Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Tuesday, December 31, 2013 Read John 1:1-5 John begins his gospel with a powerful statement about Jesus. We have noticed how the synoptic gospels, especially Mark, keep the identity of Jesus secret. John lets the identity of Jesus be known to his readers from the very beginning – in fact, throughout the Gospel of John, the identity of Jesus is out in the open. John identifies Jesus with the “Word” of God. We have noted how it is by this “Word” of God that the OT describes creation. God creates by his Word. John wants us to make this connection. As we dig deeper into the OT we discover that there is much more about the “Word of God” as a powerful expression of God. Especially the wisdom literature of Proverbs describes God as working through wisdom – God’s Word – to achieve God’s purposes. Wisdom is described as the first of God’s creative acts in the OT. God creates wisdom – the Word – and then creates everything else through this Word. John wants his readers to think of Jesus as the Word of God – all things came into being through this Word. As John moves forward in his introduction he will tell his readers that the Word has become flesh in the coming of Jesus. Jesus is the Word of God – the creative expression of God. It is this Word of God that creates life. The concept of Life will be an important theme of John’s gospel. In fact, when John reveals to us the reason for his writing of the gospel (John 20:31) it is for the purpose that those who believe in Jesus might have life. Another theme that John introduces us to is that the life revealed in Jesus is the light of the world. This light overpowers the darkness. One of the techniques John uses is that of comparison. Here the comparison is between light and darkness. When we hear of light we can know that we are hearing of the life that Jesus comes to bring. When we hear of darkness we can know that we are hearing about the opposition to Jesus. In a bold proclamation John assures his readers that the light of Jesus will overcome all darkness. From the very beginning we can be assured that light will triumph – the darkness will be present in this story but the darkness will not overcome the light. John presents his readers with a very high view of who Jesus is – he is none other than the presence of God. Jesus is God. This is a theological affirmation that the synoptic gospel do not approach. It would likely be going too far for us to think of John as envisioning the Trinity as later theologians would come to use to describe God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, One God in three persons. John does not use that language, but it is surely because of his view of Jesus that later theologians would develop the Trinity. As we listen to this language about Jesus as the Word of God, we may begin to wonder where his humanity has gone. That is an issue that we will need to contemplate as we move through John’s gospel. Did John think of Jesus as a human being? The answer to that question will be revealed as we move forward. Here, we can only marvel at the high view of Jesus that John proclaims.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Monday, December 30, 2013 Read Genesis 1:1-5 As John contemplated how to begin his gospel it appears he was drawn to the way in which the Bible itself begins. The coming of Jesus was as important and as powerful as the story of creation. One of the clear connections is the concept of the “Word.” It is by a “Word” that God creates. John’s vision is that once again the “Word” has spoken. Contemplating the story of creation is helpful as we attempt to listen to John’s gospel.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Sunday, December 29, 2013 Read John 1:1-18 Welcome to the study of the Gospel of John! Just as the other gospel writers, I believe that the author of John’s gospel was a brilliant writer, used by God to communicate the message that God intended for John’s community to hear and indirectly for all of us to hear. There is a brilliance to these writers that awaits our discovery and that is certainly true about the author of John. Before we begin to look at John’s gospel in detail, there are a few things we need to consider that will be helpful in our study. First of all, John’s gospel is the only one of our four gospels that makes the claim that it is grounded in the eyewitness testimony of one of the followers of Jesus. Neither Mark, nor Matthew, nor Luke makes such a claim and most likely none of those authors witnessed Jesus personally. Luke, in fact, distances himself from personal testimony to Jesus in his introduction (Luke 1:1-4). John is different. The author of John makes the claim that the witness being presented in this gospel is based on the testimony of an eyewitness who was at least present at the foot of the cross (John 19:25) and that, in fact, the whole gospel is somehow connected with the witness of this disciple and that his witness provides testimony to truth (John 21:24). We will need to consider this claim to eyewitness testimony. What does it mean? Just how much of this gospel comes directly from this eyewitness? Who was this eyewitness? At first glance it would seem that the answer to these questions is obvious. Many are tempted to claim that every bit of this gospel comes for an eyewitness – that it is the direct words of this person. However, upon closer examination, it seems that such a claim does not hold up. For one thing, more than with any other gospel, the Gospel of John reveals to its readers that the gospel has been edited somewhere along the way. In fact the very claims that we have been examining about an eyewitness testimony obviously come from a secondary writer. How much has been added to the original eyewitness’ account? When and why did this editing take place? These and other questions like them are impossible for us to answer with any certainty. The point is this: we need to take seriously that an eyewitness undergirds the foundation of the Gospel of John, but the gospel, as we presently have it, most likely has been through a process of editing. We will examine this idea as we proceed through our study. A further question is just who this eyewitness might be. The gospel itself identifies this person as “the beloved disciple” and does not provide a name. Tradition has assigned the name of John, the son of Zebedee, as this “beloved disciple” and that could be the case. But the evidence does not make that certain; and, in fact, leads one to conclude that the “beloved disciple” most likely was not this John. Again we will examine this as we proceed through the gospel. Another observation we need to make as we begin is twofold. On the one hand, there are striking similarities between the Gospel of John and the other three gospels – Matthew, Mark, and Luke which obviously stem from a common root. John tells some of the same stories as the “synoptic” gospels (synoptic being a shorthand way of referring to Matthew, Mark, and Luke as a unit). What is the connection between these gospels? Did John know about any or all of them? We will need to pay attention to the similarities. On the other hand, there are marked differences between John and the other three. For example, John tells his readers that Jesus was crucified during the day leading to the celebration of Passover that evening while the other three tell of Jesus celebrating the Passover with his disciples and then being crucified during the next day. We will also discover that the Gospel of John tells us that Jesus spent much of his time in Judea and Jerusalem while the synoptic gospels tell of Jesus making only one journey to Jerusalem near the end of his life just prior to his crucifixion. How are we to deal with these marked differences between John and the others? We will need to pay attention to the similarities and the differences between John and the synoptic gospels. Finally, we will discover that John writes in a style markedly different from the other three gospel writers. Rather that linking together short episodes and teachings of Jesus, John writes in larger units. In fact, it will be difficult for us to make divisions in John’s story and often we will be invited to read a longer passage and then to re-read it over the next few days. Not only does John provide much longer units but John also writes in a style that is much more theological than the others. Often we will discover that we are hearing a story about Jesus and even the words of Jesus that merge into the comments of the author with such a smooth delivery that we may have trouble deciding when Jesus stops talking and the author begins. For example, in the well-known story of Jesus visit with Nicodemus, we suddenly discover that we are no longer listening to the dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus and are instead hearing the commentary of the author about the episode. We are in for a delightful time as we journey with John through the gospel story God moved him to tell. Even though I have said above that it is perhaps likely that the name of this author was not John, the son of Zebedee, we will continue to refer to the author as John. That is the name that tradition has attached to this gospel and calling our author John will do well for us. We are now ready to dip into this gospel and let its message flow over us and immerse us in the story that John proclaimed to his first audience. We begin by contemplating the beginning of John’s gospel. We have discovered how important beginnings are and that is no different when it comes to the gospel of John. As we begin reading, we cannot help but notice that John begins in an incredibly lofty way – his opening is poetic in nature, reaching to the heights. His beginning is not really a narrative telling the story of Jesus, but a theological statement about Jesus. We will look more closely at that statement in the coming days. The first words John shares with us remind us of the beginning words of the book of Genesis – “In the beginning …” So before we open John’s gospel we will look at Genesis 1.

January 2014 Echoes Newsletter

CLICK HERE

Weekly Announcements Dec 29 2013

CLICK HERE

Weekly Announcements Dec 29 2013

CLICK HERE

Weekly Announcements Dec 22 2013

CLICK HERE

Weekly Announcements Dec 15 2013

CLICK HERE

Weekly Announcements Dec 8 2013

CLICK HERE

December 2013 Echoes Newsletter

CLICK HERE

Weekly Announcements Dec 1 2013

CLICK HERE

Weekly Announcements Nov 17 2013

CLICK HERE

November 2013 Echoes

CLICK HERE

Weekly Announcements Oct 20 2013

CLICK HERE

Weekly Announcements Oct 6 2013

CLICK HERE

Oct 2013 Echoes Newsletter

CLICK HERE

Oct 2013 Calendar

CLICK HERE

Weekly Announcements Sept 29 2013

CLICK HERE

Weekly Announcements Sep 22 2013

CLICK HERE

Weekly Announcements Sep 15 2013

CLICK HERE

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Friday, September 6, 2013 Some concluding remarks about the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts There are a few other things that we have noticed as we have listened to Luke – the centrality of Jerusalem and the Temple to the story (Luke moves the resurrection appearances and the ascension to Jerusalem from Galilee); the authenticating role of the 12 Apostles; the understanding that Jesus’ death should be viewed more as a travesty of justice than a sacrificial death since Jesus dies as an innocent man (Jesus dies as the righteous one); the way in which Luke has written the story of Stephen’s death and Paul’s journey to Jerusalem and Rome as parallel stories to the journey and death of Jesus; among others. One last thing that we need to recognize is that Luke has written a story in which the Holy Spirit is clearly the main actor. Though Luke likely never conceived of the Trinity in the way the church would later define the godhead, Luke does lean toward that understanding. Jesus is viewed by Luke as being at the right hand of God. God’s presence in the world is enacted through the Holy Spirit. The Father of Jesus is also viewed by Luke to be in the place of power where Jesus has ascended. Luke is well on the way to the Trinitarian formula of the church. Because tradition has believed that the author of Luke and Acts was the Gentile physician, Luke of Troas, the books of Luke and Acts have often been thought to be written by a Gentile for a Gentile audience. As it turns out under closer observation these two books may be more “Jewish” than any others. Luke is certainly at least sympathetic to “Jews, zealous for the law” and may well have been one of them. This may be a case where tradition can lead us astray. Luke must remain an “unknown” author. While we can’t give this author a name we can marvel in the skill of his writing and the genius of his work. Thanks be to God for Luke!

