Calling it Straight

Acts 13:10 and said, "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?

10 εἶπεν· ὦ πλήρης παντὸς δόλου καὶ πάσης ῥᾳδιουργίας, υἱὲ διαβόλου, ἐχθρὲ πάσης δικαιοσύνης, οὐ παύσῃ διαστρέφων τὰς ὁδοὺς [τοῦ] κυρίου τὰς εὐθείας;

This was Paul's statement to Elymas the magician who was trying to thwart the message of the gospel as told by Paul and Barnabas. I think it's pretty strong to call someone ἐχθρὲ πάσης δικαιοσύνης. Obviously Paul is engaging in hyperbole here. Or is he?

The point is that the gospel is righteousness. There is no righteousness apart from the gospel. Therefore, by definition, if you oppose the gospel you are ἐχθρὲ πάσης δικαιοσύνης. This is pretty serious business.

The implication of this in our culture is pretty staggering. Take someone like Oprah, for example. She's a pretty good gal by the world's standards. She gives all kinds of high-end stuff away once a year on her show. She does what she can to help what she considers to be good causes. She tries to help people feel better about themselves.

Oops. Right there she is opposing the gospel by preaching a message of self-help rather than Christ-help. You don't have to watch much Oprah to see that she is drawing people away from the gospel and to themselves. Hence, I would put her in the same boat as Elymas here.

It's easy to pick on Oprah and she has almost become a trite example for illustrations like this. My point is just to exhort everyone to think through the messages that we hear. Let's be discerning about them. Are they for the gospel or are they opposed to it? Some may be obviously opposed like the difference between Islam and Christianity. Others are more subtle like the self-help messages of Oprah. Either way, we need to know our Bibles if we are to be discerning about this.

Freedom

Acts 10:13 And there came a voice to him: "Rise, Peter; kill and eat."


13 καὶ ἐγένετο φωνὴ πρὸς αὐτόν· ἀναστάς, Πέτρε, θῦσον καὶ φάγε.

This is another one of those verses that make little sense to us in our 21st century mostly Gentile context. Here Peter had received a vision telling him that he not only could, but should go out and eat any animal. Of course, in Peter's inimitable style he rebukes the Lord and is subsequently corrected. I find it fascinating that he is given two imperatives to θῦσον καὶ φάγε. This is not a suggestion.

This is not to say that eating vegetables is sinful. The context for all of this is the strict dietary laws that the Jews received from the Lord. As a good Jew Peter never would have eaten anything considered unclean. Here he is not only given permission to, but he is being told to. This ultimately leads to his interaction with Cornelius, who becomes the first recorded Gentile convert.

I think that the point is that the Lord is forcing Peter out of where he is comfortable. He is very clearly telling him that the old rules no longer apply. There is freedom in Christ for everybody. Go and do the unthinkable -- eat a ham sandwich. Go and do the unthinkable -- tell a Gentile about Christ.

So on the surface this verse is a great argument against some of the crazy PETA folks. While there may be health reasons not to eat meat I don't think that there are any good moral reasons. But even beyond the joys of pork this verse is part of a passage that explains how Christ must be preached to everyone -- even to those we find to be unclean.

Earning Credibility

Acts 9:28 So he went in and out among them at Jerusalem, preaching boldly in the name of the Lord.


28 καὶ ἦν μετ᾽ αὐτῶν εἰσπορευόμενος καὶ ἐκπορευόμενος εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ, παρρησιαζόμενος ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου,

Paul had a pretty rough time fitting in with the disciples at first. After all, he actively persecuted them and did everything he could to stop the church. After his conversion he was as excited about helping the church as he previously was to persecute it. The problem is, the church wasn't sure what to make of him.

I don't think that we can blame them for this. In fact, it seems wise to have a season of watching before completely trusting someone. Anyone can call himself a Christian. How does he live? What does he say? Is there any evidence in his life of God's work? Or is he simply one in name only?

Paul did prove himself. He had Barnabas' endorsement, which was obviously very important. After this verse we learn that he debated with the Hellenists, who were the Greek-speaking Jews. It soon became clear to the church that he was for real. I suppose he could have done a big double agent turnaround, but of course he really was converted. The church eventually trusted him.

