We read in Hosea 1:2-3 that God told the prophet Hosea to “take yourself a wife of harlotry” and that Hosea did so and married “Gomer the daughter of Diblaim” and that she had children with him. In Hosea 3:1-3, God commanded Hosea to “love a woman who is loved by a lover and is committing adultery,” and that Hosea bought her for fifteen shekels of silver and one and one-half homers of barley, but that he had no sexual relationship with her.

The question in this Q&A is whether these passages are to be understood literally, even though, in any case, they represent God’s relationship with Israel.

Commentaries are divided on the issue.

To begin with Hosea 1:2-3, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible states that Hosea was to take as a wife “one who up to that time had again and again been guilty of that sin” and that her children “shared the disgrace of their mother, although born in lawful marriage.”

The Life Application Bible also proposes the literal understanding of the passage. It states:

“Did God really order his prophet to marry a woman who would commit adultery? Some who find it difficult to believe God could make such a request view this story as an illustration, not an historical event. Many, however, think the story is historical… Hosea knew ahead of time that his wife would be unfaithful and that their married life would become a living object lesson to the adulterous northern kingdom… It is difficult to imagine Hosea’s feelings when God told him to marry a woman who would be unfaithful to him. He may not have wanted to do it, but he obeyed.”

This rationale is very difficult to accept. It is hard to believe that God would order one of His prophets to commit an act which would be in blatant defiance of His law, and have the prophet actually carry out that act. Some refer to God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, but this was only a test and God PREVENTED Abraham from carrying out the act. There are other incidents when God commanded His people to commit certain acts seemingly in contradiction to His law, but these occurrences appeared in vision, not literally. We might think of Peter’s vision when God commanded Him to eat unclean meat, to show him that no man was unclean in God’s sight. But even in that vision, Peter did not carry out the act of eating unclean meat.

It is for some of these reasons that several commentators feel that Gomer’s conduct did not constitute physical fornication, but that it describes her spiritual separation from God.

For instance, Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible applies the sinful conduct of Gomer and her children in a spiritual way. He states that Gomer was  “a wife from among the Israelites, who were remarkable for spiritual fornication, or idolatry. God calls himself the husband of Israel; and this chosen nation owed him the fidelity of a wife… He therefore says, with indignation, Go join thyself in marriage to one of those who have committed fornication against me, and raise up children who, by the power of example, will themselves swerve to idolatry.”

However, this explanation poses another problem. It would require that Hosea—a righteous prophet—would marry an idolatrous woman. This would violate God’s command in the Old and the New Testament, not to marry an ungodly person. In light of this difficulty, the Soncino commentary adds the following thoughts:

“Ibn Ezra repudiates the suggestion that the command is to be understood literally. The chapter is, according to him, the record of a vision which is to be interpreted allegorically. Some Talmudic authorities held it to be a command which Hosea literally obeyed, to impress his contemporaries with the heinousness of their infidelity… Most moderns explain the words as meaning ‘a woman who would lapse into harlotry,’ not that she was a harlot at the time of marriage… It was only on reflection, when Gomer’s character had become manifest, that Hosea saw how this divinely ordered marriage was the symbol of Israel’s apostasy from God, and his own love for the erring wife was the prophecy of God’s unfailing compassion to Israel… Modern commentaries find support for the historicity of the marriage in the fact that these names (“Gomer the daughter of Diblaim”) bear no allegorical meaning…  the paternity of the first child was not in doubt, but after his birth Gomer became unfaithful to her husband…”

However, these explanations do not explain the problem that God would have ordered the prophet to commit acts in violation of His Law, and that He would have ORDERED him to get married to someone whom He knew would be (or become) unfaithful. The reference to a name (“Gomer”) is not sufficient ground to insist that the passage must be literal. In a parable or a vision, fictitious names can be easily attached to invented or real persons. For instance, Christ told a parable about Lazarus and the rich man, but it is not to be necessarily concluded that this was a literal account about living people. Christ was simply explaining the fate of those in the first and the third resurrection.