Weekly Announcements Sept 8 2013

CLICK HERE

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Thursday, September 5, 2013 Some concluding remarks about the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts We have also noticed, perhaps surprisingly, that Luke portrays a very favorable impression of the Pharisees. The gulf between Pharisaic Judaism and Christian Judaism is not very wide. There are occasions when Pharisees are pictured as opposing Jesus and Christians, but the times when they are supportive are far more plentiful. When we consider that following the Jewish War (66-70 AD) the only two expressions of Judaism to survive were Pharisaic Judaism and Christian Judaism, this becomes even more interesting. Was one of Luke’s motives to attempt to bridge the gap between these two? Was Luke becoming aware of the increasing gulf that was emerging, and hoping to somehow prevent this erosion? If that was part of Luke’s motive he did not succeed. In the final years of the first century, Pharisaic Judaism and Christianity parted ways – and in the process, both changed. And Luke would have been disappointed at how quickly Christians forgot their roots and became hostile toward other Jews.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Wednesday, September 04, 2013 Some concluding remarks about the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts We have also noticed how Luke has dealt with the inclusion of Gentiles into Christianity. Luke tells this story from a Jewish point of view. Luke contends that it has been God’s intention all along to include Gentiles into the people of God. He has good OT backing to argue for that understanding. The prophets had foreseen the inclusion of the Gentiles. But, it is important that we understand that, from Luke’s point of view, the Gentiles are grafted into Judaism. Paul would have agreed with Luke’s view as he states so well in his letter to the Romans (Romans 11). From Luke’s point of view there can be no “Gentile Christianity” that stands apart from Christianity as the true expression of Judaism. Gentiles are included but have no standing on their own. Luke has also unveiled to us just how difficult it was for Jewish Christians to include Gentiles. The stories of Cornelius and then the Jerusalem conference bear witness to just how difficult this was and that it took many years for Jewish Christianity to break the barrier. And when the Gentiles are included it is not without some stipulations – they are included but required to observe some basic injunctions to make them suitable to associate with Jewish Christians without causing those Jewish Christians to become unclean. The deference within Luke and Acts is toward the Jews. As we have noticed this also creates a problem historically when Paul’s letter are read in conjunction with the book of Acts. Luke and Paul do not agree about the injunctions that Gentiles are to follow.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Tuesday, September 3, 2013 Some concluding remarks about the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts We have also noticed that Luke is intent on portraying the believers in Jesus in the most favorable light to non-believing Jews. Believing Jewish people are portrayed by Luke as observant of the customs of Judaism – they are good, faithful Jews! They are doing nothing that is contrary to the customs of the OT and causing no offense to their non-believing Jewish neighbors. This portrayal of Jewish Christians as committed to the OT customs includes Paul. The Paul that Luke portrays is actually “zealous for the law” and does nothing to give offense. We have noticed how this portrayal of Paul by Luke does come into conflict with Paul’s own letters. Historically, this presents a challenge for Luke’s and Paul’s readers. We have noticed how Luke unveils for his readers a picture of the life of Jewish Christians that may seem strange to those of us living almost 2000 years later. Luke portrays the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem as living according to the customs of all Jews – one likely would have a difficult time determining just who is a Christian Jew and who is not by only observing their practices. Christian Jews living in Jerusalem continued to participate in all the regular practices of Judaism. This is a picture of Christianity that has been completely lost to us Christians today. We know a Christianity that has abandoned most Jewish practice and become a Gentile experience. We think that is the way it always has been and forget that we have another part of our story to reflect upon. We can thank Luke for preserving for us this glimpse of a forgotten past. It is important that we hear in Luke’s story that Jewish Christians did not stop being Jews after they came to believe in Jesus. Even Paul is always portrayed as a person who understood himself as a Jew. To the very end Paul does not think of himself in any other way. As we contemplate how Luke viewed the relationship between Judaism and Christianity it becomes clear that Luke would not have viewed them as two separate and distinct “religions” as we do today. Luke would have thought of Christianity as the true expression of Judaism, the fulfillment of the Jewish faith. Christianity was not a new religion. Jewish Christians were not understood to have “converted” from Judaism to Christianity. To be sure, Luke was very well aware of the debate within Judaism about Jesus, but for Luke it was in internal debate. What is the proper way to understand Judaism? Luke’s contention is that Jewish Christians were the true Jews. Luke was not willing to give up that understanding. This is important for Luke because Luke refuses to accept the thought that God had given up on his people. Luke refused to abandon Judaism. That is why Luke consistently portrays Paul as going to the Jews first – even at the very end of the story when Paul arrived in Rome. The struggle within Judaism must be maintained in Luke’s view.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Monday, September 2, 2013 Some concluding remarks about the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts Now that we have come to the end of the book of Acts it may be well to reflect back over the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts and identify some themes and make some finally judgments about our author. First of all it is important that we recognize that the books of Luke and Acts belong together. We need to read them as a unit. One is not complete without the other. Luke likely envisioned them as one work. He likely conceived them together in his mind and intended them to be read as one story. They are forever hooked together. As we reflect back over the story Luke has told us in his gospel and in the book of Acts it becomes clear that one of the things Luke wants his readers to know is that the Jewish people did receive the Messiah. He tells story after story of faithful Jewish people who were waiting for the Messiah to come and who did welcome Jesus. In the beginning of the gospel we meet Zechariah and Elizabeth, Simeon and Anna, and Mary, the mother of Jesus. Along the way we meet others like Joseph of Arimathea and Barnabas and Ananias of Damascus. Luke tells us of a great number of Jewish believers whose number has grown so large that at the end of the story they are beyond counting. Luke wants his readers to know that there were a great number of faithful Jewish believers. Of course the dark side of that same story is that there were other Jews who did not receive the Messiah – who did not welcome the visitation of God to his people as Luke would put it. But that is not Luke’s emphasis. His emphasis is on the fact that Jewish people did welcome God’s visitation to them.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Sunday, September 1, 2013 Read – Acts 28:11-31 We have now reached the final events that Luke will tell us about in the book of Acts. Like beginnings, endings are very important. As we begin to hear the end of Luke’s story we need to be prepared that we are in for something unexpected. We might even be disappointed. Luke has told us that Paul will stand before the emperor in Rome – that was Paul’s appeal and apparently God’s promise. We expect to hear a story about Paul’s “trial” in Rome. That is not the story we will hear. Luke does not tell us a story about Paul’s defense before the Roman Emperor. We are also very aware that tradition tells us Paul was martyred in Rome at the hand of the Roman Emperor. That emperor would have been Nero – one of the most despised and cruel of the emperors. It was Nero who first made Christians, along with many others, fight against animals in the Roman Coliseum. Nero’s biographer, Tacitus, also tells us of Nero’s cruelty against Christians and others by having them crucified on crosses that lined the Appian Way. At night Nero would have the bodies of those still hanging on crosses lit on fire to provide a crude form of streetlights. In the end Nero committed suicide before Roman justice could be meted out to him. We expect that Luke is going to tell us of a hearing before this evil Nero – no meeting between Paul and Nero will be narrated. And perhaps most surprising of all, Luke does not tell his readers about the death of Paul. We will need to reflect upon these unexpected absences from Luke’s story. In the meantime we need to reflect upon the ending that Luke does provide for his readers. Luke begins by telling his readers of the final leg of the sea voyage to Rome. We are reminded that three months have passed. That would have been the exact time needed for winter to come to an end and the passage of ships to begin again. The voyage from Malta to Puteoli, the sea port closest to Rome, was uneventful. At Puteoli Luke tells of believers who welcomed Paul and his companions and provided hospitality to them. A week later the last land journey to Rome begins. Along the way believers from Rome come out to welcome Paul – first at the Forum of Appius, about 40 miles from Rome, and then at Three Taverns, about 30 miles from Rome. All of this renewed Paul’s courage and led to thanksgiving to God. Luke goes out of his way to tell his readers of the welcome and approval Paul received from the believers in Rome. If there were some in the church at the time when Luke was writing who questioned the authenticity of Paul, Luke is attempting to lay their concerns to rest. Once Paul has made the final journey to Rome, Luke tells us that he was allowed to live by himself with one soldier to guard him. This is a picture of a person who enjoys a great deal of freedom. In fact, for some time the picture that Luke has been giving is of Paul as a relatively free man. With Paul now in Rome, Luke’s readers expect that a meeting with the emperor will soon be arranged. That was the purpose of his journey. That is not the story Luke now tells us. Instead, Luke tells us that three days after he arrived in Rome, Paul called together the leaders of the Jewish community who lived in Rome. They are kind enough to come to the place he is staying. We have noticed all along that the first people that Paul reaches out to when he arrives in a new place are the Jewish people who live there. This is a constant theme in the book of Acts and the pattern is not broken even in this last place and in the last story Luke will tell us about Paul. It is important to Luke that the Jewish community is approached first and that the Jewish community is not forgotten. This is still a mission to the Jews. The meeting gives Paul an opportunity to make another speech. This speech is shorter than most of the others we have heard. And, once again we should likely think of it not as a “verbatim” speech but a speech appropriate to the occasion. Paul’s speech is a summary of what has happened to him since his visit to Jerusalem and subsequent arrest. It is important that we notice that, as earlier, Paul begins by identifying himself with his Jewish audience – he calls them “brothers” and counts himself as one of them. Throughout the book of Acts, Luke continually thinks of Paul as a Jew – to be sure he is a Christian Jew, but that does not make him any less a Jew. Paul makes it clear that he has done nothing against “our people” or the customs of “our ancestors” (Acts 28:17). Paul is a faithful and legitimate Jew. Even though that is the case, it was the Jews of Jerusalem who arrested