Category Archives: Acts

How Narratives Work, Part 4

03 Sunday Dec 2017

Posted by in Acts, Preaching, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

Now that one has understood the plot line (and with biblical narratives, the sensitivity to the various levels of plots: the individual stories are part of larger narratives), and has undertaken to understand the look and feel of the story from the inside; there is a need to learn why the story is being told: what is the story about?

There are a few ways to begin to understand the story. Consider what the characters do and say? Does the narrator give explicit comment (and is the narrator “reliable”)? There is a “good guy” and a “bad guy” in the story. If the “good guy” wins or loses, why is that? Look for irony: are the character’s expectations upset? Why did the narrator tell me this story? To entertain me? To change me?

When we read the Biblical narratives, there is always a “strangeness” to the story: we must be changed.

In the narrative of Acts 4 here are some observations:

In verses 13, Peter and John are arrested for preaching: but the arrest was not successful in stopping the power of the proclamation:

But many of those who had heard the word believed, and the number of the men came to about five thousand.Acts 4:4 (ESV)

The power lay in the Word, not in Peter and John. Later in Acts 5:38-39, Gamaliel puts his finger on the issue:

38 So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail; 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,Acts 5:38–39 (ESV)

(Continued in the next post).

How Narratives Work Part 1

04 Saturday Nov 2017

Posted by in Acts, Literature, Preaching, Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

The language of Psalm 39, “O LORD make me know my end, and what is the measure of my days; let me know how fleeting I am!” Has struck me (“I am mute; I do not open my mouth”).  I know the meaning and can see the psychological and emotional relationship between fleeting days and anger — but this time through I have realized there is something much more profound there which I must sound. So while I work through that, here is another matter.

Bible teachers in my world seem to find Paul easiest to teach: his letters have structures which track in the way we are taught in school: here is a point, some rationale, implication. The elements are laid out as an argument. Diagram the sentence, make the main verb the principle point and you have a sermon outline.

But narrative suffers. I have actually heard men with significant seminary training make silly statements about hierarchies of genre, with narrative existing solely for illustration of the “clearer” letters.  I posit, that such thinking is primarily a reflection of an inadequate education, not a defect of the text.

The Bible is primarily poem and narrative. These texts are just as clear and necessary as Paul’s letters (if you don’t believe me, read Paul’s letters: he seems to find the letters and poems quite useful resources!). However, due to the inadequate education in literature, most pastors (and other teachers) simply don’t know how to handle such things.

My education is first in literature and the law (which is nothing but stories, reading stories, writing stories, telling stories: judges and juries do not believe facts, they believe stories; if I were to ask about you, you would tell me a story).

Here are some tips which I hope may help others in handling a story. I am going to take Acts 4, because I will be teaching through the text. So here are some steps.

The first step in understanding and working with a narrative section is merely to work through the plot points

ACTS 4:1-37

THERE ARE TWO MAIN SECTIONS: PETER & JOHN BEFORE THE COUNCIL AND THEIR RETURN TO THE CHURCH

I.  Peter and John Before the Council

A.  The Arrest

  1. Setting

 And as they were speaking to the people, the priests and the captain of the temple and the Sadducees came upon them, 2 greatly annoyed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead.

  1. The Arrest

3 And they arrested them and put them in custody until the next day, for it was already evening.

  1. What happened from preaching

4 But many of those who had heard the word believed, and the number of the men came to about five thousand.

B.  Before the Council

  1. The setting

5 On the next day their rulers and elders and scribes gathered together in Jerusalem, 6 with Annas the high priest and Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of the high-priestly family.

  1. The question/charge

 7 And when they had set them in the midst, they inquired, “By what power or by what name did you do this?”

  1. Peter’s Response

a.  The Spirit’s Help

8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them,

Initial X-ref: You will receive power. Acts 1:8 and be my witnesses (thus, how this section fits into the master narrative of Acts); and this

Luke 21:12–15 (ESV)

12 But before all this they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors for my name’s sake. 13 This will be your opportunity to bear witness. 14 Settle it therefore in your minds not to meditate beforehand how to answer, 15 for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict. )

b.  The Power of Jesus

i.  Jesus Healed

“Rulers of the people and elders, 9 if we are being examined today concerning a good deed done to a crippled man, by what means this man has been healed, 10 let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth,

c.  You rejected Jesus, but God has glorified him (as God promised he would)

whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by him this man is standing before you well. 11 This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you,

the builders, which has become the cornerstone. 12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

Come back to this latter: Think about what an astounding thing Peter has just said: this man who you saw die a few days ago is not only alive but he actually has power over disease and if I ask him, he will heal people. As Christians, we easily move from Jesus to God (which is a legitimate move, but too easily passes over the fact to all of these people Jesus is a man. To the rulers, he is only a man. This story makes no sense if you miss that point.)

i.  You rejected Jesus, but God has glorified him.

