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

So, now we have Stephen, the first martyr and another confrontational character.  First he got into an argument with members of the Synagogue of Freed Slaves.  When those men could not defeat his logic, they got some people to lie about what Stephen had said (sound familiar).  On the basis of these lies about what he had said, Stephen was arrested.  Then instead of responding to the allegations, Stephen began preaching to the council.  His sermon was even more confrontational than the two sermons by Peter I talked about two days ago.  Stephen accused those to whom he was speaking of deliberately disobeying God’s law.  He did not back down from this confrontational approach even as they stoned him to death.

I want to take a close look at Philip’s encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch, especially how it contrasts with Stephen’s approach (and why).  Philip was led to take the road from Jerusalem to Gaza.  As he was walking along he observed the eunuch traveling by chariot.  Again we are told that he was led to approach him.  When Philip heard the eunuch reading the Scripture, he asked him if he understood what he was reading.  Philip then began explaining the good news about Jesus.  Philip is not confrontational.  Why? Well, the eunuch was seeking answers, he knew that he did not know.  Both Stephen and Peter were preaching to audiences who thought that they knew the answers.  So, when speaking to those confident of their righteousness, we must confront them about their sinfulness, but when speaking to those seeking God, we should meet them where they are and show them the path from there to salvation. The challenging part is knowing the difference.

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

There are two lessons from today’s passage that I want to touch on today (well, perhaps part of my thoughts on the first one represent a third lesson).  When Peter and John were arrested and brought before the Sanhedrin, the Sanhedrin was concerned about the fact that they were spreading “misinformation”.  So, they ordered Peter and John to stop preaching in Jesus’ name.  Then, when they continued to preach in Jesus’ name and even went so far as to tell the Sanhedrin that they would not stop doing so, the Sanhedrin wanted to kill them.  However, they did not because Gamaliel gave them a piece of advice to which we would do well to listen.  Gamaliel essentially told them that if there was no truth to what the apostles were preaching, they would soon fade away and become irrelevant.  On the other hand, if the apostles were preaching the truth attempting to silence them would only put them into conflict with God.  Combining what Gamaliel says here with what Jesus said about truth (“You will know the truth and the truth shall make your free”) tells us how to respond to misinformation: speak the truth and allow people to determine for themselves whether they wish to believe the truth or a lie.

Which brings us to the response of the believers to the threat of persecution for speaking the truth about Jesus; they prayed.  But they did not pray for protection.  They prayed for courage to continue speaking the truth in the face of opposition.  Actually, they prayed for two things, courage and miraculous signs.  This prayer fits in with the response which Peter gave the Sanhedrin, “We must obey God rather than any human authority.” There is nothing wrong with praying for protection from persecution, but our first thoughts should be to pray for courage and for expressions of God’s power to reveal the truth of what we preach.

In between Luke’s two accounts of confrontations with the Sanhedrin he tells about how the Believers took care of each other.  First, we have Luke tell us that the Believers shared everything  they had so that there were no needy people among them.  This sounds like communism: those who had wealth gave of it to the apostles to give to those in need.  However, we have 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…”  So, what can we learn from this?  Those of us who have great possessions should give as God guides us to help those in need.  But it is up to each of us to decide how much of what we have we should give.  Barnabas was blessed and honored because he sold his property and gave the proceeds to care for the needy.  Ananias was not condemned because he did not give all of the proceeds from selling his property.  He was condemned for lying about it.  Ananias wanted the honor of caring which Barnabas got without the sacrifice.  This also fits in with Peter’s answer to the Sanhedrin.  It is not up to human authority to determine how we obey God.

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

Today’s passage contains two sermons by Peter.  The first was on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came upon the disciples.  The second was in the Temple after he and John had healed the man who had been lame from birth.  What struck me about both of these sermons was that Peter made no attempt to avoid offending his audience.  On the day of Pentecost, Peter told his listeners, “you nailed Him to the cross and killed Him.”  Then, after healing the man who had been lame, he told them, “You rejected this holy, righteous one and instead demanded the release of a murderer.  You killed the author of life,…”  He did not sugar coat it.  We, also, should not sugar coat the Gospel message that all people are sinners who deserve death.  It is only after people admit their sins that they can repent of them.

