Tag: Acts

Posted on

Why Did Paul Confront Peter in Galatians 2?

Galatians 2

11But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.

13The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

15“We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; 16nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

17“But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be! 18“For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor. 19“For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God.

20“I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. 21“I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.” (Galatians 2:11-21, NLT)

NOTE: Cephas is another name for Peter

The Daily DAVEotional

In the second half of Galatians 2, Paul mentions an odd encounter that he once had with Peter. He says that he (Paul) had to confront Peter (also known as Cephas) publicly because he was acting like a hypocrite.

The whole ordeal sounds pretty uncomfortable and embarrassing. What’s actually happening here?

To more clearly understand Paul’s encounter with Peter in this passage, we need to know a little bit about the context of this letter and why Paul is writing it in the first place.

Paul and Barnabas had established a number of churches in the Southern province of Galatia as an outcome of their first missionary journey (see Acts 13-14).

However, even though their mission of planting a number of new churches was wildly successful, it wasn’t all smooth sailing, as Paul and Barnabas encountered quite a bit of opposition along the way, primarily from Jewish unbelievers.

Not long after establishing these new churches, false teachers had infiltrated and were leading the Galatians astray. Paul tells these young believers that what they were following was a false gospel, a distortion of the truth.

At issue was the very nature of how a person is saved. I wrote about this issue in another blog post “A Pivotal Council in the Early Church” which I encourage you to read for context.

The summary is that there were a number of Jewish Pharisees who had become believers in Jesus. They held the view that in order for Gentiles to be saved, they not only needed to believe in Jesus as the Messiah, but they also had to convert to Judaism and adhere to all of its religious and cultural demands.

A council was convened to discuss this issue. The leaders of the church, including Peter, unanimously agreed that Gentiles do NOT need to become Jewish culturally in order to be saved. They determined that ALL men, regardless of cultural background, are saved by simply putting their faith in Jesus.

So what’s happening here in Galatians 2? Why does Paul confront Peter?

Apparently Peter showed up at the church in Antioch, which was known for having a mix of Jewish and Gentile believers. While there, Peter enjoyed hanging out with and eating with these new Gentile brothers and sisters. After all, he came to understand In Acts 10 that Gentiles are accepted by God in the same manner that Jews are – by faith.

However, the text says that Peter began to pull back from associating with these Gentile believers when a certain group came to visit the church in Antioch. It says that there was a group of Jewish believers who were friends with James. When these guys showed up, Peter begins acting like he doesn’t know the Gentiles with whom he had been freely associating.

This James Gang (not to be confused with the classic rock band of the same name) had a certain view and understanding that was not compatible with the gospel. This was a group that had favored the view that was rejected at the Council of Jerusalem, namely, that Gentiles needed to adhere to Jewish religious laws and cultures too.

There was an air of superiority with this group. They looked down on Gentiles, mainly because it had been drilled into them their whole lives that Gentiles were unclean and “less than” Jews. They were sinners, without the Law of God.

But Peter had been given a direct revelation from God in Acts 10 that this view was not godly. God does not look down on Gentiles and for Jews to do so was not honoring to God. One might even say it was racist.

Peter responded to that revelation in Acts 10 and the result was that Cornelius, the Roman soldier, came to faith and it was at this point that Gentiles are first inaugurated into the body of Christ.

Now here in Galatians 2, Paul tells his audience that Peter enjoyed fellowshipping with his Gentile brothers and sisters and no doubt enjoyed eating non-kosher foods as well.

But when this “party of the circumcision” arrived, Peter was afraid of what they might think. So he pulled back and disassociated himself from the Gentiles.

This exact scenario is beautifully illustrated in the 2017 movie Wonder, in which a disfigured boy named Auggie is hopelessly tortured by a group of schoolyard bullies.

Auggie is befriended by Noah who learns to overlook Auggie’s physical appearance in favor of his kind nature. 

However, there is a critical scene in the movie where Noah purposefully betrays Auggie’s friendship in order to gain favor with this group of bullies. This Halloween scene in the movie mirrors the situation with Peter described by Paul. I recommend watching this movie, taking note of your emotional response to this scene. Then read this passage again. Perhaps you will see the destructive effects of hypocrisy and partiality in a new light.

Paul calls Peter a hypocrite. The word hypocrite is actually an acting term (Greek hypokrites). In those times, all the parts in a theater production were played by just a few actors, mostly men. The actors would put different masks on to represent the part they were playing. The word hypocrite refers to the mask that the actor wore.

So, to be a hypocrite is really to wear a mask. It’s when we seek to project an image to others that doesn’t represent who we really are or what we really believe.

That’s what Paul accused Peter of doing. Peter believed that Gentiles were saved just as Jews are and he enjoyed connecting with this group of non-Jews, that is, until the James gang showed up. Then Peter, fearing what these Jewish zealots might think, sought to give the impression that he saw these Gentiles as unclean, as the old Jewish laws promoted.

If Peter, one of the foremost leaders of the early church, could fall into hypocrisy, then anyone can.

All of us are hypocrites to some degree. We’re often negatively influenced by others and we can tend to order our lives around creating a favorable impression of ourselves to those around us. This is what John Ortberg, in his book “The Life You’ve Always Wanted” calls impression management.

Jesus called the Pharisees hypocrites because they created an outward impression of religious perfectionism that didn’t match their internal brokenness and depravity.

This is why we need the gospel. We are hopelessly broken and corrupt inwardly, and yet we seek to project an image of success and “having it all together” to those around us.

With the gospel, we not only experience forgiveness for our depravity, but we have the hope of transformation so that over time, our outward actions begin to more accurately reflect the new heart that we have been given.

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

What are some examples of hypocrisy that you are aware of? People you’ve known personally or in the media?

When have you acted in a hypocritical manner?

Sometimes hypocrisy can spread due to peer pressure (as it did in this passage). When have you seen someone or a group of people act against their own beliefs and values as a result of peer pressure?

What are some ways you tend to manage your image to those around you? In what ways have you compromised your values or beliefs in order to garner favor with an individual or group?

What do you think are practical steps you can take to avoid hypocrisy? 

How do you think the gospel message provides hope for becoming a person of integrity and not a person who is hypocritical?

 

Photo by Finan Akbar on Unsplash

Posted on

Can Christians Pray Directly to Jesus or Only God the Father?

Acts 7

51“You stubborn people! You are heathen at heart and deaf to the truth. Must you forever resist the Holy Spirit? But your ancestors did, and so do you! 52Name one prophet your ancestors didn’t persecute! They even killed the ones who predicted the coming of the Righteous One—the Messiah whom you betrayed and murdered. 53You deliberately disobeyed God’s law, though you received it from the hands of angels. ”

54The Jewish leaders were infuriated by Stephen’s accusation, and they shook their fists in rage. 55But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed steadily upward into heaven and saw the glory of God, and he saw Jesus standing in the place of honor at God’s right hand. 56And he told them, “Look, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing in the place of honor at God’s right hand!”