Peter quotes Psalm 118.22. This is a Psalm about persecution and deliverance by God. Peter himself will use this same verse in his first letter:

1 Peter 2:4–10 (ESV)

4 As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, 5 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For it stands in Scripture:

                        “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone,

a cornerstone chosen and precious,

                        and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

7 So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,

                        “The stone that the builders rejected

has become the cornerstone,”

8 and

                        “A stone of stumbling,

and a rock of offense.”

They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

Jesus is the living corner stone of the church which is being built.

d.  The Council’s Deliberation

i.  How do they know these things?/They cannot answer them (as Jesus promised)

13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus. 14 But seeing the man who was healed standing beside them, they had nothing to say in opposition.

Just like Jesus, the rulers cannot understand where this wisdom and power from. However, they are right to understand that it was because they had been with Jesus

Spurgeon in Morning and Evening quotes this verse as a model for Christians (this would make a good application):

Morning, February 11 Go To Evening Reading

“And they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.”

—Acts 4:13

A Christian should be a striking likeness of Jesus Christ. You have read lives of Christ, beautifully and eloquently written, but the best life of Christ is his living biography, written out in the words and actions of his people. If we were what we profess to be, and what we should be, we should be pictures of Christ; yea, such striking likenesses of him, that the world would not have to hold us up by the hour together, and say, “Well, it seems somewhat of a likeness;” but they would, when they once beheld us, exclaim, “He has been with Jesus; he has been taught of him; he is like him; he has caught the very idea of the holy Man of Nazareth, and he works it out in his life and every-day actions.” A Christian should be like Christ in his boldness. Never blush to own your religion; your profession will never disgrace you: take care you never disgrace that.

H. Spurgeon, Morning and Evening: Daily Readings (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1896).

 ii. Peter and John are sent out: What should we do?

15 But when they had commanded them to leave the council, they conferred with one another, 16 saying, “What shall we do with these men? For that a notable sign has been performed through them is evident to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it. 17 But in order that it may spread no further among the people, let us warn them to speak no more to anyone in this name.”

iii.  Peter’s response: we must obey God rather than men

18 So they called them and charged them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John answered them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, 20 for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.”

This is a key verse in considering what must be done when there is a conflict between living as a faithful Christian and some authority which forbids it. See Daniel 1. We must obey God even if it results in punishment

iv. Released with a threat

21 And when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding no way to punish them, because of the people, for all were praising God for what had happened. 22 For the man on whom this sign of healing was performed was more than forty years old.

 

 

Some quick notes on Acts 20

09 Friday Sep 2016

Posted by in Acts, Ministry, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

I was asked whether I thought Paul’s discourse in Acts 20 contain anything normative for the church — in particular, does Paul’s closing require a pastor to not take a salary. These are very brief notes for use and development later.

18 And when they came to him, he said to them:

“You yourselves know how I lived among you the whole time from the first day that I set foot in Asia, 19 serving the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials that happened to me through the plots of the Jews; 20 how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from house to house, 21 testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

This initial discourse feature is Paul giving the ground for his appeal. He will close with a very similar discourse feature. He is establishing (1) his ethical standing to make demands upon the men present: I am not asking you to do something I would not do; (2) the importance of the work: his life was wholly consistent with this appeal. This is such an important charge, that I took every effort to do. By giving his own example in the concrete: public and house to house, night and day, one would abstract – especially in light of the emphatic imperative in the center of the text – the principle that this work entails constant dedication.

22 And now, behold, I am going to Jerusalem, constrained by the Spirit, not knowing what will happen to me there, 23 except that the Holy Spirit testifies to me in every city that imprisonment and afflictions await me.

24 But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God.

 Paul counts his life as of value only insofar as it supports the ministry given to him. Particulars:

Finish well

Finish ministry

Testify to the gospel.

These are elements being held up as exemplary.  These continue the ethical emphasis: I am going to make a demand upon you which I have made upon myself.

25 And now, behold, I know that none of you among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom will see my face again.

This is a biographical statement with temporal and person markers which no one else can replicate: none of us can possibly be Paul prior to the discourse (“whom I have gone about”), nor can we be those who will not again see these men who are now dead. Thus, we know that cannot be normative.

There is an exemplary, repeatable behavior: “proclaiming the kingdom”. This will become part of the core of Paul’s emphasis.

 

26 Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all, 27 for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.

This is exemplary – but also contains an implicit warning: If I did not proclaim the whole counsel of God, then I would be guilty of blood.

The example coupled with the warning makes this an emphatic imperative for those in ministry. This is followed by a second related demand: protect the flock. Proclaiming the Gospel and driving off wolves.

 

28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. 29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31 Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears.

Second person imperative, couple with emphatic clauses & warnings – followed by a warning and imperative.