I think that there is a lesson in this for us as members of churches. We should probably not be too quick to give anyone any kind of teaching authority. Someone's current passion does not always translate into long-term consistency. Just as an elder should not be a recent convert I think that anyone who teaches or has any kind of authority in the church should go through something of a vetting period. That will not prevent every problem, but it will certainly eliminate many problems before they start.

Active Faith

Acts 9:17 So Ananias departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit."


17 Ἀπῆλθεν δὲ Ἁνανίας καὶ εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν καὶ ἐπιθεὶς ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν τὰς χεῖρας εἶπεν· Σαοὺλ ἀδελφέ, ὁ κύριος ἀπέσταλκέν με, Ἰησοῦς ὁ ὀφθείς σοι ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ ᾗ ἤρχου, ὅπως ἀναβλέψῃς καὶ πλησθῇς πνεύματος ἁγίου.

This is the result of a little argument that Ananias had with the Lord. He rightfully pointed out that Saul was the man who was persecuting the church. He was having folks arrested and killed. And here God wanted him to go and lay hands on him? He was more afraid of Saul laying hands on him to arrest him. This was a completely legitimate fear.

I think in modern terms this would be like receiving a revelation that you should go stand on a street corner in Jakarta and preach with a Bible in your hand. Or maybe in Mecca or Medina in Saudi Arabia. I guarantee that you would not do it for very long before you were arrested. You may or may not be killed, but it would go very badly for you. Ananias knew all about Saul and was afraid for good reason.

But here we see that Ananias obeyed. The lesson here is extremely simple. Do you trust God to be faithful to His promises? If so, then you will obey Him. If it were me, I don't think I would trust a vision I received in a dream to do something like this. However, I do know that God's Word is faithful and true. There is plenty in there for me to obey without having to be shot for preaching the gospel on a street corner in Jakarta.

Our problem is that we tend to confuse temporal and eternal blessings. There is nothing in the Bible that promises us a safe and quiet life. What we do have are lots of promises for eternal security in Christ. That needs to be our hope, not some watered-down prosperity message.

This is really convicting to me. How about you? Anyone reading this who is about to take his family to Liberia is exempted from answering.

True Forgiveness

Acts 7:60 And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." And when he had said this, he fell asleep.



60 θεὶς δὲ τὰ γόνατα ἔκραξεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ· κύριε, μὴ στήσῃς αὐτοῖς ταύτην τὴν ἁμαρτίαν. καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν ἐκοιμήθη.

This is the end of Stephen. We meet him in Acts 6 and by the end of Acts 7 he is dead. He lived to preach a very powerful sermon against the Jews regarding Christ. He explained through their history how things were leading up to Christ and then how they had rejected the prophets. Apparently they didn't take too kindly to being called stiff-necked and being associated with killing the prophets. The truth does hurt.

This is how Stephen reacted. He called out in a φωνῇ μεγάλῃ, which literally is a "great voice" or a "large voice." In other words, he was yelling. He addresses the Lord with the vocative case and says κύριε, μὴ στήσῃς. It's interesting to me that this is a subjunctive (a prohibitive subjunctive according to Wallace) rather than an imperative. That is a known usage of the subjunctive when giving a negative command, which is what Stephen was doing here. In other words, there is nothing particularly insightful to glean from the Greek compared to the ESV.

What is insightful to me is the grace that Stephen showed with his last breath. You don't have to look very far in Foxe's Book of Martyrs to find examples of men who used their last breath to forgive their executioners. I suspect that many a martyr died with this passage on his mind. Stephen shows us how to die here.

More importantly, he shows us how to live. Here was a man who could have cursed the men stoning him and I don't think that we would think too badly of him. We would know what he should have done, but we would put ourselves in his sandals and realize that we would likely do no better and therefore cut him some slack. But we don't have to because he did the right thing right up to the end. He demonstrated grace. He loved those who were persecuting him. In other words, he lived like he really believed that Jesus' commands were binding.

Do we do that? How do we treat those who curse us? Do we bless or curse them? Do we petition the Lord for their pardon because of their ignorance? Or do we start finding imprecatory psalms to pray against them? Stephen's story leaves us without excuse in how we go out this in our lives.

