I am using the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on Acts 11-13.

    It was Barnabas, “the son of exhortation”, who introduced Saul to the leaders of the Church when he returned to Jerusalem after his conversion. Now, in today’s passage we read that after Barnabas arrived in Antioch, at the behest of the leaders of the Jerusalem Church, and saw what was happening he went to get Saul. Luke does not really tell us what about the situation in Antioch made Barnabas think Saul was the answer, but Barnabas’ action here combined with his earlier intervention for Saul in Jerusalem suggests that they had known each other before Saul’s conversion. I noticed something today that I do not recall anyone ever commenting on. It was believers from Cyprus who began preaching to Gentiles in Antioch and Barnabas was originally from Cyprus. I have heard and read many messages that speak of Barnabas being selected by the Jerusalem Church for this mission because of his personality. However, it seems likely that Barnabas was chosen because of his connections with those who had first begun converting the Gentiles in Antioch. Further, I believe that Barnabas brought in Saul because of Saul’s background as a student of the Law of Moses and rabbinical traditions. Barnabas’ idea appears to have been that Saul could teach the Gentile believers what they needed to know from the Law of Moses. In a similar manner, we need to teach those who were not raised in Christian traditions the understandings which underpin Jesus’ teachings (such as God as the standard for what is good and the idea that everyone is guilty before the Law).

    I noted in a previous post about how Luke changes the names by which he refers to people as they were thought of differently by those who would have been present. In today’s passage we have something similar. When Barnabas and Saul set out on their missionary journey, Barnabas’ name comes first. Then, after Luke switches to using the name “Paul” instead of “Saul” he also starts listing the duo as “Paul and Barnabas”, Paul now gets top billing instead of Barnabas. Before I mention more about this, I want to make note of the fact that Barnabas and Saul begin their journey in Cyprus, Barnabas’ home country. I think it is worth noting the context in which Luke changes each of these things. He first refers to Saul as Paul when Paul confronts a Jewish sorcerer in order to evangelize a Gentile.

On a side note, that Gentile was named Sergius Paulus. One of the possible explanations for Saul being called Paul is that he had a connection with a family with that same surname…including the possibility of Saul or his father having been adopted by someone with that surname. Personally, I prefer an alternate explanation. Saul may have been known as Paul because he was a small man (Paulus in Latin means small). Which leads me to imagine a scrawny, short Paul confronting a tall, imposing Elymas.

Then Luke switches the name order of the two evangelists when they travel to Antioch in Pisidia, which is where they first switch their focus from preaching to Jews to preaching to Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas changed their focus because some of the Jews became jealous of the attention which the pair received from the Gentiles of the town. The Jews had had a synagogue in this town for generations without much interest from the general populace. Suddenly Paul and Barnabas show up and everyone wants to see what is going on. How often do we fall into the same trap, becoming jealous of someone who manages to draw crowds to listen to God’s word? We should be happy that people are listening to God’s word, even if those preaching it have shortcomings in what they are teaching. As Paul says in one of his letters, whether for good reasons or bad, Christ is preached!

I am using the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on Acts 9-10.

    Here we see two examples of Luke changing the name he uses for people. As I said the other day, I believe that Luke changes the names he uses as part of his attention to detail. The two people mentioned are Saul and Barnabas. Earlier, Luke referred to Barnabas by his given name, Joseph, but told us that he was also known as Barnabas. Further on in this book, Luke switches to referring to Saul as Paul (and explains at that point that Saul was also called Paul). If Luke were making this up, it would make an easier story to tell if he just used the same name throughout. The only reason I can imagine for using the different names is so that his readers could more easily corroborate what he was writing. At the point in time being described in today’s passage, everyone knew Saul as “Saul”, at the time of events described later people know him as “Paul”.

