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.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Thursday, November 29, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
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!
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!
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, November 26, 2007
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?
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?
Sunday, November 25, 2007
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...
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...
Friday, November 23, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
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
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
Sunday, November 18, 2007
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.
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.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, November 16, 2007
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
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
Thursday, November 15, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
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!
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!
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
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?
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?
Monday, November 12, 2007
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!
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!
Sunday, November 11, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, November 09, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
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?
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?
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Acts chapter 1
vs 14
Ok, so Mary isn't one of the women? It is interesting to note that Jesus' family suddenly have all joined the cause. That is good. And it is interesting that they get together constantly for prayer. I guess there's nothing else particularly Christian to do yet.
vs 15
So this went on for some time, because it was 'in those days'. 120 believers isn't bad. I mean, it's not a great percentage of the world population, but for so soon after the death of Christ, it's a fair number.
vs 16
In the end, that is how Peter saw Judas' role - as a necessary fulfilment of Scripture. I think that's the best way of seeing it too.
vs 17
We always paint Judas as a bastard. But Peter says that he was one of them. That he shared in the ministry. When the 12 were sent out to talk to people, he went too. He left everything he had to follow Jesus too. I wonder how long it was in history before Judas became as despised as he was.
vs 18
What a lovely story.
vs 19
I wonder if that is Hebrew or Aramaic?
vs 20
We don't read psalms this way - and with good reason - because we don't live in the immediate time of the Messiah. Who else among the 12 apostles was prophesied about to appear during messianic times? I think only Judas. So it's fitting that they read more about him in those psalms.
vs 21-22
It's interesting that they take this as the one thing they must have - witness of Jesus' baptism by John. That's when they measure the whole thing as starting. Also interesting that God himself calls an Apostle who doesn't even fill this one requirement.
vs 23
So many names!
vs 24-25
Why is this two verses?
vs 26
We don't pick elders this way :P Seriously, though, the use of urrim and thurrim and the casting of lots is used more often in the Bible to divine God's voice than we would like to remember. God does work through it, though. Some people argue that he didn't in this case - because Paul was God's Apostle, not Matthias. But I would say that there needed to be 13 Apostles. 12 for the 12 tribes of Israel, and a 13th for the gentiles. Which makes it even more fitting that Paul is an 'abnormally born' Apostle. But we'll get to him later.
Ok, so Mary isn't one of the women? It is interesting to note that Jesus' family suddenly have all joined the cause. That is good. And it is interesting that they get together constantly for prayer. I guess there's nothing else particularly Christian to do yet.
vs 15
So this went on for some time, because it was 'in those days'. 120 believers isn't bad. I mean, it's not a great percentage of the world population, but for so soon after the death of Christ, it's a fair number.
vs 16
In the end, that is how Peter saw Judas' role - as a necessary fulfilment of Scripture. I think that's the best way of seeing it too.
vs 17
We always paint Judas as a bastard. But Peter says that he was one of them. That he shared in the ministry. When the 12 were sent out to talk to people, he went too. He left everything he had to follow Jesus too. I wonder how long it was in history before Judas became as despised as he was.
vs 18
What a lovely story.
vs 19
I wonder if that is Hebrew or Aramaic?
vs 20
We don't read psalms this way - and with good reason - because we don't live in the immediate time of the Messiah. Who else among the 12 apostles was prophesied about to appear during messianic times? I think only Judas. So it's fitting that they read more about him in those psalms.
vs 21-22
It's interesting that they take this as the one thing they must have - witness of Jesus' baptism by John. That's when they measure the whole thing as starting. Also interesting that God himself calls an Apostle who doesn't even fill this one requirement.
vs 23
So many names!
vs 24-25
Why is this two verses?
vs 26
We don't pick elders this way :P Seriously, though, the use of urrim and thurrim and the casting of lots is used more often in the Bible to divine God's voice than we would like to remember. God does work through it, though. Some people argue that he didn't in this case - because Paul was God's Apostle, not Matthias. But I would say that there needed to be 13 Apostles. 12 for the 12 tribes of Israel, and a 13th for the gentiles. Which makes it even more fitting that Paul is an 'abnormally born' Apostle. But we'll get to him later.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Acts chapter 1
vs 1-2
This book obviously flows on from the book of Luke, which I did not that long ago. Notice the wording - the former book was about what Jesus 'began' to do and teach. In that way, the name of the book "Acts of the Apostles" is somewhat misleading. It is really the continuing acts of Jesus after his ascension into heaven. Which sounds weird, but then, the book is weird.
