vs 21
I've said this a million times, but I'll say it again - this is one of the most contentious issues that Christianity faced in its early years. Don't ever think that just because you come to a majority decision in, say, a church or other organisation about a contentious issue that, because a decision is made, the problem is over. Those who disagreed will continue to disagree.
Same here. Just because the apostles had come to an agreement regarding the inclusion of gentiles into the church, without the need to follow Jewish religious legalism, does not mean that those who disagree stop disagreeing.
vs 22
But that statement does suggest that he knows something's going to happen there. Where else would the Judaising Christians be based after all?
vs 23
So to Paul, his sufferings are a certainty. He gets warned about them, not so that he can avoid them, but instead so that he knows they are under God's authority. Wow.
vs 24
This sounds so much like something out of one of Paul's letters. Anything up to and including Paul's life is worthless. It is the spread of the gospel to which he has been called that is the driving force.
vs 25
Paul does not see himself returning to Ephesus ever again. He said he doesn't know what's going to happen, but surely that means he thinks he's got an idea.
vs 26
And I'm sure he is, really. But I think Paul means this in a more 'responsibility' focused way, especially when we match it up with the next verse.
vs 27
Paul I think is taking Ezekiel 3:18-20 to heart here. Paul feels that if he did not preach the gospel to people, then their blood would be on his hands: he would hold responsibility for their separation from God. But once he has preched the gospel to them, his hands are clean.
vs 28
Paul envisions a different role, but in a similar responsibility. Paul doesn't think he will pass this way again, and so he wants to make sure that these elders of the church will take their own responsibility seriously. See, Paul doesn't just think you preach to people, and then that's it, your hands are clean of their blood. That was his call, perhaps. But these elders have the responsibility of caring after these Christians after he is gone. There is a continual necessity to disciple and care for Christians in order to see God's will fulfilled.
vs 29
Perhaps Paul knew who they would be already. Perhaps Paul is just assuming that this will be so.
vs 30
Paul here suggests that those who seek to split the church do so for the sake of having a following, rather than because they are seeking to serve Jesus. Or at least, this is what those who come after him will try to do. That doesn't mean that anyone who tries to bring in a divisive teaching does so purely for the sake of garnering followers.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Friday, January 25, 2008
Acts chapter 20
vs 11
Satisfied that he had done all he could, Paul went, broke bread, spoke even more (lucky there weren't any more casualties!) and left at daylight.
vs 12
Bad enough losing disciples to riots, persecution and sin. Losing them to sermons would be too much to bear!
vs 13
I'm not sure what the relevance of the 'on foot' thing is. Does it indicate that Paul did all of his travelling on foot (when not sailing of course)? Does it indicate that this is a trip he was doing on foot, as opposed to most his other trips? Or does it just indicate that he is taking this route because he would be walking, whereas someone who was riding would take another?
vs 14
Ahh, so now he's meeting up with the 'us' group at Assos.
vs 15
Luke feels free to be a little more detailed in the travel now, because he was there perhaps. I can't imagine that they accomplished anything super fantastic in day trips to these places, so really these verses exist mainly to corroborate the travel record I am guessing.
vs 16
Sounds like Ephesus was a side route to where he really wanted to go - Jerusalem. But of course, Paul has a lot of interest in Ephesus. So what's he going to do?
vs 17
He gets them to come to him! That might seem a little extravagant, but Paul's on a time frame, and they aren't, so he asks them to give a little of their time for his sake.
vs 18
This sounds almost like a letter of his.
vs 19
No, really, it does.
Obviously Paul didn't write them a letter and read it out to them. And Luke obviously didn't sit there dictating either. So this is the written version of what Paul said to them. which is why it sounds so much like his letters.
Paul's focus is on the suffering he undertook to bring the gospel to Ephesus for their sake.
vs 20
That's an interesting statement to make. The idea that someone could hesitate in preaching something that is helpful. I mean, we wouldn't think twice for the most part. We have such an established traditional body of teaching that if we were to preach on something, it's most likely the same message the last couple of generations have heard, and they're more likely to be apathetic to it than anything else. Back then, it is entirely possible that, in getting up and saying something new, Paul could have offended quite a few people. But he still said things that were helpful - he preached them publicly and he went from house to house and espoused them too.
It's even possible that verse 21 refers to one of these contentious issues.
Satisfied that he had done all he could, Paul went, broke bread, spoke even more (lucky there weren't any more casualties!) and left at daylight.
vs 12
Bad enough losing disciples to riots, persecution and sin. Losing them to sermons would be too much to bear!
vs 13
I'm not sure what the relevance of the 'on foot' thing is. Does it indicate that Paul did all of his travelling on foot (when not sailing of course)? Does it indicate that this is a trip he was doing on foot, as opposed to most his other trips? Or does it just indicate that he is taking this route because he would be walking, whereas someone who was riding would take another?
vs 14
Ahh, so now he's meeting up with the 'us' group at Assos.
vs 15
Luke feels free to be a little more detailed in the travel now, because he was there perhaps. I can't imagine that they accomplished anything super fantastic in day trips to these places, so really these verses exist mainly to corroborate the travel record I am guessing.
vs 16
Sounds like Ephesus was a side route to where he really wanted to go - Jerusalem. But of course, Paul has a lot of interest in Ephesus. So what's he going to do?
vs 17
He gets them to come to him! That might seem a little extravagant, but Paul's on a time frame, and they aren't, so he asks them to give a little of their time for his sake.
vs 18
This sounds almost like a letter of his.
vs 19
No, really, it does.
Obviously Paul didn't write them a letter and read it out to them. And Luke obviously didn't sit there dictating either. So this is the written version of what Paul said to them. which is why it sounds so much like his letters.
Paul's focus is on the suffering he undertook to bring the gospel to Ephesus for their sake.
vs 20
That's an interesting statement to make. The idea that someone could hesitate in preaching something that is helpful. I mean, we wouldn't think twice for the most part. We have such an established traditional body of teaching that if we were to preach on something, it's most likely the same message the last couple of generations have heard, and they're more likely to be apathetic to it than anything else. Back then, it is entirely possible that, in getting up and saying something new, Paul could have offended quite a few people. But he still said things that were helpful - he preached them publicly and he went from house to house and espoused them too.
It's even possible that verse 21 refers to one of these contentious issues.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Acts chapter 20
vs 1
So the riot in Ephesus was enough for Paul to move on to Macedonia again. Pagans had become as bad as Jews there.
vs 2-3
The way this is written, mentioning Macedonia twice (vs 1 then vs 3) would make me think he travelled overland to Macedonia then through to Greece, and then instead of catching a boat from there to Syria, went back in the same direction. Not all maps agree with me though.
vs 4
The names overall might not mean much to us (Timothy obviously, also Tychichus), but look at the places and you will see so many that Paul has visited before and started churches at.
vs 5
Luke also joined them, apparently. Or at least we can assume from the 'us' bit.
vs 6
Still celebrating Jewish festivals. And they're Jews, so that's fine.
vs 7
Here we have an idea of a church meeting from Paul's days. Note that him speaking till midnight is not a regular occurence - he spoke so long because he was leaving the next day.
vs 8
As there would need to be, if you were meeting till midnight in those days.
vs 9
As sad as it is, it's a funny story, because Paul's speaking put someone to sleep. And if you've ever had someone fall asleep in a talk, then you understand completely. But it's not just that it was midnight - the TNIV and NIV actually describes it as going on and on :P Which I just think is funny.
vs 10
This is very similar to what Elijah does for the widow's son. Same movement and all. Lots of people suggest that this is some kind of artificial respiration or similar. Not sure about that. It's not like he drowned - he fell out of a building.
So the riot in Ephesus was enough for Paul to move on to Macedonia again. Pagans had become as bad as Jews there.
vs 2-3
The way this is written, mentioning Macedonia twice (vs 1 then vs 3) would make me think he travelled overland to Macedonia then through to Greece, and then instead of catching a boat from there to Syria, went back in the same direction. Not all maps agree with me though.
vs 4
The names overall might not mean much to us (Timothy obviously, also Tychichus), but look at the places and you will see so many that Paul has visited before and started churches at.
vs 5
Luke also joined them, apparently. Or at least we can assume from the 'us' bit.
vs 6
Still celebrating Jewish festivals. And they're Jews, so that's fine.
vs 7
Here we have an idea of a church meeting from Paul's days. Note that him speaking till midnight is not a regular occurence - he spoke so long because he was leaving the next day.
vs 8
As there would need to be, if you were meeting till midnight in those days.
vs 9
As sad as it is, it's a funny story, because Paul's speaking put someone to sleep. And if you've ever had someone fall asleep in a talk, then you understand completely. But it's not just that it was midnight - the TNIV and NIV actually describes it as going on and on :P Which I just think is funny.
vs 10
This is very similar to what Elijah does for the widow's son. Same movement and all. Lots of people suggest that this is some kind of artificial respiration or similar. Not sure about that. It's not like he drowned - he fell out of a building.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Acts chapter 19
vs 31
Funny how everyone has this feeling Paul's going to go out and address the angry crowd. The officials might have had two reasons not to want to get Paul involved. Firstly because he was a friend, but also because as officials of the province they wanted the riot to go away quickly.
vs 32
Probably a fair description of any riot, really. Started by a small group, sweeping together a larger group, and some people go along for the ride.
vs 33
Alexander, then, is one of the Jews. What did he want to say? Not sure. Were they pro-riot? That is, anti-Christian? Unclear at the moment.
vs 34
Obviously, regardless of whether they are pro- or anti- , the Ephesians are not impressed. Imagine chanting for 2 hours. Hopefully they had some more interesting things to say.
vs 35
So the clerk seems to want the riot to stop. And fair thing too - such a large crowd of angry people could lead to looting or other dangerous or bad things.
vs 36
Basically, why are they making such a big deal out of it. The argument that the precious goddess or her stature might be harmed by the work of Paul is a weak one, because everyone knows Ephesus for Artemis. So why get in such tight knicker twists about it? Because of the money, remember.
vs 37
The implication being that this is how they would treat people who had done so.
vs 38
You really have to question the motives of anyone who has a grievance and doesn't attempt to take it through proper legal channels first. Remember, Paul has already been beaten and jailed for removing a source of income from someone - via exorcism.
vs 39
Must! Strong words! I guess he's got the law on his side though.
vs 40
But he is still sympathetic to the crowd, in that he would rather all this just calmed down and was sorted out through proper channels, than getting out of hand and dangerous.
vs 41
His words work, and for the moment, the people scatter. But the problem has not been dealt with. Not yet.
Funny how everyone has this feeling Paul's going to go out and address the angry crowd. The officials might have had two reasons not to want to get Paul involved. Firstly because he was a friend, but also because as officials of the province they wanted the riot to go away quickly.
vs 32
Probably a fair description of any riot, really. Started by a small group, sweeping together a larger group, and some people go along for the ride.
vs 33
Alexander, then, is one of the Jews. What did he want to say? Not sure. Were they pro-riot? That is, anti-Christian? Unclear at the moment.
vs 34
Obviously, regardless of whether they are pro- or anti- , the Ephesians are not impressed. Imagine chanting for 2 hours. Hopefully they had some more interesting things to say.
vs 35
So the clerk seems to want the riot to stop. And fair thing too - such a large crowd of angry people could lead to looting or other dangerous or bad things.
vs 36
Basically, why are they making such a big deal out of it. The argument that the precious goddess or her stature might be harmed by the work of Paul is a weak one, because everyone knows Ephesus for Artemis. So why get in such tight knicker twists about it? Because of the money, remember.
vs 37
The implication being that this is how they would treat people who had done so.
vs 38
You really have to question the motives of anyone who has a grievance and doesn't attempt to take it through proper legal channels first. Remember, Paul has already been beaten and jailed for removing a source of income from someone - via exorcism.
vs 39
Must! Strong words! I guess he's got the law on his side though.
vs 40
But he is still sympathetic to the crowd, in that he would rather all this just calmed down and was sorted out through proper channels, than getting out of hand and dangerous.
vs 41
His words work, and for the moment, the people scatter. But the problem has not been dealt with. Not yet.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Acts chapter 19
vs 21
It's a big trip Paul is planning. Rome's a fair way from Jerusalem. And he wants to visit all these other places along the way.
vs 22
Well, we know Timothy. Erastus just pops up. They go ahead into Europe, while Paul remains in Asia.
vs 23
As opposed to all the little disturbances.
vs 24
So apparently this guy's business brought business for other craftsmen. I think that's what it's saying. It's worded very difficultly. The Message, of course, makes it very clear :P
vs 25
That is, from the business of making shrines to pagan godesses.
vs 26
What Paul is saying may or may not be true. But it is very bad for business! Never get between a businessman and his money.
vs 27
Of course, you have to throw in something about Artemis, or else it would seem wrong. It can't all be about the money, can it? Can it? Well, if you're wanting to cause trouble, it can't. Just saying "This man is causing my business to fail" will bring the comment "work harder". But "This man is discrediting Artemis, our patron goddess!" will of course get people steamed up.
vs 28
Oh my goodness, some people are easily led. A mix of money and pride.
vs 29
Mob justice. It's incredible, when people feel strongly about something, how just the strength of the feeling can be swept through a populace. I think something that our society does with apathy is creates calm and stability. But at what price stability?
vs 30
Probably because they feared he might get torn into little tiny bits and sacrificed to Artemis.