Can't Stop This

Acts 5:39 but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!" So they took his advice,


39 εἰ δὲ ἐκ θεοῦ ἐστιν, οὐ δυνήσεσθε καταλῦσαι αὐτούς, μήποτε καὶ θεομάχοι εὑρεθῆτε. ἐπείσθησαν δὲ αὐτῷ

This was Gamaliel's conclusion about the movement of these uneducated men. They were preaching a message about Messiah. However, there were others who had come and gone before them. Gamaliel figured that there were two possible outcomes from this. The movement could completely fizzle or it could actually be from God. He wisely reasoned that if it was from God then they would not be able to stop them. Of course, we know that it was indeed from God. We don't know if Gamaliel repented and believed, but I have to wonder if he remembered these words as the Way gained traction.

What I do know is that these are wise words, but we need to be careful in how we look at them. Some have a saying that we should never curse what God is blessing. The question is how you can tell if it is God who is doing the blessing. Is God blessing Lakewood Church in Houston? It's huge, but is God necessarily blessing it? Some think that it is obvious that He is, but I'm not so sure.

Of course, philosophically God is behind everything. So in that respect, God is making them grow. But the Third Reich also grew. Does that mean God blessed them? I don't think so. (note: I am absolutely not comparing Lakewood Church to the Third Reich, but I wanted an extreme example) The point is that we cannot simply use numbers as a barometer for God's blessings.

The question we need to ask is whether the gospel is spreading. Are disciples being made? Is the church/movement/whatever advancing the cause of the Kingdom? That's what we need to look at when we make these kinds of evaluations. I think folks would do well to use these sorts of standards before they criticize someone like Mark Driscoll, for example.

Whether we like the style or methods, we can be sure that if it is of God then it cannot be stopped. Christ is ruling on His throne in heaven and has a handle on what goes on down here. No matter what, we are not going to stop Him.

The First Megachurch?

Acts 2:46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts,


46 καθ᾽ ἡμέραν τε προσκαρτεροῦντες ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, κλῶντές τε κατ᾽ οἶκον ἄρτον, μετελάμβανον τροφῆς ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει καὶ ἀφελότητι καρδίας

Just a few verses before we saw that three thousand people were saved on Pentecost. I've heard some jokingly say that it was the first megachurch. After all, they suddenly had 3000 Christians gathered together. It seems plausible enough.

However, this verse turns that idea on its head, not to mention the testimony of the rest of the New Testament. Although there were 3000 new converts they did not gather together as 3000. The temple was big, but it certainly was not that big. What we see here is that they did indeed meet together, but most of the ministry was done at home. They had smaller pockets where they broke bread.

I am not about to go all Frank Viola on this. However, I do think that the consistent model of Acts is to have smaller churches. Some may say that it was only because they were poor, marginalized, and did not have any way to build Six Flags Over Jesus as so many folks enjoy each weekend. I would say that it was because smaller bodies were the only way for them to truly serve each other.

This is why I'm both excited and terrified about our church plant. I'm excited because I think that we're moving toward the New Testament model of the church. I'm terrified because there is nowhere to hide. It's not that I necessarily have anything to hide, but there is a certain comfort in having an out, as it were. I suspect I'm not the only megachurch attendee who feels that way. However, that is American Churchianity talking and not Christianity.

It Had to Happen

Luke 24:44 Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."


44 Εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς αὐτούς· οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι μου οὓς ἐλάλησα πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἔτι ὢν σὺν ὑμῖν, ὅτι δεῖ πληρωθῆναι πάντα τὰ γεγραμμένα ἐν τῷ νόμῳ Μωϋσέως καὶ τοῖς προφήταις καὶ ψαλμοῖς περὶ ἐμοῦ.

This is one of the last things that Jesus tells His disciples. They were still thinking that He would establish an earthly kingdom. They did not quite understand how the Scriptures (our Old Testament) predicted Jesus' life, death, burial, and resurrection. So He had to give them one last lesson. He had to explain ὅτι δεῖ πληρωθῆναι. The word δεῖ gives a sense of necessity. That's where you get the "must be." The word πληρωθῆναι is an aorist passive infinitive. The fact that is in the aorist gives a sense that something happened at an undefined time in the past. It is not necessarily puncticular as some of the older scholars say, but it is generally something in the past.

The point is that He is trying to explain to them that what was predicted by what we call the Old Testament had been fulfilled. He is telling them here that He tried to get them to understand that while He was with them. Now that He has been resurrected those words were indeed fulfilled.

