Today we will discuss a few pieces of wisdom from Proverbs 27. Some sections of the book offer extended advice on one topic, but for this chapter I will just comment on three verses.
“Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but deceitful are the kisses of an enemy.” (Proverbs 27:6). I think this is a helpful reminder about the nature of wisdom, whether with human friends or our relationship with God. Love sometimes involves the willingness to say someone is wrong, but being told you are wrong can be painful. That means the friend can be taking a risk to offer that truth. And the pain involved for the one hearing the truth may be in proportion to how much pride has built up for them, how much of a false image needs to be removed. But truth is better than a lie, even when truth hurts. (A proverb can’t cover every detail, and this isn’t saying that a friend should seek to harm when giving the truth. Faithfulness and friendship are already assumed in this proverb.) But on the other side of matters an enemy will be quite ready to mislead while seeming friendly, giving deceitful kisses (perhaps only metaphorically) as they guide someone’s conduct and heart astray. Remember that truth is not determined by how we feel when we first hear it, it must be examined.
When I was at Bible college we used to talk about Proverbs 27:14: “If you loudly greet your neighbor early in the morning, he will think of it as a curse.” To me the application for this text involved the frustration of being up early if you were not a morning person, if someone else was and they were not cautious about their conduct. At college we had added issues to watch out for, like people who had stayed up late into the night studying or writing, or talking about theology (or life). But when I looked up this text to see the views of researchers I found reference after reference treating it as about over-the-top flattery or kindness being treated as a sign of hypocrisy to be rejected. I was quite surprised. Maybe I was just too focused on one perspective, or perhaps I am too used to honesty to think in those terms. Still, it never occurred to me from the text to see the meaning that way. But this is a useful illustration of the fact that proverbs are open to interpretation. Dwelling on one, working it over in your mind, or even sharing your thoughts about it with another person, can allow you to gain insight.
“Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.” (v. 17) This is another proverb that I have been aware of and considered for many years. It brings to mind a late stage in the process of developing a tool, perhaps a sword. It supposes that we all are hardened, we all have gone through some discipline and experience. But seeking to grow with each other we can hone the edges of what we are meant to be. Some years ago there was a theological journal published out of Michigan called Sharpening Steel which took its name from this verse. I believe the idea of the title was that by people examining scriptures and writing about what they learned from them believers would be able to help each other gain new ideas and new thoughts about how to grow and serve. It is a useful principle for a journal but also for how we operate in our regular lives.
Lord, as I finish this week of writing devotions I ask you to watch over the people who have been reading these words. Help them to find the strength they need. None of them are meant to be acting alone. Please, Lord, help the ones that are trying to go it alone this week to reach out to a brother or a sister in Christ and acknowledge that they need more strength than they have. Don’t let any of us be closed off. I feel that this is not the case right now. Let your Spirit work in the hearts of your people. Let the knowledge of Jesus’s love warm us all. May we reach out to each other. In the name of your son I pray these things. Amen.
-Daniel Smead
Questions:
Can you look back on a time when you think you learned something that seemed painful and you later recognized it was true and valuable? Has that changed your behavior?
What do you speak to other believers about? How often do you find time to talk about what you have valued in the scripture? Or what you find beautiful in the world? Or what you have struggled with?
Don’t assume that you must be much stronger than those around you to be able to be of any help – iron can sharpen iron, it doesn’t take diamond. Notice that the proverb is meant to work both ways, are you prepared to be strengthened by those around you? For that to happen will there need to be any change in your thinking or your attitudes?
Paul chose to bypass Ephesus based on an urgent drive he felt to be in Jerusalem for Passover, a drive that may have come from God more than himself. He describes himself as “bound by the Spirit” or “bound in spirit” – he is aware the bonds and afflictions await him, but he is not sure that death is near. But he is sure he will never see the Ephesians again. But Paul arranged to meet the church leaders from Ephesus and gave some words of encouragement and warning (Acts 20:18‑35). It is hard to imagine how that meeting must have affected them. A man who basically shaped their community through years of teaching and healing and tears now said he would never see them again, and that some of them would not remain true to the faith. Their greatest concern remained the loss of Paul. They loved and valued him. The news about their future must have been stunning, maybe even sickening, but what could be done? They had already faced opposition. They may even have anticipated that not all who claimed the name of Jesus would stay true to him. But such concerns had to be for later days.
I wonder what further meanings they drew out of Paul’s words when they looked back on them, not simply as his closing thoughts about his own ministry, but as a commendation about their ministries. Some of his words are so poetic, or they seem so to me: “I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men.For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God.” (v. 26-27). Looking back on it I think this may have seemed less a description of Paul’s own life and more a call to them of danger, for if he was innocent for not shrinking from the task, then that raised the threat that some of them who did so might be condemned for doing so. The image Paul offers of leaders becoming corrupt and seeking to build up themselves is an awful one. I would wish it was presented as a warning to them, something to be avoided, but as with Judas this was simply a prediction.
A note on Acts 20:28: I prepared these devotions mainly using the 1995 NASB, which has the phrase “the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” Clearly there is a problem here, as God doesn’t have blood. Meanwhile you might have seen this NRSV wording: “the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son.” Or perhaps you read the American Standard Version: “the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood.” Why do these differences exist?
You may know that the Bibles we read aren’t translated from a single master copy of the Bible in Hebrew and Greek (with a few chapters’ worth of Aramaic). It would be unlikely for a book on paper or papyrus to survive from the first century to today. Instead we have copies of what was written then. And it isn’t easy to prevent all confusion when copying by hand. You could always make just one copy and destroy the original – but that doesn’t remove all risk of errors, though it removes the ability to check if there were any. F.F. Bruce was a well-known Greek scholar, he wrote: “For Caesar’s Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 B.C.) there are several extant manuscripts, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some 900 years later than Caesar’s day.” People don’t tend to question the text of Gallic War. The text may be wrong if the error got in long enough ago, but we just aren’t going to know.
