Login
Home » Resources » CSS Acts Q & A » Q & A: Acts 11-15

Q & A: Acts 11-15

Acts Q & A Chapter 11

Question: If God knew the people could not meet or (fail) why then was the Law or the old covenant given?

Answer: There are several reasons that God gave the Law even though he knew no one could fulfill it perfectly. Only under the New Covenant, with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the Sacraments, and the grace of God can the Law of Christ be fulfilled. But, the Old Covenant was a necessary foundation to prepare for the coming of the New, the fulfillment of the Old.

First, the Law of Moses kept a curb on peoples’ actions. It demanded high moral conduct to cause people to restrain their sinful impulses—which they would never do without the imposition of the Law. It was also a matter of honor and obligation. The Jews said, and I paraphrase: “To what other people has God revealed himself and revealed what he expects of them.”

Second, the Law of Moses, along with the ceremonies and rituals, kept Israel distinct from the other nations as a people holy for God. It was to prepare them for the coming Messiah and the New and Eternal Covenant. Through the Law and the Prophets the people would expect and hopefully recognize the Messiah when he appeared.

Third, the Law was a nursemaid to bring the people to the saving grace of God. It demonstrated to them their need of a savior. Paul informs us that the Law restrained the conduct of people (which is good and necessary) and was like a nursemaid, tutor or custodian to bring us to Christ. In Galatians 3:23-25 Paul says,

Now before faith came, we were confined under the law, kept under restraint until faith should be revealed. So that the law was our custodian until Christ came, that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian. (Galatians 3:23-25, RSVCE).

On this matter the Catechism of the Catholic Church states,

This divine pedagogy appears especially in the gift of the Law. God gave the Law as a “pedagogue” to lead his people towards Christ. But the Law’s powerlessness to save man deprived of the divine “likeness,” along with the growing awareness of sin that it imparts, enkindles a desire for the Holy Spirit. The lamentations of the Psalms bear witness to this” (CCC 708).

Question: Reading the notes on this chapter there is mention of Jesus speaking to a multitude of Gentiles in Mark 3:21. How do you come to the conclusion that they are Gentiles?

Answer: The crowds gathering around Jesus in Mark 3 were both Jews and Gentiles; and since there were many thousands of people, there was a multitude of Gentiles gathered to listen and to be healed along with Jews.

“Jesus withdrew with his disciples to the sea, and a great multitude from Galilee followed; also from Judea and Jerusalem and Idumea and from beyond the Jordan and from about Tyre and Sidon a great multitude, hearing all that he did, came to him.” (Mark 3:7-8, RSVCE).

We are told that the people gathering around him in Mark 3 were not only from Judea and Jerusalem, but also from Idumea (Edom), from beyond the Jordan (including Gadara), and from Tyre and Sidon (Phoenicia to the north, outside of Israel). These were Gentiles lands outside of Israel, though they presumable had a Jewish population, which shows Jesus’ increasing interest in spreading the Good News to those outside the land of Israel and not of Jewish heritage. And would we assume that only Jews would flock to Jesus who was healing, casting out demons, feeding the crowds and teaching? Of course not. We are certain that Gentiles were also flocking to Jesus (e.g., Mark 7:24-37).

As stated in the Jerome Biblical Commentary concerning the mention of Tyre and Sidon, “[The] Phoenician coastal towns, lying outside Jewish territory, serve to show Jesus’ interest in the non-Jewish world, a theme developed in Mark 5:1-20; 6:31-8:10” (Brown, R. E., Fitzmyer, J. A., & Murphy, R. E. (1996, c1968). The Jerome Biblical Commentary (2:28). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall).

Question: This question deals with page 136 of the study notes where you say: “Jesus abolishes in the flesh the 613 ordinances and decrees of the Torah”. Mt 5:17, Jesus says he has not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. In reviewing the 613 ordinaces, I can see where many are ‘man-made’ and could be considered as abolished by the live and death and resurrection of Jesus, but so many are related to what Jesus teaches. Is the key to understanding your comment “in the flesh”? Or is your statement an ‘over-statement’ of Jesus’ re-defining of the ‘laws’ by which we are to live?

