vs 1
'We' again indicating that Luke has appeared on the scene once more. I wonder who the other prisoners were - other Christians? Just others who had appealed to Caesar? I just prisoners Festus wanted to get out of the way? And is the Imperial Regiment a regiment from Rome? Or personal to Caesar? Did he come to Caesarea specifically to pick up prisoners? Who knows.
vs 2
And oh look, more sea journeys that are going to stop in lots of ports. Luke would have been the world's most boring travel writer. Aristarchus' name rings a bell - is he important yet? Or is Luke just name dropping?
vs 3
That's a nice gesture. Remember, prisoners weren't fed or kept by their guards at all. If you didn't find someone to bring you food and look after your other needs, prison was basically a death sentence. And so when you think like that, an actual death sentence for offenses seems more humane.
vs 4
Now we are actually getting some sailing jargon. I'm not sure if it says exactly what this sailing jargon means, or if they're replaced modern jargon for the ancient stuff. I'd say it's fairly literal. Who knew that Luke was a sailor?
vs 5
Huzzah.
vs 6
No reason not to swap ships if there's one going in their direction. Just all these little, boring, pointless details, like that it was an Alexandrian ship, makes you know that Luke was there, and that eyewitness accounts are valuable. They speak volumes for the veracity of the claims of the book, if not for its enjoyability to read.
vs 7
Is Luke saying something spiritual about their mission here - that God was slowing their passage, or that the devil was getting in the way with bad winds? Or is he just saying that they were sailing and this stuff happens? I'd say the latter. Surely if Luke wanted to, he could have written spiritually stuff. Paul could have helped.
vs 8
Sounds lovely. Like a retirement village.
vs 9
So, was sailing dangerous because weather changes after that day, or because of some superstition about sailing after the Day of Atonement?
vs 10
Either Paul is speaking spiritually (that it's dangerous to travel because the Day of Atonement has passed), or he's just picked a few things up from being itinerant and he knows it's going to be bad.
vs 11
And, really, when are you going to start listening to a prisoner about your travel arrangements?
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Acts chapter 26
vs 22
Paul has survived a significant amount of death threats, assassination attempts, and other dangerous things. God hasn't protected him from them, he has helped him through them. Which is a much more solid thing.
He then moves on to the reason this suffering has come about - because of the mssage that he testifies to, which he points out is simply the message of the Old Testament...
vs 23
That message is indeed there if you look for it. And it is as much not there if you don't. The only time it becomes really clear is in hindsight. And that's not really a problem - forward-looking prophecies and types really are more for the encouragement of the people who read them, rather than to reveal some special knowledge about the future. Then for those who are there are the fulfilment of them, they are for backing up the veracity of the occurence. That's the purpose Paul calls upon them for.
vs 24
Seems an odd interjection to make. But then, Paul had not given Festus the full story, had he? He simply appealed to Caesar. Now Festus could have come to this conclusion through a number of different ways - he might be pro-Jewish, and just agree with the Pharisees. Or he could be non-Jewish, and think the idea of a Messiah that suffers is completely stupid. Not to mention the resurrection.
Note though that regardless of which direction Festus is coming from, he still respects Paul as a learned person.
vs 25
Paul defends himself against the insanity charge now.
vs 26
Paul makes it clear that he is directing his comments to King Agrippa, because the King is knolwedgeable about these things (which suggests he's more knowledgeable than Festus). But Paul also thinks that the suffering Messiah and the resulting Christianity epidemic would have come before Agrippa's notice too.
vs 27
What reads first off as a fairly innocuous comments comes to full force with the words behind it. Paul has defended his position as that to which the Law and the Prophets testify. So if King Agrippa believes the law and the prophets, then he believes in Christ. The suggestion here, too, is that the Jews in rejecting Christ have rejected their Torah.Nothing new in this - Jesus made the same accusation, all the more blatantly too.
vs 28
Agrippa betrays that he does indeed know all about this, because he uses the newly coined word "Christian". The Jews don't even use it - they still call it "the Way". Agrippa can feel the pressure that Paul, a prisoner, is putting on his beliefs. And so he hides behind his regal regalia and the shortness of Paul's presentation, in order to rebuff the challenge to his beliefs.
vs 29
Paul just tells it like it is. Paul hopes for a time where all of those listening to him would be converted. But he also hopes that their conversions would mean that they don't have to be placed in chains like he has been (in chains might be an idiom for arrested - not sure). That's an interesting thought - Paul sought a normalisation for Christianity so that it wouldn't be an illegal religion. So while he saw suffering as the lot of the Christian, he did not necessarily see state sanctioned suffering as part of that. A little more pragmatic than his letters seem, to me anyway.
vs 30
I guess because the proceedings were over, and they didn't want to listen anymore. Religious or moral challenges from the floor of a legal proceedings can have that effect sometimes. But Paul's going to Caesar anyway, so why not take the opportunity.
vs 31
At least they were convinced that Paul, while he might be insane or judgemental, is not a criminal.
vs 32
Alas, Agrippa would see Paul freed, but now that he's appealed to Caesar, can't see a way around it. Paul probably doesn't care - in chains or not, he's headed to where God wants him.
Paul has survived a significant amount of death threats, assassination attempts, and other dangerous things. God hasn't protected him from them, he has helped him through them. Which is a much more solid thing.
He then moves on to the reason this suffering has come about - because of the mssage that he testifies to, which he points out is simply the message of the Old Testament...
vs 23
That message is indeed there if you look for it. And it is as much not there if you don't. The only time it becomes really clear is in hindsight. And that's not really a problem - forward-looking prophecies and types really are more for the encouragement of the people who read them, rather than to reveal some special knowledge about the future. Then for those who are there are the fulfilment of them, they are for backing up the veracity of the occurence. That's the purpose Paul calls upon them for.
vs 24
Seems an odd interjection to make. But then, Paul had not given Festus the full story, had he? He simply appealed to Caesar. Now Festus could have come to this conclusion through a number of different ways - he might be pro-Jewish, and just agree with the Pharisees. Or he could be non-Jewish, and think the idea of a Messiah that suffers is completely stupid. Not to mention the resurrection.
Note though that regardless of which direction Festus is coming from, he still respects Paul as a learned person.
vs 25
Paul defends himself against the insanity charge now.
vs 26
Paul makes it clear that he is directing his comments to King Agrippa, because the King is knolwedgeable about these things (which suggests he's more knowledgeable than Festus). But Paul also thinks that the suffering Messiah and the resulting Christianity epidemic would have come before Agrippa's notice too.
vs 27
What reads first off as a fairly innocuous comments comes to full force with the words behind it. Paul has defended his position as that to which the Law and the Prophets testify. So if King Agrippa believes the law and the prophets, then he believes in Christ. The suggestion here, too, is that the Jews in rejecting Christ have rejected their Torah.Nothing new in this - Jesus made the same accusation, all the more blatantly too.
vs 28
Agrippa betrays that he does indeed know all about this, because he uses the newly coined word "Christian". The Jews don't even use it - they still call it "the Way". Agrippa can feel the pressure that Paul, a prisoner, is putting on his beliefs. And so he hides behind his regal regalia and the shortness of Paul's presentation, in order to rebuff the challenge to his beliefs.
vs 29
Paul just tells it like it is. Paul hopes for a time where all of those listening to him would be converted. But he also hopes that their conversions would mean that they don't have to be placed in chains like he has been (in chains might be an idiom for arrested - not sure). That's an interesting thought - Paul sought a normalisation for Christianity so that it wouldn't be an illegal religion. So while he saw suffering as the lot of the Christian, he did not necessarily see state sanctioned suffering as part of that. A little more pragmatic than his letters seem, to me anyway.
vs 30
I guess because the proceedings were over, and they didn't want to listen anymore. Religious or moral challenges from the floor of a legal proceedings can have that effect sometimes. But Paul's going to Caesar anyway, so why not take the opportunity.
vs 31
At least they were convinced that Paul, while he might be insane or judgemental, is not a criminal.
vs 32
Alas, Agrippa would see Paul freed, but now that he's appealed to Caesar, can't see a way around it. Paul probably doesn't care - in chains or not, he's headed to where God wants him.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Acts chapter 26
vs 11
Forcing them to blaspheme sounds just like the Jews trying to force Jesus to blaspheme. I'm surprised Paul didn't try just accusing them of blasphemy and getting them stoned anyway - that got done too.
The fact that his zealousness is expressed by travelling around outside Jerusalem is probably a bit of a mark of how insular the Jerusalem Jews were.
vs 12
Probably many of the same priests who are accusing him now.
vs 13
And so Luke starts on Paul's testimony a third time. Well, I think we've only heard it from Paul twice, but it shows us how powerful he thought his testimony was.
vs 14
In Aramaic, that's interesting. Even though Jesus had ascended, he does not speak the "holy language" of Hebrew. He speaks Aramaic. He says something new in this story too, about kicking against goads. A goad is a large pointy stick you use for encouraging livestock in a specific direction. I assume that occasionally cows would kick against the goads. So this is what Paul was doing, but it was hard for him.
vs 15
When someone appears in a bright light on the road, then calling them "Lord" is generally a good idea. Especially when it turns out you've been persecuting them. Uh oh.
vs 16
So here we see Jesus appointing Paul to his special position. If you've ever wondered why you weren't converted in a pillar of light walking between Damascus and Jerusalem, it's because you weren't first persecuting Christians, and you aren't called as the apostle to the Gentiles.
vs 17
When Jesus says "sending you to them" does he mean both Jews and Gentiles, or just to Gentiles? Them is an exclusive term. In Jewish thought, Jew + Gentile = everyone imaginable. So if Paul is called to go to everyone, why not just say that? Not a conclusive argument by any means, but it's a start.
