Acts Chapter 28

Summarrium

After the shipwreck Paul is brought to Malta and shown kindness by the native peoples. Paul is bitten by a snake and the locals expect him to perish, but seeing no ill effects they believed him to be a God. Paul heals Publius from fever and dysentery and many others come to Paul and they are healed by him. When he decides to set sail the locals given them all they need.

Arriving at Rome Paul stays by himself with a single Roman guard. He calls together the local leaders of the Jews and pleads his case before them. Some were convinced whilst others disbelieved. All eventually depart after Paul comments that the salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles who will listen. Paul remains in Rome two years at his own expense proclaiming the Kingdom of God and teaching about Jesus with boldness and without restraint.

Meditatio

Once again this passage contrasts the openness of the Gentiles to the Salvation of God with the closed-mindedness of the religious establishment. Here we see gentiles witness a miracle; Paul bitten by a snake and expected to die. Yet they observe that instead of dying he instead proceeds to health many others. In response they hail him as a god which is an understandable mistake. Many ancient cultures deified human beings that undertook or engaged in incredible feats. This is a common human trait. Whereby the ideal is elevated to a position of transcendent honour. In this case only the gods are able to undertake such feats therefore Paul must be one of the gods.

Yet an interesting observation of Pauls engagement with the religious establishment within Acts is that it is always (a) appeals to reason, and (b) typically a legal or religious setting. It's important to recognise that Judaism is a behaviourist religion; concerned with the strict adherence to the law of moses.

In any case let's recap the various contexts where Paul challenges the religious establishment.

• Acts 9:20-22 - Paul immediately begins preaching in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God, confounding the Jews living in Damascus.
• Acts 13:5 - Paul and Barnabas preach the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews in Salamis.
• Acts 13:14-43 - In Antioch of Pisidia, Paul preaches in the synagogue on the Sabbath, reasoning with both Jews and God-fearing Gentiles.
• Acts 14:1 - In Iconium, Paul and Barnabas go to the Jewish synagogue and speak in such a way that a large number of Jews and Greeks believe.
• Acts 17:1-4 - In Thessalonica, Paul reasons with the Jews in the synagogue for three Sabbaths, explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead.
• Acts 17:10-12 - In Berea, Paul and Silas go to the Jewish synagogue, where they find the Jews more noble than those in Thessalonica, and many believe after examining the Scriptures.
• Acts 17:16-17 - In Athens, Paul reasons in the synagogue with the Jews and God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happen to be there.
• Acts 18:4 - In Corinth, Paul reasons every Sabbath in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.
• Acts 18:19 - In Ephesus, Paul goes to the synagogue and reasons with the Jews.
• Acts 19:8 - In Ephesus, Paul speaks boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God in the synagogue.
• Acts 22:1-21 - Paul addresses the crowd in Jerusalem, speaking in Aramaic, recounting his conversion and his mission to the Gentiles, trying to reason with them about his faith.
• Acts 23:1-10 - Paul appears before the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, causing a dispute between the Pharisees and Sadducees by declaring his belief in the resurrection.
• Acts 24:10-21 - Paul defends himself before Governor Felix, reasoning about righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come.
• Acts 25:1-12 - Paul defends himself before Festus, appealing to Caesar.
• Acts 26:1-32 - Paul makes his defense before King Agrippa, recounting his conversion and mission.

So reason, dialogue and discourse plays an instrumental role in the ministry of Paul. There is clear concern and need to engage with the gospel of the Kingdom with both the mind as well as the spirit. There is might we can learn from Paul's example in this to engage seriously with the scriptures and the life and mission of Jesus.

This is one of the beautiful things about the gospel which I have truely come to admire. It engages us on every level, the Kingdom has arrived, salvation both present and future is a reality for disciples of Jesus. We can be with him, like him and participate in his mission to realise the Kingdom on earth as in heaven.

Acts Chapter 27

Smmarrium

Paul travelling with Julius the centurion embarks for Italy and eventually arrives, by prison transport, at a place called Fair Havens near the city of Lasea. By this point the weather is turning and the centurion wants to make Rome before the weather makes this prohibitive. Paul urges caution pointing out there will be a substantial loss of cargo and lives if they go but Julius decides to go anyway.

There is a storm that lasts many days and night and the crew jettison the cargo to lighten the ship and prevent it from being wrecked. They even attempt to get in the smaller boats to fix anchors to the ship to prevent it from being destroyed but abandon this plan after Paul warns them that they need to remain on the ship to be saved. The crew listen and the ships are jettisoned to prevent further temptation.

Eventually the ship is wrecked on a reef surrounding an unknown island and the soldiers decide to kill the prisoners on board the ship given there is no way to manage them. Paul is spared as Julius advocates on his behalf and is brought safely to land.

Meditatio

It is interesting how Paul is used instrumentally to bring about the salvation of the crew. He receives an messenger of the Lord who confirms there will be no loss of life. Oddly this stands in contrast to Paul's original claim, in verse 10, that there would be injury much loss of both cargo, the ship and lives.

It make me wonder, is this Paul speculating given the time of the year, the weather and his knowledge of the region? Is this warning in verse 10 a prophetic word that if heeded Julius might have avoided disaster? Is it message from God? If so this leads me to wonder again is this evidence of Grace? The original plan being that if the ship sailed there would be a total loss of life, but the coming of the Kingdom through Paul changes everything.

It could of course also be an example of the limitation of post ressurection prophecy which only see's in part. There are a lot of questions raised by this passage. But it offers an interesting view into a dramatic set of circumstance Paul faces. This man has been beaten, subject to numerous accusations and now shipwrecked. The world is trying to kill or discredit Paul and yet he finds ways to overcome it.

Acts Chapter 26

Summarrium

King Agrippa gives Paul leave to make his defence. Paul claims that all his life he has lived as a Pharisee and he stands before the King because of his belief in the resurrection from the dead. Paul points out that he once opposed the name of Jesus but shares his miraculous conversion from one who cast his vote against Christians to one who will be a witness to both Jew and Gentile.

Paul points out that he has not be disobedient to the heavenly visitation but instead has declared the good news of the Kingdom in Damascus, Jerusalem, Judea and to the Gentiles. That they might repent and act in keeping with their repentance. Festus tries to claim that Paul is out of his mind and Paul points out that he is speaking true and rationally. Paul is deemed a novelty and Agrippa points out that he has done nothing deserving of death and might have been released had he not appealed to Caesar.

Meditatio

Once again Paul takes on the demeanour of an injured party. His defence is plain. He is a passionate Jew that formerly enacted the devout life of a Pharisee. Paul continues to maintain his cultural pattern but points out that all things have changed for him. He highlights his heavenly encounter and draws continuity between his former life and this one. He has remained obedient to the heavenly vision. However his perspective has been transformed.

Once he would have cast his vote against the believers now he wishes that all would be like him except for his incarceration. This is a powerful statement and we should once again remind ourselves Paul is speaking to a King here and a powerful bureaucrat. Indeed Paul honours them as is their due whilst still speaking boldly and even attempting to pursuade them to see what he is saying.

It's fascinating here the language used here. Paul is accused of having lost his mind (v24) but Paul disputes this stating that he is speaking 'reasonably and truthfully'. Paul is attempting to speak persuasively that others might consider to adopt the way.

There is one anomoly I want to examine this turn of phrase 'kicking against the goads'.

ChatGPT suggests that "The saying "to kick against the goads" refers to futile resistance against authority or inevitable circumstances, often resulting in self-harm. The phrase originates from the practice of using a goad—a pointed stick—to drive oxen when plowing. If an ox kicked against the goad, it would only hurt itself more, as the sharp instrument would dig into its flesh.

So in this instance Paul is being asked why he is being such a muppet and setting himself against the Lord of the heavens. This is not a wise move Paul. Indeed Jesus ensures Paul becomes aware of the futility of his actions through the revelation of who he is and the symbolic (and probably physical) blinding by this heavenly encounter.

Much has been said about heavenly encounters and Pauls thorn in the flesh, and I'm certain too this argument has been made by many. But for a laught let's speculate for a moment. What if Pauls heavenly encounter had lasting physiological effects. His blinding causes him to have lasting damage to his eyesight. Such that he must write in such large letters¹. If this was the case I wonder if it might make individuals think twice before seeking an enounter with the almighty.