As a consequence, some commentators feel that God’s command to Hosea was not to be understood and carried out literally at all. Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible proposes that none of it really happened:

“Some think this was really done; that the prophet took a whore, and cohabited with her… but this seems not likely… It seems best therefore to understand the whole as a parable, and that the prophet, in a parabolical way, is bid to represent the treachery, unfaithfulness, and spiritual adultery of the people of Israel, under the feigned name of an unchaste woman, and of children begotten in fornication; and to show unto them that their case was as if he had taken a woman out of the stews, and her bastards with her; or as if a wife married by him had defiled his bed, and brought him a spurious brood of children…”

The Geneva Study Bible seems to agree with that interpretation, stating: “… not that the Prophet did this thing in effect, but he saw this in a vision, or else was commanded by God to set forth under this parable or figure the idolatry… of the people.”

The Jamieson, Fausset and Brown commentary reaches the same conclusion that this was “not externally acted, but internally and in vision, as a pictorial illustration of Israel’s unfaithfulness… the loathsomeness of such a marriage, if an external act,… would require years for the birth of three children, which would weaken the symbol… ‘children of whoredoms’ means that the children, like their mother, fell into spiritual fornication… Being children of a spiritual whore, they naturally fell into her whorish ways.”

This seems to be the correct view. Hosea is telling a parable, relating what he saw in a vision, to impress on the people in what horrible spiritual state they were. This understanding has of course consequences for the correct interpretation of the “events” in Hosea 3:1-3. Since the passage in Hosea 1:2-3 has been judged to be allegorical or fictitious, the same must be true for the continuation of the story in Hosea 3.

When addressing Hosea 3:1-3, we find, of course, that the same difference of opinion prevails in commentaries as to the literal or figurative understanding of this passage.

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible states that the woman mentioned in that chapter “is the same Gomer, whom the prophet had before been bidden to take, and whom, (it appears from this verse) had forsaken him, and was living in adultery with another man. The ‘friend’ is the husband himself, the prophet. The word ‘friend’ expresses, that the husband of Gomer treated her, not harshly, but mildly and tenderly so that her faithlessness was the more aggravated sin… Gomer is called ‘a woman,’ in order to describe the state of separation, in which she was living. Yet God bids the prophet to ‘love her’…  He is now bidden to buy her back, with the price and allowance of food, as of a worthless slave, and so to keep her apart, on coarse food, abstaining from her former sins, but without the privileges of marriage, yet with the hope of being, in the end, restored to be altogether his wife. This prophecy is a sequel to the former, and so relates to Israel, after the coming of Christ, in which the former prophecy ends.”

The Broadman Bible commentary disagrees in regard to the value of the price, even though it also takes the passage quite literally, stating: “Such specification [of the amount] underscores the historicity of the passage. The varied items and measures suggest that Hosea was probably hard pressed to raise the purchase price for his wife, having to resort to both silver and grain as opposed to all of one or the other. There is no way to determine the precise amount which Hosea paid for Gomer, but the price of a slave was generally reckoned at 30 shekels of silver… It was at considerable price, but for a poor man of the eighth century, that Hosea redeemed his wife. He expended his accumulated possessions in exchange for one who had despised him publically. Only a love like that of God could so prompt a man to forgive and redeem.”

Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, which understands Hosea 1:2-3 in a strictly spiritual sense, as describing spiritual idolatry and not physical adultery, continues to point out the following regarding Hosea 3:1-3:

“This is a different command from that mentioned in the first chapter. That denoted the infidelity of the kingdom of Israel, and God’s divorce of them. He gave them up to their enemies, and caused them to be carried into captivity. The woman mentioned here represents one who was a lawful wife joining herself to a paramour; then divorced by her husband; afterwards repenting, and desirous to be joined to her spouse; ceasing from her adulterous commerce, but not yet reconciled to him. This was the state and disposition of the Jews under the Babylonish captivity. Though separated from their own idols, they continued separated from their God. He is still represented as having affectionate feelings towards them; awaiting their full repentance and contrition, in order to renew the marriage covenant. These things are pointed out by the symbolical actions of the prophet.”

Most would disagree that Hosea 3 describes a different woman than the one in Hosea 1. It appears that the same woman is described in both passages. Therefore, Clarke’s reference to the “Jews under Babylonish captivity” misses the point. Hosea was a prophet sent to the house of Israel, prior to their captivity through the Assyrians. The Jews—the house of Judah—would be captured much later through the Babylonians. Hosea addresses the same woman in both chapters, referring to the house of Israel in both cases.