Answer: Here I will defer to St. Paul in his letter to the Ephesians,

“For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end.” (Ephesians 2:14-16, RSVCE)

Jesus fulfilled the law for us, since we could never fulfill it ourselves. The Law and the ordinances condemned us who were crushed under their weight. He abolished their condemnation of us in his own flesh, both by obeying them perfectly and by removing their condemnation by bearing that in his own body on the cross.

Question: This question relates to page 137 of the study notes where you say: the Greek word for “called” is one that suggests the disciples are ‘transacting business’ as Christians.” In checking the Greek lexicons and a concordance, the Greek (chrematiso — warn; direct, instruct; reveal, disclose; be called, have the name of (Ac 11.26; Ro 7.3) is only used with meaning of “called” in two places– here in Acts 11:26 and in Rom 7:3; the other uses are translated as warned. Where is it defined in the sense of ‘transacting business’ ??

Answer: I have over 30 Greek Dictionaries and lexicons on my laptop, mainly in my Logos Bible Study Software for Catholics. I could produce a number of entries, but this one from Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testaments Words should suffice:

3. chrematizo (?????????, 5537), primarily, “to transact business,” then, “to give advice to enquirers” (especially of official pronouncements of magistrates), or “a response to those consulting an oracle,” came to signify the giving of a divine “admonition” or instruction or warning, in a general way; “admonished” in Heb. 8:5, kjv (rv, “warned”). Elsewhere it is translated by the verb “to warn.”

The word is derived from chrema, “an affair, business.” Names were given to men from the nature of their business (see the same word in Acts 11:26; Rom. 7:3); hence, the idea of dealing with a person and receiving instruction. In the case of oracular responses, the word is derived from chresmos, “an oracle.” See call, reveal, speak, warn” (Vine, W. E., Unger, M. F., & White, W. (1996). Vine’s complete expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words (2:13). Nashville: T. Nelson.).

Question: My question is related to one already addressed, but slightly different. On page 134 of the study notes, you mention that “relatives try to persuade Jesus to come out of a house where he has been preaching to a multitude of Gentiles.” Referring to Mark 3, how do you surmize that the house was ‘filled’ with Gentiles since the Gospel does not specify whose house?

Answer: First one has to realize that the Gospels work together. Mark may not mention that “home” (Mk 3:20) is Peter’s house, but we know that from Luke. Jesus took up residence in Peter’s house in Capernaum. While I am standing at the foundations of Peter’s house in Capernaum in my documentary “Peter, Keeper of the Keys,” I say, “This is Peter’s house, but it is also correct to say this is Jesus’ house since it was his home during his ministry in Galilee. So we know it is Peter’s house.”

In Mark 3:7-12 we are told the crowds were not just from Judea and Jerusalem but also from the Gentile areas of Tyre and Sidon, Idumea and beyond the Jordan. In

Mark 3:20-21 says, And he came home, and the crowd gathered again to such an extent that they were not even able to eat a meal.” Home was Peter’s house in Capernaum and the crowds were a mixture of Jews and unclean Gentiles.

Question: This question refers to the Study guide, page 134, first paragraph. there it states: Luke is a Gentile who’s been brought into the Church through Paul’s preaching.” Where in scripture does it say this? A search of the New Testament finds that Luke is only referred to 3 times, and in all cases, they refer in the context of calling Luke a fellow-worker.

Answer: The reason we believe that Luke is a Gentile comes from Colossians chapter 4. Yes, Luke is only mentioned three times, but in this passage you must read the context. What does Paul say about the circumcision, remembering that “those of the circumcision would refer to Jews.

