Luke vs. Paul: Abstaining from Meat Sacrificed to Idols

I have a list of difficult passages I've been working through and last Sabbath I added this topic after my Sabbath school class discussed Romans 14. Luke's conclusion on the issue of abstaining from meat sacrificed to idols seems to be the opposite of Pauls. In our society, these scriptures don't seem to have much relevance since our meat is usually factory farmed and not sacrificed to anyone. However, I think it's important to understand what we're reading so we can see how each passage fits in to the larger narrative. In addition, the underlying problem of bringing together people from different cultures is very real in our modern world. So, how do we harmonize these scriptures?

The Stances

Let's start by looking at each man's words on the topic. Luke, the author of Acts, mentions this issue in two places. Paul also mentions the issue twice.

²⁸For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: ²⁹that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from acts of sexual immorality; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell. Acts 15:28-29 NASB

But regarding the Gentiles who have believed, we sent a letter, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. Acts 21:25 NASB

One person has faith that he may eat all things, but the one who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. Romans 14:2-3 NASB

⁷However, not all people have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. ⁸Now food will not bring us [c]close to God; we are neither [d]the worse if we do not eat, nor [e]the better if we do eat. ⁹But take care that this [f]freedom of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. ¹⁰For if someone sees you, the one who has knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, will his conscience, if he is weak, not be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? ¹¹For through your knowledge the one who is weak is ruined, the brother or sister for whose sake Christ died. ¹²And so, by sinning against the brothers and sisters and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. ¹³Therefore, if food causes my brother to sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to sin. 1 Corinthians 8:7-13 NASB

It seems as though Luke has a hardline stance that the act is wrong, whereas Paul is saying the act in and of itself is not wrong, but we should be mindful of those around us.

Background

Let's step back into the time period of Luke and Paul for a second; it's impossible to understand these passages otherwise. In recent years, meat consumption has become a standard practice, something everyone does for every meal, but this hasn't always been the case. Meat was a luxury (and still is in some places). On top of that, there were no grocery stores or factory farms. Animals were not raised and slaughtered for mass consumption. In Paul and Luke's day, animals were kept to be sacrificed to gods. Just as the Israelites sacrificed a lamb on Passover (and then ate it), others were sacrificing animals to Roman gods. This meat could end up in the market for sale, or it could be the meat being served at your neighbor's house when you accepted a dinner invitation. Being unsure of the origin of the meat, many believers abstained from meat altogether (hence Paul referencing those who only ate vegetables).

The major issue in the church that both men were addressing was how to deal with Gentiles in the Israelite religion. Israel was supposed to be a Theocracy, with God as their king. The laws of God and the laws of the land were to be one and the same. Since everyone was to be worshiping the same God, their was never worry that the meat brought from your fellow Israelite was sacrificed to a pagan god. Roman however, was diverse, like the United States. In the cities of the Gentiles, you had people from different religions and cultures; you could never be sure what had been done to the meat sold in markets or served in people's homes.

Similarly, the mindset of the Jews and the Gentiles was different. Jews were simply accepting a deeper understanding of the religion/scriptures they had been taught from birth. Gentiles were unlearning the religion of their birth and learning something new. This changes how you approach things...

Modern Examples

I have two examples from my own personal life to illustrate how background can change the way you see things.

A friend of mine sent me a song by Lecrae. When I clicked play, I instantly recognized the beat. Lecrae's song samples from a Hip Hop song that has been sampled by many other artists. Instead of focusing on the lyrics of this particular song, my brain went to the lyrics of the song where I had first heard this beat. There is already a connection in my mind between the original song and that music. Not only did the lyrics of that song (which is not Christian) pop into my head, but memories associated with that song as well. It is impossible for me to worship and focus on God when listening to this song because my brain associates it with other things. My friend however, had never listened to non-Christian Hip Hop. They have never heard any of the songs that Lecrae is sampling from. They have no memories associated with that beat. They are able to listen and hear Lecrae's lyrics in peace.

Another friend introduced me to Erin Condren planners. I used her planners for 3 years before switching to a bullet jounral. It was during that time that I began keeping Sabbath. When I started using the planners, I didn't notice that they started the week on Monday, but as I got deeper in to my studies it bothered me. Like most people in the U.S., my brain was wired for Sunday being the end of the week: you work Monday through Friday, chores on Saturday, and rest on Sunday. Observing the Sabbath took a massive shift in mindset to see the week as Sunday through Friday, with Saturday as the day of rest. Now I start my week with chores, meal prep, and planning, but it's strange having that at the end of the week in your planner. I needed the visual of Sunday at the beginning of the week and Sabbath at the end to help me adjust my mindset.

Now, because of my experience, I could argue that no one should be listening to Lecrae and that no one should be using planners that start on Monday. This is the issue Paul and Luke are addressing. In my modern scenarios there is nothing inherently wrong with Lecrae's song or the planner; it is my experiences, my mindset, that affects the situation. There are many people who can listen to that Lecrae song and be moved by the Holy Spirit. There are many people who can use planners that start on Monday and still keep Sabbath. Paul's argument is the same: it's in the individual's mind.

Abstaining From Meat Sacrificed to Idols

While I can see clearly what Paul is suggesting when I bring it into a modern lens and inspect my personal life, it still gets muddy when I try to put it back in context with his time period.

Some ministries teach that Paul is expanding on Luke's instructions in Acts, essentially telling why they should abstain from the meats.[1] I question this interpretation for two main reasons. In Acts, Luke said absolutely to abstain from meats sacrificed from idols. While Paul does say that he would abstain to keep his brother from stumbling in 1 Corinthians, in Romans 14 Paul tells the one who does not eat not to judge the one who eats and vice versa. Putting Paul's writings together, I would say his stance is that it's OK to eat meat sacrificed to idols as long as it doesn't cause fellow believers to stumble. Luke on the other hand doesn't leave any room for eating this meat if no one objects...

My second concern is that the topics surrounding this issue actually seem to matter. Neither author is solely talking about meats sacrificed to idols. Luke also mentions consumption of blood, consumption of strangled animals, and sexual immorality. The command to abstain from blood is given all the way back in Genesis 9, right after the flood, before the establishment of Israel. Strangled meat refers to meat that had not been killed according to the custom, which typically meant blood was still inside that animal, pointing us back to the first issue of abstaining from blood. Sexual immorality is also spoken against in Genesis before the establishment of Israel, and is spoken against by Jesus/Yeshua/Messiah. Yes, all of these were part of pagan practices in Roman, but they were also forbidden during Noah's time, when there were no other people on the planet and thus, no pagan practices to conflict with God's ways. In Revelation 2:14,20, John comes back to the point of abstaining from meat sacrificed to idols and once again, God is condemning it.

In contrast, if you look at the modern examples I gave, you will never find passages where God condemned a specific type of music or planner.

