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

The first thing I want to write about is when Paul apologizes for insulting the high priest by quoting Exodus 22:28, which says “Do not blaspheme God or curse the ruler of your people.”  Although Paul quotes it as saying “Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people.”  Which is something we need to remember when we believe that the rulers of our nation are in some way inadequate or bad.  It is definitely a reminder which I need.  The next thing which I wanted to write about was the 40 men who vowed to not eat or drink anything until they had killed Paul.  They never did kill Paul, so did they starve themselves to death?  Or, did they break their oath?  That is just a minor curiosity which struck me a few years ago, but that I never felt like writing about until now.  More significant is the fact that they conspired with the chief priests, which would have included the man about whom Paul said he should not have spoken evil, in their attempt to execute this plot.  Then later, after a new governor was appointed over Judea, the chief priests again attempted to arrange a chance to get Paul to where they could ambush and kill him.  Again, another group about whom Paul’s belief that he should not speak evil about the ruler of his people would apply.  So, if Paul apologized for speaking evil of the ruler of his people who was conspiring with people to kill him, I don’t think we have any room to justify speaking evil of our rulers today.

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.

Whenever I read yesterday’s and today’s passage I wonder about whether or not it was God’s plan for Paul to be arrested and sent to Rome as a prisoner.   As I read it, there are three possibilities.  One, God was warning Paul about what would happen if he went to Jerusalem in order to dissuade him from going there.  Two, God was warning Paul what would happen if he went to Jerusalem in order to offer him the choice of avoiding it.  Three, God warned Paul about what would happen when he got to Jerusalem in order to test his willingness to suffer for Christ, and to prepare the Church for it.  Which of these you believe to be the correct interpretation changes how you interpret what the Jerusalem Church elders asked Paul to do.  If you believe interpretation two or three, then Paul acting to show that he still followed the Law of Moses was the right thing to do, even though it led to his arrest.  If you believe interpretation one, then Paul was foolish to worry about what other believers thought of him.  Now that I have spelled it out that way I am less inclined to think that option one is the correct way to read this.  If one looks at it in that light, then Paul joining with a few others to go through the purification rites is completely in line with what he writes in Romans 14. “Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters.”

In summation, I believe that God gave Paul the choice of suffering by being imprisoned and eventually killed, or continuing in this world, and Paul chose to suffer and die for Christ.  I do not believe that Paul would have been wrong to choose to not go to Jerusalem, but also that he was blessed because he did.

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.

The first thing which stood out to me when I read this passage was that Paul found twelve disciples when he arrived in Ephesus, the same as the number of Apostles Jesus called.  I believe Luke mentioned that number because he was struck by it as well.  The context suggests that these men had come to believe in Jesus because of the teaching by Apollos.  As I read this part of today’s passage to write about these disciples I took notice that they had not even heard that there was a Holy Spirit.  Considering that, up to this point, Apollos’ teaching about Jesus was primarily based on his understanding of the Old Testament, this highlights how the New Testament reveals things about God which are not apparent from the Old Testament.

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 not sure why I keep feeling like I need to write about teaching the Gospel from the Old Testament, but that is where I am again today.  Today’s chapter begins with Luke saying that it was Paul’s custom to go into the synagogue in every new city he visited and reason from Scripture (which at that time meant the Old Testament) that the Messiah would suffer and rise from the dead.  We see he did that in Thessalonica.  Then in Berea Luke tells us that the Jews examined the Scripture to see if what Paul said was true.  Then towards the end of today’s passage we have the account of Apollos in Ephesus.  Luke tells us that Apollos had thorough knowledge of the Scripture and taught about Jesus accurately, even though he only knew of the baptism of John.  After receiving some instruction from Aquila and Priscilla, Apollos went to Achaia and publicly debated Jews there, proving from Scripture that Jesus was the Messiah.  Having written all of that, I think I realized why I am feeling the need to write about teaching the Gospel from the Old Testament.  I do not believe that I could do what Paul or Apollos did, proving that Jesus was the Messiah from the Old Testament.  However, reading Acts this year, I am coming to believe that I should be able to do so.  I believe that we should study the Old Testament in order to show how it presents the Gospel and predicts what happened to Jesus.

