Acts chapter 13

vs 31

Seen by his disciples is what Paul is saying. This is a criticism of the resurrection account, that Jesus only appeared to his disciples. The term 'collective hallucination' gets bandied about.

Paul, however, sees these eye witnesses as key to the body of evidence that makes his teaching reliable - to 'our people', the Jews.

vs 32-33

I wonder if this is the first instance of the term 'good news'? It's not new news, it's very old news apparently. But the news is that God has fulfilled his promises of old completely in Jesus Christ, because Jesus comes as the Son of God. So Jesus' sonship, you can see here, is very important.

vs 34

This is a pretty full on sermon here. The OT is coming out left, right and centre. This first verse from Isaiah is to ensure that the concept of blessings from the Davidic covenant are supposed to flow on past David to the messiah.

vs 35

And this verse is to back up Paul's idea that the messiah is resurrected so as not to see decay, but to be alive forever.

vs 36-37

Paul is seeking to show that even David died, and so the messiah must be greater than David. Jesus did this too, while he was alive. It's hard to convince a bunch of jews that there is someone who is better than Moses, David and Elijah. It's not everyday that someone would say something like that.

But Jesus' greatness and superiority to David in particular, because we're talking about the covenant made to him, is assured in his resurrection.

vs 38

Ok, now that is a bit of a leap. I think there might be some padding of understanding of the Davidic covenantal promise between vs 37 and 38 that Paul is assuming.

vs 39

Stick it to the law! It's not that the Law itself did not provide justification. But it did not provide this justification which allows you to be set free from sin. The idea that a regular sacrifice need not be made is a revolutionary one in the history of religion. It is still a revolutionary idea for many tribal people groups.

vs 40-41

Wow, that piece of Scripture was written purely for the occasion, wasn't it? I don't think we can always expect God to be doing incredible things we won't believe, but we have to be prepared for the fact that he might. That is none more obvious than in the coming of Christ - a supremely incredible feat, and not something you would have seen coming really.

Acts chapter 13

vs 21

And if that's all you say about him, then you're being nice really.

vs 22

And although that isn't exactly true, it is again quite charitable. It's not a quote, by the way - the Bible doesn't have God saying that anywhere. Except here. So Paul in his speech is really speaking on God's behalf, putting words in God's mouth. Now, he's not putting any words God didn't say in his mouth, except perhaps "He will do everything I want him to do".

vs 23

There's a convenient jump which dodges a thousand years of history. So Paul is drawing a line to God's promises to David primarily. Worth remembering.

vs 24

John the Baptist again! This guy was a star! Paul is talking about him to people in Pisidian Antioch for crying out loud!

vs 25

John TB is the first person in this story to get a speaking role. So while the ancient history is there, the modern history is focused on more. John's words here are critical in showing that he wasn't the messiah.

vs 26

It is Paul's firm belief that the message of salvation from God comes to God's people primarily. And so hence when he gets to Pisidian Antioch, that's who the message is for.

vs 27

So Paul is saying it was inevitable that this tragedy was going to befall Israel (that she didn't recognise her saviour). It's a good thing to say - it's like saying "This had to happen, but now that it has happened, there's no reason you can't accept him now".

vs 28

That's pretty regrettable. Paul is obviously following in the line of Peter's preaching here, making sure people understand that they had a communal hand in Jesus' death.

vs 29

It's almost as if the OT was a handbook for preparing the suffering of the messiah. But in that Paul is also showing that Jesus did meet all the prophetic messages about the messiah.

vs 30

Pretty matter of fact statement there. You can't bury what God won't keep dead. Well, you can, but it's not worth the trouble.

Acts chapter 13

Isn't it funny how easy it is to drop a habit after just a day or two of not doing it?

vs 11

Woah. I mean, that is just totally mega. This is not something anyone would ever do today. This is the second curse to be called down on someone in the name of God. Peter cursed Simon the sorcerer, remember? We simply do not do this stuff. Is that because it doesn't fit us culturally? Or because we don't feel we're allowed?

vs 12

This verse is worded very interestingly. It involves both seeing the reality and power of Christ in blinding the magician, but also being amazed at the teaching of the belief as well. Interesting combination. But the way it says it almost suggests he believed once he had seen the power, because of the teaching.

vs 13

Bit of a travel update. Interesting that we hear nothing more of the proconsul. Paul and Barnabas did their work, and moved on. John Mark also left them at this time, who knows why.

vs 14

As you would, I assume. Notice the unity that existed - Pisidian Antioch had 1 synagogue. Now I am sure that wasn't because of a deeply felt unity among the Jews. I bet it was because the government allowed only 1 synagogue, and so you either went there or went nowhere. Could do wonders for Christianity.

vs 15

A bit like an old school Brethren church - having visitors speak. Although in Brethren churches they waited for the Spirit to convict you! Even in synangoges the leaders just asked you.

vs 16

This verse alone tells us that some gentiles worshipped in synagogues. Probably as proselytes. I love "motioned with his hand". We're not given any idea of what he motioned. It just brings to mind the broad, sweeping motion of one beginning an oratory.

vs 17

Wow. That was a hugely simplified summary. Awesome. We just went from Genesis through Exodus in 1 verse.

vs 18

This takes us right through to Deuteronomy.

vs 19

Joshua.

vs 20

450 years in three verses, then Judges covered in this one verse. But you can see, both here and in earlier speeches given in Acts the need for historical summaries. The jews were never keen on forgetting their history. We love forgetting ours. Can you imagine trying to fit 2000 years of Christian history into the beginning of every sermon? I might try starting to do that, just in my next few sermons. And obviously going very quickly - 3 sentences per 450 years.

Acts chapter 13

vs 1

A pretty interesting bunch of people if you ask me. They had come from lots of foreign parts, for one. Manean you would assume was fairly influential if he grew up with Herod (it's a stratafied society, remember). Simeon may or may not have been from Antioch, and if he wasn't, then we see a startling thing - that none of the leaders of the church are from the area.

vs 2

How did it say this, exactly? It isn't explained. We are meant to just know what it means. Well, apart from what that one bit means, we do know what the rest of this verse means - that Barnabas and Saul are set apart for a specific work.

vs 3

Can't argue with the Holy Spirit. Mission agencies and modern missiologists make a lot of the fact that while Barnabas and Saul were part of the calling, so were the rest of the leadership of the church.

I personally think that's important, but other people disagree.

vs 4

Again, in steps the Holy Spirit and they somehow end up in Cyprus. What is happening here? Who knows.

vs 5

John I assume means John Mark. It's weird people having different names. Apparently they didn't know that they were being called to be missionaries to the gentiles, because they spent all their time with Jews.

vs 6

You mean the jewish guy was a sorcerer and a false prophet? Surely the jews never did anything like that! :P

vs 7

Sergius sounds like a fairly alright man. We have to remember, though, that Christianity was a totally new thing, and also that people giving public speeches about things like religion was pretty much the equivalent of TV back in those days.

vs 8

Of course that's what it means...

Regardless, he was trying to stop the proconsul from hearing about Christianity. What faith did he want him to have? Probably faith in his sorcery, so that he kept his job.

vs 9

Oooh, you know when it says "filled with the Holy Spirit" there's going to be some smackdown. This is also the first verse where Saul is also called Paul. Note that, unlike the way some preachers put it, it was not a name change that came about because of his conversion. It's just a different name that he also used.

vs 10

Wow, Paul ripped him a new one! I guess Paul was angry not only because the guy was perverting judaism by being a sorcerer, but also trying to pervert Christianity by speaking against it. Sometimes you've just got to tell people they are spiritual excrement.

Acts chapter 12

vs 21

Oooh, look at Mr Important!

vs 22

Uh oh. Got to be careful when people start saying things like that. God might take umbrage.

vs 23

Umbrage.

Who says there's no striking down deaths by God in the NT?

vs 24

Here is another one of those summary verses. Placed here, it provides a good foil to the recent stories about persecution - those that were persecuting the Christians, like Herod, died. But the church, despite its sufferings, continued in its growth.

vs 25

Remember, they were going on a trip to take some mercy mission money to Jerusalem. And now, they're taking John Mark - the same guy who Peter visited when he got out of jail.

Acts chapter 12

vs 11

... as opposed to it being a vision, I assume.

vs 12

Is that the John Mark I wonder? I suppose that it is. An interesting choice. There is a tradition that Mark is the one who writes the gospel of Peter, so perhaps they were friends as far back as this?

vs 13

As servants should.

vs 14

Hehehe, oops.

You've got to ask - why does Luke include this story? What's is theological or narrative significance? It doesn't really have any, does it? It's just funny.

vs 15

Now there's a cultural difference for you - they think it's more likely to be an angel than it is to be him freed from prison. What does 'his angel' mean exactly? And why would Peter's angel sound like Peter? Do people really have their own angels? Or perhaps it was just a human messenger they were expecting, as angel is the same word.

vs 16

Dammit, let me in! Of all the things they were expecting, they weren't expecting Peter to be at the door.

vs 17

He wasn't staying - he just wanted to pass on the good news.

vs 18

Oh look, a literary device! If we read this literalistically, then we read that there wasn't a commotion, which is of course unbelievable. "No small" is shared across the KJV, NASB, NIV and TNIV.

vs 19

Eep! Herod was pissed. We might think that this is a bit harsh, especially when Peter was freed by an angel, but guards and centurions and so on were expected not to fail in their work, and death was a common punishment for their failure.

