Monthly Archives: November 2017

CORNELIUS

Luke highlights the conversion of Cornelius because of its value in describing the universality of the gospel, but in so doing he also describes in one man a series of admirable qualities, those to which any sober-minded man would gladly aspire. By virtue of being a Roman centurion, he had to possess in himself unmistakable and remarkable qualities of leadership and submission. William Barclay quotes an unnamed ancient historian who describes the qualifications of a Roman centurion: “Centurions are desired not to be overbold and reckless so much as good leaders, of steady and prudent mind, not prone to take the offensive to start fighting wantonly, but able when overwhelmed and hard-pressed to stand fast and die at their posts.”

A Roman legion consisted of six thousand men. Each legion was then divided into ten cohorts of six hundred men. A cohort was divided into three bands and each band into two centuries. As a centurion, Cornelius was over one of these centuries, or one hundred men (eighty soldiers and 20 servants), and demonstrated both submission to authority and leadership skills. The band to which Cornelius was attached was called the Italian band, probably because it consisted of those who were from Italy. There was a well known and esteemed patrician family in Rome by the name of Cornelia and many commentators suggest the possibility that Cornelius was connected with that family.

Cornelius was not only a capable military leader, but he had personal qualities that endeared him to the people. Luke records that he had “a good report among all the nations of the Jews” (Acts 10:22). Luke further records that he was a just man, and one that feared God, gave much alms to the people and prayed to God alway (Acts 10:2, 22). This was not altogether uncommon, for another centurion during Jesus’ day had supported the Jews and had even built them a sysnagogue (Luke 7:1-5). It was said that he “loved our nation” and was worthy to receive an answer to his request (vv. 4,5). Cornelius was also such a man.

There has been much discussion over the religious state of Cornelius. Some have tried to make Cornelius a Jewish proselyte. But the truth of the matter is the Text no where states that Cornelius was a proselyte to the Jewish faith. In fact, it rather states the opposite. Albert Barnes outlines the reasons well: “But there is no sufficient evidence of this. The reception of the narrative of Peter, Acts 11:1-3, shows that the other apostles regarded him as a Gentile. In Act 10:28, Peter evidently regards him as a foreigner – one who did not in any sense esteem himself to be a Jew. In Acts 11:1, it is expressly said that ‘the Gentiles’ had received the Word of God, evidently alluding to Cornelius and to those who were with him.” The Pulpit Commentary observes, “he is spoken of simply as a Gentile and uncircumcised. . .he was in no sense a proselyte.”

And yet the Text speaks of him as a “devout” and “just” man and as one “that feared God” and “prayed to God alway” (Acts 10:1,2,22). His prayers went up to God as a memorial (Acts 10:4). Since he wasn’t a Christian yet, and since he wasn’t a proselyte, then how could he be described as devout? Brother Woods answers that “the only conclusion harmonizing the difficulties of the case” is that Cornelius “was worshipping God under the system of patriarchy” (Questions and Answers Open Forum Freed-Hardeman College Lectures, 1976).

It does seem either that 1) Cornelius was under the law of patriarchy and his prayers were offered while he was still amenable to that system, and God heard them with a view to answering them or 2), his prayers simply went up to God as a memorial and God arranged mercifully in His providence for Cornelius to hear the gospel of Christ, as He does for all those that seek Him (e.g., II Pet. 3:9). For more discussion on Cornelius and his prayer see Does God Hear The Alien Sinner’s Prayer?

Regardless of the answer, it is significant that God chose Cornelius of all the Gentiles in the world to be the first to be brought into the body, thus fulfilling the mystery that “in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; That the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel” (Ephesians 3:5-6). This alone speaks volumes of his character. God only chooses the right people for the job, and Cornelius was that man.

The Lord’s approval of him, and all those that likewise trusted in Him there that day, is seen in His bestowing the gift of the Holy Spirit on Cornelius even before he had obeyed the gospel (Acts 10:44-48). This pouring out of the gift of the Holy Ghost (not the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which was reserved for the apostles alone – John 14:26; 16:13), without the laying on of their hands (Acts 8:18), demonstrated that God had granted unto the Gentiles repentance unto life (Acts 11:18). The conversion of Cornelius demonstrated to Peter that God was “no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him (Acts 10:34,35).