Harmonizing

Honestly, I don't know the answer. This is one of those passages I will have to keep studying. Comment below how you view this passage and how you harmonize them.

References

1. "What does the Bible say about eating food/meat that has been sacrificed to idols?". GotQuestions.org; visited June 2021

How Real Church Should Look

Church is not a building. It's the people of God and the community they build. I've been blessed to experience what real Church looks like and from this environment I was able to truly able to grow in Christ.

They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Acts 2:42 NASB

The first Century church, as described in Acts, did life together. They didn't just see each other on Sabbath for a few hours; they ate meals together, laughed together, cried together, sold their belongs to support each other, and most importantly, worshiped together. Luckily, I've had friends like this my whole life, which I credit as part of the reason I've been able to develop such a strong relationship with God.

In my teenage years, the spiritual aspect of these friendships was spearheaded by adults. So while my friends and I maintained a relationship similar to the first century church, we weren't actively cultivating our relationship with God. It wasn't until recently that I met a group of people I could truly live this experience with. It was life changing, and I wish every Christian could have that opportunity.

References

1. Adorned by Adanna Website
2. Styled by Jah Instagram

Dealing With The Devil (Part 3)

Introduction

This is a continuation of a study I'm doing on "Dealing with the Devil," based on a 30 day scripture plan I found by The Ruffled Mango.[1] In this post, I'm covering days 10 through 14—we're going to look at:

• Acts 13:8-12
• Romans 16:19-20
• 1 Corinthians 5:1-5
• 2 Corinthians 2:10-11
• 2 Corinthians 11:12-15

Acts 13:8-12: Elymas Tries To Sway the Proconsul

Satan uses Elymas, a sorcerer, tried to sway the proconsul (a man of power[2]) from the faith and it ended up backfiring on him! In this passage, we learn that Satan uses trickery and deceit to accomplish things, but we also learn that when we stand up to him, God uses those moments to bring believers to His side instead.

Romans 16:19-20: Simple Concerning Evil

Despite their obedience, Paul chides the people on being "wise to that which is good and simple concerning evil." This hit personally, because I have a tendency to complicate issues. We thinking and overthink until we end up not sure which way is up and which way is down. Satan can use this to his advantage.

1 Corinthians 5:1-5: Separate From Evil

In this passage we learn about a church that struggled to separate themself from evil. A rotten apple spoils the whole bunch! There were 2 key points I took from this passage:

1. The devil isn't always external; sometimes we are our own adversary
2. If we need to separate from someone, the goal should be to ultimately get them back to Christ

2 Corinthians 2:10-11: Forgiveness is Key

This passage focused on forgiveness and the fact that when we don't forgive each other, the devil can get a foothold in our relationships. It reminded me of church hurt and how we both push people away and allow ourselves to be pushed away. The devil wants us to be separated because that is when we are at our weakest point.

2 Corinthians 11: Stay The Course

Sometimes we're tired, overlooked, and overworked; but if we don't do what God calls us to do, the devil will certainly send someone to replace us. There are many false prophets who are just waiting for the spotlight and with that spotlight they can do a lot of damage. It is our responsibility to be where God tells us to be, doing what He tells us to do so that the devil doesn't get to voice his deceit.

Conclusion

The biggest take away I took from this selection of passages was that we must call out false teaching and evil. We must take a stand and declare the goodness of God to contrast the devil's darkness. This is how we win souls for Christ and how we keep ourselves from being deceived.

References

1. "June Scripture Writing Plan". The Reffled Mango; visited October 4, 2020
2. "Proconsul". Dictionary.com; visited October 23, 2020
3. "Strong's G5218. ὑπακοή". Blue Letter Bible; visited October 23, 2020

Dealing With The Devil (Part 2)

Introduction

This is a continuation of a study I'm doing on "Dealing with the Devil," based on a 30 day scripture plan I found by The Ruffled Mango.[1] In this post, I'm covering days 5 through 9—we're going to look at the parable of the Sower, the betrayal by Judas, Peter denying Christ, and Ananias and Sapphira's lies.

Mark 4:2-4: The Parabale of the Sower (pt. 1)

The Israelites lived in a agrarian society, so analogies to farming or taking care of livestock was the perfect way to explain things to them, and Christ utilizes this in most of His parables. In this case, He speaks of a sower (or farmer) who is sowing (planting) seeds. Plants, vines, and fruit have a long history in the Word—Matthew 7:15-20; John 15; Romans 6:21-22; Ephesians 5:8-10; Colossians 1:10; James 3:17-18; Galatians 5:22-23. From these passages we know this is related to our behavior.

Note that "seeds fallen to the way side" are seeds separated from the group. In the previous post, we determined that fellowship between Christians is crucial to our walk with Christ and warding off the devil. Another important understanding of "seeds fallen to the way side" is that these seeds are not where they are supposed to be and that makes them vulnerable. If they were in the garden (the proper place), there would likely be a fence and scarecrow protecting them from being devoured before even sprouting.

Mark 4:13-15: The Parabale of the Sower (pt. 2)

Later in the chapter, Christ explains the parable for us, so we don't have to do any guess work about what He means. He identifies the seeds as the Word and the fowl of the air as Satan. Essentially Christ is saying that when you sow the Word in an unprotected place, Satan will swoop in and steal that information before it can take root.

When I read these verses, I focused more on the applicaiton to protecting self than the question of if I sow seeds in the wrong place. The major concern that struck me was "what if I'm on the path?" Have you ever had a Bible Study or discussion about the Word and you dismissed it? Or maybe you read a few verses and by the time you got to the end you forgot what you've read? I felt like these were examples of me not being in the right place to cultivate the Word.

So, I asked my self, how do we create an envirnoment in our minds that ensures we aren't "on the path"? The following is what I came up with:

• Be mindful of what we allow to take up space in our mind
• Pray for retention of the Word
• Be intentional when reading the Word
• Be intentional when listening to the Word

Luke 22:2-4: Judas Betrays Christ

I knew Judas betrayed Christ, everyone knows that. However, I never noticed that the Bible tells us Satan entered Judas. There were three main ideas that I dwelt on after reading Luke 22:2-4.

What Does it Mean to be Possessed?

Hollywood has given us very interesting ideas of possession, albiet some passages in the Bible do warn of depravity due to possession. However, in each of the last three passages discussed in the post, you'll see evidence of Satan wielding control over someone and it doesn't look like a madman. Sometimes, people give the devil full access of their mind and body for lengthy periods of time, but in these cases it appears to be a single bad decision.

In cartoons, there's always the scene where an angel of God is on one shoulder telling the character to do right, while the devil is egging the character on to do wrong from the other shoulder. In real life, God gives us free will and each second of the day we are presented with choices. When we start choosing to listen to the devil more that God's Spirit, we are giving the devil control of our life. This is how he gains a foothold and is able to manipulate our actions.

