JAMES: Mitzvoth

So then we come to the book of James. In a lot of ways, we’ve done all the intro work for James back in Galatians. While I’m not going to spend all my time trying to parse the different perspectives and details on exactly who the author is — by that I mean which James wrote the book — I am going to work off of the generally accepted view that the author of James is one of the members of the triumvirate — Peter, James, and John — who followed Jesus around. As we mentioned in the Galatians series, I believe this is also the “brother” of Jesus.

James was the leader of what is sometimes called the “Jewish church” in Jerusalem. As Peter had charge over the entire Christian movement, church history tells us (also corroborated by the Text) James stayed to oversee the church in Jerusalem. This is where the early church had its beginning — and a very Jewish beginning it was. As the church got pushed out, relocated its “headquarters” to Antioch, and as Paul began to spread this movement into the Greco-Asian world of the Greeks (which would eventually be led by John, thus giving us the roles of the “three pillars,” Peter, James, and John), James took up the mantle of leading this very Jewish church centered in Jerusalem.

As we mentioned before, most progressive scholarship is going to say there was massive disagreement (even evident in the New Testament) between James and Paul. In fact, many will say they were enemies and there were two different “churches” — the Jewish church in Jerusalem (led by James) and the Gentile church in Asia and Asia Minor (led by Paul). I disagree with this assessment based on the witness of Luke in the book of Acts (and Paul in Galatians). I do believe James probably leaned a different direction than Paul, but I also believe the early church led them to a union that preserved the church of the New Testament.

So why bother you with all these details? Because this is essential to understanding the context of the letter from James.

People have, for centuries, tried to bring synergy to what appear to be opposing arguments from Paul and James about the role of obedience and faith. While some claim no contradiction exists, it certainly seems like James is trying to “correct” Paul’s arguments about justification by faith.

However, realizing James is playing a role as the leader of the Jewish church in Jerusalem is incredibly helpful. Consider the opening to the letter:

James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations:Greetings.

James writes to “the twelve tribes scattered among the nations.” This is clearly a reference to a strictly Jewish audience in the world of Asia and Asia Minor. It appears to me that James is wanting to speak as the Jewish leader of a Jewish church to the Jewish participants in a rapidly changing world. James is not trying to usurp Paul’s authority; James it trying to be who God has called him to be and let Paul do what God has called him to do.

James is writing to Jews about what it means to live in a Gentile culture and follow Jesus.

This matters, because when James talks about “works” or “deeds” (also known as the mitzvoth to Jews), he is not talking about miqsat ma’asay haTorah like Paul was. When Paul talked to a Gentile church about “works of the law,” he was referring to the parts of the law that make you Jewish. But for Jews, this part of the law was never up for debate. In the New Testament, the Jews never argue about whether Jews should follow the Law. This is never a question! What they argue about was whether or not Gentiles would follow the Law.

What this means is when James talks about “works” and “deeds,” James is talking about obedience.

The letter of James is written to plead with a Jewish presence in Asia and Asia Minor not to lose their distinctiveness amidst a bunch of Gentiles who live with a freedom that Jews are not called to — at least not in the same way Gentiles are. Consider how this would affect the way the audience reads the central passage of James:

What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? 

Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

Considering the difference between Paul and James when it comes to their definition of “works/deeds” is critical to wrestling with James’s message. I also find the reference to Rahab (a Gentile prostitute) at the end of this passage to be interesting. I believe James is insinuating that this truth is true for all of them — Jew and Gentile alike.

While I don’t believe James is usurping Paul’s message of faith and justification, I do believe James is offering his Jewish perspective to the conversation to make sure this early church doesn’t lose its distinctiveness.

As we consider this letter, may we also be moved to remember that words mean very little unless they are incarnated in our actions. May this be true in all of us — Jew and Gentile

GALATIANS: the Pedagogue

We are left with this nagging question: If God’s story has always been about the promise and not the Law, why then would God have given the Law in the first place?

Paul moves on to answer this very question.

Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.

Paul immediately says there was something about how the promise of God had to be realized through the seed. However, until that day could come, the Law was given to a mediator. I always see and hear a reference to Moses as God’s mediator between God (whom Paul says is one party) and His people.

Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

One might notice how essential this reading is to make this chapter of Galatians consistent. For many who have felt as though we were stretching the logic of “the law is not based on faith,” you may now see the dilemma created if we presume such a statement means the Law runs contrary to faith. In fact, Paul is intentional when he points out that the Law is not opposed to the promises of God. However, if a law could accomplish the same thing as a promise, it would have been given at the beginning. But it cannot; instead, the Law was given for a supplementary purpose that helped the promise of God find its culmination in the Seed.

Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

Paul now introduces a new concept to the teaching. The English here uses harsh language, such as “custody” and “locked up,” making the reader think of prison. In fact, this is not the case at all. The Greek word Paul uses for “guardian” is paidagogos and translates as “pedagogue.” Understanding this idea will make the teaching from Paul explode with relevant meaning.

Many of us (like myself when I first heard the term) may be completely unfamiliar with the term ‘pedagogue’; others may have heard it before. In our western context, the idea of a ‘pedagogue’ is usually the idea of a teacher (the KJV translates this as “schoolmaster”). But in the first century, the idea of a pedagogue was much different than that of a teacher. The pedagogue was a guardian (hence the translation) who was hired when a young individual came upon his or her inheritance (for any number of reasons) before they were old enough to claim that inheritance legally. For example, if we had an 8-year-old boy come upon his inheritance because of the death of his father, he would be too young to legally see his inheritance realized. There would be a pedagogue hired to serve as the boy’s guardian. This role is not the role of teacher; it is the role of protector. It is the pedagogue’s responsibility to see to it that the boy arrives at his inheritance safely and is able to realize its consummation.

Paul just said the Law was given because the time had not yet come for the promise to be realized through the Seed. In the meantime, God needed a guardian who would help get his people to the place where they could realize the consummation of God’s promise. It was the pedagogue of God’s people. But now that faith has come — now that the promise has been realized — there is no need for a pedagogue. Once the child matured, he would lay claim to his inheritance and the role of the pedagogue would be complete.

Paul’s larger point is now that we know God’s promise has been realized (“all nations will be blessed through you”; i.e., salvation has come to the Gentiles), we would no longer subject ourselves to being led by a guardian. The inheritance of Abraham has been claimed. Now, some would use this same logic to argue the Jews should now come out from under the pedagogue and quit following the Law as well, but this would be to take Paul’s teaching metaphor and pull it out of its context, applying it in a way he never intended (this is clear through references to Paul’s kosher lifestyle throughout the New Testament). Lancaster elaborates on this point well in his book.

Now that we have some key context, let’s finish this key section.

So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

What I am saying is that as long as an heir is underage, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. The heir is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. So also, when we were underage, we were in slavery under the elemental spiritual forces of the world. But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship. Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” So you are no longer a slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir.

Knowing the context now makes this teaching come to life. It is no longer riddled with confusion. God has brought the story to its day of inheritance. We now see the promise of God find its fulfillment and the whole world being invited to redemption.

So now we must turn our attention to what is happening with these Galatian theosabes and their desire to usurp God’s promise.

GALATIANS: Through the Law

Even though Paul has given the community the authority to speak into his life, ministry, and calling, he is far from rolling over and thinking they are anything more than humans themselves. The ability of Paul to be a mature and well-balanced human being is astounding here. He not only submits to the authority of the church leaders and community of the early church, but he is also adamant about standing for truth and confronting inappropriate behavior when he finds it. Apparently Peter, the great leader of the church, is far from perfect and infallible. Paul tells the Galatians about an encounter he had with Peter in Antioch.

And remember Peter is the guy who had the first experience with these “outsiders” being welcomed into the community of faith. He was the one who had to fight for their place within the world of the gospel and help pave the way for their entrance into the family of God.

When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

The leaders in this early Jesus movement remind me a lot myself at times — full of mistakes and a concern for self. These leaders know what the gospel calls them to do; there are times when they don’t have any problem living up to the call of the gospel. When it is these leaders and the Gentiles, they are gracious and hospitable companions. However, when some of the folks from Judea showed up — those from James and the “circumcision group” — Peter and even Barnabas sought to keep the peace by switching to the traditions and practices of the Torah-observant Jews.

What is often missing from the conversation surrounding this passage is a proper treatment of Jewish halachah, or oral tradition. Halachah is the set of oral interpretations that surround the written law; in a more poetic sense, halachah is “how you walk.” After God gave you commandments, you needed to understand how you would walk these commandments out. The oral tradition provided that framework, but in the new way Jesus is inviting us to live (and even during his own ministry, I believe Jesus made this clear), some of these understandings were going to get in the way of the truth of the gospel. One in particular would be the restrictions of eating with Gentiles. While God never commanded this in Torah, the halachah of the Jewish world had deemed it inappropriate to eat with Gentiles as an issue of ‘cleanliness’ and remaining distinct.