The Bible was intended to be spread widely. And because the Bible was used so widely and copied for people in so many parts of the world we have lots of copies, way more than for most things – about 5,800 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Having those different manuscripts meant they would get looked at, by language experts who wanted to know if they differed and how they differed. As it turned out almost none of the differences matter. The Church historian Philip Schaff (1819‑1893) wrote that in his time he was aware of only 400 New Testament variants that affected the meaning of a passage, and of those only 50 were of any significance. He didn’t think that any of the 50 rose to the level of affecting an “article of faith” (Companion to the Greek Testament and English Version, p. 177). The figures may be higher now, but it still isn’t something to lose your faith over. There are books (I have one) where committees of language experts evaluate the differences and what they think the situation is for each one.
Back to Acts 20:28, it is an interesting case for involving two options. Is the issue that the text was changed at some point to say “Church of the God” rather than “Church of the Lord” – maybe because that phrase was more common in the Bible and the copyist thought it was what Luke originally wrote? Or at the end of the sentence was a reference to “son” dropped, changing what would have said “blood of his own son”? You can see here what Philip Schaff was getting at. Everyone agrees that Paul was trying to talk about Jesus here, not the Father, and that something got garbled in some of the manuscripts. It is not clear which of the manuscripts has the original intention, but this is not a big issue of doctrine.
The matter of manuscripts and translation history can be fascinating, or it may quickly seem overwhelming. Rest assured it is not an area you normally need to concern yourself with if you are not interested in it. (For myself, with my history as an editor, it bothered me that the NASB had not addressed the issue in the verse even with a note.) As one more detail on this history, by the year 600 the gospels had been translated into nine languages. The Gospels were usually the first written literature of these languages. People were creating written forms of their languages just to better spread the news of Jesus to their people. I find that beautiful.
Dear Lord, thank you that you allow us to know about Paul’s struggles, and not just his successes. Help us to be more open with each other about our weaknesses, our tears, our losses. Let us be willing to admit that we need each other. It is more blessed to give than to receive, but if we don’t admit how much we need to receive sometimes people will not know to reach out. And help us, at least, who know that we are weak, to recognize that as a real possibility for others and offer them support and compassion and patience and time. We are not always hurting, but it is hard to make up for missing the opportunity of helping a hurting friend. So let me be more aware, more attentive. Let me listen with your son’s ears. And help me to speak with his words more often. Thank you, Lord. I love you. In Jesus’ name, Amen.
-Daniel Smead
Questions
Why do you think Paul valued meeting with the Ephesian elders? What are some things he may have been hoping for with the meeting?
If you were among the Ephesian elders warned that some of the group would turn against Jesus, what do you think your reaction might be? Do you think that Paul’s statement may have changed how many elders fell, rescuing some?
What do you think the Ephesian elders did when they returned to Ephesus? What kind of message did they have to tell the regular members? How soon?
Did the discussion of manuscripts and translation leave you confused? If so, I’m sorry, email me with your question (danielsmead1993@gmail.com).
Paul spent over a year and a half in Corinth, probably the fifth largest city in the Roman empire at the time, and in Acts 19 we read about the over two years he spent in Ephesus, which was in fourth place (v. 10; for those who are interested, Antioch was in third). I have seen estimates for Ephesus having as many as a quarter million people when Paul was there. You may not often visualize what it was like in cities of the Roman empire, particularly not in the largest ones, without mass transit or mass communication. Demetrius the silversmith managed to stir up a crowd, which created a mob, that stormed into the theater to complain about Paul. At that time the theater was probably still under construction, its initial seating ended up somewhere in the 17,000 to 22,000 range (the theater was expanded later). When the mass of angry people eventually left most of them were still unclear why they had come. In a mob setting a person could die without ever getting a hearing. You can see why Paul’s friends did not want him to try and defend himself. But perhaps in the days that followed the details filtered out, and God let the aftermath of the controversy give more awareness to the presence of Christianity in Ephesus.
When I read about handkerchiefs and aprons touched by Paul being carried to the sick and the possessed to give them relief (v. 11-12), I wonder about the practical reasons that may have been involved. He was “reasoning” in the school of Tyrannus every day (v. 9). I have to imagine that Paul would have found it difficult to also travel to all of the people in need of his help in that city. So, this solution developed. Maybe someone suggested the idea to him, or maybe he raised the possibility. The description brings several scriptures to mind. But first we need to recognize that this situation is about faith, not magic. There was not some kind of power being imbued into the cloth, and that matters. Taking the cloth from Paul to the person in need was intended as a symbol of trusting that Paul’s concern for the person mattered for them, which really related to the Holy Spirit power Paul wanted to be exerted on behalf of that person in the name of Jesus.
For relevant Bible examples one that is close at hand is Peter in Acts 5:15, when people put the sick on cots and pallets near his path so that “perhaps” his shadow would fall on them. It doesn’t suggest Peter was involved in organizing these efforts. Also verse 16 says that healing was occurring, but it is ambiguous whether this is about people Peter’s shadow fell on.
In Luke 8:43-48 Jesus encountered a woman who had hemorrhaged blood for twelve years and then tried to touch Jesus’ clothes to be healed. She succeeded, and Jesus knew power went out from him but not who received it. That text is well worth a discussion on its own, in part involving the feelings of unworthiness she felt and her not speaking up to Jesus at first, and her great faith that allowed her to seek healing. But she was able to get power by faith without Jesus knowing the details at first – God knew the details and took care of the problem while using Jesus as the path through which God’s power flowed. And in effect it all happened through contact with a piece of cloth.
In 2 Kings 4 Elisha sent his servant Gehazi with his staff to put it on a dead child to restore the child to life (v. 29-31). The attempt was not successful. We may be tempted to link that to Gehazi’s negative issues (see 5:20, 25-27 with Naaman), but Elisha was already following Gehazi and then became involved more personally to help, so while the desire for this to work was there on Elisha’s part maybe he wasn’t certain about the idea.
With 2 Kings 13:21 we have a particularly odd variation on a miracle taking place through an “object,” which doesn’t really fit the theme we are discussing. A dead body was put in the grave of Elisha and came back to life when it touched Elisha’s dead body. I think it likely that we are just not getting much of the story here, and that God raised this person for reasons specific to the situation. Perhaps God used the contact with Elisha’s body to make it clear that this was a miracle related to the God of Elisha, and nothing else.