Choose Your Friends Carefully

The passage starts off talking about Jesus' enemies, but that's not who Satan enters. Satan goes for the someone close to Jesus, someone in His inner circle. People in our inner circle see us at our best and our worst; they know our flaws and weaknesses. They know exactly the kind of information Satan needs to exploit us.

This is one reason he targets those close to us, but another reason is that they have our trust. We usually trust those closest to us to give us good advice, to keep us safe, and not to put us in compromising situations. This means we are more likely to go along with them. There are people I know that I would never travel with because even though I like them well enough, I have no idea what they will get into. My closest friends, however, I trust to share my values and not put me in an uncomfortable position. Because of this, I'm more likely to go on a trip with one of the latter over the former. So, Satan knows to get to me, he too has to come through the latter.

The saying "choose your friends carefully" rings true here. We want to surround ourselves with people who have our back, but more importantly, we want to surround ourselves with God-fearing men and women who are actively fighting off Satan's attacks.

Don't Let Satan Use You

Speaking of God-fearing men and women, we have to be that for our friends. Just like Satan used Judas, he can use us against our friends. When we find ourselves plotting for someone's downfall, that's an indicator that Satan is putting thoughts in our head. It's one thing to think someone should go to jail for a crime, but when we wish bad on people our of jealousy or spite, there's a problem. When we aren't happy for our friends' success or we're ready to tell their business to people we know don't like them, there's a problem. If we find ourselves in these situations or feeling like this, we need to take it to God immediately, because likely, Satan is in our head.

Luke 22:31-32: Satan Wants Peter

Satan didn't just go for one person in Jesus' inner circle. He also wanted to take Peter away from the faith. I see Peter's experience more like a Job experience, in the sense that Christ knew Peter had the faith to maintain their relationship.

Four things stood out to me in this passage: Christ already knew the devil's plan, Christ warns Peter about said plan, Christ prays for Peter's faith, and Christ aknowledges that He and Peter will be separated for a time.

God Knows All

God is omniscient; He knows all of His creations better than they know themselves. Since Satan is one of God's creations, this is true for him too. Satan can't outsmart God or catch Him off guard. This means He knows exactly which one of His children Satan is plotting against and exactly what test Satan will put before them.

God Warns Us

Because God knows what's coming, He often sends us a warning to help us avoid Satan's traps. There are at least three examples of this that come to mind: God warns Cain that sin is lurking before Cain kills his brother (Genesis 4:6-7); Christ sublty tips Judas off to His knowledge of the betrayal, which is in time for Judas to take a different course of action (Matthew 26:21-24); and Christ warns Peter that Satan is trying to get to him (Luke 22:31-32).

God Wants us to Succeed

Christ prays for Peter, telling us that He wanted Peter to win against Satan. What's interesting is that of all the things He could have prayed for, He prayed for Peter's faith. This tells us that the main factor in successfully defending against Satan's attacks is our faith.

God Knows We Aren't Perfect

Christ makes a point to note that Peter will be "returning" to Him. While this could be literal, since they get separated in the commotion, I have a feeling it's spiritual. Peter goes on to deny Christ three times, which is also a way of separating himself from Christ in it's own right. In doing so he's distancing himself from Christ, the way we may distance ourselves from Christ to fit in or enjoy things of the world. There's a real danger that we will put so much distance between ourselves and Christ that we won't be able to find our way back.

Yet, Christ knew Peter would regret His denials and find His way back. Christ didn't have to reveal any of this information to Peter, but by doing so, and by giving Peter a specific task to complete upon his return, Christ exemplifies His forgiving nature and love. When Peter fails, he isn't just left with the feeling that Christ is saya "I told you so." The last thing Christ said about the incident was "when you come back to Me." This means we can return and we will be forgiven!

Acts 5:1-4: Ananias and Sapphira Lie to the Holy Spirit

The final passage for today covers the fate of a couple that lies to the Apostles about a property they sold. They withold part of the proceeds they receive for an unknown reason, choosing to lie about the amount they sold it for. Interestingly, I think they very well have simply said, "We sold our property for x and we're giving you half"—or whatever portion they gave. The deeper issue here is that everyone else was giving everything they had, and this couple was not ready or willing to do the same. Regardless of the reason, we know that God loves a cheerful giver (2 Corintians 9:7), so it would be better to give what you can with joy than to try to keep up with the joneses.

Like with Peter (from part 1) and Judas, Ananias and Sapphira let Satan guide their actions rather than God. These action (e.g., lying, greed, etc.) are easy to recognize as ungodly. When we have ideas that do not please Him, Satan has put them in our head and carrying out such an action is an offense to God himself, not just the person we hurt (or lie to in this case).

Conclusion

While the last verses focused more on Satan's stategies, these verses reminded me to watch myself. The main thing I took away from these verses was to watch myself and don't let Satan use me for his on purposes.

References

1. "June Scripture Writing Plan". The Reffled Mango; visited October 4, 2020

Acts 16: Timothy Was Biracial...Sort Of

Timothy

Acts 16 tells us that Timothy was born to a Jewish mother and a Greek father. The Bible doesn't concern it self with "race" because the concept of race that we have today didn't exist; however, we are often told of tribal or national affilliations. These affilitions, like race, came with assumptions and prejudices that have parallels with the racial issues we see today.

Many of the stories I've heard from biracial friends have been about reconciling identities and getting others to accept both parts of their heritage. Although, Timothy's story is not about this specifically, I see a similar pattern. The begining of Acts 16 alludes to the pushback Timothy received (or was expected to receive) from the Jews because he had a Jewish father. The "need" to prove oneself to one side (or both sides) of one's heritage is still felt by people today, unfortunately.

Israel is a patriarchal society, so tribal identity is passed by the father.[1] We see this throughout the Bible and from the formation of Israel. Arguably, it is possible that a non-Jew could convert to Judaism, marry a Jewish woman and their children would still be considered Jewish, but that does not seem to be the case for Timothy.

We know that Timothy's father didn't convert or adopt Jewish customs because Timothy is an adult and uncircumcised. This is where we see the struggle in his lineage come to fruition. Despite having just concluded that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised, Paul circumcises Timothy. We're going to talk about this act separately, but for now I want to talk about how it relates to Timothy's identity

Timothy's Struggle

The Jews would not accept Timothy as a Greek but they couldn't accept him as a Jew either. While there isn't anything that suggests he should deny his Greek father, there is a strong suggestion that he has to fully embrace his maternal roots to be part of that world. In some cases it may be possible to fully embrace two difference cultrues, but in many cases today there is contention, especially concerning nationality. I've heard many immigrants expressing strife with reconciling their "American-ness" with their heritage. I believe Timothy could relate.

What Can We Learn From Timothy?