There certainly is biblical president Jacobs wrestling match, Job's entire life, Moses circumcision, are but a few that come to mind.

Acts Chapter 25

Summarrium

Festus arrives to take over as tribunal from Felix. The Jewish leadership ask Festus for a favour to try Paul in Jerusalem. Festus, aware of the threats against Paul's life, holds a tribunal in Caesarea where the Jewish authorities bring charges against Paul they are unable to prove. Paul points out that he has committed no offence against the law of the Jews, the temple, or Caesar. Paul appeals to Caesar and Festuts agrees to sent him to Caesar.

Festus however is concerned that he has nothing to write about given the point of contention seems to be theological. The dispute is not a legal concern but a concern about the personal identity of Jesus. To aid him in his examination of Paul Festus calls King Agrippa to come and question Paul. In this way both Agrippa and Festuts might be able to indicate the charges to be brought against Paul.

Meditatio

What struck me about this passage is that Paul's trial is somewhat secondary to the underlying issue raised by Acts 25. Who is Jesus? Festus here recognises that there is no real legal dispute or charges otherwise he would have dispensed with Paul some time ago. But given he is a Roman citizen by Birth he has certain rights and so disposing of a citizen is no small task. Yet in reality this problem has come to light because of who Paul claims Jesus is.

He points out that he has committed no offence against the law or the temple. So his claim about who Jesus is does not stand in opposition to those institutions. Yet the Jewish Leadership dispute his claim and as such Paul is in a situation where he has the stronger hand to a certain extent. The burden of proof rests with the Jewish leadership to demonstrate that he is guilty of the offences they claim he is; something which verse 7 suggests was not possible.

It's kind of unsurprising then that Festus takes the classic act of a bureaucrat faced with an unpleasant decision. He cannot find charges to bring against Paul given the Jewish leadership cannot prove him guilty of offence. Yet neither can he let Paul go free given the potential threat to Pauls person and the risk of loosing face with the Jewish leadership. Festus therefore plans to outsource his thinking to a consultant. He involves King Agrippa to make the decision for him. Some call this 'sharing risk', but in reality it's passing the buck.

Interestingly the King Agrippa mentioned in Acts 25 is Herod Agrippa II. He was the son of Herod Agrippa I who was the grandson of Herod the Great. Herod Agrippa II ruled various territories in the northeastern part of the Roman Empire, including parts of modern-day Lebanon, Syria, and Israel. His full name was Marcus Julius Agrippa, and he reigned from AD 50 to around AD 93/94. He represents the end of the Herodian dynasty which we have seen as a key political force within Israel during the time of John, Jesus and now Paul.

Acts Chapter 24

Summarrium

After five days the high priest Ananias arrives with some elders and a spokesperson and outline their case against Paul pointing out that he stirs up riots, is the ringleader of a sect of Nazarenes and attempted to profane the temple.

Paul response to point out that there is no evidence which Ananias or the elders can produce to demonstrate Paul is guilty of what they accuse him. He admits that he worships God in accordance with the way and upon returning to Jerusalem to Worship the Lord some Jews from Asia made accusations before the council.

Felix attempts to stall the enquiry and keeps Paul with him to hear him speak about faith in Christ Jesus daily reasoning about righteousness, self-control and the pending judgement. Felix desires to be given money by Paul so sends for him often to converse with him. After two years Felix is succeeded by Porcius Festus but is left in prison by Felix

Meditatio

Paul here makes a point that he worships in accordance with 'the way' believing everything written down in the law and prophets but having a living hope in God that there will be a resurrection of the just and unjust. He does not conceal his affiliation with the specific Jewish sect but points out that there is a level of common ground between him and his accusers who try to evidence areas of divergence.

This is an interesting strategy. Typically when attempting to undermine another person one seeks to identify areas of divergence and attack those that are not consistent with our own position. Paul certainly highlights the issue of 'lack of evidence' about that which they accuse him, but proceeds to point out that he is going about his business like any other Jewish person. He believes in the law and the prophets, he attends the temple to worship, he even believes in the resurrection from the dead.

Why might this be a useful strategy?

Let's consider the dynamics of this situation for a moment. Ananias and the elders are subject to the Authority of Felix. Indeed they proceed to give him a sufficient ego boost in verses (2-5) by sucking up to him. Their authority as religious leaders comes through Felix's own acceptance of their significance. Paul on the other hand presents himself as an 'ordinary bloke' participating in ordinary religious observances. There is nothing to see here, he has not incited a riot (or indeed they should bring proof of this) he is just trying to worship God. This presents his case as a matter of religious diversity.

Felix is evidently not interested in resolving the matter or making a decision either way. Indeed Paul is kept in custody for two years. With Felix stalling long enough for this to become another governors problem. It appears from the text that he hopes that Paul will bribe him, an adventure in missing the point to be honest given he apparently conversed with Paul about righteousness and self-control regularly.

Paul faces an uncertain journey at this point. He is a Roman citizen which offers him some protection from persecution by the Jewish religious leadership but this is not sufficient to secure him his freedom.

Acts Chapter 23

Summarrium

Paul speaks plainly at the council before the priests, the high priest who orders him be struck in the mouth. Paul evidently unhappy about this insults the high priest and raises an objection to judging Paul in accordance with the law. He is informed he has just insulted the high priest and without apology points out he did not know it was the high priest but is aware insulting the High priest is wrong.

Paul recognises that the council is evenly divided and points out that he is a Pharisee by decent and hopes for the resurrection from the dead. Given the longstanding feud between these two political factions, this causes a political divide and Paul is removed by Soldiers for his own personal safety.

Forty Jews then conspire to see Paul killed taking an oath neither to eat nor drink until they have accomplished their goal. This plot is discovered by his Nephew who eventually relays this to the Roman Tribune. Paul is then given a serious armed escort to Caesarea where he will be given a hearing by Claudius Lysias the governor.

Meditatio

There is a shrewdness to Paul's political dealings here that demonstrate a clear knowledge and understanding of his political opponents. It is a testimony to his understanding of the culture to which he is a part of that he is able to speak to this culture. Firstly let's deal with Paul's insult.

I do wonder if Paul's outburst is essentially a very human response to physical pain. Paul is not usually as outspoken as Peter and in preceding passages we have seen him adopt a far more winsome approach. Generally insulting your opponents doesn't tend to convince them that you have the stronger argument. None the less I can imagine the filth that would come out of my mouth if a whole bunch of political opponents commanded I be punched in the face repeatedly.

Interestingly Paul in public session acknowledges he has wronged the high priest by speaking evil of a ruler. Yet he does not apologise for this. Indeed his approach is all too human; he points out his ignorance. Now as the saying goes ignorance is no excuse but Paul manages to redirect everyone's attention from his faux pas expertly.

He recognises that the Pharisees like most of the Jewish nation are concerned with ancestry. The Jewish religion is a nationalistic religion from it's inception in the promise to Abraham to make him a great nation¹. As such Paul leverages his social and ideological pedigree to make this not about the validity of the way but whether there is to be hope in the resurrection from the dead. Thus dripping kerosene on the candle that fuels the deep divisions between the rival groups.

Paul was also a politician it seems.

Acts Chapter 22

Summarrium

Paul addresses the crowd offering his testimony in Hebrew and explaining his credentials as a zealous Jew. Paul highlights how he too had been in the position that many in the crowd too found themselves in; persecuting the way. Paul recalls his miraculous conversion and his turning towards Christ. The crowd to not interrupt until he points out his mission is to go to the Gentile which riles the crowd who insist Paul should not be permitted to live.

The Roman Tribune has Paul bound and ready to be 'examined' by flogging. Paul points out at this point that he is a Roman citizen by Birth and the Tribune immediately calls off the examination. Paul is therefore unbound by the Tribune and commands the Chief Priests and the Council to meet with Paul to understand the nature of this disturbance.

Meditatio

Paul here offers an excellent performance in winsomeness. He begins by building credibility with the crowd. First addressing themselves in the Hebrew language, secondly pointing out his credentials and former endorsement by the Elders and High Priest for his persecution of the way. He then highlights his miraculous conversion as well as his involvement in the death of the first Christian martyr. He is a real contrast to Peter who does not pull his punches.