Herod was so upset that he decided to go and have a holiday.

vs 20

Interesting little bit of history there really. It seems unecessary to go into such detail - perhaps it is something that interested Luke, or he's using it as a time measuring device so that we know where we are. It certainly shows its contemporariness - this sort of stuff was probably a whole lot more interesting to the people of the time.

Acts chapter 12

vs 1

Why? Doesn't say. Just because, apparently. Probably runs in the family to be a bastard.

vs 2

First apostle to die. So it's not like the 12 were somehow invincible just because they'd hung with Jesus. It's not also like they were indispensable, or else God would have kept them around.

Anyone who says that persecution of Christians didn't exist till under Nero can read this verse and suck it.

vs 3

Peter seems to be a bit of a kingpin at the moment, so of course he's the one you'd go for. It's not as if they were in hiding, either - they were out in the temple courts preaching.

vs 4

Afraid that the group of Christian widows might come and raid the prison to get him out? At least we get an idea of why Herod continued to persecute Christians, if not for why he started - political capital.

vs 5

They'll pray him out! Beat that, Herod!

vs 6

Wow, I mean, it's as if he's Hannibal Lecter or something. Remember, though, that these Christians have the rap as mighty prison breakers after they were arrested by the temple earlier in the story.

vs 7

Whack. Ow! Get up you moron, this is a spiritual prison break! Hard to imagine an angel kicking you awake.

vs 8

So you're guessing that the guards were not awakened by this whole cafuffle. Which again is totally weird. While we're talking about weirdness, let's consider this - God let James get killed without more than a verse of mention. Peter gets threatened, and not there's a breakout. That must have been totally humbling to be a disciple.

vs 9

So Peter was used to visions looking and feeling as though it were the real thing - or as surreal as being prison-breaked by angel gets anyway. That tells us something about visions. Peter's visions anyway.

vs 10

And Peter was left alone, a fugitive from the law, standing in the street, wondering what had just happened. Totally awesome.

Acts chapter 11

vs 21

The first thing I thought was "Awesome for them", because they are doing something completely different. I mean, reaching Jews with the message of their own messiah is one thing. Reaching gentiles with a message about a jewish messiah? Different.

Second thing I thought was, "Wouldn't it be cool to know what they were doing to be so successful?" But that's a worldly way of thinking. The Bible tells us why they were successful - because God was with them. That doesn't mean God isn't with you if your evangelism fails.

vs 22

He's pretty cool, so that was a good choice.

vs 23

Barnabas has obviously fully accepted Peter's story about gentiles coming to faith, because he doesn't bat an eyelid in Antioch.

vs 24

Through his encouragement (which was his gift, hence the name) people came to God! That must've been pretty ripe soil then - because when people usually come, it's through someone's ardent speaking or preaching or miracles or whatever. He probably did speak publically. But again, luke makes it clear that he was successful because he was a good man and full of the Holy Spirit.

vs 25

Which is where the Jerusalem group sent him. How long ago was that?

vs 26

Apparently, Barnabas was looking for a partner in crime. When he did find Paul, they absconded to Antioch and built the church up.

That they were called Christians doesn't necessarily mean it was done in an insulting way, but it could have been. What does seem clear is that they didn't come up with the term themselves.

vs 27

Now here's one for our modern times. Prophets come from Jerusalem. Unnamed prophets. What's their job? What do prophets do? We want to say that they speak the word of God to people. And we'd be right. But what do they do while in Antioch?

vs 28

Well, unnamed except for Agabus. His prophecy comes true, which is good - no need to stone him. But what did he do? Predicted the future! We've got to remember that although we like to say that prophecy is speaking the word of God in all tenses, that future tense isn't out of the question.

Luke even helpfully gives us the time period of the famine.

vs 29

Obviously Judea wasn't doing as well as Antioch. Possibly because they sold all their fields to give to widows and the poor.

vs 30

Barnabas and Saul had a lot more to do with the Jerusalem church than the Antiochans did. In fact, it could be that Barnabas and Saul suggested the gift in the first place.

Acts chapter 11

vs 11

Peter continues to tell his story. The immediacy of their arrival to his vision is important to him.

vs 12

So Peter didn't go alone - some from the house he was staying in obviously went with him. So we have a few Christians at Cornelius' place, supporting Peter.

vs 13-14

What was Peter to say to that? How could he deny their request, if an angel spoke to them and named him specifically?

vs 15

You can't argue with this. The Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit - it's not like they control it.

vs 16

While I think that it's awesome that Peter is quoting Jesus here, what does it actually mean? Is he saying that one replaces the other? Or that this is now the norm? I don't think so. I think the point he is making that this comes directly from Christ.

vs 17

This is the nub of the argument, really. Peter saw God working - how could he go against that?

vs 18

If only all arguments about changing from one thing to another could be sorted out so easily! But the argument isn't over yet. So far, the apostles and Jerusalem church have accept that gentiles can be Christians - great! But they still believe you've got to live like a Jew.

vs 19

That's pretty far, really. Especially since it's only been a few years. But overall, it sounds like they stuck to Jewish settlements.

vs 20

I think the coolest thing about this is that, although the apostles and muscle men (I'm thinking Philip) are the ones who start the 'reaching gentiles' thing and get it stamped with God's authority, it is just new Christians who decide "Let's do something different and reach these people who obviously need to hear, even though we're not sure if it's against the rules or not."

We can get so stuck in our own traditions, that we forget to innovate. Or we can get so focussed on a target group that we can forget that all groups need to hear the gospel. It's usually the people who are on the crest of the wave that want to innovate. And, in my experience, it is usually 'converts' who have the passion, and even then after being involved in the group for a while, that gets sapped away.

Acts chapter 11

vs 1

Good news travels fast, it would seem! But did they see it as good news?

vs 2-3

Apparently not. They didn't care that God had done something miraculous, all they cared about where the precepts of the law which hadn't been followed regarding someone's willy.

Remember, these aren't the believers of some outlying town - these are whoever was left in Jerusalem! That could suggest even the apostles.

vs 4

This won't sound repetitive at all...

vs 5-10

Now we see the story from Peter's side. For him, the whole things starts with the vision of a sheet.

What more can I say? This stuff is pretty much verbatim from the story earlier. So why is it repeated? Because we must remember that Bible narratives were written for people to listen to, not just read. Most people didn't read, because of the need to be taught, and also because of the expense of writing materials.

And so the repetition ensures that this story will be remembered. But why should it be? I mean, it's obvious verbatim repetition so close together (twice for Peter, twice for Cornelius) can only mean that Luke thought this event was important enough to repeat. And it is! Unfortunately for us, this uniting of faith between Jew and gentile is so old that it's old news to us, and we don't realise just how earth-shattering it was to the people of the time.

I think the next big social trend of this size and impact was probably the statement that there is less diversity of mental ability and social value than we thought between races.

I guess the only thing I can think of that would create as much of a stir is if someone said that there's no difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals. But then, that would really only stir up more conservative people, I think. Probably a lot of people in the western world don't think of that as a moral line drawn along similar lines to the Jew/Gentile split.

Acts chapter 10

vs 37

Remember, John the Baptist was a celebrity of his time. He's such a bit player to our understanding, but vital to the whole story, and brings it some celebrity air.

vs 38

Did they really know this? Did they know about the baptism of Jesus, and the Holy Spirit? Or is this an Eric-like "As you know..." to show that people don't actually know?

And well, if they didn't know, they certainly know now.

vs 39

So Peter can testify to the truth of the stuff they had heard - he was there.

vs 40

And it's good, too, because you sort of need an eye witness account to back up stories of people being raised from the dead after three days.

vs 41

What does this mean, exactly? Is Peter saying that Jesus was invisible to some people, or merely that he didn't actively appear to them? For one thing, we must assume that the teachers of the law didn't see him afterwards. So does it mean that he only appeared to the faithful, as in when they were around, rather than walking the streets of Jerusalem as normal?

vs 42

Jesus was always in a position to command things, but now that he's risen from the dead, who's going to argue? It's an interesting command, too - one that, while it is not against the teachings of the OT, doesn't fit in super- well with the understandings of the OT that most Jews held to at the time. This statement actually brings us with some currency to the beginning of the book of Acts.

vs 43

So as well as the eye witness proof, and the raising from the dead, he has the backing of OT prophecy. This is one potent person, this Jesus. Peter brings out the key point here - the forgiveness of sins through Jesus.

vs 44

Do we assume, then, that all who heard the message were saved? That all who heard the message believed it? I guess so.

vs 45

The last frontier, really. Now God is blessing Gentiles, it's all over for Judaism's classic mix of religion and ethnicity. About time too.

vs 46

The proof was in the pudding - who could argue with the receiving of the Holy Spirit if it takes place exactly in the same way that it did at Pentecost? This is fact the Gentile Pentecost - not as many saved, but a huge step for the faith.

vs 47

Peter states pretty much what I have said, and indicates that they too can accept the mark of those accepted by God in the new covenant - baptism. No cutting off of bits. I for one, as a convert later in life, am thankful.

vs 48

Baptism happened immediately, and now they want to learn more from Peter. What better does he have to do than disciple the first ever Gentile Christians? (Ethiopians excepted).