Jesus also starts out straight away by telling Paul that he's going to need rescuing from these groups. Great start to the ministry.
vs 18
That's a fairly good summary. Did Jesus really say that, or is that Paul explaining a bit more gospel to King Agrippa under the radar? No reason for Jesus not to have said this - I mean, how much of the gospel did Paul know before this point? It at least shows the endgame of Jesus' plan - revelation of sinful position, forgiveness of sin, sanctification by faith.
vs 19
Who would be? I guess plenty of people. Jonah comes to mind.
vs 20
Wow, there's something I think we've really lost in our gospel - repent and then demonstrate that repentance by your deeds. I think the pendulum is just starting to swing back in that direction after many years of antinomianism, especially in the Brethos.
vs 21
Wait, why? Oh, because he's been travelling around preaching repentance in the name of Christ. A good enough reason for them to as any.
Forcing them to blaspheme sounds just like the Jews trying to force Jesus to blaspheme. I'm surprised Paul didn't try just accusing them of blasphemy and getting them stoned anyway - that got done too.
The fact that his zealousness is expressed by travelling around outside Jerusalem is probably a bit of a mark of how insular the Jerusalem Jews were.
vs 12
Probably many of the same priests who are accusing him now.
vs 13
And so Luke starts on Paul's testimony a third time. Well, I think we've only heard it from Paul twice, but it shows us how powerful he thought his testimony was.
vs 14
In Aramaic, that's interesting. Even though Jesus had ascended, he does not speak the "holy language" of Hebrew. He speaks Aramaic. He says something new in this story too, about kicking against goads. A goad is a large pointy stick you use for encouraging livestock in a specific direction. I assume that occasionally cows would kick against the goads. So this is what Paul was doing, but it was hard for him.
vs 15
When someone appears in a bright light on the road, then calling them "Lord" is generally a good idea. Especially when it turns out you've been persecuting them. Uh oh.
vs 16
So here we see Jesus appointing Paul to his special position. If you've ever wondered why you weren't converted in a pillar of light walking between Damascus and Jerusalem, it's because you weren't first persecuting Christians, and you aren't called as the apostle to the Gentiles.
vs 17
When Jesus says "sending you to them" does he mean both Jews and Gentiles, or just to Gentiles? Them is an exclusive term. In Jewish thought, Jew + Gentile = everyone imaginable. So if Paul is called to go to everyone, why not just say that? Not a conclusive argument by any means, but it's a start.
Jesus also starts out straight away by telling Paul that he's going to need rescuing from these groups. Great start to the ministry.
vs 18
That's a fairly good summary. Did Jesus really say that, or is that Paul explaining a bit more gospel to King Agrippa under the radar? No reason for Jesus not to have said this - I mean, how much of the gospel did Paul know before this point? It at least shows the endgame of Jesus' plan - revelation of sinful position, forgiveness of sin, sanctification by faith.
vs 19
Who would be? I guess plenty of people. Jonah comes to mind.
vs 20
Wow, there's something I think we've really lost in our gospel - repent and then demonstrate that repentance by your deeds. I think the pendulum is just starting to swing back in that direction after many years of antinomianism, especially in the Brethos.
vs 21
Wait, why? Oh, because he's been travelling around preaching repentance in the name of Christ. A good enough reason for them to as any.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Acts chapter 26
vs 1
Paul's sweeping hand gestures will be with us forever. Remember, Paul has already appealed to Caesar, so there's really no reason to defend himself to King Agrippa. Except, of course, that his defense includes the gospel.
vs 2
Start off with a bit of flattery. For Paul to think he's fortunate, that he had to wait 2 years under arrest before being able to speak to someone different than a roman governor, is surely a bit of flattery. But also, it means that God has given Paul the chance to reach out to a king - doesn't happen every day.
vs 3
I'm not exactly sure why Agrippa would be. Perhaps because of his father? Anyway, Paul is going to say a lot more to King Agrippa than he is to Festus.
vs 4
Not because of who he is, I am guessing, as much as they know how people like him are born and raised.
vs 5
But when he did become an important and well-known figure, he was well known for being a pharisaical Pharisee.
vs 6
Paul isn't yet talking about Christ and the Damascus road, you notice - he takes the Christian faith way back into Israel's history. Christianity didn't start around AD30 when Christ died. For Paul, it started when God created the earth. Christianity is a continuum, not a new creation.
vs 7
Paul sees Christianity as the fulfilment of the hope of Judaism. And fair enough, Jesus saw it that way too. That such a hope extends beyond the borders of Israel is hardly surprising. But it has its roots, and it springs from Israel, and that is also entirely to be expected. This makes the accusations against Paul sound like sectarian arguing about interpretation, rather than the idea that he's starting a new religion.
vs 8
Well, anyone who's a Saduccee already thinks it incredible. But the Pharisees believe it.
vs 9
So Paul has been there, on both sides of the coin. He started out in agreement that those preaching Christ were damaging Israel's faith.
vs 10
Paul repeats that the actions he took were on authority of the chief priests - the same people who have turned against him today (well, today and for the past few years). So they know full well who he is and who he was. Such a transformation speaks volumes in itself. But there's more.
Paul's sweeping hand gestures will be with us forever. Remember, Paul has already appealed to Caesar, so there's really no reason to defend himself to King Agrippa. Except, of course, that his defense includes the gospel.
vs 2
Start off with a bit of flattery. For Paul to think he's fortunate, that he had to wait 2 years under arrest before being able to speak to someone different than a roman governor, is surely a bit of flattery. But also, it means that God has given Paul the chance to reach out to a king - doesn't happen every day.
vs 3
I'm not exactly sure why Agrippa would be. Perhaps because of his father? Anyway, Paul is going to say a lot more to King Agrippa than he is to Festus.
vs 4
Not because of who he is, I am guessing, as much as they know how people like him are born and raised.
vs 5
But when he did become an important and well-known figure, he was well known for being a pharisaical Pharisee.
vs 6
Paul isn't yet talking about Christ and the Damascus road, you notice - he takes the Christian faith way back into Israel's history. Christianity didn't start around AD30 when Christ died. For Paul, it started when God created the earth. Christianity is a continuum, not a new creation.
vs 7
Paul sees Christianity as the fulfilment of the hope of Judaism. And fair enough, Jesus saw it that way too. That such a hope extends beyond the borders of Israel is hardly surprising. But it has its roots, and it springs from Israel, and that is also entirely to be expected. This makes the accusations against Paul sound like sectarian arguing about interpretation, rather than the idea that he's starting a new religion.
vs 8
Well, anyone who's a Saduccee already thinks it incredible. But the Pharisees believe it.
vs 9
So Paul has been there, on both sides of the coin. He started out in agreement that those preaching Christ were damaging Israel's faith.
vs 10
Paul repeats that the actions he took were on authority of the chief priests - the same people who have turned against him today (well, today and for the past few years). So they know full well who he is and who he was. Such a transformation speaks volumes in itself. But there's more.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Acts chapter 25
vs 15
Well, brought charges is a bit of a rich term... I mean, what charges have they actually brought? Really, what they did was ask for him to be condemned without actually bringing any charges.
vs 16
Which, of course, Paul had over the 2 years he was held in custody by Felix. And has now had again with Festus.
vs 17
That makes Festus sound very nice and just and fair, but remember he wanted to do the Jews a favour.
vs 18
That's true enough. For a Roman governor, it must be quite weird to have some Jews come and bring a person to you, looking for judgement, when he hasn't broken any roman laws. Can you hear the echo of Jesus and Pilate?
vs 19
That is one of the best, most succinct wrap ups of the lunacy of this debate in the eyes of a non-Jew. So feel free to laugh, but then remember what it looks like to non-Christians when Christian denominations get all sectarian and argue about points of doctrine. Not so funny now, is it.
vs 20
Festus may be putting in a grain of truth in what he says here - after all, it would be much more difficult to chase up witnesses and stuff from Caesarea. But don't forget that Luke has stated already that Festus offered a trial in Jerusalem in order to do a favour for the Jews. Perhaps he didn't know that it would mean Paul would be ambushed and killed. But regardless, there are mixed motives here.
vs 21
Which is, of course, good for Paul - because it means that he doesn't get killed, but he does get to go to Rome as God had told him he would. And it's good for Festus, because it gets him out of his hair.
vs 22
Agrippa is probably nothing more than interested in this unique case. So why not listen? It's a day's entertainment at least.
vs 23
Well, Agrippa knows how to make an entrance. You might think that Agrippa outranks Festus with an entrance like that, but really, I don't think he does. He just likes to have important looking entrances. I think Rome's official still has the muscle.
vs 24
That's a bit harsh. I mean, the Jewish Christians in both cities aren't asking for Paul to be killed. But then, perhaps they aren't speaking very loudly, and aren't prepared to cause riots over it and murder people, so they don't get listened to. Always the squeaky wheel.
vs 25
Festus didn't find anything - well, not in any final findings. He was going to keep the whole thing going and take it to Jerusalem.
vs 26
And now we get the low down on why Festus has thought this is a good idea - he can get something firm to put in a report to Caesar, so that he's not just seen as passing off some crazy person to Rome because he couldn't be bothered dealing with it.
vs 27
And I'm sure Caesar, who I think at this time is Nero, would think it unreasonable too. And Nero had the nasty habit of chopping bits off people who did unreasonable things. Or worse.
