For January-March 2004
Volume 7 Number 1 (continued)

With the discovery and the eventual publication of the scrolls found in the Dead Sea region of Palestine, especially those found at Qumran, our understanding of the zeitgeist of the time of Jesus' coming has been greatly enhanced and greatly changed.^F1 It was not too many years ago when many scholars believed that there existed little, or no, messianic expectation among the Jewish people of the early first century. Since the primary source of information concerning this era was the writings of Flavius Josephus, it is easy to see why this belief was held.

Josephus, while he does report some very detailed reports on various aspects of life in Palestine during this time, is neither exhaustive nor complete in his coverage. Josephus wrote with a strong bias (Maier 1988:11) and with obvious purposes of his own.^F2

With only the works of Josephus, one could easily conclude that there were only three sects in all of Judaism: the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Essenes. The release of the Qumran scrolls has greatly increased the amount of information available for this period and to the point that it has become obvious that there were numerous Jewish sects, and even the "big three" were not all completely unified in their approach and beliefs. This does not invalidate the work of Josephus; it simply displays some of the limitations that must be considered in order to properly place Josephus in light of recent scholarship.

A case in point is the article "The Essenes and Messianic Expectations," by Solomon Zeitlin (Zeitlin 1954). While Zeitlin makes a strong case for the Essenes being the descendants of the Hassidim of First and Second Maccabees,^F3 he was completely unaware of any messianic expectations whatsoever among the Essenes or any of the other sects of first-century Judaism, with one notable exception. Zeitlin writes that, "during the Second Commonwealth, however, the Jews did not expect a Messiah in the sense that we understand the term today" (Zeitlin 1954:103). Their expectation, according to Zeitlin, was for a redeemer along the lines of Judas Maccabeus, who would save them from the oppression of their enemies.

Zeitlin stated that, "Only one group, the Apocalyptists, a Pharisaic sect, believed that a redeemer would eventually free the Jews from their oppressors, and that he would be the Messiah endowed with supernatural powers" (Zeitlin 1954:103). Zeitlin offers no further explanation of this group.^F4 However, he does state that his theory is based entirely on the fact that neither Philo nor Josephus make any direct mention of a messiah or, for that matter, even implied the concept of messiah (Zeitlin 1954:106).^F5 He does not explain how his theory accounts for the statement attributed to Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, in John 1:41, which many modern scholars date to a period between CE 50 and 70, prior to the destruction of the temple. Andrew tells his brother, "I have found the Messiah"�the Christos�in approximately CE 30.

It is not my intent to critique Zeitlin's work, which was thorough and well done and true to the information available at the time, but rather to demonstrate the tremendous impact that the discovery and release of the scrolls from the Dead Sea area has had on modern understanding of life in Palestine during the intertestamental period.

The Plurality of Jewish Messianic Expectation

The scrolls present evidence that at least some of the Jewish people of the era expected not one messiah but at least two. Scroll 1QSa (1Q28a), also The Messianic Rule (Vermes 1997:157), attributed by scholars to the Essene sect, which contains only two columns of text, describes in great detail the order of events at a coming "Messianic Banquet." In this document, there are two messiahs with wholly different functions. The priestly messiah will enter the banquet first, followed by his entourage, and then the kingly messiah will enter with his own entourage (Wise 1996:147).^F6

Scroll 4Q174, an Essene text known as the Florilegium, a midrash on the last days, is a collection of texts from II Samuel and from the Psalter, and other passages of Scripture, which serve "to announce the coming of two messiahs, the 'Branch of David' and 'the Interpreter of the Law'" (Vermes 1997:493). Of 4Q174 column 3, line 10, Wise, Abegg, and Cook write:

This passage refers to the Shoot of David, who is to arise with the Interpreter of the Law, and who will [arise] in Zi[on] in the La]st Days, as it is written, "And I shall raise up the booth of David that is fallen" (Amos 9:11). This passage describes the fallen Branch of David, [w]hom He shall raise up to deliver Israel. (Wise 1996:228.)

In both of these passages one can see an expectation of dual messiahship. One is the Interpreter of the Law who will restore the practice of the Law to Israel in the strict and comprehensive way that the sect believes is needed to restore God's blessing to Israel. This messiah, Messiah  ben Zadok, is expected to be of the line of Zadok, the high priestly line. The second expected messiah is to be the Kingly Messiah, Messiah ben David, the Branch of David who would reign on the throne of David over the restored nation of Israel.

