advice of James and the Elders to present himself as still maintaining compliance with Mosaic Law, up to and including offering sacrifices on behalf of himself and others.  This after what he has said about being slaves to the Law or free in Christ - and making it very plain which is the best option.  Even in light of the teaching at the end of Romans, about not obstructing the journey from slavery to freedom or from idolatry to freedom, of new Christians, how can Paul do this?  How can he not stand firm that the Law is dead, gone, unnecessary and  unneeded by either Jew or Gentile, until the end of the age?  Sorry.  This just feels to me like abject failure on the home stretch.  It just does.

Paul does as they ask.

When it is nearly time for him to go to the temple and present an offering there for each of the four men, he is recognized in the Temple by some Jews from Asia who still practice the law.
I had not thought of this before, but believing Jews in the church at Jerusalem who were still "zealous for the law" would be going pretty much daily to the Temple also, and they were making the sacrifices there that the Law required.  They were in two churches at the same time.  And James and the elders were apparently not preaching against this at all, nor trying to impress upon them that the law and circumcision were no more.  Paul's teaching on this - despite the ruling of the Jerusalem council years before as to Gentiles - is pretty much ignored as to the Jews.  Ignored.

They get the whole city in an uproar, physically bodily drag Paul out of the Tempe (heartbreaking for him) and bar the doors behind him.  All this after he agrees to pretend to behave like a practicing orthodox Jew.  They are in the process of beating Paul to death - without even a semblance of a trial - when the Roman's arrive to restore order.  Were these indeed members of the Jerusalem church doing this, or were these non-believing temple Jews that had opposed Paul while in Asia and don't want him preaching his "heresies" in the heart of Judaism?  We don't know specific identities.

The Roman Tribune arrests Paul and tries to find out what he is accused of, believing he may be the Egyptian leader of a recent revolt.  The mob is too unruly for him to get to the bottom of the accusations, so the Tribune takes Paul to the barracks.  The mob follows, shouting for him to die.  A familiar tactic of the Jews at this time in history.  As they are about to go in, Paul gets permission to speak to the crowd.  This is granted, and amazingly, the crowd quiets down to listen to him.  He speaks to them in Hebrew.

2023 - I still do not understand Paul's decisions in this chapter.  Two things make sense to me.  His decision to pretend he is still an orthodox Jew, practicing two religions at the same time as so many Jews in Jerusalem are doing, absolutely blows up in his face.  We know that you cannot serve two masters, yet many Jews were doing so, and Paul is about to pretend he is among them.  And it naturally backfires, because it was the wrong thing to do.  However, look where it leads?  Paul ends up in Rome, preaching the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles there.  Paul's terrible mistake is God's plan for saving some who might never have received the gospel otherwise.  And second, the point I made above about the Jew's being blinded...how many of the Jews claiming Christianity while making sure they didn't lose their business connections in the Temple were in fact just being pragmatic.  How many of the thousands that James talked about are really saved?  Could it be that the Jerusalem church, while it was the hub from which the apostles spread the gospel, was never really intended to last, because after all, Jesus had told them the Temple would be thrown down.  And to me, the double punishment was still to be fulfilled.

Chapter 22
2022 - This first verse:
1 "Brothers and fathers, hear the defense that I now make before you." [Act 22:1 ESV]
Even my ESV has NO FOOTNOTE here, claiming that Paul actually meant brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers.  He did not mean that here any more than he means brothers and sisters elsewhere when he says it.  The word is adelphoi, just as it is elsewhere when he says brothers.  In that culture, men spoke to men, not to other men's wives and daughters.  It just wasn't considered proper.  When we get that ESV footnote, we are imposing the "mores" of our culture onto that culture.  We should not do that!
2023 - This following verse:
4 I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and delivering to prison both men and women, [Act 22:4 ESV].  Here is a good example to show that when Paul means  both men and women, Paul knows how to say that in Aramaic!  He surely knows how to say it in Greek also.  We are adding to the Bible when we append "women" to what Paul said instead of explaining that what he said is correct in his culture.  When we do this, we are opening the door to all kinds of attacks on the Bible based on the actions of OT characters who did things we would "never do" in today's culture.  Besides this being a lie anyway, we ought to insist that actions be "judged" in light of the culture in which they happened.  We cannot apply today's standards to those of the ancients.  Furthermore, the behavior of the ancients does not disqualify the teachings of today!  It isn't a two-way street!  The counter to the argument I am making is that in say, Assyria, there were many cultural things that were clearly wrong to us, but were inside the cultural box of the time.  Was that ok?  No.  We are NOT saying in either case that these things were "right".  The Patriarchs sinned, and so did the Assyrians.  But there was NO Holy Spirit indwelling the Patriarchs, and Abraham had no Bible to tell him what to do.  His morals were dictated by his culture and modified by direct verbal direction from God.  Do not let the Bible's truth be impugned by such a puny argument.