57Then they put their hands over their ears, and drowning out his voice with their shouts, they rushed at him. 58They dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. The official witnesses took off their coats and laid them at the feet of a young man named Saul.

59And as they stoned him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60And he fell to his knees, shouting, “Lord, don’t charge them with this sin!” And with that, he died. (Acts 7:51-60, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

Last week on X (formerly Twitter), I saw an exchange that made me think. A pastor with a very large following was calling out a well-known politician who claims to be a Christian for the way he prayed.

Attached to the post was a screenshot of the text of the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6, along with the following admonition:

Someone should tell (name of politician) that Christians don’t pray to Jesus. We pray to God the Father in the name of Jesus.

My first thought was disappointment at the realization that we now appear to have an online Prayer Police force that is monitoring our actions over the internet.

My second thought was, “Wait, I pray to Jesus all the time. Have I been doing it wrong all these years? Have I been participating in a doctrinally dubious practice?”

It’s a valid question. How exactly are we to pray? Is there a right and wrong format? What are God’s expectations of us as we seek to engage with Him in the practice of prayer?

I’ve been a Christian for a looooong time and I’ve honestly never thought that a person could NOT pray directly to Jesus. After all, when I first heard the gospel as a young boy, I was told that Jesus was standing at the door of my heart and he was knocking (Revelation 3:20). If I was listening to his voice and if I opened the door, he would come into my life! In short, if I responded to Jesus, IN PRAYER, and invited him in, I would become a Christian and receive the gift of eternal life.

I’ve heard many prayers over the years where Jesus was addressed directly and I’ve never, even once, seen or heard someone be corrected for directing their prayers to Jesus, if this is indeed a wrong practice.

I suppose that’s why this post on X, from a pastor with a large following, and a PhD no less, seemed to be coming out of left field.

Disregarding the tone and posture of the tweet, which came off as more sanctimonious rebuke than loving correction, I found myself asking the question, “is he correct?”

The disciples had asked Jesus to teach them to pray. Jesus responded by telling them:

9“Pray, then, in this way:

‘Our Father who is in heaven,

Hallowed be Your name.

10‘Your kingdom come.

Your will be done,

On earth as it is in heaven.

11‘Give us this day our daily bread.

12‘And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.

13‘And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil. [For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.]’ (Matthew 6:9-13, NASB)

I decided to survey the prayers in the New Testament that I was aware of, mostly from the book of Acts.

What I found is that most of the prayers ARE directed to God the Father and NOT Jesus, EXCEPT this one example that we find from Stephen in our passage today.

We first meet Stephen in Acts 6 when he is selected, along with six other men, for the special task of meeting a critical need in the early church. These seven men were the first deacons of the church. The text says that Stephen was a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit. He was not a man of marginal commitment or questionable devotion. He walked with God.

By the end of chapter 6, Stephen is no longer serving as an administrator in the church’s food distribution program, but instead, he is having a major impact as an evangelistic preacher. Stephen’s influence had increased significantly and he was now a major leader in the early church movement.

One day, Stephen gets into a debate with some Jews and the text says that:

None of them was able to stand against the wisdom and Spirit by which Stephen spoke. (Acts 6:10, NLT)

They couldn’t defeat his arguments so they found some people to lie about him and he was arrested by the religious rulers and brought before the high council. The Council leaders ask Stephen to respond to the charges that had been brought against him. His response is recorded in Acts 7, which is a lengthy discourse on the history of the Jewish people, including their long-standing pattern of rebelling against God and resisting God’s appointed messengers (His prophets).

For brevity, I haven’t included the full text of that response (Acts 7 in its entirety), but it’s worth the read. For our purposes, I’ve included the relevant part at the end of Acts 7 where Stephen shifts his response from explaining the history of the nation of Israel to his indictment on its leaders for their pride and rebellion.

You can see that the Council leaders and its members don’t take too kindly to Stephen’s accusation and the result is that they dragged Stephen out of the city and stoned him.

What is interesting about this text is that Stephen, as he is being stoned, looks up toward heaven and he prays!

What does he pray?

“Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” (Acts 7:59)

Stephen, a man who the text says was filled with the Spirit, prayed to Jesus, not the Father.

To me, this provided indisputable proof that it must be ok to direct our prayers to Jesus and not God the Father only.

So I responded to the pastor’s post on X by saying that praying to Jesus must be ok because we have an example in the New Testament with Stephen praying directly to Jesus.

The pastor replied to my response, doubling down by saying:

That was descriptive, not prescriptive.

What does that mean?

He’s actually correct. What that means is that the book of Acts is historical narrative, not didactic teaching. That means that Luke (the author of Acts) was simply recording things that happened. Just because he recorded an event does not mean that what is recorded is supposed to be the normal pattern for all believers.

But Jesus’ words in Matthew 6 are direct teaching. He is instructing us in what to do and how to do it.

So what this pastor was saying in his reply is that just because Stephen is recorded as praying to Jesus doesn’t mean we are supposed to, especially since Jesus’ prayer instruction shows the prayer addressing “our Father”.

So yes, it’s true. Jesus’ teaching is prescriptive, explaining to his disciples how we should pray. And the example of Stephen is descriptive. It’s part of a larger narrative that just describes an event. It’s not part of a passage that is teaching us how to pray.

Does that mean that the pastor’s assertion that we are only to pray to God the Father is correct? Is that the end of the discussion?

Not exactly.

While Jesus teaches the Lord’s prayer in Matthew 6 (and Luke 11), his teaching is not an exhaustive discourse on the subject of prayer. In other words, even though Jesus gives some teaching on prayer in these passages, what he says is not ALL there is to know and learn about prayer.

To make a determination of whether it’s ok to pray to Jesus directly, consider the following:

    • Jesus tells his disciples to pray like this, and then he shares the Lord’s prayer. Does this mean that ALL prayers must repeat these words exactly? If so, why do we never see this exact prayer repeated in the New Testament?
    • Jesus gives his disciples a model, or example of how to pray, which includes addressing “our Father”. Does this mean that a person can never pray to Jesus? What about the Holy Spirit? Can you call on the Holy Spirit?
    • If we are not allowed to pray to Jesus, how are we supposed to respond to Him if he is at the door of our heart knocking? How exactly do we invite Him in?
    • If Jesus promises to come in and dine with us and have fellowship with us, how exactly do we have fellowship with someone we are not supposed to talk (pray) to directly?
    • It’s clear that Jesus is our High priest. The role of a priest is a mediator. Jesus is the mediator between us and holy God. It’s because of Jesus and his atoning sacrifice on the cross that we are able to boldly approach the throne of grace and enter the presence of God the Father. Are we really supposed to believe that Jesus is the mediator between man and God but we are not allowed to talk to him directly?