Unfortunately, examples like these can get taken up in an unhelpful way and be used to support the tradition of “relics.” To briefly explain that idea, sometime after Christians began to be killed as martyrs others began to save remains from their deaths. These remains might be just ashes after they were burned at the stake. The extent of what people tried to save expanded over time, and along the way what people thought about what had been saved also changed. There developed the idea that access to these remains involved the potential for special power, because martyrs were “special” and went straight to heaven when they died – and that being in heaven and with God they were now prepared to give special attention to those who had access to their bones, or hair, or teeth, or clothing, or etc. And the relic system expanded beyond what the martyr had when they died – every one of those handkerchiefs and aprons Paul touched would still matter. The idea also developed that if the relics changed hands the special attention of the martyr would change focus to wherever the relics went. It is striking how aspects of this tradition came to be formalized.
The Council of Carthage in A.D. 401 determined that no shrines to martyrs were valid unless they contained relics of the martyr or were at sites known to be “hallowed” by the saint’s life or death, so all old shrines were to be destroyed unless those rules applied. In 787 the Second Council of Nicea said that every altar, in a church, a monastery, anywhere, needed to be consecrated by a relic. But by then it had been decided that a relic cut into small pieces still counted like the original whole. As far back as A.D. 430 Theodoret of Cyrhus expressed his support for cutting up the bodies of martyrs to provide relics. He described martyrs as the “ambassadors to the universal Lord” and said that the people of many cities gain benefits through them and “when a body has been divided, its grace remains entire, so that a small part has the same potency as the whole body” (quoted in The Oxford History of Byzantium, edited by Cyril Mango, p. 108). On the other hand the idea of moving martyr’s bodies around had not been accepted widely for quite a while, but it seems to have been fine as of 787. The fondness for relics peaked in the 9th to the 11th centuries when there were over one hundred recorded thefts of relics, taking them from one area to another in an effort to shift spiritual attention.
As I wrote earlier, the power that was working in Ephesus was never in the cloth, the power was from God’s Holy Spirit. And there are not thousands of ambassadors of the Lord from whom people can seek to receive assistance, there is one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5). Nor, as the seven sons of Sceva learned, is there power in the name of Jesus if you have no understanding of him or faith in him. His name is not a magic charm. We are to have an actual relationship with an actual person. When we read our Bibles, or even our devotions, it may sometimes feel like we are involving ourselves with a story. But as marvelous and powerful as the actions of Jesus are, and as generous and loving as his actions are, he is not invented, he lives, he is real. He wants to be engaged with my life and your life. Allow him to be.
Dear Lord, thank you again for allowing me to serve you through your son. I look forward to being with you in your kingdom and understanding so many things that I do not understand now. For the moment, please allow me to be patient, to continue to grow, and to be of use where I can. Please help me to be bolder, and kinder. Thank you. In Jesus’ name, Amen
-Daniel Smead
Questions
Some of the people Paul knew may have spent their entire ministries in just one city. How do you think things worked differently for Paul because he moved around so much?
How do you think that Luke’s description of the disciples of John the Baptist in Ephesus compares with his description of Apollos? Does it seem like they believed basically the same things?
If new converts brought out useless and somehow corrupt things valued at 50,000 days’ wages (v. 19) to be burned as a sign of now serving Christ, what sort of impact do you think that would have on your congregation? On your city?
Right after the events of this chapter Paul left Ephesus. How do you think the Ephesian believers felt about Paul leaving the city?
In Revelation 2:4-5 Jesus told the Ephesian church that they had left their first love and they needed to repent and do the deeds they did at first. From what you see in the chapter, what would you guess Jesus might be referring to?
In Acts 18 Luke mentioned several workers active in the Church with Paul, giving background for some. It may miss our attention at first, but we don’t know if Aquila and Priscilla were already Christian disciples when they were exiled from Rome (v. 2-3). They were not just fellow tentmakers with Paul, he highly praised them, and a church met in their home (Romans 16:3-5). We know that Egyptians and Romans were present for the Pentecost event (Acts 2:10), so we should expect that some from those areas were present at every festival Jesus attended and perhaps learned from him all along. Logically people from those areas were present during the time John the Baptist ministered as well. There could have been people with imperfect understandings of God’s plans scattered across the empire, and outside it, waiting to encounter disciples. Alexandria was the second largest city in the empire (next to Rome) and had a very large Jewish population. No Bible book relates events there, so it basically disappears from our awareness. Apollos, from Alexandria, knew about Jesus, his identity and resurrection, but he missed some details involved with serving Jesus – particularly not having been baptized into Jesus’ death and resurrection. Fortunately, Apollos met Priscilla and Aquila and they were able to take him aside and help him by explaining “the way of God more accurately.” This allowed Apollos to then be of great use to those who believed, through grace (v. 27-28).
It is hard to visualize quite what version of belief Apollos was getting by with before he met Priscilla and Aquila. He still valued his understanding as coming from God, and wanted to share it, as John the Baptist had done. We know he was teaching accurately “the things concerning Jesus,” but what does that leave out? Was he still depending on the Law to carry him along? He understood the idea of repenting, but did he have an idea of how he was supposed to arrive at forgiveness? Perhaps Apollos simply trusted God and moved forward, expecting things to become clear. We can be thankful that he did.
Dear Lord, thank you that as your servant I am not left uncertain about being forgiven. Please help me not to put any of the old weight of sin back on myself, let me accept that the past is in the past. Thank you for the opportunity to serve you, in whatever way it comes. Please help me to grow, not to accept staying as I am, but to seek to be more useful for you and for your people. Prompt me to accept the opportunities that come to me which are within my capacities. Help me to recognize your will. In the name of your son, Jesus, Amen.
-Daniel Smead
Questions:
What do you think it would mean for someone to try to live their life as a Christian aware of Jesus, and having repented, but without the Spirit? Do you think there is a limit on how long that would be able to last, or what a person could face and still attempt it?
Does it surprise you that Apollos was trying to spread the news he had, even though it was incomplete?
What do you see represented in the fact that Priscilla and Aquila “took Apollos aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately”? How do you visualize that event taking place? How long do you think it took, for example? How do you think they introduced themselves?
How often do you think about the fact that on a given day your situation may not be the most important, but someone else you are interacting with may greatly need your attention?
Do you think much about the idea that people today are trying to serve God with what they understand, and they are waiting to encounter someone willing to help them see the truth more clearly? Are you living in a way where you would feel open to speaking for Jesus if you meet one of those people?
