Week 4, Day 2

Today’s Reading:  Acts 9-10

Some thoughts from yesterday’s reading…

In Acts chapter 7, we see Stephen’s defense, delivered before the Jewish council.  He was brought before them in chapter 6, accused of speaking against the holy place, and the Law.  Stephen could have spent the time trying to defend himself personally, but instead he gave a defense of the Gospel!  In the giving of this defense, Stephen gave the council enough information to teach them what they had to do to be pleasing to  God.

One thing that is interesting to note in this chapter is where Stephen started this defense.  He went back to the time of Abraham, and worked his way through the history of the Old Testament, laying out the prophecies that pointed to the Messiah.  In doing that, he was showing that Christ was indeed the Messiah of prophecy, and that He was the one that these Jews should have been listening to.  Stephen was able to do this because these people knew the prophecies, they knew the Old Testament characters that he was discussing.  As we continue through the book of Acts, we will see the evangelists start at different places.  To the Gentiles, who were unfamiliar with these prophecies and characters, the logical method that Stephen used here would be far less effective.  These things would have meant less to them, than it did to these Jews.

What we learn from this is that we have to start teaching a person wherever they are.  If a person already believes that the Bible is the word of God, then we don’t have to spend time proving that before teaching the gospel message.  But, if we are starting to teach a person who is an athiest, or an agnostic, then we have to start by supplying enough evidence to support the very existence of God before it will be beneficial to try and teach the gospel message.  There is no “one way” to teach the gospel to a person.  That is not to say that there is more than one gospel.  The gospel message is the same, but how we approach a person, and at what point we actually start with a person may change.

At the end of chapter 7, we also see the reaction to Stephen’s sermon.  In chapter 2, we saw a group of people who were “cut to the heart” by the gospel message, and they obeyed, putting on Christ in baptism.  In this chapter, the result was not they same.  They were still “cut to the heart” by the gospel message, but instead of being obedient, they turned on the messenger.  They attacked Stephen, and stoned him to death.  In each of these cases, the gospel accomplished its purpose.  It convicted the hearts of the hearers.  Even today, the gospel will accomplish the same thing.  When presented, the gospel will make a person examine themselves, and either accept or reject the message.

Unfortunately, Stephen lost his life in this instance.  But, he was willing to bravely, and forcefully teach the truth to those assembled before him.  He could have toned down the message so that they would not be so unhappy with him, but instead, he continued on, knowing that his safety, if not his life were in danger.  How often do we back down from teaching the truth just because we might lose a friend?  This makes our fears seem a bit insignificant!

Popularity: 100% [?]

Week 4, Day 1

Today’s Reading:  Acts 7-8

Some thoughts from Friday’s reading…

In the beginning of Acts 5, we see the account of Ananias and Sapphira.  I think that many people miss the point of this account.  They think it is only about God’s punishment.  It has much to do with the idea of God’s punishment, but there is a much more important message.  The message we should take from this account is that God demands that things be done His way.  He insists that we conform our ways to His, and not try to conform God (or His will) to our ideas.

There are two accounts, both falling at the very beginning of God giving a law, that seem to be somewhat parallel in their nature.  In Leviticus 10, we have the account of Nadab and Abihu.  There, God struck the two priests dead with fire from heaven because they refused to do just as God commanded them to do.  They presumed to do something outside of what had been commanded.  They offered “strange fire” before the Lord.  In that passage, God told Moses and Aaron:

‘By those who come near Me

I must be regarded as holy;

And before all the people

I must be glorified.’ ”

This law was something that would never change, and is indeed a part of our service before God today.  We must regard God as holy, which will ensure that we do just as He demanded.  If we think that God is holy, how can we be so presumptuous as to think that we can do things our own way?

When we get to Acts 5, we see the New Testament example of God making the point that He had to be considered as holy.  These two, Ananias and Sapphira, had the opportunity to do something good, and they decided rather to succumb to their own pride.  Rather than just sell their possession, and give to the poor, they decided to keep some of the money and lie about it.  They didn’t have to sell their possession.  They didn’t have to give all of the money away, if they didn’t want to.  They could not lie about what they were doing, and still be pleasing to God.  What is interesting in the New Testament account is that the specific commands were not given.  There was no instruction on just what they had to do, or didn’t  have to do.  But, there were certainly some moral instructions that would cover the principles that were violated by Ananias and Sapphira.  They lied to their brethren, and to the Holy Spirit!  By striking them dead, God made the point that the early church were to treat Him as holy.  They had to listen to God’s instruction and follow it just as He required.

We must always remember that God is holy.  If we are going to be holy, we have to become like Him.  To do that, we have to heed His word.  Every time we are faced with a choice about temptation, or withstanding trials, we must choose the right way.  God does not strike us down dead for disobedience today, but we know that He does punish.  This account does convey that idea as well.  God is willing to punish if we are disobedient to Him.  Punishment is the consequence for not regarding God as holy.  It is the consequence for disobedience.  So, even if we are not punished now for disobedience, we must be aware that God will punish us in the end.  We don’t want to have to face that!  Regard God as holy, and be obedient to Him!