Unfortunately, because the purpose of Timothy's story is not to inform us on the dynamics of nativigating multicultural identities, there is no real statement on how to handle such a thing, only interpretations. The act of Timothy's circumcision seems to be an act of him choosing his Jewish identity over his Greek identity, but we have to remember that this was really a statement about worship. Race, as we define it today, is not about religion or values, but in Timothy's case, it was about identifying who he worshipped. Greeks worshiped pagan gods and goddess but Jews worshipped YHWH, who had required all male children descended from Abraham be circumcised.

Notice, we get no information on how Timothy spoke. It is likely that he spoke both Hebrew and Greek, but did he speek like a Greek or like a Hebrew? In our society people judge "outsiders" based on dialects and accents, taste in entertainment, and many other trivial matters. You may be told you don't embody a particular culture for many insignificant reasons. These are not things we should trouble ourselves with; I believe God would have you to be confident in being yourself. What I took away from Timothy's identity struggle is that our identity in Christ should trump all things, as cliché as that might sound. Our actions should testify of our faith and that's all that really matters.

Why Did Paul Circumcise Timothy?

Now, let's come back to this act of circumcision. The last chapter we read (Acts 15) was literally an agruement about circumcision. During the arguement Paul advocated that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised, and the council eventually agreed. So why is it that all of a sudden Paul is circumcising Timothy? I don't know the exact answer but I do have a few thoughts (and questions).

Did Circumcision Stop Being a Requirement for Jewish Men?

Christ Himself says He didn't come to change the law, which makes me wonder about the old covenant and the new covenant... There are multiple covenants in the Bible: the rainbow (Genesis 9:12-14), circumcision (Genesis 17:10), the laws of Israel (Exodus 24:7-8), Christ's resurrection (Hebrews 8:8), etc. The covenant God made with Abraham did not nullify the covenant God made with Noah. So why do should the covenant God made through Christ nullify the covenant He made with Abraham? In most of the discussions about circumcision, the New Testament is addressing whether or not Gentiles need to be circumcised. There's never a debate about the Jews. Customarily the Jews would have already been circumcised so there was no need for this discussion in reference to adults, but we also don't see parents opting to forego circumcision.

Unlike the average Gentile, Timothy had Israelite blood, thanks to his mother. The covenant of circumcision applied to Abraham and his descendants (including Ishmael), which technically still could be applied to Timothy. Conversely, God had never required the Gentiles to be circumcised physically, so circumcision of the heart was the only thing they needed to worry about. Perhaps those born Jewish by blood were still bound by the covenant with Abraham (which was not the same as the covenant made with Moses)?

It Was Not a Salvation Issue

One thing is certain, in Acts 16, Paul does not make Timothy's circumcision about salvation. It is evident that this has to do with his identity as both Jewish and Greek. In previous discussions, the argument was that Gentiles could not be saved if they were not circumcised, which Paul rejects. In Acts 16, Paul isn't the least concerned with Timothy's salvation; the issue is how the Jews will receive him. Paul circumcising Timothy in this case is like wearing a cardigan to church—I'm not saved because I covered my arms and shoulders, but because some people have a problem with seeing skin,[2] it is easier to focus their attention on the message if I eliminate the distraction.

The Israelites were very legalistic and had been taught that uncricumcision was unclean, but more importantly, a Jew who was not circumcised was an anathema to them. The knowledge that he was uncircumcised would have distracted them from his message. (Yes, this is a lot more painful than simply putting on a jacket and yes, to the modern mind it is befuddling that the Jewish men and women would be so caught up on the state of someone's private body parts—that is why it is important to focus our mind on the time period so that we can understand the context.)

Increasing in Number

Acts 16:5 says the church increased in number daily. Does your church get new members weekly? Can you imagine new people joining your church daily? To have new members daily, you have to spread the Word daily!

Forbidden to Preach in Asia

Can you imagine the Holy Spirit telling you not to preach somewhere or not to tell someone about God? That's counterintuitive. However, in Acts 16:6-10, the Holy Spirit blocks the apostles from preaching in certain places. Perhaps it wasn't the right time, or maybe they just weren't the right people. Nonetheless, God directed them to where they were supposed to preach. Many Christians today are discribed as pushy—trying to force God on people. Yet, there are multiple passages where we see God tell His people to move on. The Holy Spirit is to direct us when to speak and when to be silent.

Now when they had gone through Phrygia and the region of Galatia, they were forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach the word in Asia. Acts 16:6

Lydia

Acts 16:11-15 tells us of the conversion of a woman named Lydia. She was from Thyatira (one of the 7 churches of Asia Minor mentioned in Revelation). Outside of being a refuge for Paul and Silas after they escape jail, the importance of Lydia is not really given. One thing I did notice is that she was already a believer in God; it seems that this is a conversion from Judaism to Christianity. Also, her entire household is converted, but neither her husband nor her father is never mentioned or named. This implies that she took the most active role in the conversion and subsequent interactions.

Imprisioned

One of the more interesting things I found in the chapter is the events which led to Paul and Silas being thrown in jail. A woman who was possessed by "a spirit of divination" begins following them around. We know that this is a demonic spirit because Paul and Silas cast out the demon, however, the woman is both aware that they have information about salvation and announcing it. When we think of possession and demonic spirits, usually we think of people trying to hinder God's Kingdom. We would expect this person to be getting in the way their preaching or harassing those who stop to listen. There is no mentioning of this type of behavior though.

I find this interesting for a few reasons. I see it as an example of how to treat "lost" people. One might argue that the woman is lost because she is participating in soothsaying and possessed by an ungodly spirit, however she seems to be reaching out in spite of her demons. In response, Paul does not scold her or make her feel like an outsider, but instead rids her of the demon. When people come to us seeking Christ, it is very possible that they have a demon or multiple demons that are being exploited by others. It is important for us to help them instead of judging.

I have two major questions about the situation, however. First, was the woman seeking help or was she causing a distraction? There are many who claim truths (usually mixed with partial truths and lies) that appear godly to the spiritually untrained eye. These people then lure away God's people under the pretense that are of God. I have met many who buzz around the Church, proclaiming The Most High as king of the universe, but are actually there to stir dissention. Second, why did Paul wait so long to cast out the spirit?

Regardless, once the woman is free of the spirit, she is no longer of value to the men exploiting her. In anger, they have Paul and Silas arrested. While in prison they continue to worship God, and just as He did for Peter, God delivers them from prison. Its interesting that despite being set free, they do not try to escape. As a result of this, they end up saving the life of the guard and converting him. How many times are we so concerned for ourselves that we flee a situation without concern for those around us? Only a connection to the Holy Spirit would convince you to stay in jail when you have been given a way to escape—most of us would have made a bee-line for freedom!

One final point on this section concerns the baptism of the guard. He was baptized the very hour he chose to be saved. Many churches make their members go through training and classes before allowing their baptism, but there is plenty of evidence in the Bible that people were baptised as soon as they confessed, not later.

