Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Wednesday, July 31, 2013 Read – Acts 18:24-28 Since chapter 13 Luke story has been focused on Paul – he is a character in every scene. For a brief moment Luke tells a story of ministry in Ephesus in which Paul is not involved. That should be a signal to readers of Acts that the ministry in Ephesus will be slightly different from ministry elsewhere and also that the story of the ministry in Ephesus was not exclusively the ministry of Paul. That was also true to a small measure in Corinth since Aquila and Pricilla are there ahead of Paul – but in Corinth all the action centers on Paul. Perhaps there is a whole story that someone could have researched and written about the ministry of Aquila and Pricilla – or even Apollos who we meet in this scene. There is much that we do not know about the spread of the gospel in the early church. That is one more reason to be thankful for Luke because we do have his work! As Paul was leaving for Jerusalem and Antioch Luke has told us that he left Aquila and Pricilla behind in Ephesus. That connects this story with what has come before. But the story is not so much about Aquila and Pricilla as it is about a man named Apollos. Luke tells us that Apollos was from Alexandria – almost certainly Alexandria in Egypt. That is an important bit of information. Alexandria was noted for its large library and its academic community. It is about at this time that a Jewish scholar named Philo was working in Alexandria. Philo was noted for his attempt to blend the Jewish faith with the philosophical schools of Greece. The Jews are really philosophers of the same caliber as Plato and Aristotle. Philo’s point was that the Jewish scripture and teaching was at least as noble and perhaps even superior to the work of the great philosophers – and that with a little interpretation some of the same ideas can be found in both. Philo left his mark on the world of his time. We can see some of his influence in the work of the Jewish historian, Josephus, who wrote near the end of the first century AD at about the same time as Luke wrote his gospel and the book of Acts. We can only speculate about whether or not Luke was familiar with the writings of Philo – though it is evident that Luke was a scholarly writer well school in Greek and in the style of Greek historians. Luke does not mention Philo in his writing – but we have been brought to Philo through Luke’s announcement that a man named Apollos came to Ephesus and that he was an eloquent man, well versed in the OT. Unlike Philo, who never became a Christian, Apollos did. He had been instructed in the “Way of the Lord” and spoke with enthusiasm (Acts 18:25). Luke tells us that Apollos taught the Christian faith accurately. But he was deficient in one thing – he was unaware of Christian baptism and knew only the baptism of John – almost certainly John the Baptist. Luke does not tell us that Apollos was a disciple of John the Baptist – there were some such followers who elevated John above Jesus as the gospel of John intimates. It is nearly impossible for us to determine exactly what the disciples of John the Baptist taught but that there was such a sect in the time of Jesus and for a period following his death and resurrection is clear. Luke tells us that Aquila and Pricilla now take Apollos aside and “explain the Way of God to him more accurately” (Acts 18:26). Apollos, to his credit, is open to their correction. Apollos now desires to go to Greece and receives letters of recommendation from the church in Ephesus and likely from Aquila and Pricilla too. Paul is aware of the ministry of Apollos – though there is just a hint of question in Paul’s mentioning of Apollos. In his first letter to the Corinthians Paul confronts the divisions among the believers that he finds there. It seems some in Corinth had chosen “favorite” preachers and perhaps were excluding those who did not share their enthusiasm. There are some who are saying, “I belong to Paul,” others say, “I belong to Apollos,” still others “I belong to Cephas,” and others, “I belong to Christ” (1 Corinthians 1:12). Paul’s point is that all Christians must see themselves as one – a message we could well hear even in our own time. Of course Apollos may not have been any more to blame for the division in Corinth than Paul was. It is interesting to note, however, how the characters in Acts show up in Paul’s letters. For his part, Luke mentions nothing about the divisions in Corinth – Luke is, apparently, a conciliatory person who seems to always smooth over the rough edges of things. We have seen that in the Jerusalem conference as well. That’s not a bad thing – though we need to also remember that the early church was not without great controversy.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Tuesday, July 30, 2013 Read – Acts 18:18-23 Luke now tells us of a quick trip by Paul back to Jerusalem and Antioch. Pricilla and Aquila accompany Paul as far as Ephesus where he visits briefly and promises to return, God willing. Even though Paul’s first visit to Ephesus is brief Luke tells us he went first to the synagogue and debated with the Jews he found there. They seem to welcome a longer stay but Paul is determined to get back to Jerusalem and to Antioch. Paul will in fact return to Ephesus in a very short time. In Luke’s mind this would have been Paul’s fourth visit to Jerusalem. Paul mentions nothing of such a visit in his letters – he does not return to Jerusalem according to his letters until he is bringing his offering to the Jerusalem church. Luke mentions nothing of an offering here. Why does Luke tell us of this visit? Perhaps because it really happened – that is not out of the question – but more likely Luke wants to reconnect Paul to the Jerusalem church. He has been away long enough. We need to remember that Luke is more concerned about theological consistency than he is about historical accuracy. Whether or not Paul actually made this trip is of little importance. As the journey is about to begin Luke tells us of a vow that Paul makes at Chenchreae, the harbor to the east of Corinth. Such a vow as Luke describes is not found anywhere else in Jewish practice. Nazarenes were known to enter a vow in which they would not cut their hair for a specific time – but Luke tells us that Paul cut his hair, not that he vowed not to cut it. Perhaps we should understand that Paul had been observing a Nazarene vow and decides to end it at this time. As we listen to Paul in his letter, it seems rather strange that he would do anything like this. We are at a loss to understand Luke at this point – and that really doesn’t matter. Once Paul reaches Caesarea, the port of Israel on the Mediterranean Sea, he journeys up to Jerusalem bringing greeting to the church and then heads briefly to Antioch. After spending an indeterminate amount of time there he is off again strengthening the church in Galatia. Other than that thought, from Luke’s point of view, that Paul journeyed to Jerusalem before returning to his missionary endeavors this story really has no importance. Luke doesn’t tell us anything about what happened in Jerusalem.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Monday, July 29, 2013 Read – Acts 18:1-17 From Athens Paul moved on to Corinth. Corinth was a very important city in Greece. The city sat on an isthmus about three miles wide that separated the sea to the west toward Rome from the sea to the east toward Asia Minor. This strategic position brought Corinth a great deal of wealth and about everything else one can imagine. When Paul came to Corinth he found a Jewish couple, Aquila and Pricilla. They had come to Corinth from Rome having been evicted from Rome by Claudius, the emperor. We know of this eviction from the writings of one of Claudius’ biographers, Suetonius, who wrote of an eviction of the Jews from Rome over a dispute regarding “Chrestus” – likely he meant “Christos” – at a later time Tacitus makes the same error and uses “Chrestus” when he likely meant “Christos” too. We can gather that the dispute in Rome was between Christian Jews and non-Christian Jews – the Romans did not see the difference. This is more evidence that we should understand Christianity at its beginning as an expression of Judaism. Suetonius tells us that this dispute took place in 49 AD. We will hear shortly of a proconsul named Gallio who archeological evidence shows was proconsul in 50 and 51 AD. The time-frame Luke is laying out fits perfectly. I have been critical of Luke at times for “getting things wrong” which he likely did. This, and in many, in fact most places, he gets it exactly right. Luke is not perfect but he is a reliable historian. Anyway, Aquila and Pricilla have already been working among the Corinthians! Paul comes and joins them in the mission. We also learn the all three share a common vocation – they are tentmakers. They earn their support through this work and proclaim the gospel when they are not working. Once again the outreach starts in the Jewish synagogues. Success and failure is once again the outcome. In the end, the synagogue does not prove to be fruitful ground and Paul says some rather hostile words of protest – “Your blood be on your own head!” – again we need to hear these words as insiders debating with one another. One could wish that Paul would have been a bit more tactful – but that is not the Paul we find either in his letters or in the book of Acts. The mission moves on now to the Gentiles and the place where that mission takes shape is right next door to the synagogue – how convenient! In the process of proclaiming the gospel in the home of Titius Justus, the ruler of the synagogue, Crispus, is won over and becomes a Jewish Christian. One can imagine that this did not sit well with the others in the synagogue. Trouble is brewing. As if to provide strength to Paul, God provides a vision in the night to Paul. The mission lasts for a year and a half – the longest by far that Paul has ever spent in one place to this time. Eventually trouble breaks out – and this is where we are introduced to Gallio – again it is the Jews who stir up the people against Paul. They bring their case to Gallio and, to his credit he dismisses the case because it has nothing to do with Roman law. This is Luke’s way of proclaiming to the world of his day that the Roman world has nothing to fear from Christians and that Roman leadership had found the Christians not guilty! Luke then relates a very strange event. He tells us that Sosthenes, the new ruler of the synagogue is seized and beaten in front of Gallio – who turns his eyes away unfazed by what is happening. Who did the beating? Was it other Jews angry that Sosthenes was not successful? Was it Romans? Could it have been Christians? One would hope not. Luke is silent about who did the beating and the whole story is strange – and not worth much thought. As with Galatia and with Philippi we have the letters of Paul to the Corinthians to read. We are not going to take time now to go through them. However, we can say this much – the letters of Paul reflect much the same message as Luke does in the book of Acts regarding Corinth. Pricilla, who Paul calls Prisca, and Aquila are both mentioned prominently by Paul – as is the duration of his ministry in Corinth. Paul also mentions Crispus. For those who want to hear more you are welcome to pause in read the Corinthian letters.