Today, I am reading and commenting on  Acts 23-25.

When I read this passage today, I was struck by the idea that a group of zealous Jews conspired with the chief priests and elders to ambush and kill Paul, while he was in Roman custody.  It struck me because Caiaphas, the high priest, justified having Jesus crucified out of fear that He would cause an uprising which would lead Rome to sack Jerusalem and destroy the Temple.  Yet now we have a powerful faction of the Sanhedrin conspiring with a plan to attack a unit of Roman soldiers in order to kill Paul (which would have sparked a more violent Roman response than anything Jesus had done).  These thoughts led me to re-examine my understanding that the Zealots ( a party of religious Jews who actively sought, and eventually succeeded, to foment rebellion among the Jews against Rome) were completely in opposition to the Sanhedrin.  From reading this passage, it seems to me that there existed a group of Jews who used violence to advance their religious, and most likely political, goals which connected with at least one faction of the Sanhedrin.  As I spent a little time researching this, I came across a theory which holds that Saul was a member of such a group up until his conversion.  That theory would go a long way towards explaining why he so rapidly and frequently faced violent opposition from Jewish groups wherever he went.

I want to make the point that the association between the Sanhedrin and the violent insurrectionists indicates a level of hypocrisy which we must work hard to avoid in ourselves and enabling in others.  Further, the conspiracy indicates that Christianity was perceived a s a threat both by those who sought to accommodate Roman rule and by those who sought its violent overthrow.  In fact, both perceived Christianity as so much of a threat that they allied with those whose goals appeared on the surface to be diametrically opposed.

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

Today, I am reading and commenting on  Acts 21-22.

In yesterday’s passage, when Paul addressed the elders of the Ephesian Church, he told that that he was compelled by the Spirit to go to Jerusalem, but  also that the Holy Spirit warned him in every city that hardship and prison waited for him in Jerusalem.  In today’s passage, Luke recounts how disciples in Tyre urged Paul through the Spirit not to go to Jerusalem.  Then, how the prophet Agabus came down to Caesarea to warn Paul that he would be bound by the Jewish leaders and handed over to the Gentiles.  Paul refused to listen to any of the attempts to dissuade him from going to Jerusalem.  As I read this again and again, I become more and more convinced that Paul chose to go to Jerusalem in part because he sought the opportunity to suffer for Christ.  Each year I go through a debate within myself as to whether the repeated warnings which the Spirit gave Paul were intended to discourage him, or to make sure that he knew what he would face in Jerusalem.  The only evidence we have that the Spirit was guiding Paul to Jerusalem is his statement to the Ephesian Elders.  I am torn as to whether or not Luke agreed that Paul was interpreting the leading of the Holy Spirit correctly.  In either case, we should strive to emulate Paul’s willingness to face suffering and persecution in order to remain faithful to God.

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

Today, I am reading and commenting on  Acts 19-20.

Off and on when I have read this passage, I wondered why Luke finds it necessary to point out that Apollos was in Corinth when Paul preached in Ephesus.  It struck me today that perhaps Luke was addressing the idea that Apollos and Paul had either learned from each other, or that there was animosity between them.  We learned in yesterday’s passage that Apollos was a scholar of Jewish Scripture, as was Paul.  Which suggests to me that perhaps Apollos preached a message more similar in style to that taught by Paul than the way in which Peter and the other original followers of Jesus preached.  Remember, the Sanhedrin considered Peter and John to be uneducated men.  So, it seems likely that Luke was making the point here that Apollos did not derive his teaching from Paul, but instead both arrived at similar positions from their study of Scripture.  Some see the difference in emphasis between Paul, and perhaps also Apollos, and the original followers of Jesus as evidence that Christianity, insomuch as it follows Pauline teachings, fails to follow Jesus’ teachings.  However, I believe the way in which the Jerusalem Council embraced Paul’s teaching indicates that the original followers of Christ found Paul’s understanding to be a correct interpretation of what Jesus taught.