The belief of those in the ‘circumcision group’ was that this distinction needed to remain intact. So Peter and Barnabas find it hard to shake the halachah they had lived with for their entire lives (you can see Peter reference this to Cornelius in Acts 10). But Paul sees this as inconsistent with the gospel of Jesus and he calls them on it.

When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?”

“Jewish customs” is the reference to halachah. While Peter and Barnabas are not asking the Gentiles to be bound by these commandments (or even the miqsat ma’asay haTorah), they are having a hard time not playing the role of Judean when the “good ol’ boys” come to town. Paul confronts Peter publicly and makes it quite clear he no longer lives by this halachah, so why does he hold people (including Gentiles) to it when the folks from Judea are here? Peter is putting on a show for the Judeans; he’s acting like he is somebody else who believes something other than what he believes.

I believe the NIV is correct in keeping the quotations marks through the rest of the chapter, indicating it is part of Paul’s address to Peter:

“We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.”

First, the old NIV (copyright 1984) put “sinful Gentiles” in quotes. I believe this is the correct move, as it helped communicate the nature of the statement. It is not a derogatory dig on Gentiles as being a bunch of sinners. The Jews understood the “nations” of the Old Testament to be the pagan people groups; it was their mission to remain distinct from them and display God to them. The phrase refers to their status as pagans and not their nature (or value) as human beings.

Second, notice Paul’s direct reference to the rabbinic argument surrounding the idea of justification. We have referenced multiple times in this series the debate that existed between the schools of Shammai and Hillel on whether or not a Jew was justified by faith or by the “works of the law.” The “works of the law” are referenced directly in the passage above (ergu nomu in the Greek). We said Shammai believed a person was justified or “declared righteous” (my favorite expression, like Lancaster, is “exonerated”) by following the miqsat ma’asay haTorah (the “works of the law”); Hillel disagreed and said that, just like Abraham, they are justified by faith and simply believing in the promises of God. The New Testament community decided the way of Jesus (almost always) sided with Hillel. Paul reminds Peter of this decision — a decision that those of the “circumcision group” disagreed with.

“But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.

Paul mentions that “through the law I died to the law.” What he means by this is NOT that he stopped following the law; this is quite clear by simply examining the other arguments, assumptions, and behaviors of Paul in the New Testament. Paul is still observing Jewish festivals, worshipping at the Temple, and the taking of Nazarite vows. Paul is certainly still living according to kosher law. However, he is also saying it is through Torah itself that he learned he is not justified by following Torah. He agrees with Hillel and states that Torah itself testified to justification by faith. It is through the Law that he died to the need to be justified by the Law. This will be seen when Paul, in the next chapter, uses the books of Genesis and Leviticus to argue for the gospel and justification by faith.

Paul is looking at great leaders like Peter (and Barnabas) and claiming that if they — in these moments, with people who disagree — rebuild what the community of Jesus has worked so hard to tear down, then the gospel would be stripped of its power. If they rebuild what others worked so hard to tear down, then people don’t see the story God has been telling since Genesis. If they rebuild what others worked so hard to tear down, they will actually be lawbreakers — people who are abolishing the teaching of Torah itself!

“For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”

"Not to burden you"

So Paul and Barnabas continue on their way through the region, heading to places like Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe. They have very similar experiences in these places as they had in Pisidian Antioch. If you read through Acts 14, you will find they are initially received quite well in all these areas. As they go throughout Asia Minor, they proclaim a gospel of inclusion for the Gentiles. We are told they are quite persuasive in Iconium and a great number of Jews and Gentiles believe. They also have quite a successful beginning in Lystra and a wonderful time in Derbe. At each location, they have a group of Judeans (as it would be translated more literally, not simply “Jews” as most of our translations have it; these Judeans are from the Jerusalem church that has rejected this newfound inclusion of the Gentiles) who follow them, causing controversy, division, and, over time, their rejection at these locations.

They eventually return to Antioch after causing quite a Jewish ruckus in Asia Minor. The church is forced to deal with the mounting tension within this very Jewish church.

They head to Jerusalem for what many have called the “Jerusalem Council” to discuss what to do about these Gentiles. What is the Church’s position going to be regarding this huge influx of Gentile believers? Will they have to become Torah observant like everyone else? As we mentioned before, this conversation is not new, nor is it even a conversation unique to the Jesus movement. These Jesus followers have taken the same conversation to whole new levels, but it’s far from new dialogue.