This is unquestionably a normative imperative for the church, even though spoken in a particular locale. The basis for the normative duty is that the basis for the duty: it is to care for the church purchased by the blood of Christ. The entire church is in view.

The biographical flourish “three years” and “night or day” are not imperatives. However, they are exemplary. The detail drives home the importance of the normative imperative.  Again, this closing is consistent with Paul’s ethical standing to make the demand, and his personal example consistent with the demand.

32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified. 33 I coveted no one’s silver or gold or apparel. 34 You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me. 35 In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’ ”

This final example merely demonstrates that Paul was doing the work not for some temporal gain. Paul shows himself ethically proper by referencing the 10th Commandment (cf. Rom. 7). Paul makes a personal application which is presented as evidence of the prior point: I did not covet. I can prove it: I didn’t even take a salary.

No pastor may do the work for sinful motivation (coveting another’s property). The question you are concerned about is whether Paul’s personal proof of not coveting, i.e., working to support himself in ministry, is normative (mandatory in all circumstances at all times for all pastors): Of course not. Paul isn’t saying that – and the structure of the discourse makes that plain.

However, not coveting is necessary for all Christians (not just all pastors). That is easily provable from Paul’s corpus alone. The actions which are necessary to prove that one is not covetous will be context-dependent (we know this because in other biographical instances, we know that Paul took a salary. Paul also instructed Timothy that is not wrong to take a salary).

This is made emphatic by the imperative to help the weak and the aphorism from Jesus.

The only normative command we can take from this passage concerning ministry and salary is that a pastor could be in a circumstance where he should not take a salary – if that salary would hinder the work by making the pastor appear to be covetous.

But there is nothing in this brief passage which in by means indicates that Paul is prohibiting a pastor’s salary – he doesn’t say that. In fact, the argument only works if taking a salary is permissible. (Saying I didn’t do something I wasn’t allowed to do, or was unable to do, proves very little. I cannot prove my selflessness by pointing to the fact that I allowed the President to live in the Whitehouse.)

And finally, this has nothing to do with the normative determinations one would take from a narrative passage.

Sermon Outline: Isaiah 15-16

25 Thursday Aug 2016

Posted by in Acts, Isaiah, Preaching, Sermons, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

 

9272680133_f135701462_o

(Picture, “War & Poverty” by Kelly Short — I am using this picture because it provokes one to sympathy by seeing the horror of war — is one of the primary effects of Isaiah 15-16)

In reading Isaiah 15-16, I thought (1) How would I preach this passage? And (2) What is important in the manner of its composition: It is poetry, with a great deal of emphatic compression, repetition and imagery. Why is written like this and not as a narrative or as a didactic declaration?

I.  The Horror of Judgment

The overall tone is one of pathos. The repetition insists upon the horror and sorrow:

Ar of Moab is laid waste in a night

Kir of Moab is laid waste in a night

And so on. Every detail of the devastation is repeated and amplified. It is like a series of snapshots of broken walls, bodies and wailing. The destruction is absolute and goes down even to the earth. 16:8-10

There are refugees fleeing in all directions and the terror and sorrow spread in all directions like blood from the corpses:

Isaiah 15:8–9 (ESV)

8           For a cry has gone

around the land of Moab;

her wailing reaches to Eglaim;

her wailing reaches to Beer-elim.

9           For the waters of Dibon are full of blood;

for I will bring upon Dibon even more,

a lion for those of Moab who escape,

for the remnant of the land.

I can help thinking of all the millions pouring out of the Middle East who suffer loss and death and sorrow even as they flee. Any sermon must effectuate the sorrow and horror of the judgment or the sermon will have failed in its purpose.

II.  The Cause of Judgment

Second there is the cause of this devastation:

Isaiah 16:6–7 (ESV)

6           We have heard of the pride of Moab—

how proud he is!—

of his arrogance, his pride, and his insolence;

in his idle boasting he is not right.

7           Therefore let Moab wail for Moab,

let everyone wail.

Mourn, utterly stricken,

for the raisin cakes of Kir-hareseth.

This reminds me of Obadiah 3 (which is interesting when you compare this to Amos 1:11-12 & 2:1-3).  So this horror has come about because of pride.

III.  The Escape from Judgment

Third, this is the real bite in the passage. God has destroyed Moab with a horror beyond belief.  But God mourns the destruction:

Isaiah 15:5 (ESV)

5           My heart cries out for Moab;

her fugitives flee to Zoar,

to Eglath-shelishiyah.

For at the ascent of Luhith

they go up weeping;

on the road to Horonaim

they raise a cry of destruction;

 

Isaiah 16:9 (ESV)

9           Therefore I weep with the weeping of Jazer

for the vine of Sibmah;

I drench you with my tears,

O Heshbon and Elealeh;

for over your summer fruit and your harvest

the shout has ceased.

