David points out that massive Jewish protests (like the uproar over Caligula’s statue in the temple) are basically invisible in Acts; what do you think the apostles’ silence and non-participation communicates about how they defined “faithfulness” when their own people were being publicly provoked and threatened?
Another way to ask: Acts doesn’t mention big Jewish protests, and the apostles don’t seem to join them. What do you think their silence says about what they thought “being faithful” meant when their people were threatened?
Direct Answer
Based on David Bercot’s teaching, the apostles’ silence shows they defined faithfulness primarily as loyalty to God’s kingdom and the gospel, not defending ethnic or national causes through protest or unrest.
Support from Transcript:
David describes Caligula’s plan to place a statue of himself “inside the very temple… in Jerusalem,” which triggered “massive protests.”
He notes, “you would never know anything about it from reading the book of Acts,” even though “the 12 were all Jews, and… Paul was a Jew.”
The apostles “stayed completely clear of the situation” and “didn’t even bother to mention it in any of their writings.”
David adds, “We don’t find the apostles… protesting… Christians didn’t participate in any of the Jewish riots or the Jewish wars against the Romans.”
He interprets this as a pattern: “That is how the apostles and the New Testament Christians looked at the politics and social conflicts of this world.”
Discussion Follow-ups
How do we tell the difference between caring for threatened people and being pulled into the world’s political battles?