There is another aspect of faith in Christ which this passage highlights.  Luke highlights that some people came to faith in Jesus without being baptized by the Holy Spirit.  It is not clear to me from the account here, and elsewhere in the Book of Acts, that those who had received only the “baptism of John” were not saved.  However, it IS clear that receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit should be desired and taught.  I think it is also clear that God will provide means for those who genuinely seek to follow Him to obtain teaching in the ways to do so.  God will pour out His Spirit on those who choose to follow Him.  However, it is also important that we as the Church teach about the Holy Spirit and lay on hands with the intention of the Spirit filling those who have come to faith in Jesus.

*I want to add a final note that I wish I could have found a way to include a reference to the Holy Spirit in my title, because I believe that Apollos’ understanding of the Gospel was deficient before the Holy Spirit was poured out on him.

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

Today, I am reading and commenting on Acts 17-18.

I am always drawn to the message Paul delivered while in Athens.  The idea of using logic and reason to make the case for Christ appeals strongly to me, and that is what I see Paul doing in Athens.  He starts with the beliefs expressed by the people of Athens and then argues from there for people to worship and obey Jesus as the Son of God.  According to the account offered her by Luke, it seems to have worked acceptably well.  However, when Paul writes to the Corinthians later, he seems to have felt that his approach in Athens left something to be desired.  Perhaps I am misreading what Paul meant when he told the Corinthians that he did not come to them with eloquence or human wisdom, but, when we consider that he went to Corinth after being “sneered” at by people in Athens, it seems to fit.

Which brings me around to what I learn by reading how Paul preached in Athens.  We need to make the logical case for God.  We need to discuss/argue/debate with people until we find those places where we share common assumptions about how the world works.  From there we can show them how the Gospel has a certain logical cohesion.  However, we must understand that some people will hide behind “logic” as an excuse to reject God.  No matter how good our arguments and our logic, it is only when people are touched by God’s Spirit that they will turn to Him.  While some people in Athens became believers after listening to Paul speak, others out-of-hand rejected the idea that someone might rise from the dead.

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

Today, I am reading and commenting on  Acts 14-16.

The first thing which struck me today was that Paul was stoned in the city of Lystra, drug out of the city, and left for dead.  A short time later, he got up, re-entered the city, then the next day he left and traveled to Derbe.  Now, I have never been stoned, but I have been hit by rocks thrown at me (the thrower didn’t intend to hit me) and that hurts, a lot.  I also have some understanding of what happens when a crowd stones someone.  Paul would have been pretty seriously injured.  The other thing that stood out to me is that travel in the first century A.D. was not like it is today.  Travel then was comparatively difficult.  You didn’t just get in a car, or hop on a bus.  Even travel by carriage was considerably more strenuous than most travel today.  Later in today’s passage we see an account of where Paul and Silas were beaten with rods and thrown in prison.  Their injuries were such that their wounds still warranted washing many hours later.   Which brings me back to something Paul and Barnabas said to those who followed their teaching: “We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God.”  We see that Paul knew what he was talking about when he said that.  And throughout the Book of Acts he shows that those hardships did not diminish his enthusiasm for preaching the Gospel.  Let us follow his example.

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

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

I have always assumed that the Believers who went to Antioch and began converting Gentiles did so after Peter had baptized Cornelius because it comes after that in Luke’s account.  However, as I was reading today it occurred to me that the way Luke writes this it could have happened before Peter went to Cornelius’ house.  In any case, it is probable that news of these conversions reached Jerusalem after Peter spoke with the other Believers about what had happened at Cornelius’ house.  I am not sure that there is any significance to that timing, just something I noticed.