Eric L. Padgett

PAUL

“Who art Thou, Lord?” Those were Paul’s words, spoken somewhere on a lonely, desert road outside the city of Damascus. But he must have had some idea already to whom he was speaking. The light shining about him was so bright, the noon day sun was hidden from his view. Yet even in this blinding light, before he lost his vision, he evidently saw the form of a man (Acts 9:7, 8, 17; I Cor. 15:8). He heard a voice calling his name, “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me?” (Acts 9:4). The Lord would remove any remaining question in his mind as to Who was addressing him with the words, “I am Jesus Whom thou persecutest.” Perhaps, in those few moments on the road to Damascus, amidst all the wonder and glory of this encounter, his life was laid out before him in his mind.

Paul was born in the capital city of Tarsus, in the Roman province of Cilicia, situated in Syria (Acts 22:3). Paul described Tarsus as “no mean city” (Acts 21:39). According to Xenophon, it was “a large and prosperous city” (Anabasis 1:2:23) and Josephus adds of Cilicia, that “the noblest city they have, and a metropolis also, is Tarsus” (Ant. 1:6:1). Under Augustus Caesar, the city was made free and was allowed to govern itself by it’s own magistrates and did not have a Roman garrison in it as long as it served Rome. Though the city was free, that did not necessarily mean all of it’s citizens were free. So, while Paul calls himself a Roman citizen (Acts 16:37; 22:25) and free-born (Acts 22:28), that was not merely from being a citizen of Tarsus. In some way, apparently, Paul’s family–either his father or some earlier ancestor–had obtained Roman citizenship and Paul reaped the benefits of that heritage.

Tarsus was a crossroads of culture. A little north of Tarsus was the Cilician Gates which “historically. . . forms part of a route that linked Anatolia with the Mediterranean coast” (wikipedia). “It was a city so cosmopolitan that none could walk the streets without coming into contact with the ends of the earth. It was a city with such a history that none could live in it without some sense of greatness. It was a city with such a desire for knowledge, such a respect for scholarship, and such an intellectual ferment of thought that no thinking young man could entirely escape the contagion of the thronging ideas which crowded the air” (Barclay, The Mind of Saint Paul).

Tarsus was a university city. There, one had access to one of the great education systems in the ancient world, rivaling Athens and Alexandria. As it was a center of culture, it was also a great city of commerce. One of the goods which was exported was goats hair, called cilicium, which was used in making, among other things, tent coverings, sailcloth and leggings. When the goat’s hair was woven into a fabric, it was porous when dry, allowing air to move through it, but when wet it closed and formed a nearly waterproof covering, perfect for tents. Undoubtedly, Paul learned his trade from his father because of his life in Tarsus (Acts 18:3).

But while Paul was born in this Gentile city, he was thoroughly Jewish. Paul stated that his manner of life from his youth was at the first among his own nation at Jerusalem (Acts 26:4). He may possibly have spent the first decade of his life being educated in Tarsus, but, at least, by the age of twelve or thirteen, he would have journeyed to Jerusalem and there received a more exacting, rigorous Jewish education. We know that Paul’s father was a Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin, as was Paul, himself (Acts 23:6; Phil. 3:5). He studied at the feet of the famous and highly respected Gamaliel in Jerusalem and was taught according to the perfect manner of the law and was zealous toward God (Acts 22:3). He profited in the Jew’s religion above many of his own equals being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of his fathers (Gal. 1:14).

Paul’s zeal in his youth for the traditions of his fathers translated into a fiery hatred of the Lord and His disciples as an adult. The first time the New Testament specifically mentions Saul is when he is seen holding the coats of those who were stoning Stephen and taking pleasure in the same (Acts 7:58; 8:1). Luke records next that Saul, himself, made havoc of the church, entering into every suspected Christian house and dragging out those who professed Christ and shut them up in prison (Acts 8:1). Saul “wasted” the Lord’s church (Gal. 1:13). He pursued Christians even to strange cities, being exceedingly mad against them, and beat them even in their synagogues (Acts 26:10,11; 22:19). Every moment he was planning the slaughter of Christians, every breathe was a threat against the disciples (Acts 9:1).