What is Started in Public is Resolved in Public

Those who put Paul and Silas in jail agreed to let them go, but wanted them to leave in secret. Paul is angered by this and refuses to do so. He argues that they were publically mistreated so they should be officially pardoned. This is still an issue today. The media is quick to publish sensational news, but rarely do they print as large of an article to pardon someone wrongfully accused.

References & Footnotes

1. Jews today claim lineage through their mothers but that is not Biblical. If lineage was passed through the mother, the entire lineage falls apart as Jacob, the father of Israel is the one descended from Abraham and at least two of his sons (Joseph and Judah) marry Hamitic women. Most Jews today descend from Judah (some may be the tribe of Benjamin or Levi). Within the lineage of David are 3 non-Israelite women: Tamar (the Canaanite who bore Judah children), Rahab (the Canaanite who bore Boaz), and Ruth (the Moabite who married Boaz). If identity was passed through the mother, David would have been an illegitimate king.
2. I really don't understand this, but I have encountered several people (always men) who lose their minds over seeing a shoulder. That conversation however, is probably better suited for a post on misogny and modesty.

The Jerusalem Council

PSALMS to God · The Jerusalem Council

After Paul and Barnabas had engaged them in serious argument and debate, Paul and Barnabas and some others were appointed to go up to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem about this issue. Acts 15:2 CSB

A more in depth study of Acts 5 can be found in the post "Acts 15: Disagreements."

Conflict #1: Paul vs. Barnabas
Barnabas and Paul get into an argument about the company they keep. In determining who they should bring with them to minister to the churches they'd planted in Acts 13-14, Paul had serious doubts about Barnabas' choice. The issue was so important to the two that they chose to go separate ways! We're often told to mend things with our Christian brethern and the ideal outcome is reconciliation. When we say reconciliation, we thing that means that we agree and move forward in the same direction, but clearly does not. Both men were confident in their decision and neither was willing to compromise. Note that this doesn't mean they walked away from the disagreement hating eaching other! This is a prime example of agreeing to disagree. Remember, who each took with them on the journey was a spiritual matter—hence their refusal to back down—but it wasn't a salvation matter.

Do Paul and Barnabas remain friends?
After the pair disagree, what happened? The Bible isn't explicit on how they left each other, and we don't see them travel together afterward. This has lead some to believe that they were never reconciled. However, there is Biblical evidence that they were at least neutral toward each other afterward. For one, Paul affirms John Mark (the person they disputed) in his letters (Colossians 4:10 and 2 Timothy 4:11). Paul also speaks of Barnabas in 1 Corinthians 9:6, lumping themsleves together among the apostles and without any negative commentary.

Conflict #2: How Are Gentiles Saved?
In chapter 15, the Church has to answer the question "what is required of a Gentile to be saved." Some said they had to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, others disagreed. The apostles discussed the matter and determined that they would ask of 4 things for converts: abstain from meat offered to idols, abstain from things strangled, abstain from sexual immorality, and abstain from blood. There is still a lot of confusion about was is and isn't required of believers (please see my post on Acts 15 for more detail), but the important thing to remember is that the leaders were discussing what it meant to be considered saved.

⁹Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, ¹⁰Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. ¹¹And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Corithians 6:9-11 CSB

To bring it in to a more modern context, think about participating in a Church ministry. The church I grew up in does not allow non-members to do certain things. As such, you must be a baptized member of the church ("saved") to be eligible to participate. The Jews considered Gentiles unclean, so they felt the Gentiles needed to "do" something to be worthy of their company. Later in the chapter James mentions that the law of Moses is taught in every city, but when you put things in context, you have to realize that "unclean people" could not go listen. Further, the act of being saved is the act in which we allow the Holy Spirit to cleanse us (see 1 Corinthians 6:9-11). It doesn't mean we won't struggle or commit sin after that point, but that we have surrendered to the Spirit, allowing God to determine what is right or wrong. The council's decision simply removed the tempation of false gods from the Gentile's equation because you cannot serve two masters. Once they were able to fully surrendered to God, they could be receive the Word with "clean" ears, from there the Holy Spirit would do the convicting.

The Council
In light of the disagreement, leaders of the Church gathered together to discuss a solution. The Church is supposed to be on one accord, and as such needed to talk out the issue and come to a consensus. In this council, each side presented their arguements and eventually a decision was made. This method of deciding doctrine was one of the few authentic practices kept by the Catholic Church. Throughout history, many church councils have been held, each shaping modern Christianity for better or worse—we will discuss this in greater detail in future episodes.

Acts 15: Disagreements in the Church

Let's agree to disagree is easy when it comes to trivial matters, less easy when it comes to matter of the heart/morality, and even less easy when it comes to salvation. Today, there are over 30,000 Christian denominations,[4] mainly due to doctrinal disagreements. This issue existed all the way back to the very beginning of the Church. This chapter gives us two examples of disagreements within the church—one of which doesn't seem to get resolved.

Circumcision & the Law

After the church agreed to allow Gentile converts, they quickly ran into the problem of what was required to be a true convert. Descendents of Abraham were required to be circumcised. Israelites by birth were circumcised on the 8th day, but converts were circumcised at conversion. We see in Genesis 34 that this process in adult males rendered them incapcitated. Can you imagine hearing the gospel, believing it, and then someone telling you to be saved you have to get circumcised? The Pharisees—presumably those who had converted to Christianity—were suggesting exactly that. Many of the early Church leaders disagreed with this stance, including Paul, Barnabas, Peter, and James.[1] Which poses a theological question: are you still saved if you don't circumcise yourself.

To resolve the matter, the leaders met to form a consensus. Peter argues that when God gave the Gentiles the Holy Spirit, He purified their hearts through faith. Peter also asserts that the Pharisees were asking the Gentiles to do something they couldn't even do (keep the law of Moses). After Peter's argument, Paul and Barnabas support his points by revealing the miracles God has worked for the Gentiles, proving His presence is there without circumcision. James concludes the discussion by outlining 4 things they should require of the new converts: abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, sexually immorality, meat from strangled animales, and blood.

So the Law is Gone?

There are two (and a half) interpretations of the council's decision. Some believe that this completely abolishes the laws of the Old Testament, leaving only the four requirements outlined by the council. More commonly, people divide the laws of Moses[2] and claim only a subsection of the laws were abolished. The remaining state that this isn't about abolishing laws but emphasizing what was important for salvation, particularly to the Gentiles.

It's one of the more confusing matters. Remember scripture has to work in harmony, and it needs context, so lets work through some of that.

After this council, when Paul writes to the Church in Corinth,[3] he says this:

⁹Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, ¹⁰Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. ¹¹And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 KJV

Paul's statement lists traits that we are not to revel in. We'll save the specifics of the verse for when we talk about Corinthians but the basic concept is that these traits are seen as unrighteous. Many of them fit within the four things spoken against by the council, but some of them (thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, extortioners, etc.) do not. Theft and coveting are covered by the 10 Commandments, for those who argue the 10 Commandments was not part of the Law of Moses but is the Law of God. However, guidlines about drunkenness and extortion are given in other parts of the law, parts that can't be distinguished from the Law of Moses.

