Listening to the Podcast yesterday on an introduction to Acts of the Apostles and then reading Nancy Guthrie's Saved has really made me put it all in context.
I have learned so much about the writer - Luke. The only Gentile writer out of the 40 writers of the Bible. This book covers the 30 years or so after Jesus' death and resurrection - compare that with the 3 years of Jesus' ministry recorded in the gospels. Luke was a medical doctor and covered details about healing more than any other gospel writer.
But the one thing that knocked me away was why Luke wrote both his gospel and Acts - as a way of providing evidence for Paul's defence when he stood in Rome. There is a possibility that Theophilus, to whom Luke dedicated both books was a lawyer.
Luke never met Jesus personally and he took 4 years researching and writing these books interviewing people who were there when Jesus was alive.
The Acts of the Apostles really refers to 2 men - Peter and Paul. When you read the opening chapters you notice that when Peter addressed the people he used the scriptures because he was talking to Jews who understood and knew the scriptures themselves. He sought to prove from prophets that Jesus fulfilled all that had been written.
And the one thing that was central to his message - Jesus died but more importantly he rose again. At the end of Acts we see Paul turning from the Jews to the Gentiles - isn't it strange that today more work is being done among the Jews to help them acknowledge their promised Messiah.
As I read through Acts 3 and 4 yesterday I was struck by how many times Peter referred to the Old Testament scriptures to prove his point - Jesus has died and risen again. How it reminds me that we need the Old Testament scriptures to help us put the New Testament into perspective. The one thing that the opposition kept asking about was - whose name are you doing these things in? Jesus - how they didn't like to be reminded of what they themselves had actually done.
And repeatedly we are told Peter and John had such boldness - 3 times in the one chapter we read these words.
The verse that I love is chapter 4 verse 13 "Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men they marvelled and they took knowledge of them that they had been with Jesus."
What a challenge - would people be able to say that of me today?
And repeatedly we are told Peter and John had such boldness - 3 times in the one chapter we read these words.
The verse that I love is chapter 4 verse 13 "Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men they marvelled and they took knowledge of them that they had been with Jesus."
What a challenge - would people be able to say that of me today?
Acts of the Apostles chapter 5 is the story of Ananias and Sapphira, the couple who lied and God struck them both dead on the spot. It is a chapter that is heartbreaking and yet a reminder that God has the last word on all our lives.
What struck me was the boldness and integrity that was being developed among not only the apostles but early church members. I read of the jealousy among the chief priests and council leaders and was reminded that some times opposition comes from unexpected sources - those who are very religious and yet at the same time blinded to the real truth. Truth hurts and acceptance of the reality of how on this occasion the way of life will not be hidden. Gamaliel, a respected council member and Pharisee appears to show reason but acknowledges that just maybe God is in the middle of it all.
The reaction of the apostles to being told not to say anything more of Jesus is one we are surprised with - rejoicing. If I was in that position would I have done that?
What struck me was the boldness and integrity that was being developed among not only the apostles but early church members. I read of the jealousy among the chief priests and council leaders and was reminded that some times opposition comes from unexpected sources - those who are very religious and yet at the same time blinded to the real truth. Truth hurts and acceptance of the reality of how on this occasion the way of life will not be hidden. Gamaliel, a respected council member and Pharisee appears to show reason but acknowledges that just maybe God is in the middle of it all.
The reaction of the apostles to being told not to say anything more of Jesus is one we are surprised with - rejoicing. If I was in that position would I have done that?
Acts 6 and 7 read and journaled today.
Reminded that Stephen first served before he was able to speak of Christ - experience first! The reality of his faith was evident to widows - he was full of faith, the Holy Spirit and wisdom.
As I read through Stephen's defence I was shocked to think that he was implying that these religious leaders had made the worship in the temple the most important thing. It had become an idol. What emphasis am I putting on my religious works, is it becoming more important than anything else?
Stephen had such a depth of knowledge of scripture to show his reasoning - how well do I know God's word if I was challenged about my faith?