(Sorry this wasn’t sent out til now…I thought it was posted this morning but it appears I shut my computer lid too quickly, or some other technical issue…here’s another try…)
You can look at today’s chapter as about expectations, being anticipated, met, shifted, and subverted. For example, it might surprise us to read that Timothy was circumcised (v. 3) – we just went over this, and circumcision was ruled out, right? But circumcision was restricted for Christians as a religious choice involving the Law. This text shows it being chosen as a surgical procedure, to avoid offending Jews who believed Timothy should have been circumcised when he was a child. Timothy chose this just to be less objectionable and let the message of Jesus be conveyed better. Paul later described him as a “kindred spirit who will genuinely be concerned for your welfare” (Philippians 2:20).
Paul had intended to revisit the places he and Barnabas went (15:36) but Barnabas set off with John Mark, at least going to Crete. Paul went a different route and was probably quite surprised after a while that God was not permitting him to speak the gospel. When he received a vision calling him to Macedonia (north of Greece) he accepted this and entered Europe, where he hadn’t expected to travel. It has been pointed out that Acts 15 marks a transition point in the mission account when we hear less about Jewish people coming into the Church, and more about Gentiles. Paul could have continued traveling to where large groups of Jews lived, but before long he is in Philippi where it seems there were very few Jews, or at least few Jewish men. It took ten Jewish men to set up a synagogue, and apparently Philippi lacked this, but Paul’s group located a Jewish “place of prayer” by the river – they were often by the water.
One of God’s favorite things may be subverting our expectations, whether by using weak people to achieve a victory, or turning a persecutor into an evangelist, or having us confront our own prejudices. As a Pharisee Paul would have been taught to pray each day “I thank you, Lord, that you did not create me a slave, a woman or a Gentile.” I’ve been told that the meaning of the prayer isn’t as extreme as it first sounds, that the point was how any of those three categories would limit access at the Temple and drawing closer to God. But still, it seems like such a prayer would tend to affect one’s ideas on the importance of people to God. And, the way Luke tells it, as Paul and Silas began their ministry in Europe the first three people they reached were a woman, a slave girl, and a Gentile. (This understanding of the text was pointed out to me in The IVP Women’s Bible Commentary, edited by Catherine Clark Kroeger and Mary J. Evans.)
While Lydia was likely wealthy, since she was selling a luxury item like purple cloth, it seems that the Jewish community in Philippi lacked political influence. The owners of the slave girl who was helped by Paul were willing to unjustly push around her houseguests, though they did gather a crowd before going to the authorities with their claims. Paul didn’t seem important to them, and these officials were all too ready to accept the accusation that he was proclaiming customs it wasn’t lawful for Romans to accept or observe.
After the earthquake struck and opened the prison doors the jailer was ready to kill himself because when a prisoner escaped a Roman jailer’s custody he was subject to whatever sentence that prisoner was to receive – with so many prisoners in his jail he must have thought it impossible to survive the collective punishments. In this story Paul and Silas seem like Joseph in a night, so impressing their fellow prisoners with their songs and their attitudes that they managed to convince them to behave according to their best selves in the situation and wait to learn what would happen. Or perhaps the other prisoners were cowed and afraid, like the sailors on Jonah’s ship in the middle of the turmoil, and they, too, had asked what they needed to do to be saved. Whatever the exact situation, when the jailer learned they all were still there he was ready to accept that Paul and Silas were falsely accused. And in the morning the local officials were likewise prepared to accept that a wrong had been done, but they wanted it to be swept aside. This is one of several times that Paul’s Roman citizenship benefited him, and it makes you wonder how government officials were so careless about not checking in advance who they might be abusing. The initial order for release may have been due to fear, related to the earthquake, or it may have been recognition that the actions already taken were outside the law, but the response to knowing Paul was a citizen was probably a good lesson to them. We can hope it put some lasting caution into their minds for future interactions with the new community of believers in Philippi, and that it helped to encourage the community that God was watching over them.
Lord, thank you that Paul was willing to leave his expected course to get where you wanted him to be. Please help me be willing to take the course you want me to take. Please help me to accept your guidance. Help me to seek it and desire it, and not fear it. Give me strength and trust to rejoice in the Lord always, amen.
-Daniel Smead
Reflection Questions
How much do you think it helped Paul and Silas to be locked in prison together?
If you were locked in prison for serving Jesus, do you think you would sing hymns of praise to God? I think that with Paul and Silas as our examples we may be likely to say we can do that. But is it sometimes harder to glorify God in more “normal” situations, so that they wear you down over time? Recognize that you are a child of God, and that we don’t see all that is going on. Isn’t every situation potentially the lead up to something extraordinary? Joseph was a kid being mistreated by his siblings. Hannah was a childless woman, being picked on by a rival, for years. Don’t reject them as examples because they are famous Bible characters, it may have been their faithfulness while they were unaware of what would happen that led to what happened next. Recall that we don’t know what Lydia had been praying for, her role in this story may be much larger than we realize.
As you think about the people in the chapter, what connections do you make to your own life?
Having thought about Acts 16 today, how will you look at your life differently?
Being a Christian isn’t about being able to apply clear rules to every situation. But sometimes believers wish for more rules to go by, and sometimes they even make the mistake of trying to apply their own rules to others.
The intense dispute about circumcision reported in Acts 15:1-2 sounds like it could have taken place in the Gospels, between Jesus and some of his opponents (for example about clean and unclean food). But this argument didn’t end with a parable and an attack on false teaching. Rather the church in Antioch sent representatives to Jerusalem to discuss the issue with people who would be influential on the group from Judea that began the conflict, and so able to convince them to end it.
The idea that circumcision is necessary for Christians doesn’t carry much weight with us. But circumcision was the symbol of God’s covenant with Abram, setting him apart (Genesis 17:10‑14). To join the Jewish people men underwent circumcision. There were also examples of circumcision being put off for a time, as when the Hebrew nation went through the wilderness (Joshua 5:2‑9). So an ex‑Pharisee might have argued that a believer’s expression of faith in Jesus didn’t mean all the requirements for salvation were met, until circumcision was complete (they could even point out that Peter called for Cornelius to be baptized after he showed signs of the Spirit, he didn’t say that baptism ought to be skipped; Acts 10:47).