Now back to Damascus.

Perhaps, as the Lord spoke to him on this desert road, saying “I am Jesus Whom thou persecutest,” his mind raced back to see the bloody face and broken body of Stephen. Maybe he saw the face of each crying mother and each heartbroken wife as he dragged their loved ones away and beat them mercilessly. Maybe he thought of the members of his own family who were obedient to Christ even before he was and who were well thought of among the apostles (Rom. 16:7). Maybe he thought of his own blinding hatred which compelled him to injure, beat and kill those whom he believed heretic, those who dared to profess the name of Jesus Christ.

On this road, Jesus gently called his name, “Saul, Saul,” just as he had Martha (Luke 10:41) and Simon Peter (Luke 22:31). It must have startled this young man and he dropped to the ground (Acts 22:7). “It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks” (Acts 9:5). Saul’s actions were only resulting in more pain for himself, as if he were kicking against a pointed spike. Humbly, Saul asked, “Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do?” Despite his actions, Saul was always a good man at heart, conscientiously seeking to do what he thought the Lord would have him to do (Acts 23:1). But now he was conquered, his ignorance enlightened and his unbelief dismantled (cf. I Tim. 1:13). He opened his eyes but he could see nothing, for he was blinded by the light (Acts 22:11). But for the first time in his life, he could really see.

Eric L. Padgett

ANNAS AND CAIAPHAS

Caiaphas and Jesus stood face to face. The created and the Creator in the same room. A pretend high priest and the heavenly High Priest. The chief priests and elders and all the sanhedrin had gathered in Caiaphas’ palace also, and for one purpose: they wanted to put Jesus to death. In their view, Jesus had been a thorn in their side for some time, but the resurrection of Lazarus was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. From the very day and forward that Jesus raised Lazarus, the sacerdotal tribe purposefully and actively sought an opportunity to “put Him to death” (John 11:54).

Joseph Caiaphas, as Josephus called him, was the son-in-law of Annas. Annas had been High Priest for about eight years, appointed by Quirinius in 7 A. D. but was removed from that office by Valerius Gratus in 15 A. D. Under the law of Moses, the high priesthood was held for life, but under the Romans they placed in power whosoever suited them best. So, though not now high priest, he apparently continued to wield much influence because Jesus was first brought to him (John 18:13). Luke even refers to both men as being high priests when John the baptist came preaching (Luke 3:2). Beside his son-in-law, Caiaphas, Annas also had five sons who held that office after him, further consolidating his power.

The sons of Annas were as corrupt as any of the worst priests before the captivity or the sons of Eli. They were greedy wealthy and apparently gained their wealth, in part at least, through the sale of necessary items for worship in the temple at exorbitant prices. Jesus’ vehement condemnation of making the house of prayer “a den of thieves” struck directly at the heart of Annas and Caiaphas (Matt. 21:13; Luke 19:46). Violence was no stranger to them. Stealing was not below them. Even murder had its place in their arsenal.

That night, Annas was the first to interrogate the Lord. We know not the contents of that interview (though some commentators take John 18:19-23 as the interrogation by Annas. Others view it as Caiaphas’ interrogation, which is the view taken here). When Annas was done with Jesus, he sent Him to Caiaphas (John 18:24). In his interrogation, the high priest sought something whereby he could legally justify putting Jesus to death. He wanted the death sentence carried out by the hands of the Romans to exculpate himself and bring legitimacy to the “trial” (cf. John 18:31; Acts 6:10-12; 7:57,58).

In hopes of finding some incriminating piece of evidence, the high priest first queried Jesus about His disciples and His doctrine (John 18:19). What the exact questions were, we do not know but Jesus’ response emphasized the fact that He had nothing to hide, for He had taught openly to the world, in the temple and synagogues, where the Jews often assembled and those who had heard Him knew what He had taught. The high priest already knew at least one of the disciples for he knew one, possibly John, who was allowed into the Palace “with Jesus” during the “trial” and was known well enough at the palace that the door keeper acceded to his request to allow Peter access (John 18:15,16).