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Sunday, July 28, 2013 Read – Acts 17:16-34 When we left off the story we had just heard that Paul had been sent off to Athens by his friends to avoid the trouble that was brewing in Beroea (Acts 17:15). The story Luke tells of Paul’s adventure in Athens is unique in the book of Acts. Did Paul feel like a fish out of water in such a city as Athens? Hardly – Paul was not intimidated, but he was faced with an unusual challenge. In typical fashion Luke tells us that Paul went first to the synagogue in Athens where he carried on the same conversation with the Jews he found there. When the NRSV Bible says that Paul argued with them we should not think of this as a typical argument filled with hostility. It would be better in all of these instances if the word was translated “debated” with the sense of carrying on a dialogical conversation of give and take. Luke tells us very little of what happened in Paul’s visit to the synagogue in Athens. One can surmise that the reaction was similar to what happened in every other place. Instead, Luke tells us that Luke found himself in the marketplace debating with the philosophers who happened to be there. He mentions two schools of philosophy that were represented. The Epicureans were a group who argued that all religious talk and practice was a waste of time and harmful to a person. We might think of them as “secularists” in today’s language. They did not claim that there was no God just that god was so distant and uninterested in human affairs that it was useless to talk about god. The Stoics on the other hand were very willing to enter into religious debate. Over the course of time there were Stoics who became Christians – the two are not mutually exclusive. How is Paul to speak to these philosophers? Luke provides us with an example of Paul’s speech to such people – just as he had given us the model speech to a Jewish audience in the speech he records to the people of Antioch of Pisidia (Acts 13). Paul cannot begin with the story of Israel in the OT – that would not have connected with his audience. Consequently, he will need to struggle to get to the story of the crucifixion of Jesus because that story flows from the OT as well. Paul found an angle in something he had observed as he wandered the streets of Athens. First of all Paul attempts to identify with the people – at least the Stoics and probably most of those present by telling them that he has noticed that they are a very religious people. Athens is filled with temples and idols of all shapes and sizes. Having made this connection, Paul tells them that in his wandering he noticed an altar with a strange inscription – “To an unknown God” – no altar with that inscription has been found in Athens but there is evidence that in other parts of Greece such altars existed – the thought was that one should not miss out on any god so an altar was made to cover all the “unknown” ones just in case. At any rate, Paul grasps on to this idea of an altar to an unknown god and proclaims that this is the God he proclaims to them. Paul argument is essential from the reality of creation. God is the creator of everything that exists. And this God has also created all the nations and people of the earth and this God has instilled in them the urge to search for God. The presence of all the idols and temples was evidence for Paul of that urge. But talking in this way will only get so far – so eventually Paul needs to get to the core message. He does so by speaking of the resurrection of a righteous man God has appointed as judge of the entire world. He does not mention the name of Jesus. And he does not mention the crucifixion. Upon hearing of the resurrection some dismissed Paul and scoffed at him. Others perhaps thought Paul was now talking of about two gods – a male god, the righteous judge, and his female counterpart “Anastasia” which is the Greek word for “resurrection.” Still others become believer and two of them are very prominent people, Dionysius who was the leader of the Areopogus, a kind of Athenian court, and a woman named Damaris of whom we know nothing else. Was Paul successful in his speech to the Athenians? Was his speech the right speech to give in such a setting? Can you talk about God without talking about Jesus? All of these are questions that readers of Acts will long debate and will not fully answer. Likely we must say that the experience was not a glowing success. Paul moves on from Athens to Corinth where he will be much more successful. Luke does not give us Paul’s Corinthian speech – and we will learn that Paul will spend a long period of time in Corinth. Perhaps it takes longer to get the message proclaimed in places like Athens and Corinth. This is the one and only speech in the book of Acts that does not contain the core message Luke has included in every other speech. Perhaps we might gain from that the lesson that ultimately all we have to proclaim is Jesus – crucified, raised from the dead, and the one though forgiveness is made available to all who believe.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Saturday, July 27, 2013 Read – Acts 17:1-15 When we left Paul he and Silas had just been asked to leave Philippi. Readers of Luke should notice that once again the author is using the pronoun “they” to describe the action. We have already talked about that peculiar reference in the book of Acts. Luke tells us that they visited a couple of other cities in Macedonia, Amphipolis and Apolonia, but he tells us nothing of what happened in either city. Apparently Luke has some sort of travel itinerary that he is following – the reason he tells nothing about these two cities is simply because he had nothing in his sources about them. The next stop is Thessalonica. We have notice a pattern which continues here. Paul goes first to the synagogue (Acts 17:2). Luke does not repeat Paul’s speech – he has already provided that in Paul’s preaching in Antioch (Acts 13:16-47). The core of the message is mentioned – “it was necessary for the Messiah to suffer and to rise from the dead” (Acts 17:3). The result, as in other places, is mixed – some believe and others don’t. Luke tells us that Paul’s ministry lasted three Sabbaths. Again, a pattern shines forth – the Jews who do not believe become jealous and bring trouble for Paul. Their attempt to apprehend Paul are not successful – either he is not at the home of Jason who had likely become a Christian and offered his home as a house church or Paul has been hidden away by his friends. It is not likely that Paul would have hid from anything – but his friends were learning something in this journey and they often protect Paul. At any rate Paul and his companions are sent out of town under the cover of darkness. Luke may be communicating to the followers of Jesus that there is no shame in avoiding trouble when that is possible. The next stop is Beroea whose Jewish population Luke describes in more positive terms. They seem to welcome Paul and to genuinely and diligently examine the OT scripture. I have often talked about “Messianic Exegesis” and it sound like more of that is going on here. Paul and his companion would read through the OT and notice connections to the experience of Jesus. Messianic Exegesis is not so much looking for OT prophecy in some wooden way – the OT says this and Jesus fulfilled it – but rather it is to read the OT through the lens of the experience of Jesus’ death and resurrection and to understand the death and resurrection of Jesus through the words of the OT. For example, Psalm 22 has lots of images of a suffering one. Christian readers read the Psalm and can’t help but see the crucifixion of Jesus. The Psalm takes on new meaning. And vice versa, the Psalm helps interpret what happened to Jesus. All the while everyone knows that the Psalm had and has a life and message of its own. Psalm 22 does not exist simply to witness to Jesus – but it does witness, interpret and give meaning to the experience of Jesus’ death and resurrection and the death and resurrection of Jesus certainly give new meaning to an old Psalm. Apparently lots of “Messianic Exegesis” was going on in Beroea. Once again it is noteworthy that Paul begins in the Jewish synagogue – you’d think he would figure out by now that eventually trouble will arise because of the division the gospel causes. We need to remember that as far as Luke is concerned Christianity is always a form of Judaism. Paul would agree. Gentile Christians are grafted into the Jewish vine (Romans11:17-24). The proclamation of the gospel is to the Jews first and then to the Gentiles. We have read enough of the book of Acts to know what will happen. Sure enough the Jews from Thessalonica come and incite the crowds and once more Paul’s friends whisk him out of town and send him off to Athens. As we hear this repeated pattern it would be really easy for us to develop an anti-Semitic attitude. What we need to remember is that the book of Acts – as well as the rest of the NT – is a book written by Jews about Jews. It is an inside argument. For Gentiles to criticize Jews is not only inappropriate but ungrateful. Gentiles have no claim on anything – they are welcomed by the grace of God. We need to hear these arguments with humility – and with a sense of sorrow.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Friday, July 26, 2013 Read – Philippians 4 As his letter ends Paul shares some personal notes with those he knows in Philippi. Again women are at the top of the list. Euodia and Syntyche are described as fully co-workers with Paul. Apparently a disagreement is threatening their ability to work together – Paul seeks harmony between them. As I mentioned earlier the church in Philippi was the most supportive church in Paul’s circle of churches and here he thanks them for their concern and aid. It is to people who know how to give that Paul can share a mystery – the mystery of being content in all circumstance and to know that God provides all we need. I think only those who know how to give can understand what Paul is saying in these verses. They are great stewardship verses. We need to remember that this is the Paul who is writing from prison! God is good and God provides!