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 26-28

Luke’s account of Paul’s testimony before Agrippa contains two things I want to highlight today.  It seems that for most of Paul’s testimony, Festus viewed it as pointless exposition by a religious scholar.  However, when Paul declared that he believed in the resurrection of the dead, Festus could contain himself no longer and declared that Paul was crazy to believe that.  We will find many who are willing to listen to the Gospel as long as we talk about the moral code it enacts, but who will be unwilling to continue when we explain why that moral code is binding.  Paul’s responds to Festus’ accusation of insanity by appealing to Agrippa’s knowledge of what had happened.  I want to note that Agrippa clearly felt that Paul’s appeal to him was an attempt to get him to make a commitment to Christ.  Which brings me to something we should all strive for.  We should all pray, just as Paul did, that those we encounter come to know the Lord, whether it happens quickly or takes a long time.  We should strive to have the same urgency to communicate the Gospel which Paul had, desiring people to respond at once but being willing to wait for the Holy Spirit to work.

Luke’s account of Paul’s trip to Rome as a prisoner tells us a lot about Paul’s character and how others saw him.  When the ship docked in Sidon, the commander of the guards escorting Paul allowed him to go onshore to visit with friends.  Then later, when they were in Fair Havens and debating whether to go to a better winter harbor, Paul was consulted, even though they did not take his advice.  Then when the ship became caught in the storm which eventually wrecked it, Paul took a leadership role, encouraging those aboard, convincing the soldiers to keep the sailors  from abandoning ship, and getting everyone to eat shortly before they ran aground.

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 23-25

Paul’s appearance before the Jewish high council illustrates an interesting fact.  On a purely logical analysis of their beliefs, the Pharisees disagreed to a greater extent with the Sadducees than they did with Paul and the Christians.  Paul took advantage of this divide to prevent the high council from adopting a charge against him which might carry weight with the Romans.   It is worth looking at this divide.  The Pharisees believed  in the supernatural, the Sadducees did not.  We see such alliances between conflicting ideologies today, where people work with people whose worldview is in complete contradiction to their own to attack others who they perceive as a greater threat.  We should be prepared to point out the  conflicts in these alliances and be aware when we are entering into such agreements.  

We see the hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders in those who plotted to kill Paul.  Our focus should be on avoiding the same hypocrisy (and not necessarily letting ourselves off the hook because we will not go as far as murder).  Are we willing to compromise our professed values in order to silence those with whom we disagree?  Do we proclaim to believe in honesty, but then lie to win the argument?  I will not go on, I think you get the point.

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 21-22

As Paul was traveling to Jerusalem, several prophets warned that he would be imprisoned if he went there.  Paul expressed a willingness to be imprisoned, and even to die, in service to Christ.  We should emulate Paul in this.  However, at no point in his account does Luke explain to us why Paul felt that he had to go to Jerusalem.  Perhaps the Holy Spirit was directing Paul to Jerusalem. or perhaps Paul was going to Jerusalem for his own reasons.  We should be willing to do God’s will even if it means persecution and suffering, but we need not seek out persecution and suffering.  Having said that, sometimes the fact that persecution and suffering will result from certain actions is evidence that God desires us to take those actions.  Which is complicated by the fact that sometimes the reverse is true.  We should not seek out persecution and suffering for their own sake, but we should embrace them when they result from doing God’s will.  In summary, I am not convinced that it was God’s will for Paul to go to Jerusalem to be arrested, but Paul was not acting counter to God’s will by going to Jerusalem.

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 19-20

We do not know what led Demetrius the silversmith to set in motion the events which led to the riot in Ephesus.  The context suggests that he was alarmed by events which followed Believers realizing that sorcery and incantations were incompatible with following Jesus.  I see two scenarios.  In one of them, Demetrius witnessed large numbers of Believers burning their spell books and realized that as more and more people become Believers, fewer and fewer would be buying the shrines he sold.  In the other scenario, Demetrius observed that he was losing customers and realized this was because they were becoming believers.

In either case, he gathered together the craftsmen to whom he subcontracted work and told them that Paul was bad for business.  Realizing that that those not in his business were unlikely to be concerned with his loss of profits, he made this an insult to Artemis, and thus to the city.  As a result, he was able to stir people up against Christianity.  Or to be more precise, he stirred people up, but most of them had no idea what they were protesting about.  We learn a lot about mobs here.  First, often times those who get a mob started do so for reasons different than those which they talk about.  Second, once a mob gets started people join in without knowing what it is all about.