In light of this confusion, the following comments by Soncino are more convincing in this context. It points out some problems with the concept of taking this passage literally, stating that “at the bidding of God, Hosea gives his wife, who had left him for another man, a chance to retrieve herself… Although Gomer had betrayed him, he was to take her back as the wife he had formerly loved… The Torah (Deuteronomy 24:1 ff.) forbade the return of a divorced wife after she had lived with another man.”

Therefore, it would be difficult to understand this passage in a literal way, rather than as a vision and a parable with spiritual applications.

The Jamieson Fausset and Brown commentary, which had understood Hosea 1:2-3 as a vision, states pertaining to Hosea 3:1:

“The prophet is to take back his wife, though unfaithful, as foretold in [Hosea] 1:2. He purchases her from her paramour, stipulating she should wait for a long period before she should be restored to her conjugal rights… at last she shall acknowledge Messiah, and know [God’s] goodness restored to her.”

Again, it seems to be the correct understanding that Hosea did not carry out literally, what is described in Hosea 3:1-3, but that he received God’s words in a vision to tell in a parable that Jesus Christ—the YHWH of the Old Testament–would marry spiritual Israel at the time of His return, after His Old Testament unfaithful “wife” had repented and obtained forgiveness of sin and the gift of the Holy Spirit at the time of baptism, thereby becoming spiritual Israel. God will marry her after “His wife has made herself ready” (Revelation 19:7-9).

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

In certain Islamic countries, thieves and others are maimed, by cutting off their hand. Was such a procedure ever condoned or even enjoined in the Bible, under any circumstances? The passage in Deuteronomy 25:11-12 states:

“If two men fight together, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of the one attacking him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall not pity her.”

Was this command to be applied literally?

In a previous Q&A, we explained the meaning of the “lex talionis” in the Old Testament—the “eye for an eye” and “a tooth for a tooth” principle.

We pointed out the following:

“The ‘an eye for an eye’ principle is commonly known as the ‘lex talionis,’ which is Latin for the ‘law of retaliation.’ It is mentioned in the Old Testament in Exodus 21:23-27; Leviticus 24:18-20; and Deuteronomy 19:21. Rather than requiring the literal maiming of a guilty person, this law has been correctly understood as requiring equivalent monetary compensation. The law made it also clear that victims were to be compensated fairly, as determined by judges and magistrates. Victims were not to resort to ‘self-help.’

“… the Church of God has taught consistently that the ‘an eye for an eye principle’ was not meant to be applied literally in the sense of maiming a person…”

In that Q&A, we cited numerous commentaries and Scriptural evidence for this conclusion. In addition, Friedman, Commentary on the Torah, explains on pages 400-401 (in discussing Leviticus 24:20): “… the earliest postbiblical Jewish sources already understood ‘an eye for an eye’ to mean monetary, and not literal, compensation.”

To include another statement, which we did not quote in the above-mentioned Q&A, Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible explains, in discussing Leviticus 24:19:

“‘And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour’…. Does him any hurt or mischief, causes any mutilation or deformity in him by striking him: ‘as he hath done, so shall it be done unto him’: not that a like damage or hurt should be done to him, but that he should make satisfaction for it in a pecuniary way; pay for the cure of him, and for loss of time, and in consideration of the pain he has endured, and the shame or disgrace brought on him by the deformity or mutilation, or for whatever loss he may sustain thereby…”

With this background, let us review the passage in Deuteronomy 25:11-12. Was this command of cutting off the woman’s hand to be carried out literally?

Some commentaries think so.

For instance, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible writes:

“This is the only mutilation prescribed by the Law of Moses, unless we except the retaliation prescribed as a punishment for the infliction on another of bodily injuries (Leviticus 24:19-20). The act in question was probably not rare in the times and countries for which the Law of Moses was designed. It is of course to be understood that the act was willful, and that the prescribed punishment would be inflicted according to the sentence of the judges.”