him and handed him over to the Romans. Paul makes it clear that the Romans were not able to find any charge against him that deserved death – he was declared innocent by Claudius Lysias, Felix, and Festus – all Roman leaders. He was also declared innocent by the Jewish king, Herod Agrippa, though Paul does not mention that. Because justice was denied him Paul was compelled to appeal to the emperor, and that is why he is now in Rome even though there still is no charge against him – apparently Festus never was able to write a letter documenting the charges against Paul. Now Paul has asked to present his case before the Jewish leaders of Rome since it was “for the sake of the hope of Israel” that he is “bound with chains” (Acts 28:20). We should likely understand that the phrase “bound with chains” is not something to be taken literally but a figure of speech to talk about being held in custody. We may be surprised to hear that the Jews in Rome have received no letters from Judea about Paul and that Jews coming to Rome have not brought evil reports about Paul. Will the Roman Jews finally be the Jewish community who will receive Paul? Of course there have been individual Jews all along the way who have received Paul’s words and became believers. But, as a whole community, the Jews everywhere have turned against Paul. The impression is that those Jews who became believers were also driven out of the synagogues along with Paul. The Jews do tell Paul that even though they do not have any specific reports against him, they are aware that “with regard to this sect (Christianity), we know that everywhere it is spoken against” (Acts 28:22). What may have been promising is now threatened with these words. A second meeting is scheduled. Luke tells us that great numbers of Jews attended the second meeting which took place at Paul’s lodging place again because he was not free to go to the synagogue. The debate lasts all day. Paul’s hope is to convince the Jews of Rome about the truth of Christianity by appealing to the OT Scriptures – something Paul has always done and something Luke is consistent about. We need to recall what happened to the travelers on the Emmaus Road – how Jesus explained to them that it was necessary for the Messiah to suffer and die and be raised from the dead and that the OT scripture had told of all of this. The same was true in the upper room when Jesus opened their minds to understand the scripture. The same was also true of the Ethiopian Eunuch. The pattern persists and it is important that we notice that pattern here as well. The outcome of what must have been quite a day is the same outcome that has happened throughout the book of Acts – some are convinced and become believers and others are not convinced. The debate within Judaism rages on! Once the outcome is known Paul makes one last comment. It is a comment that we have heard before – though the specific quotation from the book of Isaiah is new. It is really a new statement of an old and consistent thought in the book of Acts. Isaiah had spoken of the Jewish people as a people who will hear but not understand, who will see but not perceive, whose hearts are dull, whose ears are closed, and who eyes are blind (Isaiah 6:9-10). Isaiah foresaw exactly what has been Paul’s experience among the Jews. Though it is not a part of the direct quotation from Isaiah used here, Isaiah has also been the prophet who most clearly foresaw the inclusion of the Gentiles in God plan and mission. And so Paul’s parting words to unbelieving Jews is that even though they will not hear, the Gentiles will listen to the good news God brings to them. The last thing that Luke tells us is that Paul “lived for two years in Rome at his own expense welcoming all who came to him, proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance” (Acts 28:30-31). The mission continues! And so ends Luke’s story! No hearing before the emperor. No story of the death of Paul at the hands of Nero. In fact, no ending to the story at all! What are we to make of this strange ending? Most readers of Acts have been puzzled by the way in which Luke ends the book. It is not what is expected. Of course we are once again not able to decide exactly why Luke ended his story in this way. We are left to speculation. Some have speculated that Luke really must have intended to write a third volume and either never got around to it or if he did it never was published. Such speculation is very unlikely to have the true answer to the way Luke has ended his book. What kind of author would not get around to completing the story? If the first two volumes were published why would the third be lost? Speculating that Luke really intended to write more or perhaps did write more but it is lost is really not much of an answer to the dilemma of the ending of Acts. Others have speculated that Luke lost track of what happened to Paul at this point. That can hardly be the case – anyone who has gone to all the trouble to get this far would hardly have let the story of Paul slip out of his fingers at such a crucial spot. Likely that best answer is to believe that Luke really intended to end his two-volume work in the way in which he did. We need to remember that Luke’s story is really the full story of Luke-Acts. The two volumes belong together and are not complete without each other. Once again we need to admit that we are only speculating, and we do not know for sure, but it is likely that Luke ended the book of Acts as he did with a purpose. What might that purpose be? Why did Luke end his story in this way? First of all the way in which Luke ends his story is to end it in an open-ended way. It is a story that is not finished. Luke likely knew a lot more about the specifics of Paul – but the story is not finally about Paul. The story is about the good news of Jesus and that story is an open-ended story! So Luke ended his story in this way because the story had not come to an end as he was writing his part of it. This is much the same as the brilliant way in which Mark ended his gospel. The gospel of Mark ends in a disappointed way for many of Mark’s readers too. But Mark’s open-ended story does draw Mark’s readers right into the middle of it – Mark’s story is a story Mark’s readers must somehow end. Luke’s two-volume work ended in the same way – drawing Luke’s readers into the story and forcing us to continue it. Second, I suppose Luke could have told the story of the final demise of Paul. Certainly Luke and his readers did know that story. They knew the truth about Paul, that when it finally came time for Nero to dispose of Paul he killed him. Luke could have told us the gruesome details. But what kind of way is that to end a gospel story? Luke most likely chose not to tell us the story of Paul’s death because that would have taken us away from what is really important – the gospel of Jesus, the Messiah who was crucified, who God raised from the dead so that repentance and forgiveness of sins might be proclaimed in his name. Luke might also have gone on to tell his readers about the murder of James, the brother of Jesus, by Ananias the high priest in Jerusalem. He might have chosen to tell the awful story of the Jewish War and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. He might have told the story of the death of Peter. Actually Luke is such a good writer that we wish he had told us much more! Obviously he knew a lot more. But where does one bring a story to an end? What is the most effective way to end? Telling about the demise of James, the brother of Jesus, would have been an interesting tale but what would that have done to further the gospel and what kind of ending would that have been? Was Luke to move on past all of these events – the death of Paul, the death of James, the brother of Jesus, the death of Peter, and the Jewish War – and find somewhere else to bring his story to an end? Where would Luke find a better place to end? In the end there likely is no better place to end then exactly where Luke chose to end his story! Luke is indeed a brilliant author! What may seem at the beginning as a great disappointment turns out to reveal the genius of Luke. Thanks be to God for Luke! OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL DAYS I WILL BE POSTING SOME CONCLUDING REMARKS ABOUT THE GOSPEL OF LUKE AND THE BOOK OF ACTS. I WELCOME YOUR COMMENTS, REACTIONS AND QUESTIONS.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Saturday, August 31, 2013 Read – Acts 28:1-10 Once the participants in the journey have made it safely to land Luke tells us of one last threat that has the potential of preventing Paul from arriving in Rome. As Paul gathers wood and throws it on the fire a venomous snake, a viper, attaches itself to Paul’s hand. The inhabitants of the island expect that Paul will soon be dead – a prisoner guilty of a crime will not go unpunished. Paul may have made it safely to land but justice will not be robbed. After a sufficient time has passed and the natives realize that Paul is not going to die they begin to think that he must be a god – ordinary people do not survive viper bites! This story sounds a little like the story Luke told us earlier when Paul and Barnabas visit Lystra (Acts 14:8-18). In that story Paul was also mistaken as a god. In the story at Lystra, Paul and Barnabas protest and finally convince the people that they are not gods – and in the end the people turn on Paul and Barnabas and drive them out of town. Here there is no word of protest. Perhaps we should not make anything of that. Luke and Luke’s readers know that Paul is not a god – it is curious though that Luke does not make that clear. Luke follows up the story of the viper with another that reminds Luke’s readers of two other stories he has told us – the story of Peter’s shadow bringing healing to many (Acts 5:15) and of Paul’s handkerchiefs and aprons bringing healing to any who touched them (Acts 19:12). Both of these other stories are troublesome to most of us – they sound too much like magic! So in this story Paul heals the leader of the island’s father and then goes on to bring healing to many others on the island. Stories like these are difficult for us to understand, mostly because we have been trained with a scientific mind, and we can think of many examples when what was done by Paul is not and maybe cannot be repeated. We want to generalize the experience from a single instance to a general principle and we know that it does not hold true. While we may have difficulty dealing with these stories we will need to let them stand as part of Luke’s story.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Friday, August 30, 2013 Read – Acts 27:39-44 “And so it was that all were brought safely to land” (Acts 27:44). With morning light the sailor and the travelers on the ship see a sight they have longed to see. It has been about two weeks since they were driven into the midst of the sea and the midst of despair. Now the hope of rescue is born once again. The sailors plan seems to be a good one. They will sail the ship into a bay on an unknown island. Readers of Acts are reminded of Paul’s words delivered by an angel that all the people will be saved but the ship will be lost. Will the word of the angel be true? The plan of the sailors is dashed on an unforeseen reef. Caught on the reef the ship began to break apart – the word of the angel was true. For one last time on the fateful journey Paul’s life is put in danger from two sources. How were the passengers to get to land – would some drown in the sea? And to make matters worse the soldiers who were in charge of guarding the prisoners decide to kill them so that they do not escape. A soldier was held responsible for his prisoner and if the prisoner escaped the soldier would pay with his own life. We saw that in Peter’s deliverance from prison in Jerusalem – when the authorities had determined that Peter was free the guards were killed (Acts 12:19). Once again a Roman comes to Paul’s rescue. The centurion protects Paul and the other prisoners – there will be no loss of life just as the angel said. And everyone makes it safely to the shores. The sea voyage that seemed to spell certain disaster for Paul comes to a good end – but the voyage is not quite over. They discover that they have landed on an island called Malta to the south and west of Italy. They will now wait for better weather to make the final journey to Rome.