Popularity: 19% [?]

Week 3, Day 5

Today’s Reading:  Acts 5-6

Some thoughts from yesterday’s reading…

As I read through Peter’s second gospel sermon (at least as it is recorded for us following the establishing of the church), I thought of how Peter may have been treated, even by Christians, if he were preaching to us today.  If we take a look at what Peter has to say in Acts chapter 3, we have to admit that he was being neither soft, nor particularly concerned about whether he “offended” those who were listening to him.  He spoke the truth very bluntly, without pulling any punches.  When he got done, the people listening could not have missed his point!  He told them that they had denied the son of God, and that they had delivered Him up to be crucified.  He told them that they had asked for a murderer to be released to them so that an innocent man could be killed.  He told them that they were acting in ignorance.  He told them that they had to repent if they had any hope of redemption to God.  He called them sinners.

How would most people react to Peter’s sermon today?  Judging from what I have seen and experienced, I think most people would become angry with Peter.  They wouldn’t become angry like those who heard Stephen later on, or even those who became angry in chapter 4, who arrested Peter and John.  Rather, people today (especially many Christians) would become angry because of the “way Peter said what he said.”  That is, they would claim that they agreed with all that he said, but then complain that he didn’t say it in a “very Christ-like manner.”

The sad truth is that far too many people have become “watered down” Christians.  They are unable to take the plain teaching that was the marquee of the New Testament era preacher, and which was the nature of preachers of the gospel in by-gone eras, even in this country.  In many places, the preacher is restrained from identifying any kind of error because it might “offend” someone.  They are not permitted to address denominational concepts because a visitor might not like to hear that.  They are not allowed to address false teaching because someone might be offended.  They are not allowed to address immorality because someone might have their toes stepped on.  And so many preachers adapt to preaching a watered down gospel, which leads to even more watered down Christians!

I think that we need to learn the lesson of this plain teaching in Acts 3.  First, for those who teach, we need to learn to do so plainly.  We need not hold back the truth for fear of offending someone.  We don’t need to try and be mean, but we also should not hold back becasue someone will invariably accuse us of being mean when we speak the truth.  Secondly, for those who hear, one should not be so “watered down” in their Christianity as to be offended by the truth.  The idea that we agree with what is said, but complain about how it is said is a diversionary tactic that harms the reputation of the one teaching the truth, and reflects that we are too easily offended.  Often (if I may make a more personal application here) when I find myself thinking that someone has been “mean” in their presentation, it is because they have stepped on my toes.  I act like it is OK to tell me I am wrong, until I am told that I am wrong!  That should never be the case.

The gospel message was taught clearly, and plainly in the first century, and it achieved its purpose.   A person was given the opportunity to accept the message and change their life, or reject the message and remain in sin.  Taught plainly, it will accomplish the same thing today.  We should not “water down” the message, else we will end up not really giving people the fair opportunity they deserve to accept or reject God’s message.  So, let’s speak plainly, and not be easily offended just because we don’t like the way we are told something!

Popularity: unranked [?]

Week 3, Day 4

Today’s Reading:  Acts 3-4

Some thoughts from yesterday’s reading…

There is an interesting passage at the end of Acts chapter 1, which describes the replacement of Judas as one of the apostles.  There were a few conditions that were established to identify (or qualify) those who could be the replacement.  Peter said that they had to choose from among those who had been with Jesus and the apostles the whole time.  The qualified person also had to be a witness of the resurrected Christ.  With these qualifications, they narrowed down the options to two men:  Justus and Matthias.  The apostles then left it up to God to choose the one who would join the number of the apostles.  They cast lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias.

There are several things that are very interesting about this passage.  First, consider that the qualifications identified in this passage would make it impossible for there to be modern “apostles” today.  There were not going to be other men who would continually replace these men as apostles throughout all time.  In fact, after the appointing of the apostle Paul (who was chosen specifically by Christ) there were no more apostles appointed.  When we hear about religions that have apostles, we know that they are outside the confines of the New Testament pattern.  The only apostles that we need are those from the first century.  God delivered the whole gospel message through those men, and there is no further need for living apostles.  God is not giving any further revelation!

The second thing that I find interesting in this passage is the practice of casting lots.  There is not a lot of historical, or archaeological evidence to explain exactly what this practice entailed.  It seems that it was a wide spread practice, which may have varied based on the culture that one lived in.  Under most “normal” circumstances, it was a method of making decisions that was ultimately based upon chance.  However, when God was involved, it was a way for God to communicate His will.  That is the case here.  God revealed, through the casting of lots, which of these men was supposed to be the man to replace Judas.

There is much more in these chapters that is interesting.  How could I, as a preacher, pass up on that first gospel sermon?  What do you find interesting in these chapters?

Popularity: unranked [?]

« Previous Page