In Acts 15:21, we can find clarity. James argues that each of the cities has someone who preaches the law of Moses (re: they have access to that information). There was a stark difference between the Gentile converts and the Jewish converts: one was converting religions and learning a new diety, while the other was simply relearning how to interpret old scriptures. The Jews who joined the Church were already well versed in the law and circumcised, there wasn't much that needed to change as they assimilated into the body. Gentiles, however, still needed to learn the laws. Those who were pro-circumcision, didn't want to include the Gentiles in the synagouge or the church without them being both circumcised and fully aware of the law. The opposing side proved that circumcision wasn't nessecary as God was already showing His Spirit to the uncircumcised Gentiles. Learning the law is something the Holy Spirit could handle once they surrendered their life to God. When the Holy Spirit filled them, they could go listen to the law read in thier respective city and gain that knowledge. However, it was not neceassary for them to keep that law in order for the Holy Spirit to enter their life, this is why we see Peter and Paul arguing that the Gentiles have felt the Spirit even though they are uncircumcised.

The Importance of these 4 Things

The Law of Moses references the entire Torah (Genesis - Deuteronomy), so out of all those laws, why did they settle on these four? These four laws focus on what this particular group would have been struggling with. The ways of Roman/Greek pagan deities were in direct contrast to the God's way. Abstaining from these behaviors took the Gentiles out of their pagan lifestyle (and comfort zone), opening the door for the new way of life. Pagan rituals included sacrifices, consuming blood, and sex.[5] By putting these behaviors behind them, they were also announcing their allegience to God and welcoming Him as the authority in their life. Remember, the Jews already worshiped YHWH, they were just accepting Christ as the Messiah. In contrast, the Gentiles were learning and accepting a whole new lifestyle. They needed to cut the cords with their pagan gods to truly receive to the Holy Spirit.

Please note an important fact here. The Jews were used to salvation being dependent on an action on their part (circumcision, sacrifice, righteous behavior, etc.), but Christ gave us grace. In shutitng down the idea that circumcision was necessary, the apostles killed the idea that you had to earn salvation. Salvation was given without any of this. However, the behavior of a saved person is should align with the Holy Spirit. It won't be perfect, but if the Holy Spirit is leading, things considered ungodly will automatically be lessened and eventually removed from your life. This means all the things God despises, eventually you sould too, and He doesn't change.

Paul vs. Barnabas

When I think of disputes between individuals, I think of reconciliation, and when I think of reconciliation, I think of being on one accord. Many a Christian would have you to believe that "loving from a distance" is not Biblical, but when you look at Paul and Barnabas' disagreement at the end of Acts 15, you might not agree.

Paul and Barnabas agree that they should revisit the churches they have planted among the Gentiles (see Acts 13-14), and begin making plans to for their second journey. However, during this planning phase, they disagree about who should join them. Barnabas wants to bring John Mark, whom Paul considers a deserter. The disagreement between the two is so great that Paul and Barnabas split up. Barnabas takes John Mark and embarks on his on journey, while Paul travels with Silas.

There's a lot to pick apart here, from how they handle the disagreement to the implications of the disagreement.

Forgive and Forget?

When we talked about forgiveness at a Bible Study, we got hung up on the concept of forgive and forget. Forgiving is hard in itself, but we questioned whether we should truely forget some actions. For instance, you may forgive a pedophile but I don't think anyone would be comfortable with them leading the children's ministry. Similarly you may forgive a thief, but you probably wouldn't be so quick to nominate them for treasurer. We discussed these types of scenarios at length, trying to determine what truly constituted full forgiveness and what was the correct way to proceed—can a recovering thief never be the treasurer?

Paul seems to agree with us that there has to be some sort of process to get from point A to point B, because he is adamant that John Mark should not go with them. John Mark's crime appears to be abandonning them on a previous trip. No only does Paul not back down to suggest John Mark has changed, grew, or should otherwise be given a second chance, but the Church seems to support Paul's decision (Acts 15:40).

Agree to Disagree

Paul and Barnabas end their dispute by agreeing to disagree. Paul didn't cave to Barnabas' pressure and Barnabas didn't gave to Paul's. They both stood firm in what they believed in—a valuable lesson to those who've been made to feel that they have to cave in to keep the peace. What's really important about their decision to go separate ways is that it doesn't hurt their relationship. In 1 Corinthians 9:6, which takes place at a later time, Paul refers to Barnabas without malice. We also see in Colossians 4:10 and 2 Timothy 4:11, Paul seems to have reconciled with Mark as well. These men did not let their pride or ego get in the way of furthering God's mission. In fact, the disagreement worked for the glory of God in that separately, they covered more territory!

References

1. We actually see Paul get into the same disagreement with Peter in Galatians 2 (which assumably predates this council).
2. Some people divide the Torah into the 10 Commandments (which they call the law of God) and everything else (which they call the law of Moses). Others divide it into ceremonial vs. moral laws—and even within that what is categorized as what can be different.
3. There are plenty of references online that have dates for the when events happen in the Bible, but I recommend having a Chronological Bible in your library. The one I have not only orders the books of the Bible based on timeline, but it interleaves passages from different books according to the timeline. For example, the instead of giving you the gospels as separate books, you read the account of events from each author back to back. A word of caution, some dates are disputed so you should still research the information presented to you for yourself.
4. "Denominations". Christianity Today; visited June 30, 2020
5. Geoffrey Stone. "‘Sex and the Constitution’: The ancient Greeks". The Washington Post. March 21, 2017

Acts 13-14: The First Missionary Journey of Paul

Acts 13-14 discusses the leadership of the church in Antioch, and the first journey taken by Paul and Barnabas to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. The podcast entiled "Church Leadership" is on these chapters.

Leaders in the Church of Antioch

Barnabas

Of the leaders mentioned, Barnabas and Paul are the most discussed throughout the chapters. Barnabas is first mentioned in Acts 4:36. Here we learn that he was a Levite from Cyprus who was actually named Joses (or Joseph). One of the early converts to Christianity, he was likely the "senior leader" in Antioch. Interestingly, when Paul experiences his conversion, it is Barnabas that believes him (Acts 9:27).

Simeon, called Niger

Not much is known about Simeon, called Niger, but much is supposed. The word Niger is Latin for "black," which leads some to speculate that Simeon was a black man.[1][2] There are actually a lot of possibilities here and because I've seen such confusion in the comments about Simeon, I want to discuss them.