We spoke about how Shammai and Hillel kept their typical form in disagreeing about how to handle things. Shammai thought a Gentile would only be justified through obedience to Torah. If this is true, then while a Gentile is welcome to worship God, they will never experience true justification without conversion to Judaism. Hillel argued everyone is justified by faith. If this is true, it would mean Gentiles do not have to become Jewish in order to experience justification; while they still aren’t full children and heirs of God’s chosen household, they are fully accepted cousins and welcome to worship the God of Israel. However, more context will help us understand the guts of the arguments of Shammai and Hillel.

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has done much to help the understanding of the context of the New Testament in some incredible ways. One of the things it helped us discover is how we have much of our reading all wrong (particularly with the teaching of the Apostle Paul). One of the scrolls found is titled Miqsat Ma’asay haTorah, or “The Works of the Law.” Through our study of Mishnaic Judaism, we now understand some things about how first-century Judaism understood Torah. Much of this was prompted by the very argument Shammai and Hillel were engaging about the Gentiles. 

The Jews had broken down the Law into three sections (please note that these are not the typical three sections that are often arbitrarily imposed on the Law [moral, civil, liturgical], which have not produced any historical credibility; these are unrelated distinctions that are being defined more and more thoroughly in modern scholarship through scholars like Mark D. Nanos):

CULTIC LAW: This is the part of the law that has to do with liturgical worship at the Temple. This is the Levitical system of priesthood, sacrifice, and Temple worship. In short, you need a Temple to engage in cultic law. As believers in Jesus, we would say Jesus has become the cultic law for us (which is the argument of the book of Hebrews).

ETHICAL LAW: Ethical law is simply true. No matter who you are or where you are, these laws are universally true for all people. Ethical law isn’t true just because “God said so.” Ethical law is true because it’s the way God made the universe to function. The Ten Commandments would be a good example of ethical law. It’s not an issue of whether or not you are “bound” or “under” the law of the Ten Commandments — “do not murder” is a good idea for everyone. It’s ethical.

“MIQSAT MA’ASAY HATORAH” (The Works of the Law): This is the part of the law that makes you Jewish. After presenting the ketubah of the Ten Commandments at Sinai, after God’s people said “Yes!” to God’s wedding vows, they voluntarily agreed to carry the Law that would make them a “kingdom of priests.” God wanted them to be different than the world around them and put their God on display for the nations. He did this by giving them the “works of the Law” that would do the work of making them different. This includes circumcision (which happens to be the mark of carrying miqsat ma’asay haTorah), kosher eating, wearing tassels, not wearing blended fabrics, etc.

Shammai had decided that you were justified — you were declared righteous (please note, this has nothing to do with salvation) — when God saw you being obedient to the miqsat ma’asay haTorah. This would mean that a Gentile has to become Jewish and begin carrying all three parts of the Law.

But Hillel said God declared you righteous when you believed — just as he did with Abraham in Genesis 15. This would mean that carrying the miqsat ma’asay haTorah was a function of being Jewish, not an expectation from God in order to be justified.

Now, back to our story in Acts 15.

The early Christians are battling through this same argument, only they have more at stake. In the new Kingdom order Jesus brought, this won’t just be about justification; this will be about sonship. This will be about God’s household. This will be about these pagan, rough-around-the-edges, former idolaters becoming full-fledged heirs of God’s promises.

There are some Jesus followers who are adamant that this is too much, and the gospel is going too far.

There are some who say this is what God has always been up to.

And they don’t agree. And they argue. And when they are done, they decide Hillel is right and Shammai is wrong.

And just like their Rabbi Jesus, they decide Hillel hasn’t gone far enough. But more on that later.

Unclean Sheets

In my opinion, the next story in the book of Acts is one of the most misunderstood, misapplied, and critical stories of the book. In order to set up the context for the story, we may find it helpful to remind ourselves of the Jewish nature of the story. I find that far too many Christian readers will see what they call the “Old Testament” as a Jewish story and the “New Testament” as a story predominantly of Gentiles. While we’ve worked very hard to preserve the Jewishness of Jesus in our walk through the gospel accounts, it is even more difficult for us to maintain a Jewish perspective through the record of Acts. I mean, the whole book is a record of the Gentile church, right?

Not exactly.

It would serve us well to stop and realize or remind ourselves that up to this point, the entire story has been Jewish. While there has been plenty of Gentile interaction in the New Testament (this isn’t unique to the New Testament; Gentiles are all over the Tanakh as well), this interaction has always fit within a Jewish worldview and a Jewish context. The story of the Ascension is a story of a Jewish rabbi and his talmidim; the story of Pentecost is a Jewish story of Shavuot (yes, when you stop to consider it, Pentecost was a story about Jews, not Gentiles). The stories about the believers sharing their possessions, breaking bread, and praying together are stories about Jewish believers. The problem with the widows, the stoning of Stephen, and the life-change of Saul is all Jewish.