Sept 2013 Calendar

CLICK HERE

Sept 2013 Echoes Newsletter

CLICK HERE

Weekly Announcements Sept 1 2013

CLICK HERE

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Thursday, August 29, 2013 Read – Acts 27:31-38 Just before daybreak Luke tells us Paul enacts what for some must have seemed like a strange action. He gathers the voyagers for a meal. Meals have had a very important function in Luke’s gospel and the book of Acts. There is something about eating. Readers of Luke’s gospel are reminded of how Jesus broke the bread and opened the eyes of the travelers on the Emmaus Road. Readers are reminded that when Paul was brought into Damascus blinded by the light he did not eat until Ananias had restored his sight. What are we to make of this meal aboard ship? It is tempting, of course, to understand this meal as the celebration of Holy Communion. There are elements of the story that lend themselves to that interpretation – “he took bread, and giving thanks to God in the presence of all, he broke it and began to eat” (Acts 27:35). Those words sound too much like the communion liturgy to be accidental. And Luke likely wants his readers to make that connection. But it is also more likely that Paul is not leading a communion service aboard the ship. Most of the participants would have had no way to make any connection to this meal as a celebration of the death and resurrection of Jesus. Luke’s intent is that we, he readers who have been instructed in the gospel, make that connection. Celebrating Holy Communion in the midst of the storms of life is a wonderful thing to do. But that is likely not the case aboard the ship – Paul is rather simply attempting to bring courage and hope to his fellow travelers – two hundred and seventy-six in all! This is a good example of how Biblical writers can often take experiences that on their own have one meaning and, by “tweaking” the story just a bit, fill them with new meaning for those who read the story. Luke is a brilliant writer. He knows how to turn a sentence in a way that brings more than one meaning into play. Luke was not simply interested in providing his readers with interesting details but in helping them as they face the storms of life. We can take delight in the wonderful work of Luke.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Wednesday, August 28, 2013 Read – Acts 27:27-32 Two weeks into the fateful voyage and likely still wallowing in despair, Luke tells us the sailor begin to suspect that they are nearing land. When they measure the depth of the sea they discover that this is exactly the case – and now another danger swells up. Will the ship crash into the land and be destroyed? In desperation the sailors lower the anchors from the rear of the boat and begin to pray in earnest. The saying, “There are no atheists in foxholes” is so true. One is reminded again of the story of Jonah where we are told that the pagan sailors are praying fervently only to find Jonah asleep in the depths of the ship – they plead with him to get up and pray to his God. Of course in the Jonah story Jonah knows why the storm is raging and that the only solution is to cast Jonah into the sea. The sailors do that and the author of the book of Jonah tells us they begin to believe in Jonah’s God. This story does not follow that pattern. The sailors may be praying but they are also looking out for their own skins. They attempt to flee from the ship and make their way as best they can to land, leaving the passengers to fend for themselves. Once again it is Paul who sees through their design and warns the centurion that unless they remain with the boat they will lose their lives. One is reminded of the saying of Jesus, “Whoever seeks to save their life will lose it and whoever loses their life will save it.” The disappointed sailors are not able to flee as the “get-away” boat is cut loose and sent out onto the waves.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Tuesday, August 27, 2013 Read – Acts 27:21-26 In the midst of utter despair Luke tells us that Paul proclaims a word of encouragement. This is not just wishful thinking. Luke tells us that an angel of God “stood by” Paul during the night and brought him the assuring news that Paul and his companions would not perish. Paul’s destiny was not at the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea but before the Emperor in Rome. While it was perhaps merely common sense that motivated Paul to suggest that they not leave the harbor of Fair Haven for the harbor of Phoenix, this declaration by Paul is a prophetic word. Again, we are at a loss to explain how and angel of God stood by Paul or for that matter exactly how God speaks to any of us. We have contemplated that before and it is always an ambiguous task. If there were readers who were wondering whether perhaps nature would do what neither Jews nor Romans could do – keep Paul from Rome – all wonder is now gone. Paul will arrive in Rome. Paul had said earlier that he thought there would be loss of the cargo and lives if the journey went forward from Fair Haven. Now he is told by the angel that God will spare the lives of all those aboard – only the ship will be lost, run aground on some island. We might wonder how people on board reacted to Paul’s words. Luke does not tell us. Likely the reaction was mixed. Perhaps some took hope in Paul’s words. Likely others paid little or no attention to him. Luke’s first readers were encouraged to take courage from the story. God does provide. We can take the same courage as we hear this story and as we live through the storms of life.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Monday, August 26, 2013 Read – Acts 27:13-20 The plan to get to the harbor at Phoenix and spend the winter there fails. Luke tells us a storm called the Northeaster engulfs the ship and they are driven off course. Paul had told them that if they did not listen to him the result would be great loss of cargo and even lives. Soon the sailors begin to throw the cargo into the sea. Paul was right. Again it seems Luke wants his readers to recognize Paul’s ability to prophesy. As the story comes to a conclusion however it turns out that there is no loss of life – Paul is given that promise by God. Perhaps it is better to think of all this advice given by Paul as exactly that – Paul’s common sense. The story reminds readers of Acts of the story of Jonah. In that story too, the winds of a violent storm drive Jonah and the sailors along with him out into the midst of the Mediterranean Sea. They begin to throw the cargo overboard in that story too. And eventually it is Jonah who is thrown into the sea. There are certainly differences between the story of Jonah and this story but it is not a bad thing for readers of Acts to be thinking about that other sea voyage. In fact there are a number of sea voyages that might come to mind – some of them in the Bible and others not. The stories of Jesus out on the Sea of Galilee come to mind. So does the story of Noah and his family during the flood. And there are a few Psalms, particularly Psalm 107 that may be helpful to remember. And of course the great sea voyage of Odysseus is worth some thought. Eventually the storm becomes so violent that all hope is lost. Because the sailors could not see the sun or the moon for several days they had no idea where they were. Readers of Acts can feel the despair begin to settle in for the voyagers. And one begins to wonder if the power of nature will do what Jews and Romans could not – prevent Paul from arriving at Rome. Those who have read Luke’s gospel and the book of Acts to this point know that cannot happen. God is in control. The Spirit is directing the journey. Luke’s first readers likely were living in a time when it was more difficult to be a Christian than it is for any of us. Their lives may have felt as if they were being tossed to and fro on the winds of the sea. This story may well have given them hope. This story can give any of us hope as we find ourselves in the storms of life. Luke, the master storyteller, is weaving a story that informs and inspires his readers. It is good to just enjoy the story.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Sunday, August 25, 2013 Read – Acts 27:1-12 Luke does not tell us how much time passed between the time of Paul’s hearing before King Agrippa and his departure to Rome. We will recall that both King Agrippa and Procius Festus had declared Paul innocent. Yet, they are intent on sending Paul to appear before the emperor because of Paul’s appeal to do so. As readers of Luke’s gospel we also know that Paul is travelling to Rome because God has set his destiny to do so (Acts 23:11). The opinions of kings and rulers ultimately do not matter. Yet, readers are left wondering what Festus finally decided to write as the charges against Paul. Luke never tells us. The Roman centurion who is put in charge of Paul is described by Luke as an honorable man. He will remain so during the whole journey. Readers of Acts are reminded of Cornelius, another centurion who became a Christian (Acts 10). Luke does not tell us that Julius becomes a Christian – there are good and honorable people who are not Christians. Perhaps Julius was one of them. Luke also tells us that a man by the name of Aristarchus from Macedonia accompanies Paul on the voyage. Aristarchus was one of the people who accompanied Paul on his final journey to Jerusalem – likely he was one of the people who were chosen to assure that the offering Paul had collected for the poor in Jerusalem was properly delivered. We are left to wonder if Aristarchus was also a prisoner – though we are given no reason to believe that he was. He was likely on this journey by his own volition – perhaps designated by the friends of Paul to that role or more likely he was simply committed to Paul and cared about his safety and so he went along. There is one more person on this journey – the same unnamed person who we have encountered on the other sea voyages. Luke begins to use the pronoun “we” once again. We had last encountered this person at least two years prior to this time when Paul arrived in Jerusalem in about 57 AD. I have speculated before that perhaps the author of Acts really was present during these sea voyages as an acquaintance of Paul. Others have suggested other theories about Luke’s use of the pronoun “we” and we will never be sure what the truth is. In the end it really does not matter much. The detailed itinerary and a few other specific details do suggest that even if the “we passages” come from a source used by Luke that the author of that source was along on the journey. Some have suggested that Aristarchus is the “we source.” Perhaps that could be true, however then one would need to go back and explain how Aristarchus was at Troas before Paul’s first missionary venture to Macedonia, which was Aristarchus’ home. He would have needed to be away from home and become a companion of Paul before the vision of Paul at Troas through which Paul was led to Philippi and eventually to Thessalonica where Aristarchus was from. Nothing is impossible. And all of this does point out the speculative nature of all attempts to identify unnamed people. We will never really know who is behind the “we” passages. Luke does provide us with some historical data that helps us to understand the time of year when all of this is taking place. Luke says the Fast had already gone by (Acts 27:9). The Fast Luke is talking about is the Day of Atonement which would have been in the fall – late September or early October. Shipping season in the northern Mediterranean ends by November and does not begin again until March. Luke does not say exactly how much time has passed but the implication is that the journey will be very dangerous if they proceed. It appears that everyone is basically in agreement about that – the only question is which harbor will be the safest for spending the winter. Paul is on the losing side when a vote is taken. The group hopes to get to a harbor in Phoenix on the island of Crete. One wonders what kind of sea captain would poll his passengers about a judgment the sea captain only ought to make. Perhaps Luke is using this scene to lift up the ability of Paul to foresee the future – he will make more specific prophecies later on in the story.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Saturday, August 24, 2013 Read – Acts 26:19-32 Paul concludes his defense by testifying to King Agrippa that he was not “disobedient to the heavenly vision” but rather that he had been faithful to the one who called him proclaiming a message of repentance first in Damascus and then in Jerusalem and Judea and to the Gentiles. The word repentance has less to do with feeling sorry for something than it does with a change of mind. To repent is to change one’s mind. That is Paul’s plea and that is Paul’s hope for all who hear what he has to say. Paul’s message is a message that comes fully out of the scripture of the OT – he teaches “nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would take place: that the Messiah should suffer, and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles” (Acts 26:22-23). Once again Paul includes himself within Judaism by referring to “our” people. Without using the exact words Paul rehearses the core message of the speeches of Acts – “This Jesus who was crucified, God raised from the dead, so that repentance and forgiveness of sins might be proclaimed in his name.” Certainly this core message is at the heart of his testimony and at the center of his defense of the Christian faith. Paul tells King Agrippa that it is for this reason that Paul was seized by the Jews in the Temple – and yet God has helped him to this day. Jesus had said of his followers that they would bear witness before kings and rulers. That is what Paul has now done before King Agrippa and Porcius Festus, the Roman ruler. Once again the parallels with the story of Jesus become evident – Jesus testified before the Roman Pontius Pilate and the Jewish Herod Antipas. Readers of Luke remember that it is only Luke that tells of the episode of Jesus before Herod. What will be the result of Paul’s testimony? Porcius Festus passes Paul off as one crazed by too much learning. He is not convinced. Paul’s response to Festus is short – there is not much else to say and in the process of responding to his accusation that Paul is crazy, he turns again to King Agrippa who is really the one to whom Paul is making his plea. Paul reminds King Agrippa that surely he is not unaware of everything that has taken place. King Agrippa is not ignorant of the events surrounding the crucifixion of Jesus – and of the proclamation of those who follow Jesus that God raised him from the dead. Paul confronts King Agrippa with a question that must have taken him off guard – “do you believe the prophets?” and, before King Agrippa can answer, Paul says, “I know that you believe.” What was King Agrippa to say? His response is likely on the sarcastic side – “Are you so quickly persuading me to become a Christian?” Paul is deadly serious when he responds to King Agrippa that that is exactly his hope and the hope he has for all who hear what he has to say. King Agrippa is not convinced – but he is also not able to refute Paul. The scene ends as King Agrippa, Bernice and the other rise to leave. Paul has stated his case. King Agrippa and Porcius Festus along with others have heard. Now it will be up to the work of God’s Spirit whether or not they will heed the words of Paul. History will demonstrate that they did not – but Paul has done all he can. Significantly, as King Agrippa and the others leave they are heard saying to one another, “This man is doing nothing to deserve death or imprisonment” (Acts 26:31). This is the second time that Paul has been declared innocent. He has now been declared innocent by the Roman ruler, Porcius Festus, and the Jewish king, Herod Agrippa – just as Jesus was declared innocent by Pontius Pilate and Herod Antipas. The parallels continue. Porcius Festus still has nothing to write about the charge against Paul. One might expect that Paul would now be set free. But Roman justice is not served! And King Agrippa appears to turn the blame squarely on Paul – “This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to the emperor” (Acts 26:32). How intent we all are to justify ourselves! It is now Paul’s fault that he is in custody and that he will be sent as a prisoner to Rome. I suppose that thought might have made King Agrippa feel better – but it was not true. Of course on a much deeper level God was acting in all of this. It was God who was bringing Paul to Rome. Human action cannot thwart the will of God. In fact, God uses even corrupt human action to bring about his work. This is not a story that is being controlled and driven by human rulers like Porcius Festus or King Agrippa. All along this is a story that has been guided by the Spirit of God.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Friday, August 23, 2013 Read – Acts 26:12-18 Paul now turns to his encounter with Jesus on the Damascus Road. This is the third time Luke has told us about this encounter which highlights its importance in the story. We have noticed how the story has gone through a progression. Here the story is considerably shorter than the previous two versions. There is no mention of whether or not Paul’s companions saw anything or heard anything. There is no mention of Paul being blinded by the experience. There is no mention of Ananias. The call of Jesus comes directly to Paul – something that matches much more closely with Paul’s own view of his call by Jesus. Jesus is fully in control of this encounter. And in the encounter Paul is given the purpose for which Jesus has appeared to him. Paul is appointed to testify to the things in which he has seen Jesus. God has promised to rescue Paul from Jews and Gentiles who will oppose him, and Paul is the vehicle through whom God intends to “open the eyes of many so they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in Jesus” (Acts 26:18). The word that Luke uses to refer to the “forgiveness of sins” is better translated “release from sins” – it is to be set free. The very Jesus that Paul once sought to destroy is now at the center of Paul’s understanding of what it means to be a Jew. This does not mean however that Paul was now abandoning Judaism. Jesus was a Jew – he was the Jewish Messiah. And now Paul would testify that to follow Jesus was the proper expression of Judaism. This is the hope for which Paul had always longed. This was the hope of Israel! There was a change of mind and heart for Paul but not a change of religion. That will become clear as we continue to hear his witness.