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible also allows for the literal application of this command, stating:

“‘Then thou shall cut off her hand’… Which was to be done not by the man that strove with her husband, or by any bystander, but by the civil magistrate or his order. This severity was used to deter women from such an immodest as well as injurious action… though the Jewish writers interpret this not of actual cutting off the hand, but of paying a valuable consideration, a price put upon it… and Aben Ezra compares it with the law of retaliation, ‘eye for eye’, Exodus 21:24… and who adds, if she does not redeem her hand (i.e. by a price) it must be cut off:

“‘thine eye shall not pity her’; on account of the tenderness of her sex, or because of the plausible excuse that might be made for her action, being done hastily and in a passion, and out of affection to her husband; but these considerations were to have no place with the magistrate, who was to order the punishment inflicted, either in the strict literal sense, or by paying a sum of money.”

Other commentaries reject the view of requiring or even allowing a literal application of this command. The Soncino commentary states:

“The interpretation is that she has to pay monetary compensation for the shame she caused the man…Even if she be poor she must pay the fine.”

This has to be the right view. Since the “an eye for an eye” principle has been correctly understood as referring to monetary compensation, it would make little sense to inflict the punishment of maiming a woman for her immodest conduct in the heat of passion, while coming to the defense of her husband. This conclusion is even more compelling when considering the fact that Jesus used similar wording in the New Testament. He spoke of cutting off our hand which tempts us to sin, but He never meant this to be understood literally.

In the afore-mentioned Q&A, we explained this as follows:

“In the New Testament, Jesus Christ sometimes used figures of speech to stress a point, but He did not mean a literal application in those cases. For instance, He said in Matthew 5:29-30: ‘If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you… And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you…’ Christ did not mean, of course, to apply this literally; rather, as the Lamsa Bible explains, these are Aramaic idioms, meaning that we are to stop envying [with our eyes] or stealing [with our hands]…

“Jamieson, Fausset and Brown clarify in their Commentary on the Whole Bible, that Jesus was not stating, in any way, that under Old Testament Law, offenders had to be maimed. Christ was addressing quite a different issue: ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,’ i.e., whatever penalty was regarded as a proper equivalent for these. This law of retribution–designed to take vengeance out of the hands of a private person, and commit it to the magistrate–was abused in the opposite way… [justifying in the minds of the people] a warrant for taking redress into their own hands, contrary to the injunctions of the Old Testament… (Prov. 20:22).’”

Jesus used similar wording in Matthew 18:6-9 and in Mark 9:42-48. In each case, He insists that we must refrain from using our hands for the purpose of sinning. Rather, we are told in James 4:8 that sinners must cleanse their hands. Paul explains in Romans 6:13: “And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.”

In Old Testament times, when dealing with carnal and unconverted people, a woman, seizing another man with her hand by his private parts (Living Bible: “grabbing the testicles of the other man”; New Revised Standard Version and Revised English Bible: “seizing his genitals”), had to be fined to impress on her the need to refrain from using her hand in such an inappropriate way. Her hand was to be “cut off” figuratively, not literally; and compensation had to be paid for the misuse of her hand towards a member of the other man’s body which was to be treated with respect (compare the principle in 1 Corinthians 12:23).

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

In Acts 1:15, it says there were about 120 disciples.

In 1 Corinthians 15:6, we read that Christ appeared to 500 “brethren” or disciples.

Many commentaries suggest that the 120 disciples, mentioned in Acts 1:15, only refer to those in Jerusalem, and that the 500 brethren were living in Galilee at that time.

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown states: “… the number … about an hundred and twenty—Many, therefore, of the ‘five hundred brethren’ who saw their risen Lord ‘at once’ (1Co 15:6), must have remained in Galilee.”

The People’s New Testament agrees, stating: “[They were] about an hundred and twenty. This was the number of disciples at Jerusalem, but not all who were then disciples. See 1Co 15:6.”

Wesley’s Notes add: “Who were together in the upper room were a hundred and twenty – But he had undoubtedly many more in other places; of whom more than five hundred saw him at once after his resurrection, 1Cor 15:6.”