The story of Cornelius presents the first encounter with a Gentile not being assumed as a Jewish convert, and a Jewish apostle confronted in his worldview about how to interact with a fellowship of the goyim (the Hebrew word for “Gentiles”).

The story begins with a man named Cornelius who lives in Caesarea — which happens to be a VERY Roman city that doesn’t share the values of the Jewish world of Judea and Samaria — and has a love for the God of Israel and a heart of righteousness that gives to the marginalized and shows hospitality. After an incredible God-encounter, he sends for Peter, who happens to be down the road at Joppa.

As the messengers head out for Joppa, we are told about Peter, who is having an encounter of his own. He goes up to the roof of the home to catch a nap and has a vision of a sheet coming down with all kinds of animals. The passage specifically mentions that there are unclean animals included (reptiles and four-footed animals of “all kinds”). A voice speaks to Peter and directs him to kill and eat. Peter objects on the grounds that eating unclean animals is against the Law and he has never done this in all his life. The voice tells Peter not to call unclean what God has made clean.

It’s at this point where biblical interpretation starts to go off the rails for many of us. I have heard numerous times that this is where God decides all food is now clean, and kosher law doesn’t exist anymore. But such an interpretation completely ignores the details of the passage and demonstrates horrific Biblical exegesis.

First, God has not made unclean animals clean; God has very clearly called them unclean. This is why Peter is so confused by the vision. Three times the vision repeats itself and each time Peter insists on being obedient. The reasoning for Peter is clear: “I will not eat something unclean.” The voice says not to call unclean what is clean. Peter’s logic says, “That’s just fine, but that lizard IS unclean and I’m not to eat it.”

Second, we cannot forget the context of the vision. Peter is being prepared by God for a world-shaking encounter with Cornelius; Peter’s world is about to be blown up. To understand the cultural context, we have to understand what was called Jewish halakhah, or the oral traditions and teachings about how to walk out God’s commands. When God gave you Torah, He gave you 613 commands to follow; the problem has always been trying to figure out HOW to follow those 613 commands correctly. In order to help in this process, the Jewish world was working on a canonized oral tradition. This oral tradition stated that since you were trying to avoid contact with unclean things, a Jew should not eat with a Gentile. They are unfamiliar with kosher law and do things all the time that make themselves unclean.

What was often overlooked is the difference between God’s written law and the oral law (halakhah or traditions). To this day, the Jewish faith will see the oral law with similar authority (in fact, in some ultra-Orthodox circles, with MORE authority) as the written law. The Talmud teaches that when Moses came down the mountain with the written law, he also came down the mountain with the oral law. Whether they believe this to be literally true or not is beside the point; the application is that you cannot have written law without oral law.

I think this observation is true on principle and often poorly applied. As we’ve tried to show through the life of Jesus, he often questioned the oral traditions and critiqued them, while always upholding Torah to the letter. Peter finds himself in a world that has declared kosher law, by extension, means the Gentiles are unclean. You can search your Torah as long as you like — God never said such a thing. Nevertheless, at the point of the vision, Peter is very confused, but his encounter with Cornelius is going to fill in the blanks.

People often act like interpreting this passage is an arbitrary and ambiguous thing, but Peter interprets the vision for us! He tells the people in Acts 10 that they are well aware of the Jewish traditions, but he has recently been shown that PEOPLE are not unclean. To be clear, the vision of Peter has nothing to do with food; the vision is about people. The food issue for Peter is quite black and white; certain foods are clean, certain foods are unclean. But God is telling Peter that people are not unclean and he needs to see them as such.

Now, I know some astute readers are thinking, “Hey! Wait a minute! Are you telling me I should be eating kosher?” Wait on that specific answer, but the question itself is brilliant, because that question is what so much of the New Testament is about.

Certainly, the world of the apostles began to shake that day, as God starts to chip away at their assumptions and blow apart old wineskins so He could restore a world He has always been trying to reach. He had told Abraham at the beginning of the story He was looking for a partner to bless all nations. The story of the conquest put His people at the crossroads of the earth so they could bring shalom to chaos in the midst of the nations. The prophets spoke again and again of God’s people being a light to the nations and a hope for the goyim.

Sometimes, our oral traditions and our interpretations get in the way of what God is trying to do. When He blows apart our parameters and our insulators, our whole world begins to shake. But a shaking world of religious uncertainty is often the beginning of a revolution of redemption and the liberation of captives.