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 was that the people of Lystra spoke a local language which was neither Greek nor Latin.  Two things are significant about that local language.  One, that Paul, Barnabas, and the rest of their party did not speak it.  And, two, that scholars accept that such a language was spoken there even though Luke is the only writer of the period to mention it (writings by other writers of the period support the idea that the people of this area were of a unique ethnicity in ways which would be consistent with them having their own language).  Of greater significance is the way the crowd went from wanting to worship Paul and Barnabas as gods to stoning Paul to death (or, so they thought).  Also of interest is that after they were finished in the city of Derbe, Paul and Barnabas returned to Lystra, where Paul was stoned and left for dead, Iconium, which they had left because people there were plotting to kill them, and Pisidian Antioch, which had expelled 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 11-13.

Today I was struck by what Peter said when he was explaining why he baptized the members of Cornelius’ household.  Actually, the whole story of Peter explaining his visit with Cornelius is striking.  We often forget that because we are so familiar with the story.  Luke tells us that when Peter returned to Jerusalem after visiting with Cornelius, the “circumcised believers” criticized him for entering the house of uncircumcised men and eating with them.  It is worth noting that at this point, that would have been all of the believers other than Cornelius and his household.  After explaining his vision, the fact that men sent by Cornelius arrived as soon as it ended, and Cornelius’ account of the angel, Peter said, “So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”  Then throughout the rest of today’s passage we have accounts of what happens when people attempt to stand in God’s way.  Herod imprisoned Peter and God sent an angel to free him.  A short time later Herod was struck down by a terrible disease.  During Saul’s and Barnabas’ first mission trip when Elymas tried to turn the proconsul away from Christ, he was struck blind.  I do not wish to suffer the fate of those who try to stand in God’s way.

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.

When Saul became a follower of Jesus he almost immediately began preaching in the synagogues of Damascus that Jesus the Messiah.  To go along with my theme from yesterday’s entry, he did not spend much time learning what Jesus had taught, nor did he have the writings of the New Testament to learn from.  Which suggests that Saul also taught Jesus based on his study of the Old Testament.  Before long, the Jews in Damascus began plotting to kill Saul because they were unable to refute his arguments for following Jesus.  Saul fled Damascus and went to Jerusalem, where he once again preached that Jesus was the Messiah.  And once again, when certain Jews could not refute his arguments sought to kill him.  And, again in Jerusalem, Saul spent only a little bit of time with the Apostles before beginning to preach.  Yet, in all of this, the Apostles, who had spent three years listening to Jesus teach, never called Saul out for what he taught about Jesus and about following Jesus.  Which reinforces what I wrote yesterday about being able to learn and teach the Gospel from the Old Testament.

When I first read over this I wanted to make Peter’s interpretation of his vision the center of what I wrote today, but I thought I should touch on the connection between Saul’s early preaching and what I wrote yesterday.  So, now I want to write about Peter’s interpretation of his vision.  My take on it is not something unique or different, but I think it is important for us to remember it today.  When Peter got to Cornelius’ house and began talking with the people there he said, “God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean.”  Let’s look at these two parts together.  Saul got into heated arguments with his fellow Jews in both Damascus and Jerusalem.  Yet, he never sought to distance from them.  It was only when they sought his death, when they violently opposed him, that he left them behind, something which we see in his ministry as described in the rest of the Book of Acts.  Even though Jews sought his death for what he taught, Paul kept reaching out to them.  And here, Peter goes and reaches out to the Gentiles at Cornelius’ house, despite a lifelong training telling him that associating with them would make him ineligible to approach God.  Let us follow the example of Peter and Saul who reached out to others who we might consider “impure”, and who, in Saul’s case, considered him reprehensible.

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.