Get used to the Holy Spirit doing things that are not explained. Jesus uses it to give instructions to the apostles. How? Perhaps this first narrative explains it, perhaps it's not explained. Acts is full of Holy Spirit-ness, but little explaination.
vs 3
None of the gospels give us this information about 40 days. It's incredible that they did not find this newsworthy. But there it is.
vs 4
It turns out there was quite a body of teaching post-resurrection that we have little access to. We see little snippets of it, as they are relevant to the narrative. Including this instruction for the apostles to stay in Jerusalem.
vs 5
What exactly did that mean? Did Jesus explain it? If he did, why didn't Luke write the explaination down? I think, partly, that the book of Acts is an explaination of what this means.
vs 6
So much of the book of Acts has a different flavour, and different heroes, than the gospel did. But this is an impressive return to form for the apostles - they are still, after all this time, looking for a renewal of a physical kingdom to Israel.
vs 7
Some people read this as an affirmation that Jesus is going to give Israel an earthly kingdom again, because it doesn't say that Jesus won't do it, rather that it's not for them to know when.
vs 8
However, others read in the light of this verse, and say that Jesus is saying that Israel's kingdom is not the issue - that being a light to the world, being apostles (as they are named earlier) is the key message of Acts, and of Jesus here. I think I'm swayed by the second one - Jesus is concerned with a heavenly kingdom, not an earthly one.
vs 9
People question why Jesus had to 'ascend' when we now know that heaven is not really 'up'. My guess is that it's as symbolic as anything Jesus did - where else was he supposed to go to show he was going to heaven? I mean, he wasn't going to get there physically no matter what.
vs 10
You can imagine this group of guys staring up into the sky being interrupted by a couple of angels.
vs 11
Would any of them see it though? Apparently not. The point for them being, of course, that they have better things to do than stare at the sky. They've been given work to do.
vs 12
Does that mean it was the Sabbath when Jesus flew into the clouds? Is it allowed to fly on the Sabbath? How far is a Sabbath day's fly - would it take you all the way to heaven?
Anyway, all this happened outside Jerusalem - now they return.
vs 13
That's eleven. They make up the super team that we always hear about.
This book obviously flows on from the book of Luke, which I did not that long ago. Notice the wording - the former book was about what Jesus 'began' to do and teach. In that way, the name of the book "Acts of the Apostles" is somewhat misleading. It is really the continuing acts of Jesus after his ascension into heaven. Which sounds weird, but then, the book is weird.
Get used to the Holy Spirit doing things that are not explained. Jesus uses it to give instructions to the apostles. How? Perhaps this first narrative explains it, perhaps it's not explained. Acts is full of Holy Spirit-ness, but little explaination.
vs 3
None of the gospels give us this information about 40 days. It's incredible that they did not find this newsworthy. But there it is.
vs 4
It turns out there was quite a body of teaching post-resurrection that we have little access to. We see little snippets of it, as they are relevant to the narrative. Including this instruction for the apostles to stay in Jerusalem.
vs 5
What exactly did that mean? Did Jesus explain it? If he did, why didn't Luke write the explaination down? I think, partly, that the book of Acts is an explaination of what this means.
vs 6
So much of the book of Acts has a different flavour, and different heroes, than the gospel did. But this is an impressive return to form for the apostles - they are still, after all this time, looking for a renewal of a physical kingdom to Israel.
vs 7
Some people read this as an affirmation that Jesus is going to give Israel an earthly kingdom again, because it doesn't say that Jesus won't do it, rather that it's not for them to know when.
vs 8
However, others read in the light of this verse, and say that Jesus is saying that Israel's kingdom is not the issue - that being a light to the world, being apostles (as they are named earlier) is the key message of Acts, and of Jesus here. I think I'm swayed by the second one - Jesus is concerned with a heavenly kingdom, not an earthly one.
vs 9
People question why Jesus had to 'ascend' when we now know that heaven is not really 'up'. My guess is that it's as symbolic as anything Jesus did - where else was he supposed to go to show he was going to heaven? I mean, he wasn't going to get there physically no matter what.
vs 10
You can imagine this group of guys staring up into the sky being interrupted by a couple of angels.
vs 11
Would any of them see it though? Apparently not. The point for them being, of course, that they have better things to do than stare at the sky. They've been given work to do.
vs 12
Does that mean it was the Sabbath when Jesus flew into the clouds? Is it allowed to fly on the Sabbath? How far is a Sabbath day's fly - would it take you all the way to heaven?
Anyway, all this happened outside Jerusalem - now they return.
vs 13
That's eleven. They make up the super team that we always hear about.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Psalm 6
vs 1
Well, I'm not exactly sure how David is writing this verse - is he saying that he doesn't want God's discipline and rebuke, because he knows God is angry with him, or is he asking God not to rebuke and discipline him while God is angry with him?
vs 2
From the sounds of it, David is already suffering from something, so much so that his bones hurt. He wants healing and mercy, not anger and judgement.
vs 3
It seems like David feels he won't be able to handle this much longer. Even his soul hurts. Probably because God hasn't responded yet.
vs 4
It's not because he is innocent, or because he is king, or because he is sorry even - he asks for salvation because of God's character - God's unfailing love.
vs 5
David figures he is of no use to God if he's dead. So obviously the thing he is suffering is life-threatening.
vs 6
I don't know if you've ever been there, but I haven't. I mean, my life has never been on the line so badly that I've wept right through my couch. I have been exhausted from groaning, and it is especially tiresome.
vs 7
He's used his eyes so much for crying that they don't work for seeing anymore. And it's all because of enemies against him. What a horrible time in his life - no wonder he wants deliverance.
vs 8
David anticipates the Lord's hearing his words, and feels thus able to command the evil ones around him to depart. Perhaps he thinks it is best for them - because otherwise God will get them.
vs 9
Even before he is finished, David is assured of his prayer's hearing and acceptance before God. That's part of faith - we pray because we understand God hears prayer. Otherwise, what would be the point?
vs 10
There is a final reversal. In the beginning, it was David who was under the wrath and discipline of God. By the end, David looks forward to the embarrassment of his enemies through the same.
Well, I'm not exactly sure how David is writing this verse - is he saying that he doesn't want God's discipline and rebuke, because he knows God is angry with him, or is he asking God not to rebuke and discipline him while God is angry with him?
vs 2
From the sounds of it, David is already suffering from something, so much so that his bones hurt. He wants healing and mercy, not anger and judgement.
vs 3
It seems like David feels he won't be able to handle this much longer. Even his soul hurts. Probably because God hasn't responded yet.
vs 4
It's not because he is innocent, or because he is king, or because he is sorry even - he asks for salvation because of God's character - God's unfailing love.
vs 5
David figures he is of no use to God if he's dead. So obviously the thing he is suffering is life-threatening.
vs 6
I don't know if you've ever been there, but I haven't. I mean, my life has never been on the line so badly that I've wept right through my couch. I have been exhausted from groaning, and it is especially tiresome.
vs 7
He's used his eyes so much for crying that they don't work for seeing anymore. And it's all because of enemies against him. What a horrible time in his life - no wonder he wants deliverance.
vs 8
David anticipates the Lord's hearing his words, and feels thus able to command the evil ones around him to depart. Perhaps he thinks it is best for them - because otherwise God will get them.
vs 9
Even before he is finished, David is assured of his prayer's hearing and acceptance before God. That's part of faith - we pray because we understand God hears prayer. Otherwise, what would be the point?
vs 10
There is a final reversal. In the beginning, it was David who was under the wrath and discipline of God. By the end, David looks forward to the embarrassment of his enemies through the same.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Psalm 5
vs 1
David wants to put his case for his lament. You don't just groan unecessarily against God - you have to have a good reason. And David thinks he's got one.
vs 2
David is addressing God, just so we know. It is kinda interesting that David calls God 'king', when of course David is king. But is he really king? Apparently there's a linguistic thing where the kings of Israel weren't called kings like the pagan kings were. They were called 'princes' - that is, under the king, who understandably is God.
vs 3
David actually expects God to answer. But he waits on God for God's timing. I have heard a sermon on this verse saying that we should all pray and read our Bibles in the morning. Yeah, I don't buy it. I think all it says is that David did it in the morning.
vs 4
David now begins to talk about the nature of God - in particular, that part of his nature which means he doesn't like evil. Which means, I think, that David either wants God to do something about evil people, or that David is saying how good he is and therefore God should listen to him.
vs 5
The idea of God hating those who do wrong is an interesting one. We hear about God 'hating the sin but loving the sinner'. It's not really worded that way: not here (where I admit that yes, it is poetic) and not in other places (where God hates Esau, or the Nicolatans).