2022 - And this verse:
2 And when they heard that he was addressing them in the Hebrew language, they became even more quiet. And he said: [Act 22:2 ESV].  There is a footnote to this verse that says "Or the Hebrew dialect (probably Aramaic).  I didn't realize that Hebrew and Aramaic were related, so I looked it up and found this:
Hebrew and Aramaic are sister languages from ancient times, and both are still spoken today!  Modern Hebrew is the official language of the nation of Israel and is also spoken by about 220,000 Jewish Americans. Biblical Hebrew is used for prayer and scripture reading in Jewish communities around the world.  Aramaic is still spoken by Jewish Kurds and other small groups living in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey.  (The whole article is here:  https://biblereasons.com/hebrew-vs-aramaic/ ).  This explains how it was that Jesus sometimes used Aramaic.  There is also some Aramaic in the book of Daniel, and this article says we now know that the Babylonians used and spread the language.  (That fact may have been in a different article...but I read it this morning.)  I also remember reading that modern criticism claimed Daniel was written after the fact BECAUSE it was in Aramaic.  That argument was killed by Babylonian use of the language.  Those who deny the Bible must deal with the prophecies in Daniel.  They are too accurate to have been made before they happened - unless they are true prophecies from God.  So modern criticism has to make Daniel a much later book, inserted as if it were written in the old days, or bow to Daniel's true prophecy.

Paul recounts his conversion on the road to Damascus.  We learn in this story - at least I learned - that Paul was baptized right after his sight was restored.  I think that is recounted earlier also, but as he tells the story, Paul includes his baptism into Christ.  
2022 - This verse:
16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.' [Act 22:16 ESV].  "...and wash away your sins...".  How are we to explain this  if we want to claim that baptism is just a ritual, and technically unnecessary to salvation?  "Wash is "apolouo", Strong's G628.  It is only translated wash or wash away in the KJV.  The word is only used twice in the NT.  Here is the other place, also Paul:
11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. [1Co 6:11 ESV].  In this verse, the washing is by the Spirit, so baptism of the Spirit is in view.  But in Acts, it is water baptism that is in view, unarguably.  In Acts, it is Paul himself who is giving us the details of his baptism, as he was instructed by Ananias, who was "a devout man according to the law" - a Christian still practicing the Law while a follower of the Way?  
The point is that this is a very very sticky verse to deal with for those who would demean baptism to ritual only.  Surely this verse says it is MORE than that!

2024 - Also, in vs 16 just above, note that "wash away" is in the aorist middle imperative.  (I also note that "be baptized" is also aorist middle imperative.)  As is so often the case where there are two possible interpretations and no real way of "winning" on either side, the aorist tense - which CANNOT BE DIRECTLY TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH - is at the middle of the dispute.  Just reading the definition of the aorist tense gives an idea of the difficulty of interpretation in English:
"Is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time. There is no direct or clear English equivalent for this tense, though it is generally rendered as a simple past tense in most translations. The events described by the aorist tense are classified into a number of categories by grammarians. The most common of these include a view of the action as having begun from a certain point ("inceptive aorist"), or having ended at a certain point ("cumulative aorist"), or merely existing at a certain point ("punctiliar aorist"). The categorization of other cases can be found in Greek reference grammars. The English reader need not concern himself with most of these finer points concerning the aorist tense, since in most cases they cannot be rendered accurately in English translation, being fine points of Greek exegesis only. The common practice of rendering an aorist by a simple English past tense should suffice in most cases."
In this case it is in the middle voice: "Denotes that the subject is both an agent of an action and somehow concerned with the action."  I think in this verse the implied subject is Paul, as in Paul, get yourself washed.  So Paul is the one who will carry out the baptism and it is himself that will be washed.  This surely ought to tell us that water baptism is not something God does to save us.  It is something we do because the NT commands it.  
Last but not least, this is in the imperative mood: "Corresponds to the English imperative, and expresses a command to the hearer to perform a certain action by the order and authority of the one commanding. Thus, Jesus' phrase, "Repent ye, and believe the gospel" (Mk.1:15) is not at all an "invitation," but an absolute command requiring full obedience on the part of all hearers."  This is pretty unarguably clear.  No matter what you might decide to believe about what baptism is and about why we do it, Ananias does not offer it here as a choice Paul needs to make.  It is instead a "do it right now" command.
I can't help but think that the complexity generated in translating the aorist into English very often obscures the plain and simple idea that is being conveyed.  Paul, now that you can see again, the VERY NEXT thing you need to do is get baptized in water.  Do that, and then dig as deeply into it as you care to dig...but this is not a choice, it is a command.