The Three Temple Teaching

In addition to the concept of two messiahs, scroll 4Q174 discusses the concept of three temples (Stone 1984:519). The first mentioned is the eschatological temple. This reference cites Exodus 15:17-18, which refers to the temple that God will build himself. The second is to the Temple of Israel. This temple is inferred from II Samuel 7:10b.^F7 14 A third temple, the Temple of Men, is an inference from II Samuel 7:11a. Stone states:

This temple, then, should be understood as distinct from both the eschatological Temple of God and the Temple of Israel, destroyed in the past. It is the temple belonging to, or consisting of Men. It is described as a temple in which instead of real offerings, Works of Torah...are offered. Now deeds or works of Torah are part of the sectarians' ideals, who see themselves as 'the doers of the Torah'. Hence, the Temple of Israel being the Temple of Solomon, and the Second Temple of the Maccabees being defiled and not worth mentioning, the Temple of Men appears to be none other than the sect itself. (Stone 1984:519-520.)

More Than Two Messiahs?

While 4Q174 clearly indicates two messianic figures there are indications of a possible third in 4Q175. When first published in 1957 by John Allegro, 4Q175 was given the title 4Q Testimonia, referring to a theory that there circulated among ancient Jews and among early Christians collections of passages from Scripture for use in disputation (Wise 1996:229). According to the theory, Testimonia texts were often messianic. This Testimonia implies three messianic figures, according to Wise, Abegg, and Cook:

But why were these specific passages collected? What does their collocation mean? Many students of the text agree on the significance of the first three passages. They represent, respectively, the Yahad's expectations for the coming of a prophet like Moses, a royal scion of David to lead in war, and a proper high priest. All three could be considered "messiahs" in the sense that each was to be "anointed" by God (the basic meaning of the Hebrew word messiah). (Wise 1996:229.)

Since Moses' function was both prophetic and judicial, and therefore a precursor to the reign of David, one could argue that this expected prophet and the expected king would be one and the same.^F8 This is the position from which this paper is written. It should be noted that some scholars do not hold the dual messianic theory (Atkinson 1999:458).

How Well-known Were the Essenes?

With this groundwork having been laid, there is one question that needs to be attended to before I can address the Luken text: How widespread was this teaching of the Essene sect?

Since the writings of the sect are the primary sources of information about the sect, their influence on society as a whole is somewhat difficult to judge. It can be seen from their own writings that people are inducted into the sect from the general population. 1QS, The Manual of Discipline, outlines detailed procedures that must be followed in order to become a member of the sect. From the need for this procedure it can be inferred that at least some from the society at large were trying to enter the sect. Additionally, it can be inferred from the fact that there were some who wanted to join the sect that not only was the sect's existence known to the general public, the teachings of the sect were also generally known.

Additional external evidence of the sect's impact on the society in general can be found in the mention of the sect in the writings of the Roman geographer and historian Pliny the Elder. In his work Natural History, Pliny asserts:

    To the west of the Dead Sea the Essenes have put the necessary distance between themselves and the unwholesome shore. They are a unique people and admirable beyond all others in the whole world, without women and renouncing all sexual desires, without money, and having for company only palm trees. Day by day the throng of refugees is recruited to an equal number by numerous accessions of persons tired of life and driven thither by the waves of fortune to adopt their manners. Thus, unbelievable as this may seem, for thousands of years a race into which no one is born lives on forever; so prolific for their advantage is other men's weariness of life! (Bateman 1999:89-91.)

While Pliny's claim that the sect existed for "thousands of years" is clearly overstated, his account does show that the sect had a major impact on the people of Israel. It is then relatively safe to assume that these people who were being drawn to the sect were not unaware of the teachings of the sect. Josephus also provides confirmation of the sect's existence as well as a brief look at some of its teachings in a description of the oaths that must be taken prior to becoming a member and their daily practice of baptisms, which closely match the sect's own writings in 1QS (Bateman 1999:89-91).

Pliny would have no reason to fabricate any of this information, especially when one considers the strong anti-Roman sentiments of the sect. This fact also makes his almost glowing report of the group very interesting. Josephus would also have no reason to fabricate a group of religious zealots with markedly anti-Roman teachings in light of the fact that he was being supported by Rome. The evidence above presents a strong indication that the Essene sect had a major impact on the society of Palestine as a whole and that its teachings would be widely known in that society, which leads to the Lukan scripture.

