We boarded a ship from Adramyttium about to sail for ports along the coast of the province of Asia, and we put out to sea. Aristarchus, a Macedonian from Thessalonica, was with us. – Acts 27:2

Today's Scripture Reading (May 18, 2024):  Acts 27

For me, one of the most significant passages of the Book of Acts occurs very early in Luke's tale of the emerging first-century Christian Church. Luke says that

They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved (Acts 2:42-47).

The phrase that I find so intriguing is that these Christians "enjoyed the favor of the people." If there is a significant difference between the contemporary church and the emerging one in the first century, this might be it. In the first century, the church found favor with the secular community. They were supported even by non-believers, and maybe we need to ask why that often doesn't seem true of the contemporary church. Not only is Luke's statement not true with today's church, but the modern church often seems to take its conflict with the surrounding culture as a badge of honor. After all, didn't Jesus say the world would hate us because of our faith?

The problem is that, too often, the world does not hate us because of our Christian faith but because of our ignorant actions toward the surrounding community. In other words, we are not hated because we believe in Jesus but because of our hate, which is directed outward toward the community; hate when it should be love.

The favor of the surrounding culture is not an artifact that is present at the beginning of Luke's story but dissipates as the tale progresses. It is present throughout the story. So, as we approach the end of the tale, we find that Paul is arrested, and even though the officials judging Paul have found no fault in him, they are preparing to send him as a prisoner to Rome. The problem is that Paul, as he had done several times before, has made an appeal to be judged by Rome, as was his right as a Roman Citizen. Because of the plea, he cannot be released.

What seems critical in the story is that Paul has made enough of an impact on those holding him that they are allowing Aristarchus from Thessalonica and Luke to travel with him. Paul was not being forced to make this journey alone as many others would have been; he had found the favor of his captors and would be allowed to be accompanied by his friends as he made what amounts to his next missionary journey.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Acts 28

King Agrippa, I consider myself fortunate to stand before you today as I make my defense against all the accusations of the Jews, and especially so because you are well acquainted with all the Jewish customs and controversies. Therefore, I beg you to listen to me patiently. – Acts 26:2-3

Today's Scripture Reading (May 17, 2024):  Acts 26

Tahir sat in a state of total shock. The wailing of his wife reached his ears, but he was helpless to respond to her or even look at the too-tranquil face of his beloved only child, Bashir! What a joy the eight-month-old baby had been to the whole family! Bashir was Tahir's parent's first grandchild. How could any of them have guessed their happiness would be so short-lived? Just three days previously, the baby had developed diarrhea. His bowel movements and vomiting had been uncontrollable. Bashir had died in the early hours of this morning. Tahir now faced a problem he had never anticipated. He and his wife had very recently become followers of Hazrat Isa (Jesus Christ). Would it be right for them to bury their son in the old Islamic way? Should they pray the Muslim burial prayer over his body? If not, what should they do? How do people who follow the path of Hazrat Isa bury their dead?

In these times, people seem to want to fall back on their God and the comforts of their belief. When a loved one dies, people turn to the church, sometimes to a pastor, even if it is one that they have never met. They need to hear the words of comfort from someone.

It is hard for us to imagine the pain Tahir was going through. We live in a country where churches are everywhere, where it seems that even the most hostile or agnostic person knows something of Hazrat Isa. But that is just an illusion. Jesus is no more accessible for many in North America than he is in third-world countries. We are surrounded by people who know nothing of Jesus Christ. Our message is important because it is genuine and filled with hope.

Tahir's story didn't happen in this country, but it could have. What do you do when you are a stranger in a new and frightening land, and all of the usual customs are no longer appropriate to your new place of residence?

Yet, this is precisely where Israel seemed to spend most of its history. They were strangers in a strange land, surrounded by people who didn't believe in their God. Israel was destined to live at the crossroads of the ancient world. They lived on the pathway where massive empires walked as they fought their wars against each other. They were quite literally door mats, an inconsequential country one went through to get to the essential places.

To a modern observer, even one who is not a Christian, it is not surprising that they developed a doctrine of the Messiah, the one who would come and deliver them and their children from a life of oppression. The Messiah would be someone like King David, who had made them into a mighty empire of which others had to be careful. A Messiah would come and keep their children safe, giving the nation hope for the future.