God loves his enemies: God judges, and yet there is compassion for the necessity of the judgment:

Luke 19:41–44

41 And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, 42 saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. 43 For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side 44 and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”

There is a command to shelter the refugees:

Isaiah 16:3–5 (ESV)

3           “Give counsel;

grant justice;

make your shade like night

at the height of noon;

shelter the outcasts;

do not reveal the fugitive;

4           let the outcasts of Moab

sojourn among you;

be a shelter to them

from the destroyer.

When the oppressor is no more,

and destruction has ceased,

and he who tramples underfoot has vanished from the land,

5           then a throne will be established in steadfast love,

and on it will sit in faithfulness

in the tent of David

one who judges and seeks justice

and is swift to do righteousness.”

Notice this command ends with the protection in the tent of David. This phrase “tent of David” matches (in the LXX) the language of Acts 15:16:

The citation from Amos 9:12 follows the LXX fairly closely, though this version differs from the Massoretic (Hebrew) text in significant ways.49 ‘Precisely the divergence of the LXX from the Hebrew enables the text to be used midrashically.’50 The purpose of this restoration of the Davidic rule is not simply to bless Israel but also ‘ “that the rest of humanity may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things” ’. James adds words possibly taken from Isaiah 45:21 ‘ “(things known from long ago” ’) as a gloss on the concluding words from Amos 9:12 (‘ “these things” ’).51 This addition strengthens the claim that God’s plan to save Gentiles along with Jews is no novelty, since it was part of his eternal purpose (cf. Rom. 15:8–12).

David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, England: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009), 432.

The language of the throne coupled to the tent of David strengthens the tie to Jesus (and all of the cross-references to Jesus based upon this language).

The reason why the sorrow and terror are seen throughout the poem is that God intends to provoke the same sorrow and terror in the hearer. Moab is guilty. The judgment is justice, but it is sad, frightening event. God is calling upon his people to rescue the judged people of Moab.

It is interesting that it is not certain what attack is being foretold:

The first part of the prophecy, 15:1–9, tells of the devastating effect of the disaster which was to befall Moab. As noted above, the actual nature of the attack cannot be determined from the general account here. The major emphasis is upon the effect, which will be that the Moabites will be so demoralized that their only response will be weeping and flight.

John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1–39, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1986), 336–337.

But by analogy, the lesser judgment all foretell the greater judgment to come. This would lend itself, by such analogy to a very evangelistic plea. The tie to seeking protection in the tent of David would strengthen the argument.

God foretells this judgment, primarily to the people of God, to provoke them with both the horror of the judgment and the sorrow of the victims (who deserve the judgment) so that they will reach out and rescue these people by bringing them into the tent of David.

Background on a riot at Ephesus

05 Friday Aug 2016

Posted by in Acts, Greek, Greek Translation, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Temple-of-Artemis

Acts 19 records a riot in Ephesus. The work of Paul in Ephesus led to a decline in the idolatrous worship of Artemis. The worshippers of Artemis took great offense at the declining worship of their goddess and proceeded to riot; but like all riots, “most of them did not know why they had come together.”

Antipater says the beauty of that temple outshone all other wonders of the world:

I have gazed upon the towering walls of Babylon, where chariots raced;
And upon the Zeus of Alpheus
And upon the hanging gardens
And upon the Colossus of the Sun
And upon endless work for towering pyramids;
But when I saw
The divine house of Artemis,
They all did fade away:
Apart from Olympus itself,
The sun never gazed upon such a sight.

 

Greek Anthology, Book IX, number 58.

Here is the record of the riot:

Continue reading →

Stephan’s Speech as Legal Argument/Story Part 3 (and a theory of Hebrews)

23 Saturday Apr 2016

Posted by in Acts, Exodus, Hebrews, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

The perplexing aspect of Steven’s speech comes in the movement from verse 50 to 51. The entire section reads as follows:

Acts 7:44–53 (ESV)

44 “Our fathers had the tent of witness in the wilderness, just as he who spoke to Moses directed him to make it, according to the pattern that he had seen. 45 Our fathers in turn brought it in with Joshua when they dispossessed the nations that God drove out before our fathers. So it was until the days of David, 46 who found favor in the sight of God and asked to find a dwelling place for the God of Jacob. 47 But it was Solomon who built a house for him. 48 Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made by hands, as the prophet says,

49  “ ‘Heaven is my throne,

and the earth is my footstool.

What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord,

or what is the place of my rest?

50  Did not my hand make all these things?’

51 “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. 52 Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, 53 you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it.”

The trouble here is not the Temple as an idol per se (see Sweeney, J. (2002), “Stephen’s Speech (Acts 7:2-53): Is it as ‘Anti-‘Temple’ as Is Frequently Alleged?”, TrinJ 23, NS, 185-210). I don’t think it lies in attacking the crowd because of the Temple. Jesus nowhere decried the Temple per se. 