Well, brought charges is a bit of a rich term... I mean, what charges have they actually brought? Really, what they did was ask for him to be condemned without actually bringing any charges.
vs 16
Which, of course, Paul had over the 2 years he was held in custody by Felix. And has now had again with Festus.
vs 17
That makes Festus sound very nice and just and fair, but remember he wanted to do the Jews a favour.
vs 18
That's true enough. For a Roman governor, it must be quite weird to have some Jews come and bring a person to you, looking for judgement, when he hasn't broken any roman laws. Can you hear the echo of Jesus and Pilate?
vs 19
That is one of the best, most succinct wrap ups of the lunacy of this debate in the eyes of a non-Jew. So feel free to laugh, but then remember what it looks like to non-Christians when Christian denominations get all sectarian and argue about points of doctrine. Not so funny now, is it.
vs 20
Festus may be putting in a grain of truth in what he says here - after all, it would be much more difficult to chase up witnesses and stuff from Caesarea. But don't forget that Luke has stated already that Festus offered a trial in Jerusalem in order to do a favour for the Jews. Perhaps he didn't know that it would mean Paul would be ambushed and killed. But regardless, there are mixed motives here.
vs 21
Which is, of course, good for Paul - because it means that he doesn't get killed, but he does get to go to Rome as God had told him he would. And it's good for Festus, because it gets him out of his hair.
vs 22
Agrippa is probably nothing more than interested in this unique case. So why not listen? It's a day's entertainment at least.
vs 23
Well, Agrippa knows how to make an entrance. You might think that Agrippa outranks Festus with an entrance like that, but really, I don't think he does. He just likes to have important looking entrances. I think Rome's official still has the muscle.
vs 24
That's a bit harsh. I mean, the Jewish Christians in both cities aren't asking for Paul to be killed. But then, perhaps they aren't speaking very loudly, and aren't prepared to cause riots over it and murder people, so they don't get listened to. Always the squeaky wheel.
vs 25
Festus didn't find anything - well, not in any final findings. He was going to keep the whole thing going and take it to Jerusalem.
vs 26
And now we get the low down on why Festus has thought this is a good idea - he can get something firm to put in a report to Caesar, so that he's not just seen as passing off some crazy person to Rome because he couldn't be bothered dealing with it.
vs 27
And I'm sure Caesar, who I think at this time is Nero, would think it unreasonable too. And Nero had the nasty habit of chopping bits off people who did unreasonable things. Or worse.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Acts 25
vs 1
Doing a bit of a tour of the provinces I guess.
vs 2
Oh, come on. Paul's been incarcerated for 2 years, and yet they're still pressing against him. Perhaps they haven't eaten or drunk for two years, and they're really hungry? I think people who made that oath are either dead, or rescinded it. But their anger against Paul hasn't receded at all. Paul may well have still been fairly active while under house arrest in Caesarea.
vs 3
The bit about preparing an ambush to kill him really should be in brackets, as I assume they didn't reveal that part of their plan to Festus.
vs 4-5
It's a fairly reasonable judgement to make. Why move him to Jerusalem, when Festus is going back to Caesarea anyway? Who better to make a judgement than the governor? Even if Felix never did make one. That two years must have been one of great patience stretching for Paul.
vs 6
Only fair, too - if Paul's been languishing for two years, he may as well be one of the first orders of business to take care of. But I'm guessing the pestering of the Jews actually worked against them here. Festus probably would have done a few things himself first, and would have gotten around to Paul in the end, if the Jews hadn't pestered him about it.
vs 7
Charges without proof are not of much use. Just making lots of them, or having lots of people do it, or repeating them over and over, doesn't make them any more true.
vs 8
I am assuming his defense was a little more bolstered than "No I Didn't". But Luke, for the sake of what was probably repetition and unecessary, just summarises the three points - Paul hasn't broken Jewish Law, desecrated the temple, or broken Caesar's law.
vs 9
Paul still realises how dangerous this is, I am sure. Perhaps Festus doesn't - he probably thinks that the Jews just want him before the entire Sanhedrin. Or perhaps the Jews really did say they wanted to kill Paul, and Festus is thinking "What's one person to placate these people in the province I have newly acquired?"
vs 10
Dictating to Festus what he does and doesn't know is a bit rich.
vs 11
Paul, perhaps after languishing for 2 years, is just wanting to speed up the process of heading to Rome as God told him he would. He makes a valid point though - that if the charges against him can't be proved, it is unjust to hand him over to the Jews.
vs 12
I guess this gets Paul out of Festus' hair. And Festus probably thinks Paul isn't really his problem - it was Felix's problem.
vs 13
How nice of them. Who's King Agrippa? He is actually the son of Herod Agrippa I. So? Basically, he's a king of a small kingdom, and he's come to pay his respects to the new Imperial governor.
vs 14
So now Festus says "Aha, I can talk out this problem with this King, and get his opinion, and perhaps blame anything that goes wrong on him when I send him to Caesar." Also, King Agrippa had recently changed the name of his capital to Neronias, so he was probably in good with the Emperor at the time.
Doing a bit of a tour of the provinces I guess.
vs 2
Oh, come on. Paul's been incarcerated for 2 years, and yet they're still pressing against him. Perhaps they haven't eaten or drunk for two years, and they're really hungry? I think people who made that oath are either dead, or rescinded it. But their anger against Paul hasn't receded at all. Paul may well have still been fairly active while under house arrest in Caesarea.
vs 3
The bit about preparing an ambush to kill him really should be in brackets, as I assume they didn't reveal that part of their plan to Festus.
vs 4-5
It's a fairly reasonable judgement to make. Why move him to Jerusalem, when Festus is going back to Caesarea anyway? Who better to make a judgement than the governor? Even if Felix never did make one. That two years must have been one of great patience stretching for Paul.
vs 6
Only fair, too - if Paul's been languishing for two years, he may as well be one of the first orders of business to take care of. But I'm guessing the pestering of the Jews actually worked against them here. Festus probably would have done a few things himself first, and would have gotten around to Paul in the end, if the Jews hadn't pestered him about it.
vs 7
Charges without proof are not of much use. Just making lots of them, or having lots of people do it, or repeating them over and over, doesn't make them any more true.
vs 8
I am assuming his defense was a little more bolstered than "No I Didn't". But Luke, for the sake of what was probably repetition and unecessary, just summarises the three points - Paul hasn't broken Jewish Law, desecrated the temple, or broken Caesar's law.
vs 9
Paul still realises how dangerous this is, I am sure. Perhaps Festus doesn't - he probably thinks that the Jews just want him before the entire Sanhedrin. Or perhaps the Jews really did say they wanted to kill Paul, and Festus is thinking "What's one person to placate these people in the province I have newly acquired?"
vs 10
Dictating to Festus what he does and doesn't know is a bit rich.
vs 11
Paul, perhaps after languishing for 2 years, is just wanting to speed up the process of heading to Rome as God told him he would. He makes a valid point though - that if the charges against him can't be proved, it is unjust to hand him over to the Jews.
vs 12
I guess this gets Paul out of Festus' hair. And Festus probably thinks Paul isn't really his problem - it was Felix's problem.
vs 13
How nice of them. Who's King Agrippa? He is actually the son of Herod Agrippa I. So? Basically, he's a king of a small kingdom, and he's come to pay his respects to the new Imperial governor.
vs 14
So now Festus says "Aha, I can talk out this problem with this King, and get his opinion, and perhaps blame anything that goes wrong on him when I send him to Caesar." Also, King Agrippa had recently changed the name of his capital to Neronias, so he was probably in good with the Emperor at the time.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Acts chapter 24
vs 15
Of course, Felix would not have had this hope. But again, Paul is being divisive, knowing full well that not all of the Sanhedrin have this hope either. So he's aligning himself with them and against them at the same time.
vs 16
Because he believes in both eternal salvation and judgement, see. So he wants to keep his nose clean.
vs 17
That is true. Of course, the gifts would have been mostly for the church which was poor. And the offerings may have been for the sake of trying to keep the peace. But in essence what he says is true.
vs 18
So he turns his rather questionable reason for being there (that is, he was making offerings at the temple in order to placate the Christian Judaisers) into a defense against the accusations made by the Sanhedrin.
vs 19
Paul now discredits the ability of the Sanhedrin to bring charges, as Paul has not done anything against the Jews of Jerusalem. Their complaints are actually about activities that he has done outside of Jerusalem.
vs 20
Paul's allegation here being that the Sanhedrin never charged him with a crime is a powerful one, especially considering Felix knows that Paul is under threat of death from 40 men.
vs 21
Once again, the resurrection comes up to divide the Jews. But it also puts Paul and the gospel on firm footing - the resurrection, particularly of Jesus, is the key division between Paul as a Jewish Christian and the Jews as Jewish Jews.
vs 22
"Well aquainted with the Way" is very interesting. I mean, Christianity has spread a fair bit, but to think that its tenets are adequately understood by a governor, to the point where Luke describes him this way, is pretty awesome. And you would think that, were it Paul who explained it to him, that he would have mentioned it.
Now, I'm certainly not saying that Felix has accepted the Way. Only that he's got an understanding of it. It might not even be an understanding of its tenets, more an understanding of it as a movement and its political and social impact in the area?
vs 23
So it is like a house arrest situation.
vs 24
So although he was already aquainted with the Way, he wants to hear more about it, along with his wife. As I've said many times before, we must remember that there's no TV, and so entertainment is very much of the human speaky variety. So we must never assume that people were listening purely out of interest - they could just as easily be curious.
He may also have been listening to see if either himself or his wife flew into a fit of rage and felt the need to kill him for what he said.
vs 25
Either Paul was doing some serious John Edwards style fire and brimstone, or else Felix isn't the most righteous and self controlled person around.
vs 26
But here Luke gives us another motive of Felix - the desire for a bribe. That's never going to happen though, especially since Paul has been told by God that he must face trial in Rome.
vs 27
Two year Paul had his freedoms restricted in Caesarea because Felix wanted a bribe and didn't get it, and because Felix wanted to give the Jews a favour. That is just low. Felix is not a hero in this story.
And yet, Felix had ample opportunity to hear the gospel from Paul. So God was putting out the olive branch over and over (even though it was God's plan that Paul gets to plead before Caesar), and Felix just never took it up. It's incredible how much narrative theology can be packed into just one short story.