    Luke’s description of Peter’s vision and his visit with Cornelius are absolutely critical for us to read and learn the lesson they contain. Luke is not at all bashful in making sure we understand the lesson here. The only thing Luke could have added to make his point even more clear was a reference to Genesis 1:26. Peter as a good and conscientious Jew would have considered Gentiles to be unclean and that associating with them would make him unclean. Peter got the Holy Spirit’s message, no one created in God’s image should be considered unclean. Martin Luther King, Jr got it right, we should judge people by the content of their character not by their ancestry. Actually, we should judge people by their reaction to the Holy Spirit. When Peter saw the Holy Spirit fill Cornelius and his household he recognized that they should be baptized. I want to emphasize that anyone who judges people based on anything other than their actions is not following the clear direction of God…and when judging people based on their actions we need to be prepared to forgive them…even if they sin repeatedly.

I am using the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on Acts 7-8.

    When Stephen was put on trial he did not answer the charges directly. Instead, he recounted an abridged version of the history of the Israelites. Stephen’s speech is an example of God fulfilling the believers’ prayer from a few chapters earlier. He was indeed bold in proclaiming the Gospel, and no more tactful than Peter had been in his earlier speeches. Stephen accused the Sanhedrin of betraying and murdering the Messiah, and further of having the Law but not obeying it. Then when Stephen looked up to Heaven and declared that he saw the Son of Man standing next to God they could take no more. They rushed Stephen, dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Now, I have never experienced being stoned, but I have been hit by a rock thrown at me. Which makes Stephen’s reaction to being stoned remarkable. While he was being stoned Stephen prayed for God to forgive those who were in the act of killing him. Once more I am reminded of the shooting in Texas during the worship service. We should not seek armed guards to protect us from such an incident. Rather, we should pray to God that, if we find ourselves in such a situation, we have the strength to do as Stephen did. Luke’s mention of Saul standing there approving Stephen’s death was not just an interesting detail. He included that to tell us that Stephen’s reaction had far reaching influence.

    I have always paid close attention to the stories about Philip in the Bible (interesting side note, why does Luke not distinguish between Philip the Apostle and Philip the Deacon?) because I share the name. Actually, despite my fascination with my namesake I am more interested in Simon the Magician in the first of the two stories involving Philip. This Simon was celebrity in Samaria who had used his talents to set himself up as a kind of cult leader. Sometimes we get caught up in the folklore regarding Simon the Magician and miss what really happened. First, he immediately recognized the difference between the miracles which Philip performed and the tricks which he had done. Which led Simon to become a believer along with many others. Then when Peter and John arrived and the Holy Spirit came upon people, Simon wanted that ability. It seems clear to me that Simon wanted the ability to lay on hands and have people receive the Holy Spirit in order to return to the spotlight he had enjoyed before his conversion. However, when Peter reprimanded him for seeking to purchase God’s power, he was immediately contrite. He did not attempt to defend his actions, but instead begged Peter to pray for him.

    I really like the story of Philip and the Ethiopian. First, I like what it tells us about following God’s direction when it comes to winning people to Christ. When I read this account I always wonder if the angel who told Philip to go to that particular road was a supernatural being who appeared to Philip or if it was a more mundane seeming messenger whom Philip described as an angel (the word translated “angel” can also be translated as “messenger”). In either case, I imagine Philip heading along the road wondering what he was supposed to do now when he saw the Ethiopian sitting in his chariot reading a scroll. A little voice in his head told him to go over and see what the guy was reading. I can imagine that because I have had it happen to me, not with the same remarkable results as happened here but nevertheless with results which make it clear that God intended me to be at that place at that moment. However, the key thing about this passage is something to which I think we pay too little attention. When the Ethiopian understood what Philip was telling him, he immediately requested to be baptized in the first body of water they came upon and Philip did so. Philip did not say, “Well, you need to go through membership class first.” Or, “Well, we need to wait for one of the Apostles to do it.” No, Philip took the eunuch over to the water and baptized him. We should do the same.

I am using the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on Acts 4-6.

    I want to start today’s Bible Study by focusing on the believers’ response to the threats against them from the Sanhedrin. They prayed, but what did they pray for? First, take note of what they did NOT pray for; they did not pray for safety, for protection from those threats. Instead they prayed for boldness. Our prayers should be similar. Our first concern in our prayers should not be our safety. It should be our willingness to do God’s will and preach the Gospel in the face of danger. We need to remember the prayer of the early believers in light of incident’s such as the shooting during Sunday services in Texas the other week. Our prayers, and our actions, should not be primarily about safety in Sunday worship but rather the boldness to worship and serve God in the face of such risks.