Paul says that later, as he was praying in the temple, God warned him that the Jews wouldn't listen to him, and God sent him to the Gentiles far away. 

2024 - I did not remember that Paul had been given this information about the Jews in Jerusalem.  Paul knew from the beginning that they would pursue him, and God tells him outright that they will "win" if he stays in town.  So it is no wonder Paul was aware of what might await him when he returned at this time.  You also have to wonder why nothing much happened earlier when Paul was in Jerusalem for the Council meeting.

When the Jews hear this, they turn back into a mob.  They will not hear that their God sent Paul to the Gentiles.  Their God would never do this.  Who are these men???  Unconverted Jews I would hope.  But the culture in Jerusalem is obviously still strongly Jewish, and the "peer pressure" to keep the law - even as converted Christians - would be intense.  These guys will kill you if you aren't careful.  
2021 - Further, the Jerusalem church was well aware of Gentile conversions, and after their council they had sent a letter to the Gentiles to "quiet" the controversy over whether Gentiles should observe the Law, and giving them a pretty good pass on the subject.  So...either since that time the church at Jerusalem had become far more legalistic and it was the accepted way to behave, and these were church members who go back into their uproar when Paul says he preaches to Gentiles...or, the mob was mostly unconverted Temple Jews with no thought whatever of hearing Paul's real message.  

So, as the crowd's murderous intent begins to heat up again, the Tribune brings Paul inside.  Determined to get the truth from Paul, they decide to flog him.  And rather than be flogged, Paul tells them he is a Roman citizen and that they are about to flog him without trial. This upsets them.  Even the Tribune is now afraid because he has bound Paul with two chains, though he hasn't been charged with any crime.

The next day, the Tribune brings Paul to the Jewish council, determined to find out what Paul is accused of that has so stirred up the city.

Chapter 23
Paul begins to speak, and Ananias, the high priest, has him struck violently.  Paul asks how it is that he is to be judged by the law if the man doing it has had him beaten against the law?  Paul doesn't seem to realize that this is the High Priest.  Paul notices that both Sadducees and Pharisees are present, and declares himself a Pharisee to divide and conquer.  This works, somehow, and the contention gets so high that the Tribune is afraid they're going to tear Paul apart.  The Tribune gets Paul out of there.  Then that night, back in the barracks, this verse:
11 The following night the Lord stood by him and said, "Take courage, for as you have testified to the facts about me in Jerusalem, so you must testify also in Rome." [Act 23:11 ESV]
The quotes are in red in my ESV.  These words indicate that what Paul is doing is in harmony with God's plans for him.  This is how Paul will get to Rome.  However, it could be that this is all things working together for good, though Paul shouldn't really have been in Jerusalem in the first place.  Why would he be warned by so many not to go if he was indeed supposed to go!?

2021 - Here too it just seems to me that Paul is resorting to "worldly" tactics to keep himself alive.  This Roman Tribune is his savior in these repeated confrontations.  Paul's testimony in Jerusalem - as much as they let him get out - was that the voice that spoke from heaven was Jesus of Nazareth.  The Jews believed only God could speak from heaven like this.  So Paul had said to the Jews that Jesus was God incarnate.  This is the testimony, and this is why the Jews were so infuriated.  So...perhaps Paul was making a few mistakes along the way - one being that he never should have posed as a keeper of the Law, another being his appeal to the Tribune as a Roman citizen, and now playing Pharisee against Sadducee to prevent them agreeing that he should die  - but his testimony is true, unaltered, uncompromised, and infuriating to the Jewish establishment.  This was the High Priest and his cronies.  These were not Jewish Elders from the Jerusalem Church.  