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Thursday, July 25, 2013 Read – Philippians 3 Chapter 3 is important to us because of the autobiographical information it contain – and it is more valuable to us because of the gospel it proclaims. We are going to focus on the autobiographical sections. The huge issue that generated the Jerusalem conference had to do with circumcision – and circumcision was at the core of the fiery letter Paul wrote to the Galatians. In this letter as well, Paul warns against those who still were insisting on circumcision for Christians. We have noted how Luke has striven hard to present a church that is unified in its decision that circumcision was not necessary. There is all kinds of evidence in Paul’s writings that the Jerusalem conference did not bring an end to the problem. Even in Philippi Paul found it necessary to warn against those whom Paul calls “dogs” – not a very nice way to talk, but Paul was never one to mince words. It is very obvious that Paul was angered by the “circumcision party.” Paul maintains that the actual motive of the circumcision party was so that they could boast about being better than others. Whether or not that is true we cannot tell. If anyone wants to boast – Paul can out-boast them all. And he provides his credentials: he was circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel from his birth, a member of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews. No one could present more solid credentials than that. Paul goes on to describe himself as a Pharisee – something Luke will also say in the book of Acts – and then Paul goes on to make the claim that if you wanted to measure him up against the law he was blameless. This is no groveling sinner tortured by a guilty conscience! Paul does not flinch when he claims that he was the best there was at keeping the law! Luke would have shared this appraisal – the Paul he portrays on the Damascus Road is not a tortured sinner longing for conversion and forgiveness. Paul was a self-assured Jew! He was so self-assured that he became a persecutor of Christians. This portrait of Paul is important – both because it matches that of Luke in Acts and because it helps to highlight the power of the gospel. Paul does not describe his encounter with Jesus or why and what changed for him. Something obviously did change. The self-assured Paul remains as confident as ever – but now his confidence is in Jesus. And in the process Paul is willing to lose everything in order to be held fast by the one thing – Christ Jesus has made him his own. Those are important words. Becoming a Christian is not something we can do – it is something Jesus does to us and with us. And that made all the difference in Paul’s life. What motives Paul is not that he might achieve something but that he might be found faithful to Jesus who has revealed himself to him and claimed Paul as his own. Paul welcomes the Philippians – and us – to imitate him in our own lives.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Wednesday, July 24, 2013 Read – Philippians 2 While he and Silas were in the Philippian prison Luke tells us that Paul and Silas were singing hymns to God. In this chapter Paul sings what likely was an early Christian hymn. In that hymn the story of Jesus is sung – he submitted to the point of death but God has exalted him and made Jesus the name before which all creation will bow and confess that he is Lord of all. The hymn echoes the core story of Jesus – he was crucified but God raised him from the dead and life and forgiveness are proclaimed in his name. The convergence of this message in Paul and in the book of Acts is important. We have often noted the discrepancies between Luke and Paul – here we can champion their unity. Paul goes on to talk about two co-workers. We have met Timothy before in Luke’s story in the book of Acts. Epaphroditus is new to us. Both are lifted up as examples of what being a follower of Jesus means. Timothy was often the messenger for Paul both in his letters and in the book of Acts. Epaphroditus is from the city of Philippi. Paul does not detail what his illness was but apparently it resulted in some way because he was involved in the mission. At any rate Paul is graciously sending him back home to assure the Philippian church. Once again we see the tender connection between Paul and this church.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Tuesday, July 23, 2103 Read – Philippians 1 If Paul’s letter to the Galatians is a fiery letter filled with anger his letter to the Philippians is a tender letter filled with love. The church in Philippi and in all of Macedonia was very supportive of Paul in his ministry as Paul states in his letters to the Corinthian church. In many ways this church was the most supportive of all. It may seem a bit surprising that Paul never mentions either Lydia or the jailer in his letter to the Philippians. We should not read anything into that since to do so would be pure speculation. The main issue that Paul address is this first chapter is an imprisonment he is enduring. Of course this was not the first or last time Paul would find himself in prison – if Luke is correct, and we have reason to doubt him, Paul spent time in the Philippians jail though it likely was only over one night. Readers of Paul’s letter to the Philippians have wondered where Paul is in prison now. The first impression of most readers is that he is in Rome and traditionally the church has agreed with that. That could be true, but there are other possibilities. Most scholars today think that Paul was in prison in Ephesus when he wrote this letter – a prison from which he was later set free. While a case might be made for Paul being in Rome an equally good case can be made for him being in Ephesus. It really doesn’t matter one way or the other. Paul’s response to his hardship and imprisonment is what is most important about this story. Paul would write to the Romans that God works all things for good with those who love him and are called according to his purpose (Romans 8:28). That is the way he views his present hardship. In fact he bears witness that God has worked good through what has happened to him – even his jailers have heard the gospel and other believers are strengthened because of him. Likely one of Paul’s reasons for writing to the Philippians was to assure them that he was okay – give the possibility that they had heard of his imprisonment. In many of his letters Paul is dealing with problems – not in Philippi – his message is one of full encouragement. And it is encouraging for us to read it too.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Monday, July 22, 2013 Read – Acts 16:16-40 As we move on in the story there is one thing that we should notice. Luke tells us that Paul and his companions went looking for a synagogue on the Sabbath day (Acts 16:13). Apparently they never found one – Luke does not mention Jews in the story. Historically, there was a Jewish synagogue in Philippi – Luke’s story does not mention it. Yet, it is important that Paul’s intention was to find a synagogue – the mission always begins with the Jews. On a later day, Luke tells us that once again Paul and his friends were on their way to the place of prayer – presumably the same place they met Lydia earlier. In what is somewhat of a humorous story Luke tells us that Paul became irritated at a slave girl who could tell fortunes because she was possessed by a demon. She was the source of great income for her owners. Luke’s story is dripping with irony – the possessed slave girl knows that Paul and his companions are “slaves of the Most High God, who proclaim to you the way of salvation” (Acts 16:17). The possessed see what the non-possessed cannot! And Paul’s reaction is a bit peculiar – he becomes so irritated that he casts out the demon to be rid of the annoyance – hardly a noble motive. The casting out of the demon causes the owners of the now freed slave – freed from the demon that is – to react by dragging Paul and Silas into the marketplace and before the magistrates. Some reward for a good deed! And the owners betray their true identity – they are simply motivated by wealth. The accusation is meant to veil their true motives – they accuse Paul and Silas of being Jews who are advocating customs contrary to Roman law. So far Paul and Silas have done nothing and said nothing – except that they have freed a woman bound by a demon. When religion and economic wealth are brought together – trouble is not far behind. Paul and Silas are treated shamefully and thrown into prison. Philippian justice is not at its best. In a story that sounds a lot like the story of the freeing of Peter (Acts 12) Paul and Silas are delivered from prison by an act of God. And in the process the Philippian jailer becomes a believer. Once again the story is not without humor and irony – just as the story of Peter being freed from jail is not without humor. The story also reveals Luke’s brilliant writing technique – we should not miss the connection that Luke makes when the jailer washes the wounds of Paul and Silas and then is washed in the waters of baptism. The story ends with the magistrates in total humiliation. First they attempt to free Paul and Silas quietly – Luke gives no reason for their change of heart – but Paul will have none of it. For the first time in Acts we learn that Paul is a Roman citizen. Roman citizens were immune from flogging and the magistrates were guilty of a gross offense. Paul presses the issue and receives the public apology he demands. At that point Paul and Silas are asked to leave the city and Luke tells us they did so after visiting again at Lydia’s house. The one thing that is missing from this story is an encounter with the Jews. Either Luke did not know about such and encounter and consequently there was no story to tell or Paul never found the Jewish synagogue. For Paul to have made no effort to go to the Jews would have been very unusual in the story of Acts. As the story moves forward the Jews will again play a prominent role in the story. Paul’s visit to Philippi was an interesting and unusual one, filled with hardship and success in rather strange ways. Two women and a man were never the same again. Luke does not tell us that the slave girl became a Christian – the others did – and perhaps we can hope in the thought that the church now existed to reach out to her. As with the churches in Galatia we have Paul’s letter to the Philippians. We are going listen to Paul’s letter in the coming days. Once again we will discover some autobiographical information about Paul that is helpful for us.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Sunday, July 21, 2013 Read – Acts 16:1-15 As we mentioned, we no longer hear about the ventures of Barnabas. Luke continues to tell us the story of Paul. We left off with the story of how Paul and Silas travelled through the region of Syria and Cilicia strengthening the church Paul had established there. They move on to Derbe and Lystra – two of the places where Paul and Barnabas had established churches. It seems Luke’s primary interest in telling us about this visit is to introduce us to Timothy who will become a travelling companion and co-worker with Paul. Paul also writes of Timothy in many of his letters and may well have written two letters to Timothy – scholars are divided about whether the letters to Timothy are genuinely from Paul, but for my part I consider them genuine since I can see no compelling reason to think of them differently. The story of Timothy is a fascinating one in light of what we have just heard from Paul in his letter to the Galatians. Luke tells us that Paul had Timothy circumcised since he was the son of a Jewish mother but a Greek father (Acts 16:3). With Galatians ringing in our ears, this does not sound credible. Yet, perhaps Timothy represents a special case – he should have been circumcised since it was his mother that would determine his nationality according to Jewish understanding. Had Timothy been fully Greek circumcision would have been inappropriate given the decision made in the Jerusalem conference. Luke is showing Paul to be a loyal supporter of the Jerusalem decree. In fact, Luke tells us that one of the things Paul did as he visited the churches he had founded earlier was to “deliver to them for observance the decisions that had been reached by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4). Would the Paul we meet in Galatians have done that? It seems very unlikely that he would. Again we are confronted with an irreconcilable problem in the text. While it is theologically important for Luke that Paul carry forward the Jerusalem decisions – and we should note that it is decisions, plural, that Luke speaks of – it is likely that historically Paul did not do so. Again we will need to live with the differences. I for one, side with Paul, though I do understand the function that Luke has assigned to the Jerusalem church. Luke is consistent theologically and his story reflects that commitment. With Timothy on board, Luke now relates some interesting things about what happened to Paul. After strengthen the churches he and Barnabas had established, Luke tells us Paul ventures into new territory – or at least he attempts to. Paul meets with no success – in fact Luke tells us that the Holy Spirit forbids Paul to minister in the areas he wants to work (Acts 16:6-7). What does this mean? How did they know that the Holy Spirit had forbidden them to speak in Asia and in Bithynia? Was it because they could find no one who would listen to them? Did they “come up empty?” All of these are questions that we cannot answer. Perhaps they are part of the skillful writing of Luke since their effect is to move Paul and his co-workers on to Troas where Paul receives a vision. At the very least Luke has presented us with a fascinating story. In Troas, Paul has a vision during the night. His vision is of a man of Macedonia pleading with him to “come over to Macedonia and help us” (Acts 16:9). The reason for the failure is now clear. God was moving Paul on to Europe. At this point in the story, readers of Acts suddenly notice that Luke uses the pronoun “we” to speak of the response of Paul and his co-workers (Acts 16:10). On two more occasions Luke will use the pronoun “we” to speak of the action taking place. What are we to make of this? The simplest solution, of course, is to understand that the writer of the book of Acts has joined the mission! That could be the case. However, I have already given my judgment – a judgment shared by most of the readers of Acts and Paul’s letters – that the differences between the way in which Acts portrays Paul and the way in which Paul’s letters portray him makes it unlikely that the author of Acts and Paul ever knew each other personally. There are just too many conflicting issues. I wish I could just jump on board and accept what seems to be obvious – the author of Acts was a companion and co-worker of Paul, at least in those short places where “we” shows up – but I find that nearly impossible to fathom. What other explanations might there be? Perhaps Luke has found a source that uses the pronoun “we” and has simply repeated it in those parts of the story where he found it. Perhaps, but the style of writing is so consistent throughout the book of Acts that no distinction can be made between those parts where “we” is used and those parts where it is not. While one cannot rule out the answer that it is the source that gives us the “we” it is probably not the answer. Perhaps Luke is creatively entering himself into the story as a writing technique through which he means to give credibility to the story. Without having actually “been there” Luke writes himself into the story to highlight the adventure. Yet, this seems rather far-fetched as well. One thing of note is that in those instances where Luke uses “we” the action is always in the midst of a sea voyage and immediately afterward. Just as quickly as Luke begins to use “we” he will revert to “they” without warning. The “we passages” are not long, except for the final voyage to Rome and the shipwreck following the storm. What the significance of using “we” on the sea voyages is no one seems to know. There is one more possibility that we should consider. Perhaps the author of Acts and Paul were merely acquaintances who crossed paths on three occasions over the course of the five or so years that is narrated in the story in Acts. Their first chance encounter was on the sea voyage from Troas to Macedonia and on into the city of Philippi (Acts 16:10-40). When Paul leaves Philippi the author returns to using “they” and not “we.” The next time the author uses the pronoun “we” is when Paul has determined that he “must” visit Jerusalem and then go to Rome. As the contingent leaves Macedonia their intention is to travel by ship directly to Syria, but Paul travels instead by land because a plot to kill him has been uncovered. Paul and his companion travel by land while “we” brought the ship by sea and joined Paul and his companions who were waiting in Troas – the same city from which the first sea voyage was made and the author began to use the pronoun “we” (Acts 20:6). The author continues to use the pronoun “we” until the contingent arrives at Jerusalem. The last time we encounter the use of the pronoun “we” is in the fateful journey to Rome where Paul and his companions suffer shipwreck (Acts 27:1-28:16). Could it be that the author was in fact involved in each of these sea voyages and yet not an intimate companion of Paul – he was not a co-worker with Paul – and perhaps he and Paul never actually spoke to one another? This explanation would account both for the use of “we” – the author and Paul really were in the same place at the same time on those three sea voyages – and it would account for the observation that the author misunderstands Paul and his ministry as it is spoken of in Paul’s letters and he has Paul say and do things that Paul would never have said or done – he was not associated with Paul’s ministry nor in Paul’s inner circle – therefore he could not be the Luke that Paul wrote of in 2 Timothy. It would be easy to surmise that as a young person the author of Luke-Acts was involved in the ship traveling business and in the process was placed in the presence of Paul without ever really knowing Paul. Of course this is all speculation – maybe speculation gone wild which is what usually happens when we speculate about something and then begin to view it as fact. The same thing likely happened with early Christians who jumped to the conclusion that the author of Acts is the Luke we find in the story. Perhaps it remains best for us to plead ignorance about the whole issue. The use of “we” remains a mystery. Once the contingent arrives in Philippi Luke tells us that on the Sabbath day Paul and his companions went looking for a “place of prayer” which likely means they were looking for a synagogue (Acts 16:13). What they find is a gathering of women. One of those women is named Lydia and, according to Luke, she becomes the first Christian in Europe as the result of Paul’s ministry. Luke tells us “the Lord opened her heart to listen” and at the conclusion of Paul’s proclamation she and her whole household are baptized. Paul and his co-workers are compelled to stay at her house and thus she becomes the leader of the first house church in Philippi. Once again we see Luke’s love for lifting up women in the story and giving them significant roles in the life of the early church. Paul’s mission in Philippi begins well – but will it continue?