On the other hand, Barclay, The Acts of the Apostles, thinks there were only 120 disciples at that time: “There were only 120 pledged to Christ and it is very unlikely that any of them had even been outside the narrow confines of Palestine in his life. Since there were about 4,000,000 Jews in Palestine, this means that fewer than 1 in 30,000 were Christians… If ever anything began from small beginnings the Christian Church did.”

Does 1 Corinthians 15:6 support the idea that Christ had more than 120 disciples at the time of Acts 1:15? Does the reference of 500 disciples in 1 Corinthians 15:6 refer to the time prior to Acts 1:15, or does it describe a subsequent event?

In the New King James Bible, Paul says in 1.Corinthians 15:3-8:

“For I delivered to you first of all which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,  and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then [Greek ”eita”] by the twelve. After that [Greek: “epeita”] He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that [Greek: “epeita”]  he was seen by James, then [Greek: “eita”] by all the apostles. Then last of all [here, the word for “then” does not appear in the Greek; it says, and last of all] He was seen by me also…”

This passage does not have to set forth a time sequence of events or appearances, but it could refer to a list of important events, without setting forth a time sequence.

The Greek word “eita” means “afterwards” or “furthermore.” Compare Hebrews 12:9, where it does clearly NOT describe a time sequence. There, it just sets forth an additional thought or argument.

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible  #1534, defines “eita” as a “succession in time or logical enumeration,” and gives alternative renderings such as “then, moreover, furthermore.”

The word “epeita,” Strong’s #1899, is defined as “after that,” and it is stated that it is derived from “eita” and “epi.” The Greek word “epi” (Strong’s #1909) is defined as “superimposition of time or order.”

In Hebrews 7:2, the word “epeita” (rendered as “then” in the New King James Bible) clearly does not describe a time sequence of events. Another example is James 3:17, where an enumeration of important characteristics is being given.

Another example is 1 Thessalonians 4:17 (“Then we who are alive…”). One of our Q&A’s addresses this passage. It shows that the word “then” in that context does not refer to a time sequence of events, as these events, as described, will occur simultaneously.

What Paul is addressing in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is important proof that Christ was resurrected and that He manifested Himself to the disciples, in bodily form, after His resurrection. He lists different occurrences, not necessarily in time sequence, but perhaps in an order of logical enumeration.

But even if a time sequence is described here, we need to consider the following:

The manifestations of Jesus Christ after His resurrection, as listed by Paul, are by no means exhaustive. He does not list the appearance of Jesus to Mary and the other woman; or to the two disciples on their way to Emmaus, when He appeared to them in “another form” (Mark 16:12). In fact, the Bible does not report anywhere else most of the occurrences which Paul lists.

We do not read anywhere else that Jesus appeared to Peter or Cephas [Aramaic name for Peter] alone or at first, and only then or “afterwards” to the twelve. In fact, the Bible states elsewhere that Christ appeared to the women and then to Peter and the other nine apostles, but “doubting Thomas” was not present. Then He appeared to the eleven—not the twelve, as Judas was dead and was not replaced yet by Matthias. THAT appearance [when the apostles had again reached the number twelve] could have only taken place AFTER the event described in Acts 1:15. Even though Matthias had been with Christ and the apostles from the beginning, so had Barsabas (Acts 1:21-23). But Matthias was not an apostle then; it was determined by lot that he should become an apostle and he was then “numbered with the eleven apostles” (verses 25-26). So when Christ appeared to the twelve apostles after His resurrection, it must have occurred after Matthias had become an apostle—that is, after the events described in Acts 1. See also Matthew 28:16 and Mark 16:14-18, where Christ appeared to the “eleven apostles” after His resurrection, to give them “the great commission.”

Likewise, Christ’s additional appearance to Peter alone must have happened on a different occasion—not, when He appeared to the eleven or the twelve or all of the apostles–and the Bible does not tell us, when exactly it occurred. As an additional consideration, note what the apostle John said about his own recounting of the life of Christ:

“And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:30-31).

We also do not read elsewhere that and when Christ appeared to the 500 brethren; or when He appeared to James, the half-brother of Christ (even though we might conclude that THAT appearance to James did occur in fact prior to the events in Acts 1:15; compare our free booklet, “Jesus Christ—a Great Mystery.”). We are also not told when He appeared to ALL the apostles [obviously referring to more than just twelve, but at the time of Christ’s ascension (Acts 1:6), we only read of eleven apostles, so, as mentioned, the appearance to TWELVE apostles and to “ALL the apostles” (apparently including James at that time) must have taken place AFTER the events in Acts 1:15].

