Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

Paul's Family
In today's passage, we read about how Paul's nephew hears about the plot against Paul and averts Paul's certain death.  We don't really know a lot about Paul's family - it's a lot of guesswork from just a few passages, but here's some of what I could turn up:

"It is unclear how many of Paul’s family members were in Jerusalem (vv. 17, 22). The term “son of Paul’s sister” could indicate a man in his twenties or even older, although it is possible that he was younger (see v. 19, where the commander took him by the hand). It is likely that Paul’s sister also resided in Jerusalem. The fact that this relative of Paul may have been present during the plotting against Paul’s life (the grammar can be taken this way) has led some scholars to wonder whether Paul’s family itself may have been strongly opposed to him." [1] (emphasis mine)

"At this stage Paul’s nephew enters the story with his tip-off to Paul (23:16). He was able to get in touch with Paul and even with the centurion because Paul was an unconvicted Roman citizen and had to be treated with due respect. When Paul said that he lost all the things that he could claim from a human standpoint because of the gospel (Phil. 3:4–8), this must have included his family. His father, probably a wealthy person, likely disowned him. But something of family affection must have remained for his sister’s son to take the risk of spilling out the plot of this murderous group." [2] (emphasis mine)

Based on what we know from this story - that his family knew of the plot - and the fact that Paul went from extreme persecutor to missionary, it's pretty likely that Paul's family was set against him.  Jesus said this would happen - as we talked about before, Jesus divides people.  He causes the rising and falling of many.  Paul frequently talks about the physical trials he had gone through, but it appears that considering "everything a loss" for Paul most likely included his family as well.

Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

Roman Citizenship and Our True Citizenship
Some more on Paul's Roman citizenship, since it comes up in today's reading again:

    "Roman citizenship is of special interest to the Bible student because of the apostle Paul’s relation to it. It was one of his qualifications as the apostle to the Gentiles. Luke shows him in Acts as a Roman citizen, who, though a Jew and a Christian, receives for the most part justice and courtesy from the Roman officials, and more than once successfully claims the privileges of his citizenship.
    Paul himself declared that he was a citizen of Tarsus (Acts 21:39). He was not only born in that city but had a citizen’s rights in it. But this citizenship in Tarsus did not of itself confer upon Paul the higher dignity of Roman citizenship. Had it done so, Claudius Lysias would not have ordered him to be scourged, as he did, after having learned that he was a citizen of Tarsus (Acts 21:39; cf. 22:25). So, over and above this Tarsian citizenship was the Roman one, which availed for him not in one city only, but throughout the Roman world, and secured for him everywhere certain great immunities and rights. Precisely what all of these were we are not certain; but we know that, by the Valerian and Porcian laws, exemption from shameful punishments, such as scourging with rods or whips, and especially crucifixion, was secured to every Roman citizen; also the right of appeal to the emperor, with certain limitations. This sanctity of person had become almost a part of their religion, so that any violation was esteemed a sacrilege. Cicero’s oration against Verres indicates the almost fanatical extreme to which this feeling had been carried. Yet Paul was thrice beaten with rods, and five times received from the Jews forty lashes save one (2 Cor. 11:24f). Perhaps it was as at Philippi before he made known his citizenship (Acts 16:22f), or the Jews had the right to whip those who came before their own tribunals. Roman citizenship included also the right of appeal to the emperor in all cases, after sentence had been passed, and no needless impediment must be interposed against a trial. Furthermore, the citizen had the right to be sent to Rome for trial before the emperor himself, when charged with capital offenses (Acts 16:37; 22:25–29; 25:11).
    How then had Paul, a Jew, acquired this valued dignity? He himself tells us. In contrast to the citizenship of the chief captain, who seems to have thought that Paul also must have purchased it, though apparently too poor, Paul quietly says, “But I was born (a citizen)” (Acts 22:28). Thus either Paul’s father or some other ancestor had acquired the right and had transmitted it to the son.
    What more natural than that Paul should sometimes use this civic privilege to illustrate spiritual truths? He does so a number of times. Before the Sanhedrin he says, in the words of our English versions, “I have lived before God in all good conscience” (Acts 23:1). But this translation does not fully bring out the sense. Paul uses a noticeable word, politeúōi, “to live as a citizen.” He adds, “to God”. That is to say, he had lived conscientiously as God’s citizen, as a member of God’s commonwealth. The day before, by appealing to his Roman citizenship, he had saved himself from ignominious whipping, and now what more natural than that he should declare that he had been true to his citizenship in a higher state? What was this higher commonwealth in which he has enjoyed the rights and performed the duties of a citizen? What but the theocracy of his fathers, the ancient Church, of which the Sanhedrin was still the ostensible representative, but which was really continued in the kingdom of Christ without the national restrictions of the older one? Thus Paul does not mean to say simply, “I have lived conscientiously before God,” but “I have lived as a citizen to God, of the body of which He is the immediate Sovereign.” He had lived theocratically as a faithful member of the Jewish church, from which his enemies claimed he was an apostate. Thus Paul’s conception was a kind of blending of two ideas or feelings, one of which came from the old theocracy, and the other from his Roman citizenship.
    Later, writing from Rome itself to the Philippians, who were proud of their own citizenship as members of a colonia, a reproduction on a small scale of the parent commonwealth, where he had once successfully maintained his own Roman rights, Paul forcibly brings out the idea that Christians are citizens of a heavenly commonwealth, urging them to live worthy of such honor (Phil. 1:27, RV mg).
    A similar thought is brought out when he says, “But our commonwealth is in heaven” (Phil. 3:20; cf. NEB, “for we are citizens of heaven”). The state to which we belong is heaven. Though absent in body from the heavenly commonwealth, as was Paul from Rome when he asserted his rights, believers still enjoy its civic privileges and protections; sojourners upon earth, citizens of heaven. The OT conception, as in Isa. 60–62, would easily lend itself to this idea, which appears in He. 11:10, 16; 12:22–24; 13:14; Gal. 4:26, and possibly in Rev. 21." [1]

Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

How God Has Changed Your Life
In our passage today, Paul gives yet another kind of speech - his personal testimony.  Rather than preaching the Gospel straight to the people, Paul most likely knows that they won't be particularly receptive to it based upon their previous behavior.  He does something different instead:  he shares his story. 

We've been doing a series on evangelism in youth group, and as we talk about the different methods for sharing the Gospel, we consistently mention the three tools that are necessary to share the Gospel effectively:  a story (your own testimony), a message (the Gospel, shared in whatever method you confident with), and a changed life (if your life isn't changed by Jesus, why would you want someone else to know him?).  We've been dealing mostly with the message in youth group, going over different methods to share the Gospel, but the story - your testimony - can sometimes be just as hard to share coherently.  In light of that, we're going to do something a little different today.  I'm going to put a "worksheet" below to help you to think about how to share your testimony.  Take some time to follow the instructions and write something coherent down so if anyone asks you how Jesus has changed your life, you can answer clearly and concisely.  Obviously this isn't the only way to do it, but take some time to think it through.   I also should mention that I've shameless lifted this from another church's resources, but I can seem to remember where and Google isn't turning up the right result either - if anyone knows where it came from, let me know.  I hope it's helpful!

Your Story – God’s Story

When Paul shared his faith in Jesus Christ, he often shared his personal experience, his testimony, his story.  Being able to verbalize your experience of knowing Christ to another will help them better understand the Good News you believe in.

Your testimony, your story should be 3-5 minutes long and should address three areas:

-          Before you met Christ
-          How you came to know Christ
-          Your life since you’ve met Christ

Write a paragraph answering each of these points:

1.  Describe your life before you received Christ—your attitudes, your problems, the things you were searching for, etc… (no need to dump out all your garbage though, it isn’t necessary).

2.  Explain how and why you became interested in knowing God personally.  Explain clearly how you believed in and received Christ.  Even sharing the words you used when you prayed to receive Christ can help others  understand how they can believe and pray to receive Christ.

3.  Describe your life since you have received Christ –your attitudes, your perspective on life and perspective on your problems.  In what areas has Christ specifically made a difference?  What are some areas of spiritual growth?  How are you changing? What you still battle with.

Helpful Hints:

-          Center your testimony on Jesus, not on yourself—He is the one who is great.

-          Use a theme in your testimony.  Relate some of the needs Christ has met in question 3 to the needs you had before you received Christ in point 1.

-          If you received Christ at a very young age and point 1 is not nearly as defined, then emphasize your Christian growth.

-          Be creative!  Help illustrate your experience with a story, the words of a song, or maybe a theme from a movie.

-          Begin with an attention getting sentence.

-          Give enough details to arouse interest – just don’t make them up!

-          Use one or two scriptures (eternal life).

-          Finish with a good conclusion relating back to the first sentence.