Acts chapter 10

vs 25-26
Why the big deal? Because a Jew walking into a gentile's house is a big deal. Cornelius is probably bowing because Peter is pretty much an angel to him, but for Peter this is a big deal too.

vs 27

Unsurprisingly, as Cornelius had invited them.

vs 28

And considering what evidence we have for this being a problem for Peter, you can imagine that he's probably not the most comfortable person at this very moment.

vs 29

Now, Peter has already asked the servants who brought him about this, so he's not clueless. But I guess he wants a more full story.

vs 30-33

Of course, we know the whole story, but Cornelius probably didn't fill in his servants to that extent. So now Peter, and everyone else in the house too, knows the situation.

vs 34-35

So Peter had an inkling about this before? It's not impossible, as the OT does have a fair bit to say on the subject.

vs 36

They do? Caesarea obviously isn't as far away as we think, newswise. I find it somewhat surprising that Peter says that. Although, with the diaspora of Christians, I guess it is possible that they would have heard the news in the synagogues.

Acts chapter 10

vs 13

Of course, we don't have food laws, so apart from the wierdness of eating a snake or a lizard, we wouldn't find this too phasing. So if you want to know how Peter feels about this, then imagine God telling you that you could suddenly do something that had once been disallowed. And I can't think of anything that I can suggest that doesn't feel completely bogus, so I guess that's how Peter felt. Like perhaps being told we can marry as many women as we want. I think I'd rather eat a snake.

vs 14

And I bet he hadn't either! I mean, growing up in a culture that is geared to serve kosher food probably makes that less difficult.

vs 15

Ouch, that's a bit of a comeback. But he was told by the OT to call it unclean!

vs 16

This message was so important, somehow, that it was repeated three times. But what did it mean? Did God just decide that all food was clean to eat now, and that this was the time to reveal it - just because?

vs 17

Coincidence?

vs 18

And Peter, who is on the roof, is like "What the?" One moment he's having a holiday by the sea, the next moment God's telling him to marry a dozen wives (well, to eat weird food) and now there's people knocking at the door. Is it the thought police?

vs 19-20

Peter was in touch! I mean, he's just finished having a vision, and now he's told that the three people downstairs really need him, and that he can't delay! And that he must go with them. This gives Peter the ability to turn up to the door, with these people waiting to meet him, with his bedroll packed, and for the camera to pan in and him to say, "God told me. I'm ready. Let's go." Probably didn't happen that way though.

vs 21

Nope - instead, Peter, regardless of the Spirit's leading, still first asks why they are there. Doubtless he was going to go with them, because God told him to. But I guess he was curious.

vs 22

Can't argue with that. Pretty good one verse summary of the plot so far.

vs 23

That isn't his house, by the way. Cool culture, where you can invite people to be your guests in someone else's house.

vs 24

Wow, Peter has an audience. Probably a fair number too. Cornelius is absolutely sure that whatever Peter has to say is going to be worth hearing.

Acts chapter 10

vs 1

Oooh, it's going to get exciting now. For me, chapters 1-9 of Acts is like the first book of Lord of the Rings - they get the ring, and then spend all this time faffing around doing nothing.

Philip was like the barrow-downs - starts off exciting, then then end up somewhere else.

But now we're going to go on the inevitable path to Gentiles hearing and accepting the gospel. It's awesome.

So here we have an important man. Centurions aren't a dime a dozen, remember. They are leaders of soldiers.

vs 2

Take careful not that this guy isn't a heathen or a pagan. He's a God-fearer. He knows about God already. He fears him, he prays to him, and he tries to help the poor. This isn't just "any gentile". He is prepared soil.

vs 3

Just, you know, one day in the afternoon. About 3 o'clock. That's when these things happen, apparently.

vs 4

Wow. That's like the most awesome message from God to receive ever. What a blessing!

vs 5-6

All I can say is that this sort of stuff does NOT happen every day. I mean, God may as well have given him the page reference of the UBD to look at. It's an incredible time.

vs 7-8

Cornelius didn't have any problems telling them that he'd just seen a vision from God. He made it clear that this was why they were on their mission to Joppa. In asking his servants to do this job, he's making a big call - because they could just as easily think he's crazy. Well, possibly - perhaps people were more open minded back then.

vs 9

It's interesting getting the two sides of the story like this - the servants from one side, Peter from the other. it has that feeling of a story that has been described by eye witnesses and then put together.

vs 10

We're talking about serious prayer here. Prayer with meal breaks.

vs 11

Now, with the inclusion about the hunger earlier, this trance could easily be misinterpreted as a vision out of hunger. But I think that's exactly why Luke includes it - he wants us to realise that God is using Peter's hunger as part of his communication with him. That's extraordinary.

vs 12

That is, things that Jews aren't allowed to eat.

Acts chapter 9

vs 32

After all, most of the Christians who had been dispersed from the persecution would have been from the original Jerusalem church, so he's just keeping tabs on old friends.

vs 33

Who I am assuming from the word 'found' wasn't part of the original Jerusalem church.

vs 34

That's a pretty Christ-y miracle! What was it's purpose though?

vs 35

Now, this actually goes against what I preached about on miracles recently - that miracles don't convince people to believe in God. But I stick by what I say. I think you have to read into this a little bit - people see the miracle, they ask "What's going on?", Peter preaches a sermon, they believe. I know it doesn't say that, but it fits the pattern of Acts.

vs 36

Good for her! I think we've moved on to a new story.

vs 37

Oh, well, that was a short story. I guess when you're always helping the poor and the sick, you can die pretty easily.

vs 38

Ahh, the story isn't over! She was obviously such a valued member of the Christian community, that they wanted Peter to mourn her? Or to bring her back? Or just to replace her with someone else? Who knows why they called on him.

vs 39

Much loved, huge impact life. Sounds like they just wanted Peter to eulogise her.

vs 40

And just like that, Joppa was the scene for a resurrection.

vs 41

I really cannot begin to believe what this would be like in our modern culture. I don't think it would have the same effect, especially if there weren't TV cameras and stuff to prove the miracle was a miracle. Even then, people would argue. "Late Onset Life Return" or something.

vs 42-43

The result in Joppa, though, was that people got to meet this woman with her story, and they believed. I'm sure that, with Peter staying there, they also heard him preach, and that had something to do with it too.

Now we are introduced to a character called Simon the tanner. Who is this person? We may find out tomorrow!

Acts chapter 9

vs 23

Obviously it started getting to the Jews that their number 1 fighter against Christians changed sides. So the Jews, when faced with trouble, do what they always do - organise to kill the person.

vs 24

These guys are pretty serious. Obviously he was hiding out in the town as well, so they thought the best way of ambushing him was to wait for him to go through the city gates.

vs 25

Sneaky! What an exciting life Saul now leads as a fugitive from Jewish justice.

vs 26

Fair enough, too. I mean, he was pretty much the anti-Christan man of the moment.

vs 27

Good on ya, Barney. It must be really hard for people to join a church in a persecuted area, simply because of this fear. I'm sure every majority religion has considered sending in sleepers against the minority to take them apart from the inside.

vs 28

Because, of course, he' d do less damage in Jerusalem than in Damascus :P

vs 29

Oh wait, obviously he can. It must suck having people try and kill you no matter where you go.

vs 30

For his own good, I assume. Seems like he was a really passionate young man, wanting to spread the gospel wherever he went, but people took unkindly to him, and so the Apostles bundled him off home, to Tarsus.

vs 31

So they bundle Saul off home, and everything is peaceful... for a little while. The church now goes from Judea, to Galilee, to Samaria, and just seems to be consolidating and growing more and more.

Acts chapter 9

vs 12

That's a pretty specific vision. Gives the guy's name, what he's going to do. So now God's got to make it happen that way.

vs 13

Ananias wasn't born yeterday. He knows what's going down with Saul.

vs 14

And that, of course, includes Ananias! Not that he's not saying no to God, not even asking why he must do this - only stating to God things that may give him a little concern.

vs 15

Well, that's got to be a bit of a shock to poor Ananias! Now, notice that God's call on Saul is for Gentiles, and also Israel. I never noticed that before.

vs 16

Almost sounds like this is the punishment for Saul running around arresting Christians. But I think it is said in a more fatalistic way - like this is what God has planned for Saul, rather than it's a punishment for him.

vs 17

Well, Saul had seen a vision of it, so I guess he's not going to be totally surprised, but when the guy comes in and tells him what has already happened to him, that was probably something unexpected. Makes him trustworthy though.

Ananias calls him brother. Gutsy.

vs 18-19

Saul would have been pretty much on death's door after not eating and drinking for a few days, but continuing to walk to get to Damascus. So it was either this guy comes and heals him and he accepts the Holy Spirit from God, or he shrivels up and dies.

vs 20

Who I am sure were polite and nice, and constantly wondering if he was going to whip out his letters and arrest them all.

vs 21

Ahh, there they go.

vs 22

Powerful? What does that mean, exactly? It sounds like he's a jedi or something! Or are they just talking about his ability to convince Jews about Jesus as messiah?

Acts chapter 9

vs 1-2

Saul is a man with a mission. This verse makes it obvious that Saul was about locking Christians up in some sort of temple prison. Nasty. He's going as far as Damascus to find them and drag them back to Jerusalem!

Also notice what Christians are called - followers of the 'Way'. Sounds like a bunch of hippies if ever I've heard.

vs 3

Uh oh. Wait, perhaps God is going to reward Saul for his service? Probably not - all the miracles seem to have been on the Christian side so far.

vs 4

Now, normally I would think we would imagine a mighty voice thundering out of the clouds when we imagine this sort of encounter. But the voice is, well, perhaps not pleading, but it is certainly not portrayed as booming.

vs 5

Do you really want to know, Saul? I'm betting you were hoping for another answer. Perhaps because the voice is coming from Jesus and not from God is why it isn't booming and wrath-ready. I think that's a bit simplistic. But it's a nice idea.

vs 6

Jesus doesn't say "Believe that I am the son of God, Saul. Believe that I can take away your sin. Then go and do my work." Jesus owns him already. It's really that simple. Saul has the option of "Yes, Lord" or "Yes, Master".

vs 7

Which makes talk about miracles all the more interesting. Remember John the Baptist saw the Holy Spirit come down on Jesus like a dove. Did everyone else see it, or just him? Stephen saw heaven open - apparently no one else did, or you would assume they'd stop stoning him long enough to look.