If we consider the times that Peter addresses the crowd in both Acts 2 and Acts 3; Peter isn't even trying to be nice¹. Paul on the other hand pulls his punches; he attempts to win over the crowd and convince them by explaining himself.

Indeed it is only when he mentions his calling to the Gentiles that things really begin to fall apart. Old prejudices die hard and in Paul this is certainly the case. Whilst many Jews did believe in a coming Messiah and a resurrection from the dead (particularly the Pharisee's) others did not (such as the Saducees). As such it is only when he points out the last bastion of what delineates child of promise from the common dogs has passed do people lose it.

It's important to recognise that the Jewish religion is etho-centric; they as a people group were specifically chosen by God to be the fulfilment of covenantal promise.

Yet is is precisely Paul's suggestion that he a Jew has been sent to the Gentiles that is the source of outrage. Yet in precisely the same way that revelation redirected Saul in his position of Authority acting on behalf of the High Priest and Temple Elders to eliminate the way; so the revelation of Paul's citizenship changes the actions of the Roman Tribune. His citizenship, his identity who he is as a person is powerful enough to influence rulers.

Acts Chapter 21

Summarrium

Paul journeys to Caesarea where he enters the house of 'Phillip the evangelist'. Agabus a prophet of the Lord travels down from Judea and taking Paul's belt he binds his own hands and feet and claims that this is how the Jews at Jerusalem will bind Paul and deliver him to the Gentiles. Many attempt to persuade Paul not to go but he leaves any way and meets with James and the Elders.

Upon arrival to Jerusalem the Elders suggest that Paul purify himself to avoid reproach from the Jews who are committed to stir up the people against Paul. Indeed once the period of purification is complete Paul attends the temple and the Jews from Asia stir up the people against him and a riot breaks out. Paul is taken into custody by the Roman officials because of the uproar and Paul seeks and is granted permission to address the crowds.

Meditatio

As we saw in Chapter 20 Paul is committed to return to Jerusalem. There is a certain level of curiosity I feel towards why there would be oracular foreshadowing of his coming mistreatment and suffering on the part of the Gospel. For if Paul was committed to return was this some kind of test? Friends and brothers continually attempt to talk him out of the attempt but Paul doesn't listen.

Indeed the bible is largely silent upon if this was the 'plan'. I'm not so liberal as to believe that this might have caught the Lord by surprised, but there is a question as to if it was the Lords best for Paul. We're not granted any insight into the struggles, the conversations, the damage done to relationships for the sake of the Gospel. Paul is single-minded and will not be persuaded to act otherwise.

There is a clear escalation to the violence and opposition which begins with the stoning of Stephen and persecution of the believers and escalates over time. We have disagreements (Chapter 15), persecution (Chapter 11), plots to kill (Chapter 9), incarceration (Chapter 16), stoning (Chapter 7 & 14), beatings (Chapter 16 & 21), legal proceedings (Chapter 13 & 18), Riots (Chapter 17 & 19). Paul and those with him suffer continually, something I hadn't really ever considered.

Acts is proving to be a fascinating read but I'm struggling a little here to draw out principles as I have done within the rich epistles of Paul. This had me thinking of the value of these distinct type of literature. Without Acts there are some incredible insights we would have missed. Such as the realisation that there is a metric ton of suffering experienced by the early church and much of this too was ideological.

Interestingly I worry that we face an ideological crisis because of competing demands within Church Communities. Within my own church Community there are the social commentators that want to make this about loss of traditional moral values and the rise of 'wokeness', the families that want church to be about community, the single people that want to make it about evangelism and the auto-didacts like myself that want it to be about learning and personal growth in Christ.

What it would be if we all demonstrated Pauls single-mindedness and forsaking our ideological perspective, forsaking our wants and needs made it solely about the worship and exultation of the one who is worthy. The work of pastors has never been more of a challenge.

Acts Chapter 20

Summarrium

Paul departs Ephesus for Macedonia where he gives encouragement and comes to Greece where he spends three months before setting sail for Syria. In Troas Paul raises Eutychus from the dead after he falls asleep and out of a third story window. Paul leaves Troas and sailing past Ephesus travels to Miletus.

In Miletus Paul sends for the elders of the Ephesian Church and explains that the spirit has indicated that he will not see them again. In which case Paul implores the elders to watch the flock of the Lord not seeking material gain or to draw away disciples after them for twisted purposes.

Meditatio

Pauls actions in this chapter show a significant commitment to the community of the local church. Paul gives encouragement (20:2), gathers with the community to break bread (20:7, 20:10), performs miraculous feats (20:10), gathers and instructs the leadership (20:17). He does not delegate this to others but makes time to meet with the community and give sacrificially of himself.

There is at first glance a sort of fatalism in Pauls actions (20:22-23). A sense in which Paul recognises that his desire to return to Jerusalem will end badly. Opposition against the church has grown and it has been made apparent to him the implications of a return. Paul specifically says the imprisonment and affliction await me which is an interesting choice of words.

Some might consider Paul unwise to ignore an oracle predicting incarceration and suffering. Yet this is not an option for Paul. It is the Christ like mindset of thy will be done which he is committed too. He points out this is characteristic of one sent by the Lord. Paul evidently is concerned that wolves will come and devour the Ephesian Church. Indeed there is clearly a touching scene in verse 36-28 where there is a finality to Pauls departure.

Paul has realised (in both senses of the word) what it means to be a disciple of Christ. When faced with the reality of loosing those relationships that clearly matter to him he acts to prepare the flock in his care. Paul has grasped the reality of John 8.

Acts Chapter 19

Summarrium

Paul is passing through the country and arrives at Ephesus where he finds disciples that have not heard of the Holy Spirit nor been baptised in Jesus name which he addresses. Paul enters the Synagogue at Ephesus where he proclaims the word of the Lord boldly. Miracles occur so that even things that have come into contact with Pauls body heal the sick. Seven sons of a high priest names Sceva begin invoking he name of the Lord Jesus of those who were possessed by spirits. Yet one man with an evil spirit masters them all causing them to flee naked and wounded and this becomes known.

Paul intends to go to Jerusalem and sends for Timothy and Erastus. Meanwhile in Ephasus Demetrius a silversmith incites the craftsmen of Ephasus to gather to address the problem that is Paul. He is concerned about the economic implications of Pauls actions; that individuals are turning from idols made of stone. This eventually leads to a riot where the town clerk has to tell the city to calm down or risk a charge of rioting.

Meditatio

Acts often appears to be a series of disconnected narratives but indeed they paint a much larger picture of the great multiplicity of works that the Lord was involved within. From the pastoral work of Paul to ensure that believers are empowered to live lives that bear fruit in brining glory to his name. To individuals burning magical texts, there is a real sense that this had far reaching consequences not only for individuals but enitire communities.

Yet this social upheaval and change does not come easily. Mistakes are made and indeed some times those sent by God to address the issues have their work cut out for them. This passage really made me think about how moves of God in a community or culture are hardly ever neat well organised affairs. Indeed they are more often than not require clarification (19:4), are accompanied by the miraculous (19:12), go profoundly wrong (19:16), lead to a return to the Lord (19:19), often have economic consequence (19:27) experience fierce opposition (19:34, 19:37).

It's easy to forget that social events are complex and multifaceted. It's easy to make the assumption that the early Church empowered by the Lord had it easy. Personally I can't imagine what it must have been like to have been the focus of an entire communities contempt, and to have sat through 2 hours of shouting "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!". Lets just re-read that and think about that again. Two hours of being shouted at.

Acts Chapter 18

Summarrium

Paul leaves Athens and travels to Corinth reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath to persuade Jews and Greeks alike to accept Christ. Silas and Timothy arrive from Macedonia and is opposed by the Jews and so goes to the Gentiles. Paul has a vision that encourages him to go on speaking and he remains in Corinth for a year and six months teaching the words of God.

With the arrival of Gallio proconsul of Achaia the Jews bring Paul to tribunal pointing out that he persuades people to worship unlawfully. Gallio isn't interested and says this is for them to judge and has them driven from the tribunal, having the ruler of the Synagogue beaten before the tribunal.