Of course, Felix would not have had this hope. But again, Paul is being divisive, knowing full well that not all of the Sanhedrin have this hope either. So he's aligning himself with them and against them at the same time.
vs 16
Because he believes in both eternal salvation and judgement, see. So he wants to keep his nose clean.
vs 17
That is true. Of course, the gifts would have been mostly for the church which was poor. And the offerings may have been for the sake of trying to keep the peace. But in essence what he says is true.
vs 18
So he turns his rather questionable reason for being there (that is, he was making offerings at the temple in order to placate the Christian Judaisers) into a defense against the accusations made by the Sanhedrin.
vs 19
Paul now discredits the ability of the Sanhedrin to bring charges, as Paul has not done anything against the Jews of Jerusalem. Their complaints are actually about activities that he has done outside of Jerusalem.
vs 20
Paul's allegation here being that the Sanhedrin never charged him with a crime is a powerful one, especially considering Felix knows that Paul is under threat of death from 40 men.
vs 21
Once again, the resurrection comes up to divide the Jews. But it also puts Paul and the gospel on firm footing - the resurrection, particularly of Jesus, is the key division between Paul as a Jewish Christian and the Jews as Jewish Jews.
vs 22
"Well aquainted with the Way" is very interesting. I mean, Christianity has spread a fair bit, but to think that its tenets are adequately understood by a governor, to the point where Luke describes him this way, is pretty awesome. And you would think that, were it Paul who explained it to him, that he would have mentioned it.
Now, I'm certainly not saying that Felix has accepted the Way. Only that he's got an understanding of it. It might not even be an understanding of its tenets, more an understanding of it as a movement and its political and social impact in the area?
vs 23
So it is like a house arrest situation.
vs 24
So although he was already aquainted with the Way, he wants to hear more about it, along with his wife. As I've said many times before, we must remember that there's no TV, and so entertainment is very much of the human speaky variety. So we must never assume that people were listening purely out of interest - they could just as easily be curious.
He may also have been listening to see if either himself or his wife flew into a fit of rage and felt the need to kill him for what he said.
vs 25
Either Paul was doing some serious John Edwards style fire and brimstone, or else Felix isn't the most righteous and self controlled person around.
vs 26
But here Luke gives us another motive of Felix - the desire for a bribe. That's never going to happen though, especially since Paul has been told by God that he must face trial in Rome.
vs 27
Two year Paul had his freedoms restricted in Caesarea because Felix wanted a bribe and didn't get it, and because Felix wanted to give the Jews a favour. That is just low. Felix is not a hero in this story.
And yet, Felix had ample opportunity to hear the gospel from Paul. So God was putting out the olive branch over and over (even though it was God's plan that Paul gets to plead before Caesar), and Felix just never took it up. It's incredible how much narrative theology can be packed into just one short story.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Acts chapter 24
vs 1
This is going to be a pretty high powered negotiation. Lots of big wigs, a lawyer, the governor - serious stuff. Not quite as serious as 40 people trying to kill you though.
vs 2
So, start with some flattery. And I don't say that lightly - the Jews, for all the reforms and peace that may have occurred, were still known as a rebellious and stubborn people when it came to their religion. We are talking a matter of years before Rome squashes Jerusalem. Felix may have brought in reforms that were pro-Jew, and so the flattery might have been more meaningful, but it's still obvious what's going on.
vs 3
So they are thankful for the reforms - I guess also there could have been governors who were less kind and less inclined to listen to the people's leaders.
vs 4
I'm sure that even if it wasn't brief, Luke will make it brief.
vs 5
As I have said before, this is a fairly one-sided and unfair argument. Although the world may not have had as much of a human rights emphasis back then, the idea that if you are upset by someone over a theological difference, and cause a riot, and then blame the riot on the person who upset you is just preposterous.
And it's not even like the Jews won such battles every time - for every time they tried it against Pilate, they had about a 50-50 reaction of apology and some sort of reform, or anger and slaughter of rioters by centurions.
Note the name - Nazarene sect. And Paul is supposedly the ringleader (forget the Apostles!).
vs 6(-7?)
Now according to Luke Paul was in no way attempting to desecrate the temple. But the idea that it could have happened is what caused the riots. Which of course allows no justice to Paul whatsoever, because large angry groups of people aren't really in the right state of mind for a fair trial.
You'll notice the NIV is missing vs 7, the TNIV pretends that vs 6 is both vs 6 and 7. While for the casual reader I guess this makes the question not appear, for the scholar it is a little disturbing. Not that they've removed the verse - that is just their practice of their translation methodology. But the lack of notation regarding a verse being missing doesn't allow for the existence of other manuscripts (which again, for the casual reader is not a big deal), and the addition of a verse number with the removal of a verse seems tacky. I prefer the NIV's leaving the number out altogether. After all, the numbers aren't scripture.
vs 8
Now that is an interesting thing to say. I am assuming that the Jews are hoping to be skilled enough in twisting Paul's words so as to make it sound like he's lying, and their presentation is the true presentation of events.
vs 9
"Yeah, what he said!"
vs 10
I think Paul is saying that since Felix has been around here a while, he knows what the Jews are like, so that when Paul describes them as a bunch of psycho rampaging rioters, then Felix will not think he's being unkind.
vs 11
Yes, that will be easy to confirm - there were riots around that time.
vs 12
So Paul says quite plainly that he wasn't causing any trouble that you could render, say, breaching the peace. He was, in fact, following the rules of the temple by undergoing the purification rituals.
vs 13
I think Paul is saying that the attributes of intent that they accuse him of can't be proved - that he set out to desecrate the temple, that he's a troublemaker, that he causes riots, and possibly even that he's the ringleader of the sect.
vs 14
Paul's defence turns into a discussion about the Way. He wants to make it clear, first of all, that he worships the Jewish God. Secondly, he wants to point out that he believes and follows the Law and the Prophets (although his silence on the issue of man-made laws and rituals is deafening).
This is going to be a pretty high powered negotiation. Lots of big wigs, a lawyer, the governor - serious stuff. Not quite as serious as 40 people trying to kill you though.
vs 2
So, start with some flattery. And I don't say that lightly - the Jews, for all the reforms and peace that may have occurred, were still known as a rebellious and stubborn people when it came to their religion. We are talking a matter of years before Rome squashes Jerusalem. Felix may have brought in reforms that were pro-Jew, and so the flattery might have been more meaningful, but it's still obvious what's going on.
vs 3
So they are thankful for the reforms - I guess also there could have been governors who were less kind and less inclined to listen to the people's leaders.
vs 4
I'm sure that even if it wasn't brief, Luke will make it brief.
vs 5
As I have said before, this is a fairly one-sided and unfair argument. Although the world may not have had as much of a human rights emphasis back then, the idea that if you are upset by someone over a theological difference, and cause a riot, and then blame the riot on the person who upset you is just preposterous.
And it's not even like the Jews won such battles every time - for every time they tried it against Pilate, they had about a 50-50 reaction of apology and some sort of reform, or anger and slaughter of rioters by centurions.
Note the name - Nazarene sect. And Paul is supposedly the ringleader (forget the Apostles!).
vs 6(-7?)
Now according to Luke Paul was in no way attempting to desecrate the temple. But the idea that it could have happened is what caused the riots. Which of course allows no justice to Paul whatsoever, because large angry groups of people aren't really in the right state of mind for a fair trial.
You'll notice the NIV is missing vs 7, the TNIV pretends that vs 6 is both vs 6 and 7. While for the casual reader I guess this makes the question not appear, for the scholar it is a little disturbing. Not that they've removed the verse - that is just their practice of their translation methodology. But the lack of notation regarding a verse being missing doesn't allow for the existence of other manuscripts (which again, for the casual reader is not a big deal), and the addition of a verse number with the removal of a verse seems tacky. I prefer the NIV's leaving the number out altogether. After all, the numbers aren't scripture.
vs 8
Now that is an interesting thing to say. I am assuming that the Jews are hoping to be skilled enough in twisting Paul's words so as to make it sound like he's lying, and their presentation is the true presentation of events.
vs 9
"Yeah, what he said!"
vs 10
I think Paul is saying that since Felix has been around here a while, he knows what the Jews are like, so that when Paul describes them as a bunch of psycho rampaging rioters, then Felix will not think he's being unkind.
vs 11
Yes, that will be easy to confirm - there were riots around that time.
vs 12
So Paul says quite plainly that he wasn't causing any trouble that you could render, say, breaching the peace. He was, in fact, following the rules of the temple by undergoing the purification rituals.
vs 13
I think Paul is saying that the attributes of intent that they accuse him of can't be proved - that he set out to desecrate the temple, that he's a troublemaker, that he causes riots, and possibly even that he's the ringleader of the sect.
vs 14
Paul's defence turns into a discussion about the Way. He wants to make it clear, first of all, that he worships the Jewish God. Secondly, he wants to point out that he believes and follows the Law and the Prophets (although his silence on the issue of man-made laws and rituals is deafening).