Throughout the long, cold spring night, Caiaphas allowed Jesus to be humiliated by the men who guarded Jesus. They mocked Him and hit Him, blindfolded Him and struck Him more, spit upon Him and blasphemed Him (Luke 22:63,64; Mark 14:65; Matt. 26:67,68). After this, when the morning came (Matt. 27:1; Luke 22:66), when the full sanhedrin assembled, and the chief priests and elders were assembled, as well, witness after witness was produced to incriminate Jesus. It was a crowded palace. There were many, if not all, of the seventy members of the sanhedrin. The chief priests and elders were there along with a host of so-called “witnesses,” who had been assembled in the hopes of trapping Jesus. There were also many onlookers trying to get a glimpse of Jesus.

When witness after witness failed to produce one scintilla of evidence against Jesus, when witness after witness contradicted the other witnesses, Caiaphas was left to salvage his mock trial (Matt. 26:59,60). Frustrated, he lashed out in anger, “Answerest Thou nothing?” But Jesus held His peace (Matt. 26:62,63). “I adjure Thee by the Living God, that Thou tell, us whether Thou be the Christ, the Son of God, the Blessed” (Matt. 26:63; Mark 14:61). Perhaps all that were in the room became silent, waiting for some kind of response. The air must have been thick with the smell of oil burning in the lamps and a fire burning in the court and with anticipation.

Jesus finally spoke. He could have remained silent, but He said, “If I tell you, ye will not believe: And if I ask you, ye will not answer Me, nor let Me go. Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God” (Luke 22:67-69). Then they all joined in, breaking the silence–“Art Thou then the Son of God?” they asked (Luke 22:70). “I am, thou hast said, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven” (Matt. 26:64). Caiaphas must have felt a sense of relief. Thinking he had the charge that he needed to condemn Him before the Romans, he dismissed the rest of the witnesses. “What need we any further witnesses? for we ourselves have heard of His own mouth” (Luke 22:70,71). “Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment” (John 18:28).

The “trial” of Jesus before Annas, Caiaphas, the chief priests and all the sanhedrin was a farce. It was illegal on many levels and unjust at its core. How could those who paid Judas to betray the Lord be trusted to judge Him fairly? How can any man judge God. Caiaphas had said that it was “expedient that one man should die for the people, and that a whole nation perish not” (John 11:49,50). Though he did not realize it, he was speaking prophetically of Christ’s remedial work. In attempting to stop Christ, Caiaphas fulfilling his own prophecy.

Eric L. Padgett

PONTIUS PILATE

Did Jesus stand before Pontius Pilate or did Pilate stand before Jesus? Of course, the Bible states that Jesus stood before Pilate (Matt. 27:11; I Tim. 6:13), and from the perspective of the world, this is what happened. Jesus stood before Pilate and was judged by him. Pilate even tried to reiterate to Jesus the power he thought he had over Him by reminding Him that he had the “power to crucify” or to release Him (John 19:10). But Jesus meekly declared that “Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above” (John 19:11). Pilate unwittingly played an important role in the unfolding scheme of redemption.

The name “Pontius” was an old name among the Samnites in central Italy, and it may be Pilate’s family came from this region. He was from the upper middle class (Equestrian). He became procurator of Judea in 26 A.D. and continued thus till 36 A.D. As Procurator or Governor, he had four main duties. He was responsible for the collection of taxes for the emperor (supervising the local Judaean tax collectors or publicans), he managed the provincial books, he was the supreme judge of the province and he commanded a small army. He was under the Governor of Syria and when he needed military help he could call on him for aid. For the first six years of his administration of Judea, however, the Syrian governor was absent and Pilate was on his own.

Five major historical sources give us information on Pontius Pilate. The first and most trustworthy is the Bible, the second is Josephus, the third is Philo, the fourth is Tacitus and the final source is an inscription in stone called the Pilate Stone. The latter is a moderately sized solid block of inscribed limestone that was discovered in 1961 in Caesarea Maritima. The inscription, though somewhat damaged by time, describes Pilate as the prefect of the province of Judaea, confirming the Biblical account. Tacitus refers to the fact that Christ “suffered the extreme penalty…at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate” (The Annals, 15, 44), not only confirming the historicity of Pilate, but also of Christ.