It was these customs and controversies to which Paul refers and what King Agrippa understands. Jesus was the Messiah, and now was time for Agrippa to hear the testimony of the Messiah straight from the mouth of Paul.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Acts 27

Three days after arriving in the province, Festus went up from Caesarea to Jerusalem. – Acts 25:1

Today's Scripture Reading (May 16, 2024):  Acts 25

The orderly transfer of power in the West is a remarkable thing. And while it is the norm among the leading democratic nations, it is by no means guaranteed. Disappointment in an election is often evident. We may believe that the opposing party isn't as good as the one we support, yet we allow the leadership change to happen anyway.

The democracies that I am most familiar with are in North America, but I suspect what I am about to say is true for most Western Democracies. There is a significant and predictable divide regarding who votes for which party. In the United States, there are Red states that reliably vote Republican and Blue states that vote for the Democratic Party. More importantly, currently, the tendency is for large population centers to vote Democratic and rural residents to vote Republican.

In Canada, the difference tends to be more regional. Central Canada tends to choose the country's Prime Minister, and in recent years, they have voted for the Liberal Party. Quebec tends to vote for a regional French party, the Bloc Quebecois. Western Canada often votes Conservative, but for the most part, it is really a reaction vote against the Central Canada Liberal vote. And off they go again. Most of us demonize the party for which we don't vote. There is a truck that lives in my area that flies a flag off the back bumper using vulgar language to describe the nation's ruling party. And the party that takes possession of leadership following another political party often sets out to change some of the things that we didn't like about the reign of the other. But if we are willing to look at leadership objectively, sometimes even those of opposing parties might become great leaders. In the United States, I would never have voted for Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama, yet both surprised me and gave the nation good examples of leadership. I also would have never voted for Bill Clinton, and my opinion of him never did change. Maybe you feel differently, but that is part of my point; despite our feelings, there has traditionally been an orderly transfer of power.

History leaves little doubt that Antonius Felix was a corrupt and lousy procurator. He left the province of Judea under a cloud of accusations and criminal charges that he would answer for in Rome. So, Felix was replaced by Porcius Festus. I must admit that whenever I hear the name Festus, my imagination runs to a character from the television show Gunsmoke. However, the historical Festus seemed to be a capable replacement for Felix and a relatively good procurator, especially compared to his predecessor. But Festus started his reign in a dangerous time. Not only was he standing in the aftermath of the corruption that Felix had started, but he also entered the province at a time when there was a significant dispute between the priests and Herod Agrippa II. Both of these problems played a role in arousing the anger of the people and sowing the seeds for the Jewish War of 66 C.E.

By this time, Paul had been imprisoned by Felix for a couple of years, hoping that some time in prison would soften the Apostle's refusal to pay a bribe to the procurator for his release. When Felix was recalled to Rome, he left Paul in prison as a parting gift to the Jewish leaders. But Luke tells us that Festus, according to his actions, wanted to deal with Paul's situation. Felix's replacement arrives in Judea and goes immediately to the Capital city, Caesarea. But he doesn't stay there very long; after just three days, he makes his way to Jerusalem, the province's largest and most important city. There, he meets with the religious elite who had laid their charges against Paul at the new procurator's feet.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Acts 26

When Paul was called in, Tertullus presented his case before Felix: "We have enjoyed a long period of peace under you, and your foresight has brought about reforms in this nation. – Acts 24:2

Today's Scripture Reading (May 15, 2024):  Acts 24

His name was the Antonius Felix. He was the Roman Procurator of the province of Judea from 52 - 60 C.E. The Roman Procurator had control of the finances of an area. However, for some minor provinces, which would seem to include Judea, the procurator had the power of the governor. Felix made the most of his power. Felix was a cruel man, and he encouraged those who found themselves in trouble to give him bribes. As a direct result of this effort, crime in Judea increased during his time in control of the Roman province. As long as the criminal activity was profitable, those who violated the law knew they could buy themselves out of trouble. Near the end of his time as Procurator, Felix also hired a hit team to take out Jonathan, the High Priest, shortly after Jonathan took office. Jonathan was stabbed by this sanctioned team and died in the Temple of Jerusalem.