The whole premise seems a bit absurd. Based on all of the relevant data, it seems clear that while Jesus does instruct his followers to pray to God the Father, there is never a prohibition for believers to address Jesus directly.

It seems clear that because Jesus is our mediator and he is the one knocking at the door of our heart, wanting to come into our lives, that we CAN address him directly.

Furthermore, we have a documented case where a godly, Spirit-filled leader of the early church  (Stephen) addresses Jesus directly. There is no indication, anywhere in scripture, that this is somehow wrong.

One last item is worth mentioning. In the final words of the New Testament, John, in the book of Revelation, pens these words:

Amen! Come, Lord Jesus! (Revelation 22:20, NLT)

If the apostle John finds that it’s ok to pray to Jesus, inviting him to “come”, then I’d say that it’s ok for any of us to address our prayers to Jesus as well.

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

What would your response have been to this pastor who posted on X? How would you have either affirmed his position or argued against it?

What has been your pattern in prayer? Do you think it’s ok to pray directly to Jesus or should Christians pray ONLY to God the Father? What is the reasoning for your answer?

How have you used the Lord’s Prayer in your walk with Christ? Do you believe that Jesus taught that the Lord’s prayer was THE way to pray – that it is the ONLY pattern for praying? 

What do you think it means that Jesus is our high priest? What is the role of a priest? How do we interact with a priest or mediator?

 

Photo by Brian Lundquist on Unsplash

Posted on

Developing the Habit of Daily Bible Reading

It’s the beginning of the New Year so naturally, many people are thinking about New Year’s resolutions.

Typical resolutions for people include: losing weight, paying down debt,  finishing a degree or improving a job situation.

In the spiritual realm, a very common New Year’s resolution is to read through the Bible in a year.

Over the years, I’ve made this resolution countless times and mostly failed, though I was able to read through the entire Bible once or twice.

As Christians, reading through the Bible in its entirety is a noble goal. Many do it because it seems like an enormous accomplishment, like running a marathon once or hiking Yosemite’s half-dome summit.

But for the Christian, the goal really shouldn’t be to say that we’ve read through the Bible, as if it’s some bucket list item that we can boast about.

The goal is to gain a greater understanding of God’s word so that it impacts us and transforms us at a heart level.

With that in mind, I think a better resolution is to develop consistency in reading God’s Word. The goal is to develop a habit of taking in God’s word; to see it as essential and necessary for your spiritual life as food is daily for your physical life.

To develop a habit, a daily reading program is a must.

If this is all new to you, a few tips might be helpful.

Don’t worry about reading the Bible through chronologically. You can do that if you want but the Bible is not a novel. It’s a collection of books. So it’s not necessary to read through in order.

Shoot for being consistent instead of racing to finish. The goal is not to “finish” per se, because even if and when you do read through the entire Bible, you will still want to keep reading. It is NOT like a novel that you put back on the shelf once you’ve read the final page.

Allot an appropriate amount of time to help you be consistent. Many people start off with 45 minutes to an hour but cannot sustain that and then quickly give up. It’s like a person who’s out of shape and starts running for fitness. They immediately run 5 miles and kill themselves. Start off with a manageable routine that you can repeat consistently.

Recognize that there is a difference between reading and studying the Bible. You want to develop a habit of “reading” consistently, preferably every day. Reading doesn’t mean you have to understand everything you read. You can create longer study periods at other times in order to dive deeper into various sections of God’s word.

Recognize that the Bible is a collection of different types of literature. Some of it is historical narrative, some of it is poetic prayers and wisdom and some of it is direct teaching and instruction. Based on your personality, you will likely find some parts of the Bible easy and enjoyable to read while other sections (the types you don’t normally gravitate toward) you will find more laborious. Start with the types of literature that you would more easily gravitate toward, and then mix in the types that aren’t as easy. Starting off with books that are interesting will help you create momentum which will enable you to begin developing consistency.

Consider following a Daily Devotional program on the YouVersion Bible app. This is a popular app that is free and available for Smartphones in both iOS and Android versions. Not only does this app give you digital access to many different Bible translations, but there are literally thousands of different devotional programs that you can select to follow. The app will enable you follow each day’s content (a mixture of Bible reading often with some brief commentary) until you finish the program. When you finish, you can find another topic or series that interests you.

You may be saying to yourself, “this is all helpful, but I still don’t have any idea where to start.”

That’s a common issue. Here are some ideas to help you know where to begin:

Read through one of the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). These books are narratives that each tell the story of the life of Jesus from the perspective of that author. There are similarities and differences between each account as each author reported on those parts of the life of Jesus that were important for the purpose they were writing. Pick one gospel and reach through it. You can read one chapter a day and it will take you 5-10 minutes, maybe even less. Reading through one of the gospel accounts will help you get familiar with the life and teachings of Jesus, who is the Bible’s central character.

Read through the book of Genesis, the first book of the Bible. Genesis is foundational for helping you to understand the context for the whole theme of the Bible. In it, you learn about creation, the Fall of man and then the story of the formation of the nation of Israel, God’s chosen people through whom the promised Messiah would come. Again, read one chapter a day. That should take no more than 5-10 minutes and will take you 50 days as there are 50 chapters.

If you like poetry, read through the Psalms. The Psalms are independent poems and praises that were written by different people to express their thoughts and emotions to God regarding the things they were experiencing. You can read one per day. Some are very short and there’s a few (like Psalm 119) that are extra long. If a Psalm is more than 30 or 40 verses, you might consider breaking it up into multiple days.

Read through the book of Proverbs. This book is what is called Wisdom literature. It’s a collection of sayings that are designed to give instruction and impart wisdom. There are 31 chapters in this book. One strategy is to read whatever Proverb corresponds to the day of the month. Hence, in a month that has 31 days, you will read through the entire book.

Read through the book of Acts, one chapter at a time. The book of Acts is another narrative book that tells the story of the foundation and growth of the early church, just after Jesus’ death, resurrection and ascension. It is filled with stories that demonstrate God’s design for His message of redemption to be taken to the ends of the earth.

Read through some of Paul’s letters. Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians are good starting places. These letters are not narrative but are instructions that Paul is sharing with various New Testament churches. Reading these letters will help you to begin to learn important doctrinal truths about God and your relationship with Him.