2022 - Jesus had told his disciples not to plan ahead what they would say when persecuted by civil authorities.  He had told them he would give them the words they needed.  Perhaps Paul was just heeding that injunction.  Perhaps God was indeed putting words in his mouth each time he was brought before a decision making body.  I find it interesting that up until Paul starts for Jerusalem, he was the one making the decisions.  That is to say, he would pray, and go as the Spirit led.  We see this over and over in his decision making.  But once the tribune arrests Paul outside the temple, all decisions about his future are in the hands of men...and mostly in the hands of Gentiles/Romans/unbelievers.  So this is a sea change in what we have seen before.  We have to believe that Paul ignored the warnings of so many because God was telling him, as an apostle, that he had to go to Jerusalem.  To this point, Paul has always heeded the Spirit's guidance.  He has to know that the prophecies warning him about Jerusalem were testimony to others that he was hearing directly from God.  He was an example of going into the lions den, despite warnings, if that is indeed what God is telling you to do.  And if we go that far, we must also assume that Paul's words - and the sequence of events that resulted from his words - were also part of God's plan to get him to Rome.  I mean...the council the tribune takes him to has to be made up of some very intelligent - though unbelieving - men.  Yet they fall for this "trick" Paul uses to put them at odds with each other, and they all leave sense behind and are apparently about to attack each other also in their zeal to do something about Paul.  Surely they would have recognized what Paul was doing and laughed at him for his tactics...unless God blinded them to his real intent...and indirectly to His own intent.

Forty Jews vow not to eat or drink until they have killed Paul.  Such evil intent.  Such unquenchable error.  In the name of religion.  They plot with the high priest and the council - all conspiring to kill Paul.  But the plot is revealed to the Tribune by Paul's nephew.  The Tribune organizes a large party of soldiers - two hundred with spears, seventy mounted - to move Paul out of Jerusalem and to Governor Felix in Caesarea.  He sends a letter with the group.

So Paul is taken to Caesarea, and Felix agrees to give him a hearing when his accusers arrive.

2022 - This verse:
26 "Claudius Lysias, to his Excellency the governor Felix, greetings. [Act 23:26 ESV].  this begins a "transcript" of the letter from a Roman tribune, who's name we finally learn, to the Roman governor in Ceasarea.  I think Ceasarea is in a different Roman "state" than Jerusalem.  Jerusalem in is Judea, Ceasarea is near the border between Samaria and Galilee.  This would seem definitely to be a different jurisdiction...although Rome could have appointed Felix governor over all three states.  How though, did Luke get hold of the actual letter that was sent?  He pretty much quotes it word for word.

Chapter 24
Chapter 23 closed with the Tribune transferring Paul by night to Governor Felix in Caesarea, to prevent the conspiracy to kill him from succeeding.
As this chapter opens, it is five days later, Ananias the High Priest has come down, and his spokesmen Tertullus - his DA - is there to do the talking.  Briefly, they say Paul is a "plague", stirring up Jews all over the world, and that he tried to profane the Temple itself but was stopped.  Many other Jews present assent to these charges.  Then Paul is given leave to speak.  

2024 - Note that verse 7, where the "lawyer" throws some shade on the Centurion..or Tribune...Lysias, that kept Paul from being killed by the mob at the temple, is not included in early manuscripts.  I don't see that it really adds or subtracts from the story, but one has to wonder why it would be included later, but not when the story was first written down?  Perhaps at first, Lysias was still in charge of keeping the peace in Jerusalem and they feared reprisal for this "lie" they told about him to Felix.  Surely it is possible that Lysias' career was somewhat diminished in that they imply that if he had just left them alone, they wouldn't now be bothering Felix.  This Tertullus was very devious, leaving no stone unturned to incite ill will toward Paul from the Governor.