During the meeting at Jerusalem the discussion was about the fact that circumcision committed people to obey the law of Moses. Paul and Barnabas had already been preaching that Jesus “freed from all things which you could not be freed from through the law of Moses” (Acts 13:39). And here was being presented the Law as an add-on which believers would be unable to do, and only be troubled by attempting to do (15:5, 10, 19).
James, the half-brother of Jesus, suggested an alternative which still had four issues to avoid: things contaminated by idols, fornication, what is strangled and blood. Why these? It has been suggested that these were thought to be basic issues that would allow for Jewish believers and Gentile believers to interact and eat together. The first involved the source of food, as a lot of meat sold in the markets was provided from temples, being the extra cuts from their sacrifices. The source would not be obvious once a meal was being served but would have made a dish unacceptable for some while being fine for others. The last two items are basically the same issue – strangling an animal meant leaving its blood in it when butchering it. Again this would not be visible but would be objectionable to some diners. The remaining issue of fornication involved willingness to be involved with a variety of sexual activities, some linked to religious purposes, that were commonly accepted outside Jewish society. So James was saying in this case that the new Christians probably needed a special reminder to separate themselves from these things because of what they would have been used to.
When these four issues were put into a letter it was framed that “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these . . . . if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well.” (v. 28-29). The standards were not being stated in the strongest of terms. And those who started the problem are described as not having received instruction on the issue, but the point is also made that the group in Jerusalem has only now become “of one mind” about it themselves. No big accusations, no rejections. These people are still “some of our number”, and presumably they were spoken with by Judas and Silas (if they were still in the area) and guided because they didn’t understand yet. It had taken a vision to prepare Peter for his meeting with the uncircumcised Cornelius, and it took the filling of the Spirit to show that Cornelius was ready for baptism without circumcision (Acts 10:47). And we aren’t that clear how widely Peter had been going around reporting on his experience since then trying to spread awareness of his new insight so that others would be up-to-date on the standards regarding Gentiles. Change can be slow.
The issue of food sacrificed to idols comes up again in Paul’s writings, more than once. 1 Corinthians 8, for example, says that a person’s conscience should determine how they behave on this issue. This does not mean it is unimportant. Revelation 2:20, in one of the seven letters to the seven churches, reports the condemnation of a false prophet for leading astray some of Jesus’ disciples. One of the offenses the prophet committed was causing them to eat food sacrificed to idols (presumably in violation of their consciences).
The chapter has another sad note, because some time after having returned to Antioch Paul and Barnabas found they could no longer work together due to disagreeing over whether to trust John Mark anymore. He had left them once and Paul didn’t want to let him work with them again (Acts 13:13). Maybe Paul considered that Mark had “put his hand to the plow and looked back,” and was not fit for the kingdom (Luke 9:62). The thing is, I’m not sure how many people start off “fit for the kingdom.” Eventually Paul and Mark worked together again, and Paul valued him greatly (2 Timothy 4:11).
Lord, please let your peace rule over our hearts even in our disagreements. Please help us not to quarrel with each other, whatever the provocation. Let us show that we care for each other, and be willing to give up our own interests for each other rather than fight. Let us care even if we are angered to commit to become calm and truly give our attention each to the other, and to care for and honor each other. Let us not lie to one another, and let us believe each other. Let people truly recognize that we belong to you because of how we love. In the name of your son Jesus I ask this, Amen.
-Daniel Smead
Questions:
We have simple goals as Christians, like to love and to bring peace. (I didn’t say “easy goals.”) How often do you find yourself converting your goals into following rules? How can you fight against that impulse?
Do you think that the discussions in Acts 15 ended the disputes about circumcision in the church?
The conflict between Paul and Barnabas divided their efforts and had them cover different areas. Do you think that their conflict was beneficial? Or do you think if they had gotten along better God would also have done equally great things through them?
Paul had asked one of his best supporters, Timothy (Philippians 2:19-22), to stay at Ephesus and address false teaching (1 Timothy 1:3-7). In 6:20-21 Paul warns against “the opposing arguments of what is falsely called ‘knowledge’ – which some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith.” (NASB). By writing of “knowledge” (gnosis in Greek) this way Paul suggests the presence of “gnostic” thought in Ephesus. “Gnosticism” covers a range of belief systems from the early centuries of the Christian era and grasping all of that history isn’t the point here, but I will mention some possible links to a gnostic group later.
The chapter begins with a support for prayer, highlighting its benefits for good order. The Jews had an exemption from sacrificing for the emperors and gave prayer for the emperors. The Romans accepted this compromise in part because they knew the strength of the Jewish conviction in their one God, and the risk of rebellion if they rejected it. For a time Christians were accepted under that compromise by the Romans, being seen as a category of Jewish believers. But Paul was not necessarily speaking of the compromise at all, but just of the benefits of prayer itself.
Paul goes on to state that he wants all to know the truth: “For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.” (verses 5-6). The fact of Jesus being a mediator between God and humanity doesn’t come up often – the word for mediator only shows up six times in the New Testament, here, in Galatians 3, and in Hebrews 8, 9 and 12. Mediation is relevant for Jesus in his position as High Priest, one of the three tasks tied to being the Christ / Messiah, the anointed one. Once a year the High Priest would enter the Holy of Holies (where the Ark of the Covenant was) and pray on behalf of the nation. This text in 1 Timothy addresses how Jesus is also the ransom, the sacrifice, which permitted the High Priest to enter the Holy of Holies. The High Priest did not perform a sacrifice inside that room, he brought in blood from a sacrifice of a lamb that had taken place outside the room, and sprinkled it in the room. And so Jesus, our High Priest, is able to enter the true Holy of Holies in heaven and remain there – not one day but perpetually – based on having provided his own blood as the lamb (Revelation 5:9; Hebrews 10:11-25).
I also see Jesus as a proper mediator in how he understands the perspectives of both sides – he is the one sinless human being (1 Peter 2:22), better fit than anyone else to speak for God’s concerns (and, of course, God’s chosen representative as the Christ), but he is a human who suffered temptations as we do (Hebrews 4:15).