Weekly Announcements July 21 2013

CLICK HERE

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Saturday, July 20, 2013 Read – Acts 15:36-41 When we return to Luke’s story in the book of Acts we discover that all might not have been quite as harmonious is Luke presents the situation at the conclusion of the Jerusalem conference. Luke is very aware that Barnabas and Paul stopped working together after the Jerusalem conference. Why did that happen? From Luke’s point of view, the fly in the ointment is John Mark – the cousin of Barnabas (Acts 15:37). Luke had told us, without any explanation, that John Mark had left Paul and Barnabas to return home to Jerusalem when they arrived on the mainland of Asia Minor. Luke’s implication is that Paul held a grudge against John Mark because he had “deserted” them (Acts 15:38). Luke describes the disagreement as being “sharp” so sharp that these two friends part ways – never to reconcile as far as the scripture tells. It does seem rather strange that such an issue could cause such a split. Readers of Paul’s letter to Galatians may well wonder if the split between Barnabas and Paul was not much more significant and theologically motivated. Paul tells us that “even Barnabas was led astray by the hypocrisy” of Peter and the others (Galatians 2:13). More likely the cause of the rift between Paul and Barnabas was the same theological difference that came between Paul and Peter. Luke does not mention any of this – perhaps because he knows nothing of it – or because he still wants to “smooth” over the controversy that precipitated the Jerusalem conference in the first place. It is interesting that Paul will not speak about a relationship with Barnabas again in any of his letters. And it is more interesting that he does speak fondly of Mark – the same John Mark spoken of in our text. Paul says, “Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, as does Mark the cousin of Barnabas, concerning whom you have received instructions – if he comes to you, welcome him” (Colossians 4:10)! And he also says in his letter to Timothy, “Do your best to come to me soon, for Demas, in love with this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica; Crescens has gone to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful in my ministry” (2 Timothy 4:9-11). It is rather easy to suppose that Paul and Mark “made up” somewhere along the line and that is the usual explanation for the positive words in these texts. That may be exactly true – but it may also be true that there never was a rift between Paul and Mark – Paul never speaks of such a rift even though he does speak of the rift between him and Barnabas. Of course this is all speculation and we cannot be sure what is historically correct. The point is, once again, that Luke and Paul do not agree about the story. And incidentally we should be careful not to automatically think that the Luke Paul refers to in his letter to Timothy is the author of the book of Acts. I’ll say more about that later but for now we need to know that the author is almost certainly not this Luke. There is one more interesting thing to contemplate. Luke tells us that Paul chose to take Silas with him in place of Barnabas and John Mark (Acts 15:40). Luke tells us that Silas was one of the Jewish Christians who brought the letter documenting the decisions made at the Jerusalem conference. Part of that decision according to Luke was the injunctions we have spoken of earlier. Certainly we have every reason to think that Silas would have been a supporter of James in the story that Luke tells us. Yet, Paul has spoken of the stark conflict that resulted from the visit of “certain people from James.” Was Silas one of them? If he was it is doubtful that Paul would have selected him to accompany him in his mission work. Are there two Silases? We do know that a Silas, known in Paul’s letters as Silvanus, did accompany Paul as a co-worker and even co-author of Paul’s letters to the Thessalonians (1Thessalonians 1:1). Of course it is possible that Paul won Silas over to his point of view even though he could not do so with Barnabas. Again we are left simply to speculate and to wonder. Luke concludes by telling us that Paul revisited the churches in Cilicia that he apparently had founded prior to Barnabas coming in bringing him to Antioch and also the churches in Galatia he and Barnabas had established. For his part, Barnabas along with John Mark revisit the churches on the island of Cyprus. Perhaps the split had a silver lining – there are now two missionary ventures in place of one. We will not hear of Barnabas again – neither in Luke’s Acts nor in Paul’s letters.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Friday, July 19, 2013 Read – Galatians 2:15-21 These concluding verses provide us with no further autobiographical information about Paul, but they are one of Paul’s clearest expressions of the gospel. Justification by grace through faith is articulated no clearer anywhere else in Paul’s letters than here. This is the gospel Paul proclaimed. This is also one of Paul’s clearest articulations of his understanding of the law. The law always kills. Attempting to keep the law in order to be right with God is futile – in fact the attempt drives us further from God. Luke was not as keenly aware of the power of the gospel as Paul was. That is not to say that his words are not useful and true. In his own way, Luke has given us a powerful witness. And Paul would have agreed completely with the core of the message that Luke relates through the speeches of Peter, Stephen, Philipp, and Paul – “this Jesus who you crucified, God raised from the dead so that repentance and the gift of new life might be proclaimed in his name.” Paul said almost the same thing in 1 Corinthians 15. “I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared …” (1 Corinthians 15:3-5). The cross of Jesus was the center for Paul so he could say, “I have been crucified with Christ and it is no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing” (Galatians 2:19-21). Perhaps we need to appreciate just how difficult it was for Christian Jews to comprehend the work of God in Jesus Christ. The old was passing away and the new was arriving. It was no small thing that God should be understood to have grafted Gentiles into the people of God. It was no small thing that old practices were set aside. We need to appreciate the struggle and we can be thankful that the Bible reveals to us this great struggle. We can come to love the Word of God even more. And we can appreciate the great gift that writers of the Bible are to us. They reveal to us their genius and also their weakness. And in the process of wrestling with their words we can come to love God all the more. Luke is a gift – and so is Paul!