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 17-18

Luke intentionally contrasts the reception Paul and Silas received in Berea with that which they received in Thessalonica.  In both cities, Paul used Old Testament scripture to make the case that Jesus was the Messiah.  In Thessalonica, some of the Jews, and many of the God-fearing Gentiles accepted his arguments and became believers.  However, a large fraction of the Jews did not accept his interpretation of the Scripture, and became upset that so many of the Gentiles did.  On the other hand, in Berea the Jews actually read the Scriptures which Paul used in context and even those who  did not agree with him appear to have accepted that his was a valid interpretation.  It was only when the Jews who opposed Paul in Thessalonica got word that he was preaching in Berea that trouble started there.  Trouble and violence seemed to follow Paul around, but this shows that it came from those who would not accept Paul’s arguments but were unable to counter them and felt threatened by those who did accept Paul’s teaching.  We can expect a similar response today.

It was in Athens that Paul realized the limits of using logic to convince people to come to God.  In Athens, Paul tried to start from basic assumptions to make the case for Christ, but, while a small number became believers, most people thought that faith in Jesus was foolishness because they were unwilling to accept that the dead could rise again.  As a result, when he went to Corinth he used a much more experiential approach (some of this understanding comes from what Paul wrote in his letters to the Corinthians).  Instead of spending so much time arguing that the logic of Scripture showed that Jesus was the Messiah, he preached, and demonstrated, that faith in Jesus would bring about a change for the better in our lives.  As a result, those who opposed him were unable to gain any traction with the people or with the authorities.

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 14-16

Luke makes a point that when Paul and Barnabas (and later Silas, I assume Barnabas continued to follow this practice after he went his separate way) arrived in a new town, they first went to the synagogue and preached the Gospel to the Jews, and converts to Judaism, there.  Only after some of the Jews began to object to their message, or the crowds grew too large for the synagogue, that they preached outside of the synagogues.  The exception to that was Philippi, which apparently did not have a synagogue.  I think that there is an important lesson for those seeking to spread the Gospel.  We should work with established groups who share our faith until they demonstrate an unwillingness to listen to the Holy Spirit.

I think it is worth a bit of time to look at what happened with the Jerusalem Council, as Luke describes it, because some of what happened is not obvious.  The process starts with a doctrinal dispute in Antioch of Syria: some Jewish believers were teaching that Gentiles needed to be circumcised, others, including Paul and Barnabas, disagreed.  The two groups argue and cannot reach agreement.  So, the church in Antioch sent a delegation to Jerusalem for guidance from the church there.

However, when they got there, no one really knew how this should be handled.  So, Paul and Barnabas reported to the whole congregation on how Gentiles had come to the Lord in Antioch and on their mission trip.  At this point, some of the believers stated that the Gentiles needed to be circumcised and follow the law of Moses.  This lead the Jerusalem church leaders to have a meeting to discuss the issue.  The meeting was clearly not cut and dry.  After everyone had a chance to have their say, Peter spoke up and brought up his experience with Cornelius.  Then Paul and Barnabas testified about the signs and wonders God had performed among the Gentiles.  Finally, James, the brother of Jesus, summarizes the conclusion the group had agreed upon.   I think it is noteworthy that the most prominent speakers spoke last, after everyone had a chance to have their say.

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

When Peter returned to Jerusalem, we have the first controversy in Church history.  Rumors of what Peter had done had preceded him, or perhaps just spread around.  In any case, some of the believers thought Peter had done something wrong.  Now, the first thing I want to note is that the Church did NOT respond with, “He’s one of the Twelve, who are you to question him?”  No, the Church said, “Let’s ask Peter what happened and why.”  Then, they all listened as Peter explained what had happened and why.  Peter told them about his vision, and Cornelius’ vision.  Then, he told them how the Holy Spirit came upon the Gentiles, just as he had upon the Jewish disciples.  Peter also pointed out that there were six witnesses to what had happened, who all saw it the same way he did (the fact that it was not just Peter’s word for what happened is important).  When those who objected to what Peter had done heard how God had worked, they stopped objecting and praised God.  So, charges of misconduct against Peter were not dismissed out of hand because he was Peter.  However, when people heard his explanation they accepted that he had behaved as God had directed.  

Interestingly, at about the same time the Holy Spirit was directing Peter to Cornelius, other believers were reaching out to Gentiles in Antioch of Syria.  When the Church in Jerusalem heard what was happening there, they sent Barnabas to look into it.  When Barnabas got there and saw what was going on, he was happy about it.  Then he went to Tarsus and brought Saul back with him.  Which raises the question, why did Barnabas get Saul?  I believe Barnabas wanted Saul to pass on his understanding of following Christ from the perspective of someone thoroughly trained in Jewish religious traditions.  Christianity is not a brand new religion.  It is a fulfillment of Jewish prophecies.