Paul says he was in Jerusalem 12 days before his arrest by the Jews.  During that time, was he preaching in the streets, disputing in the temple, or in any way causing a disturbance?  In fact, he wasn't making a disturbance when they beat him in the temple, but was recognized by Jews from another part of the world - Jews not present to lay their charges before Felix for consideration - and it was they who stirred everything up.  But of one thing Paul pleads guilty - He follows the Way, and he serves God, and he believes in a resurrection of both the just and the unjust.

Felix knows about The Way.  So he decides to put off a judgement until Lysias, the Tribune, comes down.  Felix puts Paul under limited custody, and his friends are allowed to visit him.  MSB fills in some background.  Felix knows about the Way perhaps because his wife Drusilla is Jewish.  Since the original accusers didn't bother to show up, and since Paul had broken no Roman laws in Jerusalem, Felix hasn't heard any evidence of a crime, so his verdict would have had to be not guilty.  This would have infuriated the Jews.  So Felix decides to wait on more information from Lysias, who had already sent a letter saying Paul had committed no crime.  That is, Felix was more interested in keeping peace in the province than doing justice to Paul.  

Paul remains in prison in Caesarea for two years!  They converse often, and Paul presents the gospel to him many times.  To no avail apparently.  Felix is hoping Paul will offer him money for his release.  It doesn't happen.  After the two years, Felix is succeeded by Porcius Festus.  Again, to "do the Jews a favor" Felix leaves Paul in prison for Festus to deal with.

Chapter 25
When Festus arrives in Jerusalem, "the chief priests and principal men" try to persuade Festus - as a favor to them - to bring Paul to Jerusalem for trial.  They are planning an ambush to kill Paul en route.  So after two years, their hatred is still so active that they bring Paul to the attention of a new governor.  Two years!  Festus says no.  Says he is soon going to Caesarea, and for them to come with him and he will hear their case against Paul there.

2024 - For clarification, Paul was the prisoner of Felix in Caesarea,  then of Festus.  Festus, as the new governor replacing Felix, arrives in Jerusalem.  As this reads to me, the Jews in Jerusalem try to convince their new governor to fetch Paul from Caesarea to be tried in Jerusalem for crimes committed in Jerusalem two years prior, and jurisdiction for which is now in Festus' hands.

2024 - This verse:
6 After he stayed among them not more than eight or ten days, he went down to Caesarea. And the next day he took his seat on the tribunal and ordered Paul to be brought. [Act 25:6 ESV].  So Festus goes to Caesarea and takes the accusers with him.  He takes his seat on the tribunal (the bema).  This Tribunal was a Roman legal assembly, a "court of Rome", and the regional governor, Festus in this case, presided over this Roman court, seated on a bema.  

A couple weeks later, Paul is brought before Festus, and accused of many things by the Jews.  None of the accusations can be proven.  Festus wants to get off on the right foot with his new charges, and suggests to Paul that he consent to a transfer to Jerusalem for trial before him there.  Paul says there is nothing there that isn't right here, and that Festus knows very well that Paul has done nothing.  So it seems Festus was willing to let the "ambush" take place on the way, bringing no provable guilt on himself, yet doing the Jews a very large favor.  Paul, sensing that the deck is stacked and no justice is to be had, appeals to Caesar.  This is Festus' out.  He agrees to send Paul to Caesar himself.

2024 - In vs 9, Festus tries to get Paul to agree to a change of venue, moving the whole procedure back to Jerusalem.  This is actually an attempt to transfer jurisdiction from a court of Rome to a court in Jerusalem, likely presided over by the High Priest.  The idea is to change from Federal to State, or even down to local, jurisdiction.


23 So on the next day Agrippa and Bernice came with great pomp, and they entered the audience hall with the military tribunes and the prominent men of the city. Then, at the command of Festus, Paul was brought in. [Act 25:23 ESV]
Some time after, Agrippa the King and Bernice show up in Caesarea and greet Felix.  (Some MSB notes on these two characters is relevant.  Agrippa's great-grandfather was Herod the great, king when Jesus was born, killer of children, builder of Herod's temple.  His great-uncle is Herod Antipas, the "Herod of the gospels".  His father, Herod, is the one who had killed the apostle James and imprisoned Peter.  So Agrippa knew much of the history of the region.  And then there is his "wife", Bernice.  She was not his wife, but his sister, and their incestuous relationship was known to all, and the subject of much gossip in Rome.  Their sister Drusilla, was Jewish, and married to Felix, the former governor, who had wooed her away from her first husband.  Bernice later became the mistress of Emperor Vaspasian, and then of his son, Titus - who conquered Jerusalem in 70 AD and tore down the temple.  She must have had something....So these are the people in charge of "justice" somewhere.  Agrippa's authority as King did not extend to Judea....but he had connections and was likely shown great respect by Festus.)
A FB post?  Justice in Paul's day?

