I am using the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on Acts 14-16.

    In today’s passage we have reference to hostility being stirred up against Paul and Barnabas. I did not touch on it yesterday, but the part that makes clear what was going on here is at the end of the passage from yesterday. There Luke tells us that some of the Jews in Antioch of Pisidia were jealous of the crowds attracted by Paul’s preaching. So, they started to slander Paul and argue against everything he said. In today’s passage Luke tells us that the same thing happened in Iconium. Then later in Lystra, some of the Jews came from Antioch and Iconium and stirred up more trouble. The mobs which attacked Paul and Barnabas were not angered by what Paul and Barnabas preached or did. They were angered and stirred up by what was falsely said about what they preached and did. We need to be aware that this pattern has been repeated many times throughout history. When we hear bad things reported about what others have said or done we need to confirm for ourselves the truth of these allegations before condemning, especially when those being condemned are preaching the Word of God. Additionally, we must be prepared for people to similarly slander us when we speak God’s word.

    After Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch in Syria some men arrived from Judea who taught that the Gentiles needed to become Jewish converts in order to be saved by following Jesus. Paul and Barnabas disagreed strongly and the arguments got heated. It never struck me before, but today I was struck by the fact that Barnabas argued vehemently. As we read through Acts we often read about Paul getting into heated arguments with people, to the point where it becomes clear that Paul could be difficult. But Barnabas comes across completely different. After all, Barnabas is a nickname meaning “Son of Encouragement”. So, clearly this was something where Barnabas agreed with Paul strongly (actually, I suspect this started as Barnabas’ argument and Paul agreed with him rather than vice versa). The arguments became so heated that the local Church sent Paul and Barnabas, and a few local believers, to Jerusalem to consult with the Apostles and Church leaders there. It is worth noting that they did not find it necessary to send any of those with whom Paul and Barnabas were arguing (which, in and of itself, tells us something about their arguments). Actually, I want to go a little further into that. The fact that the believers in Antioch sent Paul and Barnabas, but not their opponents, suggests to me that they felt that Paul and Barnabas were arguing in good faith and that their opponents were not. They trusted Paul and Barnabas to accurately report what was being said, but were not sure that their opponents would do so. They sent other believers along so as to provide support for whatever Paul and Barnabas reported from Jerusalem.
    When Paul and Barnabas got to Jerusalem it is clear that there were members of the Church leadership who agreed with those who argued for Gentiles becoming converts to Judaism in order to be saved. However, there is a clear difference between these and those who had made the argument in Antioch. The leaders in Jerusalem accepted the idea that they might be mistaken and were open to actual debate. There was a lot of discussion and debate on the issue until Peter stood up and reminded them of what had happened surrounding his visit with Cornelius. Then Paul and Barnabas described their missionary journey. The Council compared the actions of the Holy Spirit as described by Paul and Barnabas with that from Peter’s visit. They used this comparison to make a decision. I believe that James’ compromise was based on recognizing that those calling for Gentiles to convert to Judaism had a legitimate concern about the lack of moral teaching received by many Gentiles. James’ statement contained clear calls for the Gentiles who followed Jesus to adopt the moral foundation of Judaism without needing to adopt the rituals.

I am using the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on Acts 11-13.

    Most times when I read the account of Peter’s visit with Cornelius and his explanation of his actions I think about the lesson that the Gospel message is for all people (and I will get back to that today). However, I think we need to learn from those who initially opposed the baptism of Cornelius and his household. Their initial opposition was a result of their legitimate concern about maintaining standards, about believers keeping themselves pure from sin. However, when they heard what had happened, they accepted that God was at work in ways they had not anticipated, or even thought possible. They recognized that God had validated Peter’s interpretation of his vision by bestowing the Holy Spirit upon the members of Cornelius’ household. God will welcome all people who seek Him, no matter how unclean, sinful, or otherwise inappropriate their background may be. Those who follow Christ should be willing to associate with anyone who will associate with us because we cannot know whom the Holy Spirit will descend upon and bring to repentance and salvation. However, we need to make note of the fact that God calls everyone to repent of their sins. Our willingness to associate with sinners must never extend to condoning their sin. In his vision the voice told Peter, “Do Not call something unclean if God has made it clean.” Christ died to make all people clean from sin if they will accept His cleansing. Who are we to decide who has and has not been cleaned?

I am using the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on Acts 9-10.

    As I read the account of Saul’s conversion, one question comes to my mind. Did the men with Saul actually hear what the voice said to him? My understanding has always been that they heard a voice, but not what it said to Saul. Luke’s failure to identify them suggests that none of them became believers. Luke’s attention to detail leads me to believe that if they had become believers he would have sought them out and used their memory of the incident to flesh it out.

    The other aspect of Saul’s conversion I want to spend time on is two characters to whose role here we pay less attention than we should: Ananias and Barnabas. In Ananias’ case that is probably because his name is the same as the man who died for lying about how much money he received for a plot of land. However, Ananias of Damascus is someone we should strive to emulate. When God told him to go to Saul, he was wary because he knew that Saul had come to Damascus to persecute believers. It was Ananias, at great risk to himself, who delivered God’s healing to Saul and helped the Holy Spirit finalize Saul’s conversion. We do pay more attention to Barnabas, but most of that attention has to do with his role in Saul’s missionary journeys as Paul. However, when Saul returned to Jerusalem after his conversion it was Barnabas who was willing to believe that he had changed. It was Barnabas who introduced Saul to the Apostles and thus brought him into the Church. Barnabas was willing to accept that Saul had changed when no one else was.

I am using the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on Acts 7-8.