It's a big trip Paul is planning. Rome's a fair way from Jerusalem. And he wants to visit all these other places along the way.
vs 22
Well, we know Timothy. Erastus just pops up. They go ahead into Europe, while Paul remains in Asia.
vs 23
As opposed to all the little disturbances.
vs 24
So apparently this guy's business brought business for other craftsmen. I think that's what it's saying. It's worded very difficultly. The Message, of course, makes it very clear :P
vs 25
That is, from the business of making shrines to pagan godesses.
vs 26
What Paul is saying may or may not be true. But it is very bad for business! Never get between a businessman and his money.
vs 27
Of course, you have to throw in something about Artemis, or else it would seem wrong. It can't all be about the money, can it? Can it? Well, if you're wanting to cause trouble, it can't. Just saying "This man is causing my business to fail" will bring the comment "work harder". But "This man is discrediting Artemis, our patron goddess!" will of course get people steamed up.
vs 28
Oh my goodness, some people are easily led. A mix of money and pride.
vs 29
Mob justice. It's incredible, when people feel strongly about something, how just the strength of the feeling can be swept through a populace. I think something that our society does with apathy is creates calm and stability. But at what price stability?
vs 30
Probably because they feared he might get torn into little tiny bits and sacrificed to Artemis.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Acts chapter 19
vs 11
Performing miracles was still on the cards during this time then. I guess it's all up to God when miracles take place.
vs 12
That is pretty impressive. I mean, for God to honour that is a big thing. It would have made a hell of a fuss, that's for sure.
vs 13
I think this is a testimony to the times. People were just as pragmatic back then as they are now. They'd try anything to get the job done.
vs 14
The names, I think, just further justify the truthfulness of this story. Whether these people were all actual brothers, or like a mini religious order, who knows.
vs 15
And yet, even though a piece of cloth that Paul has touched would heal someone who is sick, God did not see the need to honour the pragmatic use of his Son's name by these guys.
vs 16
I just think this is so funny that God lets these guys all get the snot beaten out of them and they even get stripped naked! Poor guys, but it's funny.
vs 17
And not just Jesus, but the fact that there needed to be a relationship with Jesus. Simply spouting his name was not enough.
vs 18
This is a turn up for the books. Just like today, there were lots of people who believed, but kept it under their hat because they didn't want to be seen publically as a Christian.
vs 19
That is a lot of money. Which tells us, I think, both that sorcery was more common, but also very expensive to practice.
vs 20
A first century bonfire of the vanities seems to have attracted a lot of attention. Perhaps I was wrong, and this is the wrap up verse talking about the growth of the church?
Performing miracles was still on the cards during this time then. I guess it's all up to God when miracles take place.
vs 12
That is pretty impressive. I mean, for God to honour that is a big thing. It would have made a hell of a fuss, that's for sure.
vs 13
I think this is a testimony to the times. People were just as pragmatic back then as they are now. They'd try anything to get the job done.
vs 14
The names, I think, just further justify the truthfulness of this story. Whether these people were all actual brothers, or like a mini religious order, who knows.
vs 15
And yet, even though a piece of cloth that Paul has touched would heal someone who is sick, God did not see the need to honour the pragmatic use of his Son's name by these guys.
vs 16
I just think this is so funny that God lets these guys all get the snot beaten out of them and they even get stripped naked! Poor guys, but it's funny.
vs 17
And not just Jesus, but the fact that there needed to be a relationship with Jesus. Simply spouting his name was not enough.
vs 18
This is a turn up for the books. Just like today, there were lots of people who believed, but kept it under their hat because they didn't want to be seen publically as a Christian.
vs 19
That is a lot of money. Which tells us, I think, both that sorcery was more common, but also very expensive to practice.
vs 20
A first century bonfire of the vanities seems to have attracted a lot of attention. Perhaps I was wrong, and this is the wrap up verse talking about the growth of the church?
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Acts 19
vs 1
We've got so many heroes up in the air now - Peter, Paul, Silas, Timothy, Barnabas, Mark, Apollos - it's hard to follow them all. But Luke doesn't really try. He sort of picks a hero of the hour occasionally, but mainly he sticks with Peter till we get Paul, then Paul to the end.
Paul, now in Ephesus again, has found a group of believers that he again did not raise.
vs 2
Don't get me wrong, but if you haven't heard of the Holy Spirit at all, I would assume you are gentiles. Jews knew what the Holy Spirit was, as it pops up in the OT several times.
vs 3
That they had received John TB's baptism is just testimony to how far it spread. It also possibly shows how enthusiastic Apollos had been. Or someone else in Apollos' position.
vs 4
Paul does not gainsay John TB's baptism. The faith of John TB was a gospel faith, just looking in a forward direction to the Messiah. The faith Paul is preaching is that looking backward to the Messiah, as Jesus.
vs 5
So when Paul tells them who the Messiah is, of course they want to be baptised. Notice that they are being baptised again - I don't think there's a problem with being baptised multiple times. One of the early churches says something like "We recognise the authority of Jesus in the commandment of baptism. We baptise three times, just to be sure."
vs 6
This far lesser known pentecost is the proof that disciples of John the Baptist can become Christian, and that the gospel has gone to them. So we've had Jews, Samaritans, gentiles, and now the little group of TBers is covered too.
vs 7
All 12 of them.
vs 8
He did say he would return to Ephesus, so he made good on his promise.
vs 9
This time, the Jews weren't violent or causing riots - merely their obstinance and public ridicule of "The Way" (what a cool name). But that's enough for Paul - he takes the disciples he's made and sets them up in a public hall where he can teach them without the ridicule.
Note that Paul isn't just giving lectures here. He is promoting discussion and discourse. Christianity is viable, and Paul can defend it, so he doesn't have to be afraid of letting it be discussed. The more formal translations use words like "reasoning" or even "disputing".
vs 10
And notice that these discussions, though held in a hall, were public enough that, through a bit of hyperbole, people from everywhere heard the word of God. I would say that this is as much one of those wrap-up sections, showing the growth and strength of the church. But there's a lot to be said for the fact that the discussion session, having been dead for so long, is now starting to be revived. Viva la discussions! They can only make both Christians and non-Christians stronger.
We've got so many heroes up in the air now - Peter, Paul, Silas, Timothy, Barnabas, Mark, Apollos - it's hard to follow them all. But Luke doesn't really try. He sort of picks a hero of the hour occasionally, but mainly he sticks with Peter till we get Paul, then Paul to the end.
Paul, now in Ephesus again, has found a group of believers that he again did not raise.
vs 2
Don't get me wrong, but if you haven't heard of the Holy Spirit at all, I would assume you are gentiles. Jews knew what the Holy Spirit was, as it pops up in the OT several times.
vs 3
That they had received John TB's baptism is just testimony to how far it spread. It also possibly shows how enthusiastic Apollos had been. Or someone else in Apollos' position.
vs 4
Paul does not gainsay John TB's baptism. The faith of John TB was a gospel faith, just looking in a forward direction to the Messiah. The faith Paul is preaching is that looking backward to the Messiah, as Jesus.
vs 5
So when Paul tells them who the Messiah is, of course they want to be baptised. Notice that they are being baptised again - I don't think there's a problem with being baptised multiple times. One of the early churches says something like "We recognise the authority of Jesus in the commandment of baptism. We baptise three times, just to be sure."
vs 6
This far lesser known pentecost is the proof that disciples of John the Baptist can become Christian, and that the gospel has gone to them. So we've had Jews, Samaritans, gentiles, and now the little group of TBers is covered too.
vs 7
All 12 of them.
vs 8
He did say he would return to Ephesus, so he made good on his promise.
vs 9
This time, the Jews weren't violent or causing riots - merely their obstinance and public ridicule of "The Way" (what a cool name). But that's enough for Paul - he takes the disciples he's made and sets them up in a public hall where he can teach them without the ridicule.
Note that Paul isn't just giving lectures here. He is promoting discussion and discourse. Christianity is viable, and Paul can defend it, so he doesn't have to be afraid of letting it be discussed. The more formal translations use words like "reasoning" or even "disputing".
vs 10
And notice that these discussions, though held in a hall, were public enough that, through a bit of hyperbole, people from everywhere heard the word of God. I would say that this is as much one of those wrap-up sections, showing the growth and strength of the church. But there's a lot to be said for the fact that the discussion session, having been dead for so long, is now starting to be revived. Viva la discussions! They can only make both Christians and non-Christians stronger.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Acts chapter 18
vs 19
The way this is written, Paul's leaving Priscilla and Aquilla makes it sound more like he just parted company with them so that he could go stir up trouble in the synagogue. But it could be a future reference to them not going on with Paul when he leaves for wherever is next.
vs 20
Why did he do that? I don't ever remember reading that before. Incredible. It's obvious that Paul was on his way back home, and that this was more of a test visit to see if the ground would be ripe for more ministry. After all, he had spent over a year and a half in Corinth by this stage.
Still, it seems odd for him to turn down a ministry opportunity.
vs 21
Always leave them wanting more :P Seriously, though, perhaps he was just missing Antioch and his friends and stuff. Hard to think that when people had asked to hear the gospel more, he didn't hang around.
vs 22
So after a quick visit to Jerusalem, probably an updated report, shake some hands, and then he's back to his home church.
vs 23
Paul is torn between spending time at Antioch, and visiting all these places he's been. Again, this third trip starts the same way as the second trip - by visiting existing churches and encouraging the disciples. It seems like Paul's on his own for this trip.
vs 24
Apollos isn't a very Jewish name :P
vs 25
Ahh, now, if he was teaching about Jesus accurately, even though he only knew about John's baptism, does that mean he was teaching about the Messiah that was to come (but not calling him Jesus) or that he knew about John's baptism of Jesus, but didn't know anything else? I'm actually going for option 1, as it seems more likely.
You might ask "How can he teach accurately if he doesn't know anything about Jesus?" Well, if Jesus really was the Messiah, and John TB really was a prophet, then everything John TB said about the Messiah would be correct.
vs 26
Isn't it great that Paul left Priscilla and Aquila in Ephesus! It has been suggested that P&A maintained homes in several towns, and so were pretty rich. They pop up all over the place. Anyway, P&A had been attending the synagogue in Ephesus obviously, but hadn't been teaching publically. Instead, they took people off to their homes to teach them privately.
vs 27
We know that P&A had been working, because there are enough believers in Ephesus now to encourage Apollos to go to Achaia. Of course, this might not be directly after this time, but could have been some time afterwards. I'm not sure how chronological Acts is. It seems pretty straightforward, but there might be some convolutes.
vs 28
Which I'm assuming was the need in Achaia at the time. Apollos' gifting was obviously linked to the proclaimation of God's word and its proper interpretation. So once P&A explained it to him, he was probably able to go even deeper into Scripture and find more truth about the Messiah waiting there.
So here we have a person who was able to refute the Jews, via the Scriptures, and tell them that Jesus was the Messiah, even though he had never seen or met Jesus! Phenomenal.
The way this is written, Paul's leaving Priscilla and Aquilla makes it sound more like he just parted company with them so that he could go stir up trouble in the synagogue. But it could be a future reference to them not going on with Paul when he leaves for wherever is next.
vs 20
Why did he do that? I don't ever remember reading that before. Incredible. It's obvious that Paul was on his way back home, and that this was more of a test visit to see if the ground would be ripe for more ministry. After all, he had spent over a year and a half in Corinth by this stage.