What do we do with a God who hates? I think we must also remember that he is a God who loves.
vs 6
Ok, I think we've got the point by now. But it wouldn't be poetry if you just made your point once.
vs 7
Ok, now David's point becomes clearer. Yes, God detests the wicked, but he has accepted David, but not because David is any better! Instead, it is only God's love which allows David to approach, to talk, to ask. So we've answered the question from vs4.
vs 8
And now we have David's request, which he started making 7 verses ago! He requests guidance. But not guidance regarding what to do - guidance in doing what he knows he should. David's enemies are making it hard for him to live the righteous life he knows he should. David needs to know how he can maintain his righteous life for the Lord in the midst of all this trouble. It was probably easier before all the trouble hit. Yes - David is calling out to God now that the brown stuff has hit the fan! Just like we do. But more poetically.
vs 9
These are not sword-and-arrow enemies trying to kill him. These are enemies of both God and David - trying to trap him in lies because of malice towards him. Sounds like David might be suffering politically - common enough in government. And I think we all know how much it hurts to not be able to trust people.
vs 10
Now, you might think David is being a little harsh here. I mean, these people only lied and commited verbal sins. Then your thinking is an idiot! Our culture puts verbal sins low, physical sins higher, sexual sins higher again. I'm not sure about economic sins - I think if it's someone else's money, it goes lower than verbal sins. If it's their money, probably higher than sexual sin. We're crazy in that way. But verbal sins hurt. Their pain can last a long time, and they can fracture relationships forever. And God is a God of relationships. So we can't afford to marginalise these sins. god will do what David asks - he will eventually banish those with wicked tongues, because they are guilty.
vs 11
God will make this happen too. Sure, it doesn't universally happen in this world - sometimes we feel like we're always on the wrong side of God's protection-spread. But God is always looking out for us. And we can rejoice! I might have focused on the downer verses of this psalm, but overall it's pretty upbeat in its content. Yes, it is a lament. But God is ever positive in it.
vs 12
It is for sure. Blessings to the righteous is part of the OT covenant. And they really did rely on it - they expected God to keep his promises, because God is faithful. I think sometimes we get to spiritual about our salvation, as if we can't expect anything else from God. Anyone who has lived by faith for their food and posessions and money would tell us otherwise.
David wants to put his case for his lament. You don't just groan unecessarily against God - you have to have a good reason. And David thinks he's got one.
vs 2
David is addressing God, just so we know. It is kinda interesting that David calls God 'king', when of course David is king. But is he really king? Apparently there's a linguistic thing where the kings of Israel weren't called kings like the pagan kings were. They were called 'princes' - that is, under the king, who understandably is God.
vs 3
David actually expects God to answer. But he waits on God for God's timing. I have heard a sermon on this verse saying that we should all pray and read our Bibles in the morning. Yeah, I don't buy it. I think all it says is that David did it in the morning.
vs 4
David now begins to talk about the nature of God - in particular, that part of his nature which means he doesn't like evil. Which means, I think, that David either wants God to do something about evil people, or that David is saying how good he is and therefore God should listen to him.
vs 5
The idea of God hating those who do wrong is an interesting one. We hear about God 'hating the sin but loving the sinner'. It's not really worded that way: not here (where I admit that yes, it is poetic) and not in other places (where God hates Esau, or the Nicolatans).