Here is what we read,

Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin of Barnabas (concerning whom you have received instructions—if he comes to you, receive him), and Jesus who is called Justus. These are the only men of the circumcision among my fellow workers for the kingdom of God, and they have been a comfort to me. [Those just listed are “the only men of the circumcision among my fellow workers, which means those he will now mention must be of the uncircumcision, or Gentiles] Epaphras, who is one of yourselves, a servant of Christ Jesus, greets you, always remembering you earnestly in his prayers, that you may stand mature and fully assured in all the will of God. For I bear him witness that he has worked hard for you and for those in Laodicea and in Hierapolis. Luke the beloved physician and Demas greet you.” (Colossians 4:10-14, RSVCE)

A few reference works to confirm:

Identified here as a physician, he is significantly not named among the Jewish Christians; he was apparently a Gentile convert (cf. 2 Tm 4:11; Phlm 24) (Jerome Biblical Commentary).

Identified here as a physician, he is significantly not named among the Jewish Christians; he was apparently a Gentile convert (cf. 2 Tm 4:11; Phlm 24) (Baker New Testament Commentary: Colossians and Philemon).

Question: One of the class members answered the question about the translation of Barnabas’s name with the response, “He was called Barney, the preacher.” After the class laughed at what we thought was a joke, he showed us that in his modern translation, the Living Bible, that is indeed what it says. How liberal are they allowed to be and why doesn’t it mention “son of encouragement” or something close?

Answer: I have always said it is dangerous to read paraphrases since they tend to deviate greatly from the original text and are subject to corruption and personal bias. They also tend to trivialize the actual intent and meaning of a passage. All I could see after reading that was the big purple Barny preaching on PBS.

I have the latest versions of both the Living Bible and the New Living Translation. In neither of them do I find Barnabas referred to as Barny or Barney the Preacher. However, I have an older edition from 1971 that does say “For instance, there was Joseph (the one the apostles nicknamed “Barny the Preacher”!”

It seems they may have corrected this egregious paraphrase in subsequent editions. It now reads “For instance, there was Joseph (the one the apostles nicknamed “Barnabas, the encourager.” He was of the tribe of Levi.”

Depending on the person doing the paraphrase, any amount of liberalism or wandering from the actual text can be expected. Tyndale had no desire to be “liberal” I wouldn’t think. He was trying to be cute and contemporary but in doing so he seriously missed the mark on this one. One must be selective in the translation used. I recommend using a number of Catholic translations side-by-side: e.g., NAB, RSV-CE, and Jerusalem Bible. The Navarre Bible is also excellent.

Barnabas means “son of consolation” or “Encouragement” and it has nothing to do with preaching, unless you equate preaching with consoling which we are not told that Barnabas did.

Acts 12

Question: On page 146 0f the Study Guide, the following statement is made: “… was one of Jesus’ cousins, probably a son of Mary’s sister.” What is the source of the statement of Mary having a sister?

Answer: My words in the Study Guide state “The Church has taught that James the Righteous most likely was one of Jesus’ cousins, probably a son of Mary’s sister.”

The information comes from the gospel of St. John:

John 19:25 “So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.”

Question: On p. 147 it states that during certain feasts as many as 2 million people might have been at the temple. How is this physically possible? And how many people actually inhabited that part of the world at that time?

Answer: I quote from my book St. John’s Gospel: A Bible Study Guide and Commentary:

“Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles were the three compulsory festivals of the Jews. To the Passover in Jerusalem Jews came from the ends of the earth.… At such a time Jerusalem and the villages round about were crowded. On one occasion a census was taken of the lambs slain at the Passover Feast. The number was given as 256,000. There had to be a minimum of ten people per lamb; and if that estimate is correct it means that there must have been as many as 2,700,000 people at that Passover Feast. Even if that figure is exaggerated, it remains true that the numbers must have been immense” (Barclay, Gospel of John, 2:115). John tells us the “the great multitude who had come to the feast” gathered palm branches and “went out to meet [Jesus]”. Imagine such a large throng of people marching into Jerusalem with Jesus.

Question: The class was fascinated by Fr. Winslow’s discussion of the tomb of St. James. We know that St. John is buried in Ephesus and that St. Peter is in Rome. We are wondering if you know where the other apostles are buried.