The later part of the chapter may explain why Paul was giving a brief explanation of the true faith – I would suggest he made his statement when he did in contrast to the teachings being presented by those he was having issues with in Ephesus. Sometimes people have argued about whether these statements should be taken as universal to all churches. I do not see them as universal, nor do I see them as restricting all women in Ephesus, because of inconsistencies this would create and because of an alternate explanation I perceive. But first the inconsistencies.
Some translations say “teach or have authority” in verse 12, but texts like 1 Corinthians 11 show that Paul accepted women as teachers (and he named various female co-workers in his letters, such as the well-known Priscilla, Phoebe, etc.). It seems better from the Greek to see this phrase as “teach with authority” which means it is not two issues but one, guided by whatever type of authority we are dealing with – because this is not the normal word for “authority” in the New Testament. The Greek word used in 1 Timothy 2:12 for “authority” only appears here in the Bible, telling us little, but its extrabiblical uses suggest it is more like a kind of stolen authority which Paul would not wish any Christian (male or female) to obtain. The reason that this passage links it to women will be made more clear shortly. The text says that Adam was created before Eve but does not state why this is significant – many have suggested this should relate to some greater authority for Adam due to being made first, an authority extending to men in general. But this is not discussed elsewhere in the Bible, and commonly greater responsibility results in greater punishment upon failure, not a continuation of such responsibility after failure. Next, the text says that Adam was not “deceived”, which has sometimes been thought to mean (in supposed context of Paul’s point) that Adam handled the truth about the tree better than Eve so men were to be able to handle the truth better than women. But both Adam and Eve sinned regarding the tree, and most texts about this Bible event refer to Adam, not Eve, as key to the punishment of humanity for sin (even if they are only using his name symbolically because he was the first human). And lastly, verse 15, in some readings, makes it sound like a woman’s salvation depends on bearing children rather than upon her relationship with Jesus. This seems to be a complete absurdity, particularly considering Paul’s stated support for Christians remaining unmarried (1 Corinthians 7:8).
Now to a proposed alternative, that there were female teachers in Ephesus advocating for a gnostic sect who had infiltrated the church. Such sects cover a range of ground, but they included those who claimed that the physical universe in which we live was created by accident as an off-shoot from the powers of a purely spiritual being too different from us to even interact with us or to create matter. They would propose that this far away being self-generated a lesser spirit (like a plant gives off fruit) which in turn generated a lesser spirit, and so on (some versions went through hundreds of levels, possibly mocked as the “endless genealogies” of 1 Timothy 1:4). Eventually the story would arrive at a being that was weak / foolish enough to produce matter rather than spirit, and that being created our universe. The result was the trapping of fragments of spirit in matter – souls stuck in bodies – which needed to be retrieved to re-merge with the higher beings. Thus one of the higher spirit beings gets sent to provide the necessary knowledge to these fragments (which are unaware of their own origins) for them to escape their reality.
It was popular in some gnostic circles to steal the writings of other groups, Jewish, Christian, Zoroastrian, philosophy, etc., and rewrite it to present the beliefs of the gnostic group. The Genesis account of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was popular to twist, given the tree’s name. One particular group we know of presented that tree as a positive thing to eat from to gain understanding, and described the snake as a heroic spirit-being who came to convince Eve to eat from it. They described the God of the Old Testament as the creator of the physical universe who was blocking information about higher reality from the creation. Eve was presented as having been the original human (not Adam) and, since the snake supposedly told truth, she was also specifically not deceived. This type of switch in Eve’s origin story also plays into the fact with some gnostic groups of favoring priestess figures over priests.
You can see how what Paul says in verses 13 and 14 may be a repudiation of teachings by people in Ephesus who supported gnostics. Paul is asserting truth from Genesis. Adam was created first. Adam was not deceived by God about the tree, Eve was deceived by the serpent.
Verse 15 caps things off – among gnostics there were two views on sexuality. Some groups said that they should be celibate to avoid physical attachments, since their goal was to leave the world behind as spirits. Some groups said that since they were going to leave their bodies behind it didn’t matter what they did with them at all. But all gnostics agreed on one thing as being an unforgiveable sin – to have a child. They saw having a child as trapping a fragment of “soul” in flesh within the creation. I see verse 15 as offering reassurance to women who had been told they were not allowed to have children that doing so was fine. What actually mattered was continuing in faith, love, and sanctity with self-restraint.
I can’t demonstrate that the particular gnostic group I discussed was active in Ephesus – I can’t even demonstrate that the writing I was discussing about Genesis 3 had already been written at that point – but the details do seem to match together pretty well. If my proposed alternative were certainly incorrect, the inconsistencies I am concerned with would continue to concern me. And, of course, the ministry of the many women who worked alongside Paul would continue to be notable and compelling.
Lord, thank you for the opportunity to write these devotions. It has been difficult, but it has been useful to me as a demonstration that I can still be of use. I pray that I have not offended unnecessarily by anything I wrote, and that I have not mislead anyone or made an error in emphasis that would put them on the wrong course. I know that you are able to guide what people perceive in my words by your Spirit to take them where they actually need to go, and so now that my part is finished I entrust the next steps to you. Not that I did not rely on you to have been helping me along the way already. Please forgive my pride whenever I thought I was writing well, I was only writing about your words in the first place. Thank you for taking care of me, and for letting me know that you do. In the name of your son Jesus I pray these things, Amen.
-Daniel Smead
Questions:
Do you make a practice of praying for worldly leaders? Do you pray only for your own leaders, or also for the leaders of other areas? Do you expect these prayers to matter?
What do you think of 1 Timothy 2:5-6 as a possible stand-in for John 3:16? John 3:16 has a ring to it, but I wonder if these verses would be more likely to get people looking for the details they need. Sometimes the idea of “believing in him” sounds vague, without the context. Saying there is “testimony” might remind people to find out what the testimony said. Of course no one is meant to be a Christian without context. What do you think is your “key” verse or verses for your faith at the moment?
Verse 8 says, after Paul’s statement about faith and truth, that he wants prayer everywhere “without wrath and dissension” – do you think this might be another reference to the unity of the believers being a testimony to the world? Does prayer with wrath and dissension sound appealing?