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Thursday, July 18, 2013 Read – Galatians 2:11-14 Luke mentions nothing about Cephas (Peter) travelling to Antioch. In fact, as we have noticed, once the decision has been made in the Jerusalem conference, Peter disappears from Luke’s story never to be heard from again. Paul tells us that Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch and at first all was well. The implication is that Peter ate with and interacted with the Gentile believers in Antioch without any restrictions. And then “certain people came from James” and the situation changed (Galatians 2:11-12). Peter drew back and separated himself from the Gentiles “for fear of the circumcision faction” (Galatians 2:12). Did not Luke tell us that James had concurred with Peter and in fact given the decision regarding circumcision not being required? What has happened? Did James go back on his own decision? As I mentioned yesterday, perhaps one way to think of all this is to surmise that James had indeed announced the decision that circumcision was not required – and that he was willing to stick with that decision – but that he also was well aware that certain practices of Gentiles would cause Jews to become ritually unclean – the four injunctions added to the circumcision decision are all about those sources of contamination for observant Jews. Instead of understanding the injunctions as part of the initial decision in Jerusalem as Luke portrays it, perhaps James was attempting to add them now. Peter’s initial willingness to interact with the Gentiles in Antioch without restrictions and then his withdrawing because of “certain people from James” lends itself to the thought that before those “certain people” showed up Peter didn’t know about the injunctions – or Peter really is a two-faced hypocrite. At any rate the harmonious outcome Luke reports disintegrates into a major controversy. In typical fashion, fiery Paul confronts Peter to his face. Paul will have none of this false sense of harmony. And to make matters worse, other Jews, including Barnabas join in what is called hypocrisy by Paul (Galatians 2:11, 13). Paul calls Peter on his lack of integrity – “if you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” (Galatians 2:14). Paul does not tell us Peter’s reaction – likely if Peter would have “owned up” to his fault Paul would have told us, his silence likely means that the differences between Paul and Peter persisted. Peter does not come off in a very good light in this story. Perhaps it is time for us to look specifically at the four injunctions laid down by James. What are they really about? The first injunction has to do with abstaining from the pollution of idols. This is the most important of the injunctions. It is important to say first of all that this does not have anything to do with actually worshiping an idol. What this injunction has to do with in eating meat that has been sacrificed in a pagan worship ritual. At this point in history almost everyone had a sacred view of life. We think of butchering an animal as something routine and without any religious significance. At that time, the sheading of any blood, even the blood of an animal, had a religious component to it. That was true for Jews and well as for Gentiles. So when a Gentile butcher slaughtered an animal he did it with ritual prayers, perhaps asking forgiveness of a god represented by an idol for taking the life of a living thing. Hardly anything was slaughtered without this religious significance attached. In fact, often some of the meat was actually sacrificed on the altar of a god – in front of the idol of that god. What was left over was sold in the meat market. Jews would never buy food in one of these markets – they had their own Jewish meat market and there the animal was slaughtered in a proper way for Jewish people. Even today there are Jews who will only eat meat that is kosher – slaughtered in a proper Jewish manner part of which is to drain the blood from the animal. To eat meat that was not properly slaughtered was to become “unclean” for a Jewish person. We can see now why the eating of meat purchased in the Gentile marketplace would present such a problem for observant Jewish Christians as James apparently was. The point for people like James was that if a Gentile wanted to be in fellowship with a Jewish person without ritually contaminating them, one would have to abstain from eating meat from the local meat market. Was it unreasonable for Jewish Christians to require this of their Gentile brothers and sisters? Paul writes considerably about this issue. The two prominent places where Paul discusses the issue of meat offered to idols – being polluted by idols in Luke’s language – are in Romans 14-15 and 1 Corinthians 8. It would be well if you would pause to read those three chapters at this point. It becomes clear from reading Paul’s words in Romans 14-15 and 1 Corinthians 8 that Paul did not subscribe to the practice of abstaining from eating food that had been sacrificed to idols. If the four injunctions were part of the initial agreement, Paul either agreed to them at the time and then later decided to not abide by the decision or Paul never agreed to such a thing. Almost certainly Paul never agreed to the first injunction laid down by James. Paul does say that, “for the sake of a weaker brother of sister” one might choose to abstain from eating meat sacrificed to an idol, but to make it a requirement is impossible. Perhaps the gap between James and Paul is not completely unbridgeable. Request for the sake of “weak” brother, perhaps; but requirement, absolutely not! Of course such an arrangement would require James to acknowledge that he was the “weak” brother – something that would have been hard for James, and impossible for Luke. Why is this such an important issue for Paul? In Paul’s mind the very gospel of salvation by grace alone is at stake. The gospel plus anything else, any requirement, ends up not being the gospel at all! For Paul this injunction and anything like it, things like observing various days and months, was at the heart of the matter – it was why he was so angry at the Galatians – they were influenced by those who told them that had to “do something” in order to be faithful Christians. Faith alone was the hallmark for Paul. The other three injunctions follow from this one. Paul would not have argued against teaching believers in Jesus to abstain from fornication – in fact Paul does teach exactly that. As far abstaining from what it strangled – the issue is almost the same as the first injunction regarding meat offered to idols. Strangling an animal made it difficult to drain the blood. Paul does not speak about eating what is strangled but he likely would have taken the same position as he did about meat offered to idols – go ahead and eat what is strangled. And the last issue has to do with eating blood. Again, Paul would likely have found nothing wrong with Gentiles not ritually draining the blood from an animal. Before we leave our discussion of the four injunctions it is interesting to note that Luke does not mention the one thing Paul says was asked of him – “to remember to poor” (Galatians 10)! Knowing Luke’s concern for the perils of wealth makes it all the more unusual that he did not mention it. In fact, readers of Acts have noticed that Luke totally downplays Paul’s great concern to collect an offering for the church in Jerusalem because Paul was aware that they were suffering. The very reason why Paul goes to Jerusalem as told from the point of view of his letters is to deliver this offering – in response to the one thing Paul understood they asked of him. Paul was keeping his word. Luke barely mentions the offering that was so important to Paul. This, along with a whole host of issues that we have been examining, is the strongest evidence that the writer of Acts was not a companion of Paul. The Paul portrayed by Luke in Acts is not the same Paul we find in his letters – of course there are many places where there is convergence, but there are enough differences to make the judgment that Luke never knew Paul personally – and likely he did not know Paul’s letters either. For those who are wondering about when these events happened from a historical point of view, Paul has provided us with a good deal of valuable information – and Luke has added at least a small piece. Let’s start by remembering that Luke told us of a famine that occurred. That famine happened between the years of 46-48 AD. So the events surrounding the Jerusalem conference happened sometime after 46 AD at the earliest and perhaps no earlier than 48 AD. In his letter to the Galatians Paul tells us that after his encounter with Jesus he spent 3 years in Arabia and that it was at 14 years after that that he visited Jerusalem for the Jerusalem conference. That’s 17 years at a minimum. Later in Acts Luke will tell us that Paul was brought before Gallio in the city of Corinth (Acts 18:12-17). From archeological evidence we can date that Gallio served as proconsul in 50 and 51 AD. The date of the Jerusalem conference can thus be no later than that and likely must have happened a few years earlier since we need to give time for Paul to travel from Antioch to Corinth with stops along the way. Likely the best guess is that the conference happened in 48 AD. We do not know exactly when Jesus was crucified but his death and resurrection most likely could not have been later than 31 AD (48 minus 17 equal 31) and most likely happened in 30 AD. The overall point is that the Jerusalem conference in which the decision of the church that Gentiles could be welcomed into the church without circumcision happened almost 20 years into the existence of the church! For almost 20 years the church was mostly a Jewish Christian sect – a branch of Judaism. That may not seem to be very important at first but it does point to the difficulty that the early church experienced in breaking out of the limits of Judaism. We often wonder why it takes so long to get anything done in the church. Maybe it has always been that way – it is difficult for God to accomplish what God intends to do!