Felix was finally removed from his position and taken back to Rome, charged with using a dispute between the Jews and the Syrians of Caesarea as a pretext to murder and an effort to steal the valuables of the inhabitants of the city. However, Felix's brother, Marcus Antonius Pallas, held some power in Rome and was able to allow Felix to escape unharmed.

Tertullus was a lawyer hired by the Jews to prosecute Paul's case in front of Felix. It is thought that Tertullus was a Hellenistic or secular Jew. Hellenistic Jews attempted to combine elements of Jewish religious tradition with elements of Greek culture. As with any prosecutor, he was looking for a guilty verdict against Paul, which would please his employers, so he employed whatever elements he thought would get him where he needed to go. And one of the rules of any courtroom is that you don't want the judge to be against you from the beginning. So, he begins presenting his case in front of Felix, saying, "We have enjoyed a long period of peace under you, and your foresight has brought about reforms in this nation." The words were intended to stroke Felix's ego, but they were untrue. The Jews, as was true with most of their governors, couldn't wait to see Felix leave the province. But at this moment, they wanted something from him, which they would get through bribes or flattering language. They knew Felix didn't care about the truth; he only wanted what would advance his position and fortune.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Acts 25

There was a great uproar, and some of the teachers of the law who were Pharisees stood up and argued vigorously. "We find nothing wrong with this man," they said. "What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?" – Acts 23:9

Today's Scripture Reading (May 14, 2024):  Acts 23

I admit that there are people I find easy to like and others with whom finding the positive is a bit more of a challenge. I also understand that I see the world through glasses that are unique to me. And sometimes, that causes a level of conflict. One of those areas is Black Lives Matter. The BLM movement has been a topic of conversation over the past few years, and I often find myself on what seems to be the wrong side. I get it; some unsavory people are committed to the movement, but I find that I have an easier time overlooking that fact than some of my friends. Yes, I agree with them that All Lives Matter, but I also understand that Black people in North America have more of an uphill battle than some of the rest of us. And they are not alone. I think we also need to be reminded that First Nations Lives Matter. It will take more effort to lift the lives of Black and First Nations people than maybe others of European descent. People disagree with me, a reaction with which I am okay. I recognize that while I wear my glasses, they also wear theirs. We all see the world slightly differently and are hurt or encouraged by our experiences with different people.

Our belief systems also influence us. I am a fiscal conservative, so I am more likely to approve of other conservatives than I am people with a different philosophical outlook. It is just the way that we are made. I do not believe that any of us are genuinely objective; the only question is the level to which we allow our biases to shape our actions.

Paul has just admitted in his trial that he is not only a Pharisee, but he is also the son of a Pharisee. We have a bias when it comes to Pharisees because we remember all of the arguments that Jesus had with them, calling them, among other things, whitewashed tombs. However, among the various groups in Israel during that era, the Pharisees were the group bound to the Bible to the most significant degree. The Pharisees were the Fundamental, Back-to-the-Bible movement of the first century. So, Paul admitting that he was a Pharisee and the son of a Pharisee meant that he took the Tanakh (the Old Testament) seriously. And that got those who were wearing similar glasses on his side.

The Sadducees were a more liberal version of the Pharisees. The two groups seldom agreed and often fought over their disagreements. Paul's comment had set up a fight between these two groups. With their glasses firmly in place, the Pharisees saw Paul as an innocent man who needed to be defended. This belief would change, but the Pharisees were on Paul's side for now. The Sadducees now saw Paul as an enemy who needed to be disciplined. However, part of what both groups were seeing had grown straight out of their different biases and colored glasses.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Acts 24

I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. I studied under Gamaliel and was thoroughly trained in the law of our ancestors. I was just as zealous for God as any of you are today. – Acts 22:3

Today's Scripture Reading (May 13, 2024):  Acts 22

One of my struggles with our contemporary understanding of heritage is trying to figure out where I fit in. My last name indicates a connection with Ireland. And I make the most of my Irish heritage, but the truth is that I am not Irish. I have never even set foot on the Emerald Isle, although I would like to visit the island of my ancestors someday. I also have English, Scottish, and Dutch heritage and am of German descent through my mother's family. But I am none of these things. My family emigrated to North America generations ago. I am not a member of the First Nations, but my family was among some of the first Europeans to appear in the New World.