Building a habit of daily Bible reading is one of the best practices you can develop if you want to grow and mature as a Christian. God’s Word is our source of life; it’s an instruction manual that teaches us what is right and what is wrong and directs us in how we are to live our lives in connection with God. (For more thoughts on the benefits of reading God’s Word, read my post “Training in Righteousness – Part 2”)

One last suggestion that you may find helpful. Consider signing up for my blog posts where you will get alerted each time a new post is made. Many of my posts are part of what I call the Daily DAVEotional. It’s not exactly daily, but each post has a passage from my own daily reading, along with my commentary on what it means. I end each post with some reflection questions to help you process and apply what you’ve read. Each post will take between 5 and 10 minutes to read, depending on how fast you read and how long you take to reflect on the questions at the end.

Wherever you’re at in your knowledge and understanding of God’s Word, I hope this is a year that you are able to begin to build a habit of daily Bible reading. This one habit practiced over time, can be instrumental in your own spiritual growth and transformation in the months and years to come!

How about you? What has been your experience with New Years’ resolutions and reading through the Bible?

What have you found helpful in your own life for developing consistency in daily Bible reading?

Share your thoughts and comments below!

 

Photo by Joel Muniz on Unsplash

Posted on

Fact-Checking and Misinformation in the New Testament

Acts 17

10That very night the believers sent Paul and Silas to Berea. When they arrived there, they went to the synagogue. 11And the people of Berea were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, and they listened eagerly to Paul’s message. They searched the Scriptures day after day to check up on Paul and Silas, to see if they were really teaching the truth. 12As a result, many Jews believed, as did some of the prominent Greek women and many men. (Acts 17:10-12, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

The advent of social media has completely changed the landscape of how information is disseminated to the masses. Prior to social media, people relied primarily on what is now known as “legacy media” – national broadcast news networks and major metropolitan newspapers.

But now with social media, anyone and everyone can be a journalist, investigative reporter, podcaster or blogger. Competing ideas and opinions abound, making it increasingly more difficult to separate fact from fiction.

With such an affluence of free-flowing information, two terms have been introduced into the mainstream cultural vernacular in recent years – misinformation and disinformation. These terms have primarily been used by politicians and pundits on both sides of the aisle to label the speech and narratives of their opponents as false. Alarmingly, our own government has cited “misinformation” as a basis for seeking to censor the speech and thus limit the reach of those whose ideas and beliefs are not aligned with the official position of the party in power.

This effort to limit speech has been evident in the last few political cycles through an increased effort to put pressure on social media platforms to limit and even censor speech that is deemed as “misinformation”.

But who exactly determines what is misinformation?

Social media outlets have employed “fact-checkers” to determine what information is accurate and what should be labeled as “misinformation”.

A fact-checker is someone who evaluates the truthfulness of a statement and then renders a judgment. These fact-checkers are expected to be neutral but the problem, as we’ve seen, is that they’re rarely unbiased. Who then fact-checks the fact-checkers?

In this segment of Acts 17, the Bereans are commended for their ability to fact-check the information that was being promoted.

Paul was a missionary who traveled throughout Asia Minor proclaiming the message of Christ and planting churches among those who believed his message.

But just like today, there was no shortage of ideological grifters and religious charlatans traveling from village to village looking for a market to sell their ideological snake oil.

With so many traveling religious preachers, how does one determine who, if anyone, is telling the truth?

The Bereans were commended because they “fact-checked” Paul’s message by “searching the Scriptures” to determine it’s veracity.

“The Scriptures” in this case refers to the Old Testament. The Bereans listened intently at Paul’s message and “day after day” they checked the message and compared it to what they already knew was true – the Old Testament Scriptures.

Fact-checking is a good thing, as long as the facts are being checked honestly against an objective, truthful standard. As we’ve seen recently, people are often biased, meaning they are rarely objective and often will stretch the truth, or in some cases, even deny the truth in order to fit their own biases.

But God’s word is both objective and true because it is the very word of God, who is by definition, truth.

So if you really want to check your facts, be sure they are not misaligned with what the Scriptures say. If they are, you can be certain that your facts are indeed “misinformation”.

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

What are some beliefs and ideas that you may tend to hold more because of your own personal  bias than the fact that it is true?

What is the standard that you use to determine if a religious statement is true or not?

What examples have you seen in your own experience of fact-checkers who were too biased to be trusted?

How do you think it’s possible that two different people can evaluate the same “facts” and arrive at completely different conclusions?

How can you ensure that you are not being misled and falling for misinformation when it comes to some of the ideological narratives that are being promoted in our culture?

 

Photo by Samuel Regan-Asante on Unsplash

Posted on

It’s Not How You Start, but How You Finish!

Acts 15

36After some time Paul said to Barnabas, “Let’s return to each city where we previously preached the word of the Lord, to see how the new believers are getting along.” 37Barnabas agreed and wanted to take along John Mark. 38But Paul disagreed strongly, since John Mark had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not shared in their work. – Acts 15:36-37, NLT

Colossians 4

14Dear Doctor Luke sends his greetings, and so does Demas.  – Colossians 4:14, NLT

2 Timothy 4

9Please come as soon as you can. 10Demas has deserted me because he loves the things of this life and has gone to Thessalonica. Crescens has gone to Galatia, and Titus has gone to Dalmatia. 11Only Luke is with me. Bring Mark with you when you come, for he will be helpful to me. 12I sent Tychicus to Ephesus. 13When you come, be sure to bring the coat I left with Carpus at Troas. Also bring my books, and especially my papers.  – 2 Timothy 4:9-13, NLT

The Daily DAVEotional

In December (2022) an amazing thing happened in an NFL football game. At half-time, the Minnesota Vikings were getting taken to the woodshed, down 33-0 to the Indianapolis Colts. It was a surprising development, given the Vikings had one of the best records in football and the Colts were widely regarded as one of the worst teams in the league.

I remember seeing the half-time score and thinking that game was all but over.

Later I learned that the Vikings had made a complete turn around in the second half, tied the game up and won 39-36, on a last second field goal in overtime. It was the greatest comeback in NFL history.

 

Proof once again that it’s not how you start, but how you finish.

The same is true in the Christian life. The Bible is replete with stories about people who did not finish well.

In 2 Timothy 4, Paul mentions two guys who are going in opposite directions. Paul mentions both by name.

The first is Demas. You might remember Demas from Colossians 4, where Paul mentions him as one of his co-workers who offers a greeting to the recipients of Paul’s epistle. Demas was on the right track, seemingly walking with Christ and serving with Paul for the furtherance of the gospel ministry in Asia Minor.

But something happened. We’re not given all the details but later, when Paul pens his final letter to Timothy, it’s clear that Demas has abandoned the faith in favor of a worldly lifestyle.

In contrast to Demas is Mark. Mark did not get off to a good start. He joined Paul and Barnabas on their missionary journey as an assistant in Acts 13:5 but didn’t last very long, abandoning them before their journey was complete (Acts 13:13).