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Wednesday, July 17, 2013 Read – Galatians 2:1-10 Paul tells us that fourteen years later he made a second visit to Jerusalem (Galatians 2:1) taking Barnabas and Titus with him. Paul does not tell us that the journey originated in Antioch and he says nothing about Barnabas coming to Tarsus to bring him to Antioch to help with the work that is going on there. Barnabas shows up “out of the blue” in Paul’s account. Of course it is likely that Luke has told us how the meeting of these two came about (Acts 11:25-26). We have every reason to believe that the book of Acts reflects historical reality about that. Paul also tells us that he made this journey to Jerusalem in “response to a revelation” (Galatians 2:2). How are we to understand what Paul means by that? Luke told us that the reason Paul, Barnabas and others journeyed to Jerusalem was because “individuals from Judea” had come to Antioch proclaiming that “unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). Perhaps it was this reality that motivated Paul to travel to Jerusalem since he does say that he decided to go there and “laid before them … the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure that I was not running, or had not run, in vain” (Galatians 2:2). At any rate, we can be quite sure that Luke and Paul are talking about the same meeting in Jerusalem. One significant note that Paul tells about which is omitted by Luke is the presence of Titus, a Gentile who was not circumcised and who was a co-worker with Paul (Galatians 2:1, 3). Perhaps Luke was unaware of Titus – or perhaps Luke omitted Titus since he was an uncircumcised Gentile and would have put a different slant on the story. We simply do not know why Luke does not mention him. Incidentally, Luke has told his readers of a short visit by Saul and Barnabas to deliver food aid to the church in Jerusalem because of a severe famine (Acts 11:30). Paul mentions nothing about this “second visit” claiming instead that his visit after fourteen years was the “second visit” he made to Jerusalem – and that visit had nothing to do with bringing food. Did Paul simply forget the short visit – a possibility, but since bringing food aid to Jerusalem was such a large part of his mission forgetting such a visit is unlikely. We will notice that Luke downplays the food offering Paul was collecting – perhaps this “second visit” he thinks Paul made reflects Paul’s later visit in which he was indeed bringing food aid – the visit during which Paul was arrested. On the other hand Luke’s connection of this visit with the famine of 46-48AD seems genuine. Sorting out this discrepancy is not easy. We will just need to let it stand. It is clear that at the heart of the meeting was the issue of circumcision. Luke and Paul are in exact agreement about that. And Luke and Paul report that the decision that was made was that circumcision was not required (Acts 15:19; Galatians 2:3, 6, 9). The tone of the meeting, however, is markedly different. Luke paints the story in harmonic colors. Paul remembers it with some hostility. The role of the leaders in Jerusalem is also spoken of in very different ways. Luke gives the Jerusalem leaders, especially Peter and James, the brother of Jesus, incredible authority and they are really the driving forces in the story. Saul/Paul and Barnabas have only a minor role and none of their words are recorded. On the other hand, Paul speaks of Peter and James along with John as “supposed to be acknowledged leaders … acknowledged pillars” (Galatians 2:6, 9) in less than respectful language. Paul says, “What they actually were makes no difference to me, God shows no partiality” (Galatians 2:6). Paul does not budge from his position that he does not need to have his work authenticated by anyone! In Paul’s view it is Peter, whom he refers to as Cephas, who has the dominant role – James does not speak a word! As I mentioned the decision that is reached regarding circumcision is exactly the same in Luke’s account in Acts and in Paul’s account in Galatians. That fact is an important one – and we can say that there is complete agreement about the major issue in the controversy. The fact that the early church took the stand it did regarding circumcision was crucial for the expansion of the church and it was indeed a bold decision! Yet, it is important for us to notice that the agreement was not without some marked differences of opinion between Luke and Paul. We will remember that in Acts James adds four injunctions to the primary decision. Yes, the Gentiles do not need to be circumcised, but they are required to abstain from the pollution of idols, from fornication, from eating what is strangled, and from blood (Acts 15:20). Paul concludes the agreement by saying that “nothing was added to him” (Galatians 2:6) and “they asked only one thing, that we should remember the poor, which was actually what I was eager to do” (Galatians 2:10). It is impossible to reconcile these two views of the decision. How are we to understand this discrepancy? Perhaps Paul simply did not acknowledge that any injunctions were added – could he have understood them as friendly suggestion? Not likely. Perhaps the injunctions were not part of the initial agreement. After all, it was only when “certain people from James” came to Antioch that the trouble flares up (Galatians 2:12). It is possible that Paul left Jerusalem with the agreement exactly as he states it and that later James attempted to add to it – and Luke has merged these two into one. Of course we are not able to come to a conclusion about any of that – we can only speculate. The point is that what Luke portrays as a harmonious outcome that all joyfully agreed to is not the outcome that Paul talks about. From Paul’s point of view the story does not end with everyone “living happily ever after.” The controversy lives on. To be sure a major breakthrough happened in the decision regarding circumcision – and that is the most important thing about the whole event! Why did Luke report a harmonious understanding? Why did Paul object? We will look more closely at that tomorrow.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Tuesday, July 16, 2013 Read – Galatians 1:11-24 Once again Paul is claiming that the gospel he proclaimed to the Galatians is not something he learned from someone else or was authenticated by someone else – the Jerusalem church and the Apostles there who serve that function for Luke – but the gospel Paul proclaimed came directly from Jesus by personal revelation (Galatians 2:11-12). Paul rejects Luke’s contention that the Apostles and the church in Jerusalem served as a normative control over the Christian mission. We need to remember that at every turn Luke tells us that the Apostles from Jerusalem came and verified what had happened (Acts 8:14-17; Acts 9:26-30, Acts 11:1-18, Acts 11:22-24, Acts 15). Such a claim was unacceptable to Paul! Beginning at verse 13 Paul provides us with a good deal of information about himself. We can be thankful for this information. First of all Paul tells us that he once was a violent persecutor of the church of God. This is exactly what Luke tells us as he introduces Saul/Paul to his readers (Acts 7:58; Acts 8:1, Acts 8:3, Acts 9:1-2). Paul tells us that he was more advanced in Judaism beyond most people and far more zealous for the traditions of his ancestors. This matches exactly with the picture Luke paints of Saul/Paul. Paul goes on to tell of his encounter with Jesus through which God revealed his Son to him. It is a little surprising that Paul never tells exactly how this revelation came about – he does not mention the Damascus Road encounter in any of his letters! He does not describe the encounter. However, we do learn that he was in Damascus when that revelation took place (Galatians 1:17). Once again Luke and Paul have much in common and tell a story that matches. While Paul does not mention the Damascus Road there is no reason to think that Luke is not telling us the truth about Paul’s encounter with Jesus. We have already talked about how Luke’s portrayal is not really a “conversion” experience for Saul/Paul. I think Paul would agree with that. His claim is that God had set him apart before he was born (Galatians 1:15) – Paul was already a Jew, a member of the people of God, and he remained as he was, only now God had revealed Jesus to him and Paul’s understanding of what it means to be a Jew is what changed. Paul never thought of himself as stopping being a Jew and becoming a Christian – he was a Christian Jew. Again Luke and Paul are in exact agreement. At this point things get a little sticky from a historical point of view. Paul tells us that after his encounter with Jesus that he did not go up to Jerusalem to confer with any human being (Galatians 1:17), instead he left Damascus and went to Arabia “at once” and later returned to Damascus (Galatians 1:17). Paul does not tell us what he did in while he was in Arabia – many readers of Paul’s letters suppose that he was using the time to “figure out what had happened to him in his encounter with Jesus” although that is all purely speculation. We just don’t know what happened in Arabia. Luke does not mention anything about a journey by Saul/Paul to Arabia and tells his readers that “immediately” Saul/Paul began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues of Damascus until after “some time” (probably a short time in Luke’s mind) the Jews plot against Saul/Paul he has to flee Damascus and makes his way to Jerusalem (Acts 9:19-25). Paul tells us that he spent “three years” in Arabia before returning to Damascus (Galatians 1:18) and only then he finally makes a journey to Jerusalem. Paul does verify that he was let down in a basket through an opening in the wall as he made his escape from Damascus (2 Corinthians 11:32-33) and is thus in agreement with Luke about his escape (Acts 9:25). At this point things get even stickier. Paul tells us that after these three years had passed he went up to Jerusalem but he only saw two people – Cephas (Peter) with whom he stayed for 15 days and James, the brother of Jesus (Galatians 1:18-19). Luke tells of a visit to Jerusalem where Saul/Paul attempted to join the Apostles but was prevented from doing so until Barnabas finally convinced them that welcoming Saul/Paul would be okay. At that point Luke tells us that Saul/Paul “went in an out among them in Jerusalem” until he was finally escorted out of town and sent to Tarsus for his own safety (Acts 9:26-30). Paul tells us that he did indeed return to the region of Syria and Cilicia (where Tarsus is located) but that he was “still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea” of which Jerusalem was the main church (Galatians 1:21). There is no way to reconcile these two accounts. Actually, it is not really all that important that we be able to do that – our faith is not dependent upon historical accuracy. From a historical point of view it is most likely that Paul is relating exactly what happened historically – Paul even tells us that “In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!” (Galatians 1:20). Was Paul aware of another “version” of the story – a version Luke came across as he was writing the book of Acts? Of course we can only speculate about that. At any rate, from a strictly historical point of view, it is more likely that what Paul tells us in Galatians is what happened. On a theological level, there is also a great difference between Luke and Paul to deal with. Paul insists that he did not go to Jerusalem to receive authentication nor did he need to do that (Galatians 1:16-17). Luke claims that he both needed to and did. Likely, again, we should side with Paul about that. Luke has reasons for painting the Jerusalem church and the Apostles as normative with an authentication function in the early church – he is concerned about unity. But in reality the experience of Paul likely did not unfold neatly into Luke’s portrayal. We will need to let this difference between Luke and Paul stand. There are certainly enough similarities to know that Luke and Paul are talking about the same historical experience. They share much in common. Those differences that exist serve only to remind us that the Bible is a very human book. God chooses to live with the “historical discrepancies” that emerge. All of this is helpful for us as we try to understand just what the “inspiration of scripture” really means. The scripture is inspired because God works powerfully through the “imperfect” work of human hands. God is far more assured and dependable than to depend on “historical inerrancy” in order for his Word to have power! We need not worry about the differences we find – God surely isn’t worried about them!

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Monday, July 15, 2013 Read – Galatians 1:1-10 Paul’s letter to the churches in Galatia is a very fiery letter. Paul is angry and his anger comes forth in bursts of frustration. The letter to the Galatians was most likely written to the people in the churches that Paul and Barnabas established on their first missionary venture (Acts 13-14) – Antioch of Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, Perga, Attalia, and most likely churches in other cities in that region of Asia Minor (Acts 13-14). These are the first churches that Paul established – they were his pride and joy – and now they seemed to be abandoning the gospel Paul had worked so hard to bring them. In the very first verse Paul is defensive. He says that his commission as an Apostle did not come from human authority – he was not and did not need to be sanctioned by the church in Jerusalem! – but directly from Jesus. While Paul never mentions the Damascus Road encounter in any of his letters it is clear that he believed he had experienced a direct encounter with Jesus. And Paul understood himself to be as much of an Apostle as anyone. He had been sent by Jesus! Paul would not have accepted Luke’s definition of what an Apostle is. Of course both Paul and Luke have different reasons for their claims and different definitions of what an Apostle is. Each is correct from their own point of view – and it would be well if we could understand that when it comes to the definition of what an Apostle is Paul and Luke were talking apples and oranges. Often it is valuable to realize that many of our disputes are really simply difference of definition. Paul’s fear is that the people of Galatia are abandoning the gospel for “another gospel” even though no other gospel really exists. We do not yet know what the “other gospel” is but we will soon find out. As we continue through Galatians we will learn that it is the requirement of circumcision in order to be saved that is troubling the Galatians – the issue dealt with in the Jerusalem conference. It seems that some did not want to abide by the decision of James and continued to teach that one cannot be a Christian without being circumcised. One of the important things about Paul’s letter to the Galatians is that he provides so much autobiographical and historical information in his writing. We have already noted that a good deal of the information does not square with the information provided in the book of Acts. From a historical point of view they are irreconcilable. Our focus in listening to Paul’s letter to Galatians will be to examine these differences and to see if there are some ways in which they might yet converge. We will not be able to bring full reconciliation but perhaps seeing these two different versions together we might gain a clearer perspective.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today”, Sunday, July 14, 2013

