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 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 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....