So miracles can happen in a way that no one else but you sees. Beware.

However, they did hear the voice! No wonder they were so speechless.

vs 8

That'll learn him. I don't know that this is so much a punishment - I mean, he gets healed when he gets to Damascus. Perhaps it forces him to rely on a Christian? Perhaps it just humbles him because he's got to hold hands all the way to Damascus.

vs 9

That to me says he was feeling kinda humbled. I mean, blindness doesn't prevent you eating or drinking. Especially if you're eating some humble pie.

vs 10

Ananias was quite possibly going to be one of the first people to be locked up by Saul.

vs 11

Instead, God wants Ananias to go knock on his door and say "Hey." I love that in over 2000 years of technological advance, we still name roads things like "Straight Street".

Acts chapter 8

vs 31

I agree with the eunuch. This stuff isn't easy to understand. I think this gives us an insight into the previous knowledge of the eunuch. The idea that he was a proselyte who was schooled in Hebrew religious thought becomes problematic when we think that he doesn't know what Isaiah's about.

vs 32-33

Known so well these days to us as Christians, it is small surprise that we read these great words referred to in the NT. But that they are brought to us by an Ethiopian eunuch just shows so much more powerfully the grace of God. Now the truth is that this stuff could have been happening on a far greater scale than is recorded, and that Luke decided to record this story because of its specific coolness and focus on Isaiah. That doesn't make the story any less cool though.

vs 34

This guy is begging to become a Christian. But before we get too excited about people jumping into our churches left, right and centre, we have to realise that this guy is keen on religious things, seeking the truth, and open to learn.

vs 35

Philip started where the guy was at, and used it to talk about Jesus. Awesome. I mean, it's not the most difficult passage of the OT to talk about Jesus with, I know, but most of the sermons so far have focussed on recent history in Jerusalem, or on Moses and the history of Israel.

vs 36

I don't know that, if I were to explain the gospel of Jesus Christ via Isaiah 53, that baptism would even come to my mouth. So, did baptism spring into the mind of the eunuch, or did Philip mention it in his gospel presentation? I think probably the latter. And you know what? Perhaps that's a good idea. I mean, we talk about making a decision for Christ, or accepting Christ, or whatever. But telling someone that, as part of the gospel, they should be baptised to show that they accept Christ, I wonder if that's something we should consider?

vs 37

Apparently considered a gloss, and so removed from the story by the NIV and the T. Apart from adding a little creedal statement which people could follow when being baptised, I suppose it's not a vital verse. It's inclusion or exclusion is not going to make my faith topple anyway.

vs 38

And so he gets baptised, right then and there. He does it in the presence of his caravan, and I think that's enough - how is the presence of strangers going to make him any more accountable?

vs 39

If it wasn't for the use of the word 'suddenly', we could easily assume that the Spirit led Philip to leave in a normal, on foot manner. But the suddenly makes it sound like Philip was swept away into the distance on a cloud or something. Whatever happened, the eunuch was happy, because he had received the truth about Christ!

vs 40

He appeared. That's kinda weird. Like he teleported there or something. And what's his reaction? Keep preaching. Good for him.

Acts chapter 8

vs 21

Peter out and out accuses Simon of wanting this ability for sinister purposes.

vs 22

Peter doesn't just leave him there, though. He does give him a solution to his problem. Simon was baptised, remember! He's a believer as far as we know. So Peter recommends that he repents and prays to God. Which sounds like sound advice to anyone who has a sinful attitude.

vs 23

This verse, if any, is the one which you could point to if you were trying to make an argument for Simon not being saved. "If Simon is a believer, how is he still captive to sin?" you might ask.

All I can say to that is 'be realistic'. All people, Christians included, are captive to sin, and thanks be to Christ our Lord who delivers us. And yes, he does that to a degree in our physical lives here and now. But he doesn't surgically remove sin from our lives.

vs 24

Keep in mind that all Peter cursed Simon with was the loss of his money. Unless all the other accusations Peter made were in a cursing type language. If you contrast Simon's attitude (Oh please I don't want to lose my dosh!) to most of the other early Christian's attitude (lets pool our money and posessions aren't really so important), you can see a disparity.

The question that is always raised is, does Simon ask Peter to pray for him because he doesn't believe God will listen to him personally? Or does he ask Peter to pray as well for him, in a sort of intercessory way?

vs 25

Peter and John have seen what they needed to see - the Samaritans being accepted by God through the Holy Spirit - and so they return to Jerusalem, but decide they'll share the love by spreading Christ all the way home. Good for them. I guess that's one of the benefits of walking everywhere - you see a lot more people.

vs 26

Did God's voice just speak to Philip? Or did Philip just end up going to that road on a hunch, or on his morning walk? Doesn't say.

vs 27

So many people think that the 'to the ends of the earth' ministry started with Paul, or perhaps Peter. But here it is, starting with Philip. He stumbles across this important Ethiopian guy. Why did he go to Jerusalem to worship? If he thought he was going to see Solomon's temple, he's only about 1000 years out of date. However, Herod's (the Tetrarch) temple was also supposed to be pretty special.

vs 28

Don't discount how important this is. You couldn't just pick up a paperback of Isaiah on a street corner. He would have to have outlayed a fairly significant sum to get it. We've got to also assume that it was in Greek, because as if he'd be able to read Hebrew.

vs 29

Ok, now it's not as if you just walked up to chariots and said "Yo." Well, I don't know, perhaps you did. But I'm guessing not. So you've got to assume that God in some more direct way led Philip to do that.

vs 30

Thankfully the guy was reading it out - otherwise Philip would have had to start his conversation with "Excuse me? Can you help me with something? Mind if I sit down? My name is Stu, and I work with mainstream churches - Jerusalem, Samaria - nothing weird, so you can just relax..."

I really do pity the poor Ethiopian guy though. I mean, Isaiah is not easy to understand at the best of times. But just picking it up out of the blue and reading it, without any idea of historical context... well, that would be like how most Christians read it I guess.

Acts chapter 8

vs 11

So it's not like he wasn't an influential person. He wasn't a pathetic carney with cards up his sleeve. People respected him.

vs 12

Philip obviously had quite an impact on the Samarians in the town he visited. Interesting that we don't even get the name of the town - perhaps this visit is meant to be seen as typical of the kind of thing people were doing, as well as the response they were getting.

vs 13

This isn't the first time that magicians have been totally impressed by miracles from God - think of the magicians in Pharoah's court. However, even though several magicians have been used by God to do things, I can't think of a time when one has come to know God and follow him.

vs 14

Now obviously not the whole of Samaria had accepted the gospel, but the idea that even some of them had was special enough for an envoy of apostles to go. Peter and John are big names.

vs 15-16

I will freely admit that these verses indicate that you can be baptised without also receiving the Holy Spirit. However, what I won't agree to is that this means that this is the only way to receive the Holy Spirit. Not even Acts makes that claim.

vs 17

This time, they did receive the Holy Spirit through Peter and John. A conservative anti-charismatic evangelical view of this is that the Holy Spirit didn't come until the apostles got there so that they could see for themselves that the Holy Spirit was spreading even to non-Jews.

vs 18-19

What were his motives? Did he truly understand what giving the Holy Spirit does? Did it even have a physical marker to tell that it had been passed? You want to say yes, because it has had one already (at Pentecost) and you assume that he is amazed at something he saw.

But, do you think everything magicians did had an immediate physical effect? Isn't knowing that you're passing on the Holy Spirit enough? The answer is we don't know. Anything we say beyond what is written here is conjecture.

vs 20

Here starts Peter's long and angry tirade against Simon. He starts off with a curse, and then by stating his first reason - that the Holy Spirit is a gift, and it cannot be bought (and the suggestion is probably that it can't be sold either, but again that hasn't been out and out said yet).

Acts chapter 8

vs 1

Evil bugger. Not only did he approve their killing of Stephen, but that day was the start of a move so big that almost all the Christians in Jerusalem were scattered. Of course, we know that this only triggered a greater growth, but at the time it still would have been nasty.

vs 2

He was a good man, and of course they regretted the loss of a brother and a servant.

vs 3

Who's prison, I wonder? The temple prison? Surely not roman prisons.

vs 4

Did God plan this? Or is he just using evil for good?

vs 5

Samaria is the next place on our list after Jerusalem and Judea. It's the first neighbour to the Jews.

vs 6

We don't get miracles like they did to accompany our message. But we do other things, like serve people and be loving.

vs 7

This happens when we send doctors, I guess (except for the spirits thing), but apart from that we don't tend to have such things accompany us. Why? Don't know.

vs 8

Joy for the miracles, or the message? Or both? Anyway, there was joy.

vs 9-10

Remember, this guy actually did special things. People saw them and attributed to him power, even the power of God for some reason (perhaps because if he were a sorcerer they'd stone him?).