Weekly Announcements Aug 25 2013

CLICK HERE

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Thursday, August 22, 2013 Read – Acts 26:1-11 The proceedings begin with King Agrippa inviting Paul to speak openly. And so begins the final of five speeches by Paul in the book of Acts. This may be the most important of all the speeches. It is more than just a defense of Paul it is a statement of the case for the Christian faith. As we listen to Paul’s speech, we need to remind ourselves that, like all the others, this is most likely not a “verbatim” speech. It is a speech typical of what should be said as anyone attempts to defend the faith. To be sure some things are particular to Paul, and Luke would expect that others would provide similar details from their own experience, but the core of the speech is Luke’s concept of the defense of the Christian faith before the world. Paul begins with just a bit of flattery in considering himself fortunate that it is before King Agrippa that Paul must speak and not some lesser person. On the other hand, it is appropriate that Paul should be making his defense before one who is both powerful in the Roman world and well acquainted with the “customs and controversies of the Jews” (Acts 26:3). Having gotten the pleasantries out of the way, Paul begins in earnest by providing the story of his early life, a story that any well-meaning Jew would know to be true. Once again it is important that we hear that Paul is placing himself squarely in the center of Judaism – he is a Jew! He speaks of the Jews as “my own people” and of himself as a member of the Pharisees sect, the strictest sect of “our” religion. Once again Paul maintains that anyone ought to be able to testify on his behalf about this. Paul maintains that he is on trial on account of his hope in the promises of God made to “our” ancestors, a promise that “our” twelve tribes hope to attain. Paul, the Christian Paul, is not an outsider! He belongs to the people of Israel! From the days of his youth as a member of the sect of Pharisees he believed that God had the power to raise the dead – that is the hope for which he is now on trial. It is crucial that we understand that Paul did not think of himself as no longer being a Jew. Yes, he was a Christian Jew, but that did not make him any less a Jew. That is why it is important that we refrain from using language of conversion when we speak of Paul – he was not converted from one religion to another! Paul did need to think in a different and new way. Paul tells us that he was convinced that it was God’s will that he do whatever he could “against the name of Jesus of Nazareth” (Acts 26:9). Paul thought that followers of Jesus were perverting the Jewish faith – they were a danger to the faith that Paul so dearly loved and to which he was fully committed. And that is what Paul did in Jerusalem and even in foreign cities. Paul speaks of his persecution of Christians, but from the point of view that he was not a persecutor but a protector of Judaism. The Paul we meet in this part of the story is not someone who is struggling with a guilty conscience or who doubts his actions. He is zealous for the faith! He was a defender of Judaism!