We have to remember not to read into the Bible what we want. The truth is, black does not have to refer to his skin color. In fact, the concept of calling people "black people" didn't start until much later than that. Interestingly the country Niger, is actually named for a phrase in a different language which references a river&mash;it is not called Niger in reference to the skin color of the people living there.[3] Perhaps Simeon was a blacksmith and often covered in soot. It is also possible that Simeon always wore black robes or that it was his surname (think about many of the people with the last name Black in the US today). The Bible doesn't tell us precisely why he was called black so we cannot be certain.

Now suppose he was called black because of his dark skin. One person agrues that calling him "black" would actually mean this is a unique feature. This is their counterpoint to the idea of the Israelites being black.[2] This a fallacy however. Blackness, in terms of a race, comes in many shades. I have heard black people point out the "extreme" darkness of another black person's skin. Though much of this comes from the brainwashing of colonialism and white supremacy, which would not have existed at the time of Simeon, it remains possible that Simeon was simply darker than those around him and does not rule out the idea that the Israelites were brown skinned people.

In short, we can't draw specific conclusions from Simeon's nickname (or surname).

Lucius of Cyrene

Lucius was from Cyrene, a city in modern day Libya (North Africa). There was a heavy Jewish and Christian influence in Africa, we've already seen this with the man Philip baptizes from Ethiopia (Acts 8). Despite claims that Christianity first spread in Europe, we see that there were Christians in Africa from the very beginning of the Church. It is thought tha Lucius is one of the men of Cyrene spoken of from the beginning of Acts and a Jew.[4] Just as the Jews were known to travel to Egypt, they traveled into other parts of Africa, such as Lybia, and made their home there.

Manaen

It is interesting that the discription attached to Manaen is that he was associated with Herod the tetrarch[5]. This is the only information given about him. Because of the timing, it is assumed that Manaen was a Jew who was raised alongside Herod.[6]

Saul

Saul, later called Paul, is listed last among the leaders of the church. At this time, Paul was still an infant in his career and would have been the "rookie" of the group.

Paul & Barnabas sent out to Preach

Paul and Barnabas are sent to spread the Word. It is important to notice that after converting, the goal was to teach others. People like Paul and Barnabas grew from baby Christians to leaders in their own right. The mission was to spread the Word to all who would receive it. That can't be accomplished by only talking to those who already agree with you.

Chapters 13 and 14 outline the journey Paul and Barnabas take to spread the gospel throughout the kingdom of Rome. If you compare their route to a modern map, the journey covered 3 countries: Syria, Cyrpus, and Turkey. Below is a list of locations they visited on their journey:

• Antioch (Syria)
• Seleucia (Syria)
• Salamis (Cyprus)
• Paphos (Cyrpus)
• Perga (Pamphylia)
• Antioch (Pisidia)
• Iconium (Phyrgia)
• Lystra (Lycaonia)
• Derbe (Lycaonia)
• Lystra (Lycaonia)
• Iconium (Phyrgia)
• Antioch (Pisidia)
• Perga (Pamphylia)
• Attalia (modern Antalya, Turkey)
• Antioch (Syria)

Paul and Barnabas' journey to preach to the Gentiles notcibily does not include the tribes of people they usually were in contact with. They could have went East into what is modern Jordan or Iraq, or South, into modern Eygpt and Saudia Arabia. In these lands they would have spoken to the Moabites, Ishmaelites, Egyptians, etc. Since the beginning of my deeper studies into the Word, I have begun to challenge the notion that "Gentile" refers to everyone who is not an Israelite. In Genesis 10:1-5, it describes the descendants of Japheth and refers to them as the Gentiles. The descendants of Ham and Shem are never refered to as Gentiles, and as we look at the journey taken by Paul and Barabas, we see that they only visited the lands of Japheth to preach to the Gentiles.

References

1. "Strongs G3526. Νίγερ. Blue Letter Bible; visited June 21, 2020
2. LJ Thriepland. "Simeon was called Niger, does that prove the Israelites were black?". Follow in Truth. August 25, 2018
3. Finn Fuglestad and Diouldé Laya. "Niger". Encyclopædia Britannica. November 8, 2019
4. "Lucius". Bible Hub; visited June 21, 2020
5. "Herod Antipas". Encyclopædia Britannica. April 3, 2020
6. "Manaen". Bible Study Tools; visited June 21, 2020
7. Underground Network. "Iconium, Lystra, Derbe & Back". Medium. August 31, 2015

Church Leadership

PSALMS to God · Church Leadership

¹Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen, a close friend of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. ²As they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” ³Then after they had fasted, prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them off. Acts 13:1-3 CSB

A more in depth study of Acts 13-14 can be found in the post "Acts 13-14: the First Missionary Journey of Paul."

Barnabas
Barnabas is first mentioned in Acts 4; it is likely that he was part of the movement from the begining. This may be why he was named first. This means he was the "seasoned" believer when he was sent out with Paul. Barnabas is also one of the first people to stand up for Paul when he is converted.

Simeon, called Niger
Simeon is possibly the most "contraversial" of the leaders. Many have latched on to the fact that he was called Niger, which means "black" in Latin[2] and began to use this to infer that he was a black man. This is a faulty premise. Based on many other scriptures in the Bible about the Israelites, I am inclined to believe Simeon was a man of color, but I wouldn't use his nickname to assert anything about his race or complexion. We have to remember that the social construct of race didn't exist yet in Simeon's day, so "black people" wasn't a common phrase or discription. In some translations, it may say "surnamed." The word translated to "called" is sometimes used to mean surname, which would make Simeon's name Simeon "Black." The name "Black" was often ascribed to blacksmiths. If Simeon was a blacksmith, not only would it make sense for his last name to be Black, but he might also often be covered in soot/ashes, prompting the nickname. Because of the broadness of the situation and the lack of discussion of Simeon anywhere else in the Bible, it is hard to make absolute conclusions on this matter. That is why, despite believing that he was a man of color, I would not use his last name/nickname to try to prove that.

Lucius of Cyrene
Cyrene was a major city in Lybia, in Northern Africa. Many Jews had settled there. Despite the notion that Christianity spread in Europe first, there was a strong Jewish presence in Africa and the oldest Christian nation in the world is Ethiopia (think back to Acts 8).[1] Due to the Jewish presence in Africa, there were already Africans who worshiped the Most High God, and some of these peole converted to Christianity when Jews like Lucius revealed the gospel to them.

Manean
Some translations say he was friends with the king (Herod the tetrarch) while others suggest the two were raised together.Likely, Manean came from a well off family if he was raised in close proximity to the king, which shows economic/power diversity in the group. This information shows us that Manean could have easily made himself favorable in the eyes of the crown. The fact that Manean chose to not only become a Christian, but to be a leader in the movement, speaks volumes to his heart.

Paul
Paul is the most famous of these men, though at the point in history being discuss, he would have been the baby in Christ. This may be why he was mentioned last. This is a reminder that we all have to start somewhere.