Acts chapter 7

vs 51

Uh oh. Now he's not just telling them the story - he's applying it to his audience. And he's doing it in OT language, too! Although his last accusation in this verse is not OT language at all! The Holy Spirit rarely gets mentioned.

vs 52

Wow, the language is so venomous! Here we learn about the death of the prophets (mostly at the hands of the religious leaders!) and of the Christ himself - which is a common enough theme with Peter, so it's not surprising that it's spread.

vs 53

Could you be any harsher? They resist the Holy Spirit, kill God's prophets, kill his holy promised one, and they don't even obey the Law!

vs 54

Ooh, grrr.

vs 55-56

It was one of the last things he'd ever see, so I guess God wanted to make it nice. I'm not really sure what the reason for the inclusion of these two verses is - I mean, is this what pushes the religious leaders over the edge - that he is claiming to see Jesus standing at the right hand of God? Or is it that he is claiming to see God, and they can't?

vs 57

So mature! The picture here is just so comic. If they weren't about to kill Stephen, I'd think it was some sort of highjinx.

vs 58

But they do kill Stephen. And it is here that we are first introduced to a man called Saul. The persecution of Christians by the Jews begins here in earnest, with the first killing.

vs 59-60

I don't know how literally to read this. Him comitting his spirit to God is perfectly reasonable. Him even crying out to God not to hold this sin against them is tragically noble, but believeable. But him falling asleep? I mean, perhaps he got beaned by a rock and knocked unconscious, and started snoring. Perhaps this is just a euphemistic way of talking about Christian death. I mean, he died. Oh, he so died. But did he fall asleep first? I've heard people give sermons taking this verse literally.

Acts chapter 7

vs 41

Not exactly Israel's strongest time as the people of God. In fact, it is all the more shocking for its immediacy after their rescue from Egypt.

vs 42-43

These verses telescope a bit, and that is far more prevalent in Jewish writing than we give credit for I think. I mean, it's not like the Jews were worshipping these gods at that moment under Mount Sinai. But they did end up doing it.

vs 44

Ahhh, the tabernacle. The whole idea was that it would be representative of God's presence with them. But of course, God at Sinai threatened to leave them and let them go without him. So having the tabernacle didn't force God to go with them.

vs 45

It kinda remained in the land until David. I mean, it was still in the land when it was captured by the Philistines.

vs 46-47

And yet God refused him. As great as he was, he was not allowed to build God's temple. We've gone well beyond Moses now, into Davidic history, so we assume that Stephen is coming to a wrap-up.

vs 48-50

Oh so true. He doesn't live in tents built by them either. The fact is that God chooses his presence to be with people or not with people. And what kind of people were Israel?

Acts chapter 7

vs 31-32

It has taken this long, 80 years, before God has spoken to Moses, and about 400 years since he has revealed himself to his people generally.

vs 33

This is a solemn and important time in Israel's history, where God is becoming directly, powerfully involved in their predicament. It deserves some holiness.

vs 34

I'm sure this is not what Moses wanted to hear. I'm sure he wanted to hear "I am God, I am mighty, I will get my people out of Egypt. Wait here." Funny how God doesn't work that way.

vs 35

A few interesting words of editorialising by Stephen here. One that Moses was leader by God's decree, even though the people had rejected him. Jesus much?

Secondly, Stephen refers to the appearance in the bush as an angel.Well, I think it's interesting.

vs 36

Woah! Stephen spent all that time explaining who Moses was, how the people got stuck in Egypt in the first place, and then, in one verse, summarises the 10 plagues, the parting of the Red Sea, and the 40 years of wandering in the wilderness! One verse!

vs 37

Ahhh, now we're getting to brass tacks. No wonder Stephen is speeding up. He's gotten to the interesting bit. Well, interesting for him, anyway. The religious leaders might not agree.

vs 38

Despite all his credentials (not personal, but just the fact that God let him be in all those places and have all those experiences), people did not listen to him. Sounding familiar?

vs 39

Back to Egypt. Back to the inferior way of life. Rejecting Moses was rejecting God, because God gave him the authority. So they were turning their backs on God to go back to Egypt.

vs 40

Their rebellion against God gets directly shown by their idolatrous request. They deny God's work, forget God's servant, and go for a replacement of both.

Acts chapter 7

vs 21

Ok, well this didn't happen to Jesus. Moses was very much his own special man of the hour.

vs 22

It's interesting that while we read the burning bush narrative and find that Moses has a speech impediment, Stephen instead says that the pre-murder Moses was powerful in speech and action.

vs 23

That's a long time before visiting his own people.

vs 24

We all know the story. In fact, they would have all known the story. Why does Stephen persist? Is he giving this speech to show his orthodoxy?

vs 25-28

This is an interesting parallel - Moses, in trying to save his people, was rejected by them, and mocked. Jesus was too. Of course, Moses is rejected as a murderer. Jesus is rejected mostly because he died.

vs 29

He was already 40, and now he flees off and starts a family? This guy is toast. Nothing is ever going to happen with him.

vs 30

Forty more years? This guy is ancient! How's an 80 year old man going to save God's people?

Further more, how is this relevant to the question asked? Remember, Stephen was charged with "blasphemous words against Moses and against God". So I guess what he's really doing is defending against that charge, by showing he respects Moses and knows his history.

Acts chapter 7

vs 11-12

God made it very attractive indeed for his people to enter Egypt. He baited them with food!

vs 13

That's a very short summary of what happened, but Stephen is flying through this whole thing. Why he's doing it, we will have to wait and see. At the moment, it just seems like a history lesson.

vs 14-15

If they had stayed in Egypt to weather out the famine, it would have been ok. But they stayed longer, because they liked it there. They were well treated by the Pharoah.

vs 16

The only part of the promised land they so far owned.

vs 17

Ahhh, so now we are looking at a direction - we are looking towards the fulfilment of God's promise to Abraham.

vs 18

It would seem that hanging around in Egypt was a wrong decision.

vs 19

A sore point for any people group, that I am sure will never be forgotten.

vs 20

And now we get to Moses - hero of the Torah. Look at the comparison with Luke's gospel - a special person, who is born at a time when many children die, when his people are under oppression. Perhaps that is where Stephen is going? We'll find out!

Acts chapter 7

vs 1

This is the beginning of a very long answer. Hold onto your hats.

vs 2

Let's go all the way back to Abraham. This tradition still holds today, with people going back to the Abrahamic covenant.

vs 3

Abraham had to leave, and go to a new land.

vs 4

Abraham didn't get to live in the land immediately. He had to wait until Terah died (Awww).

vs 5

Abraham didn't have any land at the moment - he was a stranger. He was there only because of a promise God had made him, that his children would inherit the land. And he didn't even have them!

vs 6-7

We often forget that God told Abraham this. The Israelites should have known it was going to happen. But they still went to Egypt. It was God's will, or something.

vs 8

What do we know so far? That God is faithful, and that he gives promises and covenants to allow people to relate to him.

vs 9-10

Again, we are seeing God's faithfulness to his people and his promises. I think there's a pattern here. Although we can't be sure at this early stage exactly what Stephen is getting at, we will always see God's faithfulness if we trace a line through his history of dealing with people.

Acts chapter 6

vs 6

They laying on of hands seems to be a symbolic method of passing leadership onto someone, or perhaps just a method of praying for individuals.

vs 7

Here's our next plot point - another time of growth. This time, we read about priests coming to faith. Because this is in reference to Jerusalem, I think assuming they are temple priests is fine.

vs 8

He did? But he's one of the waiters! Wow, they really did pick people full of the Spirit for this job!

vs 9

Why did this synagogue in particular cause trouble for Stephen? I don't know. Perhaps he was from Cyrene or Alexandria? Perhaps Stephen was therefore targeting their members for conversion? Or perhaps Stephen just happened to have a better result among their members unintentionally.

vs 10

When arguing doesn't work, and people are steamed up, then you know there's going to be trouble. When people want to keep their power, and they can't debate it off you, they'll take it off you another way - usually violently.

vs 11

This is not a new trick. This happened in the Old Testament somewhere - Naboth was done in by Ahab (or was it Ahaz?).

vs 12

I imagine that the Sanhedrin would have been easy to get on side, since a number of priests had converted to Christ, which probably upset them.

vs 13

It's interesting that even in the last few verses, the charge has changed from speaking against Moses and God, to speaking against the Law (Moses, fair enough) and the temple! I mean, I can understand that they aren't dead keen on people bad-mouthing the temple, but it's not quite the same thing.

vs 14

Interesting that Stephen has been passing on the words that we read in the gospels, so we therefore know that even at that early stage in history, there was a growing body of teaching about what Jesus had said and done. Of course, that is understandable with the apostles being around.

vs 15

Ummm, yeah. What does that mean? It was glowing? That he was smiling really big? That he looks like a messenger? How did they know what angels looked like anyway?

Acts chapter 5 then 6

vs 41

I think we get this picture of them jumping and dancing away, but I'm sure they were in a lot of pain too. I'm sure their rejoicing was at least partly a comforting force to them in the face of the physical adversity they had suffered.

Where's your formal equivalence now? The two formal translations use 'his', but the functionals seem to both follow the greek 'the' (of course, the TR translation might be different).

vs 42

This must have been where door-knocking was invented. Seriously, I wonder if cults like the JWs and Mormons use this verse to back up their evangelism.

The message here seems to be "If all they're going to do is flog us, they're basically encouraging us to preach in their temple!" Good for the apostles.

Ch 6

vs 1

This verse shows me just how formal the KJV is even against the NASB. On the other hand, I find the inclusion of the footnote in the TNIV special - explaining a cultural-historical context, which isn't usually done outside measurements and such.