-          Avoid “churchy” words and phrases: saved, born again, blessed, praise the Lord, sanctified, etc.

-          Don’t be too wordy or beat around the bush.

-          Don’t mention church denominations – these are not important.

-          Don’t give impression the Christian life is a bed of roses.

-          Share your testimony with another Christian friend, or your parents, or your youth leaders.  Ask others to clarify your communication.

Once you have written out and thought through your testimony you will be able to share it with anyone at any time!!!

“…always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks

you to give the reason for the hope that you have…”   I Peter 3:15       

Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

Problems Have Always Been Complex
My biggest thought in reading today's passage is that problems are complex.  The things that we have to navigate today - culture, language, political correctness, etc. - make sharing the Gospel and being a Christian a sometimes very complex task.  How much can you say without being called a bigot?  Is it okay if people think that about you?  Where is the line where you should stand up to people vs. gently and quietly explaining?  It's complex.

The problems in the earliest days of Christianity were just as complex.  In today's passage, we see another  affirmation of Paul's ministry by James, but at the same time there seems to be two standards:  Jewish Christians should continue to follow the Law, Gentile Christians don't need to worry about it. As I said before, we'll see a MAJOR change from that in the book of Hebrews, but that is the case at this point.  So - there is still in reality a HUGE divide between a lot of Christians, so James encourages Paul and his companions to act as Jewish-ly as possible over the next few days while they're in Jerusalem.  Problem:  the non-Christian Jews in the city have heard of that rascal Paul that's going around "telling people not to follow the law and bad-mouthing the temple".  They even think he's done something to defile the temple!  It gets everyone so upset that things come to fisticuffs, causing an uproarious brouhaha.  Enter the Romans.  They see something big going on, but (understandably) are pretty baffled about the problem, being unfamiliar with it, so they just take Paul away.  Confusing times to navigate indeed.

I think that it's easy for us to make excuses for ourselves.  We don't want to share our faith, so we convince ourselves that it was easier back then - everyone basically believed in God, right?  Wrong.  If anything, it was harder:  the Romans believed in A LOT of Gods.  They were very, very aware of and steeped in religion that was hostile to Christianity.  Homosexuality and even pedophilia was open and acceptable in society.  They lived in a society that was complex and hostile to them, just as we do.  Let's realize that.  Let's remember as we read about what Paul writes in his letters as week seek God's will.  Things have always been hard and Christians (other than in the middle ages) have not been widely accepted by society.  Count on that, then decide how you're going to live.  It WILL cost you.  You cannot serve two masters:  you can't have one foot in the world (that hates you) and one in the kingdom of heaven.  Stop trying.

Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

Did Agabus Make Mistakes in His Prophecy?
An interesting question dealing with vv.10-11 from our reading today.  There was a post on The Cripplegate a while back on this issue called "Throwing Prophecy Under the Agabus".  The reason the author is dealing with the passage is a little complex, so we'll just deal with the results of his study.  If you take the time to read to whole post and are confused about what/why he's dealing with, let me know. 

So - the question is whether or not Agabus made mistakes in his prophecy.  Here's what we know:

1.  Acts 11:28 tells us that Agabus is a true prophet and correctly prophecied about a coming famine.
2.  Agabus prophecies in today's passage that the Jews will take Paul.
3.  What Agabus said was true - Paul was captured in Jerusalem.
4.  There is controversy over two parts of his prophecy:
        a. The Jews would bind Paul
        b. The Jews would deliver him to the Romans

Here's what Grudem says about this passage:  “the prediction was not far off, but it had inaccuracies in detail that would have called into question the validity of any Old Testament prophet” (Bible Doctrine, 411).

So what gives?  Was he right or wrong?  The post gives 5 reasons why Agabus was right in his prophecy:

"1.  Nothing in the text states that Agabus got his prophecy wrong. Neither Luke, nor Paul, nor anyone else in Scripture criticizes the accuracy of Agabus’s prediction or says that he erred. [To say otherwise] is based on an argument from silence.

2. Luke’s description of what happened to Paul in Jerusalem implies that the Jews “bound” him in some way. Later in Acts 21, Luke explains what happened to the apostle shortly after he arrived in Jerusalem. The Jews “laid hands on” Paul (v. 27), “seized” him (v. 30), “dragged” him out of the temple (v. 30), “sought to kill” him (v. 31), and “were beating” him when the Roman soldiers finally arrived (v. 32). In Acts 26:21, Paul reiterates (before Agrippa) that the Jews “seized” him in the temple and “tried to kill” him. Since Paul did not willingly go with the Jewish mob (a point implied by verbs like “seized” and “dragged”), they would have had to restrain him in some way as they forcibly removed him from the temple—using whatever was immediately available to bind him. Luke did not need to repeat that detail, since Agabus had already told us that Paul would be bound with something like a belt...