I was born in the Eastern portion of North America but traded the east for the west very early in my life. As a result, I identify as a Westerner. Western values and morals have influenced my political and social beliefs. My ancestors lived in the United States when it was still a British colony and moved north to Canada before Canada was an independent nation. My family has lived on the North American continent for the better part of four centuries. Who am I? Sometimes, I am unsure if I have an answer to that question.

Paul admits that he was not born in Judea. He was born in Tarsus, a city in what today is Southern Turkey. But he identified as a Jew. He argues that he was brought up in Jerusalem and not in Turkey. He studied at the feet of Gamaliel, one of Israel's most respected rabbis and teachers. And he was zealous for the God of the Jews. He needs to make the point that he was as much a Jew as anyone who was sitting in judgment over him. Paul is saying, I am not a foreigner; I understand and follow the same laws you follow.

All of this goes to the heart of the charges made against Paul.

When the seven days were nearly over, some Jews from the province of Asia saw Paul at the temple. They stirred up the whole crowd and seized him, shouting, "Fellow Israelites, help us! This is the man who teaches everyone everywhere against our people and our law and this place. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple and defiled this holy place." [They had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian in the city with Paul and assumed that Paul had brought him into the temple] (Acts 21:27-29).

Paul responds that none of this is true. He might have been born outside of Israel, but he identifies as a Jew. Who Paul is at the core of his being is a Jew, and everything that Paul did as an apostle of Christ, Paul does as a Jew. Therefore, he is innocent of the charges brought against him.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Acts 23

When we heard this, we and the people there pleaded with Paul not to go up to Jerusalem. – Acts 21:12

Today's Scripture Reading (May 12, 2024):  Acts 21

Agabus has delivered a message to Paul. If he goes to Jerusalem, he will be arrested, and Paul must be prepared for that outcome. I have argued that this is a message from God and not a warning, but that doesn't mean that some who heard the message didn't take it as a warning. Some would argue that Paul should not go to Jerusalem. However, Paul listened to the message, and I am not sure that anyone who knew Paul believed that the apostle could be deterred from making the important journey to the Jewish Capital, even if they wished he would stay away.

This is one of the famous "we" passages in Acts. Acts was written by Luke, the Doctor and sometimes missionary companion of Paul. Acts is filled with secondhand passages that Luke has heard from others. However, there are also several passages where Luke makes it clear that he witnessed these events. This is one of those passages. Dr. Luke was present when Agabus delivered his message; he was part of the chorus of we. I can't prove it, but I think Philip the Evangelist was also a part of the we, along with his four daughters. "We" pleaded for Paul not to go. Paul may not have received the message as a warning from God, but some of those present interpreted it as one.

I sometimes refer to this as a "Peter response" because I see similarities between the response of "we" in this verse and Peter's response when Jesus told him that he would die in Jerusalem. Then, Peter said, "No, that is not going to happen." Jesus's famous response to Peter was, "Get behind me, Satan."

This seems to be a very similar moment. Agabus delivers the news, and those gathered there deliver what is really the Peter response. Don't let this happen. Don't go to Jerusalem. However, Paul feels that God has called him to Jerusalem, and so he prepares to go despite the words he has heard from Agabus. The trip to Jerusalem, at least in part, was an essential step in trying to heal the wounds that had developed between the Jewish and the Gentile Church. And there was absolutely nothing in Agabus's message that changed that motivation because Paul believed that God was doing the sending. Paul was going to go to Jerusalem.

It is interesting to me that one of Philip's daughters, who also prophesied, is not the one God trusted with this message. Maybe God sent Agabus because he knew that the daughter's response to the message would be to ask Paul to stay; they would have been filled with the "Peter response." The message from God would have been given as a warning if it had come from one of Philip's daughters, maybe phrasing it as "the Holy Spirit is telling me that you shouldn't go to Jerusalem." At this moment, God needed an Agabus who would simply give the message to Paul to prepare him, but that he would understand that this was a message, not a warning. Agabus would ultimately understand that Paul should do as God told him.

Tomorrow's Scripture Reading: Acts 22