Background Information on the Writer of Acts

In this paper I assume a common Lukan authorship of the third gospel and the book of Acts. While many things about Luke remain a mystery his writings reflect an author who was a man of learning and culture. His use of classical-style Greek in the first paragraph of his Gospel is an indication of his skills and his education level. He also possessed medical knowledge and a love of the sea. Statements much beyond this concerning Luke would be undue conjecture (Douglas 1987:604). However, one notable speculation is that he knew Mary, the mother of Jesus. The book of Acts shows that Luke, a Gentile, was a periodic traveling companion of the apostle Paul.

Luke's Motivation for Writing Luke-Acts

Luke's reasons for writing the third Gospel and the book of Acts are subject to many and varied theories. Tyson writes that Conzelmann (Conzelmann 1960) holds that Luke "recognizes that the eschatological expectations of an earlier age [the Jews] have not been fulfilled in his lifetime and are not to be fulfilled in the near future" (Tyson 1992:2). He also states that Paul W. Walaskay (Walaskay 1983) views Acts as a political apology-commending the Roman Empire to a Christian audience and that Richard I. Pervo (Pervo 1987) believes Luke's primary reason for writing Acts was entertainment (Tyson 1992:2-3). Tyson believes that Luke is motivated by the ever-widening gap between those who hold to the tenets and practices of first-century Judaism and those who have become Christian.^F9

While it is a great source of debate and inquiry among New Testament scholars, many of whom see a marked anti-Jewish position in Luke-Acts,^F10 it is not my intent  to establish the motives of Luke in writing Luke-Acts, but rather to establish Luke's understanding of Jewish religious practices of the first century. Luke, known for his education and for his meticulous research and attention to detail, would quite logically be expected to have a working understanding of the beliefs and practices of the many Jewish sects in existence in first-century Palestine. With the widespread nature of Acts 2:36 and the dual messianic expectations of this sect. With this in mind, it is time to will turn to the text of the book of Acts and examine one passage in depth.

Acts 2:36 and the Dual Messianic Expectation

Acts 2:14-41 reports Luke's understanding of Peter's sermon in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. Recorded in verse 36 of chapter 2 is an intriguing statement, especially in light of the messianic expectations of the day. Peter is reported to have said:

Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ-this Jesus whom you crucified. (Acts 2:6 NAS.)

This verse seems to directly address the first-century expectation of a dual messiah−one a king after the line of David (Messiah ben David) and another a high priest after the line of Zadok (Messiah ben Zadok). While it is impossible to tell if the emphasis on the duality of Jesus' messianic nature is the result of Peter's understanding of this expectation, or if it is the result of Luke's knowledge, it can be assumed from the language used that Luke, at the direction of the Holy Spirit,^F11 wished to stress the dual nature of Jesus' claim to messiahship.

Asphalōs, not translated directly in the NIV or the NASB, is used only three times in the New Testament�here, Mark 14:44, and Acts 16:23 (Smith 1955:45). Since two of the three uses of this word are found in the works of Luke, it is beneficial to look at what meaning Luke attaches to the word. In Acts 16:23 a prison guard is being directed to guard Paul and Silas carefully and make sure they are held securely (asphalōs). The Mark passage has a similar translation. The essence of the word here seems to be a direction to "take special note or special care" in one's dealings with this topic or situation. Even though the word asphalōs is rendered "assuredly" or "certainly" in the passage in question when coupled with oun, "therefore," I would render the two words together as "therefore take special note," thus adding a more clearly emphatic tone to the overall translation.

The next word, ginōsketō, is the present active imperative third person singular of ginōskō, which means, "to know." There is no stronger way to tell someone to do something in Greek than the use of the imperative. While the third person singular would normally be translated as "let him know," the "him" in the passage in question seems to be, pas oikos Israēl,^F12 all the house of Israel, thus rendering this passage as, "Let all the house of Israel take special note and know."^F13

Continuing through this passage are the words upon which I will focus most directly, hoti kai kurion auton kai christon epoiēsen ho theos. The double kai construction when following the hoti calls for a rendering of "both...and" in English (Robertson and Davis 1979:346). God is the subject here, and as such has made him-Jesus-to be both Lord and Christ.