Answer: I can attest to most of these as I have visited their burial sites. I have added a few “non-apostles” that I know of from visiting. Some of the others are not entirely certain. An * means the bones are in Rome.

ANDREW lies buried at Amalfi (Naples).
BARTHOLOMEW,* at Rome, in the church of Bartholomew Island, on the Tiber.
JAMES THE GREATER was buried at St.Jago de Compostella, in Spain.
JAMES THE LESS,* at Rome, in the church of the Holy Apostles.
JOHN, at Ephesus.
JUDE,* at Rome.
MATTHEW, at Salerno (Naples).
MATTHIAS,* at Rome, under the altar of the Basilica.
PAUL, * at Rome in Church of St. Paul Outside the Walls.
PETER,* at Rome, in the church of St. Peter.
PHILIP,* at Rome.
SIMON or SIMEON,* at Rome.
THOMAS, at Ortona (Naples). (? Madras.)
MARK THE EVANGELIST is said to have been buried at Venice.
LUKE THE EVANGELIST is said to have been buried at Padua.
BARNABAS on Cyprus
STEPHEN * in Rome at Church of St. Lawrence

Question: Was James the Righteous an apostle? Could he become the first bishop of Jerusalem without being an apostle?

Answer: He was either the brother of our Lord (cousin or near kin) or James the Less, one of the Apostles. I answered this is some detail under Chapter 15 Q & A. One does not have to be an apostle to be a bishop. Both Timothy and Titus were appointed bishops without being apostles, in the strict sense of the word.

Acts 13

Question: Would the Gentiles at the synagogue in Antioch of Pisidia be considered Hellenic Jews since they have not undergone circumcision? If not, what is the difference? Thank you!

Answer: The verse in question is Acts 13:43 and I quote it in the NASB translation because it is more literal in this case than the RSV-CE.

“Now when the meeting of the synagogue had broken up, many of the Jews and of the God-fearing proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, were urging them to continue in the grace of God.” (Acts 13:43, NASB95)

Gentile Christians could not be Hellenistic Jews. Hellenistic simply means one who has adopted the Greek language and culture. A Hellenistic Jew is an ethnic Jew by birth who is part of the Diaspora—the scattering of Jews throughout the Greek and Roman world. These Jews spoke Greek and lived in the Greek culture, even though they most often maintained the Jewish religion and practices..

However, some of the Gentiles were with the Jews and heard Paul preach. They were of two categories: “God fearers” and “proselytes.” A God-fearer was a Gentile who believed in the God of Israel and worshipped with the Jews but did not submit to circumcision. A proselyte on the other hand was a Gentile convert to Judaism who had submitted to circumcision.

Question: We were told that the translation of “Saul” is “desired” and the translation of “Paul” is “small.” Doesn’t that seems more like a name change than a translation from Hebrew to Greek?

Answer: Saul the Pharisee or Paul the Apostle?

Paul did not have a name change from Saul to Paul. He had both names from the beginning. The name Saul was his Jewish name. He was named after the first Israelite king named Saul, who like Saul the Pharisee was also from the tribe of Benjamin. But because Saul was also a Roman citizen he had a Roman name which was Paul. Actually his names were Saulus and Paulus.

In his early life while associated with Judaism and the Pharisees he was mostly referred to as Saul, but starting in Acts 13 when he begins his missionary journeys to preach to the gentiles, he uses his gentile or Roman name—Paul (see Acts 13:9, 13).

From my script in my DVD “Paul: Contending for the Faith”:

“STEVE: When Paul was a little boy, playing in the streets here in Tarsus, he didn’t have just one name, he had two names. Paul or “Paulus,” was his Roman or Latin name, and it meant “small” or “short” and it may have been a description of his physical appearance. But, then of course he also had his Jewish name: Saul. He was named after the first king of Israel, King Saul who lived a thousand years earlier.

“STEVE (CONT’D): During the first half of Paul’s life, he used his Jewish name, Saul. So, as we explore his early, formative years, we’ll follow his lead and do the same.”