Paul travels to Syria, has his hair cut at Cenchreae and comes to Ephesus to reason with the Jews. They ask him to stay and leave Ephasus travelling for Caesarea, then to Antioch, throughout the region of Galatia and Phrygia to encourage the disciples. Apollos of Alexandria comes to Ephesus where he proclaims the word of the Lord boldly and (after receiving instruction) powerfully refutes the Jews in public.

Meditatio

This passage demonstrates the pattern by which Paul operated. Typically arriving in a new location and immediately travelling to the Synagogue to attempt to persuade the Jews to accept Christ. This has typically one of two response which can be largely summarised as being (a) kicked out, or (b) invited to come back and speak. It's interesting that both response are fairly universal. It is not always the case that Paul is rejected; indeed in some cases individuals attempt to persuade him to remain far longer than he plans to stay.

There is a single mindedness to this.

It is important to distinguish between Paul and the average Christian. Paul is an apostle. He is sent and has a clear calling on his life to travel where the spirit of the lord allows him to go. The average believer has a responsibility to both make disciples (Matthew 28) and be my witnesses (Acts 1). This I believe firmly is a charge on all who believe in Jesus. However clearly some are sent to equip and serve local churches as we read throughout acts. Indeed it was not the case that the entire church in Jerusalem came, just those whom the Holy spirit selected.

As such it is a mistake in my view to consider that our lives should reflect that of Paul.

Another interesting aspect to this is how, in almost every case in Acts, it is the Lord and not people who deal with conflict. For example in this passage when a strong legal case is brought before the magistrate essentially he throws the case out because he wants nothing to do with religious matters. Again this attitude was entirely contingent upon the providence of the Lord. It might have easily have just been Paul's undoing.

For me then this passage reflects something of the union of mans determination and the Lords providence, through which the Church grows and Godly men rise up to take a stand for the sake of the Gospel. I am really enjoying my time in this book.

Acts Chapter 17

Summarrium

Paul, Timothy and Silas travel to Thessalonica where they are rejected by the Jewish population at the synagogue and a riot breaks out. The accusation being that Paul et al have 'turned the world upside-down'. Departing Thessalonica they travel to Berea where they are well received by the Jews. However the Jewish population from Thessalonica hear of their presence and incite agitation in Berea causing Paul to depart, leaving Silas and Timothy behind.

Paul arrives at Athens where he is concerned about the idolatry of the city. He converses with the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers and others who wish to know 'what these things mean'. Paul makes links to the altar of the unknown God stating that God made the world, does not live in temples, and gives life to all mankind and everything that he has. Some reject the resurrection but others believe or wish to hear more.

Meditatio

A few things have struck me about this chapter, most of which have to do with Pauls adventure in Athens. Paul meets the Epicurean and Stoics who maintain two very distinct philosophical positions.

Epicureans believe that the goal of life is to attain simple pleasures, tranquility and that absence of pain; distinct from hedonism which is an indulgence in sensual pleasures. The Stoics in contrast considered virtue the highest good attainable by man; claiming that through reason and knowledge we life in harmony with the divine logos that governs nature.

Interestingly we might see this as the common man who lives to avoid suffering and the principled man who lives according to a clear and universal moral standard. Perhaps this is an over simplification, but to mention both schools suggests some significance to our understanding of the context.

Paul's message is a strange message to their ears. The Jewish population are almost correct when they claim in verse 6 that the apostles¹ have 'turned the world upside down'.

God is not manifest within a statute like all the other gods of the city, God does not inhabit a temple and God does not need sacrifices. He made all things and already has all things. Typically Gods are represented in a statue a manifest expression of the idea they represent. Typically Gods have temples and require sacrifices.

The apostles¹ therefore have brought news of how Christ has turned the world on it's head. This is a radically new kind of religion the likes of which the Greeks had never before encountered.

It is understandable that the resurrection would become a sticking point for some. Many philosophical² traditions maintained that the soul was immortal, whilst the body temporary and inferior. The idea of bodily resurrection would have been difficult for some Greeks to accept because it contradicted their understanding of the afterlife; the body seen as a prison for the soul released in death. Indeed transmigration of the soul was something that the Greeks had believed in since the pre-Socratic Pythagoras and even the great sage believed the body and Soul were separate³.

Acts Chapter 16

Summarrium

Paul has Timothy circumcised because his father was Greek and this would appease the Jews in Lystra and Iconium. Paul is forbidden by the Holy spirit to speak the word in Asia and the spirit of Jesus does not allow them to travel to Bithynia. Paul has a vision of a Macedonian man calling for assistance, and so they travel to Macedonian to preach the gospel. In Philippi they meet Lydia, who believes and is baptised along with her household.

In Philipi Paul is arrested for delivering a slave girl of a demonic spirit resulting in financial loss for the slaves owners. They are beaten and imprisoned. During the night there was a great earthquake and all the doors were thrown open. Fearing all the prisons had escaped the Jailer intends to kill himself but is prevented by Paul who confirms no one has left. The Jailer converts and is baptised alongside all his family.

The magistrates and police advise Paul and Silas are free to leave, but Paul wishes to make a point given he is a Roman citizen. The authorities are fearful given they were unaware of this fact and apologize to Paul asking them to leave the city. They leave the prison visit Lydia, encourage the believers and depart.

Meditatio

You would think that the dispute around circumcision of males was settled in Acts 15. We have had the first council of Jerusalem confirm that there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile and there is no expectation that gentiles will be circumcised. Yet we find Paul seemingly doing the precise opposite at the beginning of Chapter 16. Paul has Timothy circumcised which is an act that seems to stand in contrast of the defence he offered on behalf of the Gentiles.

My best guess here is that Paul is being winsome¹. Timothy is the son of a Jewish woman that married a Greek man. This is precisely the reason that Samaritans faced significant discrimination in ancient Israel. For Israel was, by ancestry, the chosen people. As such to 'dilute' Jewish blood was essentially equivalent to what Christian Fundamentalists would consider 'going liberal'. As such Timothy would in the eyes of the Jewish leadership be less than Jewish particularly if he 'wasn't even circumcised'.

This for me makes the most sense but we are actually not offered any clear explanation for Pauls actions beyond verse 3 where it states '...because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek'. Prejudices within the Church amongst believers die hard it seems; to this day we still haven't learned to love the lord God and our neighbour.

A curiosity to me is why Lydia is mentioned explicitly. The first and most obvious reason is likely that her conversion demonstrates the inclusively of the Christian message; it reaches beyond the Jewish community to encompass Gentiles as well. Secondly her role as a successful businesswoman suggests that Christianity was appealing to people from various social and economic backgrounds. We might conclude that Lydia wasn't married. Yet the text offers us no clues as to her marital status, with the exception making mention of her 'household'.

It is possible this might have been extended family members, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility that this may refer to her immediate family. Nevertheless it's interesting that Lydia is mentioned and her husband is not (given the common accusation of patriarchal bias within scripture).

Acts Chapter 15

Summarrium

Paul and Barnabas return to Jerusalem to settle a dispute around the significance of circumcision. Peter is clear that the Holy spirit has made no distinction between Jew and Gentile and there should be no such distinction introduced by the Church. Paul and Barnabas offer their own testimony of the signs and wonders performed amongst the gentiles.

The apostles and the elders send Paul and Barnabas to Antioch to make clear the decision of the first council of Jerusalem. That there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile, but of the moral concern to abstain from what is sacrificed to idol's, strangled, and from sexual immorality. After this Paul and Barnabas desire to return to former churches and fall out over if Mark should accompany them, with the two ultimately parting company.

Meditatio

I think it's interesting the way that Acts plays down the disharmony that characterises this passage. We need to be honest here this is a major theological crisis, one which requires the leaders of the Church to be recalled to Jerusalem to resolve. Whilst it may be perfectly acceptable in this day an age for the protest¹ to continue the fractal fragmentation of the Church, in Acts clearly this was unthinkable.

There is clearly a desire within the early church that we have lost to remain together. Paul speaks so often in his epistles about maintaining the unity of the faith². Yet the reality of 'practice' in Christianity is essentially that there is still an underlying issue of humanity. Things are not as clear and distinct as people would like. Indeed the chapter points out the relational approach to knowledge and belief.

Verse 2 tells us there is '...no small dissension and debate' and verse 6 in the council that there was '...much debate'. In each case if the answer, which may seem obvious to us, was obvious it didn't appear that way at the time. The question about how to address doctrinal issues is a trickyone. Many wish to lock in definitions as though languge and abstractions have the power 'freeze' what words and ideas mean. We are lives in process as is our knowledge and relationship to God.