I know some Christians who prefer not to limit their Bible Study to the New Testament.  They think the Old Testament is unnecessary, and perhaps even problematic.  However, today’s passage gives us some indication that the Old Testament is critical.  Stephen referenced the Exodus in his sermon before he was stoned.  More importantly, when Philip preached the Gospel to the Ethiopian, he used the Old Testament to show him that Jesus was the Messiah.  Philip was able to teach the entire Gospel using the Old Testament.  Without a thorough understanding of the Old Testament, Philip would never have been able to reach the Ethiopian in order to teach him the Gospel.  In much the same way today we limit our ability to understand and communicate the Gospel if we do not study the Old Testament.

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.

I want to start discussing what we learn from the account of Ananias and Sapphira.  In order to understand the account we need to start with verse thirty-two in chapter four.  There we learn that the believers were united and cared for each other.  In particular, it tells us that no one thought of their property as their own, but instead shared everything they had.  Luke writes that those who owned property would from time to time sell some of it and give it to the Apostles to be used to provide for those in need.  It is here that we are introduced to Barnabas when he sold a field he owned and gave the proceeds to the Apostles.  Now, reading up to that point, it seems like the very early Church was communist, they shared all possessions in common.  However, then we get to the account of Ananias and Sapphira.  They sold property and brought part of the proceeds from the sale of the property to the Apostles.  When Ananias presented the Apostles with the proceeds, Peter confronted him for pretending that he was giving all of the proceeds to the Church, despite intentionally keeping a portion aside for himself.  In confronting Ananias, Peter said that before Ananias sold the land, the land was his to do with as he chose.  And after he sold the land, the money was his to do with as he chose.  Ananias and Sapphira did not die for keeping some of proceeds from selling the land for themselves.  They died for lying about it.

After telling us that the wealthy believers shared their resources in order to provide for the needy, such that as a result there were no needy among the Believers, Luke gives us two examples of how that worked.  By looking at his examples, Barnabas, and Ananias and Sapphira, we see that the members of the early Church shared their possessions according to what they each personally felt was the Spirit’s guidance.  Neither Barnabas nor Ananias and Sapphira were obligated to share their wealth with their fellow Believers.  If Ananias and Sapphira had chosen not to share any of the proceeds from selling their property, that would have been acceptable.  If they had chosen to keep part of the money and only give some of the proceeds while saying that was what they were doing, that would have been acceptable.  What was not acceptable was trying to appear more “righteous” than they were by lying about how much they received for the property they sold.

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 want to start with something from the account of what happened at Pentecost, or perhaps a couple of somethings.  The first part was the sound which was the first thing that happened which made that day unique from other times when Jesus’ followers had gathered since His ascension.  The sound of a violent wind is what drew the crowd to which Peter preached.  The second thing is that Luke writes that “each one heard their own language being spoken.”  He does not write that Jesus’ followers spoke in those languages.  Rather, the people heard their own language.  Each of the people heard what they were saying in their own language.  When the Holy Spirit came upon this gathering of Believers, He did not cause them to speak in various languages.  He caused the people listening to hear them in their own language.  It seems likely that the disciples would not have realized that anything unusual was going on in their speech if the crowd had not brought it to their attention.

Which brings me to the two sermons Peter preached in today’s passage.  One on the day of Pentecost, to the crowd which gathered to see what had caused the sound of a violent wind (when, apparently there was no wind).  The other at the temple after he and John had healed a man who had been lame since birth.  In the first, after using Scripture to explain what was going on, Peter told the crowd that it was all about Jesus, whom they had crucified.  He very explicitly held them responsible for Jesus being crucified.  Then at the temple, Peter once again told the crowd that they were responsible for Jesus’ death.  That they had killed Him.  He did not candy coat it, or try to avoid offending them.  Now, we can easily take the wrong point from this.  The point is not that we need to be brutally honest with people, or that we must speak with a total disregard for whether we offend our listeners, although there are times when that is indeed the case.  No, the point here is that we need to acknowledge that we are responsible for Christ’s death.  Our actions led to His crucifixion.

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