3. Paul’s later testimony confirms that the Jews “delivered him over” to the Romans.  In Acts 21:32, Paul is being beaten when the Roman cohort arrives. The Jews, upon seeing the soldiers, stop assaulting Paul (v. 32). The bloodied apostle is then arrested by the Romans (v. 33). The implication of the text is that the Jews backed away and willingly relinquished Paul into the hands of the Romans once the soldiers arrived. Such accords perfectly with Agabus’s prediction.

The accuracy of Agabus’s statement is further strengthened by the testimony of Paul himself. Acts 28:16–17, describing Paul’s arrival in Rome, says this:

When we entered Rome, Paul was allowed to stay by himself, with the soldier who was guarding him. After three days Paul called together those who were the leading men of the Jews, and when they came together, he began saying to them, “Brethren, though I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.” (emphasis added)....

4. Agabus is quoting the Holy Spirit. In Acts 21:11, Agabus begins his prophecy by stating, “Thus says the Holy Spirit,” and nothing in the text indicates that he was wrong to do so. (In fact, the Holy Spirit Himself inspired Luke to record Agabus’s prophecy in just that way, with no qualifications or caveats.) Those who wish to accuse Agabus of error ought to be very careful, since Agabus himself is quoting the Holy Spirit.

Furthermore, by claiming to speak the very words of the Holy Spirit, Agabus was aligning himself with other biblical prophets...

Based on such parallels, in which God was the direct Source of the message proclaimed, extreme caution ought to be exercised before alleging that Agabus erred in his prophecy....

5. No one in church history accused Agabus of errant prophecy until modern times. The church fathers don’t talk about Agabus much. But when they do, they equate him (in accuracy and authority) with the Old Testament prophets. There is no hint of “fallible prophecy” in their description of Agabus or his prediction in Acts 21:11..." [1]

The author goes on to give some examples from ancient Church writing, but we don't need to do that here.  You get the idea.

So that's it - it seems like a strange discussion to even have in the first place, but it's an important one because it's foundational.  Can true prophecy be wrong?  If the answer to that question is yes, where does it stop?  Does that mean the writers of the Scripture could be wrong too?  True prophecy is just that - true.  Whether or not you believe that prophecy exists today, what you believe about Agabus and whether he was right or wrong absolutely influences your life, because it opens up a lot of other issues, the most important being whether or not the Bible is true.  I think that the post (and here, reposted) have demonstrated that Agabus was a true prophet that spoke the full truth.  Though it seems a bit like splitting hairs, the Bible shows his words to be true.  We can trust the Spirit of God working to reveal truth to us.

Thoughts? Questions? Comments?

Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

Paul Speaks to the Elders
In today's passage we have an important event in Acts:  the only recorded speech that Paul gives to other believers.  I think that one of the things that makes it most interesting is that it is very clear that Luke is incredibly accurate in recording the speech.  How do we know that?  Compare this speech others in Acts, then compare it to Paul's letters.  This section of Acts just sounds so incredibly...Paul-ish.  He has a very particular way of writing (and speaking evidently), using common phrases and ideas, and a lot the things that we read in the Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus) we see here in this speech as well.

One simple reflection on what Paul says to them here:  Paul is very concerned with false teachers.  As a matter of fact, in reading the NT (as we move on soon to the letters) this is something you see over and over and over again - beware of false teachers!  I find it interesting that in the midst of sometimes very severe persecution the main concern is to watch out for false teachers.  Paul warns them:  Be alert!

Which brings us to today.  With YouTube and so many other ways to spread messages cheaply, easily, and worldwide, there are so, so, so many false teachers.  We need now more than ever to be alert and to always be checking what people preach against the Bible (like the Bereans did - Acts 17:11).  There are now and there will always be false teachers that say what people want to hear.  BEWARE!!!!  If you ever have any questions about anything that you've heard, please ask me if you're confused or concerned.  We need to take Paul's warning just as seriously as the Ephesian elders did.  Pray that God will reveal TRUTH to us and that it will change us.

Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

The Gospel Makes People Mad
"Here in Ephesus (as elsewhere, see 5:17; 13:45; 17:5) the root of the opposition was jealousy. As in Philippi (16:19), it had primarily an economic reason, though it was couched in religious and patriotic terms when presented in public. The temple of Artemis was a key to the economic stability of Ephesus, for foreigners traveled there to worship and deposited money in the temple. This had become more significant in the time of Paul since the city was beginning to lose its significance as a center for international trade." [1]

The Gospel makes people mad for a lot of reasons.  The reason today is very interesting to me:  economics.  The Gospel was going forth powerfully and changing so many people in Ephesus that it was actually disrupting trade!  With the coming of the One True God, people were forsaking their idols, a major industry in that city.  In short, people were made because the Truth of God was causing them to lose money.

I can't help me compare this to slavery in the US (and around the world).  For centuries it was known and seen that the Gospel gave people a basic sense of human dignity:  if all men are made in the image of God, all are valuable.  Yet this truth was suppressed, twisted, and denied for the sake of money.  People didn't want the eternal truth because it threatened their temporal wealth.

Scary thought, huh?  Money can be a trap.  Are we willing to lose all things in order to gain Christ?  Most throughout history have NOT been.  Heed this warning.

Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

An Epic Beatdown
I love Matt Chandler's short explanation of this passage:  Enjoy!

Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

Historical Background for Acts 18:18
The vow mentioned in Acts 18:18 indicates that Paul was most likely under a "Nazirite Vow".  It's likely that Paul made the vow while encountering danger in Corinth, and here ends the vow and cuts his hair in thankfulness for the protection God gave him.  Here's some background the Nazirite vow:

"Although chronologically not the first biblical reference to the subject, the rules for the Nazirite outlined in Nu. 6 provide the fullest and most convenient basis for discussion. The legislation has three sections.

a. Prohibitions

(i) The Nazirite had to abstain from wine and intoxicating drinks, vinegar and raisins. This may have been aimed at safeguarding the integrity and holiness of the Nazirite from possession by a spirit other than that of Yahweh (cf. Pr. 20:1). Like an officiating priest, the Nazirite renounced wine so as the more worthily to approach God. R. Kittel, however, sees in the abstention a protest against Canaanite culture, and a desire to return to nomadic customs (Geschichte des Volkes Israel6, 2, 1925, p. 250).
(ii) He must not cut his hair during the time of consecration (cf. nāzîr = ‘unpruned vine’, Lv. 25:5, 11). The hair was regarded as the seat of life, ‘the favourite abode of spirits and magical influences’, to be kept in its natural state until its burning ensured its disappearance without fear of profanation.
(iii) He must not go near a dead body, even that of his nearest relation, a prohibition which applied also in the case of the high priest.

b. Violation

If the last-named rule were inadvertently broken, the Nazirite had to undergo closely-detailed purificatory rites, and to begin all over again. It is notable, however, that the terms of the Nazirite vow did not preclude the carrying out of other domestic and social duties.

c. Completion

At the end of his vow the Nazirite had to offer various prescribed sacrifices, and thereafter cut his hair and burn it on the altar. After certain ritual acts by the priest, the Nazirite was freed from his vow.
The distinctive features of the original Nazirite were a complete consecration to Yahweh, in which the body, not regarded merely as something to be restrained, was enlisted into holy service; an extension to the layman of a holiness usually associated only with the priest." [1]

Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

Tentmaking
"Tents in those days were either made of leather or of cilicium, a cloth of woven goat’s hair named after Paul’s native province Cilicia. Paul worked on tents during the week (v. 3), probably doing some personal witnessing along the way, and had a more public ministry in the synagogue every Sabbath (v. 4). This ministry is described in familiar words: “reasoned” and “trying to persuade”. In every new city Paul visited, he looked for a bridgehead from which he could launch his ministry. Here it was his trade and his contacts in the synagogue." [1]

"Tentmaking" is a common term used in missions today.  In contrast to the more "traditional" method of missions where missionaries are fully supported by a church and devote all time to ministry, "tentmakers" work a job while doing ministry.  Funds from this job can be used to supplement support from churches back home, or can be funneled back into the community in which they minister to improve conditions there.  Tentmaking ministry is very common in "restricted access nations", countries where it is illegal to do full-time Christian work.  Having a "normal" job allows the missionary to enter the country and remain legitimate in the eyes of the government while doing Christian ministry.

Though we use the term as a kind of Christian idiom (very few tentmaker missionaries actually make tents), it is a principle firmly rooted in the Bible and taken from Paul's ministry, specifically mentioned here.