The references to Pilate in Philo and Josephus are not very kind. Philo, if we can trust his as an unbiased assessment, describes “his corruption, and his acts of insolence, and his rapine, and his habit of insulting people, and his cruelty, and his continual murders of people untried and uncondemned, and his never ending, and gratuitous, and most grievous inhumanity” (ON THE EMBASSY TO GAIUS 40:XXXV:III:302)  Josephus is far less explicit but does seem to place Pilate in an unfavorable light, as when he describes how Pilate provoked the Jews to riots by using temple treasure for an aqueduct and then beat them down to quell their protests.

The Pilate revealed in the New Testament, however, is much less depraved than he is depicted in the external sources. The scriptures in no way absolve him of the role he played in the crucifixion of Jesus. An event not recorded by either Philo or Josephus is included in the New Testament which suggests an act of great violence on his part (Luke 13:1). But as corrupt and insolent and insulting as he may have been, Pilate seemingly wanted to set Jesus free because he saw no fault in Him (Luke 23:4). It suggests that he maintained some sense of justice. In fact, Jesus stated that those who delivered Him to Pilate had the greater sin (John 19:11).

For example, on the recommendation of the Jewish Sanhedrin, Pilate could have legally acquiesced to their demands and sentenced Jesus to immediate death. Instead, the Record shows that Pilate tried multiple times to spare Jesus from that capital penalty. The Jewish leadership clamored for Jesus’ death and stirred up the people to call for Jesus to be crucified (Luke 23:21). It was only when Pilate’s opposition to Jesus’ death was used against him to suggest Pilate was no longer Caesar’s friend that, Pilate, in fear, relented of his opposition and washed his hands of the whole matter (John 19:12).

Perhaps Pilate’s great sin in the matter of Jesus was weakness. He did not possess the moral courage to stand against the pressure exerted by the Jewish council. His own wife called Jesus a “just man” and implored her husband to have nothing to do with Him (Matt. 27:19). He knew Herod had found no fault in Jesus (Luke 23:13-16). He knew the charges against Jesus were false and that the council’s only motive was envy (Matt. 27:18). Even when he could find no fault in Jesus, he allowed Him to be crucified. Yet, even in this, how much different was he than the apostle Peter who denied the Lord even though he knew Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God (Matt. 16:13-19)?

Peter, who had first hand knowledge of these things, said that while Pilate was “determined” to let Jesus go the “men of Israel . . . desired a murderer to be granted” freedom, meaning Barabbas (Matt. 27:21; Acts 3:13,14). Nevertheless, he doesn’t leave Pilate without culpability. He next quotes the second Psalm which describes the kings and rulers of the earth taking counsel against the Lord and against His anointed and applying this to Pilate, Herod, the Gentiles and the Jews (Acts 4:24-30). We are all guilty before the Lord (Rom. 3:23).

Two thousand years ago Jesus stood before Pontius Pilate, governor of Judea, in his judgment hall and received the biased judgement of men. Sometime in our future Pilate, Herod, the Jews and all men will stand before the Lord of heaven and earth in the Day of Judgement and receive the righteous judgement of God (Rev. 20:11-15). We will not be able to wash our hands and declare our innocence but we will need to be washed in the blood of the Lamb (Acts 22:16; Rev. 1:5).

Eric L. Padgett

JUDAS

YOU’RE A JUDAS! What a most loathsome and unwelcome defamation. No matter how egregious the offense of which one might be accused, to bear above that the weight of being a Judas is to bear a weight too heavy to be borne. Down through history others have worn the ugly badge of traitor. Benedict Arnold betrayed Americans. Guy Fawkes committed treason against the British Crown. Brutus betrayed Julius Caesar. Ephialtes betrayed the Spartans. But to wear the name of “Judas” is to wear a name that is particularly associated with the most despicable and personal kind of treachery.