    When Stephen was arrested and put on trial he recounted the history of the Jewish people. He pointed out how God had selected them as the descendants of Abraham, but that they had again and again rejected God’s commands. He infuriated them by telling them that they were just like their ancestors who had persecuted and killed the prophets sent by God. Their response to Stephen was to prove him right by killing him. Despite the terribly painful method by which they killed him Stephen begged God to forgive them of this sin. There are those today who would accuse Stephen of hate speech for what he said, but it was those who stoned him to death who demonstrated true hate. While Stephen called those he spoke to out for their sin, he did not hate them. Rather he hoped that they would repent and turn from their sin. Let us seek to model Stephen’s love.

    I have always had a special place in my heart for the stories of Philip’s ministry told here. After the death of Stephen, and the persecution which followed, Philip went to Samaria and preached there. Many believed the message which Philip preached because of the miracles he performed. One of those who came to Christ because of Philip was the man tradition names Simon the Sorcerer. Apocryphal tales tell us that he fell away from the faith after his confrontation with Peter, but I believe that a careful reading of Luke’s account here suggests otherwise. The way I read this passage, Simon was a con-man who used magician’s tricks to make people think that he had supernatural powers. Simon followed Philip around and became a believer when he realized that Philip was not using tricks the way that he did. When he saw people receiving the Holy Spirit when Peter laid his hands on them he became so excited that he attempted to buy the power to do the same. I believe that when Peter rebuked him for this, Simon realized his error and truly repented. Part of Simon’s attempt to purchase this power was a desire for the prestige which would come from being able to do so. But part of it was a genuine desire to see more people receive the Holy Spirit.

    Then we have the story of Philip speaking with the Ethiopian eunuch. When Philip overheard him reading the prophet Isaiah, he approached him and asked if he understood what he was reading. I have long pictured the eunuch reading the passage silently, then repeating it out loud to try to make sense of it. In any case, when Philip approached him he invited Philip to explain what he was reading. Philip took this opportunity to show how the Old Testament prophets pointed to Jesus as the Messiah. Once the eunuch understood Philip’s message about Christ, he asked to be baptized. Philip did so immediately. I think that all too often today we squelch the enthusiasm of new believers by delaying baptism until they have gone through classes or other delays for us to be sure that their faith is genuine. In this story, immediately after Philip baptized the eunuch The Holy Spirit took Philip elsewhere and the eunuch never saw him again. Yet tradition says that this eunuch founded the Church in Ethiopia (a tradition which I am inclined to believe).

I am using the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on Acts 4-6.

    We have two accounts about the religious leaders who were Sadducees having Apostles arrested, the first time it is Peter and John, the second time it is all, or at least most, of them. On both occasions those arrested were held overnight. On both occasions Peter continues to show his tact by telling them that they were the ones who had crucified Jesus and that God raised Him from the dead. This was doubly offensive since those who was speaking to explicitly disbelieved in the resurrection of the dead. On both occasions the Jewish leaders ordered them to stop preaching in the name of Jesus. And on both occasions the Apostles responded by saying that they would obey God rather than man. On the second occasion the Jewish leaders wanted to kill the Apostles, but were talked out of it by one of their own, Gamaliel, who pointed out that if the Apostles were merely echoing the teachings of a man, they would soon lose heart. Gamaliel further pointed out that, on the other hand, if the Apostles were teaching things from God all attempts to silence them would fail. I believe that the message we should learn from Gamaliel is that the best way to defeat bad ideas is with better ideas, not with force or violence.

    More importantly than what Gamaliel said and the lesson we can draw from it is the response of the believers to the threats levied against them. When the believers heard of the harsh threats which the authorities had made they gathered and prayed. We can learn a lot from what they prayed for. They did not pray for protection, or for God to overthrow the government. No, they prayed that they would boldly proclaim God’s word and that the Holy Spirit would work great wonders through them. They were not afraid of what the authorities might do to them. They sought God’s aid to stand up for Him in the face of these threats.

I am using the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on Acts 1-3.

    When Peter proposed that someone be chosen to replace Judas Iscariot, he did so to a group of about 120 believers. That group nominated two men from among them, men who had started following Jesus when He was baptized by John and were still among His followers. Then they prayed for God to show them which of the two should be selected and cast lots. This was all done at one meeting. This suggests to me that perhaps we spend too much time selecting people for leadership roles in the Church. However, what I really wanted to point out by discussing this is that 120 believers represented to bulk of Jesus’ followers when the Holy Spirit came upon them. I have confidence that Peter would have wanted the overwhelming majority of Christ’s followers to have a say in who was selected to replace Judas. The importance of this number is that it puts what happened on the Day of Pentecost into perspective. On the Day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit added more than ten new followers for each person who was following Christ that morning. When we ask the Holy Spirit to work, this is the sort of results we ought to be prepared for.

    In today’s passage we have two examples of Peter’s outreach sermon. One on the Day of Pentecost, when we are led to believe that the Holy Spirit was specifically guiding his words. The second a few days/weeks later in the Temple after healing the cripple. In both cases, Peter made no attempt to sugarcoat the guilt of those to whom he was preaching. In both cases, he declared that his listeners were guilty of Jesus’ crucifixion. He made no attempt to avoid offending them. In no uncertain terms he told them that they were guilty of rejecting and sending to His death the one whom God had sent as the Messiah for whom they claimed to be looking. There may be times when we are called to use softer techniques, but this passage, and other passages in the New testament, make it clear that most of the time we should confront sinners with their sin (as long as we remember that we are no better than they). Perhaps a better way to express the lesson I take from these two sermons by Peter is that we should not be afraid of offending people.