Question: In the Commentary on lesson 13, page 160, it is stated that “Luke writes that John Mark abandoned Paul and Barnabas and returned to Jerusalem when the group was at Perga in Pamphylia (Acts 13:13).” Is John Mark, the writer of the Gospel of Mark…. or is he John, the Evangelist (brother of James, sons of Zebedee) who wrote the Gospel of John, Revelation, 1st John, etc. There is confusion about his identity. Thanks for your response. Barbara Melanson, Baltimore CSS.

Answer: This John Mark IS the author of the gospel of Mark. He is a disciple of Jesus (Acts 12:12, 25; 13:5, 13), a convert of Peter (1 Peter 5:13), and fellow worker with Paul later (Colossians 4:10-11; 2 Timothy 4:11; Philemon 4), and a cousin of Barnabas (Colossians 4:10). We learn in Eusebius’ History of the Church that Mark was in Rome with Peter in the 60’s and wrote Peter’s gospel for him. He later went to Egypt and founded the church there.

Question: Why did Yahweh pick a chosen people anyway?

Answer: God planned to bring a Savior Messiah into the world. To do this he needed to prepare humanity for the event. To do so he chose a people through whom to work. Since his Savior and Son would be born of a woman, he had to prepare an ancestry and family tree for his Son. He had to chose and prepare a special people. He would prepare them, make promises to them, give them a law and code of conduct and eventually bring his Son through them. Had he not had a chosen people he would not have had the vehicle through which his Son would be anticipated, born, recognized, and a people who would then carry the message to the world, as the apostles did. For an excellent book on this topic, read Roy Schoeman’s book Salvation is from the Jews.

Question: You mention on page 176 that “Symeon” is a Greek variation of the Hebrew name “Simon.” This made me wonder if the Symeon who was called Niger, who was sitting in Church with Lucius of Cyrene, could in fact be Symeon of Cyrene or Simon the Cyrene who helped Jesus carry his cross. Is there any such speculation about his identity?

Answer: Yes, there is the possibility that Symeon in Acts 13 could be the Simon the Cyrene, especially since the word Niger can relate to the dark skin color and thus it is assumed that Symeon was of African descent. Cyrene is in Africa. The New Bible Dictionary states, “Simon: a man of Cyrene who was compelled to carry the cross of Jesus (Mk. 15:21), possibly the Simeon of Acts 13:1.” The Anchor Bible Dictionary states, “This African connection has led to speculation that he is to be identified with Simon of Cyrene (Luke 23:26).”

Acts 14

Question: Steve, what can we assume happened to Barnabas, while Paul was being stoned? ~Terry DeMao

Anything we could suggest would be purely speculation. Here is the appropriate passage:

But Jews came there from Antioch and Iconium; and having persuaded the people, they stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing that he was dead. But when the disciples gathered about him, he rose up and entered the city; and on the next day he went on with Barnabas to Derbe. Acts 14:19-20.

Since Paul was the spokesman, it would seem they rushed Paul and grabbed him – ignoring Barnabas – and stoned him. Later all the disciples were gathered around while he was under the stones and probably Barnabas was with them.

Question: In Acts 14 we have the situation with Paul appointing elders. What authority did Paul as an Apostle have to do with anointing others to be elders – we consider him an Apostle today – he is not a priest. By the way when were they called priests – were elders then acting as priests??? This is an amazing question. When did we get priests and when did we get Bishops and who then, in the early church, had the authority to go around, laying hands on others.

Answer: I answered this somewhat for a question asked in Acts 8. The Church was in a stage of development at this time. It resembled the bud, whereas the mature church today represents the fully developed and opened flower. Up until the moment Peter decided to institute the office of deacon, there was not such office. There were only the apostles acting as bishops, priests and deacons themselves. As the Church grew, the need for the office of deacon was recognized and therefore instituted. Development was taking place. While the Church was small the Apostles could function well as overseers—bishops—by themselves. But as the Church grew the deaconate was instituted and also the priesthood developed to include not only bishops, but elders or priests to serve with the bishops.