The instances of the title Lord being applied to Jesus in the writings of Luke being applied to Jesus are numerous,^F14 while Jesus uses this title for himself in only two places (Mark 11:3; Matthew 21:3). Unless this statement was addressing a particular situation or belief, it is interesting that this precise construction is used. Why is it necessary to show that God made Jesus to be both Lord and Christ? Why indeed, unless he mindset of the day would see these as two distinct and separate functions? A closer look at the terms kurios and christos will shed light on this question.

Jesus, Both Lord and Christ

To modern Western minds, Christ and Lord are simply one concept, but our modem understanding is inadequate when confronting this passage of Scripture. The term kurios is immediately applied to God in our Western minds, yet this was not the case in the first-century Near East. Kurios is used, even within the Lukan corpus, to designate a human potentate or sovereign king. In Acts 25:26, Luke is referring to King Agrippa. The text reads:

Yet I have nothing definite about him to write to my lord. Therefore I have brought him before you all and especially before you, King Agrippa, so that after the investigation has taken place, I may have something to write. (Acts 25:26 NAS.)

This interpretation, king or potentate, seems to be the most common rendering of the word kurios (Bauer 1979:495b). Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews 20.4.1 uses the same word to designate a strong, authoritative human ruler (Whitson 1987:529).This is a title that would have carried a strong connotation of civil rule−in fact, a strong and powerful civil rule. This could easily have been seen as the strong warrior king from the line of David, for whom the Essene sectarians were waiting. At the very least, the implication is very strong that God has made this Jesus to rule in a judicial and civil sense. When read in connection with the passages in 4Q174, equating Luke's presentation of Jesus as "Lord" in Acts 2:36 with the civil or Davidic half of the messianic pair of the Essenes is an entirely reasonable response.

Again, while the Western mind thinks of christos as Christ, it is usually within a context that tries to render Christ as the last name of Jesus, and this is culturally inaccurate. This designation is a title when applied to any man. The most common translation of the word is "anointed" or "anointed one." The Gospel of Luke uses this term nine times, and all but one of them is a reference to a spiritual anointing.^F15 The exception is a reference made by the Pharisees in their accusations against Jesus before the Romans. They accused him of claiming to be the Christ-the King, knowing that the Romans would care little if he was claiming an anointing as the spiritual messiah of Israel.

The Romans would not have cared about another spiritual leader if he was not causing civil disturbance; but one who was claiming to be the King of Jews would be an entirely different matter. The Pharisees seem to have attached meaning to this term that the other uses in Luke do not support. The seven additional uses^F16 of this term in Acts are all references to Jesus' status as the anointed, spiritual messiah of Israel. Once again there is a strong correlation to the high priestly messiah of the Essene sect, especially when one looks at the ceremony connected with installation of a priest or a high priest.

Exodus 30:23-32 preserves an account of the installation of the priestly family of Aaron and his sons. The text reads:

    Take the following fine spices: 500 shekels of liquid myrrh, half as much (that is, 250 shekels) of fragrant cinnamon, 250 shekels of fragrant cane, 500 shekels of cassia-all according to the sanctuary shekel-and a hin of olive oil. Make these into a sacred anointing oil, a fragrant blend, the work of a perfumer. It will be the sacred anointing oil.
    Then use it to anoint the Tent of Meeting, the ark of the Testimony, the table and all its articles, the lampstand and its accessories, the altar of incense, the altar of burnt offering and all its utensils, and the basin with its stand.
    You shall consecrate them so they will be most holy, and whatever touches them will be holy. Anoint Aaron and his sons and consecrate them so they may serve me as priests.
    Say to the Israelites, "This is to be my sacred anointing oil for the generations to come. Do not pour it on men's bodies and do not make any oil with the same formula. It is sacred, and you are to consider it sacred." (Exodus 30:23-32 NIV.)

Even though oil is used to anoint kings and other dignitaries, it can be seen from these passages that this anointing oil is a special anointing reserved only for the priests, and severe penalties existed for anyone who made and used this oil for any other purpose. The word translated as "anointed" in Exodus 30:30 is mashah. Harris, Archer, and Waltke say this about the word:

Used in connection with religious ritual, mashah involved a ceremonial application of oil to items such as the tabernacle, altar or laver (Ex 40:9-11), or even the sin offering (Ex 29:36). More frequently mashah is used for the ceremonial induction into leadership offices.... The high priest was anointed (Ex 29:7; Num 35:25) and so were other priests (Ex 30:30). (Harris, Archer and Waltke 1980:530.)