In Acts 15, when Paul and Barnabas decide to go out on another missionary journey, Barnabas wants to take Mark with them but Paul is not in favor of this plan because Mark had previously abandoned them. Their disagreement was so sharp that the Paul and Barnabas band broke up and each decided to go solo, taking on new partners, Paul taking Silas while Mark accompanied Barnabas. I wrote about this first “church split” in a previous blog post, “Who Was at Fault for the First Recorded Church Split?”

Later, when Paul is older and about to leave this earth for his heavenly abode, Paul makes a final request of Timothy – “bring Mark with you when you come, for he will be helpful to me.”

Paul had no use for Mark early on, for Mark had clearly tubed out on the mission. But though Mark started off shaky, he finished well, so much so that later, when Paul was nearing death, Paul came to see Mark as tremendously useful.

These two guys, both mentioned in the same ending lines of Paul’s letter to Timothy, illustrate that no matter where you’re at or what you’ve done, you can always re-direct your path and finish well. Like Mark, we can change the narrative of our lives and become “useful” to the Lord and His purposes.

Likewise, even if you may find yourself on the right path now, it’s no guarantee that you will finish well. Like Demas, we can be lured by worldly forces to abandon our first love for mere earthly pleasures.

My hope is to finish well like Mark did, while avoiding the pitfalls of Demas!

Reflection

In what ways do you relate to Mark? In what ways can you relate to Demas?

What are some examples in your own circle of friends and acquaintances of people who seemed to start strong but ultimately didn’t finish?

Demas left Paul because he “loved the things of this life”. What are some of the things in this life that tend to be alluring to you and could possibly sidetrack you from wholehearted devotion to Christ?

What safeguards can you place in your own life to ensure you finish like Mark and not like Demas?

 

Photo by Joshua Hoehne on Unsplash

Posted on

Evidence that Jesus is God

John 10

22It was now winter, and Jesus was in Jerusalem at the time of Hanukkah. 23He was at the Temple, walking through the section known as Solomon’s Colonnade. 24The Jewish leaders surrounded him and asked, “How long are you going to keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.”

25Jesus replied, “I have already told you, and you don’t believe me. The proof is what I do in the name of my Father. 26But you don’t believe me because you are not part of my flock. 27My sheep recognize my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them away from me, 29for my Father has given them to me, and he is more powerful than anyone else. So no one can take them from me. 30The Father and I are one.”

31Once again the Jewish leaders picked up stones to kill him. 32Jesus said, “At my Father’s direction I have done many things to help the people. For which one of these good deeds are you killing me?”

33They replied, “Not for any good work, but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, have made yourself God.” (John 10:22-33, NLT)

Acts 14

8While they were at Lystra, Paul and Barnabas came upon a man with crippled feet. He had been that way from birth, so he had never walked. 9He was listening as Paul preached, and Paul noticed him and realized he had faith to be healed. 10So Paul called to him in a loud voice, “Stand up!” And the man jumped to his feet and started walking.

11When the listening crowd saw what Paul had done, they shouted in their local dialect, “These men are gods in human bodies!” 12They decided that Barnabas was the Greek god Zeus and that Paul, because he was the chief speaker, was Hermes. 13The temple of Zeus was located on the outskirts of the city. The priest of the temple and the crowd brought oxen and wreaths of flowers, and they prepared to sacrifice to the apostles at the city gates.

14But when Barnabas and Paul heard what was happening, they tore their clothing in dismay and ran out among the people, shouting, 15“Friends, why are you doing this? We are merely human beings like yourselves! We have come to bring you the Good News that you should turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and earth, the sea, and everything in them. 16In earlier days he permitted all the nations to go their own ways, 17but he never left himself without a witness. There were always his reminders, such as sending you rain and good crops and giving you food and joyful hearts.” 18But even so, Paul and Barnabas could scarcely restrain the people from sacrificing to them. (Acts 14:8-18, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

A number of years ago, I had some conversations with two Jehovah’s Witnesses who came to my door seeking to proselytize me. I wrote about that encounter in a previous post here.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses are a religious group that has its roots in Christianity but is not Christian in their theology. That’s because they deny both the traditional Christian doctrine of the trinity, which they believe is rooted in paganism, and the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, which they assert was not the belief of the early church but was introduced as a false doctrine by Constantine at the Council of Nicea.

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus is a created being and they argue that Jesus never claimed deity for himself and nowhere in Scripture does it even hint at this “false” teaching.

In my conversation with the Jehovah’s Witnesses who came to my door, I referenced this passage in John 10 and asked, “what do you make of John 10:30, where Jesus says, ‘I and the Father are one?’ Isn’t this an evidence of Jesus’ divinity?”

Their response was interesting. They said, “Jesus was only claiming to be one in purpose with God the Father. He was not claiming divinity.”

My response was, “the context doesn’t support your view. Look at verse 31. It says that the Jewish leaders picked up stones to kill him. Why would they want to kill him if he was simply stating that he was one in purpose with God the Father? Aren’t you one in purpose with God the Father?”

They responded by saying that the Jewish leaders had misunderstood what Jesus was saying. Yes, they picked up stones to kill him but it was because they THOUGHT that Jesus was asserting equality with God but he really wasn’t.

If this was really the case, that the leaders simply misunderstood what Jesus was saying, then why didn’t Jesus correct their false understanding?

Think about it.

Jesus makes a statement about being unified with God in purpose and suddenly a mob is trying to kill him. Jesus asks, “why are you trying to kill me?” and they tell him it’s for blasphemy…that he, being a mere man has made himself God!

If Jesus WASN’T God, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses assert, why did Jesus not correct their misunderstanding?

Interestingly, in Acts 14, Paul and Barnabas heal a crippled man and the crowd is so amazed at the miracle they had performed that they determined Paul and Barnabas must be gods in human form. They are prepared to make sacrifices to them at the city gates when Paul and Barnabas realize what’s happening. What do they do?

They don’t allow their misunderstanding about who they are to go uncorrected. They plainly and directly explain that they are NOT gods and that they should not be worshiped. Instead, they tell their audience that they are simply messengers sent to explain to them about the God they SHOULD worship – Jesus.

So the Jehovah’s Witness argument doesn’t make sense. They say that Jesus was only claiming to be one in purpose with God but the religious leaders misunderstood what Jesus meant and so they decided to stone him for blasphemy. If Jesus were not God he would have corrected their misunderstanding just as Paul and Barnabas did with those who mistook them for Greek gods. Yet Jesus didn’t correct their supposed misunderstanding. The simple explanation for why He didn’t is because they DIDN’T misunderstand what He was saying. He really was claiming equality with God the Father.