It's interesting that the body has grown so much that there can now be divisions - between cultural groups, for example. Were the Hellenist Jews' widows really being left out? If so, why? Because they just weren't on the list by accident? Or because of prejudice? Remember, this might be the early church, this might be pure closest-to-Jesus Christianity, but it's still full of people. We saw with Annanias and Sapphira that there are still sinners in the group, so it is possible that discrimination is taking place.

vs 2

And here we have it - the thing that makes culture civilised and grow - a division of labour. Now how do we read this - are the Apostles saying that preaching the word is better than waiting on tables, and so requires their attention? Or are they saying that they are the ones gifted to share the word, and so it is inefficient for them to serve people's physical needs directly? The word is literally arestos, 'pleasing', or desirable. Assuming they mean 'pleasing to God', then 'not be right' isn't a bad functional translation. If they meant 'pleasing to us', then they should have just said 'waiting on tables is for plebians'.

vs 3

I have heard people say of this verse "Look at the conditions that the Apostles put on serving in the church! Do you have such high standards for the people who do menial jobs in your church? Do you require the person who cleans your toilets to be full of the Spirit and wisdom?"

I think that attitude neglects the importance that this ministry had to the church at the time. The provision for the needy was probably the primary ministry the church at the time had to its members. Just like my church at the moment - building a bigger church building is currently very important to the church, so we want to make sure those in charge of it are full of the Spirit and are wise.

vs 4

Note that for the sake of word ministry (and don't forget prayer!) they don't just give the job over, they give the responsibility over too. These people might still be accountable to the apostles (everyone was I assume), but the apostles can now say "All complaints about food now go to these 7 guys" and concentrate on the spiritual stuff. Division of responsibility is so important.

vs 5

Some people have made points that all these names are Hellenistic - so basically the church, made up of Hellenists and Hebrews picked all Hellenists. I don't know that we can make such an assumption though. I mean, even the Hebrews were pretty Hellenised. They could have had greek names.

But a convert! Woah! Big step there. These guys were never afforded the same rights under Judaism. So for Christians to include him is a big change from the status quo. It begins...

Acts chapter 5

vs 31

The words of Peter are so explanitary that it's hard to comment on them. Jesus' exaltation is just another thing that shows his authority over the Sanhedrin, as does his title of prince. But his main focus is that of salvation, and here we are talking the salvation of Israel. The term Israel itself is a little problematic - they live in Judea now - it hasn't been called Israel forever. Israel speaks of a unification that never was. You could argue that, through use of that term, Peter is talking about a bigger picture than just jews.

vs 32

They did witness his ascension, but not his exaltation I don't think. But if anyone knows what happened to Jesus, it is the apostles. Moreover, they say that the Holy Spirit tells them, because they obey God. This is a huge claim - because of course the Sanhedrin would either say "only people like David get the Holy Spirit" or "we've all got the Holy Spirit". But that is not the claim the Apostles are making.

vs 33

I wonder which comment drove them over the edge? Probably the killing Jesus thing.

vs 34

Time honoured tradition of speaking about people behind their back. He obviously wants to discuss some sort of non-murderous strategy, which is good - stopping the claims about you killing someone by killing some more people is not the way to go.

vs 35

What a good idea. Let's talk about this before we get all upset and kill some more people.

vs 36

Who was Theudas? He was nobody, obviously. Got his name in the Bible, well done. When he says "He was killed", I wonder if he's dobbing in the Sanhedrin for another death?

vs 37

This Judas guy sounds more like a revolutionary. But these two verses tell us that there was a history at the time of people gathering followers, trying to make social or perhaps even religious change, and coming to a grizzly end. Jesus was not the first! Only the first to come back from the dead.

vs 38

This guy is actually quite wise. The vast majority of such social movements will die without their leader. But he goes a step further - because these guys are spouting religious change, he posits that their change will not take place if it is earthly.

vs 39

So wise! But not just for his own sake - to be able to see the fact that it could be possible that the mighty Sanhedrin could be wrong about a religious matter is wisdom indeed.

vs 40

Well, his speech persuaded them enough that they still had to flog the apostles to get it out of their system. But this was a turning point. Would Christianity have died, or blossomed even more if the apostled had died here? Who knows. We only know what did happen.

Acts chapter 5

vs 21

Again. They could hardly not, this time, having been told to by jailbreaking angels.

And woah, I bet the full assembly was a lot of people to summon together too.

vs 22-23

I would not want to be the guard who says "But I was there all night, and I swear that they didn't leave!" I mean, these are the guys who imprison you just for using Jesus' name, and who will kill you if you actually are Jesus.

vs 24

I'd be puzzled too - there's a group of people who say they've found the Messiah, but they are also jailbreakers? Doesn't quite add up.

vs 25

How long was it going to be until someone actually visited the temple courts?

vs 26

And it would seem that people were actively listening to the apostles, because of the fear of the guards. Fair enough too - they had an interesting and new message, and about 5000 followers or so.

vs 27

So even though they had been released from jail, they still ended up before the Sanhedrin. Not that they were hiding - preaching again in the temple courts did give them away, eventually.

vs 28

Make us guilty! Ha! Determined to remind you of how guilty you are! But remember, Peter's messages have always focused on the guilt of all parties - both Jew and gentile - to make the point that all are equally guilty for Jesus' death.

Also note, of course, that the apostles said they wouldn't listen to such a stupid command anyway.

vs 29

Same answer they gave before. They would be happy to obey the Sanhedrin, if they were giving orders that weren't against God's will. I mean, the Sanhedrin threw them in jail to stop them preaching. God released them so they could keep going. Who's in charge?

vs 30

What was that about blaming them for Jesus' death? :P But the focus of that sentence isn't really their involvement - it is that God raised him from the dead, and is therefore more important than them. And so is Jesus.

Acts chapter 5

vs 12

Signs and wonders are obviously so important that, where they do not facilitate the story, we don't even get to hear what they were.

And the believers met in the exact place where Peter and John got in trouble - talk about rubbing it in!

vs 13

So obviously the word had gotten out that the religious leaders weren't keen on them. At this point, then, we start seeing the division between people who respect the Christians, and those who will join.

vs 14

If anyone was going to use the term "men and women", it was Luke.

Ok, I see the apparent contradiction here between 13 and 14. How did their numbers grow if people dared not join them? Like I said earlier, these verses are sort of chapter breaks, showing a new section is going to start.

There are a few solutions, I guess. Perhaps the new believers didn't meet in the colonnade. But I can't imagine the apostles would have worn that (although your friend and mine FF Bruce believes this is the solution). Perhaps "the people" are Jerusalem dwellers, and it was non-Jerusalem Jews who joined them? I don't know.

vs 15

So Peter's shadow had become known as a healing shadow - better than Jesus' robe it would seem! No wonder people are coming to believe, if they are seeing such miracles and hearing the words of Peter that follow them.

vs 16

All were healed. That's a lot of people I reckon. And it's possible that those who lived in towns outside Jerusalem were less scared of the temple authorities too.

vs 17

Uh oh. The tone of the passages has changed. The saduccees are fuming.

vs 18

The public jail! Is that a jail that is controlled by them, or is that like the public public jail? Do they even have the right to do that? Or does the temple have a public jail and some private torture chambers or something?

vs 19

Sweet! Get out of jail free card!

vs 20

The angel isn't freeing them without reason. He wants them to continue preaching - it's too early for them to get locked up yet.

Acts chapter 5

vs 1

It seems that Ananias and Sapphira are being compared to Barnabas. Remember, we don't know who he is yet, really. But he's obviously cool enough that he gets given a new name.

vs 2

So what was the problem? It was his property to begin with.

vs 3

"Lied to the Holy Spirit". Oh, you're in deep trouble. Remember what Jesus said about sinning against the Holy Spirit? There's no forgiveness for that. Notice though that he is not being accused of greed or a lack of desire to help. It is a lie that he is accused of - a lie regarding the amount that he received for the land.

vs 4

Note that there was no rule about giving up everything, or in fact anything, for the benefit of the commuity. It was entirely voluntary. It doesn't say that he even announced how much he was giving or anything, simply that he put the rest at the apostle's feet. So it could have been as simple as he made it seem like he was giving everything from selling his property.

vs 5

The first person in the New Testament to be struck dead by God, lightning-bolt style. And why? Because he led some people to believe that he was giving all the money from a sold field to the apostles. I think I might have to re-evaluate what I think of as a sin against the Holy Spirit - Peter certainly seems to have a different definition to me.

vs 6

Wow, efficiency.

vs 7

You can see where this is going.

vs 8

Peter sets her up! Entrapment! I mean, Ananias intimated something, and now Sapphira is being asked directly to either perpetuate the lie, or to tell the truth and dob her husband in. Dob in is a rough phrase, though - I mean, it's not like he was forced to give them all his money.

vs 9

Peter sounds heartless, but I think you could read this in a caring way. I don't know what his attitude really was. But he was telling the truth.

vs 10-11

I thank God that we don't have people dropping dead in the church, because I don't know where we'd bury them.

Fear is mentioned twice - this is the second time. Was it fear that they would suffer a similar fate? I guess it might have been. I mean, their sin was pretty simple - their action had actually been holy, but we assume their heart wasn't in it, especially if they lied about the amount. So the lesson is - never tell anyone you tithe unless you really do. :P

Acts Chapter 4

vs 29

All the preceding stuff about how powerful God is, and how his will cannot be fought against by even the most powerful of rulers was just a buildup to ask that God gives his servants strength to speak boldly.

vs 30

They also pray that signs of healing and other wonders will continue to be performed in Jesus' name. They really want anything to happen that will continue this message going out. They don't want this run-in with the religious leaders to slow them down.