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Acts chapter 23
vs 23
That is a crapload of soldiers. 470 trained soldiers vs 40 starving guys - you know the outcome.
vs 24
Horses plural? I am guessing that they are to swap over when they get tired? Or for other people with him who haven't been mentioned, which I find less compelling, because you would think people being arrested with Paul would get a mention.
vs 25
I wonder if this is a true transcript of the letter, or a summary statement of what the letter may have contained. Either is possible really.
vs 26
So the commander's name was Claudius Lysias. Personal touch there.
vs 27
Well now, that isn't exactly what happened, is it? He came and rescued him because there was a riot going on, and was going to flog him, but then learned that he was a Roman citizen. But hey, he's being close enough that a little aggrandisement is only to be expected.
vs 28
Well, that was true.
vs 29
I take it he means "according to Roman law". I'm sure the sanhedrin could bump up some charges to make Paul worth killing for the purposes of Jewish law.
vs 30
The welfare of a possibly innocent man is being truly looked after in this case. Send him out of the city, with an escort of a huge number of men. Put him in the care of the governor of the area. It's a good plan. Claudius, even if he does want to paint himself in a good light, does actually care about justice being done.
vs 31
Which I'm sure means something if you look at a map.
vs 32
Even 70 cavalry on their own is a good strong guard. Plus, since he was snuck out (with 470 troops??) overnight, and is on horseback, I guess the assumption can be safely made that the people wanting to kill Paul may not even know he's out of town yet.
vs 33
So now Paul is in the charge of Governor Felix in Caesarea.
vs 34-35
Felix may have been wanting to fob off the case if it turned out that Paul was from Jerusalem anyway, or some other province. But he's from a Roman province, so he probably feels less pressure to transfer him away.
Being kept under guard in the palace (although it's "Herod's Palace" Felix actually lives there - it's just the palace Herod built for himself. He's dead now.) could be a good thing (like, living under house arrest in a palace) or a bad thing (kept in some sort of dungeon). I'm not sure which Felix is talking about here. I would have assumed that it was the good one - surely if you wanted to treat someone ill, you'd lock them in some dingy barracks prison or something.
That is a crapload of soldiers. 470 trained soldiers vs 40 starving guys - you know the outcome.
vs 24
Horses plural? I am guessing that they are to swap over when they get tired? Or for other people with him who haven't been mentioned, which I find less compelling, because you would think people being arrested with Paul would get a mention.
vs 25
I wonder if this is a true transcript of the letter, or a summary statement of what the letter may have contained. Either is possible really.
vs 26
So the commander's name was Claudius Lysias. Personal touch there.
vs 27
Well now, that isn't exactly what happened, is it? He came and rescued him because there was a riot going on, and was going to flog him, but then learned that he was a Roman citizen. But hey, he's being close enough that a little aggrandisement is only to be expected.
vs 28
Well, that was true.
vs 29
I take it he means "according to Roman law". I'm sure the sanhedrin could bump up some charges to make Paul worth killing for the purposes of Jewish law.
vs 30
The welfare of a possibly innocent man is being truly looked after in this case. Send him out of the city, with an escort of a huge number of men. Put him in the care of the governor of the area. It's a good plan. Claudius, even if he does want to paint himself in a good light, does actually care about justice being done.
vs 31
Which I'm sure means something if you look at a map.
vs 32
Even 70 cavalry on their own is a good strong guard. Plus, since he was snuck out (with 470 troops??) overnight, and is on horseback, I guess the assumption can be safely made that the people wanting to kill Paul may not even know he's out of town yet.
vs 33
So now Paul is in the charge of Governor Felix in Caesarea.
vs 34-35
Felix may have been wanting to fob off the case if it turned out that Paul was from Jerusalem anyway, or some other province. But he's from a Roman province, so he probably feels less pressure to transfer him away.
Being kept under guard in the palace (although it's "Herod's Palace" Felix actually lives there - it's just the palace Herod built for himself. He's dead now.) could be a good thing (like, living under house arrest in a palace) or a bad thing (kept in some sort of dungeon). I'm not sure which Felix is talking about here. I would have assumed that it was the good one - surely if you wanted to treat someone ill, you'd lock them in some dingy barracks prison or something.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Acts chapter 23
vs 13
That's a pretty serious plot.
vs 14
So these guys weren't even chief priests. They were just concerned citizens who had decided to get rid of a problem they saw in their town. They report their situation to the chief priests, so I am assuming they assumed they would have support in this venture. Which, really, should strike us as odd and disturbing, but if the books of Luke and Acts haven't painted the jewish heirarchy in a negative enough light by now, then I think we missed something.
vs 15
Simple enough plan - perhaps the lack of food makes them want to end it quickly. But we see that the chief priests and the Sanhedrin are totally in on this plot.
vs 16
But aha, they didn't rely on Paul's nephew being there! Spies everywhere! I don't know if we know Paul's greater family's attitude towards Christianity. Let's see if these verses shed any light on it for us.
vs 17
Perhaps not. In any case, the young man is of great use to keeping Paul alive, regardless of being a Christian or not. It's entirely possible he's just a Jew who cares about family. Fairly common.
vs 18
One of those setup verses which keeps the story going with a bit of repetition so we remember where we're at.
vs 19
After a few verses, we might actually get to something interesting. I guess it is good that the commander takes the time to listen to the young man tell his story.
vs 20-21
And so the story is repeated, along with a plea to the commander not to give into their wishes.
vs 22
In saying this, the commander protects Paul's nephew, but also leaves himself room to do sneaky things. He's not having a prisoner lynched on his watch. Well, not a Roman citizen anyway.
That's a pretty serious plot.
vs 14
So these guys weren't even chief priests. They were just concerned citizens who had decided to get rid of a problem they saw in their town. They report their situation to the chief priests, so I am assuming they assumed they would have support in this venture. Which, really, should strike us as odd and disturbing, but if the books of Luke and Acts haven't painted the jewish heirarchy in a negative enough light by now, then I think we missed something.
vs 15
Simple enough plan - perhaps the lack of food makes them want to end it quickly. But we see that the chief priests and the Sanhedrin are totally in on this plot.
vs 16
But aha, they didn't rely on Paul's nephew being there! Spies everywhere! I don't know if we know Paul's greater family's attitude towards Christianity. Let's see if these verses shed any light on it for us.
vs 17
Perhaps not. In any case, the young man is of great use to keeping Paul alive, regardless of being a Christian or not. It's entirely possible he's just a Jew who cares about family. Fairly common.
vs 18
One of those setup verses which keeps the story going with a bit of repetition so we remember where we're at.
vs 19
After a few verses, we might actually get to something interesting. I guess it is good that the commander takes the time to listen to the young man tell his story.
vs 20-21
And so the story is repeated, along with a plea to the commander not to give into their wishes.
vs 22
In saying this, the commander protects Paul's nephew, but also leaves himself room to do sneaky things. He's not having a prisoner lynched on his watch. Well, not a Roman citizen anyway.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Acts chapter 23
vs 1
Paul, now standing in front of the assembly of religious leaders that the centurion commander has drummed up, makes this statement about his actions. Paul lived by his conscience. It apparently told him both to kill Christians, and then to live as one. His point is not that he is perfect, only that he desires to serve God.
vs 2
Wouldn't even do it himself, the big girl's blouse. Imagine ordering someone to hit someone else in the mouth. So wrong. And this still while Paul is officially in the custody of Rome.
vs 3
Paul responds in a 'loving way' by calling the priests hypocrites and questioning their right to judge anyone.
vs 4
You mean the same high priest who ordered he cop a blow to the face for saying that he serves God in good conscience? It is difficult to have respect for foolish hypocrites that want to do you harm.
vs 5
Paul retracts his statement, though, on the basis of his respect for God's word. This also shows that Paul isn't quite up to speed on the leadership quarrels of the temple of Jerusalem.
vs 6
This is a shrewd political move - because the leadership is split on this issue of the resurrection, between Saduccees and Pharisees, he knows he can bring up a division if he makes such a statement.
vs 7
And it worked.
vs 8
Luke gives us gentiles a quick wrapup on how Paul managed this. Just one more marker about the wide nature of the audience for this book.
vs 9
And so out comes disputable argument number two. Paul just sits back and lets all this happen for the moment. It gives him a reprieve, shows the commander what he's got to deal with, and also instantly gives him a few voices of support amongst his rivals.
vs 10
So even in arguing amongst themselves, the sanhedrin were going to tear Paul to bits! And Paul is virtually innocent of everything - his opponents can't even agree with each other! Paul is once again taken into 'protective custody'.
vs 11
God here makes it clear to Paul what he has to do. He might seem stubborn in the future passages, but Paul has a clear and distinct message which he has to take to Rome. That is God's command to him.
vs 12
Smart move? I think not.If you think someone's trying to kill you, just look for the person panting for water who's lost a lot of weight and is too weak to do much. Shows they were serious though.
Paul, now standing in front of the assembly of religious leaders that the centurion commander has drummed up, makes this statement about his actions. Paul lived by his conscience. It apparently told him both to kill Christians, and then to live as one. His point is not that he is perfect, only that he desires to serve God.
vs 2
Wouldn't even do it himself, the big girl's blouse. Imagine ordering someone to hit someone else in the mouth. So wrong. And this still while Paul is officially in the custody of Rome.
vs 3
Paul responds in a 'loving way' by calling the priests hypocrites and questioning their right to judge anyone.
vs 4
You mean the same high priest who ordered he cop a blow to the face for saying that he serves God in good conscience? It is difficult to have respect for foolish hypocrites that want to do you harm.
vs 5
Paul retracts his statement, though, on the basis of his respect for God's word. This also shows that Paul isn't quite up to speed on the leadership quarrels of the temple of Jerusalem.
vs 6
This is a shrewd political move - because the leadership is split on this issue of the resurrection, between Saduccees and Pharisees, he knows he can bring up a division if he makes such a statement.
vs 7
And it worked.
vs 8
Luke gives us gentiles a quick wrapup on how Paul managed this. Just one more marker about the wide nature of the audience for this book.
vs 9
And so out comes disputable argument number two. Paul just sits back and lets all this happen for the moment. It gives him a reprieve, shows the commander what he's got to deal with, and also instantly gives him a few voices of support amongst his rivals.
vs 10
So even in arguing amongst themselves, the sanhedrin were going to tear Paul to bits! And Paul is virtually innocent of everything - his opponents can't even agree with each other! Paul is once again taken into 'protective custody'.
vs 11
God here makes it clear to Paul what he has to do. He might seem stubborn in the future passages, but Paul has a clear and distinct message which he has to take to Rome. That is God's command to him.