The context of this passage clearly communicates that Jesus believed He was equal with God and He communicated that belief to others. That is why the Jewish leaders picked up stones to kill him. They clearly didn’t believe Jesus was God but they clearly understood Jesus was making the claim. That is why they picked up stones to kill Him. They believed He was guilty of blasphemy.

To reach the Jehovah’s Witnesses understanding of this passage requires one to add details to the narrative that simply are not there. The text doesn’t say anywhere that the leaders had misunderstood Jesus. The Jehovah’s Witnesses though are forced to embrace this false narrative because it is the only way to hold to their preconceived view of Jesus – namely, their belief that Jesus is not God and never claimed to be.

The Jehovah’s Witness’s understanding and explanation of this passage fails. It fails because they deny what the passage clearly and plainly teaches and they add details that aren’t there in order to change the meaning of the passage  so that it fits their preconceived theological bias.

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

What do you think Jesus meant when He said “I and the Father are one”?

How likely do you think it is that the religious leaders simply misunderstood what Jesus was saying?

If Jesus was simply misunderstood. what reasons can you think of to explain why He didn’t correct this misunderstanding?

What is your view of Jesus? Do you believe He is God, as traditional Christianity teaches or do you think He is simply a created being as the Jehovah’s Witnesses teach?

Do you think it even matters what we believe about Jesus? Why do you think our understanding of the nature of Jesus is important? What difference do you think it makes?

 

Photo by Tim Hüfner on Unsplash

Posted on

Who Was at Fault for the First Recorded Church Split?

Acts 15

36After some time Paul said to Barnabas, “Let’s return to each city where we previously preached the word of the Lord, to see how the new believers are getting along.” 37Barnabas agreed and wanted to take along John Mark. 38But Paul disagreed strongly, since John Mark had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not shared in their work. 39Their disagreement over this was so sharp that they separated. Barnabas took John Mark with him and sailed for Cyprus. 40Paul chose Silas, and the believers sent them off, entrusting them to the Lord’s grace. 41So they traveled throughout Syria and Cilicia to strengthen the churches there. (Acts 15:36-41, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

If you’ve had many conversations with non-believers about Christianity and the gospel message, you no doubt have encountered questions about “all the different denominations” of Christianity.

To many non-Christians the existence of so many different groups and denominations is a kind of proof of the invalidity of the message. After all, if Christians can’t get along and they disagree enough to split over, how can we believe the message they are promoting is true?

This line of reasoning argues that if Christianity were really true, there wouldn’t be so many “versions” of it.

If you happen to agree with this, you might be surprised to know that Acts 15 records the first known church “split”.

Paul and Barnabas were the first missionary super-team, having been commissioned and sent out in Acts 11 by the church at Antioch. Along for the ride was John Mark, who was the cousin of Barnabas.

In Acts 13, when they arrived at Pamphylia, the text says that John Mark left to return to Jerusalem:

Now Paul and those with him left Paphos by ship for Pamphylia, landing at the port town of Perga. There John Mark left them and returned to Jerusalem. 14But Barnabas and Paul traveled inland to Antioch of Pisidia.

The mention of John Mark leaving almost seems like an after-thought. There certainly isn’t any indication that his return to Jerusalem was anything more than an expected part of the plan.

But in chapter 15 we find out that John Mark’s return to Jerusalem was NOT a part of the plan – that he had left the team unexpectedly. In his first experience as a missionary apprentice, he washed out.

Now Paul and Barnabas are planning their return trip and Barnabas wants to take John Mark along. Paul wants nothing to do with John Mark, seeing as how he had deserted them on the previous journey.

Their opinion on this issue is so strong that they split. Barnabas takes John Mark with him while Paul selects Silas as his new sidekick.

When evaluating this situation, it’s natural for us to want to assign blame – to ask, “who was in the wrong?”

Let’s look at Barnabas for a moment. We first see Barnabas at the end of Acts 4 when he sells some property and gives the proceeds to the church. We learn that his name means “Son of encouragement”.

Barnabas was an encourager. He believed the best in people. It was Barnabas who first found Paul after he had converted and brought him to the apostles. Barnabas vouched for Paul when others thought his conversion story was just a ruse to worm his way into the church for the purpose of arresting and persecuting its followers.

And now Barnabas is wanting to give John Mark, his cousin, a second chance. It’s who Barnabas is.

But Paul is different. He’s a hard charger – a leader who is singularly focused. Because of Paul’s vision and determination, not only are numerous churches planted throughout the known world, but he writes half of the New Testament as well.

Being a missionary is serious business and Paul doesn’t have time for those who aren’t going to last.

So who was at fault? Who was wrong?

If you are an encourager like Barnabas, you’re likely to take his side and say that Paul was in the wrong.

However, if you’re a leader with a pioneering spirit like Paul, you’re likely to take his side and think that Barnabas was in the wrong.

In my opinion, neither was at fault or in the wrong. This is simply an example where two people with different personalities and different values could not agree. As a result, they decided to go their separate ways.

While some might bemoan the fact that they split as an example of “disunity” or even selfishness, consider the fact that by going their separate ways, their missionary labor force was essentially doubled.

In addition, God honored both groups. We see how Paul’s ministry continued to expand even without Barnabas by Paul’s side. Also, we know that John Mark did indeed learn from his previous mistakes, thanks to Barnabas believing in him. Even Paul, later in 2 Timothy 4:11, recognizes John Mark’s contribution when he states:

Only Luke is with me. Bring Mark with you when you come, for he will be helpful to me.

So who was at fault for the first recorded church split? Neither party. Instead, both parties stood firm to their principles and personalities and as a result agreed to dissolve their partnerships and form new ones. God uses each new missionary unit to further his kingdom purposes.

So while it’s true that there are many denominations and many different groups within Christianity, it’s an overstatement to assume that the reason so many groups exist is because of some sinful or immoral separation. Though it’s possible and even likely that some splits occurred because of sinful and selfish reasons, it’s also true that the existence of different groups is not because of sin or immorality but simply different preferences and choices that in no way negate the validity or truthfulness of the Christian message.

In other words, just as God honored and blessed the two different groups that emerged from the Paul and Barnabas split, the existence of many different groups within Christianity today should not be seen as evidence against Christianity but as proof that God is able to accomplish His purposes and expand His reach despite the conflicting preferences and personalities of those who claim to be His ambassadors.

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

In this scenario pitting Paul vs Barnabas, are you on team Paul or team Barnabas? Why did you pick the side you picked?

What has been your response to someone who argues that all the different denominations must somehow be a proof against the validity or truthfulness of the Christian message?

What insights have you gained from this passage that might help you to address those who seem overly concerned about the number of churches and denominations within Christianity?