When we look at the structure of the speech: proposed savior-rejected savior in the context of the people being returned to the land to worship God, we have to see the temple as somehow aligned with Jesus and also tied to the rejection of Jesus (which Stephen contends — and which leads to him being stoned to death): These people rejected, Jesus just as their fathers had rejected Joseph, Moses, and God (by idol worship).

The accusers draw this precise correlation as quoted in Acts 6:

 

Acts 6:13–14 (ESV)

13 and they set up false witnesses who said, “This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law, 14 for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses delivered to us.”

This of course seems to derive from John 2:

John 2:18–21 (ESV)

18 So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” 21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body.

And Mark 14:

Mark 14:57–58 (ESV)

57 And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying, 58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’ ”

So the destruction of Jesus = the destruction of the Temple (in some manner) goes back to Jesus.

Saul was present and the writing of Hebrews:

This leads to something more speculative. The language in this section parallels themes and allusions used in the book of Hebrews. Here are two examples. First Acts 7:44 quotes Exodus 25:40, that the temple was to be built “according to the pattern that he had seen”. This verse is quoted in one other place in the NT, Hebrews 8:5, where the writer draws a connection between the heavenly tabernacle:

Hebrews 8:1–5 (ESV)

8 Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. 4 Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. 5 They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.”

Notice also that the heavenly tabernacle is not made by man (which is a point raised by Stephen). In Hebrews 9:11, the heavenly tabernacle is explicitly said to be not “with hands”.

Stephen’s speech also concerns itself with the wilderness rebellion. The accusation of Stephen’s speech is that his audience has not changed from the wilderness rebellion. And, the wilderness rebellion is a constant theme of the Hebrews.

Finally, Hebrews draws an explicit line between Jesus and the Temple, even referring to the veil in the temple as his “flesh” (Hebrews 10:20).

More parallels could be drawn between Acts 7 & Hebrews at the level what was written. But, there was a man Saul (soon to be Paul) who was present at Stephen’s murder. This event must have been formative for Paul, because Luke records it.

This speech which drew Jesus and the Temple together must have had a profound effect upon Paul. And, while most at present would deny Paul was the author of Hebrews, it is commonly granted that Hebrews was written by someone in Paul’s orbit (I tend toward Luke as the author of Hebrews myself).

Thus, we have a tentative theory of development (and yes, I unquestionably hold to plenary verbal inspiration): Jesus (John 2); false accusation (Mark 14); false accusation (Acts 6); development (Acts 7); unwritten process of development Saul-Paul-Luke (?) – culmination of the doctrine (Hebrews).

Stephen’s Speech as Legal Argument/Story Part 2

21 Thursday Apr 2016

Posted by in Acts, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

THE SAVOIRS/REJECTIONS

At this point, Stephen a series of three saviors who are rejected: Joseph, Moses & and then Jesus. The odd movement here is between the Temple to Jesus

Joseph the Rejected Savior

In verses 9-16, Stephen speaks of Joseph who was sold by his brothers into slavery. From his state of slavery, Joseph rises to ruler and saves the people of Israel. Joseph is then brought back to Shechem and buried in Abraham’s tomb (the only part of the promised land which Abraham obtained was a grave, Gen. 24):

Acts 7:9–16 (ESV)
9 “And the patriarchs, jealous of Joseph, sold him into Egypt; but God was with him 10 and rescued him out of all his afflictions and gave him favor and wisdom before Pharaoh, king of Egypt, who made him ruler over Egypt and over all his household. 11 Now there came a famine throughout all Egypt and Canaan, and great affliction, and our fathers could find no food. 12 But when Jacob heard that there was grain in Egypt, he sent out our fathers on their first visit. 13 And on the second visit Joseph made himself known to his brothers, and Joseph’s family became known to Pharaoh. 14 And Joseph sent and summoned Jacob his father and all his kindred, seventy-five persons in all. 15 And Jacob went down into Egypt, and he died, he and our fathers, 16 and they were carried back to Shechem and laid in the tomb that Abraham had bought for a sum of silver from the sons of Hamor in Shechem.

Thus, the man rejected was their savior.

Moses the Rejected Savior

The story begins with the miraculous salvation of Moses to also rise to a position in Egypt. The story proceeds to Moses:

Acts 7:23–25 (ESV)
23 “When he was forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brothers, the children of Israel. 24 And seeing one of them being wronged, he defended the oppressed man and avenged him by striking down the Egyptian. 25 He supposed that his brothers would understand that God was giving them salvation by his hand, but they did not understand.

Moses is rejected as a savior by Israel:

Acts 7:26–29 (ESV)
26 And on the following day he appeared to them as they were quarreling and tried to reconcile them, saying, ‘Men, you are brothers. Why do you wrong each other?’ 27 But the man who was wronging his neighbor thrust him aside, saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and a judge over us? 28 Do you want to kill me as you killed the Egyptian yesterday?’ 29 At this retort Moses fled and became an exile in the land of Midian, where he became the father of two sons.

