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?

No comments: