Also - amen John!

Acts 19:13-16 This is a powerful demonstration that our faith in Jesus and the power of prayer and the spiritual power that is available to us is <b>not magic</b>--that is, it isn't simply a matter of saying the right words in the right way--it's not an incantation we can use to manipulate the power of God. Any spiritual power that God gives us is under his sovereign control, and our use of is is based on our relationship with him and our discernment of his will. Messing around with spiritual power without a vibrant relationship with Jesus is playing with fire!

Here we see God using different personalities and gifts. Barnabas has been shown to be kindhearted and generous; he took Saul under his wing when nobody else trusted him, and they've been ministering together for several years now, and it's always been "Barnabas and Saul."

Now they're out on the mission field, encountering fierce opposition from a sorcerer, and Saul's more confrontational personality causes him to step forward and challenge the sorcerer. Suddenly, it's not "Barnabas and Saul," it's "Paul and Barnabas" (or even "Paul and his companions"). All of a sudden, Paul has found his niche, and he's now the <i>de facto</i> leader. Just goes to show--God uses different types of people to accomplish different things in his Kingdom.

I think this chapter illustrates that faith is trust in the living God, not psyched-up confidence in a particular outcome. I love the fact that the people praying for Peter's release didn't believe it when it happened. (Even Peter didn't believe it until the angel left and he was standing there out in the street.) Their confidence may have been deficient, but they trusted the living God and He answered them.

I think it's interesting that God told Peter, "Do not call anything impure that God <b>has made</b> clean." It's not that we're clean in and of ourselves, which is sort of what we're assuming if we just look at this chapter as Peter finally overcoming his ethnic prejudices. Under the Old Covenant, Peter would have been totally right to refuse to eat unclean animals, or to avoid contact with Gentiles. But now, through what Jesus did for us, we have been made clean.

@Ken - Presumably Tabitha did go to heaven and then come back (Lazarus too). I'm guessing from your question that you're thinking, Why would anyone want to come back after being in heaven? I think we think too much of our salvation as being escape from this lousy world; if we think of it as mission to this lousy world, then coming back makes perfect sense.

And we're all going to come back - 1 Cor 15. And Revelation 21 doesn't have us all disappearing into heaven; rather, the New Jerusalem comes down to earth. God doesn't want to discard his creation; he wants to redeem and transform it. Our salvation is just the beginning of that.

When the church wasn't under persecution, it huddled together in Jerusalem, long past the time that Jesus had said to wait. Persecution had the effect of causing the believers to spread the gospel into Samaria and the rest of the world, just as Jesus had said they would do.

This is a debated point, but it seems clear that, as Luke uses the term, "receiving the Holy Spirit" is not simply the same thing as coming to faith in Christ. The believers in Samaria had believed, been baptized, and accepted the word of God, yet Peter and John saw that they needed something more. May we all be open to everything that God has for us.

This is a chapter where cultural changes get in the way of us understanding. Stephen is on trial for blasphemy... and he starts reciting a history of Israel? What's up with that?

The two charges against Stephen are that he has been speaking against the Temple and the Law. He actually answers these two charges by appealing to Jewish history. This is in a culture where history is <b>always</b> relevant. They're an oppressed people, so their heritage is all they have.

Stephen's basic argument is that throughout Jewish history, there have always been the mass of people who didn't follow God, and the few people who did. So God takes Abraham out of his people and brings him to Canaan. Later, Jacob's older sons sell their brother Joseph into slavery in Egypt, where he follows God and eventually is used to deliver Egypt as well as his own family. Still later, God raises up Moses to be a leader, but his people reject him. And when God brings the Law to Moses--this is key--the people reject it and ask Aaron to make an idol for them. The mass of people have always rejected God's rulership over them--and that includes the Law.

How about the Temple? Stephen reminds them that they hadn't always had a temple; up through the time of David, they had the Tabernacle. And the Temple wasn't built by David, the man after God's own heart, but rather by Solomon, who let his wives seduce him into pagan worship. (Of course, the present temple was built by Herod--worse yet.) But God doesn't live in a temple anyway, so if they're focused on that, then they've made it into an idol.

So this is what leads up to Stephen's charge in v. 51: "You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit!" They're not acting like the few who have followed God; they're acting like the many who have always resisted God. By implication, this means that the new Christian movement is the remnant--the few who like Abraham, Joseph, and Moses, are following God despite the resistance of the crowd. And that's what the Jewish leaders can't stand to hear.

So if we endure persecution from present-day religious people, we're part of a longstanding tradition. We just need to make sure that we're following God and his word faithfully.

(Sorry for the long post, but this is a passage that really does need some unpacking.)

The church recognizes the importance of gifts. The Apostles aren't expecteded to do everything.

Those who were chosen for something as mundane as food distribution are still chosen because they're "full of the Spirit and wisdom"--not just because they're a warm body willing to do the job.

Stephen, a man who is obviously gifted in miraculous ways, is willing to wait on tables first. As a result of his obedience, God uses him in other, more prominent ways.

Alex - that's a really good parallel you bring up. The difference, as I see it, would be human beings wanting to take vengeance on foreigners who are ignorant and whom Jews like James and John would already have hated culturally, on one hand, and God holding people who should have known better accountable for a public hypocrisy that could have deeply hurt the new movement, on the other.

Verse 41 has always completely blown me away. "The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name." It's one thing to endure suffering. But they actually considered persecution a badge of honor, like they were sharing in the sufferings of Jesus (see Rom. 8:17; 2 Cor. 1:5). I wish I had that perspective. (Of course, I imagine it takes a lot more suffering to obtain it.....)

A few things:

Acts 4:29 The believers don't pray for persecution to stop; they pray for boldness. This to me is really powerful and says a lot about where their hearts were.

Acts 4:8, 31 Luke seems to use the term "filled with the Spirit" in a repeatable sense (it's not just a one-time event, either at salvation or later) and it's connected with boldly proclaiming the gospel.

Acts 4:32 The conservative American church <b>really</b> doesn't want to hear verses like this (or Acts 2:44-45).

Mike - really good point there. People don't know what they need (ultimately, Jesus) and so they ask for what they think they need. That's a good point to keep in mind when we're trying to reach the unreached.

Ken - Good point too. I'm guessing that for us, "you" would mean "you as opposed to me"; maybe it didn't carry that implication in that cultural setting. Peter certainly does want to drive home their culpability in Jesus' death; maybe that's to set up the call to repentance in v. 19. (Besides, Peter did deny Jesus, but I don't think he was among the crowd screaming "Crucify him!")

It strikes me how much of a risk Peter was taking. What if he loudly proclaims, "In the name of Jesus, rise and walk," and tries to help the guy up, and nothing happens? He ends up making both himself and his faith in Jesus look like a fool.

This wasn't the first time they'd seen this guy begging; he was probably there every day. I'm sure over time the Holy Spirit was prompting Peter to do this, and he must have been very sure before he took that risk. But I think faith always involves Spirit-led risks. If we don't do anything risky, it doesn't require any faith. But look at the opportunity to share Jesus that came out of Peter taking that risk.

Alex - yes. Don't tell anybody.

Ken - I also think the painting is bizarre. But I also like it. :-)

It's amazing to me that Peter, who only a month and a half ago was intimidated into denying Jesus, can now so boldly proclaim him as the risen Lord.

Since this chapter seems confusing or strange to several people, I hope nobody minds if I take a crack at unpacking it.

Vv. 1-2 Luke introduces this book, and refers his primary reader (Theophilus) back to his first book (the Gospel of Luke). He's assuming that Luke has already been read, and he's jumping into the middle of the action with just a quick summary of what has gone on before. So if something doesn't make sense at the beginning of Acts, we might find some helpful context at the end of Luke.

Vv. 3-5 Jesus spent 40 days after his resurrection appearing to his disciples and demonstrating that he was in fact alive. (So they didn't just have a vision and go off half cocked.) He tells them to wait in Jerusalem for the Holy Spirit to come upon them, which he had already told them about (see Luke 3:16 and John 14:15-17).

Vv. 6-8 The disciples still think that Jesus is going to be an earthly king and will reinstate the Kingdom of Israel by throwing off the Romans. Jesus tells them that the timing of God's ultimate plan is not their business; their business is to make disciples throughout the world by the power that God will give them through the Holy Spirit.

Vv. 9-11 Jesus leaves them in a dramatic fashion, rising into the sky until he disappears in the clouds, evidently to make clear to them that he's not going to keep reappearing to them like he has for the last 40 days. The "two men dressed in white" are evidently angels; they were also at the empty tomb and spoke to the women there (Luke 24:4-8).

Vv. 12-14 The apostles (who are listed), along with Jesus' family and others who had been close to him, go back to an upper room in a house where they were staying, and spend concentrated time in prayer for several days.

Vv. 15-26 During this time, Peter feels led to name a successor to Judas. When Jesus chose the 12, the number was symbolic--they are sort of successors to the 12 sons of Jacob that became the tribes of Israel. Peter feels that some OT passages refer to Judas, specifically Psalm 109:8, and so he feels that someone should take Judas's place--someone who had been with them from the beginning and could therefore fulfill the role of a witness. Evidently they couldn't agree on just one candidate, so they cast lots--a culturally accepted way of discerning God's will.

It is interesting that Matthias is never heard from again in the book. On one hand, most of the rest of the Apostles that Jesus chose are also not mentioned again--which doesn't mean that they didn't do anything important, it just means that the story of Acts doesn't focus on them. On the other hand, it is interesting that God later on raises up Paul to be his primary Apostle to the Gentiles. Some have suggested that Paul, rather than Matthias, was really God's choice to replace Judas, although there is nothing in this chapter to suggest that Peter and the other disciples were doing anything wrong.

When we're dealing with narratives of events that occurred in a very different cultural context, we should expect them to look rather bizarre to us. But then, how much of what we view as "normal" is just culturally conditioned, and would look bizarre in other parts of the world or in other historical times?

(Apologies if I spelled out stuff that was already perfectly obvious. My intention was just to be thorough, especially for those who didn't specify what had confused them.)

It strikes me as interesting that at the time of Jesus' ascension, the disciples still had a mistaken idea about what the kingdom of God would look like (Acts 1:6). Jesus kindly redirects their question toward the power of the Holy Spirit, because through them the Holy Spirit would begin building the new kingdom--the people of God from all nations, who would become God's people through trusting in Jesus.

Karen, while I largely agree with the main thrust of your piece--that material wealth is an indicator of God's blessings--I think you've bought into a familiar false dichotomy regarding Robertson. You write, "While more compassionate souls offered help with antibiotics, bandages and cases of bottled water, Robertson offered advice...." You also write in your comments that "he was raising funds as part of his rant."

The reality is that, whatever you think of Robertson's off-the-cuff remarks, his organization is in fact involved in humanitarian efforts. A press release from the CBN website available <a href="http://www.cbn.com/about/pressrelease_patrobertson_haiti.aspx">here</a> states: "[Dr. Robertson's] humanitarian arm has been working to help thousands of people in Haiti over the last year, and they are currently launching a major relief and recovery effort to help the victims of this disaster. They have sent a shipment of millions of dollars worth of medications that is now in Haiti, and their disaster team leaders are expected to arrive tomorrow and begin operations to ease the suffering." (This was written on 1/13, so "tomorrow" would have been 1/14.)

Now, perhaps the organization is flat-out lying, but I wouldn't want to call them on it unless I had the facts to back me up. The fundraising that he was doing as a part of his "rant" was in fact fundraising for this very relief effort to Haiti. It's easy to jump on the bandwagon to excoriate Robertson, but unfair to imply that he merely rants and does nothing to help.

James's words regarding rich and poor give us a sobering wake-up call. We may tend to gloss over these words, because nothing quite so obvious happens among us. But if we give plaques and honors to wealthy donors, and subtly blame the poor for their poverty, we are doing exactly what James is warning against.

I personally think that James thought he had a disagreement with Paul regarding faith and deeds (or works; see Galatians 2), but the two writers meant different things by the two words. For Paul, "works" are "works of the law"--that is, observing Old Testament commands, and "faith" is a life-changing trust in Jesus as Lord. James speaks of "faith" in terms of just accepting a fact intellectually, and "deeds" as the actions that flow out of a life dedicated to Jesus. Paul's "faith" inevitably produces James's "deeds."