The fact that Paul kept saying what he wanted from the believers may suggest that he wasn’t always getting it from them, or that he was warning them, or that he was aware how many other people would read his letters. It really isn’t clear. Which do you think is the most likely situation? How often do you read something Paul said to do and think about applying it directly to yourself? How often do you read something Paul said to do and object to the idea of applying it to yourself? How much of that is based on you thinking your circumstances are different now?
Today we move out of the Gospel accounts into some of Paul’s reasoning in Romans 5. Paul explains / rejoices in how our relationship with Jesus benefits us, including by creating / allowing a relationship with God.
Early in the chapter Paul says some things about suffering and what can be gained from it (v. 3-5) that can remind us of the text near the end of Matthew 16 on those who gain from self-surrender. Though believers have been saved, they have not been saved from all suffering, they are saved from sin and guilt. We are servants of God, and our growth may sometimes depend upon what we experience.
Verse 5 says “the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit”. It is by sharing in God’s love that we can do what God desires. God wants us to open our whole hearts to Him, but that is not the end. Then God can fill us with His own goodness and love and thus permit us to achieve a level of purity and grace which otherwise would be beyond us. But to really achieve this God needed Jesus. The separation between sinful humanity and holy God was too great for God to give the kind of gift He wished to make, until Jesus opened the way.
Those are the terms of the discussion when Paul discusses Jesus’ death in verses 6-11, and it explains why so much of the talk is about God’s credit for Jesus dying (did you notice that part when you were reading the text?). The plan came from God, and at the right time “while we were helpless” God provided the lamb for the sacrifice (Genesis 22:8).
God likes to promise things and have people look forward to them. We will not just live, we will share with Jesus in blessings. Verse 2, in a line that could remind us of John 17:22, says “we exult in hope of the glory of God.” In verse 10 Paul said the believers were no longer enemies but were reconciled to God through the death of Jesus – and “much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life”. In verse 17 Paul said “death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.” Getting to live more isn’t just about having more life, but better life. We can’t really grasp at this point what that life will be like, but we know that God thought it worth taking thousands of years to prepare for, and that He let His only son die to bring it about. I bet it will be excellent.
Lord, you are awesome. You are so holy and so merciful that it is hard for me to figure out how you bring them into balance together but somehow you did so that your plan could work and we could live. You wanted more from us and for us, and you made a way to achieve that, and I love you. You saved our lives through your son, Jesus, even though you love him so much and the plan caused him so much pain. And you are reshaping our lives. Please reshape the ways that we treat each other as believers to let us be more of what you desire, and let us provide a stronger witness together for you and your son to the world around us. In the powerful name of your son Jesus I pray these things, Amen.
-Daniel Smead
Question:
On the whole, would you be willing for your life to be more difficult if it meant it were also more purposeful, more useful for God and the people He loves?
Paul several times refers to a “gift”, or a “free gift” in this chapter – do you tend to think of what you expect to receive from God as a gift, or do you think of yourself as owing something?
Verse 11 uses the language “Not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ”. Look up the word “exult.” How frequently, or to what extent, do you think that you do “exult” in God? Is this something you think you should do more? Do you see it as a group activity?
As a reminder, verses 2 and 3 also refer to exulting – how often have you engaged in these types of exulting?
Romans is sometimes thought of as more “theological”. Do you read Romans very often for devotional purposes? It may be that a longer chunk will allow the flow to come across, or perhaps a smaller chunk at a time will allow a morsel of meaning to come through. Thinking about what Paul actually wrote in this chapter, do you find his passion here surprising?
In Matthew 16 Jesus asked for the public’s opinions of him and the answer was a range of prophets: John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or someone else. Considering that John and Jesus had careers that overlapped, spent time together in public, and notably behaved differently, that made little sense. Elijah had been taken up by a whirlwind before his death, leaving people to question if he had died, and a return for him was predicted in Malachi 4:5-6. But Elijah provides the special case of Elisha who had asked to serve in Elijah’s “spirit”, or rather a double-portion of it, so the return of Elijah may well suggest a return of Elijah’s “spirit” or attitude/ministry. And Jesus said that John the Baptist fulfilled the prophecy of Elijah, implying that was the case (Matthew 11:14). As for Jeremiah, who we associate with grief, perhaps Jesus gave a more solemn impression than we might guess, maybe with his attacks on religious leaders. It has also been pointed out that because of God’s instructions Jeremiah was unmarried, which could be a way for Jesus to remind people of him in a culture where almost all men married. There was even a tradition that said Jeremiah had hidden the Ark of the Covenant before Jerusalem fell to Babylon, and which expected him to return and reveal where he had put it.
Have you noticed what these expectations tell us about the capacity for some in the public to believe nonsense? Jesus had made no claim to be any of these people. His origins were known, or should have been – and here were people wanting to think he was someone else. No wonder Jesus’ death and resurrection needed many witnesses, and so much evidence. It would be too easy otherwise for people to suppose that any claims of him being alive were just the result of fools accepting a story that the wise should ignore.
But when Jesus asked who his disciples believed he was, Peter declared “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (16:16). This was new. ‘Christ’ is a title meaning anointed one (some versions use the Hebrew equivalent Messiah in place of the word Christ). Jesus was anointed, and not meaning with oil, but with what oil symbolized, the Holy Spirit Jesus had received at his baptism. And Jesus was the son of God, not normally a part of the discussions about the Christ.
Peter was blessed because he was not told this by flesh and blood (a person), but was told by God. I think Jesus meant Peter is the starting point for this awareness, which could then be spread by word of mouth, but it started by revelation. Jesus uses a play on words from Peter’s name, that sounds like the word for “stone,” and says he will build his church (his gathering of believers) on the stone of the truth Peter was given. Also the gates of “hades” will not stand against the church. That is, the believers will be able to leave hades/the realm of the grave at the resurrection. Jesus’ attention is drawn back to his death in this chapter, and to the effect it will have. The keys promised to Peter seem to involve a role for Peter’s future. If you look at Isaiah 22:22 it suggests being a steward in the household of the king.
We don’t know all of the things people thought then about the Christ, but we recognize that the Old Testament had three anointed roles which linked with roles for Christ: prophet, high priest, and king. (This idea may have been recognized very quickly in New Testament times, but we don’t find it written about until by Justin Martyr in the second century.)
Prophet – Deuteronomy 18:15-18; Acts 3:22 – God promised the nation a special prophet “like Moses” who would speak for God.