Still, it seems odd for him to turn down a ministry opportunity.
vs 21
Always leave them wanting more :P Seriously, though, perhaps he was just missing Antioch and his friends and stuff. Hard to think that when people had asked to hear the gospel more, he didn't hang around.
vs 22
So after a quick visit to Jerusalem, probably an updated report, shake some hands, and then he's back to his home church.
vs 23
Paul is torn between spending time at Antioch, and visiting all these places he's been. Again, this third trip starts the same way as the second trip - by visiting existing churches and encouraging the disciples. It seems like Paul's on his own for this trip.
vs 24
Apollos isn't a very Jewish name :P
vs 25
Ahh, now, if he was teaching about Jesus accurately, even though he only knew about John's baptism, does that mean he was teaching about the Messiah that was to come (but not calling him Jesus) or that he knew about John's baptism of Jesus, but didn't know anything else? I'm actually going for option 1, as it seems more likely.
You might ask "How can he teach accurately if he doesn't know anything about Jesus?" Well, if Jesus really was the Messiah, and John TB really was a prophet, then everything John TB said about the Messiah would be correct.
vs 26
Isn't it great that Paul left Priscilla and Aquila in Ephesus! It has been suggested that P&A maintained homes in several towns, and so were pretty rich. They pop up all over the place. Anyway, P&A had been attending the synagogue in Ephesus obviously, but hadn't been teaching publically. Instead, they took people off to their homes to teach them privately.
vs 27
We know that P&A had been working, because there are enough believers in Ephesus now to encourage Apollos to go to Achaia. Of course, this might not be directly after this time, but could have been some time afterwards. I'm not sure how chronological Acts is. It seems pretty straightforward, but there might be some convolutes.
vs 28
Which I'm assuming was the need in Achaia at the time. Apollos' gifting was obviously linked to the proclaimation of God's word and its proper interpretation. So once P&A explained it to him, he was probably able to go even deeper into Scripture and find more truth about the Messiah waiting there.
So here we have a person who was able to refute the Jews, via the Scriptures, and tell them that Jesus was the Messiah, even though he had never seen or met Jesus! Phenomenal.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Acts chapter 18
vs 10
This is a very similar message that Elijah receives from God. We can sometimes be surprised at the number of people who are Christian. Paul obviously found comfort both in the idea that his ministry was showing fruit, and also that he wasn't going to cop violence from staying in Corinth.
vs 11
That's a fair amount of time. We're not told how long Paul stayed in the other places for. But Corinth, we can understand, absorbed a fair whack of time. Lots of people, big city, and probably quite a few problems getting people to act counter-culturally too.
vs 12
God's promise was against harm. Not against opposition. And the Jews were opposed for sure.
vs 13
The roman law, is what you would assume. Of course, Jews worshiped God outside accordance with Roman law - but they had a special privilege to do so - and you can see why, because they bitch and riot and get violent every time there's a problem.
vs 14
He's the proconsol, so listening to complaints about crimes is his job. So of course it would be reasonable.
vs 15
So it wasn't roman law! At least, the proconsul didn't see it that way. It is entirely possible that he saw Christianity as just a branch of Judaism, and therefore covered by Roman law, and therefore out of his jurisdiction. If only Western judges would make similar decisions :P
vs 16
Not literally.
vs 17
So apparently while the Romans did value law and order, people beating each other up over internal religious squabblings was not a big concern. Not for Gallio anyway.
vs 18
We already knew Paul stayed in Corinth for a year and a half. Is this 'some time' after that?
Back to Syria, like he's heading back towards Antioch. And he's recruited two more people, Priscilla and Aquila!
Vow? What vow? We don't know. FF Bruce thinks that the cutting of the hair actually marks the end of the vow, like some sort of Nazerite vow.
This is a very similar message that Elijah receives from God. We can sometimes be surprised at the number of people who are Christian. Paul obviously found comfort both in the idea that his ministry was showing fruit, and also that he wasn't going to cop violence from staying in Corinth.
vs 11
That's a fair amount of time. We're not told how long Paul stayed in the other places for. But Corinth, we can understand, absorbed a fair whack of time. Lots of people, big city, and probably quite a few problems getting people to act counter-culturally too.
vs 12
God's promise was against harm. Not against opposition. And the Jews were opposed for sure.
vs 13
The roman law, is what you would assume. Of course, Jews worshiped God outside accordance with Roman law - but they had a special privilege to do so - and you can see why, because they bitch and riot and get violent every time there's a problem.
vs 14
He's the proconsol, so listening to complaints about crimes is his job. So of course it would be reasonable.
vs 15
So it wasn't roman law! At least, the proconsul didn't see it that way. It is entirely possible that he saw Christianity as just a branch of Judaism, and therefore covered by Roman law, and therefore out of his jurisdiction. If only Western judges would make similar decisions :P
vs 16
Not literally.
vs 17
So apparently while the Romans did value law and order, people beating each other up over internal religious squabblings was not a big concern. Not for Gallio anyway.
vs 18
We already knew Paul stayed in Corinth for a year and a half. Is this 'some time' after that?
Back to Syria, like he's heading back towards Antioch. And he's recruited two more people, Priscilla and Aquila!
Vow? What vow? We don't know. FF Bruce thinks that the cutting of the hair actually marks the end of the vow, like some sort of Nazerite vow.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Acts chapter 18
vs 1
And if the letters to the Corinthians are anything to go by, he may have had some dark moments where he wished he didn't.
vs 2-3
Jews were not loved and respected everywhere they went. But if they were living in Rome, then heading to Corinth tells us that it can't have been a bad city. It was quite a trade hub, and from the sounds of it Aquila and Priscilla were traders - tentmakers. Go where the business is then.
vs 4
So we are told here for the first time that Paul is having to raise his own capital to survive. Was this because he stayed in Corinth so long? Because he was separated from Silas, who had the dosh? Public speakers actually had the right to ask for money back then. But in Corinth for some reason, Paul did not.
vs 5
So either Silas and Timothy did have the money, or else they did work while Paul preached? That is a novel concept. Imagine sending a missionary team of 3 people - two to work, one to preach? Completely self supporting? I mean, in an economy where human capital is cheap, this is the sort of thing people would do. And this is the only time it talks about Paul raising his own funds - when Silas and Timothy weren't there. Fascinating idea, I've never noticed it before.
FF Bruce thinks, however, that Silas and Timothy brought a gift from Philippi, which allowed Paul to devote himself to the work full time. You have to read Phil 4:15 to know that, and you have to read it a certain way. Also 2 Cor 11:8 suggests it but doesn't mention Philippi.
vs 6
Well well, who would imagine that the Jews would become loud and abusive? But yet again they did. And yet again, Paul ditches them and goes to the gentiles, basically in protest over their crappy attitude.
vs 7
If you were a gentile God-fearer, you would want to live close to the synagogue I guess.
vs 8
So it wasn't even the leader of the synagogue that got all upset with Paul! He became a Christian! And so did lots of gentiles Corinthians, which is what Paul was seeking to do after verse 7. So obviously his change in focus worked.
vs 9
Paul now receives a vision - telling him to keep speaking. What was this in reference to? Was he feeling downhearted? Depressed? Upset because the Jews had ditched him? Find out tomorrow!
And if the letters to the Corinthians are anything to go by, he may have had some dark moments where he wished he didn't.
vs 2-3
Jews were not loved and respected everywhere they went. But if they were living in Rome, then heading to Corinth tells us that it can't have been a bad city. It was quite a trade hub, and from the sounds of it Aquila and Priscilla were traders - tentmakers. Go where the business is then.
vs 4
So we are told here for the first time that Paul is having to raise his own capital to survive. Was this because he stayed in Corinth so long? Because he was separated from Silas, who had the dosh? Public speakers actually had the right to ask for money back then. But in Corinth for some reason, Paul did not.
vs 5
So either Silas and Timothy did have the money, or else they did work while Paul preached? That is a novel concept. Imagine sending a missionary team of 3 people - two to work, one to preach? Completely self supporting? I mean, in an economy where human capital is cheap, this is the sort of thing people would do. And this is the only time it talks about Paul raising his own funds - when Silas and Timothy weren't there. Fascinating idea, I've never noticed it before.
FF Bruce thinks, however, that Silas and Timothy brought a gift from Philippi, which allowed Paul to devote himself to the work full time. You have to read Phil 4:15 to know that, and you have to read it a certain way. Also 2 Cor 11:8 suggests it but doesn't mention Philippi.
vs 6
Well well, who would imagine that the Jews would become loud and abusive? But yet again they did. And yet again, Paul ditches them and goes to the gentiles, basically in protest over their crappy attitude.
vs 7
If you were a gentile God-fearer, you would want to live close to the synagogue I guess.
vs 8
So it wasn't even the leader of the synagogue that got all upset with Paul! He became a Christian! And so did lots of gentiles Corinthians, which is what Paul was seeking to do after verse 7. So obviously his change in focus worked.
vs 9
Paul now receives a vision - telling him to keep speaking. What was this in reference to? Was he feeling downhearted? Depressed? Upset because the Jews had ditched him? Find out tomorrow!
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Acts chapter 17
vs 23
There is apparently some story that connects with the 'unknown god' altar. I've forgotten it, something about sheep on a hill?It doesn't matter so much, I think - Paul is using this idea more as a contact point for his sermon, rather than calling back to some great story that he assumed everyone knew.
The contact point is that while you might be very religious, you as a city have admitted your ignorance on spiritual things. So let me enlighten you.
vs 24
Including, I might add, the Temple in Jerusalem.
So Paul, in his effort to educate the gentile Athenians on religion generally, starts off with the necessary point that there is a God who created everything, and that he is bigger than a temple.
vs 25
He's also all powerful and completely detached from any human needs or from anything humans can give him. So this God is not a God that can be placated (it is worth noting that so much of ancient religious culture was about placation, not relationship. When Christian missionaries go to tribal cultures, those who become Christian often talk about the freedom they feel from their obligations to placate spirits).
vs 26
So this God isn't a tribal, or national God. He created the whole earth, and all the peoples of the earth. So the God of Israel didn't just create Israel - he had as much of a plan for, say, Greece.
vs 27
"God is not far from any of us" - this sounds so altar call-y. But Paul is making it clear that God had a purpose in his creation of all mankind - that they should seek him, and actually find him! It is not a pointless eternal seeking with no end in sight (I have a feeling that both Epicureanism and Stoicism, with their focus on maintaining a lifestyle through pleasure or self-control, have no end in sight).
vs 28
Apparently the first poem that is quoted is about Zeus, written by a Cretan (and the same poem calls Cretans "always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies" - sounds like Paul in Titus!). The second is about Zeus too, but not as the ruler of the pantheon, but as the Supreme Being of Greek philosophy. So there you go, I didn't know that. Thank you FF Bruce.
The question that is usually raised here is whether Paul is seeking to compatibilise Zeus (even philosophy Zeus) and YHWH, or is he trying to use these poems out of context. The answer has got to be he's using them out of context. Out of context is not always a bad thing - basically, it is possible that someone who, while within a false context (like a false religion) can still say things that are true on a more universal level. Christianity upholds both a contextual truth and an absolute truth.
So what truth was Paul going for here? Basically that people are close to God, both physically and in lineage.
vs 29
This is not a new idea even for the Greeks - there had been greek philosophers who had come to this same conclusion.
vs 30
Ooooh. Now we're getting to brass tacks. Because now Paul is talking not about God, but about what God wants from the Athenians. He wants repentance. He wants an acknowledgement that the greeks have been wrong, and that God is right. And he wants them to then stop living wrong.
Paul's statement that God ignored this ignorance 'in the past' leads us to play some interesting thought games about the nature of God's relationship with the nations. Does this mean that God is more merciful and gracious to those who have not heard about Christ? Or does it only hold for civilisations that existed pre-Christ? The truth is it doesn't matter - our job is not to let cultures go past without hearing the gospel.
vs 31
The obvious question to the last statement is "Oh yes? And if this God wants us to repent, how did he tell you?" And so Paul, in the simplest terms, says that Jesus is the message. He doesn't even name Jesus - Jesus is "that guy who God resurrected".
vs 32
And so ends Paul's talk at Athens. Luke did a great job in summarising it, but we can imagine that Paul waxed eloquently enough on all these points. And although some people thought it was crap, there were some who wanted to hear more.
vs 33
Pointless verse number 53.
vs 34
Paul obviously chatted with them afterwards. While Paul's ministry in Athens does not set fire like some of the others, there is still a result, and that is good. We have two names to put to it, as well. I'm not sure that they mean heaps to us - Dionysius could have been the first bishop of Athens according to tradition. Scholars say that no church was planted, but I have a rough time believing that Paul would have found out about converts, and not discipled them.
