Acts 9
Saul now becomes Paul - he, who was the worst in persecuting Christians, becomes the best at converting Gentiles.
That sure gives me hope. God can take the despised, the lowly, the hurt, the hateful, the hated, and make them vessels of noble use. Beautiful in His eyes!
One of the scriptures that really touched me is:
Acts 9:18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul's eyes, and he could see again...
That happened to me once. I had been a member of a very organized, works-based religion for 20 years. I remember reading the Bible once in awhile. Once I became a Christian, I read a Bible verse that I was familiar with. I thought to myself, "How could I have read that so many times and not really seen the true meaning of it?"
I truly felt that my eyes had been opened.
That's what happens when Jesus gets involved - the Truth is revealed to us by the Holy Spirit.
John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
What about you? Have your eyes been opened to the Truth?
Friday, June 4, 2010
Acts 8
(note: I wrote about the wrong chapter! Still, I put a bit of work into it, so I'm not going to delete it... Pete)
Acts 8:1 and Saul was there, giving approval to his death.
I've always found it odd that this verse was 8:1, instead of 7:61. It just doesn't seem to fit in this place. Does anyone know why?
Anyway, consider the importance of this verse. On first reading, it's pretty obvious; Saul was there. The first appearance of one of the greatest christian preachers and writers. And he condoned a murder.
Looking in more depth, the book of Acts was written by Luke; Luke spent a lot of time traveling with Paul, and I'm sure that this verse would not have made it in if Paul had objected. Matthew Henry (Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible) believes that Paul insisted on this verse being present to shame himself, and to give glory to God's grace. Even more, the Greek word used for 'giving approval', suneudokōn, actually translates to 'consented with delight'; Paul enjoyed the spectacle (He always regretted it, and never forgot; see Acts 22:10).
The murder of Stephen was Sauls first great act in spreading the word, by being a main instigator of the Christian persecution.
Acts 8:1 ... and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria"
This scattering of early Christians ensured that God's word would not be restricted to Jerusalem and the local area, but would be spread far and wide, fulfilling Jesus' command;
Acts 1:8 ... and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.
Philip and The Ethiopian
Acts 8:28 - 40 talks about Philip meeting an Ethopian eunuch. The important aspect of the story (for me) is that it shows that the Gospel is for all men. Being an Ethiopian, he was looked down upon by the Israelites as " meanest and most despicable of the nations, blackamoors, as if nature had stigmatized them" (Henry) - this despite the man holding a high position of office. The Ethiopian was looking for God. As a eunuch, he wasn't permitted to become a Jew, but he was obviously a religious man, as can be seen from his visiting Jerusalem from Ethiopia just to worship. Philip was able to explain who Jesus was through the prophecies of Isaiah, and subsequently baptized the man as a Christian; proving that you didn't have to be a Jew to become a Christian.
The scripture ends with Philip miraculously disappearing from the river and reappearing at Azotus, impressing upon us that the need to spread God's word is urgent, and that we should be continually prepared and willing to be witnesses.
Acts 8:1 and Saul was there, giving approval to his death.
I've always found it odd that this verse was 8:1, instead of 7:61. It just doesn't seem to fit in this place. Does anyone know why?
Anyway, consider the importance of this verse. On first reading, it's pretty obvious; Saul was there. The first appearance of one of the greatest christian preachers and writers. And he condoned a murder.
Looking in more depth, the book of Acts was written by Luke; Luke spent a lot of time traveling with Paul, and I'm sure that this verse would not have made it in if Paul had objected. Matthew Henry (Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible) believes that Paul insisted on this verse being present to shame himself, and to give glory to God's grace. Even more, the Greek word used for 'giving approval', suneudokōn, actually translates to 'consented with delight'; Paul enjoyed the spectacle (He always regretted it, and never forgot; see Acts 22:10).
The murder of Stephen was Sauls first great act in spreading the word, by being a main instigator of the Christian persecution.