My favourite verse is 39 speaking of the falling out of Paul and Barnabas. '...and there arose a sharp disagreement, so that they separated from each other'. There is something earthy here in the presentation of friends falling out. Despite their fevent love for each other, campaigning for the acceptance of the Gentiles they end up falling out over a mutual friend.]

Acts Chapter 14

Summarrium

Paul and Barnabas preach in the Jewish synagogue at Iconium and a great number believe. However persecution from the Jewish community causes Paul and Barnabas to flee to Lystra and the surrounding country. At Lystra Paul is instrumental in the healing of a man unable to walk from birth.

The men of Lystra then believing gods to have come among them attempt to sacrifice to Paul and Barnabas. Paul and Barnabas reject their praise pointing instead to 'a living God' who made the heavens and the earth. Paul is eventually stoned by crowds and the Jews from Antioch and Iconium. Paul survives and continues to serve the churches appointing elders to oversee the communities.

Meditatio

Again we find another passage within which the increase in favour from the Lord, the receptivity of the people to the message is contrasted with persecution. Paul and Barnabas face not only opposition but people seeking directly to do them harm, and in Paul's cause committing actual bodily harm.

It is unclear from the texts if we should assume that Paul has been stoned to death and then is brought back to life again. Or if we should take Paul's stoning as a happy accident where the mob was insufficiently thorough in their work. In any case the events described do not prevent Paul from continuing his work the very next day.

Another interesting point to raise here alongside the escalating tensions is how the term witness is used. It doesn't appear to be being employed in the way we might expect. That is to say in the capacity of someone who offers a first hand account of an event for which they were present. Instead the author appears to use them to describe giving evidence in support of a claim.

The variation is significant given evidence in the latter case need not be a description of evidence but might be a proof in the form of a miraculous act. Let pay attention to some of the instances where 'witness' or 'witnesses' are used¹.

1. Acts 1:8 - "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."
2. Acts 1:22 - "beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection."
3. Acts 2:32 - "This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses."
4. Acts 3:15 - "and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses."
5. Acts 4:33 - "And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all."
6. Acts 5:32 - "And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him."
7. Acts 6:13 - "and they set up false witnesses who said, 'This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law,"
8. Acts 7:58 - "Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul."
9. Acts 10:39 - "And we are witnesses of all that he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree,"
10. Acts 13:31 - "and for many days he appeared to those who had come up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses to the people."
11. Acts 14:3 - "So they remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands."
12. Acts 14:17 - "Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness."
13. Acts 22:15 - "For you will be a witness for him to everyone of what you have seen and heard."

A few things have struck me from this list. Acts 1:8 indicates the need for empowerment to be a witness. Acts 1:22 indicates the need to 'become' a witness; suggesting this is a process. Acts 2:32, 3:15, and 4:22 all point towards the resurrection as the source of empowerment. Finally the Holy Spirit is also referred to as a witness. The point around co-creation is very real this is not something man is charged alone to be. In acts the spirit himself bears witness to the truth of the words spoken by Paul and Barnabas.

Acts Chapter 13

Summarrium

At the Church in Antioch the spirit says that Saul and Barnabas should be set apart. They fast and pray and are eventually sent down to Cyprus ending up in Paphos where they come across a magician; a false Jewish Prophet. Saul is sent for by the proconsul Sergius Paulus who wishes to hear the word of God. The Elymas the magician seeks to mislead and Saul responds in the power of the spirit proclaiming that Elymas will be blind. The proconsul subsequently believes

Paul then arrives at Perga where he preaches in the synagogue and lays out the historical context of the Gospel up until the arrival of Jesus. Many devout Jews and converts follow Paul and Barnabas and the next Sabbath the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord. The Jews oppose Paul and Barnabas and stirring up persecution against Paul and Barnabas they are driven out of the district and travel to Iconium being filled with joy and the Holy Spirit.

Meditatio

There are a couple of interesting things that appeared to me within this passage. Firstly I noticed a transition in the name for Barnabas's companion from Saul to Paul. This begins in verse 9 and (according to ChatGPT) Saul is then consistently referred to as Paul thereafter. This is an interesting transition and we might ask the question as to the significance of verse 9.

Perhaps there is something within Paul that has shared kinship with Elymas. His comment in verse 10 "You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord?" seems rich coming from a man that had metaphorically held the beers of those responsible for the first Christian martyr. However in some way this makes perfect sense. This was a chance, a public opportunity, for Paul to adopt and enact his new identity and to stand in opposition to the very things he had formerly stood against.

As to the question why, it should be noted that Saul was a Hebrew name, whilst Paul was a Roman name. As Paul's ministry becomes more focussed on the gentiles it would probably be natural that he would adopt a name that was more relatable. Consistent with his view of becoming all things to all men¹. It is also consistent with a transformed identity; one who was formerly a persecutor of Christ now taking the gospel to his former enemies.

Verse 39 also struck me as being profoundly important. As the heart of the gospel message it must have been received as absolutely outrageous. Bearing in mind Paul is speaking in a Synagogue on the Sabbath to Jews and Jewish converts. He is telling followers of a behaviourist² religion that not only was the law insufficient to offer freedom. But further still that in him (Jesus), this resurrected messiah he purports to follow, is the freedom the law failed to win.

We can see why the Jewish authorities might seek to drive Paul and Barnabas from the district even if the people were receptive to the message. It strikes at the heart of Jewish belief and tradition. Indeed it remains a thematic pattern within Acts that the Gentiles are consistently more receptive to Jesus and the Gospel of the Kingdom than their Jewish counterparts. This transition to 'Paul' then makes significant contextual sense.

Acts Chapter 12

Summarrium

Herod has James the brother of John killed, and Peter arrested. Earnest prayer is made for him by the Church. He is visited in prison by an Angel who leads him out of the city. Peter then travels to Mary's house (mother of James who was known as Mark). Initially they suspect it to be Peters 'angel' at the gate but later discover it is Peter himself. Peter describes how the Lord has saved him and charges those present to tell James and the brother before leaving.

Herod meanwhile has the sentries charged with the care of Peter put to death and spends time in Caesarea. Herod delivers an oration in which the people were shouting 'the voice of a god, and not of a man!'. Herod fails to address this and is struck down by an Angel of the Lord and he was eaten by worms. The word of God meanwhile increases and multiplies and Barnabas and Saul return from Jerusalem brining John (aka Mark).

Meditatio

When viewed through the lens of power this chapter takes on some interesting dimensions. For example, Herod recognises the importance of public relations for maintaining power. Herod seeks approbation through the execution of James the brother of John. Recognising that this is going to win him favour with men he attempts this once more. This time imprisoning and planning to execute the Apostle Peter.

Despite Herod's attempts to win further favour with the people, the Lord intervenes and delivers Peter materially from his enemies. Peter finds himself as though waking from a dream outside of the city, and others two are astounded that he has been delivered by the Lord. It is a stark contrast between how Herod and Peter respond to groups.

Here we also see how the power of Herod, which is contingent upon the people, is contrasted with the powerlessness of Peter who is imprisoned. Yet it will be Herod that perishes and Peter that lives. Herods kingdom will eventually crumble whilst the Gospel of the Kingdom will continue to spread all the way to Rome.

The narrative contrasts the power of earthly rulers like Herod with the power of God. Despite Herod's authority and resources, he ultimately succumbs to illness and death, while God's power is demonstrated through Peter's liberation and the growth of the Church.

Herod's death is reported by Josephus in the first century which is not entirely consistent with, nor distinct from this account¹. Both mention worms, however Josephus account does not mention Herod being struck down by an angel of the Lord and dying. Indeed historical sources tend to indicate that Herod the Great had a very long and painful death from an unknown illness of the colon.

Peter in his powerlessness became powerfully effective for the gospel. He was effective for the lord precisely because he had nothing to bring. There was room for faith to operate. As far as Peter knew or understood he would be next. Yet the Lord acted to deliver him. The logical question to ask here is why didn't he do this for James the brother of John? Why does he act for some and not others? Job tells us we don't get to ask these questions. I'm curious if God leaves gems like this here that we might dare to.