Of greater note is what happened in Pisidian Antioch.  When Paul and Barnabas visited the synagogue there they were invited to speak.  From Paul’s introduction his remarks it becomes clear that the Jews there were receptive to Gentile converts.  In addition, those leading the synagogue were initially very receptive to the message preached by Paul and Barnabas.  However, when word spread more widely among the Gentiles than any proselytizing they themselves had previously done, they became jealous.  When they saw how excited the people of the city were to hear what Paul and Barnabas had to say they went from being receptive to their message to trying to counter it.  It reminds me of something which happens all too often in the Church today.  When an energetic, enthusiastic speaker from out of town generates excitement for the Gospel message in ways which the local Church has worked for years to produce, rather than embrace the new enthusiasm all too often we highlight what the new comers get wrong…even if we have to stretch the point to do so.

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

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

As I was reading today my attention was drawn to something I never thought about before.  So, after Stephen was martyred, the early Church was heavily persecuted for a period of time.  This led to the Believers being scattered around.  The scattering led them into contact with more people causing faith in Christ to spread to new areas.  Saul was apparently a leader in the persecution and he followed the Believers to where they went in order to continue the persecution.  Then after his conversion, his confrontational approach to trying to convert those Jews who did not believe in Christ kept things going.  However, after the Believers convinced Saul to leave Jerusalem and go to his home town of Tarsus, things calmed down.  So, the persecution scattered the Believers and led the Church to grow, but the peace which came after Saul’s conversion and “exile” also led the Church to grow.  This helps us to see that God brings trials upon us in order to spread the Gospel, but He also uses times of calm to do the same thing.

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

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

Reading today’s passage I noticed that when Stephen is responding to his accusers he points out that the Israelites had rejected Moses when he first tried to rescue them from the Egyptians, before he fled to Midian.  I never noticed that before, primarily because I have always read that part of the Exodus account as Moses acting before God’s time.  Stephen goes on to speak about how the Israelites later rejected Moses when he was on Mount Sinai.  Stephen used this to illustrate the way in which the Israelites resisted the Holy Spirit.  We must be careful to not make the mistake of thinking Stephen’s message about resisting the Holy Spirit applies only to the Israelites, or only to Jews.  Stephen’s message is one we should take to heart as we examine ourselves to see in what ways we may be resisting the working of the Holy Spirit today.  And perhaps the way we most resist the working of Holy Spirit is by our unwillingness to echo Stephen’s final prayer, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.”

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

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

After the Sanhedrin warned Peter and John not to preach in Jesus’ name under threat, the Believers prayed.  They did not pray for protection.  No, they prayed that God would enable them to speak boldly in the face of these threats.  They also prayed that God would heal and perform signs through the name of Jesus.  We today should have a similar attitude.  Rather than pray for protection for ourselves in the face of persecution, we should seek the courage to speak God’s word boldly in the face of it (we can, however, pray that God protects others who are facing persecution for faithfully following God).

The story of Ananias and Sapphira stands as a grim warning to all of us.  When Ananias lied about how much money he had received for the field he sold, he was not lying just to the Apostles, not even just to the Church, he was lying to the Holy Spirit.  As I was reading this today I was reminded that Jesus told us that the only unforgivable sin was blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.   So, I think that this passage gives us more insight into what blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is.  Ananias wanted to be seen as holy and sacrificing without actually sacrificing.  He had no obligation to sell the land.  He had no obligation to give any money from the sale of the land to God’s work.  It would have been perfectly acceptable to give some of the money to the Church while keeping some for himself.  Where he went wrong was by keeping some of the money for himself while claiming that what he gave was the entire sum which he had gotten for the sale of the land..

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

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

I truly believe that the Church in America has lost something by its diminished interest in eschatology.  On the other hand, I remember from when I was growing up that many in the Church also tried to read the eschatological prophecies so as to determine WHEN Christ would return.  In today’s passage, Jesus tells the disciples, and through them, us, that it is not for them, or us, to know the times and dates.  So, we need to study the eschatological writings in the Bible, we need to see what God has told us about His plans for the end of this world, but we also need to recognize that they were not written to allow us to figure out exactly when Jesus will return.  We also need to welcome the Holy Spirit into ourselves and use the power He gives us to be Christ’s messengers to the ends of the earth.

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