This word is rendered in the Septuagint in Exodus 30:30 as chriseis, which is the second person present active indicative of chriō, which means to anoint. It is safe to conclude that it was this special anointing, this high priestly anointing, that Luke is referring to in Acts 2:36.

Based on the above, I would render this verse:

Let all the House of Israel take special note and know that God made him, this Jesus whom you crucified, both Lord (king) and the Anointed one (high priest).

The last difficulty with this construal needing to be addressed is the identity of "all the house of Israel." For the answer to this, consider 1QS, The Community Rule. This is the scroll that outlines in detail the rules of admission to and conduct within the Essene sect. Column 1 lines 1-3 read as follows:

    This is the rule of the whole congregation of Israel at the end of days, when they are admitted [to the community to wa]lk in accordance with the law of the sons of Zadok, the priests, and of the men of their covenant who have turned aside from walking in] the way of the people. They are the men of his counsel who kept his covenant in the midst of wickedness in order to make expiat[ion for the land]. (Knibb 1987:146.)

    The whole congregation of Israel is a title that the Essene sect adopted for themselves from numerous references in the Old Testament, most specifically the Pentateuch, to the nation of Israel as a religious community during their time of wandering in the wilderness. An example of this is found in Exodus 12:3 NIV: "Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this month each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each household."

    The Essenes believed that since they were the only ones left who were keeping the Law as it was meant to be kept, that they were in fact the whole of the community of Israel. In their minds they were Israel, and everything else was tainted and spoiled and unclean. When you look at this statement in light of their belief concerning the third temple discussed in 4Q174, the Florilegium, one can see that it is an easy step from the "community of Israel" to the "house of Israel." These Jews believed themselves to be the whole of Israel, and they believed that they were the third temple-the temple of men.

Conclusion

The intent of this paper was to demonstrate with a specific example the impact that the collection of writings known as the Dead Sea Scrolls has had on NT studies. One can see from the information above that it is now impossible to restrict one's examinations to materials that are canonical. Without the extra-biblical material, a student of the NT has insufficient data to understand the historical and political/religious contexts of first-century Palestine. While I hold to the conclusion that Peter and Luke intended to address a dual messianic expectation that seems to have been common in Palestine at the time of Jesus' ministry, I recognize that there are a number of questions left unanswered by this paper and that without further investigation and verification this theory remains untested.

I present this material in a spirit of enlightened inquiry and make no pretense of conclusive evidence of my findings. Even if the theory that is proposed here is proven to be false, this paper gives the reader an insight into the tremendous impact the release of the scrolls has had, and will continue to have, on the field of NT studies. Since there is now more information available, students of the text are able to verify and balance the work of Josephus. A great depth and rich texture have been added to NT studies by the availability of this material.

^F1It is the purpose of this paper to compare and contrast the statements found in several of the Qumran scrolls relating to the messianic expectations of the people of Palestine in the first century with statements made by Luke in the book of Acts. Luke seems to be addressing a plural messianic expectation and indicating that both aspects of this plural expectation have been fulfilled in the one person, Jesus. Since it is not possible within the confines of this paper to thoroughly examine the impact that the Dead Sea writings have had on New Testament scholarship, the example used was chosen as representative of this impact.

^F2There is insufficient space in this paper to cover all the details of Josephus' bias any further than saying that it is generally accepted to exist. The reader is referred to Maier's Josephus: The Essential Writings (Maier:1988) for additional information.

^F3Zeitlin bases his argument on the work of Philo, who proposed that the name Essenes, which is not of Hebrew origin, came from the Greek word essaioi, which Philo believed to be a derivative of the word hosiosthe, which means piety. Philo and Zeitlin both note this group's special devotion to service to God. Hasside in Hebrew has the connotation of pious or holy. Zeitlin believes that it is evident from Philo's account that the members of the Essenes were called in Hebrew Hassidim. See Zeitlin 1954:90-91 for more details.