Acts Chapter 11

Summarrium

Peter returns to Jerusalem following his visit to the house of Cornelius the centurion. Upon his arrival he is criticised by those who perceive themselves as being part of the old covenant for associating with Gentiles. Peter give an account as to what has happened and 'the circumcision' then fell silent glorifying God "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life".

Now those that had been scattered because of the persecution that had begun with Stephen some had travelled as far as Antioch and here the grace of God was present and many believed and turned to the Lord. Barnabas is sent to Antioch and travels to Tarsus to fetch Saul and they meet and teach the Church at Antioch for a whole year. Agabus one of the prophets came down from Jerusalem and predict a famine and so the disciples coordinate effort to send relief to brothers in Judea by the hand of Barnabas and Saul.

Meditatio

Within this chapter we begin to see the important role that leadership plays within providing the framework and structure for belief for the early Church. Peter is accountable to the church for his actions. He faces criticism for his behaviour and as a disciple is held to a higher standard than say a new convert. Peter is honest an accurate in his recitation of the events that led him to the present position. He does not embellish or elaborate just the facts is enough.

What happens in this passage is something that frankly seems more unnatural than the resurrection¹. One of the factions within the Church begins with criticism and ends in glorifying God for leading the Gentiles also to repentance that leads to life. Within many contemporary communities there is division about matters of form and custom. Yet this is not a matter of should we have wine or grape juice. This is a major theological crisis. Peter has been, for all intents and purposes, galavanting with the gentiles and the Jewish community is going to take him to task on this. Old prejudices die hard.

Equally we see that Barnabas is sent to where the Lord is working to equip the new believers there and takes along Saul to assist him. They reside there for a year before they are sent on with relief aid to the brothers in Judea. What has struck me so much about Acts is that the leadership is constantly playing catchup to what God is doing. The Lord is converting Paul, whisking individuals off to a place they did not expect to be, leading revivals. The leaderships is not trying to manifest these things but to identify where God is at work and bring structure around it to preserve and develop further the work God has begun.

Acts Chapter 10

Summarrium

Cornelius the Centurion has a vision at 9am of an Angel of the Lord who tells him to send for SPeter who is lodging with Simon the tanner. Cornelius obeys and servants are sent. Meanwhile Peter has a vision on the housetop at 6am the next day where a great sheet descended from the heavens with all manner of animals, reptiles and birds and a voice commands Peter to kill and eat but Peter refuses pointing out that he has kept the law and not eaten forbidden foods. This happens on three occasions ands the voice rebukes him pointing out that Peter should not call common what has been made clean.

Peter puzzles the meaning of this and men stand at the gate for Peter, Peter himself is prompted by the spirit to advise that the men had come to collect him. Peter presents himself then asks why they have come and they advise he has been sent for by the Cornelius the Centurion. Peter arrives in Joppa and questions Cornelius who has gathered his friends and family. Peter points out that God has revealed that he shows no partiality, preaches the gospel and the Holy spirit falls upon the people and Peter commands them to all be baptised in the name of Jesus.

Meditatio

Acts 10 is an important chapter. It is the revelation to Peter that the distinction between clean and unclean is no longer a question of ancestry or heritage. This is something that had been foretold earlier by Jesus's cousin¹. It will no longer be through blood that the Lord will accomplish his aims. The final blood has been spilt, now there is unity and peace made through Christ Jesus.

Peter points out that there is continuity between the prophetic tradition and the ongoing work of the disciples. In verse 43 pointing out that it was to him all the prophets bore witness; that who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins. Meaning that all that the prophets bore witness to foretold of the coming salvation through the death burial and resurrection of Jesus.

The gift of the Holy Spirit is then poured out not only on those who were part of the covenant but also gentiles consummating the understanding articulated by Peter's of the Lords intent of unity through Christ. This is important especially for Gentile Christians like me who otherwise might only have had the noahide covenant to depend upon.

Nevertheless we might think on Peters words in verse 28 a moment 'but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean...' implying that Peter did consider Gentiles to be unclean and common. Or what about verse 47 'Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people'? These are an odd choice of words to someone who has made their peace on this issue. In all honesty it sounds like a reluctant acceptance of change.

We should point out that unlike Peter's claims in verse 28 the Torah doesn't explicitly prohibit Jews from associating with Gentiles, but there were cultural and religious conventions that led to such divisions. Indeed the relationship between the Jewish people and Gentiles has been a complex one throughout history. Jews often avoided contact with Gentiles to maintain ritual purity, to uphold religious identity, and to minimize the risk of idolatry or assimilation into foreign cultures. So what the Lord is addressing here is not a moral issue but a matter of custom.

Peters humanity portrayed throughout the gospels never ceases to amaze me.

Acts Chapter 9

Summarrium

Saul has a dramatic conversation to Christ on the road to Damascus where he had planned to arrest and bring Christian believers to the Chief Priests for punishment. He is blinded by the encounter with Jesus and does not eat or drink for three days until Ananias prays for him and he is healed. At Damascus he immediately begins preaching in the Synagogues and offering proofs that Jesus was the Christ.

The Jews plot to kill Paul and so his disciples help him escape Damascus by lowering him through a hole in the wall on a basket. Saul joins the disciples in Jerusalem who are initially apprehensive but later accept him as a brother. Saul preaches boldly in Jerusalem and the disciples learn of a plot on his life and aid him to escape to Tarsus.

Peter heals Aneneas who was paralyzed and bedridden for eight years leading to the residents of Lydda and Sharon to turn towards the Lord. Peter also visits Tabitha (Dorcas) who had passed away and through the power of the spirit she is raised to life. This becomes known throughout the region of Joppa with many believing in the Lord.

Meditatio

Much happens in this chapter. We have the conversion experience of Saul, his escape from Damascus and Jerusalem, Peter healing one man and raising a woman from the dead.

Interestingly I had just been sitting with this conversation between Vanderklay and Brandon which seemed to circle the problem 'should we evaluate the value of myths on the basis of their coherence with our present understanding of natural world or based upon their functional utility as praxis?'. This conversation was very frustrating but none the less raises an important point between how modernism and meta-modernity is framing the issue.

The modernist perspective has introduced new categories that did not exist prior to the enlightenment; natural and super-natural being some of them. For the pre-modern world it was as natural for God to participate within creation as it would be for a developer to participate within the Game he has created. We assume with the observations of the past 300 years that we can unpick and remove a complex web of ideology that has persisted since...was it 40 milion years ago we diverged from apes?

Now there is of course good reason to celebrate the modernist perspective. My children and I are alive because of it and enjoy living in the benefits of a modern world. But there are limitations to it. The project did not and has not succeeded in gathering 'all facts'. Material correspondence is not always the best way to view a problem; one does not test for Socrates in a lab.

So how to respond to Acts 9? Do we de-mythologise and reject what appears unnatural to us? Do we instead recognise that it is part of a pattern of a functional narrative within which we inhabit? These are not easy questions to answer, but as for me an my house...I've always been a bit of a pragmatist.

I appreciate this post is a variation from the pattern and barely makes mention of the source material at all. Apologies.

Acts Chapter 8

Summarrium

Saul continues to persecute the believers in Jerusalem and as a result the early Christians are scattered. Phillip travels to Samaria and is well received with many turning to the faith. Peter and the Apostles continue to lay hands on people that they might be filled with the spirit. A Magician named Simon is amazed asking for this power himself, but being rebuked by Peter because of his underlying motivation.

Phillip meets an Ethiopian Eunuch on the desert road to Gaza and he explains to the Eunuch the passage from the book of Isaiah that he was reading at the time¹. Phillip then baptises the Eunuch and finds himself taken by the spirit to Azotus² where he preaches along the coastal towns until her arrives in Caesarea.

Meditatio

This particular chapter demonstrates how the rejection of the Gospel by the religious establishment led to the scattering of the believers, and the spreading of the Gospel throughout the region.

Interesting the Gospel is first accepted in Samaria. Samaria, which was essentially part of the region that historically would have been the northern kingdom of Israel had a diverse population. A direct result of the conquest of the northern kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians in 722 BC. This diverse population was a blend of Israelite and foreign influences and led to the emergency of the Samaritan identity. Samaritans faced criticism and suspicion from Judeans for their perceived compromises in religious practice and ethnic identity.