Here it appears that the plan of salvation has failed, but God returns Moses to Egypt as savior:

Acts 7:30–34 (ESV)
30 “Now when forty years had passed, an angel appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in a flame of fire in a bush. 31 When Moses saw it, he was amazed at the sight, and as he drew near to look, there came the voice of the Lord: 32 ‘I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob.’ And Moses trembled and did not dare to look. 33 Then the Lord said to him, ‘Take off the sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy ground. 34 I have surely seen the affliction of my people who are in Egypt, and have heard their groaning, and I have come down to deliver them. And now come, I will send you to Egypt.’

The Israelites reject Moses who saved them and also reject God:

Acts 7:35–43 (ESV)
35 “This Moses, whom they rejected, saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and a judge?’—this man God sent as both ruler and redeemer by the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the bush. 36 This man led them out, performing wonders and signs in Egypt and at the Red Sea and in the wilderness for forty years. 37 This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, ‘God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers.’ 38 This is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers. He received living oracles to give to us. 39 Our fathers refused to obey him, but thrust him aside, and in their hearts they turned to Egypt, 40 saying to Aaron, ‘Make for us gods who will go before us. As for this Moses who led us out from the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.’ 41 And they made a calf in those days, and offered a sacrifice to the idol and were rejoicing in the works of their hands. 42 But God turned away and gave them over to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the prophets:
“ ‘Did you bring to me slain beasts and sacrifices,
during the forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel?
43  You took up the tent of Moloch
and the star of your god Rephan,
the images that you made to worship;
and I will send you into exile beyond Babylon.’

This passage is interesting for many reasons. Here are two. First, Stephen notes the prophecy of Deuteronomy 15:

Deuteronomy 18:15–22 (ESV)

15 “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen— 16 just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die.’ 17 And the Lord said to me, ‘They are right in what they have spoken. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19 And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him. 20 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’ 21 And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?’— 22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.

The second point of interest is the way in which Stephen uses Amos to tie the Golden Calf to the subsequent history of Israel:

Amos 5:25–27 (ESV)
25 “Did you bring to me sacrifices and offerings during the forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel? 26 You shall take up Sikkuth your king, and Kiyyun your star-god—your images that you made for yourselves, 27 and I will send you into exile beyond Damascus,” says the Lord, whose name is the God of hosts.

The rejection of Moses was the rejection of their true savior God.

The Temple

At this point, it would seem that Stephen could merely move to Jesus and say, In like manner, you rejected the salvation of God in Jesus Christ. But he does not. Stephen moves to the temple. This is peculiar. The people — who have already and continually rejected God — have brought into the land the Temple (and I don’t see the temple as a negative here):

Acts 7:44–50 (ESV)
44 “Our fathers had the tent of witness in the wilderness, just as he who spoke to Moses directed him to make it, according to the pattern that he had seen. 45 Our fathers in turn brought it in with Joshua when they dispossessed the nations that God drove out before our fathers. So it was until the days of David, 46 who found favor in the sight of God and asked to find a dwelling place for the God of Jacob. 47 But it was Solomon who built a house for him. 48 Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made by hands, as the prophet says,
49  “ ‘Heaven is my throne,
and the earth is my footstool.
What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord,
or what is the place of my rest?
50  Did not my hand make all these things?’
The people have come into the land, built a temple to worship — and yet as Stephen has already said they turned back in their hearts to Egypt and have been worshipping false Gods.

The solution here goes back to Acts 7:7 where Stephen reworks the original material in an interesting way:

The Lukan Stephen also paraphrases the quotation from Exod 3:12. First, note that a quotation from Exodus has been retrojected into the time of Abraham, to explain that the act of Israel’s worship went right back to the time of the Abrahamic covenant. Second, the phrase in Exod 3:12, “on this mountain,” has been replaced with in this place as the site of the returning exiles’ worship (7:7). In the immediate context, “this place” is to be understood as referring to “the land” promised to Abraham (Johnson 1992, 116), but the connection back to the accusation in 6:13–14 (“this man never stops saying things against this holy place”; “we have heard him saying that this Jesus, the Nazarene, will tear down this place”) cannot be missed. First, Stephen again forcefully but indirectly addresses one of the charges against him. He acknowledges that the command to worship in the temple goes back to the very origins of Israelite faith. By making such a positive statement about the temple Stephen creates more tension: “How could the same God command the Israelites to worship Him in this place (indeed, he set them free so that they could do this) and then, at the high point of Israel’s history (in Christian eyes), intend the destruction of the holy place of worship?” (Kilgallen 1976, 39). Stephen’s explanation and resolution of this problem will come later in the speech.

Mikeal C. Parsons, Acts, Paideia Commentaries on The New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 92–93.

The coming into the land was for worship which did not happen.

This leads to the question: How does this involve Jesus?