We therefore conclude that some of Christ’s appearances, which are mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15, must have occurred AFTER His ascension and AFTER the event described in Acts 1:15, when about 120 disciples are listed and when Matthias is chosen as one of the apostles, replacing Judas.

Paul is also saying that finally, Christ appeared to him. We know, of course, that He appeared to Paul (then Saul) on his way to Damascus many days after His ascension and the event in Acts 1:15. However, when Christ spoke to Paul on his way to Damascus, the Bible does not tell us that Christ manifested Himself to Paul. We read in Acts 9:3-4 that Paul saw a light which blinded him, and that he heard the voice of Christ. Also, Acts 22:1-21 recounts Paul’s experience in a little more detail; compare in particular verses 6-11. Paul recounts his experience again in Acts 26:12-19, specifically stating that it was a “heavenly vision.”

In addition, Paul was in a “trance” when Christ communicated to him on another occasion (Acts 22:17). This seems to be indicating that Paul saw Him on that occasion in a vision as well (as Stephen did prior to his death, when He saw Christ together with the Father, Acts 7:55-56). We also read that Christ appeared to Paul at one time in another vision (Acts 18:9). [He even saw the third heaven in a vision, compare 2 Corinthians 12:1-4; and John saw the glorified Christ and God the Father in a vision, while on the isle of Patmos, Revelation 1:9-20; 4:2-3].

But we also read in Acts 23:11 that “the following night the Lord stood by” Paul and encouraged him. On that occasion, the way this is worded, it does not say that Paul saw Christ in a vision [compare again by contrast Acts 18:9]; rather, the implication is that Christ seemed to have manifested Himself to Paul at that time (as angels also manifest themselves to man at times, without being recognized by man as angels, Hebrews 13:2). We also recall that Christ, prior to His birth as a human being, manifested Himself on several occasions to man, appearing as a man. He appeared as the high priest Melchizedek (Hebrews 7:1-8); He appeared with two angels to Abraham; and He spoke to Moses who even saw His glory, but only from behind.

In addition, Paul’s reference in 1 Corinthians 15:6 might not have been to any of his VISIONS, during which he saw Christ, as the other occurrences that he mentions in 1 Corinthians 15:5-7 were clearly not “visions” either, but “bodily” manifestations of Christ. Rather, Paul, in mentioning Christ’s appearance to him, might have referred to his lengthy stay in Arabia when he was apparently personally instructed by Christ. In our free booklet, “Paul’s Letter to the Galatians,” we state regarding Galatians 1:11-14:

“‘(Verse 11) But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.’ That is, the gospel of the Kingdom of God is not invented by man. It is a message from God the Father that has to be revealed. In Paul’s case, Christ taught him directly, as is stated in verse 12—apparently, while he lived in Arabia (see below, in verse 17).

“Paul states in Galatians 1:12… ‘For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ…’

“Paul goes on to say… ‘Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus…’

“It appears that Paul was instructed personally by Jesus Christ, when dwelling in Arabia (verse 17)…”

In light of all the foregoing, it appears that the list in 1 Corinthians 15:5-8 does not necessarily set forth a time sequence of events, but even if it does, it is not compelling to conclude that Christ manifested Himself to 500 brethren prior to the event in Acts 1:15. It is plausible that some of Christ’s appearances, including His manifestation to all of the twelve apostles and even to ALL the apostles (more than twelve), and His manifestation(s) to Paul, as well as His manifestation to 500 brethren, occurred after the event described in Acts 1:15, so that the implication is that at the time of Acts 1:15, there were only about 120 disciples who were loyal to Christ.

But we know that subsequently, the Church grew tremendously (compare Acts 2:41, stating that on the Day of Pentecost alone, about 3,000 “souls” were added), but we are also told that later, many fell away from the faith, and the warning remains for us today that prior to Christ’s return, a falling away from the truth in God’s Church is still to occur.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link