Human beings rarely change. We see the same kinds of complaints raised in the tensions between liberal and conservatives. Liberals encounter scepticism and opposition from conservatives for their willingness to challenge traditional norms and embrace progressive values. Whereas conservatives may express concern about liberal tendencies to challenge established norms and institutions, fearing erosion of traditional values and cultural identity.

So in an odd way the liberals are first to the table to accept the Gospel and accept the Holy Spirit. Yet this does not mean that this is entirely without challenge. We have Simon the Magician attempting to monopolize upon the power that was shared, and the Gospel being taken all the way to Ethiopia without any apostolic oversight. Yet this does not concern the spirit who whisks Phillip rapidly away to preach in Azotus.

I imagine this would give some contemporary church planters a significant cardiac event. But at the end of the day the thing that really strikes me about this passage is the intentionality. There is an acting based upon what I can manage but no sense of Phillip carrying the weight of all this. He deals with each situation as it arises (as do the Apostles). It seems oddly reactionary. Perhaps this is just the way it has been written, but there seems little in the sense of branding and strategy.

Some thoughts to ponder.

Acts Chapter 7

Summarrium

Stephen delivers a speech to the High priest and the council of elders. He recalls how God chose Abraham and Moses demonstrating himself faithful to them even when they were rejected by Men. Stephen points out that the children of Abraham have consistently rejected the Lord turning away from God to instead to worship even Golden statues.

Stephen describes the journey of Abraham, Joseph, Moses, David and Solomon. He demonstrates how the infidelity of the Israelites has been a consistent issue before finally accusing the council of killing the Lords anointed. In response he is taken out of the city and stoned to death where he experiences a vision of Jesus sat at the right hand of the father before he dies. Saul is present at his execution.

Meditatio

Within the passage it has struck me that Stephen traces the fulfilment of the promise made to Abraham. This is an attempt to demonstrate continuity within the redemptive plan for Israel.

Abraham who is childless receives the promise to be the father of many. Joseph sold into slavery rises to prominence and eventually saves his family. Moses who is called to deliver the Israelites and fails in his own efforts is called forty years later. The wanderings in the wilderness, the construction of the tabernacle and later the temple; is contrasted with the rejection and murder of the prophets; much like Jesus who Stephen accuses the Jewish leaders betrayed and murdered.

Yet the response of the religious leaderships is dramatically contrasted with those who are added to the community in Acts 2. Rather than a repentant response we see in Acts 2 the people of God continue to enact the historical rejection of the redemptive purposes. The religious leadership fail to accept responsibility for their part in all this and instead continue to perpetuate this.

There is an uncomfortable lesson in all this which is somewhat linked to an earlier point I raised in discussing Ephesians 2. Christ is 'building' us together as a dwelling place for God based upon this foundations of the Apostles [Framework, Stability, Establishment, Tradition, Roots] and Prophets [Frame-breaking, Challenge, Innovation, Revelation, Growth]. There is something in this perspective that needs to be expanded upon.

Let's unpick this a little then...

The apostolic mission is providing a solid framework upon which the Christian faith is built; serving as guiding principles for believers by which to live. Yet the danger in this role is that the Religious establishment seeks to maintain its power and cohesion within the body at all costs rather than heeding the work of the spirit. The establishment has the tendency to forget that the house of the Lord is established on the both the foundation of the Apostles and the Prophets.

By contrast prophets, can be viewed as challenging the current religious frame or paradigms within the community. The prophets bring insights, revelations, or corrections to ensure that the community remains faithful to God's will and open to His ongoing guidance. In this interpretation, the apostles provide the stable structure upon which the Christian faith is built, while the prophets serve to challenge, refine, and renew that framework as needed, ensuring its continued relevance and fidelity to God's purposes.

We should also not overlook the references to Amos and Isaiah¹. The appointment of the Seven in Acts 6 can be seen as addressing social justice concerns similar to those highlighted by Amos. The reference to Isaiah underscores the continuity between the prophetic tradition of Isaiah and the message of the early Christian community. Stephen is pointing to the classic tension between truth as orthodoxy and truth as praxis.

Acts Chapter 6

Summarrium

The Church continues to grown and as they increase in number Hellenists¹ raise a complaint because their widows are neglected in the daily distribution. The apostles appoint seven men, laying hands upon them to attend to the daily distribution and thereby freeing the apostles to the ministry of the word.

Stephen through the spirit is undertaking great wonders among the people. Some Jewish persons rise up against him and dispute his claims about Jesus. They bring him before the elders and scribes and before the council. False witnesses are found and claim that Stephen has proclaimed that Jesus will destroy the synagogue and change customs.

Meditatio

This passage reveals something of the administrative challenges facing the early church. Despite sharing with each according to his need there are those who are missed. This troubles the community and there is a need to work out how to resolve this. Evidently the Apostles are devoting themselves to the ministry of the word, so there is a question to be resolved who will be appointed.

Ultimately they appoint seven men and laying hands on them in prayer. This structure it seems continues to support the growth of the body of Christ with many being added to their number in Jerusalem, including a number of priests. It is interesting here; the leadership is listening to the needs of it's members. It recognises that there is a legitimate issue and action is taken to appoint leaders who can administer justice.

The second part of this chapter is a continued reminder of the cost of discipleship. Following Jesus is not always an easy ride and indeed can cost us much of what is seemingly valuable to us. Here we observe others entering into a dispute with Stephen, a removal of his freedoms and a demolition of his reputation. Despite this Stephen remains empowered by the spirit and appears to them "like the face of an angel".

Apologia

I have found it increasingly more of a challenge to find time to unpack scriptures, and for meditative practices. Whilst I have some structures in place to assist (let's call this routine) there is often significant disruption to this (let's call these children). I remain concerned but not with regards to my performance, but more with my well-being. It is interesting what will become the focus of my attention and meditative practice rather than what I would ordinarily choose to focus upon.

I do of course realise this is a season of life; young children bring complexity and challenge. Indeed there is something in riding out the chaos which has been both educational and entertaining. Nonetheless it is one thing to reason a thing another to live it out.

Acts Chapter 5

Summarrium

A Man named Ananias sells a piece of property and retains back some of the value of this for himself. In so doing Peter claims that Ananias has 'lied to the Holy Spirit' and he dies. His wife arriving later is also questioned about the sale and also lies and subsequently dies. A great fear falls upon the Church and many signs and wonders are being regularly done by the Apostles with the sick lain in the streets that even Peters shadow might fall upon them

The high priest rose up and arrested the apostles putting them in prison. An angel of the Lord opened the doors sending them out again to teach the people. The high priests become aware of the apostles escape but were afraid to act because of their fear of being stoned by the people. Enraged by the bold declarations of the disciples Gamaliel advises they do not oppose the disciples claiming that it will naturally fail or the establishment will set themselves against the Lord.

Meditatio

What struck me within this passage is the wisdom that can be found amongst the Pharisees. Despite the jealousy and corruption to be found within the religious establishment there are some who can think reasonably. Gamaliel points out¹ an important principle. Using the examples of a number of failed Messiahs he points out that in each case nothing has come of this and the followers have dispersed. He anticipates that this will be the same with Jesus.

Yet what is of particular interest is that he points out that if this Jesus is who he claims to be they will be unable to prevent the spreading of the Gospel message. Going so far as to point out that they will be standing in opposition to God. The principle of general wisdom here being that on occasions it might be right to see how a thing plays out before committing oneself to a particular course of action.

We cannot also overlook the narrative surrounding Ananias and Sapphira. Arguably this reads as a judgement proclaimed by the angry God of the Old Testament rather than the God of love revealed to us through Christ. In reality the narrative illustrates the seriousness of deceit and hypocrisy within the early Church community. It instilled a deep reverence and respect for the Holiness and power of God, serving as a reminder of the reality of divine judgement. God remains involved in the affairs of the body and holds them accountable for their actions in administering justice.

Perhaps then food for thought today is the reality that the Lord observes and holds us accountable for our actions. Be they attempts to subvert his intents and purposes for personal gain or via direct opposition to him. The Lord will act in accordance with his will and purposes and we would do well to act in accordance with them.