Stephen’s Speech as Legal Argument/Story Part I

19 Tuesday Apr 2016

Posted by in Acts, Genesis, Uncategorized, Worship

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

First, the structure of Steven’s Speech in Acts 7

THE CHARGE:

Acts 6:8–15 (ESV)

8 And Stephen, full of grace and power, was doing great wonders and signs among the people. 9 Then some of those who belonged to the synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called), and of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of those from Cilicia and Asia, rose up and disputed with Stephen. 10 But they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking. 11 Then they secretly instigated men who said, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.” 12 And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him and seized him and brought him before the council, 13 and they set up false witnesses who said, “This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law, 14 for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses delivered to us.” 15 And gazing at him, all who sat in the council saw that his face was like the face of an angel.

DETAILS:

CONCLUSORY CHARGE:
This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law,

EVIDENCE:
14 for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses delivered to us

LOGIC STRUCTURE:

IF
Stephen said Jesus will (a) destroy the temple and (b) change Moses customs

THEN
Stephen is blaspheming.

Therefore, Ste

STEPHENS DEFENSE

Stephen anchors his defense in the promise of God to Abraham:

A. God’s appearance to Abraham

1. Acts 7:2–3 (ESV)
2 And Stephen said:
“Brothers and fathers, hear me. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran, 3 and said to him, ‘Go out from your land and from your kindred and go into the land that I will show you.’
2. God promises Abraham a homeland
It is probably safe to say that Stephen also implies the totality of the promises made to Abraham.

3. This scene is roughly paralleled by the God of glory’s appearance to Stephen at the end of the story:

Acts 7:54–60 (ESV)

54 Now when they heard these things they were enraged, and they ground their teeth at him. 55 But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 And he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” 57 But they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together at him. 58 Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul. 59 And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 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.

B. Abraham’s Obedience (v. 4)
Acts 7:4 (ESV)
4 Then he went out from the land of the Chaldeans and lived in Haran. And after his father died, God removed him from there into this land in which you are now living.

 

C. God explains the delay in the promise being fulfilled/Covenant of Circumcision

1. Acts 7:5–6 (ESV)
5 Yet he gave him no inheritance in it, not even a foot’s length, but promised to give it to him as a possession and to his offspring after him, though he had no child. 6 And God spoke to this effect—that his offspring would be sojourners in a land belonging to others, who would enslave them and afflict them four hundred years.

2. Acts 7:8 (ESV)
8 And he gave him the covenant of circumcision. And so Abraham became the father of Isaac, and circumcised him on the eighth day, and Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob of the twelve patriarchs.

2. Genesis

Stephen’s order matches Genesis:

Genesis 17:1–14 (ESV)

17 When Abram was ninety-nine years old the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless, 2 that I may make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly.” 3 Then Abram fell on his face. And God said to him, 4 “Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. 5 No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. 6 I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you. 7 And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. 8 And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.”

9 And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

THE SAVOIRS/REJECTIONS

At this point, Stephen a series of three saviors who are rejected: Joseph, Moses & and then Jesus. The odd movement here is between the Temple to Jesus

Martyn Lloyd-Jones “What is the Church?”

16 Tuesday Dec 2014

Posted by in Acts, Ecclesiology, Joy, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Ministry, Preaching

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

In his sermon, what is the church, Martyn Lloyd JonesBegins his definition with the rather obvious point,

The first thing we must say is That it is a gathering of people. Why do I make such an obvious point? I make it because as I read some of the journals and some of the books and booklets that deal with this question, I’ll most get the impression that some people seem to think of the church not in terms of people at all. You seem to think of the church is something that is written on paper, as a confession on paper. I’m not criticizing confessions. I believe in confessions. The church, after all, is not a confession of faith. (51)

But if these people gather and do not believe the confession, is it still a church?

The gathering of people is not something which begins with the people: it is something that begins with God. Lloyd-Jones looks back at the start of the church, Peter preaching:

 Here in Acts the people have become aware of the fact this message is speaking to them directly. These are not people who decided to join the church. They did not decide to take up religion. These are people of been called of God. (53)

What is the first thing they realize? They have been convicted of sin. “They are aware that God the Holy Spirit is dealing with them, and they have been brought face-to-face with themselves.” (53) This makes all the difference. Consider those first Christians:

 Now it is obvious That these people have undergone a profound change.They’re not the people they were when they left their homes and their lodgings that’s morning to go and listen to the strange man to whom this amazing thing happened. They have become different men and women. (54)

What did this change do? How did it show itself among these people?

How do these believers manifest this new life that they have received? And the answer is they do so by gathering together.

What does this mean? How should we understand this fact of gathering?