vs 12
Smart move? I think not.If you think someone's trying to kill you, just look for the person panting for water who's lost a lot of weight and is too weak to do much. Shows they were serious though.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Acts chapter 22
vs 21
So we see here that it was not because of Paul's wonderful ability or his love for non-Jews that he was sent out to the gentiles. It was because of his noteriety among Jewish Christians as a murderer and persecutor. God does not force Paul onto the Jews - his plan is to utilise his skills and gifts where they can be useful but also where he will not cause trouble.
vs 22
So, then, you can see the basic attitude of Jews to gentiles on extension from their attitude towards someone who thinks God loves them enough to send Paul out to them. This was what started the riot in the first place - that they thought Paul had been sneaking gentiles into the Temple.
vs 23
I don't know what all this means exactly - to me the throwing off cloaks sounds like preparations for stoning. The dust flinging I think is a part of mourning or repentance to God? Just guessing though.
vs 24
What a lovely law enforcement system - because enough people don't like you that they are rioting, we flog you, then interrogate you to see why it's your fault. As I said - easier to blame one person than to blame those who riot.
vs 25
Paul must have been thanking his lucky stars for his citizenship at this stage. It didn't stop him getting flogged last time, but this time he obviously feels he would rather not suffer that. I guess it's a different purpose that he has in coming to Jerusalem.
vs 26
What indeed? Can't have Roman citizens on holiday in Jerusalem getting mobbed by psycopath Jews.
vs 27-28
I'm assuming that this means Paul's parents were citizens (well, father anyway). The commander is also a citizen, but he paid out for his. Perhaps Paul didn't look like the kind of rich individual who could afford to pay for citizenship. Perhaps the commander saw Paul as Jewish, and thought that therefore he couldn't have been born a citizen. He could even have been intimating that if Paul's that rich, he could just pay them to leave him be. Anyway, Paul sets him straight.
vs 29
You can't just go around arresting citizens. Everyone's really on edge now. It's a delicate situation. How much flogging do you get for arresting Roman citizens for no reason I wonder?
vs 30
The commander has a problem - he has a city full of people who cause riots and make problems because of one man, who happens to be a Roman citizen. So he seeks to solve the problem by having a round table conference. He wants to do everything by the book now.
Who will win the legal battle? Find out tomorrow!
So we see here that it was not because of Paul's wonderful ability or his love for non-Jews that he was sent out to the gentiles. It was because of his noteriety among Jewish Christians as a murderer and persecutor. God does not force Paul onto the Jews - his plan is to utilise his skills and gifts where they can be useful but also where he will not cause trouble.
vs 22
So, then, you can see the basic attitude of Jews to gentiles on extension from their attitude towards someone who thinks God loves them enough to send Paul out to them. This was what started the riot in the first place - that they thought Paul had been sneaking gentiles into the Temple.
vs 23
I don't know what all this means exactly - to me the throwing off cloaks sounds like preparations for stoning. The dust flinging I think is a part of mourning or repentance to God? Just guessing though.
vs 24
What a lovely law enforcement system - because enough people don't like you that they are rioting, we flog you, then interrogate you to see why it's your fault. As I said - easier to blame one person than to blame those who riot.
vs 25
Paul must have been thanking his lucky stars for his citizenship at this stage. It didn't stop him getting flogged last time, but this time he obviously feels he would rather not suffer that. I guess it's a different purpose that he has in coming to Jerusalem.
vs 26
What indeed? Can't have Roman citizens on holiday in Jerusalem getting mobbed by psycopath Jews.
vs 27-28
I'm assuming that this means Paul's parents were citizens (well, father anyway). The commander is also a citizen, but he paid out for his. Perhaps Paul didn't look like the kind of rich individual who could afford to pay for citizenship. Perhaps the commander saw Paul as Jewish, and thought that therefore he couldn't have been born a citizen. He could even have been intimating that if Paul's that rich, he could just pay them to leave him be. Anyway, Paul sets him straight.
vs 29
You can't just go around arresting citizens. Everyone's really on edge now. It's a delicate situation. How much flogging do you get for arresting Roman citizens for no reason I wonder?
vs 30
The commander has a problem - he has a city full of people who cause riots and make problems because of one man, who happens to be a Roman citizen. So he seeks to solve the problem by having a round table conference. He wants to do everything by the book now.
Who will win the legal battle? Find out tomorrow!
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Acts chapter 22
vs 11
I'm not sure if people get blinded by being struck by lightning, so it might just be that it was a radiant holy light. Which only blinded him.
vs 12
So he has the Jewish credentials. Not necessarily a Jew, but was respected by them.
vs 13
A miraculous healing. It is a moment by moment thing. Not a gradual fading of lack of vision or anything like that. And thoroughly to be expected when God has revealed himself, for him to authenticate his message by miracles.
vs 14
It is a pretty special thing to be chosen for. It's certainly not a regular occurence. Even with Jesus walking around for 3 years in his ministry, how many of the world's population got to see that?
vs 15
Ananias got to speak possibly one of the most important words of prophecy over someone in the history of the church. I don't think even he would have realised just how far Paul's witness would go.
vs 16
What a great guy! I'd love to say this to some people sometimes. What are you waiting for? Get on with it!
"Wash your sins away" is a very interesting thing to say about baptism. We'd never say that. We'd say that it was Christ, not baptism, that washes our sins away. Ananias just says it.
vs 17
Now I've never had this happen to me, but then I've probably never been in a position where I was about to get my ass whipped for being a Christian either.
vs 18
This must have been a truly sad state for Paul, who loves his fellow Jews deeply. For God to tell him that they, in the centre of their capital, would not accept their own God's testimony about himself, would have been a big shock.
vs 19-20
Paul is responding to God with what I think is very normal and human wisdom. He's the guy who was pre-eminent in the persecution and killing of Christians. He's a well known Jewish figure. He's had the massive conversion experience from one side to the other, so he should be able to see both sides, and explain most clearly to the Jews, right?
It is actually ok to question God. Now, as I said, I've never fallen into a trance and had the opportunity where I've thought I was going to get a verbal reply from God on the spot. But even in my regular prayers, I still question God's activities. But I preface it, as Paul did, with "Lord". Just because I don't understand it, doesn't mean that God is wrong. He is Lord, I acknowledge that. I also acknowledge that I'm a pea. But I'm a thinking pea, and I am allowed to question.
I'm not sure if people get blinded by being struck by lightning, so it might just be that it was a radiant holy light. Which only blinded him.
vs 12
So he has the Jewish credentials. Not necessarily a Jew, but was respected by them.
vs 13
A miraculous healing. It is a moment by moment thing. Not a gradual fading of lack of vision or anything like that. And thoroughly to be expected when God has revealed himself, for him to authenticate his message by miracles.
vs 14
It is a pretty special thing to be chosen for. It's certainly not a regular occurence. Even with Jesus walking around for 3 years in his ministry, how many of the world's population got to see that?
vs 15
Ananias got to speak possibly one of the most important words of prophecy over someone in the history of the church. I don't think even he would have realised just how far Paul's witness would go.
vs 16
What a great guy! I'd love to say this to some people sometimes. What are you waiting for? Get on with it!
"Wash your sins away" is a very interesting thing to say about baptism. We'd never say that. We'd say that it was Christ, not baptism, that washes our sins away. Ananias just says it.
vs 17
Now I've never had this happen to me, but then I've probably never been in a position where I was about to get my ass whipped for being a Christian either.
vs 18
This must have been a truly sad state for Paul, who loves his fellow Jews deeply. For God to tell him that they, in the centre of their capital, would not accept their own God's testimony about himself, would have been a big shock.
vs 19-20
Paul is responding to God with what I think is very normal and human wisdom. He's the guy who was pre-eminent in the persecution and killing of Christians. He's a well known Jewish figure. He's had the massive conversion experience from one side to the other, so he should be able to see both sides, and explain most clearly to the Jews, right?
It is actually ok to question God. Now, as I said, I've never fallen into a trance and had the opportunity where I've thought I was going to get a verbal reply from God on the spot. But even in my regular prayers, I still question God's activities. But I preface it, as Paul did, with "Lord". Just because I don't understand it, doesn't mean that God is wrong. He is Lord, I acknowledge that. I also acknowledge that I'm a pea. But I'm a thinking pea, and I am allowed to question.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Acts chapter 22
vs 1
This marks out Paul's persecutors as mainly men. I am guessing women weren't allowed to go around rioting. Even if they were, perhaps it was disrespectful to address them directly.
"Brothers and Fathers" is an interesting term of address. It assumes either kids or at least siblings. Which is a very interesting thing about the culture.
vs 2
So, at least his little linguistic trick has got their attention.
vs 3
We are about to learn a lot about Paul in this section.
So even though he was born outside Jerusalem, he grew up there, I'm guessing during his rabbinical training. His mentor's name is important - otherwise why record it? And we are fully aware of his zeal from Luke's previous description of his life the first time. Remember, repetition is the key to emphasis in ancient texts.
vs 4
He openly admits that he has done this, although by now it is probably some years ago that he was a frontrunner in the persecution of the Way.
vs 5
Paul backs up his words with evidence from the high-ups, and shows just how determined he was to rid the world of Christians - he was even prepared to travel outside of Jerusalem and bring them back for 'justice'.
vs 6
Lightning? Or just a bright heavenly light? Who can say.
vs 7
That's right, his name is also Saul.