Acts 8:1 ... and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria"
This scattering of early Christians ensured that God's word would not be restricted to Jerusalem and the local area, but would be spread far and wide, fulfilling Jesus' command;
Acts 1:8 ... and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.
Philip and The Ethiopian
Acts 8:28 - 40 talks about Philip meeting an Ethopian eunuch. The important aspect of the story (for me) is that it shows that the Gospel is for all men. Being an Ethiopian, he was looked down upon by the Israelites as " meanest and most despicable of the nations, blackamoors, as if nature had stigmatized them" (Henry) - this despite the man holding a high position of office. The Ethiopian was looking for God. As a eunuch, he wasn't permitted to become a Jew, but he was obviously a religious man, as can be seen from his visiting Jerusalem from Ethiopia just to worship. Philip was able to explain who Jesus was through the prophecies of Isaiah, and subsequently baptized the man as a Christian; proving that you didn't have to be a Jew to become a Christian.
The scripture ends with Philip miraculously disappearing from the river and reappearing at Azotus, impressing upon us that the need to spread God's word is urgent, and that we should be continually prepared and willing to be witnesses.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Acts 7-8
I am always impressed with how well Stephen performed in front of the Jewish Leaders, especially the High Priest.
1. He was bold! He already knew that the previous apostles who had spoken in the Temple had been thrown in prison. Even flogged! Regardless, he knew it was a dangerous mission and he performed it perfectly.
2. He knew his history. This was an educated man and he was filled and controlled by the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:5). He had education but, more importantly, he had Power from the Holy Spirit.
3. He spoke with authority. After a chapter long dissertation on the history of the Jews, he hand over the final verdict to the Jewish Leaders in Acts 7:51-53:
"How stubborn can you be? How can you be so heartless and disobedient? You're just like your ancestors. They always opposed the Holy Spirit, and so do you! Was there ever a prophet your ancestors didn't persecute? They killed those who predicted that a man with God's approval would come. You have now become the people who betrayed and murdered that man. You are the people who received Moses' Teachings, which were put into effect by angels. But you haven't obeyed those teachings."
4. He was still very Christlike at his death. Here he has been thrown out and is being stoned to death. He should be angry that these hard-hearted, unbelieving leaders are not getting it. Instead, he asks God to forgive them.
(Act 7:60) Then he knelt down and cried out with a loud voice, "Lord, don't hold this sin against them!" When he had said this, he died.
What a great lesson for us! We live during troubled times right now. The moral fabric of our nation is falling apart day by day and with increasing rapidity. What is the answer? Follow Stephen's example.
God bless you with boldness for God!
"How stubborn can you be? How can you be so heartless and disobedient? You're just like your ancestors. They always opposed the Holy Spirit, and so do you! Was there ever a prophet your ancestors didn't persecute? They killed those who predicted that a man with God's approval would come. You have now become the people who betrayed and murdered that man. You are the people who received Moses' Teachings, which were put into effect by angels. But you haven't obeyed those teachings."
4. He was still very Christlike at his death. Here he has been thrown out and is being stoned to death. He should be angry that these hard-hearted, unbelieving leaders are not getting it. Instead, he asks God to forgive them.
(Act 7:60) Then he knelt down and cried out with a loud voice, "Lord, don't hold this sin against them!" When he had said this, he died.
What a great lesson for us! We live during troubled times right now. The moral fabric of our nation is falling apart day by day and with increasing rapidity. What is the answer? Follow Stephen's example.
- Be bold.
- Become educated - know what it is you are fighting for. Discover your country's history.
- Speak with authority and under the Power of the Holy Spirit.
- And forgive. Realize you are trying to change authority that does not know God. Pray for them, but do not back down.
- More importantly, discover who you are! Stephen knew Who he belonged to, and that gave him absolute courage to deal with the ruling authorities. You belong to God, you can count on the fact that He will never leave you nor forsake you, and He asks you to join Him in His work.
God bless you with boldness for God!
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Acts 5-6
Acts 5 begins with Ananias and Sapphira, who sold a piece of property and didn't give all the money to the apostles.
Their sin wasn't that they kept back part of the money; their sin was that they claimed that they had given the apostles ALL the money. They lied. If they had sold the property, gave a proportion of the money to the apostles, and then been up front about it ("We sold some land, here's 50% of the money we made"), everything would have been fine. But they didn't. They claimed that they were more generous than they actually were, and they paid a heavy price for that claim.
My issue with this passage is that whilst I agree that they did wrong, the punishment seems far in excess of the sin. Other people in the Bible have been known to lie, but they didn't get punished as severely. Rahab, for instance, lied to the king of Jericho about the Israelite spies; and was commended for it. Was Peter dealing too strictly with the issue? On the face of it, yes, but we also need to consider that this was the very early church, and precedents had to be set. If lying was not treated severely, it could become endemic, and destroy the young church.
Acts 6 concentrates on the early organization of the church, and how responsibility should be spread amongst the members so that priorities can be met by different groups; prayer, leadership, looking after the poor. This chapter also introduces Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, who was chosen as one of the seven who would handle distribution of food to the poor.
Their sin wasn't that they kept back part of the money; their sin was that they claimed that they had given the apostles ALL the money. They lied. If they had sold the property, gave a proportion of the money to the apostles, and then been up front about it ("We sold some land, here's 50% of the money we made"), everything would have been fine. But they didn't. They claimed that they were more generous than they actually were, and they paid a heavy price for that claim.
My issue with this passage is that whilst I agree that they did wrong, the punishment seems far in excess of the sin. Other people in the Bible have been known to lie, but they didn't get punished as severely. Rahab, for instance, lied to the king of Jericho about the Israelite spies; and was commended for it. Was Peter dealing too strictly with the issue? On the face of it, yes, but we also need to consider that this was the very early church, and precedents had to be set. If lying was not treated severely, it could become endemic, and destroy the young church.
Acts 6 concentrates on the early organization of the church, and how responsibility should be spread amongst the members so that priorities can be met by different groups; prayer, leadership, looking after the poor. This chapter also introduces Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, who was chosen as one of the seven who would handle distribution of food to the poor.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Acts 3-4
Some random thoughts on Acts 3 and 4...
The book of Acts is the only history of the first 30 years of the church, showing its rapid and early growth and growing pains.
Acts was written by Luke; a gentile Doctor, and who is now accepted as one of the great historians of the period. Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, an archaeologist and biblical scholar, started his career by trying to prove Luke wrong. He failed, eventually admitting
Luke's background gives us two things; confidence that the people, places and stories are true, because he is working from personal experience or primary source interviews, and also the knowledge that the miracles depicted actually happened; as a physician, he would have reviewed any stories of miracle healing before putting them in his writings; to do otherwise could have put his reputation at risk.
Acts 3 is the story of just such a miracle healing. Peter and John met the beggar at the Beautiful gate, and the beggar was healed; not by Peter, but by Jesus. Peter acts as the vessel, but everything he does in this passage is in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. The authority that Jesus gave his followers at Pentecost (Acts 1:8 "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you") was invoked by Peter at the temple, and through that authority, the beggar was healed. Peter didn't take any glory for himself; he keeps the focus on God, and uses the opportunity of healing to speak to the onlookers about Christ.
Acts 4 relates the arrest of Peter and John, and their appearance before the Sanhedrin. We always read this section of Acts from the disciples viewpoint; "Naughty nasty Sanhedrin arrest the good guys". But put it into context; the Sanhedrin saw these people walking around, claiming that Jesus was the Son of God. They'd just seen off a revolutionary person for claiming the same thing (you might have heard of him; His name was Jesus). They didn't believe (or want to believe) Him, and took steps to put him and his rebellion down. Now there were more people spreading the same story.