What do you see as the primary values each person (Barnabas & Paul) were holding onto in their disagreement? When do you think a person should hold fast to their principles and when do you think a compromise is warranted?

 

Photo by Matt Moloney on Unsplash

Posted on

What Does it Mean When Jesus Gives Peter “the Keys” to the Kingdom of Heaven?

Matthew 16

13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”

14“Well,” they replied, “some say John the Baptist, some say Elijah, and others say Jeremiah or one of the other prophets.”

15Then he asked them, “Who do you say I am?”

16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17Jesus replied, “You are blessed, Simon son of John, because my Father in heaven has revealed this to you. You did not learn this from any human being. 18Now I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it. 19And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you lock on earth will be locked in heaven, and whatever you open on earth will be opened in heaven.” 20Then he sternly warned them not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah. (Matthew 16:13-20, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

What does it mean when Jesus says He’s giving “the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven” to Peter?

The Catholic view is that Peter is the first Pope and through apostolic succession, the Pope is the leader of the church and the ultimate interpreter and arbiter of church doctrine.

The Evangelical, and I would argue the Biblical view, is that it means that Peter was given a special role in the initial spread of the gospel in that he was uniquely involved in the entrance of all people groups into the Kingdom of Heaven (the church).

In Acts chapter 2, Peter preaches the first mass sermon and many Jewish people believed and were ushered into the church.

In Acts chapter 8, Philip preaches the gospel in Samaria and many believe.

However, Peter (and John) are sent to Samaria to authenticate the conversion of these new believers.

Though these Samaritans had believed, they had not yet received the Holy Spirit, which is the mark of believers who are a part of God’s family (see Ephesians 1.13).

Peter prays for these new believers to receive the Holy Spirit and he and John lay their hands on them and they do indeed receive the Holy Spirit.

In Acts 10, Peter has a vision that all food is now considered clean. He then is summoned to visit a Gentile named Cornelius.

Peter shares the gospel with Cornelius and his family and they believe the gospel message AND they receive the Holy Spirit, as a sign that their conversion is genuine and God does accept them.

So we see that Peter was involved in the first Jews coming to faith and receiving the Holy Spirit (Acts 2). Peter was also involved in the first partial Jews (Samaritans) in receiving the Holy Spirit and entering the church.

Finally, Peter was instrumental in the first non-Jews (Gentiles) receiving the Holy Spirit and entering the church.

So every people group (Jews, partial Jews and non-Jews) entered the church only when they received the Holy Spirit through Peter’s ministry.

Since that time, all other Jews, partial Jews or non-Jews (Gentiles) who come to faith in Christ immediately receive the Holy Spirit and become members of the family of God.

But Peter had “the keys” to entrance for people at the outset.

Reflection

What has been your understanding of this passage? How have you interpreted the statement that Peter was given “the keys” to the Kingdom of heaven?

Why do you think it was necessary for Peter to authenticate the receiving of the Holy Spirit for the initial Samaritan and Gentile believers?

How would you answer the question that Jesus asks, “Who do you say that I am?”

 

Photo by Amol Tyagi on Unsplash

 

Posted on

Why Was Jesus Baptized?

Acts 19

1While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”

They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

3So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”

“John’s baptism,” they replied.

4Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7There were about twelve men in all.

(Acts 19:1-7, NIV)

Matthew 3

11“I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 12His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

13Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”

15Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.

16As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:11-17, NIV)

The Daily DAVEotional

Have you ever wondered about baptism? What exactly is the meaning of this ritual and why is it performed? Is there some sort of efficacious grace administered via baptism or is it merely a symbolic event?

This week, in my Grant Horner Bible reading, I encountered two different passages (Acts 19 and Matthew 3) on consecutive days, both dealing with the topic of baptism. As I’ve mentioned before here and here, one of the advantages of this system is you encounter these exact scenarios where you see scripture commenting on other parts of scripture, often allowing you to make theological connections that you hadn’t noticed before.

A few days ago, I came across the passage in Acts, where Paul encounters some disciples and asks them if they’ve received the Holy Spirit. They don’t know what Paul’s talking about because they’ve never heard of the Holy Spirit. Paul then asks them what baptism they received and they tell him that they received John’s baptism.

The very next day in my reading plan, I encountered Matthew 3 and Shazam…there’s John out in the desert baptizing people! And then something really interesting happens…Jesus comes along and asks John to baptize him.

What in the world is going on? What is baptism all about and why in the world would Jesus want or need to be baptized?

If you’re like me, you probably have been conditioned to think of baptism in a certain way based on the tradition in which you were raised.

If you were raised in the Catholic or Orthodox tradition, you likely view baptism as a sacrament that is given to infants that delivers grace to them and preserves them until they are old enough to be confirmed and partake regularly of the other sacraments such as confession and Holy communion.

If you were raised in a Protestant tradition, you probably view baptism as an event that occurs at some point after you’ve made a personal decision to follow Jesus – a sort of declaration of your intent to follow Jesus.

But what is the meaning of baptism and why are there different baptisms?

The confusion with baptism is likely because in our minds we can associate baptism with the salvation process. If this is true, it would seem unnecessary to have different baptisms.

The truth is that the main idea behind baptism is not cleansing or salvation but identification. In the New Testament, people were baptized as a way of identifying with a message or a person. A few days ago, I wrote a post entitled “Name Dropping in the Early Church” based on a passage in 1 Corinthians 1, in which Paul says that he is glad that he didn’t baptize anyone in that church.

Why would he say that? Because the people were all aligning themselves with different leaders and Paul did not want people identifying with him; he wanted them to identify with Jesus alone.

So if you look now at the passage in Acts 19, we can see that these “disciples” that Paul runs into were not disciples of Jesus, they were disciples of John. They had been baptized by John, meaning that they had identified themselves with John and his message of repentance. Paul uses this knowledge to explain that John’s message was for people to believe in the one who was coming after him, Jesus!

After hearing this message regarding Jesus, they were baptized into Jesus, which means they accepted the message Paul shared and they chose to identify now with this message of salvation regarding Jesus’ death and resurrection. Essentially, they became believers. It is at this point that they receive the Holy Spirit, which is an indication that they are now a part of the family of God.

So why was Jesus baptized? He didn’t need to repent, for he had never sinned. So then what is the purpose of him being baptized by John?

Jesus came to redeem mankind by bearing the sins of the world on the cross. When Jesus was baptized, he was publicly identifying with sinful mankind, whom he would ultimately die for. This act of identification administered by John the Baptist was the formal beginning of Jesus’ ministry and mission to seek and save the lost.