What does this mean for us? Personally, it makes me lean even more toward amillenialism. I am not looking for an earthly reign of Christ on earth in the sense of a millenium because of Old Testament prophecies. The Old Testament found its fulfillment in Him. However, I write this with very broad strokes and am prepared to rethink this as necessary.

From an application perspective, I think it also means that we are to examine where we are being thick. Jesus is all over the Old Testament. Not in the sense of floating axe heads or in every piece of wood symbolizing the cross, but everything in the Old Testament points us to Christ. Since we are Christians we can read the Old Testament as Christians instead of as Jews. We can see how the Old Testament points us to Christ. This is confirmed here by the words of our Lord and in numerous other places in the New Testament, both explicitly and implicitly.

Let's rejoice that we worship a God who keeps His promises. He promised a Messiah and gave us one. Won't you worship the Messiah with me?

Christ, not Criss Angel

Luke 23:8 When Herod saw Jesus, he was very glad, for he had long desired to see him, because he had heard about him, and he was hoping to see some sign done by him.


8 Ὁ δὲ Ἡρῴδης ἰδὼν τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐχάρη λίαν, ἦν γὰρ ἐξ ἱκανῶν χρόνων θέλων ἰδεῖν αὐτὸν διὰ τὸ ἀκούειν περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἤλπιζέν τι σημεῖον ἰδεῖν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ γινόμενον.

Every time I read this verse I am struck by the utter triviality of Herod's thinking. Here he had Jesus, the son of God in his custody. He obviously had heard of Jesus or else he would not have hoped for a sign. All he wanted was to see a magic trick.

Of course, Jesus had experience with this. He had crowds following Him because He became a walking Long John Silvers. He also was a walking MASH unit. They wanted to be fed and they wanted to be healed. They clearly did not want to take up their crosses and follow Him. It's interesting to see how the crowds thinned out after He stopped doing so many miraculous signs. In fact, He eventually told the people that they would get no sign but the sign of Jonah. After all, a resurrection was the best you could imagine.

Before we look down our collective noses at Herod I think that perhaps we should consider how many times we have done the same thing to Jesus. We want the healing. We want the provision. Do we want to take up our cross and follow Him? Do we want to sacrifice or suffer for Him? If we're honest I think we'll admit that we usually don't. I know that I don't.

What's the cure to this problem? We need to recognize who He is. He was born as God incarnate. Not only did He suffer incredible physical agony, but He had to deal with the full force of God the Father's wrath on Him for our sin. We say that we want for this man to be our Lord and Savior. When we realize who He is and what He did, can He be anything less than our Lord?

Seated on the Throne

Luke 22:69 But from now on the Son of Man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God."


69 ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν δὲ ἔσται ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καθήμενος ἐκ δεξιῶν τῆς δυνάμεως τοῦ θεοῦ.

This was what Jesus said to the council who held His illegal trial. He had just explained that even if He confessed Himself as the Christ they would not believe it. After this verse He says the same thing about being the son of God. But this is sandwiched in the middle.

What does this mean? I take it to mean that after His life, death, burial, and resurrection He is now seated on the throne in heaven. This means that Christ is indeed the king as we speak. However, as He repeatedly told us throughout the gospels, His kingdom is not of this world yet. Rather, He reigns over a spiritual kingdom.

The good news is that He will come back one day and make all things new. We will get to live forever with Him in a restored earth. It will be recovered back to its pre-Fall glory. Having this hope makes life livable. And, as Jesus showed us here, it also makes death something we can approach with confidence.

It doesn't take much looking to find folks who are terrified of death. You have your Jack LaLanne folks who figure that they can live much longer if they avoid all sugars and exercise regularly. That is true, but death is still going to catch up. They can ride, but they can't hide. Anyone who knows me knows that I am all for fitness and healthy eating. However, we need to be realistic in that the death rate is still 100%.

I bring this up because I look at this passage and I see how Jesus faced death. In Gethsemane He agonized over what was coming. After accepting it He was pretty bold when mocked, beaten, and tried. He realized that He was going to suffer greatly, but He also had a clear vision of what awaited Him on the other side of death.

We have the hope of living forever with Him. How does that change the way you approach your life?