High Priest – Hebrews 2:17, etc; Psalm 110 – the High Priest had a special role of sacrifice and ministry on behalf of God’s people, which Jesus took on.
King – 2 Samuel 7, Matthew 21:5, etc. – The expectation of Christ as a king was the most well established in the people’s minds, reflected in many places. People did not expect the kind of king Jesus turned out to be, or the delay in his earthly rule. Many people in Israel expected that the Christ-King would free God’s people from their mistreatment by the nations. Not many looked for the child of David to die to accomplish salvation. Certainly none looked for God’s child to do so.
The events of Matthew 16 were a dividing point in Jesus’ ministry. Earlier the disciples may have had private guesses about Jesus’ role, but now Jesus asked the question they wanted the answer to and things came into the open. But when Jesus made other matters about his plans more plain for the disciples, things that did not seem to put glory onto his name in Peter’s eyes, Peter objected. Peter did so because his idea of the Christ didn’t match God’s idea of the Christ. It really was a revelation that had opened his mind, not his own wisdom. He still didn’t understand all that God had planned. In his reply, among other things, Jesus says that the Son of Man will come in the Father’s glory – not his own – and repay each man according to his deeds. Unless a man give up his life for Jesus’ sake, how can he get a new one? Peter didn’t get this at first, but he would get there.
Lord, help me to set my mind on your interests. Help me not to be a stumbling block to anyone around me by the way that I speak, or how I act, or how I respond to their choices. Please help me not to be held back from what I should be doing for you by hesitancy I gain from seeing the responses of others around me, either. Let me be prepared each day to lift my cross again, if I find I have set it down, and to follow Jesus. In his name, Amen.
-Daniel Smead
Questions:
Have you ever thought before about the risks of some people in the first century being too willing to believe in someone coming back from the dead? When God plans He plans for the details needed by every culture – what does that mean for believers’ efforts in writing about the scriptures, and translating them?
Do you think it hurt Jesus for Peter to oppose him as he did? Do you think it hurt Peter for Jesus to speak to Peter as he did?
With a really difficult lesson to learn, what are some advantages to having as good a teacher as Jesus?
What is Scripture teaching you regarding who God is? What is Scripture teaching you regarding who Jesus is?
In John 17 Jesus prayed a lengthy prayer (his longest in the Bible), for the disciples who were with him, and for those who would trust in him down through the years. This took place just before the group left for the garden where Jesus was arrested, leading to his death. Knowing what was coming Jesus had tried to comfort his friends. He told them: “These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33; NASB). That was the attitude he had when he prayed – he had overcome the world. He was about to die, but not because he was defeated. What was coming would be painful, but ultimately it would bring glory to God and to His son. And what would take place would also benefit Jesus’ friends.
Over the centuries many people have examined these events with the wrong expectations, trying to piece together a story where Jesus is putting on a play or demonstrating his power, not one where he is incredibly brave and kind and suffers because that is what is needed. The goal was to bring people eternal life, and as Jesus said in verse 3 that eternal life came through knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ whom God sent. Or, to break that out, they were to know the Lord – meaning something like “I am that I am”, or in effect, “the self-existent one”. They were also to know Christ, that is from the Greek for Messiah, both words relaying the idea “anointed one”, which says Jesus was “one granted authority”. God gave Jesus the power and the words and love which allowed the plan to work. It is clear from the language in the prayer that the power and the words and the love are meant to go to those who trust in both God and Jesus.
Some of what Jesus said has been selectively picked apart and treated as evidence for Jesus leading a life that was ‘beyond human’ in a way that would deny God’s intentions. For example, Jesus declares that he wants the Father to glorify him, together with God, with glory that he had with Him before the world was (v. 5). Some take that to mean Jesus existed in some form before the world, to possess that glory then. But God is capable of giving glory to the son He intends to have, even before that son is born. This is the God who “sees the end from the beginning” (Isaiah 46:10). John 17:24 also sounds more like this description of the situation, and there are other examples, such as the parable in Matthew 25 which refers to inheriting “the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (v. 34). And it is not as though the glory Jesus has is something beyond what humans may possess, for Jesus gives that glory to those who love him (v. 22). He does so with the intention for believers to be one in the same way that he and the Father are one (v. 22, this is another phrase that people have sometimes thought of as somehow ‘beyond human’ but really it involves unity of purpose and mutual care, not a distinction about physical nature or what-have-you).
We should recall that we are among the disciples Jesus was praying for. We are given great blessings and great purpose by a great man. Jesus faced everything and succeeded, and he did so for you and for me, as well as for John or Peter or James. He may not have known each of us then, but he was conscious of the choice he was making for us. And he knows us now, deeply, and he cares about our needs. And like his Father, Jesus does not desire anything bad for us.
Lord, thank you that you did not leave us without a savior, and thank you that you make it so clear what is necessary for us. Thank you for creating a family of believers for us to be part of. Please help each of us to be healthily a part of it. Please allow us to find people in the body whom we can be close together with in the unity we were meant to have. Lord, let us not be too ashamed to admit if we don’t think we have what we need in our connections to each other. Jesus said that it is in our unity that we will be a witness to the world, so help us be the witness you desire even if it requires some pain and openness along the way. In his name, Amen.
-Daniel Smead
Questions:
Does it seem like John 17:3, with the rest of the chapter, may be repeating the theme of the two great commandments, that you must love the Lord your God with your whole heart but then you are also to love your neighbors with whom you are meant to be united?
John’s Gospel picks up a lot of what Jesus had to say about “the world”, describing the negative routines of this life and its ways under that title. Jesus said that he wasn’t of “the world” and that those who followed him were not of “the world” either, with the result that “the world” hated them. Have you ever been able to feel like “the world” hates you for the “right” reasons of your faith? Have you ever found yourself feeling so comfortable with “the world” that you wondered if you were not living properly with God?
Jesus prayed for the future of the believers, asking God to grant them unity. What actions would you want to take for the unity of the church for the next generation?
Keeping in mind that eternal life comes from knowing God and Jesus (John 17:3)- from your Bible reading thus far this year, what do you think God wants us to know about Him, and what does God want us to know about Jesus the son He sent? And how important is it?
Seek Grow Love 