There is apparently some story that connects with the 'unknown god' altar. I've forgotten it, something about sheep on a hill?It doesn't matter so much, I think - Paul is using this idea more as a contact point for his sermon, rather than calling back to some great story that he assumed everyone knew.
The contact point is that while you might be very religious, you as a city have admitted your ignorance on spiritual things. So let me enlighten you.
vs 24
Including, I might add, the Temple in Jerusalem.
So Paul, in his effort to educate the gentile Athenians on religion generally, starts off with the necessary point that there is a God who created everything, and that he is bigger than a temple.
vs 25
He's also all powerful and completely detached from any human needs or from anything humans can give him. So this God is not a God that can be placated (it is worth noting that so much of ancient religious culture was about placation, not relationship. When Christian missionaries go to tribal cultures, those who become Christian often talk about the freedom they feel from their obligations to placate spirits).
vs 26
So this God isn't a tribal, or national God. He created the whole earth, and all the peoples of the earth. So the God of Israel didn't just create Israel - he had as much of a plan for, say, Greece.
vs 27
"God is not far from any of us" - this sounds so altar call-y. But Paul is making it clear that God had a purpose in his creation of all mankind - that they should seek him, and actually find him! It is not a pointless eternal seeking with no end in sight (I have a feeling that both Epicureanism and Stoicism, with their focus on maintaining a lifestyle through pleasure or self-control, have no end in sight).
vs 28
Apparently the first poem that is quoted is about Zeus, written by a Cretan (and the same poem calls Cretans "always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies" - sounds like Paul in Titus!). The second is about Zeus too, but not as the ruler of the pantheon, but as the Supreme Being of Greek philosophy. So there you go, I didn't know that. Thank you FF Bruce.
The question that is usually raised here is whether Paul is seeking to compatibilise Zeus (even philosophy Zeus) and YHWH, or is he trying to use these poems out of context. The answer has got to be he's using them out of context. Out of context is not always a bad thing - basically, it is possible that someone who, while within a false context (like a false religion) can still say things that are true on a more universal level. Christianity upholds both a contextual truth and an absolute truth.
So what truth was Paul going for here? Basically that people are close to God, both physically and in lineage.
vs 29
This is not a new idea even for the Greeks - there had been greek philosophers who had come to this same conclusion.
vs 30
Ooooh. Now we're getting to brass tacks. Because now Paul is talking not about God, but about what God wants from the Athenians. He wants repentance. He wants an acknowledgement that the greeks have been wrong, and that God is right. And he wants them to then stop living wrong.
Paul's statement that God ignored this ignorance 'in the past' leads us to play some interesting thought games about the nature of God's relationship with the nations. Does this mean that God is more merciful and gracious to those who have not heard about Christ? Or does it only hold for civilisations that existed pre-Christ? The truth is it doesn't matter - our job is not to let cultures go past without hearing the gospel.
vs 31
The obvious question to the last statement is "Oh yes? And if this God wants us to repent, how did he tell you?" And so Paul, in the simplest terms, says that Jesus is the message. He doesn't even name Jesus - Jesus is "that guy who God resurrected".
vs 32
And so ends Paul's talk at Athens. Luke did a great job in summarising it, but we can imagine that Paul waxed eloquently enough on all these points. And although some people thought it was crap, there were some who wanted to hear more.
vs 33
Pointless verse number 53.
vs 34
Paul obviously chatted with them afterwards. While Paul's ministry in Athens does not set fire like some of the others, there is still a result, and that is good. We have two names to put to it, as well. I'm not sure that they mean heaps to us - Dionysius could have been the first bishop of Athens according to tradition. Scholars say that no church was planted, but I have a rough time believing that Paul would have found out about converts, and not discipled them.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Acts chapter 17
vs 12
We might like to say that those who study the gospel hard, and put it through its paces will find itst truth. And we might even think of people who have famously written books where they sought to disprove Christianity, and ended up becoming believers.
Truth is, though, that many people have sought to disprove Christianity, studied it, and still don't believe it. Because it is the Holy Spirit that convicts people. Even if it is an entirely believeable message.
vs 13
Now, surely this crowd of people, many of whom have believed anyway, and all of whom seem to have been such noble characters, wouldn't be able to be stirred by a bunch of Jewish stirrers?
vs 14
Paul seems to be a bit of a focus for aggro. Probably because he's the main mouth, and his testimony is likely damaging. The believers act fast this time, getting him hence. Do they hide the other two, or are they safe? Hard to tell.
vs 15
So Paul wasn't even planning to visit Athens - at least, not at this moment. But he ends up in this rather large city because the Bereans flee him to there. I'm sure Athens was on his list, but he arrived ahead of schedule.
vs 16
Yes, Athens may be a lot of things, but it's no Jewish town.
vs 17
The feeling you get from this verse is that Paul was a bit passionate about this, because Athens seemed like such a spiritual hole.
vs 18
Poor Athenians. Paul's in the big smoke now, and he's being set on by philosophers. They don't seem used to the idea of someone being actively missionary. They also don't seem to quite grasp Paul's message either, although really if he was aimed at Jews and God-fearers, then it wouldn't be easily understood by people without an understanding of Judaism.
vs 19
So these Athenians want to hear what Paul's teaching about. But is it an interest based on spiritual thirst? Or just intellectual curiosity?
vs 20
Resurrection is a pretty strange idea.
vs 21
I take it Luke wasn't a fan of Athens? Or whoever told him about it wasn't, anyway.
vs 22
Now, did he really say this with a straight face? We already know how disturbed he was at the idols. Was he bagging them? I think the normal reading is to read this seriously. I guess there would have been a fair few people at the areopagus listening to Paul. This is a big deal.
We might like to say that those who study the gospel hard, and put it through its paces will find itst truth. And we might even think of people who have famously written books where they sought to disprove Christianity, and ended up becoming believers.
Truth is, though, that many people have sought to disprove Christianity, studied it, and still don't believe it. Because it is the Holy Spirit that convicts people. Even if it is an entirely believeable message.
vs 13
Now, surely this crowd of people, many of whom have believed anyway, and all of whom seem to have been such noble characters, wouldn't be able to be stirred by a bunch of Jewish stirrers?
vs 14
Paul seems to be a bit of a focus for aggro. Probably because he's the main mouth, and his testimony is likely damaging. The believers act fast this time, getting him hence. Do they hide the other two, or are they safe? Hard to tell.
vs 15
So Paul wasn't even planning to visit Athens - at least, not at this moment. But he ends up in this rather large city because the Bereans flee him to there. I'm sure Athens was on his list, but he arrived ahead of schedule.
vs 16
Yes, Athens may be a lot of things, but it's no Jewish town.
vs 17
The feeling you get from this verse is that Paul was a bit passionate about this, because Athens seemed like such a spiritual hole.
vs 18
Poor Athenians. Paul's in the big smoke now, and he's being set on by philosophers. They don't seem used to the idea of someone being actively missionary. They also don't seem to quite grasp Paul's message either, although really if he was aimed at Jews and God-fearers, then it wouldn't be easily understood by people without an understanding of Judaism.
vs 19
So these Athenians want to hear what Paul's teaching about. But is it an interest based on spiritual thirst? Or just intellectual curiosity?
vs 20
Resurrection is a pretty strange idea.
vs 21
I take it Luke wasn't a fan of Athens? Or whoever told him about it wasn't, anyway.
vs 22
Now, did he really say this with a straight face? We already know how disturbed he was at the idols. Was he bagging them? I think the normal reading is to read this seriously. I guess there would have been a fair few people at the areopagus listening to Paul. This is a big deal.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Acts chapter 17
vs 1
Huzzah, a synagogue! They've had a mix of good and bad reception at the old 'gogues, but if you're a results based person, or if you think it's a zero-sum game, then you'll go for it just to get the positive results, and ignore the negative results. Which is pretty much what they do.
vs 2
So that's three weeks right there, and no doubt he was reasoning with them during the week too.
vs 3
And this was the message he was reasoning. Aimed at Jews obviously, if you're talking about the Messiah. Gentiles don't have a messiah.
vs 4
And as per usual, a movement starts from within the synagogue. Quite an influential one in this case.
vs 5
Ok, what is it with Jews and starting riots? I mean, according to Luke, this time they just go find some likely lads, buy them a couple of cases of VB, and tell them to go nuts and cause trouble! It's as if the Jews have nothing going for them except riots, because they know it's hard to prosecute or kill everyone who's rioting. And we wonder why there have been occassions where historical figures have had enough of their Jewish citizens rioting and use their military against them. (No, I'm not talking about Hitler - I'm talking about people like Pilate.)
vs 6
Notice that the ones who have 'caused trouble' (not the Jews, who were actually causing the trouble :P) aren't even there. It's not like Jason and the locals were the instigators... yet.
vs 7
Tired old arguments that were used against Jesus are used against Christians now. And to what end? For what reason? Because the Jews were jealous! Poor diddums!
vs 8
As most city officials are when they are faced with Jews rioting. It's an inner turmoil really - do I ignore them or give them some little pap request to make them happy, or do I send 200 centurions through their ranks and cause a bloody scene? Decisions decisions. Not really worth killing people over some silly internal religious problem, surely.
vs 9
Give us ten bucks, and don't do it again. Obviously these believers weren't totally dirt-poor, because otherwise bond would not have been an option. Perhaps the Jews were upset at losing the financial support of these believers?
vs 10
They just... don't... learn.
vs 11
Wow, noble Jews who do the smart thing and actually discuss and study the questions that are being brought up to them! Paul and Silas must have dropped to their knees thinking they'd reached heaven. I mean, how much more can you ask for? This is all they wanted - a fair reading and considering of their good news!
But then, how often have you shared the gospel with someone, and had them say "Wow, that's really interesting. I'd like to study that more, and see if there is truth to it?" We put a "I'd be interested in receiving more information" tick box on some of our paraphenalia, but that is really the "I don't want to be rude but I want to cop out" box, isn't it? Truth is, Bereans are hard to find.
Huzzah, a synagogue! They've had a mix of good and bad reception at the old 'gogues, but if you're a results based person, or if you think it's a zero-sum game, then you'll go for it just to get the positive results, and ignore the negative results. Which is pretty much what they do.
vs 2
So that's three weeks right there, and no doubt he was reasoning with them during the week too.
vs 3
And this was the message he was reasoning. Aimed at Jews obviously, if you're talking about the Messiah. Gentiles don't have a messiah.
vs 4
And as per usual, a movement starts from within the synagogue. Quite an influential one in this case.
vs 5
Ok, what is it with Jews and starting riots? I mean, according to Luke, this time they just go find some likely lads, buy them a couple of cases of VB, and tell them to go nuts and cause trouble! It's as if the Jews have nothing going for them except riots, because they know it's hard to prosecute or kill everyone who's rioting. And we wonder why there have been occassions where historical figures have had enough of their Jewish citizens rioting and use their military against them. (No, I'm not talking about Hitler - I'm talking about people like Pilate.)
vs 6
Notice that the ones who have 'caused trouble' (not the Jews, who were actually causing the trouble :P) aren't even there. It's not like Jason and the locals were the instigators... yet.
vs 7
Tired old arguments that were used against Jesus are used against Christians now. And to what end? For what reason? Because the Jews were jealous! Poor diddums!
vs 8
As most city officials are when they are faced with Jews rioting. It's an inner turmoil really - do I ignore them or give them some little pap request to make them happy, or do I send 200 centurions through their ranks and cause a bloody scene? Decisions decisions. Not really worth killing people over some silly internal religious problem, surely.
vs 9
Give us ten bucks, and don't do it again. Obviously these believers weren't totally dirt-poor, because otherwise bond would not have been an option. Perhaps the Jews were upset at losing the financial support of these believers?
vs 10
They just... don't... learn.
vs 11
Wow, noble Jews who do the smart thing and actually discuss and study the questions that are being brought up to them! Paul and Silas must have dropped to their knees thinking they'd reached heaven. I mean, how much more can you ask for? This is all they wanted - a fair reading and considering of their good news!
But then, how often have you shared the gospel with someone, and had them say "Wow, that's really interesting. I'd like to study that more, and see if there is truth to it?" We put a "I'd be interested in receiving more information" tick box on some of our paraphenalia, but that is really the "I don't want to be rude but I want to cop out" box, isn't it? Truth is, Bereans are hard to find.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Acts chapter 16
vs 31
This is always a touchy issue with missionaries. See, we live in an individualistic society, so we think in terms of the individual, and in terms of individual salvation. But when you go to a communal society (like most tribes, say) then you find that people don't just live communally, they also believe communally! You will have situations where people cannot accept a change in their spiritual reality without it first coming down from the heads of the tribe.
