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

I want to look at the dispute between Paul and Barnabas over John Mark accompanying them on their second trip.  The more I think about this disagreement, the more I think that they were both right.  We do not know for sure, but Paul’s position seems to be that John Mark was too immature and did not have enough “stick it out”.  Barnabas, based on his earlier mentions in the Book of Acts, seems to have taken the position, “everybody deserves a second chance”.  We know from John Mark’s role in the Church later, including writing one of the four Gospels, that Barnabas was right to give him a second chance.  However, there is a good chance that part of what brought about the change in John Mark was Paul’s unwillingness to travel with him.  Further, this disagreement between Paul and Barnabas led to them each conducting separate trips to build the Church and encourage the Believers.  As a result, they reached more people for Christ than they would have if they had continued to work together.  God’s work was furthered by this disagreement between two men.

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

Years ago I heard that a sermon should always have three points.  Since I started this blog this has bothered me because I tend to find myself with two points to make when I write these, not three.  Today, I actually do have three points, although I am not sure how in depth I will be on all of them.

The first point has to do with what Barnabas did after he had a chance to evaluate what was happening in Antioch of Syria.  He went and brought Saul back to Antioch.  Why?  Well, Antioch of Syria was the first place where believers preached the Gospel to those not already familiar with Judaism.  Saul was highly educated in Jewish law and tradition.  In fact, Saul was probably the most highly educated believer, at least by Jewish standards of education, at this time.  As I read what Luke wrote about Saul, before he became a believer Saul was being groomed to become a member of the Sanhedrin. So, Barnabas went to fetch Saul because he considered him to be the most qualified to teach these new believers the parts of Jewish law and tradition which formed the basis of Jesus’ teachings.

From there I want to go into the roots of opposition to the Gospel message which Paul and Barnabas faced on their missionary journey.  The first instance of opposition which they faced occurred in Paphos.  Perhaps I am reading something which is not there, but it seems to me that Elymas the sorcerer was taking advantage of the governor’s curiosity about Judaism to manipulate him.  When Paul and Barnabas arrived and began teaching the governor the actual word of God, he felt threatened.  Elymas likely did not have more than a very rudimentary understanding of Jewish law and tradition, despite being Jewish.  He attempted to get the governor to stop listening to Paul and Barnabas because he realized that what they were saying would quickly reveal how much of a fraud he was.

The next time Paul and Barnabas faced opposition was from Jews who were upset at the attention they received from Gentiles.  In this case Luke tells us that those who opposed Paul and Barnabas were jealous of the large crowds they attracted.  This jealousy led them to oppose everything Paul and Barnabas had to say.  Again, I am reading between the lines a little bit, but it seems to me that Paul’s opponents here started out with some disagreement with his preaching.  I think their jealousy was twofold.  First, they were jealous that Paul and Barnabas were able to attract such large crowds to their preaching.  But the second was probably just as important.  They were jealous that Paul and Barnabas did not put all of their effort into trying to convince them.  Perhaps the most important part of what Luke tells about this incident is that these opponents went from arguing about the points on which they disagreed to opposing everything which Paul and Barnabas said.

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

Just a note about the theme I have noticed about the confrontational style of many of the early believers: here in the account of Saul’s conversion and his early preaching we discover that in both Damascus and Jerusalem Saul quickly stirred people up so that they wanted to kill him.  However, I really want to focus on Ananias.  Usually when we talk about Ananias we are referring to the man who conspired with his wife to lie to the Church about how much he received for a field he sold.  That is kind of a shame because this Ananias deserves our praise.  We often hear commentary on the fact that when Saul later arrived in Jerusalem, Barnabas was initially the only believer to give Saul a chance.  Yet, before that, when Saul arrived in Damascus, God sent Ananias to him to complete his conversion (actually, conversion is the wrong word, but I will go into that another time).  Ananias knew that Saul had come to Damascus with the intention of arresting any followers of Jesus he was able to find.  Nevertheless, he knew the power of the Holy Spirit and was willing to accept the Spirit’s leading that Saul had changed.  We need to be like Ananias and Barnabas, giving people a second chance, and as Jesus taught even a seventh chance.

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.