Since John’s message was for people to follow the one who would come after him, Jesus’ baptism by John served as the official transition, inviting people who had identified with John’s message to now identify with Jesus and his message. From that point forward, John would declare “He must increase, but I must decrease.” (John 3:30, NASB)

Finally, Jesus’ baptism served as a means of receiving affirmation and authentication from the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Reflection

What has been  your understanding of the meaning and purpose of baptism?

In what ways has your views and understanding of baptism been affirmed or changed from this devotional?

How would you explain the concept of baptism to someone who has just come to faith in Jesus?

 

Photo by Transformation Films from Pexels

 

 

Posted on

Fake News and Cancel Culture in the New Testament

Luke 23

1Then the entire council took Jesus over to Pilate, the Roman governor. 2They began at once to state their case: “This man has been leading our people to ruin by telling them not to pay their taxes to the Roman government and by claiming he is the Messiah, a king.”

3So Pilate asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?”

Jesus replied, “Yes, it is as you say.”

4Pilate turned to the leading priests and to the crowd and said, “I find nothing wrong with this man!”

5Then they became desperate. “But he is causing riots everywhere he goes, all over Judea, from Galilee to Jerusalem!”

. . . . .

13Then Pilate called together the leading priests and other religious leaders, along with the people, 14and he announced his verdict. “You brought this man to me, accusing him of leading a revolt. I have examined him thoroughly on this point in your presence and find him innocent. 15Herod came to the same conclusion and sent him back to us. Nothing this man has done calls for the death penalty. 16So I will have him flogged, but then I will release him.”

18Then a mighty roar rose from the crowd, and with one voice they shouted, “Kill him, and release Barabbas to us!” 19(Barabbas was in prison for murder and for taking part in an insurrection in Jerusalem against the government.) 20Pilate argued with them, because he wanted to release Jesus. 21But they shouted, “Crucify him! Crucify him!” (Luke 23:1-5; 13-21, NLT)

Acts 24

1Five days later Ananias, the high priest, arrived with some of the Jewish leaders and the lawyer Tertullus, to press charges against Paul.  2When Paul was called in, Tertullus laid charges against Paul in the following address to the governor:

“Your Excellency, you have given peace to us Jews and have enacted reforms for us. 3And for all of this we are very grateful to you. 4But lest I bore you, kindly give me your attention for only a moment as I briefly outline our case against this man. 5For we have found him to be a troublemaker, a man who is constantly inciting the Jews throughout the world to riots and rebellions against the Roman government. He is a ringleader of the sect known as the Nazarenes. 6Moreover he was trying to defile the Temple when we arrested him. 7but Lysias, the commander of the garrison, came and took him violently away from us, commanding his accusers to come before you.]  8You can find out the truth of our accusations by examining him yourself.”  9Then the other Jews chimed in, declaring that everything Tertullus said was true. (Acts 24:1-9, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

One of the advantages of the Grant Horner Bible reading system is that you begin to see how biblical events relate to each other. This is because each day, the reader reads one chapter from 10 different sections of Scripture. Since each section has a unique number of chapters, the number of days it will take the reader to read through each section is different, creating a unique “playlist” of chapters to read each day.

A few days ago, in consecutive days, I read Luke 23 and then Acts 24. I was amazed to see two different scenarios that played out in almost identical fashion.

In the Luke chapter, Jesus is arrested and appears before the Jewish Council, who then take Him before the Roman authorities to plead their case and seek punishment.

The Council leaders create a false narrative in order to see Jesus prosecuted to the fullest. What was Jesus’s crime? Jesus was accused of telling people not to pay their taxes. However, we know this is false. It’s a New Testament version of “fake news.”

In Luke 20:20, the Jewish leaders had sent “secret agents”, who pretended to be honest men, but were really trying to entrap Jesus. They had asked Jesus specifically if it was right to pay taxes to the Roman government. Jesus sees through their deception and tells them to grab a Roman coin.

“Who’s image is on the coin”, Jesus asked.

They replied, “Caesar’s”.

Jesus responds by telling them, “give to Caesar what is belongs to him and everything that belongs to God should be given to God.”

Now here we are, four chapters later and the story is that Jesus tells people not to pay their taxes. In verse 5, the Council’s desperation unfolds as they claim, without evidence, that Jesus is causing riots everywhere he goes.

Later, Pilate declares Jesus innocent of the charge of revolt, mostly because there’s no evidence whatsoever to support the charge. But that no longer matters because by this time, a mob of people have joined in to promote the false accusations, insisting that Jesus be crucified. Pilate, in an act of cowardice and weak leadership, gives in to the mob and allows Jesus, a man he knows to be innocent, to be crucified.

In the Acts story, the names are changed but the scenario unfolds in almost exactly the same way.

Paul is the accused now instead of Jesus. What is Paul accused of? Inciting riots wherever he goes. 

Do you see a pattern here?

After Paul is accused of being a troublemaker and inciting riots, other people chimed in, agreeing that it was true (verse 9).

So, the formula for using a fake narrative to get your enemy canceled seems to be:

    1. Find some powerful or influential people to accuse your enemy of something egregious, even if it’s not true.
    2. Get other people to repeat and vocalize the false narrative, creating a viral effect.
    3. Take the charge to someone who has the power to exact punishment.
    4. Use the power of the mob’s outrage to have your enemy canceled.

A few things I noticed in these two passages:

First, the people leading the charge against the accused are the same, the Jewish leaders. Though they may not be the exact same leaders in both cases, it’s interesting to note that this group of people, who should be the harbingers of truth and justice, ultimately wield their power for their own political purposes.

Secondly, while Jesus doesn’t answer His accusers, Paul speaks out and defends himself (we see this more clearly in the later verses of Acts 24, which were not included in this post for the sake of brevity).

Third, the outcome was slightly different in each case. In the case of Jesus, He is condemned to death mostly because of Pilate’s unwillingness to stand up to the people and do what he knows is right.

Paul’s situation dragged on, not because Felix was standing up to the mob, but because he was greedy and was hoping Paul would pay his way out of his predicament. He also wanted to gain favor with the Jews so he kept Paul’s case open for two years.

The last thing I notice, is that despite the injustice of it all, God uses both situations to fulfill His purposes.  Jesus’s injustice sends Him to the cross where He secures the salvation of the entire human race, while Paul, because of his situation, is able to take the gospel to Rome. Hundreds, if not thousands came to Christ even while Paul was in chains.

Reflection

When have you experienced an injustice that you didn’t understand? How did God use that situation to accomplish greater purposes in you and around you?

What do you think is the appropriate response if you’re being falsely accused? Should you keep quiet, much like Jesus did, or do you think it’s ok to defend yourself as Paul did?

What safety measures can you take to ensure that you don’t unwittingly become part of a mob that unjustly seeks to cancel others?

 

Photo by Joshua Miranda from Pexels