But they realise that this is a hard thing - that if it were just up to them, they probably would lie down and be quiet. So they ask God to give them strength, so that it's his work and his glory.

vs 31

In other words, God answered their prayer. He did it in a way we're not used to - via earthquake or something. That doesn't mean that's how he always answers prayer though.

vs 32

How far did this go? It doesn't say. I think it would be false of us to say that they pooled everything into a big pile and you just took whatever you want. More likely it existed much like it does now - you have your own stuff, but if another person wants it or needs it more, you give it to them.

vs 33

Was it only the apostles who testified to people about Christ? I doubt it - I think rather that Luke focuses on them for the purpose of keeping the story flowing.

Now, it's about here that the TNIV changes the focus of some of the words and some punctuation, and so changes the feel of the sentence structure. The NIV has verse 33 as two complete sentences. The NASB has a sentence separation between 33 and 34, but still uses a connecting word. The suggestion, then, apparently, is that by God's grace...

vs 34-35

... the needs of the whole community were met. But notice that God's grace does not work via cash rain from heaven. It works via people selling excess property. So God's grace was working through the members of the foundling church to such a degree that they would not allow anyone to be in need.

vs 36-37

His original name was Joseph? Pretty easy to forget. Barnabas makes him stand out so much more. This is the first mention we get of him - as one of those members who sold some property and gave it for distribution among the less fortunate of the Jerusalem Christians. We'll hear more about him later.

Acts chapter 4

vs 19

If the religious leaders were telling Peter and John to do things according to what God told them, they would have said "Amen!" and praised God that the leaders had seen the light. Unfortunately, instead the leaders give them a command to do something against God - what were they to do except say no?

vs 20

Peter certainly can't. He hasn't kept his mouth shut since pentecost. But this confrontation makes it clear - the apostles may not be disavowing the authority of the religious leaders altogether, but they certainly put Jesus above them.

vs 21

Ahhh, the heady days of religious enforcement via threats and punishment. We need to do more of this in our churches! See how well it worked for the temple! :P

In the end, it seems that if people were praising God, then that was good, or at least good enough that they couldn't work out how much punishment you should get for it.

vs 22

Which obviously means he was a lost cause. It certainly means that most people would have given up hope of him ever being able to walk.

vs 23

Something to the tune of "OMG priests r wanna stop uz with teh Jezuz preachings! LOL!"

vs 24

This might seem an odd way to start a prayer, but lots of psalms and prayerful statements in the prophets start off with the creation. Interestingly, lots don't. But creation is not a bad place to start. Certainly puts God in his place as Lord.

vs 25-26

The famous Psalm 2. Who would have ever thought that this psalm would have been used about the religious leaders of Israel plotting against God!

vs 27

In their prayer, the Christians mention Herod and Pilate as the political representatives who fit into this psalm. They're the gentile representatives, sure. But the "people of Israel" are represented there too - no doubt by the religious leaders.

vs 28

This focus on the leaders doing what God had established beforehand is not there to take away their responsibility. It is there more to put God further in the position of power and authority.

Acts chapter 4

vs 11

If anyone should have known their bibles and accepted the messiah when he came, it should have been the teachers of the Law.

Instead, they were the ones who conspired to kill Jesus. That's bad.

vs 12

Mmmm. Gender neutral.

Peter makes it abundantly clear - Jesus is the one. There is no other. If you want salvation, it is this man who gives it.

vs 13

Unschooled, perhaps. But remember that they did grow up Jews (which means regular readings of the Torah) and they did spend a pretty intense 3 years with Jesus too. I mean, what do you think they did in those three years, ate pudding? I bet they spent most of it studying God's word. Not to mention listening to Jesus give all his sermons.

vs 14

What are they going to do - break his legs?\

vs 15

And apparently they obeyed. So the sanhedrin carried a lot of cloud. Personal guards, religious cultus under their sway. Without a king, the priests are pretty much the powerhouse of the Jews.

vs 16

It's like Jesus all over again! Will the miracles of God's action never stop! When you think of it that way, you realise just how twisted the religious leadership had become.

vs 17

So... crucifying them is out of the question? The thing is that Peter and John weren't even attempting to undermine the power structures of the temple. They were going there to pray! Ok, sure, they told the sanhedrin that they were responsible for killing Jesus. But they told that to everyone Peter has sermonised to!

vs 18

Yeah, that's going to work. They didn't seem committed at all :P

Acts 4

vs 1

No preaching in the temple! I mean, seriously, the temple had guards! It's totally weird. Why did the Romans even allow that?

vs 2

They certainly were.

vs 3

I was going to say that these days you'd have a lawsuit on your hands if you did that... but then, that's pretty much what happened to the Chaser in Brisbane - got locked up until the PM was gone, then released. But these things always make more news and more coverage for something than if you'd done nothing.

vs 4

5000! The growth is just phenomenal! Because the people already have such a good understanding of the theological and Biblical basis.

vs 5

And you know that when you get this group of people together, something bad's going to happen. Last time they got together, Jesus was killed. More fool them.

vs 6

I'm glad I knew John and Alexander were there...

vs 7

Oh, come on, you ask Peter this question? That's a sermon waiting to happen!

vs 8

His talks always such with such pompy beginnings. But at least he knew who he was talking to.

vs 9-10

It is true - in one sense, they are being jailed and questioned because Jesus healed a beggar. So Peter makes it clear. It was Jesus. Yes, you might have crucified him, but he was raised from the dead, and now his power is still going strong, continuing the ministry he started.

Hehehe, sucked it leaders.

Acts chapter 3

vs 14

While this is true, and is damning, it's also a ballsy thing to say in the Temple, which is like the centre of enemy territory.

vs 15

"Author of life" is a pretty God-type title, but would sound weird to say that you killed God, but God raised him again.

vs 16

The proof, then, is in the pudding. I mean, you can not believe Peter or John, but the healed guy is right there with them, and would correct them if they were lying.

vs 17

It's nice of him to say that. And I guess we should take him at his word. Did they really know he was the Messiah? I mean, he did say he was the Son of God, and they didn't listen to him. So ignorance is not really true, is it?

vs 18

I'm sure that was a constant question that was asked. I mean, when you live in a culture that is expectant of a messiah, and has a record of historical prophecy saying that messiah will suffer, you would wonder how and why. So this would be really interesting to hear for the first time.

vs 19

I'd like some times of refreshing sometimes. But this is a grand refreshing - a refreshing from sin. It's a huge offer to a people who deal with sin by way of constant sacrifice.

vs 20

Wait, send the Messiah? Hasn't he already been? We do know that Jesus is returning, but that's not going to be a saving return, is it? Well, in one way it is - it will fulfil our salvation by bringing about a formal start to eternity.

vs 21

The time between Jesus' going and his coming Peter describes not so much as the fulfilment of a plan, more as the restoration of something that is broken. Interesting nuance.

vs 22-23

I think Peter's main reason for quoting Moses here is to show that even Moses forsaw this time which the hearers now find themselves in. Which makes it awfully historic.

vs 24

That's a pretty bold statement. Lucky it's true.

vs 25

Peter talks about covenant, but not about the Mosaic covenant. He goes back to the Abrahamic covenant, which is very interesting. he quotes the part of it which shows the inclusive nature of that covenant, which is also very interesting.

vs 26

First to them! Who else was he going to? This is a bold statement, because if the Jewish Messiah goes to people other than the jews, what does that mean? Of course, the OT does explain it, in its own way, but the focus on the gentiles, the huge role they play, was probably not really seen by anyone at this stage. Probably not even Peter, and he said the words!

Acts chapter 3

vs 1

Luke is obviously writing for an audience beyond Jews, because he tells us that 3pm is the hour of prayer.

vs 2

So the beggar wasn't on his own - people were carrying him. What a sucky life, that you can't even beg without help.

vs 3

Working hard, as always.

vs 4-5

I'm not sure what's going on here. Is there some cultural thing about looking at beggars (or not looking at them)? Or is it just like our culture - where, if you see someone in the street and you don't want to acknowledge them, you just look somewhere else? what about the beggar - does he not look at people for a reason? Or is it just because he thought Peter and John were going to pass him by like everyone else?

vs 6

Why didn't Peter have any silver or gold? I mean, the believers had everything in common - does that mean that they had to get pocket money from a central treasurer? Or that they were all equally pretty poor? They were selling land!

Anyway, instead, he offers the guy something that no amount of money at the time could buy - the ability to walk.

vs 7

Of course, offering it without doing it would be horrible. But Peter actually does heal the lame man, in the name of Jesus Christ.

vs 8

That sounds like a pretty happy man. What happened to the people carrying him?

vs 9-10

It is pretty hard to keep these things quiet. And, even in Jerusalem, it is a much smaller and closer knit community than what we are used to. People recognise people, and they know when things happen.

vs 11

I assume he wasn't holding for the sake of balance, but more out of clingy happiness because these guys healed him. People, of course, flock over to gawk. It's like a reverse accident - people now actually want to look.

vs 12

Peter of course sees the opportunity for a sermon. He wants people to know that it isn't because he is Peter, or because John is John, that this guy got healed. I guess that's why they were gawking too - to find out how this thing happened.

vs 13

Starting your sermon by blaming your audience for killing the messiah might not seem like your typical opening, but Peter does it anyway. It is still fresh in the minds of people, so I guess it is a relevant item of discussion. And what kind of man would Peter be if he didn't stand up for Jesus? Especially after Jesus just healed someone?