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Wednesday, August 21, 2013 Read – Acts 25:13-27 We have been introduced briefly to Bernice and King (Herod) Agrippa. They are the sister and brother of Drusilla who was the wife of Felix, the predecessor of Festus. Like their sister Drusilla, theirs is an intriguing tale. King Agrippa was the son of the first Herod Agrippa who had been king from 40-44 AD. When his father died he was still too young to inherit his throne, but in a few years the Romans promoted him to the office of king like his father. King Agrippa would have been the great-grandson of Herod the Great, the awful king of the Jews who was reigning when Jesus was born. Like his great-grandfather before him, King Agrippa was fiercely loyal to Rome. He was king during the tragic Jewish revolt of 66-70 AD and put his army at the disposal of the Roman generals, Vespasian and Titus, during the war. His armies were commanded to participate in the invasion against Jerusalem and the siege that ended with the destruction of the Temple along with much of the city. The story about his sister, Bernice, is even more intriguing. First of all, if rumor in Rome is to be understood to be correct, Bernice and King Agrippa were involved in an incestuous relationship after she divorced her husband. Likely the rumors were true. At the time when Paul would have appeared before them, they were living together. In the years following the Jewish revolt, Bernice became the mistress and lover of Titus, the Roman general who was in charge at the end of the Jewish revolt. Titus was the oldest son of Vespasian who had been the Roman general sent to Judea by Emperor Nero to quell the uprising of the Jews in 66 AD. When Nero committed suicide in 68 AD, Vespasian eventually became the Roman emperor after three other Romans held the office for only a few months each. When Vespasian became the emperor in 69 AD, Titus took over the role of general in the war against the Jews. It was at this time that he and Bernice became lovers. When Titus ascended to the role of Emperor following the death of his father, Vespasian, the relationship between Bernice and Titus ended, or perhaps went underground since it was just too scandalous to defend such an arrangement. Luke spares us all these details (we learn them mostly from Josephus and the Roman historians of the time) but it is important for us to be aware of all of this since it does add a certain insight into what was happening. When we hear of people like Drusilla and Bernice and King Agrippa, we are dealing with “high flying” characters whose lives resembled a soap opera. Paul was not appearing before good and well-meaning folks. Luke tells us that Bernice and King Agrippa came to pay a visit to the new procurator which is likely a historical fact. The occasion provides the puzzled Festus an opportunity to ask someone else in authority how he should handle the strange case of Paul. As Festus summarizes the case against Paul, it becomes clear that the Jews from Jerusalem have not brought any charge against Paul that should merit a guilty verdict. Festus gets right to the heart of the matter. They have not made any of the charges that Festus was expecting to hear (Acts 25:18). Instead, their charges are really internal disputes within the Jewish religion. This is the very argument that Luke has been maintaining all along. Christianity is not a new or different religion, but rather the proper understanding of Judaism. Internal disputes within the Jewish religion are not something the Romans either cared to deal with or had the authority to deal with. This is a Jewish problem. Festus tells King Agrippa and Bernice that at the heart of the issue is a dispute about Jesus. The accusing Jews from Jerusalem claim that Jesus is dead. Paul, also a Jew, claims that Jesus is alive. At the heart of the matter is the question of the resurrection of the dead – and now more particularly the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. That is precisely the issue! Is Jesus the crucified messiah who God raised from the dead and made Lord and ruler of all? Or, is Jesus just a man who was killed long ago by Pontius Pilate as an insurrectionist and whose deluded followers somehow claim to be alive? These are not questions of Roman law for Festus to answer and provide a verdict. Festus goes on to tell of his plan to send Paul to Jerusalem in hopes of resolving the issue, and of Paul’s appeal to be sent to the emperor. As we will soon hear, this created a dilemma for Festus. What should be the charge against Paul? King Agrippa agrees to hear from Paul himself the next day. It is clearly with tongue in cheek that Luke writes of the grand entrance of Bernice and King Agrippa. Luke’s readers must surely have smiled at the silliness of such an entry with all the pomp and circumstances involved. That’s especially true when we recall the information that Josephus and the historians provide. Luke’s first audience would have been living right in the midst of those times. What a spectacle! What a farce! Luke contrasts the ridiculous entrance of King Agrippa with the simple dignity of Paul as he is brought before the assembled group. We have known all along that the Roman procurators have found Paul to be not guilty of the crimes of which he is accused. For the first time, Festus makes the declaration that he had “found that he had done nothing deserving death” (Acts 25:25). This is the first of three such declarations. Readers of Luke will remember that on at least three occasions Jesus was also officially declared to be not guilty. We need to recall that Luke has been telling the story of Paul in parallel to the story he earlier told about Jesus. Festus also clearly states the dilemma he is dealing with regarding his inability to state the charges for which he is sending Paul to be tried by the emperor. It would be ridiculous to send a man to stand before the emperor who is charged with no offense. Festus hopes that at the end of the proceedings he will finally have something to write indicating exactly the charges against Paul. He is also hoping that Agrippa will help provide the answer.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Tuesday, August 20, 2013 Read – Acts 25:1-12 According to Josephus, Porcius Festus was a more just ruler than Felix had been. Unfortunately he was procurator for only about two or three years. He likely became the procurator in 59 or 60 AD. He died in 62AD. Luke does not tell us this part of the story, but in the interval between the replacement of Festus by his successor, the high priest Ananias had James, the brother of Jesus, executed. This happened in 62 AD. One can only wonder why Luke chose not to tell that part of the story. As we have noticed, after Paul’s arrest the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem, among whom James, the brother of Jesus, would have been the leader, disappear from Luke’s story. It is quite obvious that there was worry and concern among the Jewish Christians when Paul arrived in Jerusalem in about 57 or 58 AD. James, the brother of Jesus, and others are anxious. Perhaps the undercurrents are swelling far more dangerously than we may imagine. The Jewish revolt in 66 AD was only a few years in the future. The harmonious relationship between Jewish Christians and non-Christian Jews that Luke so much desired and wanted to portray may not have been so harmonious after all. Perhaps Christian Jews were being questioned about their loyalty – a good reason why James would want Paul to display his “zealous” Jewish best. Of course we can only speculate and wonder about what it really was like to live in Jerusalem in those days leading up to the Jewish revolt in 66 AD. Josephus does provide us with some interesting insights into that chaotic and terrible time. We could wish that Luke would have told us more than he did. Peter had disappeared from Luke’s story following the Jerusalem conference (Acts 15) and now all the others in Jerusalem – the authenticating Apostleship so important in the early parts of Luke’s story – have also disappeared. We can only wonder why Luke chose not to tell us “the rest of the story” about any of them. As we come to the end of the book of Acts a question that we will need to ponder is why Luke ended his book as he did. We will come to that in due time. Luke tells us that when Festus arrived in Caesarea he wasted no time before he visited Jerusalem, the most important city in his district. It is likely that there were many things to discuss, but Luke tells us only of the conversation that Festus had with the chief priests and the leaders about Paul. From the way in which Luke tells the story, this was the most important thing on their minds. With a new procurator in place, they appeal to have Paul brought back to Jerusalem, pretending that they will provide him a fair trial there. Luke tells his readers that they have other plans. Those plans are to murder Paul on the way. One is reminded of the men who vowed not to eat until Paul is dead. Are we to imagine that they are still fasting? Luke’s creative genius as a writer is again on display. Festus does not provide a reason but foils the plot of the chief priests and would-be assassins of Paul by telling them that Paul will be tried in Caesarea and that he is returning their shortly. If they want to press the case they can do it there. In a little over a week the scene shifts back to Caesarea and a shortened version of the same trial that took place before Felix unfolds. Luke only tells us that the chief priests brought serious charges against Paul but does not document what those charges were. Paul, in his defense, will provide some of that detail, and the reader is left to conclude that the trial before Festus is a repeat of the trial before Felix. The case against Paul is not made. But Festus proves no more just in providing a verdict than his predecessor, Felix. In a move that would have taken Festus off the hook, he asks Paul if he would like to return to Jerusalem to be tried there. This would be the third time Paul would face the same charges even though on the previous two occasions he was not found guilty. He was also not acquitted by Roman rulers who knew he was innocent. Festus wanted it both ways – he could not condemn Paul, but he also knew that Paul would likely be killed if he returned to Jerusalem. Festus likely figured he would let the Jews do the dirty work and be done with this pest. Paul refused to take the bait. If he cannot receive the justice he has coming in the court of the Roman procurator in Caesarea, he has no choice but to appeal to a higher court, the emperor in Rome. Paul proclaims his innocence once again – an innocence that Paul reminds Festus that Festus knows very well to be true. Festus will not get off the hook so easily. Paul’s appeal to be sent to Rome opens up the story in a new way. From this point on, the Jewish accusers of Paul who are from Jerusalem disappear from the story. They will not be heard from again. Readers of the book of Acts know, of course, that Paul will arrive in Rome. God had promised that Paul would stand before the emperor, and God’s promises will be fulfilled. Paul’s appeal to be tried before the emperor is the vehicle by which Paul will arrive in Rome. We might imagine that the journey to Rome would happen very quickly and that this would be the next thing that Luke will tell us. That is not the case. There is one more fascinating story to tell – the hearing of Paul before Herod Agrippa, who was the king of the Jews at that time. This will provide Luke one more chance to place before his readers one more speech by Paul. While it is not the last thing that Paul will say, it is the last major speech and becomes Paul’s final defense of the Christian faith.