Some people, though, say "Nope, can't do that - it's got to be individual or it's meaningless." But the Bible just isn't quite so clear. We read the church letters, but we read them as individuals, where as they are written to churches! Here, when Paul and Silas talk to an individual, they still talk in terms of immediate family.
vs 32
I think we also read their simple statement "Believe in the Lord Jesus" and think 'Wow, evangelism is so easy!' without seeing here that Luke is just expressing a synopsis of what was said. Remember the jailer could have easily heard sermons, had heard hyms and prayers, and who knows what else. It has to be read in context. They said more than 1 sentence to the guy. From the sounds of it, either the jailer lived on site, or invited them around to his house, or brought his family to the jail, and then Paul and Silas let them have it!
vs 33
You know someone's serious when they go through all this in the middle of the night. That still doesn't make it right to stay up late talking about Christian stuff with kids at camp though. They haven't just had a near-death experience. Not usually, anyway.
vs 34
So he did take them to his house! This is such an incredible story, when you think about it. Imagine a prison warden inviting two criminals into his house to eat because they had shared with him the truth about Jesus?
vs 35
So they were holding them overnight to keep them out of mischief perhaps? Just as a punishment for being rabblerousers.
vs 36
The jailer is happy to see them out of jail, of course. And he wants them to go happily. He probably realises that they didn't deserve their beating and jail-stay, and wants them to be free to go.
vs 37
Uh oh. Being a Roman citizen is cool. It's like being a US citizen. You've got the whole might of the empire behind you when people do stuff like this to you. And Paul wasn't going to let them get away with it. He wants them to fully realise that they screwed up, and that you can't just beat people and chuck them in jail when someone bitches about them. Not if they're Roman citizens :P
vs 38
Because, well, you don't do that to citizens. That's bad. Citizens get fair trials and legal representation and freedom from relentless bashings and imprisonment.
vs 39
Oh yeah, suck up now that you're in trouble.
vs 40
So they didn't even leave immediately. They went and did some Christian work first, then left. Ballsy.
This is always a touchy issue with missionaries. See, we live in an individualistic society, so we think in terms of the individual, and in terms of individual salvation. But when you go to a communal society (like most tribes, say) then you find that people don't just live communally, they also believe communally! You will have situations where people cannot accept a change in their spiritual reality without it first coming down from the heads of the tribe.
Some people, though, say "Nope, can't do that - it's got to be individual or it's meaningless." But the Bible just isn't quite so clear. We read the church letters, but we read them as individuals, where as they are written to churches! Here, when Paul and Silas talk to an individual, they still talk in terms of immediate family.
vs 32
I think we also read their simple statement "Believe in the Lord Jesus" and think 'Wow, evangelism is so easy!' without seeing here that Luke is just expressing a synopsis of what was said. Remember the jailer could have easily heard sermons, had heard hyms and prayers, and who knows what else. It has to be read in context. They said more than 1 sentence to the guy. From the sounds of it, either the jailer lived on site, or invited them around to his house, or brought his family to the jail, and then Paul and Silas let them have it!
vs 33
You know someone's serious when they go through all this in the middle of the night. That still doesn't make it right to stay up late talking about Christian stuff with kids at camp though. They haven't just had a near-death experience. Not usually, anyway.
vs 34
So he did take them to his house! This is such an incredible story, when you think about it. Imagine a prison warden inviting two criminals into his house to eat because they had shared with him the truth about Jesus?
vs 35
So they were holding them overnight to keep them out of mischief perhaps? Just as a punishment for being rabblerousers.
vs 36
The jailer is happy to see them out of jail, of course. And he wants them to go happily. He probably realises that they didn't deserve their beating and jail-stay, and wants them to be free to go.
vs 37
Uh oh. Being a Roman citizen is cool. It's like being a US citizen. You've got the whole might of the empire behind you when people do stuff like this to you. And Paul wasn't going to let them get away with it. He wants them to fully realise that they screwed up, and that you can't just beat people and chuck them in jail when someone bitches about them. Not if they're Roman citizens :P
vs 38
Because, well, you don't do that to citizens. That's bad. Citizens get fair trials and legal representation and freedom from relentless bashings and imprisonment.
vs 39
Oh yeah, suck up now that you're in trouble.
vs 40
So they didn't even leave immediately. They went and did some Christian work first, then left. Ballsy.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Acts chapter 16
vs 21
Well, that's questionable. But it's a good way of saying that they are troublemakers.
vs 22
Ouch! Only takes a bit of mobocracy to get the crap beaten out of you apparently.
vs 23
All this for exorcising a demon from someone. I mean, talk about the bum steer.
vs 24
The magistrates were obviously concerned with doing more than just beating him for show - they didn't want these guys escaping. They had some plans for tomorrow.
vs 25
Can't put good people down. This verse gives us a little insight into the fact that people used to sing hymns outside of a formulaic religious context. And I'm guessing the hymns were in Greek, if the prisoners were listening to the words anyway. Where they Christian or Jewish hymns? Don't know.
vs 26
Wow, what a coincidence! Oh, wait. This would be God working powerfully, yet again, in the lives of his servants. But why free all the prisoners? We assume at least some of them were in there for a reason.
vs 27
Better to kill himself than be killed for failing to do his job. Because stopping earthquakes was in his job description.
vs 28
All? You mean all the prisoners, not just the Christian ones? Were Paul and Silas singing that great hymn that goes "If you're in prison and there's an earthquake, don't escape!"?
vs 29
They had just saved his life, really. So it's a fair reaction.
vs 30
So we can assume that the jailer had also been listening to the prayers and hymns, and that this was the thing that rocked him enough to think seriously about these strangers and what they'd been saying.
Here's a question for you - where's Luke now? It's all we, and then the rods come out and he seems to be lacking in presence.
Well, that's questionable. But it's a good way of saying that they are troublemakers.
vs 22
Ouch! Only takes a bit of mobocracy to get the crap beaten out of you apparently.
vs 23
All this for exorcising a demon from someone. I mean, talk about the bum steer.
vs 24
The magistrates were obviously concerned with doing more than just beating him for show - they didn't want these guys escaping. They had some plans for tomorrow.
vs 25
Can't put good people down. This verse gives us a little insight into the fact that people used to sing hymns outside of a formulaic religious context. And I'm guessing the hymns were in Greek, if the prisoners were listening to the words anyway. Where they Christian or Jewish hymns? Don't know.
vs 26
Wow, what a coincidence! Oh, wait. This would be God working powerfully, yet again, in the lives of his servants. But why free all the prisoners? We assume at least some of them were in there for a reason.
vs 27
Better to kill himself than be killed for failing to do his job. Because stopping earthquakes was in his job description.
vs 28
All? You mean all the prisoners, not just the Christian ones? Were Paul and Silas singing that great hymn that goes "If you're in prison and there's an earthquake, don't escape!"?
vs 29
They had just saved his life, really. So it's a fair reaction.
vs 30
So we can assume that the jailer had also been listening to the prayers and hymns, and that this was the thing that rocked him enough to think seriously about these strangers and what they'd been saying.
Here's a question for you - where's Luke now? It's all we, and then the rods come out and he seems to be lacking in presence.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Acts chapter 16
vs 11
We - including Luke we assume.
vs 12
Later on the Philippians will receive a letter from the crew.
vs 13
No, they were not trying to pick up. Had they given up on Jews now? I don't think so. Perhaps Philippi didn't have a synagogue, and so the Jews would go to a certain place where they would meet for prayer. So why so many women, or perhaps so few men? Not sure.
There is a good reason they are mentioned, besides Luke's typical interest in women (as an author). Apparently, there was a required quorum of 10 Jewish men to start a synagogue, and no amount of women could make up for it. So even though there was a number of Jewish (or perhaps even God fearing) women, they couldn't form a synagogue.
Does this speak volumes about Christianity, being prepared to reach out to these women who have been given the bum steer by Judaism? I don't know for sure, but it could. I mean, even though we are talking about Paul, Luke, and Silas and Timothy here, they are still 1st century men. We do know that churches met in the houses of women. There is evidence of women deacons. However, Paul also instructed Timothy not to let them speak or take leadership, or something, anyway.
So I'm going to assume, a little cynically, that these guys went where they thought they'd get a target audience, rather than going on an affirmative action mission. They left that to the modern church to ignore :P
vs 14
There could have been more responses, but Lydia is an important figure. Purple cloth is expensive.
vs 15
Why they wouldn't go and eat in her house, I have no idea. Perhaps they didn't want to seem as a bunch of kept men to a widowed woman? Anyway, she is a believer, so they go there.
vs 16
So this verse indicates that they visited this place of prayer several times. Let's assume they are in Philippi for weeks, or even months (if they are meeting at this place only on the Sabbath).
It's not every day you hear about someone exploiting a slave's psychic abilities for money. Now some important points. She had 'a spirit', so this is a spiritual thing. She predicted the future, and she is seen as bad. I'll go out on a limb and say that this is a supporting point for my view that predicting the future is not God's will.
vs 17
Wow, that must have been annoying.
vs 18
Can you imagine! Paul, an apostle of Christ and revered in the church as a saintly man, ignored this slave girl for days. And then the only reason he helped her was because she was so annoying! Here we have an exorcism of annoyance! Try quoting Acts 16:18 next time someone is annoying you.
vs 19
How many of you would like to face a lawsuit that you stripped a slave owner of their income by exorcising an evil spirit from one of their slave girls which allowed her to predict the future? I think in a modern court we'd all be safe :P
vs 20
Ahh, so in fact they don't charge them with loss of income. Instead, they charge them with incitement to riot. So remember that next time you're in a protest - you can charge the people who are inciting you to protest even though you're the one protesting. Bah.
We - including Luke we assume.
vs 12
Later on the Philippians will receive a letter from the crew.
vs 13
No, they were not trying to pick up. Had they given up on Jews now? I don't think so. Perhaps Philippi didn't have a synagogue, and so the Jews would go to a certain place where they would meet for prayer. So why so many women, or perhaps so few men? Not sure.
There is a good reason they are mentioned, besides Luke's typical interest in women (as an author). Apparently, there was a required quorum of 10 Jewish men to start a synagogue, and no amount of women could make up for it. So even though there was a number of Jewish (or perhaps even God fearing) women, they couldn't form a synagogue.
Does this speak volumes about Christianity, being prepared to reach out to these women who have been given the bum steer by Judaism? I don't know for sure, but it could. I mean, even though we are talking about Paul, Luke, and Silas and Timothy here, they are still 1st century men. We do know that churches met in the houses of women. There is evidence of women deacons. However, Paul also instructed Timothy not to let them speak or take leadership, or something, anyway.
So I'm going to assume, a little cynically, that these guys went where they thought they'd get a target audience, rather than going on an affirmative action mission. They left that to the modern church to ignore :P
vs 14
There could have been more responses, but Lydia is an important figure. Purple cloth is expensive.
vs 15
Why they wouldn't go and eat in her house, I have no idea. Perhaps they didn't want to seem as a bunch of kept men to a widowed woman? Anyway, she is a believer, so they go there.
vs 16
So this verse indicates that they visited this place of prayer several times. Let's assume they are in Philippi for weeks, or even months (if they are meeting at this place only on the Sabbath).