Acts Chapter 4

Summarrium

Peter and John are arrested by the priests, the captain of the temple and the Sadducee's for proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. Five thousand men believed. When questioned by the rulers, elders and scribes, Peter proclaims boldly that it is by the name of Jesus that the lame man now walks. The political situation is precarious for the establishment given a notable sign has been given and the people are praising God. Charging Peter and John not to speak further about Jesus they release them.

Upon their release they return to their friends and report what they had been told. The disciples then pray for boldness and the place in which they are gathered is shaken and they are all filled with the spirit; continuing to speak with boldness. Indeed all the people are of one heart and soul and share all things in common. With great power the apostles give their testimony and the grace of God was upon them.

Meditatio

In this passage we come across the first documented incident of 'persecution' by the religious establishment. Two of the disciples are arrested for performing a miracle, and they stand boldly before the religious establishment and speak truth to power.

What struck me about this particular passage is the contrast between the actions of Peter and John and that of the religious establishment. We see that that religious establishment fears man¹ pointing out that they cannot see the notable sign that has been performed in Jerusalem. Whereas Peter and John fear the Lord and can do nothing but speak about what they have seen and heard². A start contrast between concealment out of fear, and revelation of the truth of God out of fear.

Interestingly the quotation included in verse 26 is originally from Psalm 2 which is worth reading for context. Particularly given the warning to those in positions of power³. Here there is a clear warning to serve the Lord with and rejoice with trembling. There is an appropriate awe of the transcendent that is a necessary part of faith in God which the establishment lacks.

How should this influence our thinking? Our lives?

It is a clear encouragement to pray for boldness, that we might speak boldly about what we have seen and what has been communicated to us. The Lord preserved Peter and John who spoke boldly and were not afraid of death. More so they were more afraid of what might happen if they did not speak out, than if they did. We should also come to terms with the reality that doing so has consequences. Some of which may result in litigation or other processes we might prefer to avoid.

Acts Chapter 3

Summarrium

Peter and John were going up to the temple at at the hour of prayer and a man lame from birth was carried out at the Beautiful Gate to ask for alms. He asks for alms from Peter and John who offer him no money but instead Peter gives what I do have and commands the man to walk who immediately begins to walk with his feet and ankles made strong. People are there praising God and filled with wonder and amazement.

Peter points out that this miracle was not the result of power or piety within himself or John but instead the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who sent Jesus whom the people of Jerusalem had put to death. Peter points out that the people should repent and be refreshed from the presence of Lord as foretold by the prophets.

Meditatio

Within Acts 3 we begin to see the kind of potential that exists within the power of the Holy spirit. Peter is going about his business but for some reason stops to address a beggar that he would likely have encountered on numerous occasions before. We see in verse 2 indeed that this individual would have been a daily feature at the gate that is called beautiful. So from a material perspective little has changed.

Yet we will see that much has changed from a spiritual perspective. Peter has been filled with the spirit of God and empowered to resolve something he was previously powerless to change. Peters response to this is not to accept the Glory at having healed another individuals but rightly attributes the action to the Lord directly. He is not there to perform for the crowd.

Indeed if anything it seems Peter is intent on speaking the kind of truth that may even lead to his death. For example in verse 15 'you killed the author of life, whom God raised from the dead' does not pull punches. Peter is explicit that the people of Jerusalem have culpability in the death of God calling for Barabbas release that Jesus might be executed.

Yet Paul points out that the Jews are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant implying that they inherit something significant. In the beginning of Acts 4¹ we see that the priests and the captain of the temple and Sadducees come upon them because they are teaching the people. They are arrested and placed in custody. Despite this, or perhaps because of this, about 5,000 men come to believe in Jesus.

Acts Chapter 2

Summarrium

The day of pentecost has arrived and the believers are gathered in one place. From heaven comes a sound like a mighty rushing of wind and divides tongues like fire rested on each on of them and they were filled with the Holy Spirit. The sound attracts bystanders and out into the street pour the disciples speaking in the languages of those around them.

Peter addresses the crowd and, making reference to the Torah, explains to the people what is happening and preaches the gospel. This moves people to their heart and results in many repenting, being baptised and added to their number. The believers then live devoted to the teachings of the apostles, breaking bread and praying together. Selling possessions and belongings and giving to each as has need.

Meditatio

To provide some context to this event; according to ChatGPT in Jewish history, the day of Pentecost is associated with the holiday of Shavuot (also known as the Feast of Weeks). It is celebrated 50 days after the second day of Passover and marks the giving of the Torah (the Jewish law) at Mount Sinai. It is easy to miss the symbolic significance of this particular link.

In Acts 2:41 we read of about 3000 people added to the Church once the power of the spirit has arrived on earth to empower his people to live in fellowship¹. This life represents the kind of life that the Lord has intended for his followers. It is part of the advancement of the kingdom; the redemption of all creation.

Contrast this with Exodus 32² where Moses returns to the camp of the Israelites from Sinai having received the 10 commandments and the law and ordinances from God. It is the giving of the law or the giving of the Torah. Yet as Paul tells us the law only bring consciousness of sin³ not power to overcome it. Despite prevailing wisdom I am of the opinion that merely being aware of the rules does not change who we are or empower us to live differently⁴.

For example I used to despise all forms of physical activity. Anything more than the exercise of my thumbs on the controller, or my fingers on the keyboard was too much for me. I was terrible at sport and was beginning to develop a figure akin to Bilbo Baggins pre-hobbit. My Doctor advised that it was necessary for me to make lifestyle changes to prevent significant long term health implications further down the line given I had stage 3 fatty liver disease. Despite my knowledge of this I took no action.

It was only when I was empowered to act by an intentional commitment to change and permitting it to motivate me (I have David Goggins to thank for this) that I began to make real lifestyle changes. I have now run 3.5 miles, 4-5 days weekly for almost 8 years.

This chapter for me highlights an important distinction between knowledge and power.

Acts Chapter 1

Summarrium

The author of acts¹ sets the scene pointing out how Jesus appeared to, and taught, his disciples post resurrection. He explains that Jesus warns them not to depart Jerusalem until they are baptized in the Holy Spirit. The disciples ask if Jesus will now take a political role and Jesus tells them it is not for them to know. He points out they will receive power from the spirit before ascending to heaven.

Peter recalls the fate that befell Judas after betraying Jesus which involved swelling until he burst. Making links to the Psalms² to point out that there is need to replace and appoint an alternative given he is no longer amongst the disciples. Two hopefuls are selected; Barsabbas, and Matthias. The disciples cast lots and Matthias becomes the new twelfth apostle.

Meditatio

It struck me how at this point the Disciples are still awaiting the arrival of the spirit. They all abandoned Christ following his betrayal and execution, yet are reunited by him following the resurrection. Acts here tells us that Jesus presents himself alive to them, offers proofs of himself and speaks of the kingdom of God. Through Jesus the scattered sheep are regathered for the purpose of being a witness.

It's interesting here to take a moment to contrast this with Matthew 28 whereby Jesus instructs his disciples in the task of disciple making. In Acts Jesus gives the office of witness. So there are two contrasting views here. Matthew who tasks us to make Disiples and Luke who offers an office defined by our relationship to Christ.

There is a real difference between doing [Disciple making] and being [Witnessing] which Jesus himself has previously discussed³. So is this something Jesus tasks us with, or is this just who we are given who Jesus is? This question fleshed out has defined my own difficulties with the evangelical industrial complex; where viral replication is often prioritised at the expense of relationship.

I am by trade a social worker so functionally witnessing is a more natural fit as a relational approach that stems from who we are. I don't doubt some are sent, nor that we all have a responsibility. I do question the wisdom of making this our primary focus, unless of course our intent is empire building in which I have no interest. Kingdom building I can get on board with not empire building.

One is for Christ the other for the pastor. Indeed I've begun to sense an insidious form of neo-colonialism that is emerging within protestant Christianity that see's its role in 'educating the savages' or to 'make others like us'. This seems inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus and I have no interest in this aspect of Christianity.

The Acts 1 perspective seems to be a far more developed idea that goes beyond a function, to that of an identity defined by our relationship to Christ. Nevertheless we cannot ignore Matthew. Perhaps then in someway we are provided with contrasting perspective again as part of our responsibility to work out this gift of salvation⁴.

A parting thought...they cast lots? (See 1:26). So even after the resurrection and ascension it is not until the spirit arrives that we can escape observation of the old forms.