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Monday, August 19, 2013 Read – Acts 23:24-27 Luke now provides a fascinating piece of information to his readers. Felix’s wife is a woman named Drusilla. Luke tells us she is a Jew, but there is far more to say about her. We learn from Josephus that Drusilla is Felix’s third wife. His first wife had been the grand-daughter of Antony and Cleopatra. His second wife was unknown to Josephus. At the time Felix married Drusilla, he was about 55 years old – she was 16. She was also the daughter of Herod Agrippa, the king who had ruled over Judea, Samaria, and Galilee from about 40-44 AD. This Herod was the one who failed to renounce the claim of the people that he was a god and was struck down by God for his arrogance. As we will learn shortly, Drusilla was the sister of two other characters who will appear in Luke’s story, Bernice and Herod Agrippa the second, both also children of Herod Agrippa the first. (Again, there are just too many Herods!) All of this adds intrigue to the story. It is a real soap opera in some ways. All of this helps us to grasp the interwoven relationship between the Romans and the Jews – at least at the higher political levels. This is not a clean little story of well minded people. It is a tragic, complex, and fascinating story of intrigue at the highest levels and how all of that influenced the lives of both Jews and Christians. Luke tells us that Felix and Drusilla were delighted to enter often into conversation with Paul. It is a story that sounds something like the story Mark tells us of Herod Antipas delighting in listening to John the Baptist when he was in prison (Mark 6:20) – a story Luke dropped out of his gospel at this point even though he was otherwise following Mark’s story. Luke tells us that Felix both feared and could not resist talking to Paul. Of course Luke also tells us that Felix hoped to receive a bribe from Paul or Paul’s friends which reveals the sinister and corrupt ruler Felix really was. Josephus and Tacitus likely were correct in their descriptions of Felix. One can only wonder how conversations about “justice, self-control, and the coming judgment” went between Paul, Drusilla, and Felix. Luke tells us two years passed by before Felix was replaced by the next procurator, Porcius Festus. In the Roman legal system, the statute of limitations for a crime was two years. For a second time Roman justice should have led Felix to free Paul. First his accusers failed to appear and now the statute of limitations had expired. Felix does not provide justice for Paul. Instead he plays his hand toward the Jews by granting them the favor of leaving Paul in prison. Luke is building a case for the innocence of Paul – just as he built the case for the innocence of Jesus. Neither was guilty of the crimes they were accused of committing, and neither received the Roman justice they deserved. Readers of Luke’s gospel will recall that three times Pontius Pilate declared Jesus to be innocent, and at the point of his death the centurion declares, “Truly this man was innocent” (Luke 23:47)! Perhaps Luke’s first readers were suffering persecution and part of Luke’s reason for writing his gospel was to argue that they are innocent too.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Sunday, August 18, 2013 Read – Acts 24:1-23 The hearing before Felix takes place five days later when the high priest Ananias and other Jews come down from Jerusalem to Caesarea. The hearing consists of two speeches – one by the chief spokesman of the Jews, Tertullus, who was a skilled attorney, and the other by Paul. Tertullus speaks first. His speech is dripping with flattery, a flattery that becomes even more distasteful when one considers the appraisal of Felix by Josephus and Tacitus. Felix was far from honorable but Tertullus will paint him in glowing colors. Having “buttered him up” Tertullus gets to the charges against Paul. They are now couched in political tones. Paul is a “pestilent fellow”, a troublemaker who has been agitating rebellion throughout the world. He is thus an insurrectionist, the penalty for which is death. Paul is also the “ringleader” of the sect known as the Nazarenes. Exactly what that might have meant to Felix from a political point of view is unknown. Perhaps there is meaning in the “label” Nazarene that his slipped out of reach in the passing of history. The third charge is also a political one since Paul is accused of profaning the Temple, a capital offense in Roman law. Tertullus is not ashamed of lying. He claims that his present accusers caught Paul in the act and seized him “red handed” in his crime. Of course that was not the case – it was Jews from Asia who brought the word to the authorities in Jerusalem, and Paul was apprehended as he prayed alone in the Temple. Tertullus closes his accusations with the boast that if Felix will “examine” Paul – which may have been the suggestion of applying torture to him – Felix will get the truth out of him. Paul is next to speak. His words are calm and cheerful. There is no “buttering up” of Felix, only the reminder that Felix has ruled for a long time and that Paul looks forward to making his defense before such an experienced judge. If Felix cares to examine the facts he will discover that Paul had been in Jerusalem for only a short time, twelve days, and that Paul had not disputed with anyone in Jerusalem. He came to worship God. What Paul admits to is only that he is a Jew who “worships the God of our ancestors, believing everything laid down according to the law or written in the prophets.” Paul confesses that he has a “hope in God” – a hope that his accusers also accept – “that there will be a resurrection both of the righteous and the unrighteous. Therefore I do my best always to have a clear conscience toward God and all people. Now after some years I came to bring alms to my nation and to offer sacrifices. While I was doing this they found me in the Temple, completing the rite of purification, without any crowd or disturbance” (Acts 23:14-18). Paul was only being a faithful Jew – yes, a Jew who follows the Way, but an impeccably faithful Jew none the less. As Luke, through James, the brother of Jesus, would put it, Paul is “a Jew, zealous for the law!” It is interesting that Paul does not mention Jesus. Perhaps admitting that he belonged to the “Way” was enough to make it clear that he was a follower of Jesus, but one wonders why Jesus is not a part of Paul’s defense. We have seen earlier that Paul has made “the resurrection of the dead” the main issue in the debate. That emphasis continues here. Paul also mentions that he has come to bring “alms to my nation”, a reference most likely to the collection for the poor in Jerusalem that was so important to Paul and is the main motive for his Jerusalem visit according to his letters. We have noted earlier that Luke has all but ignored Paul’s offering for the poor. Likely Luke was far more aware of the importance of the collection for the poor than he lets on in the book of Acts. Once again it is important to notice that Paul says, “alms to my nation,” – he does not say “your nation”, or “their nation”, but is stating clearly that he considers himself to be a Jew. Paul goes on to point out that it was “Jews from Asia” who actually incited the trouble. They are not present. Roman law said that a man had a right to face his accusers and Paul’s accusers have disappeared. Felix should have simply thrown the case out of court, but he does not. Roman justice is not provided by Felix. Paul is guilty of none of the crimes of which he has been accused. His only fault is that he is a believer “in the resurrection of the dead”, something that he shared with the Pharisees as we have discovered earlier. There is no crime here, only a dispute about religious belief. Luke now tells us that Felix was actually well informed about the “Way” and simply adjourns the hearing without a verdict. Exactly how Felix has become so informed is not revealed by Luke. When we remember that at least 25 years have passed since the death and resurrection of Jesus, and also that Cornelius, a Roman centurion who lived in Caesarea, had become a “follower of the Way” some years earlier, it is possible that there was a thriving Christian community in Caesarea. Felix may have had some experience with them and found them harmless from the point of view of his Roman rule. Of course all of that is speculation. As we have said, Felix simply adjourns the hearing without a verdict but promising that he will decide the case when the tribune, Lysias, arrives. Paul remains in custody though he is granted at least the freedom of being cared for by his friends.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Saturday, August 17, 2013 Read – Acts 23:23-35 In the middle of the night Paul is moved out of Jerusalem to safer territory at Caesarea on the Mediterranean Sea, the Roman capital of the territory. Luke tells us that the tribune used half of his army to secure the move! Obviously they did not quietly slip out of town. At this point we learn both the identity of the tribune, Claudius Lysias, and the Roman procurator, or governor at Caesarea, Felix. Josephus goes to great lengths in his description of Antonius Felix. He had once been a slave who was freed by Antonia, the mother of the emperor Claudius. Tacitus, the Roman historian says of Felix that he “exercised the power of a king with the mind of a slave” – and Josephus placed most of the blame for the Jewish revolt in 66 AD on the inept leadership of Felix. He was a brutal ruler – much like Pontius Pilate had been. He became Procurator of Judea in about 52 or 53 AD and ruled until about 59 or 60 AD. All of this helps to date the story of Paul since Paul appeared before him and remained in custody for two years while Felix was procurator. He was finally sent to Rome by Felix’s successor, Festus, who began to reign in about 59 or 60 AD. The date of Paul’s visit to Jerusalem was thus about 57 AD or so. The events that unfolded in the story we have been reading took place at least 25 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus as we have noted earlier. Luke does not portray Felix in as negative a light as either Josephus or Tacitus, though he will tell his readers that Felix kept Paul in prison long after he had determined that he was innocent, hoping to receive a bribe from Paul to gain his freedom – no bribe is given. At this point Luke simply tells us that Felix decides to give Paul a hearing once his accusers have arrived from Jerusalem.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Friday, August 16, 2013 Read – Acts 23:12-22 The morning light brings more intrigue to Luke’s unfolding story. A plot is uncovered regarding an attempt to kill Paul. The strategy is to make the tribune believe that overnight tempers have cooled and now everyone finally wants to get to the bottom of all of this controversy surrounding Paul. The plot is sinister. Unknown to the tribune and to Paul, a group of men have vowed to kill Paul by stabbing him as he is led to the hearing. Once again Luke is reflecting historical reality. Josephus tells his readers of a group of Jewish radicals that emerged at about this time in history known as the sicarii. The word “sicarii” means a small knife that can be easily hid under a person’s outer garment. Josephus tells of many prominent people who were publically killed in this way. The knifeman would slip up next to his victim in the crowd, stab him with his sicarii, and then disappear into the crowd in the chaos that would occur. All of this was part of the tragic build-up to the Jewish revolt in 66 AD. Luke is likely aware of this method of murder. His story has much historical plausibility. Fortunately for Paul the plot is uncovered. We learn more about Paul from Luke – a piece of information only Luke reveals. Paul has a sister who has a small son. Apart from this brief reference in the book of Acts, these two are unknown to history. Paul never mentions them. Paul’s nephew provides information to the tribune of the plot to kill Paul. The story is filled with intrigue and suspense. For a fourth time the Romans come to Paul’s rescue. And readers of Acts are left wondering how the men who have plotted against Paul will resolve the vow they have taken not to eat until Paul has been murdered – will they break their vow to God, or starve?