 Why did the first believers gather together like this? Why did they come together day by day? Why could you not keep them as it were apart from another? I do apologize and a sense for bringing in these negatives, but I’m beginning to think that they’re tremendously important.Let me point out that these first Christians should not come together to be entertained. Nothing to me is so pathetic about the state of the church today as the entertainment that has increasingly come into our services. There are churches that keep going by means of clubs and societies. I know Churches – so-called churches – they keep themselves going by game nights and dances and dramas and various other human activities. That is not church; that is a travesty of a church. That is the world. The world does such things, and it does them very well. But that is not what brought these people in the early church together. (55)

What is it that drove them together? The text tells us: Fellowship was driven by doctrine, by preaching & teaching:

The really significant point about the list in Acts 2:42 is the order in which the subjects are put before us. You notice at the first thing that is mentioned his doctrine, teaching– not fellowship. And I emphasize this because the whole ecumenical movement is based upon the basic argument that fellowship comes first. (55)

Now fellowship will follow, it must follow of necessity, “Because we are sharers of the same life. We belong together. We belong to the same family.” (61)

This sharing of common life shows itself in the Lord’s Table & prayers, in sharing, in joy and gladness. Unfortunately, too many Christians do not see this life as joy & gladness (that is elsewhere). Church as a duty, as an obligation – can that gathering actually be called church?

Lloyd-Jones states the real reason our message cannot be heard is that the professing Christian does not profess joy and gladness in Christ. We do not need an evangelistic campaign; we need the true operation of Spirit which will manifest in the joy and gladness among us:

 This has always been the characteristic of the true church. And when she becomes like this, she AskAs a magnet to those who are outside. When men and women CS with the spirit of joy and rejoicing, this spirit that is invincible, the spirit that knows God and is afraid of nothing, they will rush to listen to us. Joy and rejoicing! How much enjoys there to be seen among us? How formal we are! How organized we are! House set we are! Of the world’s not interested. But when it sees this joy of the Lord and us, it will come and listen to us and ask us for the secret of this amazing experience that we are enjoying. 65

And of course this Life of fellowship and prayer and joy will show itself in praising God.

He does not ask this in the sermon, that is something we must ask ourselves. If these things are not evident among us, we must ask what is the fault? First, the fault must lie in the lack of the Word of God. The fault must lie in our preaching and teaching if there is no fellowship and hope and joy and gladness. For it is the Word and the Spirit which makes the church. The Spirit of God uses the Word of God to create the people of God. Thus, where the Word of God is lacking can we expect the Spirit to be present, also?

The Unsearchable Riches of Christ.7

01 Wednesday Jan 2014

Posted by in Acts, Humility, Leviticus, Thomas Brooks

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

The previous post in this series may be found here: https://memoirandremains.wordpress.com/2013/11/28/the-unsearchable-riches-of-christ-6/

Brooks comes to a fourth aspect of a humble Christian:

A fourth property of an humble heart is this, An humble heart will submit to every truth of God, that is made known to it; even to those divine truths that are most cross to flesh and blood.

Humility is not passivity; it actively seeks conformity to God’s will. Humility does not seek the easiest way but must and will run over the flesh (the nature inclination of human nature) to meet God’s command. Brooks gives the example of Cornelius who sought the word of the Lord from Peter without qualification:

30 And Cornelius said, “Four days ago, about this hour, I was praying in my house at the ninth hour, and behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing
31 and said, ‘Cornelius, your prayer has been heard and your alms have been remembered before God.
32 Send therefore to Joppa and ask for Simon who is called Peter. He is lodging in the house of Simon, a tanner, by the sea.’
33 So I sent for you at once, and you have been kind enough to come. Now therefore we are all here in the presence of God to hear all that you have been commanded by the Lord.” Acts 10:30-33.

The humility of Cornelius actively sought the word of God that he might hear that “commanded by the Lord.” Brooks describes the heart of Cornelius as follows:

We are not here to hear what may tickle our ears, or please our fancies, or satisfy our lusts. No; but we are here to hear what God will say. Our hearts stand ready pressed to subject themselves to whatever God shall declare to be his will. We are willing to hear what we may do, that we may obey sincerely and universally the good pleasure of our God, knowing that it is as well our dignity as our duty so to do.

Brooks defines humility as having the strength to “cross flesh and blood.” In that respect he gives the example of Aaron following the death by God of his sons who crossed God and offered “strange fire”:

1 Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, which he had not commanded them.
2 And fire came out from before the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD.
3 Then Moses said to Aaron, “This is what the LORD has said: ‘Among those who are near me I will be sanctified, and before all the people I will be glorified.'” And Aaron held his peace. Leviticus 10:1-3)

The “natural” response of one in Aaron’s place would be to be angry at God for killing his sons. Yet, when Aaron hears the word of God, that ‘s God honor and holiness matter more than all else.

Thus, humility will seek the word of God (Cornelius) and conform even though it cross the most profound natural inclinations. To think this through further consider pride. Pride seeks its own. It is pride that stands us against the will of God. Only pride provokes us to the insanity to stand against our Creator.