A reader passed on to us a rambling confusion sent to him, in which someone erroneously supposed that the Libertines of Acts 9:6 were Gentiles, that the synagogue means the church and that the apostle Paul taught against the Law of Moses whereas Stephen did not. It is hardly useful to include those rambles here, and yet difficult also to address concisely a number of artificially connected notions. Nevertheless, we try below.
A Libertine was a Roman freedman. It does not specify nationality, but status of citizenship. Technically, a Libertine could be Gentile or Jew. In the context of Acts 6, the Synagogue of the Libertines would be decidedly Jewish. Note the observation of Robertson.
The Libertines (Latin libertinus, a freedman or the son of a freedman) were Jews, once slaves of Rome (perhaps descendants of the Jews taken to Rome as captives by Pompey), now set free and settled in Jerusalem and numerous enough to have a synagogue of their own. (Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1997 by Biblesoft & Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament. Copyright (c) 1985 by Broadman Press)
Vincent concurs and adds the following:
In Jerusalem, and probably in other large cities, the several synagogues were arranged according to nationalities, and even crafts. Thus we have in this verse mention of the synagogues of the Cyrenians, Alexandrians, Cilicians, and Asiatics. Libertines is a Latin word (Libertini, “freedmen”), and means here Jews or their descendants who had been taken as slaves to Rome, and had there received their liberty; and who, in consequence of the decree of Tiberius, about 19 A.D., expelling them from Rome, had returned in great numbers to Jerusalem. They were likely to be the chief opponents of Stephen, because they supposed that by his preaching, their religion, for which they had suffered at Rome, was endangered in Jerusalem. (Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1997 by Biblesoft)
The Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary likewise agrees with Robertson and Vincent. The McClintock and Strong Encyclopedia adds:
LIBERTINE: The earliest explanation of the word (Chrysostom) is also that which has been adopted by the most recent authorities. The Libertini are Jews who, having been taken prisoners by Pompey and other Roman generals in the Syrian wars, had been reduced to slavery, and had afterwards been emancipated, and returned, permanently or for a time, to the country of their fathers. (McClintock and Strong Encyclopedia, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 2000 by Biblesoft)
Commentators Albert Barnes and Adam Clarke note the list of synagogues in Acts 6:9 are named according to places in which the members of the various synagogues previously lived, and that the Libertines must apply to a city with a similar name in Africa. Yet, they acknowledge these to be Jews.
It is true that the Greek word for synagogue (depending upon the context in which it appears) may refer to the church; James 2:2 is such an example. That is because the original word conveys the idea of an assembly. Ordinarily, though, the word synagogue was applied to Jewish assemblies in a building by the same name reserved for these assemblies. The context of Acts 9 indicates that the typical Jewish opposition to Christianity is meant. Hence, the Jewish synagogues are intended in Acts 9. The Jewish priests followed the same procedure in their trial of Jesus (Matthew 26:59-62). The Jews also accused Jesus of blasphemy (John 10:33).
Stephen was misrepresented, as was Jesus before him and Paul after him. For instance, Paul was falsely accused of speaking against the Jewish customs that attended Judaism, as the context of Acts 21:18-28 proves. Only, James the brother of Jesus, the Jerusalem elders and the apostle Paul taught that Gentiles were not to adopt Judaism as a prerequisite to becoming Christians (Acts 15:13-29; 21:25).
Finally, one supposed that the Book of Acts was written partly by Luke (chapters 1-8) and the balance by someone else. This seems to have little to do with the questions poised above. Further, no evidence to support such a theory, which would seem to disarm the integrity and inspiration of the volume and the Bible overall, was offered. We, then, under those considerations must dismiss this idea as equally misguided as the rest to which we responded above.
The entire convoluted approach observed above, to which we responded, had as its purpose to portray “Sabbath reasonings” (Acts 13:14ff; 16:13ff; 17:2ff; 18:4ff) in synagogues throughout the Book of Acts as the New Testament church meeting on Saturday instead of the first day of the week for worship. Such a one misses completely the evangelistic nature of the apostle Paul’s activities. Paul went into the synagogues to find ready-made audiences among whom ought to have been the best prepped by the Old Testament to receive news of the fulfillment of the Old Testament in Jesus Christ. When the Jews resisted his preaching, he turned to the Gentiles (Acts 18:6). As a matter of fact, Paul separated the disciples from the Jews in the synagogues (Acts 19:8-9). It is clear that the church of the New Testament worshipped on the first day of the week.
“Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come” (1 Corinthians 16:1-2).
“And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight” (Acts 20:7).