Judas, meaning “Praise,” is the Greek form of the popular Hebrew name Judah (cf. Matt. 1:2) The name of Judas was actually a very popular and common name in the first century. Six people mentioned in the New Testament wear the name Judas (Iscariot; the other apostle named Judas, or Thaddaeus – Luke 6:16; Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; the brother of Jesus – Matt. 13:55; the Galilean who led a Jewish rebellion – Acts 5:37; the Damascene, with whom the apostle Paul stayed – Acts 9:11 and Judas Barsabbas – Acts 15:22). In 2016, however, it was number 4,362 on the list of popular boy names in America. Not too many women are in a rush to name their boys Judas.

The meaning of the name Iscariot is still disputed by some. Most Biblical scholars probably associate it as identifying the location from which Judas came, namely, Kerioth in Judah (Josh. 15:25), the man of Kerioth (Ish Kerioth). Since Kerioth was in Judah, Judas was the only one of the twelve apostles to be other than Galilean (Acts 1:11; 2:7). This may have caused some isolation on his part and, consequently, resentment. Others argue that Iscariot refers to a “man of murder” or that he was part of an assassin’s group known as the Sicarii, but this group was probably too late for Judas to have been associated with it.

We are not told how or when Judas became a disciple or whether or not he was first a follower of John. In His second year, after He continued all night in prayer to God, Jesus carefully chose twelve of His disciples to be His apostles (Luke 6:12,13). He also at this time gave them power against unclean spirits and to heal all manner of sickness and disease (Matt. 10:1-15). Judas was one of those men the Lord chose and one of those to whom He gave this great power. Was Judas sincere when the Lord prayerfully chose him? It is entirely possible that Judas was sincere at first, though not necessarily the case. It is possible that a man may fall so far so fast.

Whatever else may be obscure about him, the scripture is clear as to his character after he was chosen to be an apostle. Judas was apparently enamored of money. He was the treasurer for the Lord, the one who held the bag of money which was used to support the Lord and His apostles (John 12:6) which was received at the hands of certain benefactors (Luke 8:3). John plainly says that he was a thief who had no concern for the poor. He was not moved in the least by Mary’s loving treatment of Jesus in lieu of his impending death, but was more concerned with the money he believed was being wasted (John 12:3-5). Mark said he had “indignation” at this “waste” (Mark 14:4). Jesus rebuked Him for his misplaced priorities and abuse of Mary.

Although it is entirely possible that Judas was sincere when the Lord chose him, Jesus nevertheless knew what would ultimately transpire from the beginning and who would betray Him (John 6:64). He spoke of Judas as a devil (John 6:70,71). Whether or not Judas knew what he would do from the beginning is unknown, but he did know what he would do at least two days before he did it (Mark 14:1-5). Certainly these ideas had to be building up inside of him for some time and Jesus’ rebuke of his greed must have been the tipping point. From that time on, he “sought how he might conveniently betray Him” (Mark 14:11). He intentionally “went to the chief priests to betray Him unto them all for the promise of money.

In Old Testament history, David was betrayed by his close advisor, Ahithophel (II Sam. 15:31). In writing about this incident, David wrote, “Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me” (Psalm 41:9). The Lord, troubled in His spirit at the thought, quotes this passage and applies it to His own betrayal (John 13:18-21). After Jesus shared bread with Judas, fulfilling the prophecy, satan entered into Judas and he went out to betray the Lord (John 13:24-30). Jesus’ quote of this prophecy reiterates the deep sense of hurt Jesus felt at Judas’ betrayal.

We can’t know if there were any other motives beside greed that moved Judas to betray the Lord of if he had any expectations that Jesus would deliver Himself by a miracle, as many a commentator has supposed, but we do know that Judas’ betrayal did not come without some very strong feelings of guilt and remorse. When Judas saw that Jesus was condemned, he repented and threw the blood money back at the chief priests and elders (Matt. 27:3-5). Apparently, Jesus’ death was not his goal. But seeing that would be the outcome, he took his own life and went unto his own place (Matt. 27:5; Acts 1:25).

While Judas acknowledged his guilt, his sorrow was not of the godly sort leading to salvation (II Cor. 7:10).

Eric L. Padgett