It has just struck me that Paul's focus on the unity of Christ with believers is fundamental to his conversion. Jesus doesn't ask "Why do you persecute my followers?" but "Why do you persecute me?"
vs 8
Uh oh. At about this time, Paul is boned.
vs 9
This is one of the few first-hand eye-witness accounts of some spiritual happening to someone in the Bible which also describes what others around him could or could not see. Imagine if you got hit by the lightning (or whatever) of God - all your friends might see you get hit, but they don't hear the voices. So easy to think you're crazy.
vs 10
Now we know from the third recording of this story (which comes later) that there is more that Jesus says to Paul. However, look at what Jesus replies to Paul here - you will be told what you are to do once you hit Damascus. That is, It is entirely possible that the majority of Paul's understanding of Jesus, Christianity and his own mission came not directly from Jesus on the Damascus road, but afterwards in Damascus through mentoring and prayer, just like the rest of us.
This marks out Paul's persecutors as mainly men. I am guessing women weren't allowed to go around rioting. Even if they were, perhaps it was disrespectful to address them directly.
"Brothers and Fathers" is an interesting term of address. It assumes either kids or at least siblings. Which is a very interesting thing about the culture.
vs 2
So, at least his little linguistic trick has got their attention.
vs 3
We are about to learn a lot about Paul in this section.
So even though he was born outside Jerusalem, he grew up there, I'm guessing during his rabbinical training. His mentor's name is important - otherwise why record it? And we are fully aware of his zeal from Luke's previous description of his life the first time. Remember, repetition is the key to emphasis in ancient texts.
vs 4
He openly admits that he has done this, although by now it is probably some years ago that he was a frontrunner in the persecution of the Way.
vs 5
Paul backs up his words with evidence from the high-ups, and shows just how determined he was to rid the world of Christians - he was even prepared to travel outside of Jerusalem and bring them back for 'justice'.
vs 6
Lightning? Or just a bright heavenly light? Who can say.
vs 7
That's right, his name is also Saul.
It has just struck me that Paul's focus on the unity of Christ with believers is fundamental to his conversion. Jesus doesn't ask "Why do you persecute my followers?" but "Why do you persecute me?"
vs 8
Uh oh. At about this time, Paul is boned.
vs 9
This is one of the few first-hand eye-witness accounts of some spiritual happening to someone in the Bible which also describes what others around him could or could not see. Imagine if you got hit by the lightning (or whatever) of God - all your friends might see you get hit, but they don't hear the voices. So easy to think you're crazy.
vs 10
Now we know from the third recording of this story (which comes later) that there is more that Jesus says to Paul. However, look at what Jesus replies to Paul here - you will be told what you are to do once you hit Damascus. That is, It is entirely possible that the majority of Paul's understanding of Jesus, Christianity and his own mission came not directly from Jesus on the Damascus road, but afterwards in Damascus through mentoring and prayer, just like the rest of us.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Acts chapter 21
vs 31
That is, in the middle of trying to kill Paul, news just happened to get to the Roman commander that a riot was taking place in his city.
vs 32
They were BEATING PAUL TO DEATH. Don't forget that. And they only stopped because Roman soldiers turned up.
vs 33
The assumption, of course, being that this mob justice was valid, and that Paul actually was a criminal.
Do you know why it would be easier to blame Paul for all these riots at every city he goes to? Because it's easier to blame one person than the entire group of Jews that constantly causes the riots.
vs 34
Finally we have some sense. You might almost think that the commander is putting Paul into protective custody. I'm not sure if that's something that was done back then. Probably not formally, although I'm sure that with Paul in chains it would calm the city down a bit, and that is good for the Romans.
vs 35
Didn't quite work that way though. Perhaps it was a sense that justice should be done, and people should actually be found guilty before they're beaten to death in the streets.
vs 36
Shouting wasn't all they were doing, apparently.
vs 37
Paul, now that he's got some soldiers protecting him, is bold enough to speak to the commander. The commander questions him, firstly about his language.
vs 38
He then asks him if he's a certain criminal. An Egyptian of some sort. Obviously this isn't anything close to Paul.
vs 39
Paul's reply is that he's a Jew, not an Egyptian. He might also be suggesting his Roman citizenship, although he might as easily be suggesting he's a citizen of heaven. He then asks if he can address the crowd. Remember - this is a person who was being beaten to death, asking if he can give a speech to the crowd that was rioting to kill him. That is a risk.
vs 40
But a risk that is granted.
Paul does the big sweeping arm thing I guess to shut everyone up. Perhaps there's some sort of Rabbinical sign you can do to make people quiet. And then he addresses them in Aramaic - either the street language being used at the time, so Paul is wanting maximum coverage, or a respected language to show that he's a Jew and he knows the Jerusalem scene.
That is, in the middle of trying to kill Paul, news just happened to get to the Roman commander that a riot was taking place in his city.
vs 32
They were BEATING PAUL TO DEATH. Don't forget that. And they only stopped because Roman soldiers turned up.
vs 33
The assumption, of course, being that this mob justice was valid, and that Paul actually was a criminal.
Do you know why it would be easier to blame Paul for all these riots at every city he goes to? Because it's easier to blame one person than the entire group of Jews that constantly causes the riots.
vs 34
Finally we have some sense. You might almost think that the commander is putting Paul into protective custody. I'm not sure if that's something that was done back then. Probably not formally, although I'm sure that with Paul in chains it would calm the city down a bit, and that is good for the Romans.
vs 35
Didn't quite work that way though. Perhaps it was a sense that justice should be done, and people should actually be found guilty before they're beaten to death in the streets.
vs 36
Shouting wasn't all they were doing, apparently.
vs 37
Paul, now that he's got some soldiers protecting him, is bold enough to speak to the commander. The commander questions him, firstly about his language.
vs 38
He then asks him if he's a certain criminal. An Egyptian of some sort. Obviously this isn't anything close to Paul.
vs 39
Paul's reply is that he's a Jew, not an Egyptian. He might also be suggesting his Roman citizenship, although he might as easily be suggesting he's a citizen of heaven. He then asks if he can address the crowd. Remember - this is a person who was being beaten to death, asking if he can give a speech to the crowd that was rioting to kill him. That is a risk.
vs 40
But a risk that is granted.
Paul does the big sweeping arm thing I guess to shut everyone up. Perhaps there's some sort of Rabbinical sign you can do to make people quiet. And then he addresses them in Aramaic - either the street language being used at the time, so Paul is wanting maximum coverage, or a respected language to show that he's a Jew and he knows the Jerusalem scene.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Acts chapter 21
vs 21
As far as I know, this isn't true. However, it could be. I mean, when you look at the letters that Paul has wrote to the churches, they don't have "if you're a jew" and "if you're a gentile" sections. So Paul's words are fairly focused onto the gentile sections of the church, and I guess that the jews could feel as if he was telling them to get with the program and ditch the law.
vs 22
The elders seem to think that Paul's gonna be in trouble, not when the Jews find out, but when the Jewish Christians find out! It makes me wonder just how Christian as opposed to Jewish the Jerusalem church really was.
vs 23
Who knows what kind of vow? FF Bruce assumes it is the cleansing for a temporary Nazerite vow, but I don't know that this is specified in the actual text. It's as good as any - the idea is that these men are taking a vow in some sort of way that involves following ancient customs.
vs 24
Their purpose is clear - the idea is to make Paul publically noticed as one who follows the law himself and has respect for it.
vs 25
This is a repetition of the Jerusalem council letter. We see in Paul's letter to the Corinthians his attitude to eating meat sacrificed to idols, which should make it obvious to us that the position of the Jerusalem church was a temporary measure for the sake of unity, rather than for some sort of holy cleanness.
vs 26
Ahh, now, this gives us more insight into the kind of vow it was. FF Bruce is a smart cookie. It is the seven days of purification that marks it out as a Nazerite vow.
vs 27
Note that these are not the Jews that Paul was meant to be satisfying with his purification. He was doing this to satisfy Jewish Christians - these are Jewish Jews from the provinces.
vs 28
Woah, gentiles in the temple? Did they get it wrong, or did they just lie? I wouldn't put it past them - they have done all sorts of savage and terrible things to try and stop Paul. And of course, we know they are Jews, because they are trying to start another riot.
vs 29
Well, Luke doesn't assume they are lying, merely that they are making an ass out of u and umption.
vs 30
Running! This all happens so quickly that people are forced to run from the ends of the city to come and take part in seizing Paul. It is such a big deal that, to prevent his escape, they close the city gates!
As far as I know, this isn't true. However, it could be. I mean, when you look at the letters that Paul has wrote to the churches, they don't have "if you're a jew" and "if you're a gentile" sections. So Paul's words are fairly focused onto the gentile sections of the church, and I guess that the jews could feel as if he was telling them to get with the program and ditch the law.
vs 22
The elders seem to think that Paul's gonna be in trouble, not when the Jews find out, but when the Jewish Christians find out! It makes me wonder just how Christian as opposed to Jewish the Jerusalem church really was.
vs 23
Who knows what kind of vow? FF Bruce assumes it is the cleansing for a temporary Nazerite vow, but I don't know that this is specified in the actual text. It's as good as any - the idea is that these men are taking a vow in some sort of way that involves following ancient customs.
vs 24
Their purpose is clear - the idea is to make Paul publically noticed as one who follows the law himself and has respect for it.
vs 25
This is a repetition of the Jerusalem council letter. We see in Paul's letter to the Corinthians his attitude to eating meat sacrificed to idols, which should make it obvious to us that the position of the Jerusalem church was a temporary measure for the sake of unity, rather than for some sort of holy cleanness.
vs 26
Ahh, now, this gives us more insight into the kind of vow it was. FF Bruce is a smart cookie. It is the seven days of purification that marks it out as a Nazerite vow.
vs 27
Note that these are not the Jews that Paul was meant to be satisfying with his purification. He was doing this to satisfy Jewish Christians - these are Jewish Jews from the provinces.
vs 28
Woah, gentiles in the temple? Did they get it wrong, or did they just lie? I wouldn't put it past them - they have done all sorts of savage and terrible things to try and stop Paul. And of course, we know they are Jews, because they are trying to start another riot.
vs 29
Well, Luke doesn't assume they are lying, merely that they are making an ass out of u and umption.
vs 30
Running! This all happens so quickly that people are forced to run from the ends of the city to come and take part in seizing Paul. It is such a big deal that, to prevent his escape, they close the city gates!