2024 - Given that Agrippa is King, not just governor, he may well have been over the entire region.

Felix and Agrippa discuss Paul's case, and Agrippa asks if he can hear Paul speak.  It is arranged for the next day.  Agrippa and Bernice made a great show of appearing.  Felix says that though he is sending Paul to Caesar, he himself finds him guilty of nothing at all, and so does not know what message to send to Caesar concerning him.  So Agrippa is going to hear Paul, and then the two of them come up with a message.  These people are very political.  Felix has now included a more prominent person - a King not just a governor - and so halved the blame if Caesar is angered by the arrival of Paul with no charges against him.  What a move!

2022 - Twice in this chapter Luke uses the word "bema", and in both these cases it is translated "the tribunal".  The definite article is used in both places.  "the bema".  The translation seems to indicate that a specific seat or a throne was in view, rather than some committee who's purpose was to judge.  The authority to judge seems to belong to Festus alone.  I note further that this was not a judgment of better or worse, but a proceeding where capital punishment was to be considered if Paul was found guilty.  This is in fact what the Jews wanted - either that Paul be found guilty, or that he be sent to Jerusalem so they could kill him on the way.  This is NOT the way bema seaters define a bema judgment, but there is little doubt about its meaning in these verses.  

Chapter 26
2024 - It occurred to me yesterday that most of Acts is really "The Biography of Paul of Tarsus".  Luke starts off pretty generally about the start of the church, but at some point in Acts, it becomes all about Paul.  This shows us how important Paul was considered to be by those in his own time.  He was known world wide, when you think about it.  Perhaps only the Emperor of Rome was more widely recognized by name.  And yet...the church was to be built on Peter.  Surely this proves that Jesus' meaning when he told Peter that was not quite what we think it was.  The rock was the gospel, NOT a man, NOT the first pope...that just doesn't make sense in light of what we see in Luke about Paul, and given the number of NT books written by Paul.

Paul starts by praising Agrippa, saying that he knows Agrippa is familiar with Jewish culture and will understand.  Then Paul points out that he was a Pharisee - the strictest sect of Judaism - and that he was active in persecuting, and even voting to kill many who followed the Way.  He says the Jews are upset with him over his belief in the resurrection.  I believe he is shifting this to a dispute between the Pharisees and Sadducees, which would be of no interest at all to Rome.  

2024 - But is this really what Paul's persecution was about?  Sure on the day they grabbed him in the Temple he seized upon the idea of pitting Pharisee against Sadducee but the charges that started it all were that he had violated the Temple by bringing in a Gentile.  Which had not occurred at all.  And that was really incidental to the upheaval of preaching Christ crucified and risen to the Jews, and of preaching that the Law need not be followed anymore.  He was accused generally of transforming Judaism to Christianity, and specifically of defiling the Temple.  Yet here again he says his only "crimes" is believing as the Pharisees believe and that it is the Sadducees who are accusing him, not the Jews in general.  And none of his "judges" ever seem to figure that out.
Ahhh...he finally does get to the real reasons beginning in 21.

Now Paul shifts to the Damascus road, and the revelation given to him there.  Paul says his "new mission", to proclaim Jesus, is not just some change of mind, but a command from heaven itself.  I like this verse:
20 but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance. [Act 26:20 ESV]
This puts the lie to being able to just keep on living like the devil after salvation.  You can do that, but Paul would tell you that you were doing it wrong.  That is not repentance.  It seems that one can do that, but there is no reward for it.  
2023 - Repent, in this sentence is present tense, and turn is aorist infinitive - rarely noted in my studies but not "rare", giving the sense of purpose or result.  We make our decision to repent and the result is this "turning" that results.  Our outlook changes, our values change, our "purpose in life" changes.  The  result of true repentance is always to turn away from sin and as a result of that profound turning we go forward determined to serve God in all that we do.  This not because we HAVE to serve him, but because we will desire to serve Him.  So repentant  people are not "doing good deeds" to earn a place in heaven but because God changed us at the moment of our repentance into the kind of people who seek always after the "right" thing to do.