In the NT the word overseer is used frequently. In Greek for overseer is episkopoi from which we get our word Episcopal, or office of bishop or overseer. In Acts 1:20, referring to the replacement of Judas, Peter says For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and ‘His office let another take.’ In the King James Version the word “office” is actually translated “bishoprick” since the underlying Greek word is episcopoi or episcopal.

Paul writes to the Philippians around 62 AD, addressing the letter to the “bishops and deacons.” A bishop could easily preside as the priest of a small local church but as it grew to include many hundreds and even thousands, the need also grew for more elders or priests to serve the people. By the end of the first century we find St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the Apostles themselves, referring to an established hierarchy throughout the local churches. He reveals that there was a bishop with his priests and deacons.

Paul was an apostle, but the first apostles ruled as bishops, overseers, and they routinely appointed priests and other bishops to rule in the churches.

Peter was an apostle, and so would fit into the following explanation in the Catechism:

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. “The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.” This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

Question: Does your response to the first question mean that Judas Thaddeus is either the son or brother of James, son of Alphaeus?

Answer: Easton’s Bible Dictionary says, “Thaddaeus—the name of one of the apostles (Mark 3:18), called ‘Lebbaeus’ in Matt. 10:3, and in Luke 6:16, ‘Judas the brother of James;’ while John (14:22), probably referring to the same person, speaks of ‘Judas, not Iscariot.’ These different names all designate the same person, viz., Jude or Judas, the author of the epistle.” The Anchor Bible Dictionary says, “The reference to Judas, not Iscariot, in John 14:22 probably refers to Thaddeus.”

Question: In Luke 6:16, ‘Judas the brother of James;’ which James is this referring to?

Answer: I’m not sure what this has to do with Acts of the Apostles, but the James mentioned in Luke 6 is an unknown. As the New Bible Dictionary says, “An otherwise unknown James who was the father of the apostle Judas (not Iscariot) in the Lucan writings (Lk. 6:16; Acts 1:13; the other Gospels have Thaddaeus instead of Judas).

Acts 15

Question: Which James is the presiding Bishop of Jerusalem in Acts 15? Is he the Apostle James? The Catholic Encyclopedia seems to think so: There is, at any rate, very good ground (Galatians 1:19, 2:9, 2:12) for believing that the Apostle James, the son of Alpheus is the same person as James, the brother of the Lord, the well-known Bishop of Jerusalem of the Acts. After all, Jerusalem has been considered an Apostolic See, has it not?

Answer: We are told that the Apostle James was beheaded in Acts 12:1-2. This execution took place several years before the Council of Jerusalem. James was killed before Paul set out on his first missionary journey which lasted about two years.

The James who is the presiding bishop of Jerusalem in 49 AD when the Council of Jerusalem took place (Acts 15) was the “brother of the Lord.” Of course we understand this terminology to refer to the cousin or step brother of our Lord since Mary was an Ever-Virgin (see Catechism 499-500). This is the James who wrote the Epistle of James and presided as the local bishop of Jerusalem, being the successor of Peter in the chair of Jerusalem. According the Doctor of the Church, St. John Chrysostom,

“And if any should say ‘How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?’ I would make this reply, that [Jesus] appointed Peter teacher not of the chair, but of the world … (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 88.1-2, pp. 331-332).

The words of Pope Benedict XVI are instructive on this matter,

Beside the figure of James “the Greater,” son of Zebedee, of whom we spoke last Wednesday, another James appears in the Gospel, who is called “the Less.” He also forms part of the list of Twelve Apostles chosen personally by Jesus, and is always specified as “son of Alphaeus” (cf. Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 5; Acts 1:13).

He has often been identified with another James, called “the Younger” (cf. Mark 15:40), son of a Mary (cf. ibid.), who could be Mary of Clopas present, according to the Fourth Gospel, at the foot of the cross together with the Mother of Jesus (cf. John 19:25). He was also from Nazareth and probably a relative of Jesus (cf. Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3), who, after the Semitic manner, was called “brother” (cf. Mark 6:3; Galatians 1:19).