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Sunday, July 14, 2013 Read – Acts 15:1-35 We have now reached the mid-point of Luke’s second volume. It is not surprising that perhaps the most important, yet most problematic chapter in the book of Acts is chapter 15. The decision that the church made regarding circumcision and how Gentiles can become Christians and what that means both for Jews and non-Jews set the course for all of the Christian faith. Had a different decision been made Christianity would likely look a lot different today than it does. The question is not whether Gentiles can become Christians. That bridge had been crossed in the story of Cornelius (Acts 10-11) and furthered by the ministry of Barnabas and Paul in Galatia (Acts 13-14). The Gentile mission had received the blessing of the Jerusalem Apostles (Acts 11:22-23). The question was whether or not Gentiles would need to observe the ordinances of the OT with respect to what it means to be a Jew. Do Gentile Christians need to be circumcised as the OT required? The OT is rather clear on this issue with regard to the children of Abraham. In Genesis 17:14 God says, “Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” Can anything be clearer than that? Circumcision was the sign of what it meant to be a Jew! The issue is engaged when “certain individuals from Judea” come to Antioch and begin to teach that unless Gentile males are circumcised they cannot be saved (Acts 15:1). We need to remember that Luke has made a large issue out of the authenticating work of the Jerusalem church. Were these men representatives of Jerusalem? The story will demonstrate that they were not, but in the initial encounter of these men with the church in Antioch, and for the readers of Acts, the nature of their authority is not clear. The preaching of these people who claim that circumcision was a necessary practice in order to be saved caused no small problems for Barnabas and Paul. In fact, the whole Gentile mission was now placed in jeopardy. In a way that is typical of the book of Acts, the church in Antioch appointed a delegation, which consisted of Barnabas and Paul and some others, to go to Jerusalem and settle the issue. When they arrived at Jerusalem Luke tells us that they were welcomed by the church and the Apostles – they were not the source of this controversy (Acts 15:24). Luke provides us with a bit more information when he tells us that it was believers who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees who spoke out against Barnabas and Paul – demanding that “it was necessary for them (Gentiles) to be circumcised and ordered to keep the Law of Moses” (Acts 15:5). There are two things to notice about this information. First, it is significant that there were Christian Pharisees! Being a Christian and being a Pharisee are not mutually exclusive. These are not Pharisees who were opposed to Jesus – they believed in him and were his followers. We need to recall that from Luke’s point of view Christians were simply Jews who believed that Jesus was the Messiah. Secondly, so far in the book of Acts, and even to a great extent in the gospel of Luke, the Pharisees have been presented in a very favorable light. They do not participate in the trial and execution of Jesus. A Pharisee, Gamaliel, has rescued the Apostles from the Sanhedrin. Pharisees are not the enemy. Here, though, they are the source of the controversy. The Apostles, who are the normative force in the Christian movement, gather to discuss the issue and determine a solution. Among them are Peter and James, the brother of Jesus. They step forth as the spokesmen for the group. Peter speaks first. He reminds the church that “in the early days” God had chosen Peter to be the one through whom God would reach out to Gentiles – his reference is to the Cornelius encounter (Acts 10). He goes on to remind the church that God poured out the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles then and in the process made no distinction between Jew and Gentile. Peter’s argument is that to lay a burden on the Gentiles now, a burden that even Jews have never been able to bear, would be to oppose God. Peter speaks in opposition to those who would require circumcision. Incidentally, this is the last time we will hear from Peter. He will now disappear from the book of Acts. Now it is Barnabas and Paul’s turn to speak. They are not given much press by Luke – certainly this is his way of downplaying them and lifting up the regulatory nature of the Jerusalem Apostles. Luke gives them one verse. Next, James the brother of Jesus speaks. James speaks in support of Peter. And, most significantly, he bases his argument upon OT scripture. Quoting from the prophet Amos (Amos 9:11-12 in the Septuagint version), James argues that the inclusion of the Gentiles has been God’s plan all along. Clearly James has emerged as the authoritative leader of the Jerusalem church and now he gives his decision. The Gentiles who are turning to the Lord will not be troubled – circumcision is not required! So far so good. Actually James declares two decisions. The first is the most important and one that Barnabas and Paul would wholeheartedly agree with – the decision that circumcision would not be required. The second decision, however, is what creates a great deal of trouble for readers of Acts and readers of Paul’s letters. James adds to his declaration that circumcision is not required the decision that four injunctions are to be followed by Gentile Christians – they are to abstain from things polluted by idols, from fornication, from what has been strangled, and from blood. It is here that the bone of contention is joined. Paul would never have agreed with these injunctions! And we have the book of Galatians to prove it! We are going to look at the book of Galatians over the next few days paying special attention to Paul’s version of this same meeting. What we will discover are some irreconcilable differences. We will deal with those differences as we listen to Paul in his letter to Galatians. For now, we are attempting to hear what Luke has to say. As Luke tells the story in Acts, it appears that everyone is pleased with the outcome – that includes Paul and Barnabas who return to Antioch with representative of the Jerusalem church – Judas, called Barsabbas, and Silas – who will once again authenticate the matter. A letter is written and delivered to the church in Antioch and even to the churches in Cilicia where Paul had been ministering. According to Luke, soon Paul will deliver this message to the churches he and Barnabas had founded in Galatia (Acts 16:4). It is interesting to note that the church in Jerusalem says, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” in announcing the decision. Clearly their understanding is that this decision is somehow both by the inspiration of God and by their own judgment – they own the decision. God has allowed the church to make important decisions – to participate in those decisions. The church today still makes decisions – and God still honors the participation of people in those decisions – “it seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15:28). Back in Antioch the letter is delivered and the church rejoices! Controversy that might have ripped the church in pieces is avoided. Luke has told us a story that is marked with much harmony – he has put the best construction on the whole episode. You may have picked up from my tone of writing that I don’t think this was the whole story. We will hear what Paul has to say in the next few days – and that will complicate the matter. But there are some important things that we need to gain from the story Luke has told us. Most important is that decision that Gentiles can become Christians without first becoming Jews – circumcision is not required. Had the church decided that Christians must all be circumcised it is likely that Christianity would have remained a far more “Jewish” experience than it has. It is also likely that the Gentile mission would have collapsed. It is important to say that all agreed on the issue of circumcision and that the long held belief that circumcision was the mark of what it meant to be a person of God was abandoned. What had been clearly stated in the OT was no longer the case. That may strike us as either tremendously freeing and positive or it may strike us as a frightening reality fraught with all kinds of danger. How can the Word of God change? Is there nothing that is solid? If circumcision is abandoned what else will follow? Certainly there must have been people at that time who said these things and feared that everything would crumble to the ground. The decision of the church was indeed an incredibly bold decision! Before we move on to hear Paul’s point of view, it is important that we consider why James, and the normative church in Jerusalem, might add some injunctions to the decision. While circumcision was a determinative marker in what it meant to be a Jew there were some other things that helped Jews define who they were. Much of that had to do with some practices through which a Jew would remain pure – not eating specific foods, not touching dead bodies, not eating pork, not eating blood, and a variety of other practices. It is important that we say that the Jewish people never understood abstaining from all these things as a means of salvation. That is not the question – but becoming contaminated by these things made a Jewish person unfit and unable to participate in the rituals which were part of their relationship with God. Because Gentiles did not abstain from all these things, they were contaminated and a source of contamination for Jews who might come into contact with them. How were observant Jews to relate to Gentiles – now fellow-believers in Jesus? The injunctions set down by James were not meant as a means to salvation but rather as a means through which observant Jews could maintain their religious practices and yet relate with Gentiles. So, we might say, Gentiles were asked to observe these things for the sake of their Jewish brothers and sisters. Is it asking too much of the Gentiles to observe some basic injunctions which would make it possible for them to relate to Jews without contaminating them? From this perspective a whole now possibility emerges. In actuality, Paul will say something similar in his discussion of these issues. We will wait to hear Paul’s view later. Christians differ with one another about a number of things. One of the main things we might take away from Luke’s story in Acts 15 is that Christians can hold very different views and disagree about things and yet remain in fellowship with one another. No one is being accused of not really being a Christian even though they disagree with one another. Luke has shaped a very difficult experience in the early church in a very harmonic and conciliatory way – perhaps we ought to listen to him.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today”, Saturday, July 14, 2013

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Saturday, July 13, 2013 Read – Acts 14:21-28 Luke has told us that Paul and Barnabas had only mixed success on their mission. They were driven out of almost every town they entered. Yet, in this summary passage Luke tells us that Paul and Barnabas retraced their journey from Lystra and Derbe to Iconium to Antioch of Pisidia. Their goal was to strengthen the faith of those they had left behind. Paul’s letters were all meant to strengthen those to whom Paul wrote. It is obvious that Paul deeply loved and cared for those to whom he ministered. As I mentioned earlier the people of this territory were known as the Galatians. Paul wrote them a letter shortly after his visit. We are going to look at that letter to the Galatians briefly in a few days. Having visited the believers along the way and giving them the strength they needed to continue in the faith, Paul and Barnabas returned to the seacoast and journeyed back to Antioch. Once back in Antioch they reported their journey and the results of the venture and the church in Antioch rejoiced – God had opened a wide door of faith.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today”, Friday, July 12, 2013

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Friday, July 12, 2013 Read – Acts 14:8-20 From Iconium Paul and Barnabas travel on to two more towns in the province of Lycaonia – Lystra and Derbe. What makes these two towns interesting and peculiar is that they did not have a Jewish synagogue in either town. Where are Paul and Barnabas to go? The presence of a crippled man provides a way for them to engage the people. The story of Paul healing the crippled man in the city of Lystra sounds very much like the story of Peter and John healing the crippled man at the gate of the Temple in Jerusalem (Acts 3:1-8). In fact, when one lays the elements of the stories side by side they correspond almost exactly. The similarities between these two stories suggests that each has been modified by the other. Stories have a way of fitting into patterns when they are told over and over again. When we remember that some of these stories likely were passed on orally long before they were in written form, we begin to see how these two stories might begin to look alike. Perhaps it is also important for Luke to demonstrate that what Peter can do Paul can do. We noticed how Paul’s speech in Antioch was a lot like Peter’s speech at Pentecost. The story of Peter healing the cripple at the Temple follows the Pentecost speech. Here, Paul’s healing of the cripple at Lystra follows not far behind Paul’s first speech. Perhaps Luke has constructed the story in this way to show the similarities between Peter and Paul. The outcome of Paul’s healing of the cripple turns out very different than Paul and Barnabas might have imagined – and much to their dismay! Without a synagogue to begin with, Paul and Barnabas have only Greco-Roman Culture to deal with. And the people the story revert to that pagan culture. It may seem very strange to us that the people mistake Paul and Barnabas for Hermes and Zeus – two of the Greek gods. It is helpful for us to learn that the people of Lystra knew a mythological story of two old people who unknowingly provided hospitality to Hermes and Zeus and were rewarded for their kindness. The event is told in a book by a writer, Ovid, who wrote Metamorphoses. When we realize that the people already had this mythological story in their memories it is not unusual that they should have mistaken Paul and Barnabas as these gods – after Paul had miraculously healed a cripple and ordinary men can’t do that! Paul and Barnabas have a problem on their hands. How are they to deal with this? Paul tries his hand at preaching. But what is to be the content of the sermon? Without the Jewish background from which to begin Paul is stymied. His appeal is to God as creator – and of course he and Barnabas are only creatures like everyone else. Luke has consistently proclaimed that human beings are not worthy of worship. It was a mistake for Cornelius to worship Peter. Worshiping Paul and Barnabas is a mistake too. Paul’s proclamation does not work very well. He and Barnabas can barely stop the proceedings. And then the “unbelieving Jews” appear on the scene and a bad situation becomes a whole lot worse. Perhaps Paul and Barnabas would have been better off letting the people of Lystra worship them. Now they turn on the pair and begin to stone them – believing that they have succeeded in killing Paul. But somehow Paul survives the stoning – he commented about it himself in his letters. And then Luke tells us something unexpected – “disciples surround Paul and he got up and went back into the city” (Acts 14:20). Are we to suppose that somehow their presence is what revived Paul? Hardly, it seems. But perhaps Luke’s point is that even in a peculiar situation the gospel was received by some. Even the visit to Lystra was not without success. We will find out some time later that Paul’s most faithful co-worker, Timothy, was from Lystra.