Leader	Mission
Barnabas	Spread the Gospel to Gentiles (External Ministry)
Simeon called Niger	Continue in Antioch (Internal Ministry)
Lucius of Cyrene	Continue in Antioch (Internal Ministry)
Manean	Continue in Antioch (Internal Ministry)
Saul/Paul	Spread the Gospel to Gentiles (External Ministry)

Split in Half
God split the leaders almost exaclty in half and called each group to a specific mission. One group was to spread the gospel to the Gentiles—people the Jews did not normally deal with. The other group was left in Antioch to continue growing the Church and building disciples. Our Church today should mirror this structure. There should be leadership in place to push for the growth and discipleship for new believers as well as to go out and spread the Word to those who have yet to believe or have never heard it. We have the responsibility of hearlding God's Kingdom and "passing out invitationss" to join this kingdom, but we also have a responsibility to mentor and disciple those who make that decision. As such we need both internal ministry and external ministry.

Paul's Journey
Much of the chapter is based on Paul's journey to spread the Word. The in depth study of the book goes into more detail about this topic. What I can say, however, is that despite being called to teach the Gentiles, Paul never approciates Africa or Asia with gospel. I think this is because "Gentile" doesn't actually refer to anyone that isn't Jewish. The Israelites refer to plenty of non-Jewish tribes they come into contact with. Only those from the tribe of Japheth are referred to as "Gentiles" (see Genesis 6 for even more proof of this link). Nonetheless, the book of Acts covers three journeys Paul completes to spread the Word (Acts 13-14, Acts 15:36–18:22, and Acts 18:23—21:14).

In depth studies on the rest of Paul's journey's will be added in the coming weeks.

References & Footnotes

1. Brendan Pringle. "Ethiopia: The First Christian Nation?". International Business Times. March 4, 2013
2. "Strong's G63526. Νίγερ". Blue Letter Bible; visited June 22, 2020

Pride, Morality, and Hope

PSALMS to God · Pride, Morality, and Hope

Suddenly an angel of the Lord appeared, and a light shone in the cell. Striking Peter on the side, he woke him up and said, “Quick, get up!” And the chains fell off his wrists. Acts 12:7 CSB

A more in depth study of Acts 12 can be found here.

Herod Agrippa I
Herod Agrippa was the grandson of Herod the Great (the Herod that tried to have Christ killed as a baby). He actually followed Jewish customs and traditions, strengthening his bond between the Jews he ruled over. Because of this he despised Christians.[1] In the beginning of this chapter we learn that he's alread killed James, the brother of John, now he has his sights set on Peter. Herod's pride eventually leads to his demise. When people exalt Herod as a kind and he allows it, God strikes him dead.[2]

Peter
James is killed by Herod, but Peter is spared. Peter still had a job to do. One of things Peter's experience reminded me of was the moment in my childhood when I realized that morality and legality were two totally different things. There are things that are legal that aren't moral, and there are things that are illegal that are perfectly moral. We often get roped into an idea that because someone is a criminal according to the state/world they're a bad person, but that's not the case. Lots of great people spent time in prison—Peter, Paul, many civil rights leaders, etc.

Rhoda
Rhoda is thought to be a servant, hence why she answers the door. She is so shocked that Peter is at the door that she forgets to welcome him in! Many of us react like Rhoda to the blessings God has for us. When Rhoda tells the others, they don't believe her. The Church's reaction reminded me of when Christ said we could move mountains if we had faith the size of a mustard seed (Matthew 17:20). Verse 5 tells us they had been praying constantly, so why are they shocked that God rescued Peter?

References & Footnotes

1. "Herod Agrippa I". Encylopædia Britannica. January 1, 2020
2. When I read through this chapter, I couldn't help picturing Herod as Trump. After failing to maintain his prisioner, Herod jets off (to a vacation?) where he allows people to stroke his ego. Doesn't this sound like something Trump would do?

Acts 12: Herod, Peter, and Rhoda

Easter Controversy

If you read Acts 12:4 in the KJV, it says Easter—pretty much every other translation says Passover. The original Greek word is πάσχα, which means Passover.[2] Some use the KJV to "validate" Easter as a holiday, but even if you could justify the translation, it would not justify the holiday. Verses 1-3 set up the fact that Herod despised the Christians. Christianity was forbidden. Why would the king celebrate/honor a Christian holiday? Would it not have been even more of a show of force to desecrate the holiday?

If you take the KJV's approaach and argue that the translation should be Easter, the only conclusion we can make is that Easter is a Roman holiday. It makes much more sense for Herod to put off killing an "enemy of the state" to celebrate his own holidy that to appease the people he believes are criminals.

In contrast to the Christians, however, Judaism was tolerated in Rome. The Roman govenors waslked a tedious line between exerting Rome's authority and allowing the Jews some autonomy to avoid revolt. The most likely scenario is that Herod thought killing Peter would make the Roman-Jewish alliance stronger, therefore he postponed the execution in honor of Passover.

Herod: Pride

Acts 12 reveals a plot by King Herod (Herod Agrippa I[1]) to kill Christians, specifically Peter. The text doesn't say much about Herod, but it clearly paints him as cruel and prideful. In the first couple of verses we see that he enjoyed harassing Christians—Herod kills James before he sets his sights on Peter. In the final verses of the chapter, we see him killed by God is response to his pridefulness. His existance bookends the chapter. In both sequences he is disobedient to God, but in the latter there are dire consequences. His master plan is interrupted by God, and Peter is saved from the prison. Despite following the Jewish practices, Herod does not see this as an act of God. He instead blames his guards and has them put to death in Peter's place. Reeling from this failure, Herod continues to boast of his own glory. As the kings of other nations claim to view him as a god, Herod does not correct them. This angers God who strikes him dead.

Just as the chapter begins and ends with Herod, Herod's story begins and ends with pride. Proverbs 16:18 says that pride goes before a fall; we see this in practice with Herod. When we behave in a prideful manner, we carve out a difficult path. If we never turn around and repent, we too will end up like Herod.

Peter: Morality

Peter is in jail waiting to die, and yet he is found sound asleep. Its amazing that he was able to sleep in such a situation. The only way you can sleep in times like that is if you have faith and confidence in your actions. Peter did exactly what God called him to do. If he were to die at the hands of Herod, he knew he we would be greeted eagerly by our Heavenly Father. When we stay in line with God's morals—regardless of how they line up with what the world says is right/wrong—we can be at peace in any situation.

Rhoda: Hope

It's rare that women get named in the Bible, and Rhoda is one of the few who are afforded a name. Rhoda means Rose in Greek. She was likely a servant in the house, explaining why she answered the door, but she had to be involved in the Church to be shocked to see Peter. After Peter was arrested, the church prayed for Peter constantly, yet they still didn't believe it when he showed up. How often do we behave the same way?

References

1. "Herod Agrippa I". Encyclopædia Brittanica; visited June 15, 2020
2. "Strong's G3957. πάσχα". Blue Letter Bible; visited June 15, 2020