Of this last James, the book of Acts underlines the pre-eminent role played in the Church of Jerusalem. In the apostolic council held there shortly after the death of James the Greater, he affirmed together with the others that the pagans could be received in the Church without first having to undergo circumcision (cf. Acts 15:13). St. Paul, who attributes to him a specific apparition of the Risen One (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:7), on the occasion of his trip to Jerusalem names him directly before Cephas-Peter, describing him as a “column” of the Church together with him (cf. Galatians 2:9).

Afterward, the Judeo-Christians considered him their main point of reference. To him in fact is attributed the Letter that bears the name James and is included in the New Testament canon. He does not present himself as the “Lord’s brother,” but as “servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (James 1:1).

There is a debate among scholars over the identification of these two personages of the same name, James son of Alphaeus and James “brother of the Lord.” The evangelical traditions have not preserved for us an account of one or the other in reference to the period of the earthly life of Jesus. The Acts of the Apostles, instead, show us that a “James” carried out a very important role within the early Church, as we already mentioned, after the resurrection of Jesus, (cf. Acts 12:17; 15:13-21; 21:18).

Question 15: Our class has asked for resource information…we would like some maps indicating the travels of the apostles … also recommended resources on the culture of the Romans and Jews during this time period….any suggestions would be most welcomed.

Answer: For maps on St. Paul’s Journeys check out this website: http://www.ccel.org/bible/phillips/CN092MAPS1.htm

I have a list of recommended material for studying Acts on my website here.

Two books on the biblical times that I recommend for all my pilgrims:

Daily Life in the Time of Jesus here, and of course there are many books about the culture and times of the Jews and the Romans available and a Google search would also provide good references, as would www.wikipedia.com.

Question: Please tell me which Leviticus reference in Question 6 refers to “abstaining from what is strangled”? None of the references seem to relate to “strangulation.” I know it will come up in the discussion tomorrow so thank you in advance.

Answer: Here are some passages dealing with strangulation and the eating of flesh with the blood still in it. Gen 9:4; Lev 3:17; 7:26; 17:10, 14; 19:26; Deut 12:16, 23; 15:23; 1 Sam 14:33. Jews were required to drain the blood from the animal immediately after killing it. Thus they would cut an animal’s throat and immediately drain the blood out. This is still required for kosher slaughter and cooking today.

If an animal is strangled, there is no way for the blood to be drained from its body before preparation for eating. Thus strangulation is viewed as an illicit way to kill an animal because then the one who eats it is also consuming the blood.

Question: In our discussion of questions 1 and 2 we seemed to sense a conflict in the suggested responses. #1 saying not possible to keep the law, #2 saying “he is bound to keep the whole law.” What are we missing or not understanding? Thank you and God bless.

Answer: The Mosaic Law was seen as a yoke around the neck. Even after centuries of struggling under this heavy yoke, even the Jews had failed miserable to obey it. Obedience to the law was impossible since even breaking one law made them violators of the whole law. Only Jesus was able to fully obey the law.

However, now that we have the indwelling Spirit of God and the grace of the sacraments, we are able to obey the new law of Christ. We are not only now able, but we are commanded to obey the law of Christ since he now gives us his Spirit and the grace to obey.

The question in Acts 15 is whether the Gentiles had to first be circumcised according to the law of Moses and obey all 613 commands along with the ceremonies and other obligations. Paul says NO. Even the Jews failed to live up to this law. Using the Mosaic law as a means of salvation was utterly hopeless. The Gentiles could become children of God through faith, not through circumcision and slavish obedience to the laws of Moses.

And as baptized believers filled with the Holy Spirit and living in the heart of the Church, they could now obey the law by the grace of God.

Question:

In ACTS of the APOSTLES, Chapter 15, page 182, there is this comment – Toward the end of his life, Luther himself was distraught by some of the effects of the Reformation, and he wrote to a friend: “There are as many theologies as there are heads. There will come a time when we will all have to fall back to the councils of the Church to make sense of this.” Do you have a source for this quote? Thank you!