Stephen was given a very clear vision of Jesus standing beside God in heaven before he died. This was the final straw to those who were listening. The opposition to Stephen reminded me of the many people he had talked about who suffered violence:
Joseph from his brothers
Moses rejected by the children of Israel
Isaiah the prophet was sawn in two
Jeremiah the prophet was stoned
Zechariah the prophet was stoned in the temple courts
And Jesus who was crucified
Did Stephen realise his own death would be violent? Did he hear the "well done" from God himself while still on earth?
I read and journalled Acts 8 last night and was struck by the contrast between Philip the evangelist and Simon the sorcerer. How amazing to open The Familiar Stranger by Tyler Staton and find a chapter dedicated to this story.
"Philip's teachings were bearing incredible fruit and accompanied by a demonstration of power that had jaws on the floor and people on their knees in surrender to Jesus. Simon was a well known spiritual figure in his own right although he seems to have been playing with some variety of dark magic. He was able to produce a supernatural manifestation in partnership with a spiritual force other than and weaker than Yahweh. But he recognised direct access to the one true God at work in and through Philip. He was among those who responded to Jesus and joined the early church community. Scripture presents Simon as a humble and sincere disciple of Jesus."
Up to now the story looks good but there is a critical turning point. When Peter and John are sent as back up support to Philip they lay hands on the people to receive the Holy Spirit.
"Simon is a sorcerer. He is well acquainted with spiritual formulas producing predictable results. He mistakes the Holy Spirit for a depersonalization power source like those lesser spiritual forces of his sorcery, grossly misunderstanding and distorting the gift given in the person of the Holy Spirit. This time he does not respond personally and humbly as he did at first and he is more concerned with becoming a respected practitioner wielding God's power than remaining a humble child receiving God's love. Simon wants technique not surrender. He's after a method not a Saviour and Lord. He wants the gifts far more than the Giver."
How would I react if I was in a similar position?
Reminded that Stephen first served before he was able to speak of Christ - experience first! The reality of his faith was evident to widows - he was full of faith, the Holy Spirit and wisdom.
As I read through Stephen's defence I was shocked to think that he was implying that these religious leaders had made the worship in the temple the most important thing. It had become an idol. What emphasis am I putting on my religious works, is it becoming more important than anything else?
Stephen had such a depth of knowledge of scripture to show his reasoning - how well do I know God's word if I was challenged about my faith?
Stephen was given a very clear vision of Jesus standing beside God in heaven before he died. This was the final straw to those who were listening. The opposition to Stephen reminded me of the many people he had talked about who suffered violence:
Joseph from his brothers
Moses rejected by the children of Israel
Isaiah the prophet was sawn in two
Jeremiah the prophet was stoned
Zechariah the prophet was stoned in the temple courts
And Jesus who was crucified
Did Stephen realise his own death would be violent? Did he hear the "well done" from God himself while still on earth?
I read and journalled Acts 8 last night and was struck by the contrast between Philip the evangelist and Simon the sorcerer. How amazing to open The Familiar Stranger by Tyler Staton and find a chapter dedicated to this story.
"Philip's teachings were bearing incredible fruit and accompanied by a demonstration of power that had jaws on the floor and people on their knees in surrender to Jesus. Simon was a well known spiritual figure in his own right although he seems to have been playing with some variety of dark magic. He was able to produce a supernatural manifestation in partnership with a spiritual force other than and weaker than Yahweh. But he recognised direct access to the one true God at work in and through Philip. He was among those who responded to Jesus and joined the early church community. Scripture presents Simon as a humble and sincere disciple of Jesus."
Up to now the story looks good but there is a critical turning point. When Peter and John are sent as back up support to Philip they lay hands on the people to receive the Holy Spirit.
"Simon is a sorcerer. He is well acquainted with spiritual formulas producing predictable results. He mistakes the Holy Spirit for a depersonalization power source like those lesser spiritual forces of his sorcery, grossly misunderstanding and distorting the gift given in the person of the Holy Spirit. This time he does not respond personally and humbly as he did at first and he is more concerned with becoming a respected practitioner wielding God's power than remaining a humble child receiving God's love. Simon wants technique not surrender. He's after a method not a Saviour and Lord. He wants the gifts far more than the Giver."
How would I react if I was in a similar position?
No comments:
Post a Comment