    I did not originally think I was going to write much about the early Church sharing their possessions. However, when I finished the above in fewer words than I expected and began reading the rest of the passage I notices something I am not sure ever quite registered before. When we read the Acts of the Apostles we tend to separate Acts 4:32-37 from Acts 5:1-10 into two stories. I am convinced that Luke intended for them to be part of the same story. Verse 32 sounds as if all of the believers threw their money and possessions into one pot which people took from as they needed. It sounds a lot like Marxian Communism. However, Luke gives us an example about how it really worked in verses 34-37. Those who had assets would liquidate some of those assets and give them to the Apostles to distribute to those in need (I want to come back to this distribution a little later). Luke even gives as an example of how that worked with Barnabas.

As a side note, I find it interesting that here Luke calls him by his given name, “Joseph”, but mentions that he was known as Barnabas. Later, Luke only refers to him as Barnabas. I suspect that this reflects the way Luke’s sources for the story referred to Joseph/Barnabas and is intended to allow for more easy corroboration of his story from those sources.

We have a further example of how this worked in the story of Ananias and Sapphira. Now this second example of how it works has another point as well, but the part I want to focus on is what Peter told Ananias, “The property was yours to sell or not sell, as you wished. And after selling it, the money was also yours to give away.” It would have been perfectly acceptable for Ananias to keep the property. It would have been perfectly acceptable for him to have sold the property and kept the money, or to have given only part of it to the Church to help the needy. Ananias’ and Sapphira’s only sin was in trying to get the recognition for giving the entire amount while only giving part. So, there was no obligation for the wealthy to give to aid the needy. They did so, or not, out of the conviction of their own heart.

    I said I would get back to the distribution to the needy. Luke is not as explicit in explaining how the distribution to the needy went as he is on how the giving side worked, but we can see a bit of it. However, we get an idea about how it worked from the appointment of the Deacons. If it had just been a matter of giving money to those in need, it would not have been such an arduous task. Instead, the Apostles, initially, and later the Deacons, determined the need and supplied what was needed. They did not just give the needy widows money to buy food, they gave them food. I do not think that represents a hard and fast methodology. The key was that those distributing aid determined the need and supplied the actual need. It was not a pot of money shared willy-nilly to whoever asked. From here, and from things in Paul wrote in his letters, I think we see that the leaders of the Church worked with those in need to aid them in supplying their own needs as best they were able, then the Church picking up the slack to meet the needs of all of Its members.

I am using the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on Acts 1-3.

    The first thing I want to point out is that between His resurrection and His ascension, Jesus ate food on a regular basis (Luke mentions “Once when He was eating with them…”). That tells us that Jesus’ resurrected body was a physical body. When the disciples asked Jesus when He would overthrow the Roman Empire, He told them the dates and times for that were not for them to know. This clearly tells us that we cannot learn the date of Jesus’ return by studying prophecy. Another thing which Luke lets drop as if it was a minor point is that there were others among Jesus’ disciples aside from the Twelve, who had started following Jesus when He was baptized by John and were still among His followers after His resurrection. We do not know how many, but we know it was significantly more than two (if it had only been four or five, it seems to me that they would have just drawn lots between all of them rather than nominate two for selection between).

    I want to bring to your attention, and mine, that the disciples experienced the power of the Holy Spirit in a way which no one could miss. There were some who dismissed it a them being drunk, and I am sure there were those in the crowd who thought they were crazy, but the key thing is that people outside the room knew that something was happening. When we are filled with the Holy Spirit, people notice.
    In this passage we have two speeches by Peter where he called on the people listening to repent. After each speech we are told that many people joined the disciples in worshiping Jesus. In both speeches Peter accused his listeners of being responsible for Jesus’ death. He does not sugar coat it. He makes no caveat that some of them were not present in the city at the time (although many of those present would not have been). In the second speech Peter allows that they acted in ignorance, but under Jewish Law ignorance was no excuse for sin. Peter was not afraid to call those he was calling to repentance sinners. He was not afraid that they would be offended. There is a time and a place for tact. When we are calling people to repentance is not that time or place.