Acts chapter 2

vs 37

Notice that the jews call each other 'brothers'. I find that interesting.

More importantly, though, this group of people (or at least a portion of them) has been convinced by the truth of Peter's words - he has been convincing, he has proved his words from Scripture, his words have been Christ-focussed, they have spoken to the immediate needs of the listeners, and they have been backed up by a miraculous sign. I mean, can it get any better?

vs 38

I think if we were to take a single verse to represent how we preach the gospel in the modern world, it would be this one. The reason I say that is because it is meaningless on its own. In the context of vs 1-36 (14-36 being Peter's sermon), it is meaningful - it is the correct answer telling the audience how to respond to the rest of the information they have been given. But if you just read verse 38, it falls on dumb eyes. We've got to start understanding and preaching the gospel in a 1-36 style (or at least a 14-36 style).

vs 39

That's a great part of the message, too - that you don't need to have been one of the 3000 people there at the time of Peter's sermon to accept the message. I wonder if Luke didn't slip this in so that people reading Acts had a serious challenge about faith within the first 2 chapters.

vs 40

This verse lets us know that Luke has not given us the full words of Peter. Instead, he has given us the jist of his message. Of course there were lots of other words. Probably a bit of back-and-forth too. I am not one of those people who thinks that Peter's and Paul's sermons are great models for full 30 minute messages - I do think that Luke records salient points, though. Perhaps the climactic parts of the talks.

vs 41

The word 'souls' isn't used in the NIV or TNIV, although apparently it does exist in the greek. I don't know that it's a big deal. The big deal is that 3000 people were added to the church that day. That's a pretty good day's worth of preaching.

There's so many points to be made about this, but I'll just make two. The first, simple one is to point out the allusion to the giving of the Law at Sinai, where 3000 people were slaughtered because of their disobedience. This time, with the new covenant, 3000 people are brought to life in the new community.

The second point to note is that while Peter's preaching model might be worth adopting, we shouldn't have an expectation of such success from it. These 3000 people were all Jews, who knew and accepted the truth of the Torah, who believed in God, believed in the coming of the Messiah, who had been pretty much direct witnesses to Christ's activities... do you see my point here? The inculturation of the gospel information was so massive that they were just sitting there waiting for the message of a Messiah to come. They were ripe for the picking. This is not what modern day Australia is like! Ok, there might be some little pockets of people who are super-seekers and eager to hear the word, but even that's not the same - they haven't grown up with an inculturation of the Bible overall.

I just think that's an important point to make, because we can easily get discouraged by not seeing the same kind of fruit that Acts does.

vs 42

In other words, they became full members of the church. They didn't just get baptised and then go back to their normal lives. That's another big problem with our churches (or perhaps with the confessions of faith of so many) - that they don't stick to it. They return to their normal life, instead of departing from it.

In the same way that these people were inculturated, they were also required to become separate from their culture to join. They were inculturated Jews, not Christians. The Christian message was new and different. To join the Christians was a big sacrifice, a big change. That's something the church has struggled with since 400AD - the inclusiveness of state religion, and the half-faith that comes from enforcement of that religion by the state, means that you end up with the faithful few mixed with the mediocre majority.

I'm not necessarily saying that we shut our doors to all non-Christians or anything - just making the point that we have a different historical background.

vs 43

They were so wonderful and noteworthy that they aren't even recorded.

vs 44

This doesn't mean that they all had the same hair colour, or liked the same bands. It means that they had a communal form of ownership.

vs 45

This practice, while utterly sacrificial and noble, many do not see as sustainable. It's an incredibly political question. Was this the correct model for church life for all time - a communal, almost socialist utopic ideal? Or is the individualistic capitalist 'sustainable' model of the more modern church the way to go? Is it that easy a deliniation? I don't think it is, or at least I don't think a lot of people will let it be.

vs 46

Where else were they going to meet? They're still all Jews, and the Temple is where you do your God stuff. But they also met in homes to share in that most important sacrament that Jesus had left behind for them - the breaking of bread.

Or did they? Does 'breaking of bread' here refer to the Lord's supper? Or does it just mean they shared meals together? I think verse 42 is the answer - look at the list, and I think you'll see a list of church-body practices.

vs 47

This verse makes it sound like they all live happily ever after. Note the whole thing about the numerical growth of the church. This is one of many verses like this. They are flag verses - they show that we are moving into another section of Acts. These pop up every now and again - look out for them!

Acts chapter 2

vs 25-28

The important parts of David's psalm are the messianic parts (holy one not seeing decay for example), but also the hope that David sees because of God's character (my body lives in hope, you will not abandon me to the grave).

I mean, it's fairly obvious that David is writing about himself, but I find it fascinating that the hope that David has for himself then translates into a messianic hope (perhaps not purposefully on David's behalf).

vs 29

I wonder if David's tomb is still around? They seemed to know where it was. Anyway, that shows that his psalm obviously did not come true for him, at least in a medium-term sense.

vs 30

A vital covenant that I so often forget! I always focus on the Sinai covenant, and the Abrahamic covenant (because of my time in mission). But without the Davidic covenant, there is no build up of a messianic hope.

vs 31

Peter sees the abandonment to the dead as referring to Christ as well. Fair enough. That doesn't lessen the power of the davidic hope.

vs 32

I think the 'we all' is probably aimed primarily at the disciples, rather than the people in general. But the fact that a crowd of witnesses exists in the city should be more than sufficient.

vs 33

So what they now saw and heard was the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, Joel-style!

vs 34-35

This was one of the verses that Jesus himself used in discussions with the Pharisees - so I am assuming that it was a basis for at least a bit of teaching to the disciples.

vs 36

Peter's assurance is that this verse refers to the Messiah being made ruler over all things, and that the man David was referring to as his Lord was Jesus. I'd offer more thought on this one, but my neck hurts, and is blocking thought getting from my brain to my fingers.

Acts Chapter 2

vs 13

Fools! Did they not know they would receive the wrath of Peter for saying such things? It's an important verse, actually - because it shows that while some people could make out their own native language, others just heard drunken babbling. It helps to give us a picture of what this whole situation was like.

vs 14

Peter gets up, and he wants to explain to them what has happened. How did he know? I figure he is guessing that this is what Jesus was talking about. Luke only talks about the Twelve being here, so I might have been wrong about the 120, but earlier he did say when they were 'all' together.

vs 15

Fair enough. I mean, if they were all drunk, how could Peter get up and give this speech?

vs 16-21

We get quite a long quote from Joel here, which is obviously pointing to the Day of the Lord - the new age of God that comes upon the earth. It's incredible to think that God so many centuries ago promised to pour out the Holy Spirit on all his people. Or perhaps for us, since we're all pretty used to this, we are surprised that it hadn't happened up until this point.

But it finally has. It marks a time of great signs and wonders, but also of the end of the age of the earth. It is also the age of salvation. It's quite an age.

vs 22

It's true. Most of the people around would have been from Jerusalem, and could have even seen Jesus perform some of his miracles. Even if they hadn't seen him directly, they would have heard the buzz about people being healed and stuff.

vs 23

It's about this time that I'd really wish I had a stone-shield. You've got to be gutsy to get up in front of a crowd and tell them that they are murderers. Even with the clause about God's foreknowledge, you're in dangerous territory.

vs 24

Although this doesn't absolve them from the death, it does absolve them from the consequences of the death. And yet at the same time, it would be totally confusing. Resurrection is just not a topic that is talked about everyday. Sure, the resurrection at the end times perhaps, but not the specific raising from the dead of one person.

If it wasn't for the whole 'group of people speaking in my native language' thing, I think people would have stopped listening to Peter a few verses ago. It is the miracle that attests to Peter's preaching.

Acts chapter 2

vs 1

Well, that ruins the surprise. Oh, wait, Pentecost meant something before this didn't it? I think it was a jewish thing. The feast of weeks, apparently, was when the Jews celebrated the revelation of the Law on Sinai, and also was a wheat festival.

vs 2

Without warning. They were just sitting around one day. Sure, it was Pentecost, but they were just sitting and waiting to see what would happen.

vs 3

So it wasn't just audible, it was visible too. That's worth remembering next time someone says it happened to them.

vs 4

The way this verse reads, it sounds like they weren't able to speak in other languages whenever they wanted - instead, it was only when the Spirit enabled them. The important thing, anyway, was the coming of the Holy Spirit.

vs 5

Now, although they were in a house, it obviously wasn't totally private, because so many other people get involved. That said, they were all together, and 120 people don't just fit in someone's house.

The Jews were there for Pentecost I guess.

vs 6

Now, does that mean that they heard all different langauges at the same time, or does it mean that, out of the 120 people speaking, they heard their language being spoken?

vs 7-8

Note that their "native language" isn't Hebrew! These guys come from all over, and even though they are God-fearing, they spoke the local dialect of their home as 'their language'.

It was a pretty amazing thing to see. Or hear, anyway.

vs 9-11

Lots of different areas in there. Note that they weren't just blathering - they were declaring the wonders of God. For a Jew, that probably is nothing special. I am sure everyone in Jerusalem was doing that over Pentecost. But to be doing it in these languages is the amazing thing.

vs 12

They don't ask "How did this happen?" - because pretty much everyone was in a spiritual mood. It's a religious feast, they've travelled a long distance to be there, and while they might not have been expecting a miracl, it's only a little time after Jesus' death, and there's still probably a buzz around Jerusalem. So instead, the question revolves around what this means - what is God trying to say by making this happen?