Consider for a moment what would happen today if someone walked into a church and claimed that they were the second coming of Christ - we'd want some pretty big proofs first. The elders wouldn't want to lose any followers to this person without some pretty stern questioning - but in the end they would be freed with a strong warning not to spread their stories around, and efforts would be made to ensure that the true Christian church was protected.
That's exactly what happened in Acts. The Sanhedrin didn't see two heroes - they saw two potential revolutionaries. And they acted as they believed appropriate....
The book of Acts is the only history of the first 30 years of the church, showing its rapid and early growth and growing pains.
Acts was written by Luke; a gentile Doctor, and who is now accepted as one of the great historians of the period. Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, an archaeologist and biblical scholar, started his career by trying to prove Luke wrong. He failed, eventually admitting
"Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of
fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense...in short,
this author should be placed along with the greatest of historians."
Luke's background gives us two things; confidence that the people, places and stories are true, because he is working from personal experience or primary source interviews, and also the knowledge that the miracles depicted actually happened; as a physician, he would have reviewed any stories of miracle healing before putting them in his writings; to do otherwise could have put his reputation at risk.
Acts 3 is the story of just such a miracle healing. Peter and John met the beggar at the Beautiful gate, and the beggar was healed; not by Peter, but by Jesus. Peter acts as the vessel, but everything he does in this passage is in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. The authority that Jesus gave his followers at Pentecost (Acts 1:8 "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you") was invoked by Peter at the temple, and through that authority, the beggar was healed. Peter didn't take any glory for himself; he keeps the focus on God, and uses the opportunity of healing to speak to the onlookers about Christ.
Acts 4 relates the arrest of Peter and John, and their appearance before the Sanhedrin. We always read this section of Acts from the disciples viewpoint; "Naughty nasty Sanhedrin arrest the good guys". But put it into context; the Sanhedrin saw these people walking around, claiming that Jesus was the Son of God. They'd just seen off a revolutionary person for claiming the same thing (you might have heard of him; His name was Jesus). They didn't believe (or want to believe) Him, and took steps to put him and his rebellion down. Now there were more people spreading the same story.
Consider for a moment what would happen today if someone walked into a church and claimed that they were the second coming of Christ - we'd want some pretty big proofs first. The elders wouldn't want to lose any followers to this person without some pretty stern questioning - but in the end they would be freed with a strong warning not to spread their stories around, and efforts would be made to ensure that the true Christian church was protected.
That's exactly what happened in Acts. The Sanhedrin didn't see two heroes - they saw two potential revolutionaries. And they acted as they believed appropriate....
Monday, May 31, 2010
Acts 1-2
So, I have a question. What's with the number 40?
During the times of Noah, it rained for forty days and forty nights. (Genesis 7)
The Israelites wandered in the desert for forty years. (Exodus)
Moses stayed up on Mt. Sinai with the Lord for forty days and forty nights. (Exodus 24)
The spies checked out the Promised Land for forty days. (Numbers 13)
The Israelites were delivered into the hands of the Philistines for forty years. (Judges 13)
Saul reigned for forty years. (Acts 13)
David reigned for forty years. (2 Samuel 5)
Solomon reigned for forty years. (1 Kings 11)
Strengthened by the food given to him by an angel, Elijah traveled forty days and forty nights. (1 Kings 19)
God makes Egypt desolate for forty years. (Ezekiel 29)
Jesus fasted for forty days and forty nights. (Matthew, Mark and Luke)
Which brings us to Acts 1:3 Jesus appears to many over the period of forty days.
What are your thoughts on this?