It's not every day you hear about someone exploiting a slave's psychic abilities for money. Now some important points. She had 'a spirit', so this is a spiritual thing. She predicted the future, and she is seen as bad. I'll go out on a limb and say that this is a supporting point for my view that predicting the future is not God's will.
vs 17
Wow, that must have been annoying.
vs 18
Can you imagine! Paul, an apostle of Christ and revered in the church as a saintly man, ignored this slave girl for days. And then the only reason he helped her was because she was so annoying! Here we have an exorcism of annoyance! Try quoting Acts 16:18 next time someone is annoying you.
vs 19
How many of you would like to face a lawsuit that you stripped a slave owner of their income by exorcising an evil spirit from one of their slave girls which allowed her to predict the future? I think in a modern court we'd all be safe :P
vs 20
Ahh, so in fact they don't charge them with loss of income. Instead, they charge them with incitement to riot. So remember that next time you're in a protest - you can charge the people who are inciting you to protest even though you're the one protesting. Bah.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Acts chapter 16
vs 1
And so now we get to meet Timothy, who has the interesting claim to fame of being born to a Jewish mother but a Greek father.
vs 2
Well spoken of by others is pretty much the CV of ancient times. Just like now :P
vs 3
This is the same Paul who travelled to Jerusalem to help convince the council there that Gentiles didn't need to be circumcised. So why circumcise Timothy? I guess because their ministry was to both Jews and gentiles. How would anyone know? Apparently it could be checked?
vs 4
Notice that on this trip, their ministry is not really to non-Christians. It's mostly to Christians, to give them the news from Jerusalem, and to encourage and strengthen the churches.
vs 5
Notice that this particular statement is concerned particularly with numbers! So whoever says you shouldn't keep count, all I can say is that Luke, or someone, obviously was, because it grew daily.
vs 6
How did the Holy Spirit keep them from it? Set up road blocks? Avalanches? Just tell them no? Give them a feeling they shouldn't go there? Doesn't say. But this trip, they stayed around Asia Minor. But it does look like they're considering now visiting new places.
vs 7
Spirit of Jesus now! So Jesus wrestled with them at the border? Who knows. The point being that there are vast parts of the area that these guys couldn't enter.
So why the change of phraseology? We might think he did it just to be different, but that wasn't really how they did things back then. Not as much as today. Repetition gives effect. So it has been suggested that the way God informed them of his decision was different between the two events.
vs 8
They didn't hang around to see if God changed his mind. They got busy somewhere else.
vs 9
Thankfully for them, God made it pretty clear where he wanted them to go. Not at all where they had imagined.
vs 10
Now we get to the first of the very interesting 'we' passages. The assumption being, of course, that if Luke is saying 'we', then he is also now with the rest of Paul's little entourage.
And is it just me, or does Paul seem to be coming more into focus now?
And so now we get to meet Timothy, who has the interesting claim to fame of being born to a Jewish mother but a Greek father.
vs 2
Well spoken of by others is pretty much the CV of ancient times. Just like now :P
vs 3
This is the same Paul who travelled to Jerusalem to help convince the council there that Gentiles didn't need to be circumcised. So why circumcise Timothy? I guess because their ministry was to both Jews and gentiles. How would anyone know? Apparently it could be checked?
vs 4
Notice that on this trip, their ministry is not really to non-Christians. It's mostly to Christians, to give them the news from Jerusalem, and to encourage and strengthen the churches.
vs 5
Notice that this particular statement is concerned particularly with numbers! So whoever says you shouldn't keep count, all I can say is that Luke, or someone, obviously was, because it grew daily.
vs 6
How did the Holy Spirit keep them from it? Set up road blocks? Avalanches? Just tell them no? Give them a feeling they shouldn't go there? Doesn't say. But this trip, they stayed around Asia Minor. But it does look like they're considering now visiting new places.
vs 7
Spirit of Jesus now! So Jesus wrestled with them at the border? Who knows. The point being that there are vast parts of the area that these guys couldn't enter.
So why the change of phraseology? We might think he did it just to be different, but that wasn't really how they did things back then. Not as much as today. Repetition gives effect. So it has been suggested that the way God informed them of his decision was different between the two events.
vs 8
They didn't hang around to see if God changed his mind. They got busy somewhere else.
vs 9
Thankfully for them, God made it pretty clear where he wanted them to go. Not at all where they had imagined.
vs 10
Now we get to the first of the very interesting 'we' passages. The assumption being, of course, that if Luke is saying 'we', then he is also now with the rest of Paul's little entourage.
And is it just me, or does Paul seem to be coming more into focus now?
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Acts chapter 15
vs 31
T'was a pretty short message, but the theme of it is clear - that as gentiles they should not be burdened with a bunch of jewish rules.
vs 32
So they probably hung around for a while doing that. It's amazing what a bit of preacher-sharing can do to bring churches together.
vs 33 (34)
There's a turnup for the books - the TNIV doesn't even put a note in about other manuscripts in this instance.
Anyway, eventually the church sent them back, wanting then to go bless Jerusalem church once more.
vs 35
It was not just B & P, but a whole swag of unnamed preachers and teachers. Wait, weren't they missionaries? Well, yeah. But now they're in their church teaching. They can do two things.
vs 36
Sounds like a nice thing to do. The speed at which they set up churches, discipled people, and chose leaders, should not make us feel slow. Like I said, many of the converts would have been Jews or God-fearers, and so they already knew a lot.
But now they could probably use some encouragement, they certainly need to hear this message from Jerusalem, and P & B probably want to see how they're going because they planted the churches there.
vs 37
Who, if we remember, flaked out at one stage and went home.
vs 38
Which is a reasonable attitude to take. In theory, anyway. Luke doesn't go deeply into this argument and its cause, but I think he leaves enough said that the rest of it can go unsaid and we still get it.
vs 39
This is perhaps the more surprising of the situation - that their disagreement was so sharp that they part ways over it. Doesn't seem particularly Christian, but having said that, sometimes it probably is best for Christians to part ways if they don't agree. That's basically what denominations do.
vs 40
So they each go their separate ways, both roping in some new blood (Mark wasn't quite as new, but getting him re-involved is good). The Paul and Silas combo goes off well too - remember how many of Paul's letters come from both of them (and Timothy too).
vs 41
So Paul and Silas do the dime tour around the areas in which Antioch is based (which I can tell you thanks to a recent comment). At least, that's where he starts.
T'was a pretty short message, but the theme of it is clear - that as gentiles they should not be burdened with a bunch of jewish rules.
vs 32
So they probably hung around for a while doing that. It's amazing what a bit of preacher-sharing can do to bring churches together.
vs 33 (34)
There's a turnup for the books - the TNIV doesn't even put a note in about other manuscripts in this instance.
Anyway, eventually the church sent them back, wanting then to go bless Jerusalem church once more.
vs 35
It was not just B & P, but a whole swag of unnamed preachers and teachers. Wait, weren't they missionaries? Well, yeah. But now they're in their church teaching. They can do two things.
vs 36
Sounds like a nice thing to do. The speed at which they set up churches, discipled people, and chose leaders, should not make us feel slow. Like I said, many of the converts would have been Jews or God-fearers, and so they already knew a lot.
But now they could probably use some encouragement, they certainly need to hear this message from Jerusalem, and P & B probably want to see how they're going because they planted the churches there.
vs 37
Who, if we remember, flaked out at one stage and went home.
vs 38
Which is a reasonable attitude to take. In theory, anyway. Luke doesn't go deeply into this argument and its cause, but I think he leaves enough said that the rest of it can go unsaid and we still get it.
vs 39
This is perhaps the more surprising of the situation - that their disagreement was so sharp that they part ways over it. Doesn't seem particularly Christian, but having said that, sometimes it probably is best for Christians to part ways if they don't agree. That's basically what denominations do.
vs 40
So they each go their separate ways, both roping in some new blood (Mark wasn't quite as new, but getting him re-involved is good). The Paul and Silas combo goes off well too - remember how many of Paul's letters come from both of them (and Timothy too).
vs 41
So Paul and Silas do the dime tour around the areas in which Antioch is based (which I can tell you thanks to a recent comment). At least, that's where he starts.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Acts chapter 15
vs 21
At first I read this verse as a reasoning for James' argument. But I couldn't quite understand the point behind it. I thought perhaps he was referring to the wide spread of Torah teaching, and how it therefore needed to be dealt with as an issue.
But FF Bruce suggests that James is saying this statement to those who are suggesting the importance of teaching the full Torah law to gentiles - in effect he says "The synagogues are already doing that, and we aren't getting in the way. But we preach Christ".
vs 22
To Antioch specifically in the first instance, because that is where the concerns were raised. So they need an answer.
Look at these names. Barsabbas is kinda well known, but Silas is a big name.
vs 23
And now we get either a copy of the actual letter sent out, or a summary of its contents. Who knows.
Addressed to Antioch, to Syria and to Cilicia. Antioch is a town, I'd have thought Syria a region. Not sure about Cilicia. Is it possible that this is like an address?
vs 24
So first things first - those from the circumcision group were not authorised, at the very least in what they said.
vs 25
This letter now gives authority to those who have been sent, and also shows support for B & P. Good sign.
vs 26
Especially Paul! But Barnabas was right there too.
vs 27
So there's someone to ask questions of the information held within the letters, and so that it's official like - rather than just being a report from P & B.
vs 28
Requirements is a strong term, but unity is an important thing in the church. Bruce actually suggests that there is not suggestion of command here (that is, that the Jerusalem church is respecting the independence of the Antiochan church), but he also says that the Jerusalem church did not want the Antiochan church to ignore the Holy Spirit, or its responsiblity to the church global. Notice that Jerusalem actually gives the authorship of its decision to the Holy Spirit primarily - not I think to try and give it creedence, or to say that they have a monopoly on the message of God, but more to give God the glory for decision making in the church.
vs 29
The list is repeated from vs 20. Apparently, these rules were followed for over a century by the church. One of the european kings of the 9th century had them in the preface to his code of laws too.
But I don't think we are bound by these anymore, unless we are trying to placate a big jewish population.
vs 30
I assume that means that, rather than wait till Sunday, they just met as soon as they could. Some people might say that they waited till Sunday. I think probably not.
At first I read this verse as a reasoning for James' argument. But I couldn't quite understand the point behind it. I thought perhaps he was referring to the wide spread of Torah teaching, and how it therefore needed to be dealt with as an issue.
But FF Bruce suggests that James is saying this statement to those who are suggesting the importance of teaching the full Torah law to gentiles - in effect he says "The synagogues are already doing that, and we aren't getting in the way. But we preach Christ".
vs 22
To Antioch specifically in the first instance, because that is where the concerns were raised. So they need an answer.
Look at these names. Barsabbas is kinda well known, but Silas is a big name.
vs 23
And now we get either a copy of the actual letter sent out, or a summary of its contents. Who knows.
Addressed to Antioch, to Syria and to Cilicia. Antioch is a town, I'd have thought Syria a region. Not sure about Cilicia. Is it possible that this is like an address?
vs 24
So first things first - those from the circumcision group were not authorised, at the very least in what they said.
vs 25
This letter now gives authority to those who have been sent, and also shows support for B & P. Good sign.
vs 26
Especially Paul! But Barnabas was right there too.
vs 27
So there's someone to ask questions of the information held within the letters, and so that it's official like - rather than just being a report from P & B.
vs 28
Requirements is a strong term, but unity is an important thing in the church. Bruce actually suggests that there is not suggestion of command here (that is, that the Jerusalem church is respecting the independence of the Antiochan church), but he also says that the Jerusalem church did not want the Antiochan church to ignore the Holy Spirit, or its responsiblity to the church global. Notice that Jerusalem actually gives the authorship of its decision to the Holy Spirit primarily - not I think to try and give it creedence, or to say that they have a monopoly on the message of God, but more to give God the glory for decision making in the church.
vs 29
The list is repeated from vs 20. Apparently, these rules were followed for over a century by the church. One of the european kings of the 9th century had them in the preface to his code of laws too.
But I don't think we are bound by these anymore, unless we are trying to placate a big jewish population.
vs 30
I assume that means that, rather than wait till Sunday, they just met as soon as they could. Some people might say that they waited till Sunday. I think probably not.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Acts chapter 15
vs 11
It is the grace of Jesus, and only that, which saves. Your descent or heritage is not a salvation issue, and your adherence to the Law is also not a salvation issue.
Now I'm not necessarily saying that those against this position were saying these things were salvation issues. The statement made for that side in Acts doesn't give a reason why. Perhaps they thought it should just be so.
vs 12
B & P's contribution to this whole thing was a missionary report. Perhaps if our missionary reports were more controversial, they'd be more exciting and get more people to visit :P
vs 13
Makes him sound like a wizened old man.
vs 14
I wish I could say this conclusively made it clear that God wanted for himself one people - not two. But those who disagree would I am sure simply interpret it the other way, saying James could have been more definite.
vs 15
Again, we have the experiential (Peter, Paul and Barnabas' testimony) and now James looks at Scripture. And finds, indeed, that it is in accordance.
vs 16-18
I would not have picked Amos 9 if I were trying to prove this point. Not because it doesn't work - it does, of course. But because there are translation issues and scholarly quandaries etc. This is more of a supporting verse than a main argument verse in modern circles.