Weekly Announcements July 14 2013

CLICK HERE

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today”, Thursday, July 11, 2013

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Thursday, July 11, 2013 Read – Acts 14:1-7 Driven out of Antioch of Pisidia, Paul and Barnabas make their way to a town called Iconium. Once again it is important for Luke’s readers to hear that Paul and Barnabas went immediately to the synagogue in Iconium. The mission is still to the Jewish people. The results prove promising at the beginning. Luke tells us that many, both Jews and Gentiles, became believers. Though the proclamation is made first to the Jews, the practice of proclaiming to all that began in Antioch of Syria comes into play here. However, once again it is “unbelieving Jews” who stir up the Gentiles and a plot begins against Paul and Barnabas. What does it mean to be an “unbelieving Jew?” Luke really does not address that question, but it is almost certainly whether or not one accepts Jesus as the Messiah that determines if one is a believing Jew or not. “Unbelieving Jews” are those who do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah – that he was crucified and yet God raised him from the dead and that forgiveness is proclaimed in his name. The core message is what determines whether or not one is a Christian Jew or an unbelieving Jew. Once again the response is mixed – some believe and others don’t. And in the end Paul and Barnabas are again driven out of town. Luke tells us they fled when they heard of the threats against them. Sometimes we might think that we are to stay in a situation no matter how difficult it is and that to flee would somehow be to abandon Jesus. Hardship may come but the opportunity to avoid it is also possible. Perhaps sometimes the best we can do is to flee from trouble as well. Careful readers of Acts have noticed that for one of only two instances, both in chapter 14, Luke refers to Paul and Barnabas as apostles. Luke has been very careful to distinguish the central core in Jerusalem – those who were with Jesus from the time of his ministry in Galilee until his ascension – as the only Apostles. Why is Luke inconsistent at this point? I mentioned earlier that, as with the gospel writers, Luke likely had a number of individual stories to fit together. It is from these various sources that Luke has created the storyline of the book of Acts. It may well be that the source used by Luke about the ministry of Paul in Galatia referred to Paul as an apostle. After all Paul was insistent in his letters that he was as much of an apostle as the others. Perhaps Luke decided to let the reference stand in deference to Paul – although if Luke were pressed he would have insisted on calling only the Jerusalem core Apostles.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today”, Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Wednesday, July 10, 2013 Read – Habakkuk 1:1-2:5 The book of Habakkuk consists of the pleading of a prophet for God to act in a time when hope was nearly lost. The setting is just prior to the time when the Babylonians conquered much of the known world. The date would have been just before 600 BC. The book was written as a dialogue between God and the prophet. The opening lines of the dialogue – verses 1-4 – belong to the prophet. In typical lament fashion the prophet asks how long he is to cry out before God will respond. The response of God comes in verses 5-11. The response is not what the prophet Habakkuk wanted to hear. The Babylonian, here referred to as the Chaldeans, would soon devastate the land. The response of God was not what the people wanted to hear either and so they are likely to reject it. Most of us do not do well with news we neither like nor expect. So, in this context of the book of Habakkuk the verse that Paul quotes is not a positive verse. And in the context in which Paul speaks it, these words are also not positive. Paul’s use of this passage is as a warning – God has offered them salvation in Jesus. They ought to not reject God’s offer. By the time Paul used this passage it was clear that Habakkuk’s plea for deliverance was not granted and that the words of the prophets had fallen on deaf ears. Paul’s hope is that his words will not also fall on deaf ears. The outcome was that some responded positively and others rejected the message of Paul just as the people of Habakkuk’s day had rejected the word of the prophets. Some things never change.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today”, July 9, 2013

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Tuesday, July 9, 2013 Read – Psalm 16 Psalm 16 is a psalm of trust written by a psalmist who has known the devastation of hardship. The psalmist has placed his trust in God and is not disappointed. When it appeared that his life would end and he would find himself in Sheol, the place of the dead, God had rescued him. Now the psalmist sings God’s praises. Paul uses this psalm in his speech after he has argued that Jesus is the offspring of David through whom salvation was to come. Though Jesus was crucified and died, God did not let his body know corruption as had been the case for David. The verse that Paul quotes is verse 10. Readers of the Psalms can’t help but notice that Paul has twisted the meaning of the Psalm a bit – the original writer has not died but only been threatened by death. But the Psalm work for Paul – much of “Messianic Exegesis” is like this. New meanings are given to old texts in light of the experience of the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” July 8, 2013

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Monday, July 8, 2013 Read – Acts 13:44-52 What would be the result of Paul and Barnabas’ visit to the synagogue? As we have learned, the response was mixed. Some wanted to hear more, others became believers, and others rejected the message. It is important to note that both Jewish and non-Jewish people who had converted to Judaism responded positively to Paul’s message (Acts 13:43). At this point it seems that the only ones at Antioch in Pisidia who became believers were Jews and Jewish proselytes. It is simply not true that all Jewish people rejected the gospel. Luke wants us to know that and insists that we hear about Jewish believers. That has been one of his themes both in his gospel and in the book of Acts. It is also true, tragically, that there were some Jewish people who became jealous and rejected the message. So, Paul and Barnabas now turn to the Gentiles and offer them the good news. Proclaiming the gospel to the Gentiles was already the practice of the church in Antioch (Acts 11:29) so Paul’s turning to the Gentiles in Antioch of Pisidia was not completely new – but highlighting it as is done in this text is. And Paul provides the justification for such a move by quoting from the prophet Isaiah. God had said there of his servant – “I have set you to be a light for the Gentiles, so that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth” (Acts 13:47). That is not an exact quote from Isaiah 42:6 and Isaiah 49:6 – two of the Servant Songs – but it is clear that Luke is quoting from these texts. What is important for us to hear is that moving on to the Gentiles comes only after the Jews have had an opportunity to hear. The mission is still first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles. That pattern will continue to the end. The outcome at Antioch in Pisidia seems to be more positive than negative, but in the end Paul and Barnabas are driven out of town and out of the whole territory. And so they move deeper into the territory that would later be referred to as Galatia. It was to the people in these churches that Paul would later write his letter to the Galatians.

Reader's Guide: "The Word for Today" July 7, 2013

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Sunday, July 7, 2013 Read – Acts 13:13-43 The first thing we should notice about our reading today is that suddenly Paul has risen to prominence. Up to this point Barnabas has had the lead position, always being mentioned first. Now Paul is the center and leader of the mission. Paul and his companions cross the Mediterranean Sea to the mainland. Almost as an aside, Luke tells us that John, who was travelling with them, leaves for home. No reason is given and nothing more is said at this time but we shall visit this episode again. Once again, Luke drops a marker for his readers only to pick it up much later in his story. The first town they visit is Perga in the province of Pamphylia. Luke tells us nothing about what happened there. Paul and Barnabas move on to another city called Antioch – this one in the province of Pisidia. The terrain was mountainous and the journey would not have been easy. Upon their arrival in Antioch of Pisidia, Luke tells us that Paul and Barnabas went to worship at the synagogue. Once again it is crucial that we hear this – they begin with the Jewish people! Luke describes a typical synagogue experience – there is a reading from the Torah followed by a reading from one of the prophets. As was typical, guests were invited to share a message if they had one to share. The opportunity provides Luke with the opportunity to give his readers the first of Paul’s speeches. We have been hearing various speeches in the book of Acts and we have noticed that each speech has a distinctive core. Will Paul’s speech follow this pattern? Will the proclamation to the Jewish people outside of Israel be the same? We will not be disappointed. Paul’s speech indeed follows the same pattern as speeches by Peter. The core is present and prominent – “Because the residents of Jerusalem and their leaders did not recognize him or understand the words of the prophets that are read every Sabbath, they fulfilled those words by condemning him. Even though they found no cause for a sentence of death, they asked Pilate to have him killed. When they had carried out everything that was written about him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb. But God raised him from the dead; and for many days he appeared to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, and they are now his witnesses to the people. And we bring you the good news that what God promised to our ancestors he has fulfilled for us, their children by raising Jesus … that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you” (Acts 13:27-38). The rest of Paul’s speech, as was the case with Peter and the others, is made up of arguments from the OT that Jesus fulfills what the OT had proclaimed. Following Don Juel, I have called this “Messianic Exegesis” – seeing the story of Jesus in the words of the OT and reading the OT through the lens of the experience of the death and resurrection of Jesus. Paul points to four OT texts – Psalm 2:7, Isaiah 55:3, Psalm 16:10 and Habakkuk 1:5. (One can’t help but wonder if the reading from the prophets that day came for Habakkuk.) We are going to look at a couple of those references in the coming days so we will not examine Paul’s speech any further. The importance needs to be placed on the core message – a core message that is common to all the speeches in Acts.