It does not, it can not mean, that we repent of what we've done up to this point, wiping the slate clean, and then begin anew to accumulate the same sorts of Godless actions of which we have already repented.  Repentance is a change of mind, not a payment to a debt collector so he won't bother you for a while!
Paul points out that it is for this reason - for preaching repentance and a Godly life - that the Jews seized him.  Here is the verse:
21 For this reason the Jews seized me in the temple and tried to kill me. [Act 26:21 ESV]  Paul does not mince words here.  He tells them that his arrest by the Jews is because of a disagreement - a violent, hate-filled, death-seeking disagreement - between he (Paul) and the Jewish religious hierarchy and leading (rich) Jews in Jerusalem.  It is not about Roman law being violated, not about inciting riots, and not about loyalty to a king besides Caesar.  It is about an internal, non-political, non-civil question of religion.

Then the gospel is summarized for Agrippa:
22 To this day I have had the help that comes from God, and so I stand here testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would come to pass: 23 that the Christ must suffer and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles." [Act 26:22-23 ESV]
Testifying to what was already in the Scriptures though a mystery, now revealed at the appearing of Jesus the Messiah, and bringing light to the darkness for Jew and Gentile alike.  For all.

Festus says loudly that Paul has to be out of his mind.  "Your great learning has made you mad".  Paul says he is not mad, and that Agrippa - whom he is actually addressing - has knowledge of all these things, including the resurrection and the gospel.  Paul asks Agrippa directly whether he believes what the prophets said.  Agrippa's answer implies that he does indeed know what they said:
28 And Agrippa said to Paul, "In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?" [Act 26:28 ESV]
Agrippa knew he was being preached to, that he was being offered salvation.  Paul says he would that all present would believe.
These "extra" notes from 3/29/20 as to this passage:
Agrippa...almost.  How many who have wandered. How many  disillusioned, should see this upheaval as an opportunity to be  persuaded?
Hmm...I had this all wrong.  Th KJV and NKJV are quite different from ESV, RSV, and so on.  NKJV reads this way:
28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, "You almost persuade me to become a Christian." [Act 26:28 NKJV]
But in contrast, 
28 And Agrippa said to Paul, "In a short time you think to make me a Christian!" [Act 26:28 RSV]
RSV  is representative of the alternate translations of this verse.  They  indicate that Agrippa thought it silly that Paul would try and convert  him with just a single "sermon".  His disbelief was strong, and he was  telling Paul it just wasn't going to happen.  Here is the ESV:
28 And Agrippa said to Paul, "In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?" [Act 26:28 ESV]
Agrippa  is clearly implying that it will take a lot more than one appearance to  convert him.  A pretty common attitude for the closed minded.

Agrippa rises first, then the others, and they withdraw.  In private, Agrippa says that Paul is not guilty of anything, and could have been set free had he not appealed to Caesar.  An aspersion on both Felix and Festus for being too spineless to dispense justice?  Like Agrippa has a lot of room to talk!

27
A Centurion named Julius is in charge of the prisoners - several - being taken to Rome.  Luke is using "we" here, and says "we were accompanied by Aristarchus, a Macedonian from Thessalonica.  We see this name is at least one of Paul's letters that I remember.  So it looks like Paul was allowed traveling companions as he was taken to Rome. 

The winds are not very favorable to them as their journey continues.  Sometimes they even have to put in to port and wait for better winds.  They arrive in a place called Fair Havens, near Lasea, which on the south side of the island of Crete.  Because of the slow going, they are in danger of encountering storms and such, and Paul advises them to winter in Lasea, and continue later.  The Centurion follows the advice of the pilot and the ships owner instead.  They set off, aiming for a different port on Crete, more suitable for wintering over.