What do we do with a God who hates? I think we must also remember that he is a God who loves.
vs 6
Ok, I think we've got the point by now. But it wouldn't be poetry if you just made your point once.
vs 7
Ok, now David's point becomes clearer. Yes, God detests the wicked, but he has accepted David, but not because David is any better! Instead, it is only God's love which allows David to approach, to talk, to ask. So we've answered the question from vs4.
vs 8
And now we have David's request, which he started making 7 verses ago! He requests guidance. But not guidance regarding what to do - guidance in doing what he knows he should. David's enemies are making it hard for him to live the righteous life he knows he should. David needs to know how he can maintain his righteous life for the Lord in the midst of all this trouble. It was probably easier before all the trouble hit. Yes - David is calling out to God now that the brown stuff has hit the fan! Just like we do. But more poetically.
vs 9
These are not sword-and-arrow enemies trying to kill him. These are enemies of both God and David - trying to trap him in lies because of malice towards him. Sounds like David might be suffering politically - common enough in government. And I think we all know how much it hurts to not be able to trust people.
vs 10
Now, you might think David is being a little harsh here. I mean, these people only lied and commited verbal sins. Then your thinking is an idiot! Our culture puts verbal sins low, physical sins higher, sexual sins higher again. I'm not sure about economic sins - I think if it's someone else's money, it goes lower than verbal sins. If it's their money, probably higher than sexual sin. We're crazy in that way. But verbal sins hurt. Their pain can last a long time, and they can fracture relationships forever. And God is a God of relationships. So we can't afford to marginalise these sins. god will do what David asks - he will eventually banish those with wicked tongues, because they are guilty.
vs 11
God will make this happen too. Sure, it doesn't universally happen in this world - sometimes we feel like we're always on the wrong side of God's protection-spread. But God is always looking out for us. And we can rejoice! I might have focused on the downer verses of this psalm, but overall it's pretty upbeat in its content. Yes, it is a lament. But God is ever positive in it.
vs 12
It is for sure. Blessings to the righteous is part of the OT covenant. And they really did rely on it - they expected God to keep his promises, because God is faithful. I think sometimes we get to spiritual about our salvation, as if we can't expect anything else from God. Anyone who has lived by faith for their food and posessions and money would tell us otherwise.
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Psalm 4
vs 1
David really wants God to hear him, and to relieve his distress.
vs 2
That is almost a prayer for our nation. Assuming that David's glory is God (pretty fair from the last psalm), it's like he's saying that people are turning faith in God into something to be ashamed about - sounds familiar. They are deluded and seek false gods - also familiar. It's not a new thing - in fact, one thing that startled me about studying apolcalyptic literature is just how much it paints the picture that all nations alike are rebellious beasts against God.
vs 3
The TNIV refers here to the 'faithful servant'. The NIV misses the singular, which the NASB and KJV preserve. So it sounds more like David is referring to himself. Hence God hearing him when he calls.
vs 4
Interestingly, the TNIV preserves the masoretic 'tremble' (as does the NASB), whereas the Septuagint has 'In your anger', which of course we know from the New Testament. This is obviously a message to David, or to the people in his position - even though many people mock God and ignore him, we should not be angry. Or, when in such a position, fear God, and meditate on him rather than fearing those who seek to shame you.
vs 5
Of course, the sacrifices David is talking about are different to the sacrifices the NT asks Christians to make. But the same thing applies - we should trust the Lord, and sacrificing things helps us to do that.
vs 6
TNIV departs from tradition here and uses the word 'prosperity'. If you've read Wright's Living as the People of God (which you should, it is excellent), then you would understand that so much of Israel's 'good' or blessing was material prosperity - indeed, this was part of the deuteronomic covenant. And you can see that David's answer to their plea is that God will have his face shine on them - that is, that he will turn towards them and bless them with prosperity.
vs 7
This is another departation from tradition - everyone else includes the idea of the joy being 'greater than' the abounding of the material. But with the new translation of vs 6, this one makes as much sense. I don't know about the literary arguments - ask someone who can even begin to grapple with Hebrew, like Penny.
vs 8
David likes the fact that God guards his sleep. And I think it was because he was threatened with things worse than nightmares.