But James' use of it in this way brings it right to the fore. And it's fair to see why - it links the perpetuation, almost the reinvigoration, of the Davidic covenant with the inclusion of gentile peoples.
vs 19
A judgement that the modern church has forgotten, because it has rested on the laurels of centuries of Christendom. But now that the Christian foundations of our western societies crumble, we seek to cling to them all the more firmly, instead of doing what this verse says, and making it easy for those outside the church to join in worship of Christ.
vs 20
Ok, now it might seem strange that in the light of verse 19. Why say you don't want to put any stumbling blocks in front of gentiles, and that you agree that it is not by living the Mosaic covenant that salvation comes, and that the Jews could nevr do it anyway, and then place a few rules and restrictions on gentile actions?
Well, look at the rules - 3 of the 4 pertain to eating. Eating, of all things! One of the biggest cultural separators of the Jews was their food laws. It prevented them from eating with gentiles (as did their belief that gentiles were unclean). Remember there is no TV, no radio, no board games (that we know of). Eating with people is one of the main ways you socialise. It's even built into the church with the love feast. These four rules are designed more to allow the Jewish and gentile elements of the church to meet and socialise together. We'd call it fellowship.
But these rules aren't set in stone (well, the sexual immorality one is, assuming it means typical sexual immorality). Paul in his letters says that eating meat sacrificed to idols is nothing. But don't do it if it will upset a fellow Christian. So he both undermines and enforces the rule.
It is the grace of Jesus, and only that, which saves. Your descent or heritage is not a salvation issue, and your adherence to the Law is also not a salvation issue.
Now I'm not necessarily saying that those against this position were saying these things were salvation issues. The statement made for that side in Acts doesn't give a reason why. Perhaps they thought it should just be so.
vs 12
B & P's contribution to this whole thing was a missionary report. Perhaps if our missionary reports were more controversial, they'd be more exciting and get more people to visit :P
vs 13
Makes him sound like a wizened old man.
vs 14
I wish I could say this conclusively made it clear that God wanted for himself one people - not two. But those who disagree would I am sure simply interpret it the other way, saying James could have been more definite.
vs 15
Again, we have the experiential (Peter, Paul and Barnabas' testimony) and now James looks at Scripture. And finds, indeed, that it is in accordance.
vs 16-18
I would not have picked Amos 9 if I were trying to prove this point. Not because it doesn't work - it does, of course. But because there are translation issues and scholarly quandaries etc. This is more of a supporting verse than a main argument verse in modern circles.
But James' use of it in this way brings it right to the fore. And it's fair to see why - it links the perpetuation, almost the reinvigoration, of the Davidic covenant with the inclusion of gentile peoples.
vs 19
A judgement that the modern church has forgotten, because it has rested on the laurels of centuries of Christendom. But now that the Christian foundations of our western societies crumble, we seek to cling to them all the more firmly, instead of doing what this verse says, and making it easy for those outside the church to join in worship of Christ.
vs 20
Ok, now it might seem strange that in the light of verse 19. Why say you don't want to put any stumbling blocks in front of gentiles, and that you agree that it is not by living the Mosaic covenant that salvation comes, and that the Jews could nevr do it anyway, and then place a few rules and restrictions on gentile actions?
Well, look at the rules - 3 of the 4 pertain to eating. Eating, of all things! One of the biggest cultural separators of the Jews was their food laws. It prevented them from eating with gentiles (as did their belief that gentiles were unclean). Remember there is no TV, no radio, no board games (that we know of). Eating with people is one of the main ways you socialise. It's even built into the church with the love feast. These four rules are designed more to allow the Jewish and gentile elements of the church to meet and socialise together. We'd call it fellowship.
But these rules aren't set in stone (well, the sexual immorality one is, assuming it means typical sexual immorality). Paul in his letters says that eating meat sacrificed to idols is nothing. But don't do it if it will upset a fellow Christian. So he both undermines and enforces the rule.
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Acts chapter 15
vs 1
Ok, I'm getting my map for this one, because there is no way in my understanding of the geography that you can go down from Judea to Antioch...
And my atlas, and my commentary, have nothing to say on the matter. Which is just rude, really. Let's assume that if you believe the world is upside down, Jerusalem's on top or something :P
One thing I did learn from reading FF Bruce on the matter was that he happily fits in this episode with the visit of "men from James" from Galatians. Interesting. That would mean that this judaising influence was 1) spreading out from Judea in the first instance, 2) from an apostle/brother of Jesus (although it can be argued that the judaisers were stepping over their bounds in saying this stuff, and that it wasn't instructed from the top), 3) and was reaching more places than just Antioch in Syria (getting to Galatia at least).
vs 2
I hate to say it, but, there is an obvious lack of independence here among the early churches. Brethren are wrong. This is, at the very least interdependence, at the most, heirarchy. The language leads me to column b.
vs 3
I was a little surprised at this - it's almost like they are drumming up support on their way to Jerusalem. You would think that, if there was a dispute between two parties, that they would both be quiet about the issue until they had time to spell out their differences and come to a conclusion. But no, along the way they visit churches, discuss how the gentiles are so freely coming to faith, and move on. But these churches were happy to hear the news, so that's good.
vs 4
Ok, so before we think there was some serious bad blood here, notice that they were warmly welcomed, and asked to report on all their mission trip.
vs 5
Bloody Pharisees. My response would have been "Go kill Jesus, ya losers". Thankfully I wasn't there. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say that, after the report of successful missionary journey from B & P, these people stood up and asked with a spirit of inquiry.
vs 6
We just read over this. But this chapter of Acts, chapter 15, is THE MOST IMPORTANT CHAPTER of the book. I daresay that the Jerusalem Council was the most important meeting the church has ever had. More important than the Council of Nicea.
Why? Because without this meeting, we could still all be following the laws of Moses, and chopping bits off our wiener. And to be honest, we probably wouldn't be. Judaism never really grew. It required too much transformation of action for the sake of cultural identity. Christianity at its earliest stages required people to have their lives transformed by Christ, not to fit some sort of religious mould, but to be godly.
vs 7
That's right - Peter was the person who initiated gospel witness to the gentiles, not Paul.
vs 8
Jews and gentiles get the same Holy Spirit, as Paul will become fond of saying from this point onward.
vs 9
Because, of course, Jews were already pure :P But there is no discrimination. No habitual uncleanness of the gentiles, as had been believed for, well, thousands of years.
vs 10
Now if you read Galatians, you would see that Paul had something like this to say to Peter. If we assume that was before the Jerusalem Council (which to me seems quite clear) then Peter has obviously been rebuked, changed heart, and is making this point clear to the Jerusalem apostles.
After all, what difference does it make if gentiles are forced to follow the Jewish law, if Jews don't really follow it anyway?
Ok, I'm getting my map for this one, because there is no way in my understanding of the geography that you can go down from Judea to Antioch...
And my atlas, and my commentary, have nothing to say on the matter. Which is just rude, really. Let's assume that if you believe the world is upside down, Jerusalem's on top or something :P
One thing I did learn from reading FF Bruce on the matter was that he happily fits in this episode with the visit of "men from James" from Galatians. Interesting. That would mean that this judaising influence was 1) spreading out from Judea in the first instance, 2) from an apostle/brother of Jesus (although it can be argued that the judaisers were stepping over their bounds in saying this stuff, and that it wasn't instructed from the top), 3) and was reaching more places than just Antioch in Syria (getting to Galatia at least).
vs 2
I hate to say it, but, there is an obvious lack of independence here among the early churches. Brethren are wrong. This is, at the very least interdependence, at the most, heirarchy. The language leads me to column b.
vs 3
I was a little surprised at this - it's almost like they are drumming up support on their way to Jerusalem. You would think that, if there was a dispute between two parties, that they would both be quiet about the issue until they had time to spell out their differences and come to a conclusion. But no, along the way they visit churches, discuss how the gentiles are so freely coming to faith, and move on. But these churches were happy to hear the news, so that's good.
vs 4
Ok, so before we think there was some serious bad blood here, notice that they were warmly welcomed, and asked to report on all their mission trip.
vs 5
Bloody Pharisees. My response would have been "Go kill Jesus, ya losers". Thankfully I wasn't there. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say that, after the report of successful missionary journey from B & P, these people stood up and asked with a spirit of inquiry.
vs 6
We just read over this. But this chapter of Acts, chapter 15, is THE MOST IMPORTANT CHAPTER of the book. I daresay that the Jerusalem Council was the most important meeting the church has ever had. More important than the Council of Nicea.
Why? Because without this meeting, we could still all be following the laws of Moses, and chopping bits off our wiener. And to be honest, we probably wouldn't be. Judaism never really grew. It required too much transformation of action for the sake of cultural identity. Christianity at its earliest stages required people to have their lives transformed by Christ, not to fit some sort of religious mould, but to be godly.
vs 7
That's right - Peter was the person who initiated gospel witness to the gentiles, not Paul.
vs 8
Jews and gentiles get the same Holy Spirit, as Paul will become fond of saying from this point onward.
vs 9
Because, of course, Jews were already pure :P But there is no discrimination. No habitual uncleanness of the gentiles, as had been believed for, well, thousands of years.
vs 10
Now if you read Galatians, you would see that Paul had something like this to say to Peter. If we assume that was before the Jerusalem Council (which to me seems quite clear) then Peter has obviously been rebuked, changed heart, and is making this point clear to the Jerusalem apostles.
After all, what difference does it make if gentiles are forced to follow the Jewish law, if Jews don't really follow it anyway?
Friday, January 04, 2008
Acts chapter 14
vs 20
So the disciples seemed to think that he was a goner too. But then he just gets up, admits he was playing dead, and goes back into the town! I am hoping under cover of darkness, or else you'd think they'd just stone him again. Anyway, the next day P & B left, again leaving a group of disciples behind. I think we've got to assume that these stories aren't just happening over the course of a day or so. There's got to be some constructive teaching, there's got to be some amount of time to allow the buildup of god-worship and Jews from Iconium and all that stuff. I think so, anyway.
vs 21-22
My goodness, these guys have balls! They go back the way they came, no doubt to visit all the people they had seen become Christian. Many hardships, damn right, especially for them. It's funny - Paul is the preacher, so he's the one who gets stoned and hated. Barnabas never get's mentioned as being flogged or whacked or stoned. I'm sure he had as much imput into the discipling of the new Christians, but because his ministry is less public, he's less mentioned.
vs 23
The appointment of elders surely lets us know that the time frame spent at these new churches was considerable, or at least reasonable in any case. Again, we don't know how big a 'large number' was. But as I have said several times, we must remember that Jewish influence had gone ahead of Christianity, and paved the way, with many people ready to hear the message.
vs 24-25
I'm sure that means a lot to you. It meant a lot to me. In fact, these two verses are so meaningless to me, I can't even convince myself to go grab my Bible atlas and find out where these places are.
vs 26
Completed! Interesting word to use. It gives the suggestion that P & B went out with a specific plan, to go to a certain number of towns, or spend so many months away from Antioch before returning.
vs 27
Of course, the people at Antioch already knew that a "door of faith" had been opened to the gentiles. But now they knew that the message had gone out far further than ever before.
vs 28
This is an important verse - it sets us up for the fact that P & B weren't missionaries in the modern sense of the term. They went out, they came back, and stayed for a long time. They weren't just members of the Antioch church, they were leaders. So this is to be expected - Antioch was no doubt keen for the gospel to spread out to other gentile cities, but they also wanted their leadership members home for a bit.