Weekly Announcements Aug 18 2013

CLICK HERE

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Thursday, August 15, 2013 Read – Acts 22:30-23:11 The next day the tribune released Paul and ordered the chief priests and the whole council to gather for a meeting. In truth, the tribune did not have the authority to call a meeting of the Sanhedrin, however, one might think of this as an informal hearing. Certainly they did not meet in a formal way in the Temple because that would have made the Jews impure. Paul begins his speech where it was cut off the previous day, once again attempting to make connection with his audience by calling them “brothers” and claiming that his conscience is clear before God. The Jewish authorities will have none of it. Luke tells us the high priest, Ananias (clearly not the Ananias from earlier in the story) ordered Paul to be struck on the mouth. Again Luke has his general historical facts in place – the high priest at this time was indeed named Ananias. The meaning of his actions in ordering Paul to be struck on the mouth is not clear. Paul’s reaction is classic Paul – fiery and bold. While the author of Acts most likely was not a close associate or co-worker with Paul, he does know some things about Paul, and one of them was Paul’s fiery temper. Paul’s words are both fiery and an accurate prediction. The high priest Ananias was struck down during the Jewish revolt from 66-70 AD and murdered by the people of Jerusalem for collaborating with the Romans. But Paul’s words also appear to get him into trouble. Those around the high priest jump on Paul’s fiery words and accuse him of insulting the leader of God’s people and breaking the law – a commandment written in Exodus 22:28 – “You shall not revile God or curse a leader of your people.” Paul pleads ignorance regarding the identity of the high priest. The whole episode is one more way for Luke to tell his readers that Paul is a law abiding observant Jew. Once again his credentials as a Jew, zealous for the law, are impeccable. At this point Paul cleverly changes the subject. He takes notice that the Sanhedrin is made up of some who are Sadducees and others who are Pharisees. Paul makes the main issue of his defense speech the question of the resurrection of the dead. Paul knows that the Sadducees do not believe in the resurrection of the dead, but the Pharisees do. This is a historical fact borne out by Josephus and others. Luke description of Sadducees and Pharisees is exactly correct and matches Josephus description perfectly – “The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, or angel, or spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge all three” (Acts 23: 8). It is important once again that we hear how Luke puts this. Paul does not say, “I was a Pharisee,” but rather he says, “I am a Pharisee” (Acts 23:6)! This is not mere strategy on Paul’s part. As far as Luke is concerned Paul always remains a Jew. Paul would have claimed the same thing. Paul was a Christian Jew, but he was none the less first of all a Jew. Paul identifies with Pharisaic Judaism which did believe in the resurrection of the dead. The dispute at hand was fully within the confines of Judaism – it is not a dispute between Christians and Jews. Of course, Paul likely had far more in mind with respect to the resurrection of the dead than the Pharisees in his audience did. But Paul does not bring the resurrection of Jesus into the picture here. He is content to let the question of the resurrection of the dead in general be the main issue. Paul’s plan of action works. In what might seem like an impossible outcome, Paul receives an acquittal from the Pharisees at the meeting – “We find nothing wrong with this man!” they say (Acts 23:9). What a strange thing to hear. We need to remember that throughout his gospel and the book of Acts Luke has been portraying the Pharisees in a favorable light. From Luke’s point of view, the distance between a Jewish Christian and a Pharisee is not very great. Did Luke have hopes that the emerging Christianity of his time and Pharisaic Judaism, which was the only form of Judaism besides Christian Judaism to survive the Jewish war, might someday, somehow come back together? Was that one of his motives for writing the book of Acts? We can only speculate about those questions. At any rate, once again the Pharisees are portrayed by Luke in a positive way. With the Pharisees now on his side, at least with respect to the resurrection of the dead, the suspense in the story grows. Will this all work out for good for Paul? Before the thought has even settled into the minds of Luke’s readers, we hear that such a commotion arises that Paul has to be rescued for a third time by the Romans. Paul is nearly torn in two. Safely inside the Roman barracks, Paul is granted another vision during the night. God has already told Paul that he must go to Rome and witness there. That promise is renewed. Paul’s fate will not be to die in Jerusalem as Jesus did – or as Stephen did. His destiny is elsewhere. As we reflect back over the past few days’ readings, we discover Luke’s model speech of how a follower of Jesus is to proclaim the gospel to a Jewish audience. Paul is polite and honorable. He makes every effort to identify with his Jewish audience. He and they share a great common heritage, and Paul builds on that heritage. Having found as much common ground as is possible, Paul invites his Jewish brothers and sisters to consider his story about his encounter with Jesus and invites them to share in that encounter. Was the speech effective? Likely the same outcome as we have witnessed throughout the book of Acts unfolds – some believe, others don’t. We can learn from Paul’s speech how we might attempt to encounter others in our world. Luke is an evangelist first and foremost. His goal is to help followers of Jesus bear witness to the hope that is within them. More is going on than just the telling of a story. Witness to the gospel is happening in the words of Luke in the book of Acts.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Wednesday, August 14, 2013 Read – Acts 22:17-29 Luke provides corroborating evidence indirectly from two sources. The Jewish religious leaders in Jerusalem know full well that Paul had once been a persecutor of Christians in many of the synagogues in Jerusalem and elsewhere. They only need to look to their own experience about that. And they also know full well that Paul had approved of the death of Stephen. Luke skillfully places this corroborating evidence inside another appeal to his own experience. Luke provides his readers with information that he has not mentioned before – information that stands somewhat in opposition to what Luke has earlier reported. Luke reports that when Paul had returned to Jerusalem he was in the Temple praying – something a faithful Jew would be doing. In the midst of this time of prayer, Paul falls into a trance through which he receives a warning directly from Jesus to flee from Jerusalem because he will not be accepted there. Paul thinks that they will surely believe him because he had been such a persecutor. Jesus is not convinced and tells Paul that he is being sent away not just to rescue him from danger, but because Jesus has a greater purpose for Paul – to send him to the Gentiles. Luke’s way of providing corroborating evidence indirectly is cleverly done! If we remember what Luke has told us earlier we ought to be at least a little puzzled. Following the telling of the Damascus Road encounter in chapter 9, Luke tells us that Paul returned to Jerusalem and attempted to join the Apostles, but was prevented from doing so because they did not trust him. Eventually Barnabas brings Paul to the Apostles and he is welcomed and “went in an out among them in Jerusalem” (Acts 9:28). Eventually they recognize that Paul is in danger and send him off to Tarsus. There is no mention in the first story about a trance, or that it is Jesus who warns Paul of the danger, or that Jesus commissions Paul to go to the Gentiles. What is going on? Of course the two versions are not completely incompatible with one another, but it becomes difficult to meld them together. Even if they each contain parts of the truth, why does Luke tell the story as he does? One possible explanation is that Luke has at his disposal two versions of what happened. He uses the first version in the first story because it matches his intentions better – Paul is authenticated by the Jerusalem authorities. He uses the second version – a version that matches much closer with Paul’s own telling of this story in Galatians (Galatians 1:18-24) – because the need to emphasize the Apostles’ role is no longer necessary and getting to Paul’s ministry among the Gentiles is. Luke is not troubled by the discrepancy in his story – mostly because he was not concerned about providing historical accuracy knowing full well that historical accuracy is not the guarantee of truth. At this point Paul’s speech is cut short – it will be picked up again later. When Paul says that Jesus has sent him to the Gentiles, the crowd erupts once again, and the tribune must rescue Paul a second time. The tribune is intent on getting to the bottom of all this commotion and uses the tried and true Roman method of torture. A good flogging will get the truth out of Paul. Again, Luke provides us with a bit more information about Paul that saves the day – and saves Paul from a flogging. Paul tells the centurion in charge of flogging him that he is a Roman citizen and reminds him that it is not legal to flog a Roman citizen who is not condemned. Luke knows Roman law well. The tribune would be in great trouble if he were to carry through with the flogging – in fact he is already in very serious trouble because he had bound Paul in chains, since it was against Roman law to place chains on a Roman citizen who is not condemned. Luke likely could have provided all this information about Paul at one time. He has skillfully added suspense and interest to the story by providing the information little by little and over the course of events. What will now happen to the tribune? And what will happen to Paul? Luke uses the opportunity to demonstrate the graciousness of Paul. He will not bring trouble on the tribune – though Luke does emphasize that the whole experience has made the tribune afraid. The exchange between these two Roman citizens, one who had purchased his citizenship at a high price and the other who was born a citizen, is also a delightful touch that Luke adds to the story. One can only imagine what it must have been like to be the tribune in this story. He likely went home with a mind full of wonder – and likely did not sleep all night. As we will soon hear he makes up his mind in the morning to get to the bottom of this strange encounter.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Tuesday, August 13, 2013 Read – Acts 22:6-16 Having established Paul’s impeccable credentials and demonstrated how Paul sought to identify with his hearers, Luke moves on to the second main element of Paul’s defense speech, a presentation of the basic issue. Paul begins by appealing to his own experience. He tells the story of his encounter with Jesus on the Damascus Road. We have heard this report before (Acts 9:1-19), and we will hear it one more time (Acts 26:12-18). Repeating it three times is Luke’s way of adding emphasis to this experience. He wants us to remember the event and know that it is crucial to his story. The three accounts are essentially the same, though there are some minor differences. In the first account Paul’s companions hear a voice but see nothing. Here they see the light but hear nothing. In the first account, Ananias has a much larger role in the story than here, and he will completely disappear in the third telling of the Damascus Road encounter. These minor differences can easily be explained as we think about Luke’s purpose in each telling of the story. In the first story it is important to Luke that he distinguishes between the resurrection appearance of Jesus to the Apostles and elders of Jerusalem and the appearance of Jesus to Paul on the Damascus Road. The Apostles and elders saw Jesus physically in the 40 days between the resurrection and ascension – that experience was, for Luke, not repeatable. His point in the first telling of the story is that nobody, including Paul, saw anyone. By now Luke has made his point about the authenticating role of the Apostles and he does not need to worry about that. In this second telling of the story, the emphasis is more on hearing than seeing. Paul asks, “What am I to do, Lord?” and receives a longer answer in terms of what will happen in Damascus when Paul encounters Ananias. Consequently, Luke places emphasis on only Paul hearing – those who are with him do not hear. In the third telling of the story, Luke does not mention whether Paul’s companions either hear or see. And Ananias disappears completely. Paul receives his commission directly from Jesus and not through Ananias, which matches much closer with Paul’s own claim in his letter to the Galatians (Galatians 1:1, 11-12). It is interesting that Paul never mentions his Damascus Road encounter in any of his letters. Perhaps Paul’s reason for doing that was to turn attention away from himself and toward Jesus. It is one thing for someone else to talk about your experience than it is for you to do so. It is also interesting that Luke is comfortable about simply dropping Ananias out of the story by the third telling and matching the story more closely with Paul’s own story. Once again the answer is likely found in Luke’s use of the story and his disregard for historical accuracy. Luke is a good storyteller who makes the most out of his material. Paul’s appeal to his own experience is not enough to make the case. While Paul’s experience is important, it is not Paul’s experience that is the main issue. Luke will move on now provide corroborating evidence – the third element of a good defense speech.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Monday, August 12, 2013 Read – Acts 21:37-22:5 As Paul is rescued by the Roman tribune, we learn that the tribune had mistakenly identified Paul with an Egyptian insurrectionist who had caused quite a stir in Jerusalem. The tribune discovers the case of mistaken identity when Paul speaks to him in the finest Greek. The implication is that the Egyptian would not have used Greek, although that would not necessarily have been the case – Greek was spoken in Egypt too. The tribune is surprised by Paul’s articulate language. Incidentally, Josephus tells a story of an Egyptian insurrectionist who arose at about this same time claiming that he was the Messiah, the deliverer of the people from the Romans. I have at times been critical of Luke’s historical accuracy, but in general Luke’s story does reflect historical accuracy, and that is surely the case here. My point is that sometimes Luke has subjected historical accuracy to theological necessity, which is not necessarily a bad thing – it just means that we need to receive what Luke says with this in mind. As I have said many times before, the writers of the Bible are not nearly as concerned about historical accuracy as we moderns are, which is probably more our problem than theirs, since we have placed so much emphasis on the Bible being always historically true. Our notion of inerrancy would likely have not been understandable to Biblical writers. Perhaps we can learn something from them. Perhaps the best way to think about all of this is that Biblical authors simply did not have all the historical details about what really happened. They have the broad sense of what occurred and a number of pieces of information that have been passed on over the course of time. They have fit all this together and created the “storyline” as a narrative to proclaim the gospel. Mark was likely the first to do this. Luke has followed in Mark’s path and expanded the story to include the first years of the church. Neither Mark nor Luke, or for that matter any other gospel writer, knew exactly what happened and when it happened. Their story and their creative genius have provided us with a proclamation of Jesus as the suffering Messiah whom God raised from the dead and through whom God offers forgiveness of sins and new life. We have noticed this core message in the speeches of Acts – that is the core of the gospel and the proclamation that ultimately matters. Historical details add understandability to the story and make it more interesting, even if they are not strictly accurate historically. Once the tribune learns that Paul is not the Egyptian insurrectionist, he also learns that Paul is a Jew from Tarsus in Cilicia and a citizen of that important city. Exactly what Paul means when he says he is a citizen is not fully clear – it will become clear shortly – but Paul’s identity makes an impression of the tribune. He is not sure what he has on his hands now. Paul begs to speak to the people – people who have just raged against him and threatened him with death by mob violence. The tribune grants Paul permission to speak. Exactly how the crowd was quieted down enough to hear is a puzzle. Once again it may be important to remember that Luke is likely not reporting a “verbatim” speech telling us exactly what Paul said – Luke is creating a speech that was appropriate for Paul to proclaim to the Jews of Jerusalem. The speech is as much for the benefit of Luke’s readers as it is for the crowd. Luke tells us that the crowd does reach a point of silence as Paul begins to speak to them in Hebrew – actually the language used would have been Aramaic since that was the language spoken in Jerusalem at the time. Those who have studied “defense speeches” of that time have recognized that Paul’s speech follows the standard model. The standard defense speech contains three basic elements: (1) an opening statement providing the defenders good credentials and designed to identify with those who hear, (2) a presentation of the basic issue of contention, and (3) a provision of corroborating evidence to justify the defenders position. All three of these elements are present in Paul’s speech to the Jerusalem Jews. We will look at the first element of the speech today and pick up the remaining elements in the coming days. Paul begins by addressing his hearers as “brothers and fathers” which is a very respectable way to begin. Paul is one of them and lends the proper respect to those who are older than he is. Paul is attempting to identify with his hearers. He then goes on to provide his credentials. It is important that we hear Paul when he says “I am a Jew.” Paul does not say, “I was a Jew.” As far as Paul is concerned he is still a Jew – always was one and always will be one. This is exactly the claim that Paul makes in his letter to the Philippians. There he says, “If anyone else has reason to be confident in the flesh. I have more; circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee, as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless” (Philippians 3:4-6). Of course Paul will go on to say in Philippians that all of those credentials, which remain true of Paul, are worthless – garbage to be thrown away because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus and being made his own. In Philippians it is not that Paul is saying that his credentials as a Jew are not true, just that they do not matter. Luke and Paul agree with one another fully about Paul’s credentials. Luke reports much of the same things as Paul does, with a few variations, none of which are in conflict with one another. Luke tells us again that Paul is from Tarsus in Cilicia – something Paul never reveals in his letter but that does not matter. Luke also tells us that Paul was educated in Jerusalem “at the feet of Gamaliel” – the same Gamaliel who rescued Peter and John from the Sanhedrin when they were about to put them to death (Acts 5:34-39). As we mentioned then, this Gamaliel was the grandson of the great Hebrew rabbi Hillel. Luke does not tell us at this point that Paul was brought up to be a Pharisee, though he will soon corroborate Paul’s own claim that he is indeed a Pharisee (Acts 23:6; Philippians 3:5). Luke describes Paul as zealous for the law, which is exactly what Paul said in Philippians. Both Luke and Paul tell of Paul’s persecution of the church. While Paul does not mention that he had letters of support from the high priests in his pursuit of believers in Damascus, Paul does confirm that it was in Damascus that he was rescued by being let down through the wall in a basket (2 Corinthians 11:33). Luke and Paul are very much in agreement about Paul’s credentials. And those credentials are impeccable! Paul’s defense speech has met the first criteria – provide good credentials and identify with the hearers. Will Paul’s speech have a good effect? We will need to wait and see.