David really wants God to hear him, and to relieve his distress.
vs 2
That is almost a prayer for our nation. Assuming that David's glory is God (pretty fair from the last psalm), it's like he's saying that people are turning faith in God into something to be ashamed about - sounds familiar. They are deluded and seek false gods - also familiar. It's not a new thing - in fact, one thing that startled me about studying apolcalyptic literature is just how much it paints the picture that all nations alike are rebellious beasts against God.
vs 3
The TNIV refers here to the 'faithful servant'. The NIV misses the singular, which the NASB and KJV preserve. So it sounds more like David is referring to himself. Hence God hearing him when he calls.
vs 4
Interestingly, the TNIV preserves the masoretic 'tremble' (as does the NASB), whereas the Septuagint has 'In your anger', which of course we know from the New Testament. This is obviously a message to David, or to the people in his position - even though many people mock God and ignore him, we should not be angry. Or, when in such a position, fear God, and meditate on him rather than fearing those who seek to shame you.
vs 5
Of course, the sacrifices David is talking about are different to the sacrifices the NT asks Christians to make. But the same thing applies - we should trust the Lord, and sacrificing things helps us to do that.
vs 6
TNIV departs from tradition here and uses the word 'prosperity'. If you've read Wright's Living as the People of God (which you should, it is excellent), then you would understand that so much of Israel's 'good' or blessing was material prosperity - indeed, this was part of the deuteronomic covenant. And you can see that David's answer to their plea is that God will have his face shine on them - that is, that he will turn towards them and bless them with prosperity.
vs 7
This is another departation from tradition - everyone else includes the idea of the joy being 'greater than' the abounding of the material. But with the new translation of vs 6, this one makes as much sense. I don't know about the literary arguments - ask someone who can even begin to grapple with Hebrew, like Penny.
vs 8
David likes the fact that God guards his sleep. And I think it was because he was threatened with things worse than nightmares.
Friday, November 02, 2007
Psalm 3
vs 1
It really helps knowing when a Psalm is based historically. The story of this one tells it all - David is running from Absalom, his own son. He must feel like total crap.
Whether he knows how many people are out to get him and is just bemoaning the fact, or whether he doesn't know who he can trust - both positions are really quite horrible.
vs 2
Worst of all, though, is the attitude people have. This shows that people (his enemies at least) have basically given up on him as the anointed one of God. So not only is his relationship with his son and his kingdom in question, but his relationship with God is in question too!
vs 3
Not to David, though. He knows that God is his protector. He knows that God is still with him, despite his situation being bad. God is his glory, regardless of his position as king.
vs 4
David has faith because of the past actions of God hearing his cries for help. That doesn't mean God is going to get him out of this one, necessarily. But he has faith that God hears him.
vs 5
I wonder if this is a messianic verse speaking of Jesus' resurrection? Regardless, for David it means that the only reason he's alive on any given morning is because of God. And he recognises that. Easier to recognise when you know that other people don't want you waking up I guess.
vs 6
That's a lot.
vs 7
Well, the wicked deserve it, I guess. But it's not the sort of thing we would normally say. I don't even know if it's the right thing to say, but we do know that God is just, and will punish the wicked - and I guess that can be a comfort to us.
vs 8
I guess God really is the only person worth looking to for deliverance, and for blessing.
It really helps knowing when a Psalm is based historically. The story of this one tells it all - David is running from Absalom, his own son. He must feel like total crap.
Whether he knows how many people are out to get him and is just bemoaning the fact, or whether he doesn't know who he can trust - both positions are really quite horrible.
vs 2
Worst of all, though, is the attitude people have. This shows that people (his enemies at least) have basically given up on him as the anointed one of God. So not only is his relationship with his son and his kingdom in question, but his relationship with God is in question too!
vs 3
Not to David, though. He knows that God is his protector. He knows that God is still with him, despite his situation being bad. God is his glory, regardless of his position as king.
vs 4
David has faith because of the past actions of God hearing his cries for help. That doesn't mean God is going to get him out of this one, necessarily. But he has faith that God hears him.
vs 5
I wonder if this is a messianic verse speaking of Jesus' resurrection? Regardless, for David it means that the only reason he's alive on any given morning is because of God. And he recognises that. Easier to recognise when you know that other people don't want you waking up I guess.
vs 6
That's a lot.
vs 7
Well, the wicked deserve it, I guess. But it's not the sort of thing we would normally say. I don't even know if it's the right thing to say, but we do know that God is just, and will punish the wicked - and I guess that can be a comfort to us.
vs 8
I guess God really is the only person worth looking to for deliverance, and for blessing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)