Answer: There is actually a debate on the original source of this quote, but suffice it to say that many have quoted many times over the centuries by scholars and others. I found the quote originally in a booklet entitled Bible Quizzes to a Street Preacher written by Frs. Rumble and Carty and published by Tan Books. You can see the appropriate page below.

Question: Could you explain in more detail why the new Christians were to refrain from eating meat that had been strangled or from blood? We understand why they would be told to refrain from eating meat sacrificed to idols and the unlawful marriage, but this proscription does not really make sense to us. Also, when was this ban on blood/strangled meat removed, for we surely don’t abide by it today?

Answer: The eating of meat with the blood still within was a violation of the Mosaic Law (Gen 9:4; Lev 3:17; 7:26; 17:10, 14; 19:26; Deut 12:16, 23; 15:23; 1 Sam 14:33) and would have been a great stumbling block especially for Jewish believers. In this sense it is an act of charity on the part of the new Gentile converts. They would give up a freedom they enjoyed (eating meat with the blood in it) so as to not offend their Jewish brothers in Christ. This rule was given to “promote table fellowship between uncircumcised Gentile converts and Jewish Christians who observe the dietary laws. There is no surrender here of the gospel freedom alluded to in verse 19. Rather, that freedom is to be used in love to serve Jewish Christian brothers and sisters, but not beyond the bounds of Scripture (Gal 5:13).” (Larkin, W. J., Briscoe, D. S., & Robinson, H. W. (1995). Vol. 5: Acts. The IVP New Testament commentary series (Ac 15:13). Downers, Ill., USA: InterVarsity Press.)

Question: Paul in his later writings addresses a circumcision of ones heart. Does this have anything to do with the circumcision required by the Law? What purpose was there in God requiring this circumcision in his law?

Answer: God marked His people in the flesh through circumcision to mark them for his self. It was like a brand. One could not participate in the life and liturgy of Israel without being circumcised according to the Law of Moses. It was God’s way of putting his mark on his people and giving them a sign that would set them apart from the other nations.

Circumcision of the heart is a figurative way of saying that just as real circumcision cuts away part of the flesh, so the flesh, the carnal man, the sinful man, is cut away from our hearts so that we can have a pure heart for God. It is symbolic language based on the practice of the Old Covenant. Circumcision of the heart is a figurative way of saying that just as real circumcision cuts away part of the flesh, so the flesh, the carnal man, the sinful man, is cut away from our hearts so that we can have a pure heart for God. It is symbolic language based on the practice of the Old Covenant.

Question: In the first paragraph under “Crisis of Faith,” on p. 179, Luke 2:25-28 is cited as the basis for saying that Jesus was circumcized. Shouldn’t the preceding passage, Luke 2:21, be cited instead? Luke 2:25-28 has nothing to do with circumcision. This is a reference to Simeon’s reception and blessing of the child Jesus as part of the story of the presentation of Jesus in the temple 40 days after his birth. On the 40th day, a woman who had given birth was required, under Jewish law, to be purified. Also, on the 40th day, devout parents of a first-born son were obliged to present the child to the Lord. They would then redeem him back. Mary and Joseph offered a pair of turtle doves, the sacrifice of the poor, to accomplish this. The circumcision of Jesus occurred on the 8th day after birth, as verse 21 recounts. I’ve been told that one pious Catholic tradition–one that is unfortunately seldom mentioned any more–is that Joseph was the one who performed the circumcision, with the assistance of Mary who secured the child on her knees. As Matthew 1: 18-25 recounts, when the Angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, he told Joseph not to be afraid to take Mary his wife into his home because the child to be born was conceived by the Holy Spirit. The angel went on to say, “She will bear a son, and YOU are to name him Jesus because he will save his people from their sins.” That is to say, Joseph was to be the legal father, the one with the honor and right to name the child. Naming was done as part of the ceremony of circumcision. Thus, Joseph, guardian of the Redeemer, was the first to shed the Precious Blood of Christ, as a prefigurement of Calvary.

Answer: You are correct; it should be Luke 2:21. The pious tradition is indeed a beautiful one.