Acts 15:36-18:22; 1 and 2 ThessaloniansI've only managed to read in Acts this week (which is pretty good since I hadn't managed to read at all the previous week....) hopefully now that ds is going to school i can get something of a routine started.
Acts 15v39: at first it seems sad that there was such a sharp disagreement between Paul and Barnabas that they would separate. Afterall, they were a power team and had been working together practically from the time Barnabas stood up with Paul and presented him to the Jerusalem Council after his conversion. But as you go through the rest of the New Testament you can see the truth of Romans 8:28 working. By them separating there are now 2 teams going out with the gospel, doubling their efforts, covering twice as much ground. By comments Paul made later (2 Timothy 4:11) John Mark redeemed himself and became quite a minister, a chance he might not have gotten if Paul had prevailed at this juncture.
(a friend commented: True and he goes on to give us the Book of Mark. :) One thing my hubby pointed out was that he had mission companions that he didn't get along with, but different personalities can reach different people so maybe Paul and Mark clashed together but Mark could reach other people that perhaps Paul couldn't.)
Acts 16v3: I am reading a color-coded, commentated print out of the scriptures for my study that I found on LDSGospelDoctrine.net. The author includes two different commentators on this verse. The one supports what Paul does (as far as circumcising Timothy) and the other says that the act was, "unnecessary and in fact improper." He does concede that it had to be done in order for Timothy to effectively reach the Jews. It was unnecessary as far as the gospel was concerned, but I wouldn't go so far as to say improper, because without it Timothy would have been rendered ineffective in the ministry. The Jewish heritage was passed through the mother, so Jews would have seen him as a Jew, and for him to be uncircumcised...he would have been a pariah. Paul did not circumcise Gentiles who were ministering with him, only Timothy. Paul points out in other scriptures that we are to do what we can -- within reason -- to not place unnecessary stumbling blocks in the path of people we hope to reach (1 Corinthians 9:22; 1 Corinthians 8)
I especially liked the role Lydia played in this chapter :)
(my friend commented again: She was prepared by the Lord. It is interesting that she was a seller of purple. The dye comes from a sea shell and depending on the way they cure it (in full sun or not) gets a different shade. They had a heck of a time trying to reproduce the color. (they had a piece found at Masada). How thick a stripe of purple on your robes showed prestige. )
Acts 17v1: the comment on this verse says that Paul went to synagogues because it was there he would find gentile proselytes who were ready for the gospel. I think that is only half the reason. Paul continued to reach out to the Jews first with the gospel. He knew scripture -- that salvation was of the Jews (John 4:22), and through them would all the nations be blessed (Gen. 22:18; Gal. 3:8). It just happened that gentiles were the more receptive to his message. Paul felt obligated to go first to the Jews, and when they rejected him, concentrate completely on the gentiles wherever they were (Acts 13:46). He did not exclude the gentiles, they were frequently with the Jews, because they were proselytes. But Paul, moreso than the other apostles, was equipped to reason with the gentiles and guide them to the truth.
v11: I love this verse. It gives us a great privilege, but a greater responsibility. We aren't to blindly accept any teaching, but search it out for ourselves and seek confirmation.
Acts 18v6: this is where Paul turns his primary attention from the Jews in this place to the gentiles who are receptive. He would do this in many places he visited.
I was honestly wondering about the command the Gentiles were given to abstain from blood and to abstain from meat from animals that had been strangled...what does it mean exactly? According to Jewish law, the Jews were forbidden to eat blood -- blood belonged to the Lord because the life was in the blood: Lev. 17:11,12; Deut. 12:23
There were two ways of killing animals -- cutting their throat and hanging them upside down to drain out the blood (which the Jews did as part of the law because they couldn't eat the blood), or strangling the animal. If the animal was strangled, it still had the blood in the meat. Abstaining from things strangled would keep them from eating the blood, which would be offensive to Jews, and also probably keep them from participating in pagan rituals.