^F4Zeitlin was adamant about his denial of any messianic expectation among the Jewish people with the exclusion of the expectations of this one Jewish sect prior to the destruction of the second temple in CE 70. He accused those who held this idea of being deluded, of deceiving the readers, and of distorting the entire Jewish history of the period (Zeitlin 1954:105-106).

^F5He further states that, "if Josephus had known of the Messianic expectations among the Jews he would have given an account of the movement in such a way as to make sure the Roman authorities would not suspect him of belief in such expectations" (Zeitlin 1954:106).

^F6The passage reads: "The procedure for the [mee]ting of the men of reputation [when they are called] to the banquet held by the society of the Yahad, when [God] has fa[th]ered the Messiah (or, when the Messiah has been revealed) among them: [the Priest,] as head of the entire congregation of Israel, shall enter first, trailed by all [his] brot[hers, the sons of] Aaron, those priests [appointed] to the banquet of the men of reputation. They are to sit be[fore him] by rank. Then the [Mess]iah of Israel may en[ter], and the heads of the th[ousands of Israel] are to sit before him by rank, as determined by [each man's comm]ission in their camps and campaigns. Last, all the heads of [the con]gregation's cl[ans], together with [their] wis[e and knowledgeable men], shall sit before them by rank" (Wise 1996:147).

^F7Stone finds this inference much more compelling than I do. However, there is a general consensus of scholars in this field that supports Stone's position. Since this text is interpreted as a reference to a temple that was desolated by foreigners, it is a clear reference to the first temple, built by Solomon in 966 BCE., the only temple destroyed by foreigners (in 586, by the Neo-Babylonians, led by Nebuchadnezzar) at the time of these writings.

^F8Space does not permit a more detailed treatment of this point. The plurality of messianic expectations in first-century Israel is the important concept here.

^F9Tyson cites the extended amount of coverage of Jewish personalities in this Gospel, the extended amount of time involved in questions of Jewish religious observance, and Luke's focus on issues that tend to separate the followers of the way from the orthodoxy of the Jews. These relationships are among the fundamental concerns revealed in Luke-Acts (Tyson 1999:4).

^F10Tyson quotes Jacob Jervell (Jervell 1972:41) as having said, "Luke describes the rejection of the Christian proclamation on the part of the Jewish people. "Only after and because Israel has rejected the gospel, and for that reason has itself been rejected, do the missionaries turn to Gentiles" (Tyson 1999:11). Tyson holds that Jervell cites Ernst Haenchen and Hans Conzelmann, but the roots of this theory go back to Franz Overbeck and F. C. Baur (Tyson 1999:11).

^F11The reader needs to understand that I have a strong conviction based on scriptural evidence that the text of Scripture, while it is individual in style and composition, is in no way accidental nor is it the work of humans alone. I want readers to be aware of this presumption as they review this work.

^F12This expression, pas oikos Israēl, is found only in this passage in all of the NT. It is interesting to note here that the Essenes believed themselves to be the only true and undefiled remnant of the nation of Israel, which is referred to as the house of Israel in various places in the OT (e.g., Ezekiel 37:11). With their third temple-temple of men-teaching described above, it would not seem unlikely that either they called themselves the house of Israel or their sect was referred to by others as the house of Israel. While this is only an informed speculation on my part, but if it eventually can be substantiated then it would seem that the words of Acts 2:36 may have been directed specifically to the sect.

^F13While I am in no way claiming to possess skills in Greek that are superior to or even equal to those of many who have worked on this text in the past, there does not seem to have been an examination of this text done from the perspective of the dual messianic expectations of the Essene sect. While all that is being proposed has been researched and seems entirely plausible, it is completely within the realm of possibility that it is not correct.

^F14Luke 7:13; 10:1, 10:39, 10:41; 11:39; 12:42a; 13:15; 17:5f; 18:6; 19:8 and in the vocative in 5:8, 5:12; 9:54, 9:61; 10:17, 10:40; 11:1; 12:41; Acts 5:19; 8:26; 12:7, 12:23.

^F15Luke 2:11; 3:15; 4:41; 22:67; 23:2, 23:35, 23:39; 24:26, 24:46.

^F16Acts 2:31, 2:36; 9:22; 17:3; 18:5, 18:28; 26:23.

Page last edited: 11/28/04 08:43 AM

Thank you for visiting BIBARCH�
Please Visit Our Site Often