Monday, February 04, 2008
Acts chapter 21
vs 11
Sounds an awful lot like a prophecy of what happened to Jesus. Paul has been warned many times, although this one is particularly well illustrated.
vs 12
So now even Luke and Paul's closest people are desperate to see him not go to Jerusalem.
vs 13
Paul sees the trip as necessary, and sees it as God's will that he goes. Yes, he may be bound and brought to trial. Yes, he may even be killed. But if that is God's will, then he will do it willingly. The concern that his friends and followers has for him is truly heartwrenching for Paul - he probably isn't keen on being bound and beaten either. But he has to ignore his own concerns, and even the concerns of his good friends, for the sake of following God's will.
vs 14
And really, what else can you do but take it to God, and say that if it is his will, it will or won't happen the way he intends? But there is obviously a keen division of understanding of God's will between Paul and his followers, even Luke! So we must not be so naive to think that divisions over God's will never happened in the first century church.
vs 15
So now is the final leg of the trip. Outcome is as yet unknown.
vs 16
Paul's entourage grows a little as people from Caesarea follow him, and he stops at the house of Mnason, who I am sure none of us know, but meant something to people who'd met him.
vs 17
Well, at least someone was glad to see Paul enter Jerusalem.
vs 18
Like another Jerusalem council. When it says all the elders were present, that doesn't necessarily mean all the apostles.
vs 19
Reporting is so vital to Paul's ministry - he does it regularly to all the churches that he visits, especially those that he sees as being in leadership over his ministry.
vs 20
That's an interesting statement to make, regarding the number of Jews that have believed. This may be for Paul's encouragement, but they are also talking about the zeal of these Jews for the Law. Paul was on the other side of the argument at the Jerusalem Council on this matter, so it may well be that this is a warning to him. But it will surely be fleshed out... tomorrow!
Sounds an awful lot like a prophecy of what happened to Jesus. Paul has been warned many times, although this one is particularly well illustrated.
vs 12
So now even Luke and Paul's closest people are desperate to see him not go to Jerusalem.
vs 13
Paul sees the trip as necessary, and sees it as God's will that he goes. Yes, he may be bound and brought to trial. Yes, he may even be killed. But if that is God's will, then he will do it willingly. The concern that his friends and followers has for him is truly heartwrenching for Paul - he probably isn't keen on being bound and beaten either. But he has to ignore his own concerns, and even the concerns of his good friends, for the sake of following God's will.
vs 14
And really, what else can you do but take it to God, and say that if it is his will, it will or won't happen the way he intends? But there is obviously a keen division of understanding of God's will between Paul and his followers, even Luke! So we must not be so naive to think that divisions over God's will never happened in the first century church.
vs 15
So now is the final leg of the trip. Outcome is as yet unknown.
vs 16
Paul's entourage grows a little as people from Caesarea follow him, and he stops at the house of Mnason, who I am sure none of us know, but meant something to people who'd met him.
vs 17
Well, at least someone was glad to see Paul enter Jerusalem.
vs 18
Like another Jerusalem council. When it says all the elders were present, that doesn't necessarily mean all the apostles.
vs 19
Reporting is so vital to Paul's ministry - he does it regularly to all the churches that he visits, especially those that he sees as being in leadership over his ministry.
vs 20
That's an interesting statement to make, regarding the number of Jews that have believed. This may be for Paul's encouragement, but they are also talking about the zeal of these Jews for the Law. Paul was on the other side of the argument at the Jerusalem Council on this matter, so it may well be that this is a warning to him. But it will surely be fleshed out... tomorrow!
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Acts chapter 21
vs 1
And so the sea adventures start again, as they make their way back to Jerusalem.
vs 2
It's almost like they hail boats like taxis. I guess you just jump on the next boat leaving, and ask if they'll take passengers.
vs 3
So they are now back on the coast of the Holy Land.
vs 4
Now what exactly does "through the Spirit" mean? Does it mean that they were indeed speaking the word of God to Paul? In which case, why did he go?
So we have to assume that it means something else. FF Bruce figures that through the Spirit, some of those at Tyre discovered the future, and saw that Paul was going to suffer, and so told him not to go. But Paul had a job to do, and so went to achieve it regardless of suffering. It's as good an explaination as any.
vs 5
It's a very sweet picture. And he'd only been with them 7 days.
vs 6
Yet another ship! Was it a keenness to get there quick? They could have walked from Tyre. Perhaps this is a measure of how old Paul is now?
vs 7
Another overnight stopover. How glad I am that travel has sped up - although mostly because I hate boats.
vs 8
That is, one of the seven who were appointed by the apostles I believe. Interesting that he was appointed to look over the affairs of the Jerusalem church - what is he doing living in Caesarea? Perhaps he had his house there, but lived in Jerusalem?
vs 9
So perhaps they maintained the house. Perhaps he had more than one?
vs 10
So you can see how close they are to Jerusalem. I think, from the description of the travel, while they are pushing forward, they are not going full steam ahead. They are travelling slowly, methinks. As I said, if Paul is old, then that would make sense.
What does the prophet have to say to Paul? Find out next week!
And so the sea adventures start again, as they make their way back to Jerusalem.
vs 2
It's almost like they hail boats like taxis. I guess you just jump on the next boat leaving, and ask if they'll take passengers.
vs 3
So they are now back on the coast of the Holy Land.
vs 4
Now what exactly does "through the Spirit" mean? Does it mean that they were indeed speaking the word of God to Paul? In which case, why did he go?
So we have to assume that it means something else. FF Bruce figures that through the Spirit, some of those at Tyre discovered the future, and saw that Paul was going to suffer, and so told him not to go. But Paul had a job to do, and so went to achieve it regardless of suffering. It's as good an explaination as any.
vs 5
It's a very sweet picture. And he'd only been with them 7 days.
vs 6
Yet another ship! Was it a keenness to get there quick? They could have walked from Tyre. Perhaps this is a measure of how old Paul is now?
vs 7
Another overnight stopover. How glad I am that travel has sped up - although mostly because I hate boats.
vs 8
That is, one of the seven who were appointed by the apostles I believe. Interesting that he was appointed to look over the affairs of the Jerusalem church - what is he doing living in Caesarea? Perhaps he had his house there, but lived in Jerusalem?
vs 9
So perhaps they maintained the house. Perhaps he had more than one?
vs 10
So you can see how close they are to Jerusalem. I think, from the description of the travel, while they are pushing forward, they are not going full steam ahead. They are travelling slowly, methinks. As I said, if Paul is old, then that would make sense.
What does the prophet have to say to Paul? Find out next week!
Friday, February 01, 2008
Acts chapter 20
vs 31
It is so important to Paul that they heed his message about false teaching. They have to stick to the faith, or else all is lost. Right from the beginning he obviously knew that this danger was a clear and present one.
Did Paul spend a whole three years there? Funny how time flies in the Bible narratives.
vs 32
These are obviously final words. As always, Paul's focus is on the gospel, and the power contained in it, which is for the eternal inheritance. But it's also about relationship with the family of God.
vs 33
That is, he has lived within the means he provided for himself.
vs 34
Here again is evidence of the tentmaking ministry of Paul, which he so obviously used to supply his needs during ministry. It brings up an interesting question. Paul himself says that a worker is worth their wages. But yet he turns down payment. Or does he? If he does, then it means that the church was either too small to support him, or too poor, or that he was afraid that the culture of the thing would make a negative impact on the gospel.
vs 35
Ahhh, so Paul in fact makes out that his unwillingness to receive payment is a show to the church of the necessity for the church to help the weak. Paul came and sacrificially gave of himself to help the church there, and in so doing modelled for them the way they should work for the weak.
vs 36
Ooh, a verse about kneeling to pray! Haven't ever noticed that before.
vs 37
Funny how some people think it's absolutely necessary to pray on their knees, but how many weep and embrace and kiss each other in a situation like this?
vs 38
I can imagine that it can get like this on the mission field, when a missionary leaves. All the people probably get really upset, because they are seeing their spiritual messenger leave, and to never come back! And I'm sure Paul did his fair share of weeping too.
It is so important to Paul that they heed his message about false teaching. They have to stick to the faith, or else all is lost. Right from the beginning he obviously knew that this danger was a clear and present one.
Did Paul spend a whole three years there? Funny how time flies in the Bible narratives.
vs 32
These are obviously final words. As always, Paul's focus is on the gospel, and the power contained in it, which is for the eternal inheritance. But it's also about relationship with the family of God.
vs 33
That is, he has lived within the means he provided for himself.
vs 34
Here again is evidence of the tentmaking ministry of Paul, which he so obviously used to supply his needs during ministry. It brings up an interesting question. Paul himself says that a worker is worth their wages. But yet he turns down payment. Or does he? If he does, then it means that the church was either too small to support him, or too poor, or that he was afraid that the culture of the thing would make a negative impact on the gospel.
vs 35
Ahhh, so Paul in fact makes out that his unwillingness to receive payment is a show to the church of the necessity for the church to help the weak. Paul came and sacrificially gave of himself to help the church there, and in so doing modelled for them the way they should work for the weak.
vs 36
Ooh, a verse about kneeling to pray! Haven't ever noticed that before.
vs 37
Funny how some people think it's absolutely necessary to pray on their knees, but how many weep and embrace and kiss each other in a situation like this?
vs 38
I can imagine that it can get like this on the mission field, when a missionary leaves. All the people probably get really upset, because they are seeing their spiritual messenger leave, and to never come back! And I'm sure Paul did his fair share of weeping too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)