Their idea was to hug the coast and so make it just a few more miles to this other port - Phoenix.  But a "northeaster" - that's the term used in the ESV, comes piling in from the land side of the ship.  They cannot get turned toward the wind - likely because they were so close to land, and so have to let the wind drive them along.  It would seem to me that it would drive them far from land, moving SW from Crete.  They get to a small island called Cauda.  There is a lot of ship talk about various things they tried to make themselves safe.  They were unsuccessful.  The next day they start throwing cargo overboard, then they throw even the ships tackle overboard.  It is dark day and night for many days in this storm.  Cauda is south of Crete, toward the west end. 

An angel appears to Paul and tells him he must stand before Caesar, and that all those with him will be saved also, but the ship will be lost.  This storm continues for two weeks.  They get near land, and are afraid of running aground.  The Centurion and the soldiers get into a boat, pretending to set out more anchors, but in reality, planning to abandon those on the ship using the small ships boat.  Paul tells them that if they do this, they will die.  So they cut the boat loose and stay on the ship.

Paul has them eat something since they've had nothing for 14 days.  He assures them again that they will all survive this.  It says there were 276 men aboard.  The footnote says some manuscripts say 76, others say "about 76".  They lighten the ship yet again by throwing over the wheat into the sea.  MSB sides with the 276, saying this was a large vessel.

The ship wrecks on a beach.  The soldiers decide to just kill all the prisoners, rather than get into trouble for letting them escape.  These were difficult times!  The Centurion wants to save Paul though, and shuts down their plan.  All manage to either swim or float on boards to the beach.  All survive, as Paul said they would. 

28
They learn that they are on Malta.  This is significantly to the west of Crete.  They were driven hundreds of miles by the storm, and are now south of Sicily.

The local people help them build a fire.  Paul puts wood on the fire, and a snake bites him, hanging on to his hand.  The locals decide he must be a murderer to escape the sea and then get snake bit.  Paul shakes the snake off and has not ill effects for a long time.  So they decide that instead of a murderer, he must be a god. 

Paul heals the father of the island's main landowner, Publius.  When the rest of the island hears of it, they bring all the sick to Paul and he heals them all.  He heals the whole island!  They re-provision a ship for them, so they can continue their journey.  Wouldn't Julius have reported this upon delivering Paul to Rome?  Again, even great signs and wonders are not enough to sway unbelievers.

They set sail from Malta three months later, on a different ship that had wintered there in Malta.  After storm season I imagine. 

They make several more stops and are met at "Three Taverns" by some "brothers" from Rome.  Once they get to Rome proper, Paul is allowed to stay with the soldier guarding him.  Seems this didn't even qualify for house arrest.  He was trusted, and allowed to go about his own business in Rome.  How did things go from here to martyrdom??? 

Paul speaks first to the Jewish leaders in Rome - not the church leaders.  He tells them he has appealed to Caesar to avoid being killed by the Jews.  They say they've received no ill reports about him firsthand or by mail.  But they want to know about this "sect" that is everywhere spoken against.  Obviously, this question would be from Roman Jews, not the church at Rome. 

On an appointed day, Paul spends all day showing them Jesus in the Law and the Prophets.  Some believe, but some do not.  I get the feeling the majority do not.  Paul ends with a quote from Isaiah saying that they will hear but not understand, see but not perceive.  Seems he's kind of rough on them, sending them off on a sour note, rather than wanting to know more.  Is this a lesson for us, when we've tried and failed to lead someone to Christ?  Or is this because they were Jews, and Isaiah foretold that the Jews would be this way as part of God's wrath toward them for breaking the covenant.  Paul tells them that he will go to the Gentiles instead, because at least they will listen.  This is not the first time that Paul has been so frustrated with the local Jews in a place that he just stopped trying with them and turned his full attention to the Gentiles there.

This is likely what turned things against Paul.  The Jews turned against him, the Jews saw the numbers converting, saw Christianity as a rival religion not as the truth revealed.  They would certainly have had much influence in Rome, as they always do everywhere in high places.  They likely turned the government against Paul, likely communicated with the Jews in Jerusalem and so on.  This is what happened, I would bet.

He lived there two more years, in his own hired dwelling, talking with anyone who came to see him.  These verses ends the book:
30 He lived there two whole years at his own expense, and welcomed all who came to him, 31 proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance. [Act 28:30-31 ESV]

No winding down, no stories of conversions, nothing about getting acquainted with some in Caesar's household.  Acts just stops.