NT Lesson 32
Acts 18v25: "being fervent in the spirit," "taught diligently." These words are used of Apollos when he came in teaching his faith. He was well intentioned and passionate about what he believed, but he was misguided. He was sincere, but he was sincerely wrong. we must be careful to ensure that what we are passionate about is truth -- the whole truth.
Acts 18v26: Aquila and Priscilla are special to me, and a bit unique in scripture. They are the only example I can think of as a missionary couple. The only other couple example i can think of are Ananias and Sapphira -- but they are poster children for what NOT to be! This couple had worked and ministered alongside Paul, so they were experienced and knowledgable. They came alongside Apollos and took him in with them, showing him the full truth. They nurtured him and strengthened his faith in what was right. we are all like this -- each one needs another to be there to come alongside to encourage and correct gently. Proverbs 27:17, "Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend."
Acts 19v3: these men in Ephesus had heard of John and his baptism, but not of Jesus. Not all of John's disciples followed Jesus. They even complained to John when Jesus seemed to have a larger following. This didn't bother John, because he understood what had to happen. I'm not sure why he continued to have disciples after Christ started his ministry. I don't know if he hoped they would eventually see the light, or what. But it seems that to some extent it became a stumbling block to the gospel because John's message had been taught to these men and baptized in John's baptism, and not a word of the gospel had reached them. the disciples that had continued to propogate John's message had not the full understanding that John had. they only had part of the truth -- just like Apollos. partial truth can be as dangerous as error!
Acts 19v15: we must know our enemy, and be constantly on guard. he will attack when our guard is down. we cannot prevail without being grounded in the One who can defeat him. imposters cannot stand, because they do not have the authority. they can talk a good talk, they may look like they walk a good walk, but the enemy will not be fooled! Some of the commentary I read included some information from Bruce R. McConkie (they just gave his name, but no credit to where he said this) and I liked how he pointed out that these men did "cast out" the evil spirits, but not in the way they had intended. instead, the spirits had been attracted to them by their wickedness and receptivity to the powers of darkness. this provided the spirits with a more appealing residence than they had.
Acts 19v24-27: opposition to the gospel was made due to greed and not to loyalty to a false doctrine. i could understand the Jews getting up in arms and crying blasphemy. they were wrong, but i could understand them initially believing that. this man was trying to nip Paul's ministry there in the bud because he had heard of the gospel taking over in the places he had been and this threatened his pocketbook. so dangerous, so evil.
Acts 19v30: Paul saw a tremendous witnessing opportunity and had tunnel vision -- not stopping to consider the situation he was about to put himself in prudently and rationally. God used fellow disciples to intervene and keep him safe. How often are we human instruments used as angels on earth to keep ourselves or others from enthusiastic but unwise actions?
Acts 19v35-40: the silversmith had tried to use popular opinion, public pressure to protect his livelihood, but the town clerk put things in perspective. if the silversmith had a legitimate complaint he could have brought it before the law. this showed the weakness and trivialness of the silversmith's gripe.
Acts 20v7-12: it would be easy to criticize poor Eutychus, but stop a moment and think about the situation. It says they came together on the first day of the week. For the Jews, the day started the evening before at about 6pm, so their sabbath day starts Friday evening. The first Christians were still going to synagogue and having prayer on the Jewish sabbath, so it is very likely that they met together at someone's house to "break bread" after sabbath observances on Saturday evening, which would be considered the start of the first day of the week. Most likely this is when they met because Paul was leaving the next day and wanted to impart to them as much as he could before he left. Eutychus could have been a very active, very involved young man in the church. He might have been very busy about the work of the church that day. Paul can be very wordy at times, and he evidently went long into the night on this occasion. We also see Paul showing compassion toward the young man, so who are we to pass judgment on him?
Acts 20v28-30: Paul warns that people will come, misrepresenting themselves and seeking to prey upon those in the church. That even their own members will seek develop their own followings within the church. Pride is the greatest danger to the gospel in our lives.
Acts 20v32-35: Paul provided for himself with his own hands as not to be a burden on the infant church, and he did not covet anything of any man. He reminds us that it is better to give than to receive.
Mat 6:20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: Mat 6:21
My favorite verse is Acts 20:24:
But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Friday, August 26, 2011
NT Lesson 31 reading
New Testament Lesson 31: And So Were the Churches Established in the Faith
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)