During the times of Noah, it rained for forty days and forty nights. (Genesis 7)
The Israelites wandered in the desert for forty years. (Exodus)
Moses stayed up on Mt. Sinai with the Lord for forty days and forty nights. (Exodus 24)
The spies checked out the Promised Land for forty days. (Numbers 13)
The Israelites were delivered into the hands of the Philistines for forty years. (Judges 13)
Saul reigned for forty years. (Acts 13)
David reigned for forty years. (2 Samuel 5)
Solomon reigned for forty years. (1 Kings 11)
Strengthened by the food given to him by an angel, Elijah traveled forty days and forty nights. (1 Kings 19)
God makes Egypt desolate for forty years. (Ezekiel 29)
Jesus fasted for forty days and forty nights. (Matthew, Mark and Luke)
Which brings us to Acts 1:3 Jesus appears to many over the period of forty days.
What are your thoughts on this?
Sunday, May 30, 2010
John 21
Chapter 21 is all about forgiveness and the commission of Peter.
Before Jesus died on the cross, Peter was shown to be weak. At the last supper, he had declared to Jesus 'I will lay down my life for you', yet while Jesus was on trial, Peter denied that he knew him - three times. When he realized that Jesus' prediction was true, he wept bitterly. But he didn't change inside; he isn't mentioned as being present at the crucifixion, perhaps because he was afraid of being recognized again.
Peter had seen Jesus several times subsequent to Jesus' resurrection, but he still hadn't taken steps to lead the disciples. He had gone back to fishing for fish, instead of fishing for men. Peter was probably feeling a bit worthless - in pain because he had lied, denied Jesus, and not even been there when He died. He had declared that he would lay down his life for Jesus, but when it came to it, he laid down tracks instead - fast ones, running away. Jesus was betrayed by Judas, but in Peter's eyes, Peter, also, had betrayed Jesus.
In John 21, Jesus appears again to his disciples, and after a fish breakfast, he asks Peter some questions;
1. Do you truly love me more than these?
2. Do you truly love me?
3. Do you love me?
Peter was getting a bit annoyed by the end of these questions; "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."
Jesus asked Peter three times if he loved him, and Peter answered three times, Yes. This is in direct contrast to the three times that Peter denied Jesus on the night before he died. Each confirmation that Peter loved Jesus cancelled out one of the denials of Jesus, and Jesus forgave Peter, and asked him to "Follow me!"
Would Jesus also have forgiven Judas? I believe that he would. Judas was essential to the plans of God, and was acting under the influence of Satan. Judas took his own life in remorse for his actions; if he hadn't, and had eventually met the resurrected Christ, I believe that forgiveness would have been offered, and accepted.
Before Jesus died on the cross, Peter was shown to be weak. At the last supper, he had declared to Jesus 'I will lay down my life for you', yet while Jesus was on trial, Peter denied that he knew him - three times. When he realized that Jesus' prediction was true, he wept bitterly. But he didn't change inside; he isn't mentioned as being present at the crucifixion, perhaps because he was afraid of being recognized again.
Peter had seen Jesus several times subsequent to Jesus' resurrection, but he still hadn't taken steps to lead the disciples. He had gone back to fishing for fish, instead of fishing for men. Peter was probably feeling a bit worthless - in pain because he had lied, denied Jesus, and not even been there when He died. He had declared that he would lay down his life for Jesus, but when it came to it, he laid down tracks instead - fast ones, running away. Jesus was betrayed by Judas, but in Peter's eyes, Peter, also, had betrayed Jesus.
In John 21, Jesus appears again to his disciples, and after a fish breakfast, he asks Peter some questions;
1. Do you truly love me more than these?
2. Do you truly love me?
3. Do you love me?
Peter was getting a bit annoyed by the end of these questions; "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."
Jesus asked Peter three times if he loved him, and Peter answered three times, Yes. This is in direct contrast to the three times that Peter denied Jesus on the night before he died. Each confirmation that Peter loved Jesus cancelled out one of the denials of Jesus, and Jesus forgave Peter, and asked him to "Follow me!"
Would Jesus also have forgiven Judas? I believe that he would. Judas was essential to the plans of God, and was acting under the influence of Satan. Judas took his own life in remorse for his actions; if he hadn't, and had eventually met the resurrected Christ, I believe that forgiveness would have been offered, and accepted.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)