So the disciples seemed to think that he was a goner too. But then he just gets up, admits he was playing dead, and goes back into the town! I am hoping under cover of darkness, or else you'd think they'd just stone him again. Anyway, the next day P & B left, again leaving a group of disciples behind. I think we've got to assume that these stories aren't just happening over the course of a day or so. There's got to be some constructive teaching, there's got to be some amount of time to allow the buildup of god-worship and Jews from Iconium and all that stuff. I think so, anyway.
vs 21-22
My goodness, these guys have balls! They go back the way they came, no doubt to visit all the people they had seen become Christian. Many hardships, damn right, especially for them. It's funny - Paul is the preacher, so he's the one who gets stoned and hated. Barnabas never get's mentioned as being flogged or whacked or stoned. I'm sure he had as much imput into the discipling of the new Christians, but because his ministry is less public, he's less mentioned.
vs 23
The appointment of elders surely lets us know that the time frame spent at these new churches was considerable, or at least reasonable in any case. Again, we don't know how big a 'large number' was. But as I have said several times, we must remember that Jewish influence had gone ahead of Christianity, and paved the way, with many people ready to hear the message.
vs 24-25
I'm sure that means a lot to you. It meant a lot to me. In fact, these two verses are so meaningless to me, I can't even convince myself to go grab my Bible atlas and find out where these places are.
vs 26
Completed! Interesting word to use. It gives the suggestion that P & B went out with a specific plan, to go to a certain number of towns, or spend so many months away from Antioch before returning.
vs 27
Of course, the people at Antioch already knew that a "door of faith" had been opened to the gentiles. But now they knew that the message had gone out far further than ever before.
vs 28
This is an important verse - it sets us up for the fact that P & B weren't missionaries in the modern sense of the term. They went out, they came back, and stayed for a long time. They weren't just members of the Antioch church, they were leaders. So this is to be expected - Antioch was no doubt keen for the gospel to spread out to other gentile cities, but they also wanted their leadership members home for a bit.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Acts chapter 14
vs 11
Since they shouted it in Lycaonian, did Paul and Barnabas understand? Possibly not. But trouble starts right about here.
vs 12
So rather than hear the message as it was given, these people have interpreted it into their current religious context, and therefore think that B & P are gods. Which is a horrific thought for people who's religious background tells them such talk is blasphemous.
vs 13
It just keeps getting worse and worse. The official priest of the pagan religion now wants to honour them with sacrifices and wreaths! I know we generally blame this situation in the people at Lystra. But is it not perhaps a little bit B & P's fault for not considering more the situation they were going into, and perhaps rushing a little bit as they moved from town to town?
vs 14
Tearing your clothes is a sign of mourning. And with the amount of times people seem to do it, you wonder how people ever ended up with any clothes left.
vs 15
So now they are setting them straight. In their favour, they weren't tempted to hang around and be treated as gods for a little while. And remember, these gods weren't treated as aloof and holy either - women slept with Zeus and Posiedon and other gods all the time. But they are now drawing attention away from themselves, making sure people realise that they are just men, and that only 1 God is God.
vs 16
This is a fair comment to make to these people, who are obviously wrapped up in their own religion. So much so that they took B & P's message and weaved it in with their own theological understanding. So Paul chooses to tell them, gently at first, that God has in the past allowed these transgressions against him.
vs 17
But Paul is a big believer in natural or general revelation - he believes that God should have been obvious through giving rain and food and joy.
vs 18
Obviously people were so wrapped up in the excitement that they really wanted to believe these guys were gods, even if they were saying they weren't.
vs 19
Don't think that they came and won the crowd over with Judaism. They probably just won the crowd over with "these buggers are pretenders!". And the result was that Paul got his ass kicked. I mean, when you get stoned, that means people are trying to kill you. It's not a joke.
Since they shouted it in Lycaonian, did Paul and Barnabas understand? Possibly not. But trouble starts right about here.
vs 12
So rather than hear the message as it was given, these people have interpreted it into their current religious context, and therefore think that B & P are gods. Which is a horrific thought for people who's religious background tells them such talk is blasphemous.
vs 13
It just keeps getting worse and worse. The official priest of the pagan religion now wants to honour them with sacrifices and wreaths! I know we generally blame this situation in the people at Lystra. But is it not perhaps a little bit B & P's fault for not considering more the situation they were going into, and perhaps rushing a little bit as they moved from town to town?
vs 14
Tearing your clothes is a sign of mourning. And with the amount of times people seem to do it, you wonder how people ever ended up with any clothes left.
vs 15
So now they are setting them straight. In their favour, they weren't tempted to hang around and be treated as gods for a little while. And remember, these gods weren't treated as aloof and holy either - women slept with Zeus and Posiedon and other gods all the time. But they are now drawing attention away from themselves, making sure people realise that they are just men, and that only 1 God is God.
vs 16
This is a fair comment to make to these people, who are obviously wrapped up in their own religion. So much so that they took B & P's message and weaved it in with their own theological understanding. So Paul chooses to tell them, gently at first, that God has in the past allowed these transgressions against him.
vs 17
But Paul is a big believer in natural or general revelation - he believes that God should have been obvious through giving rain and food and joy.
vs 18
Obviously people were so wrapped up in the excitement that they really wanted to believe these guys were gods, even if they were saying they weren't.
vs 19
Don't think that they came and won the crowd over with Judaism. They probably just won the crowd over with "these buggers are pretenders!". And the result was that Paul got his ass kicked. I mean, when you get stoned, that means people are trying to kill you. It's not a joke.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Acts chapter 14
vs 1
What is a great number? Who knows. But Iconium isn't one of the churches we hear about often, so we don't know much about it.
vs 2
Seems like Jews have only two reactions to the gospel message - they either believe it, or they hate it passionately. Which makes sense, because it is fairly offensive to be told that even though you're a religious Jew, your own messiah's blood is on your hands.
vs 3
The negative work the unbelieving Jews were doing only strengthened the resolve of P & B, who hung around I assume to help and disciple those who had believed. And the miracles were what miracles always are - a confirmation of a message being given by messengers.
vs 4
Well, that's a turn up for the books. In modern society, it would be the Christians were on one side, the Jews another, and the majority of people in the city had no opinion because they couldn't care less.
vs 5
Which is quite nasty, really. Casual mistreatment through anger is one thing. But plotted mistreatment is cold.
vs 6-7
P & B don't stand for it, they run like hell. Good on them too. I mean, it's a shame for all the disciples who live in Iconium, who now have to go on without them, but that simply was the early life of Christians.
And it's not like they went home after that and packed it in - they just went to another town and preached the gospel there.
vs 8
I think, by now, we can see where this is going.
vs 9-10
Difficult verse. Firstly, how do you see faith? Secondly, how do you see that someone has faith to be healed? What does that mean? I know we say that you can't be healed without faith. Of course, we also say that you won't necessarily be healed, even with faith. In fact, we don't really believe that the gospel needs to be authenticated by miracles.
Well, in this case it did need to be. How do I know? Because it was.
What is a great number? Who knows. But Iconium isn't one of the churches we hear about often, so we don't know much about it.
vs 2
Seems like Jews have only two reactions to the gospel message - they either believe it, or they hate it passionately. Which makes sense, because it is fairly offensive to be told that even though you're a religious Jew, your own messiah's blood is on your hands.
vs 3
The negative work the unbelieving Jews were doing only strengthened the resolve of P & B, who hung around I assume to help and disciple those who had believed. And the miracles were what miracles always are - a confirmation of a message being given by messengers.
vs 4
Well, that's a turn up for the books. In modern society, it would be the Christians were on one side, the Jews another, and the majority of people in the city had no opinion because they couldn't care less.
vs 5
Which is quite nasty, really. Casual mistreatment through anger is one thing. But plotted mistreatment is cold.
vs 6-7
P & B don't stand for it, they run like hell. Good on them too. I mean, it's a shame for all the disciples who live in Iconium, who now have to go on without them, but that simply was the early life of Christians.
And it's not like they went home after that and packed it in - they just went to another town and preached the gospel there.
vs 8
I think, by now, we can see where this is going.
vs 9-10
Difficult verse. Firstly, how do you see faith? Secondly, how do you see that someone has faith to be healed? What does that mean? I know we say that you can't be healed without faith. Of course, we also say that you won't necessarily be healed, even with faith. In fact, we don't really believe that the gospel needs to be authenticated by miracles.
Well, in this case it did need to be. How do I know? Because it was.
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Acts chapter 13
vs 42
And you know what, this attitude from a silent or marginally interested majority is not unknown to Paul's ministry. I mean, it only takes a few upset people to stir up mobs - they don't have to be stirred up right from the beginning.
vs 43
That shows that these people were more than marginally interested - they couldn't wait till next sabbath, they wanted to hear more now!
What I find interesting is P & B's exhortation to them - to 'continue' in the grace of God. That work crosses all of my 4 translations. So Paul seems to be saying that they are already under God's grace, or that they are already with God, but should continue with him under his grace.
vs 44
Snap. Word gets around.
vs 45
Why jealous? We would assume that it wouldn't be because the Jews had been trying earnestly to reach the populace with the Law. It is possible, although chance would say that they weren't. So what then? Just simple jealousy that P & B were celebrities? Anyway, their reaction is, in my opinion, totally stupid for jealousy alone. I assume there is also a bit of disagreement in there too. Not that people don't do totally stupid things all the time. I just think that their actions - being both abusive and contradictory - suggest jealousy and disagreement.
vs 46
We often think that this reaction against the Jews is from Paul. But Barnabas had a similar reaction. They both agree obviously of the primacy of this promise to the Jews. But they realise that gentiles have a claim to it as well. And so if the Jews want to get all tetchy and jealous, then they will ditch them.
What does this mean for modelling of ministry? P & B are basically saying that if they preach and are harassed, then screw it, they're going to try something or someone else. How desperate are we to see that our words aren't wasted?
vs 47
P & B don't just see their commission to the gentiles as coming from an experiential fact (the baptism in the Holy Spirit of Cornelius' household or the activities of the Antioch church). They see a scriptural principle.
vs 48
Such interesting concepts! Firstly, the gentiles honoured the word of the Lord. But what exactly? The OT? The preaching of Paul? The words of Jesus told to them? Whatever it was, they honoured it. I am assuming it means the gospel message.
Secondly, those appointed to believed. We assume appointed by God. How many was it? That isn't told to us. Could have only been 10 people. The story makes it sound like more though.
vs 49
So let's assume that a fair number of people believed then, so they could take it with them.
This verse, by the way, is a classic example of how we can't just transliterate "word of God" with "scripture". They obviously didn't take Scripture around with them, and this verse is fairly obviously not talking about the spread of the OT.
vs 50
Basically, the Jews called in favours with those God-fearing gentiles in high places to get P & B turfed from town. Might have even used religious scare tactics. That's how keen they were to see B & P run out.
vs 51
The team aren't phased. They simply move on to spread the message elsewhere. If people are that antagonistic, better to just go elsewhere.
vs 52
Which disciples? What an odd verse.
And you know what, this attitude from a silent or marginally interested majority is not unknown to Paul's ministry. I mean, it only takes a few upset people to stir up mobs - they don't have to be stirred up right from the beginning.
vs 43
That shows that these people were more than marginally interested - they couldn't wait till next sabbath, they wanted to hear more now!
What I find interesting is P & B's exhortation to them - to 'continue' in the grace of God. That work crosses all of my 4 translations. So Paul seems to be saying that they are already under God's grace, or that they are already with God, but should continue with him under his grace.
vs 44
Snap. Word gets around.
vs 45
Why jealous? We would assume that it wouldn't be because the Jews had been trying earnestly to reach the populace with the Law. It is possible, although chance would say that they weren't. So what then? Just simple jealousy that P & B were celebrities? Anyway, their reaction is, in my opinion, totally stupid for jealousy alone. I assume there is also a bit of disagreement in there too. Not that people don't do totally stupid things all the time. I just think that their actions - being both abusive and contradictory - suggest jealousy and disagreement.
vs 46
We often think that this reaction against the Jews is from Paul. But Barnabas had a similar reaction. They both agree obviously of the primacy of this promise to the Jews. But they realise that gentiles have a claim to it as well. And so if the Jews want to get all tetchy and jealous, then they will ditch them.
What does this mean for modelling of ministry? P & B are basically saying that if they preach and are harassed, then screw it, they're going to try something or someone else. How desperate are we to see that our words aren't wasted?
vs 47
P & B don't just see their commission to the gentiles as coming from an experiential fact (the baptism in the Holy Spirit of Cornelius' household or the activities of the Antioch church). They see a scriptural principle.
vs 48
Such interesting concepts! Firstly, the gentiles honoured the word of the Lord. But what exactly? The OT? The preaching of Paul? The words of Jesus told to them? Whatever it was, they honoured it. I am assuming it means the gospel message.
Secondly, those appointed to believed. We assume appointed by God. How many was it? That isn't told to us. Could have only been 10 people. The story makes it sound like more though.
vs 49
So let's assume that a fair number of people believed then, so they could take it with them.
This verse, by the way, is a classic example of how we can't just transliterate "word of God" with "scripture". They obviously didn't take Scripture around with them, and this verse is fairly obviously not talking about the spread of the OT.
vs 50
Basically, the Jews called in favours with those God-fearing gentiles in high places to get P & B turfed from town. Might have even used religious scare tactics. That's how keen they were to see B & P run out.
vs 51
The team aren't phased. They simply move on to spread the message elsewhere. If people are that antagonistic, better to just go elsewhere.
vs 52
Which disciples? What an odd verse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)