Yesterday we read some of Paul’s words about the future, along with his instructions about preparing for the future through good conduct. In 2 Thessalonians 1 Paul chose to say more about coming events to the same audience. (Your Bible may have notes suggesting that only four to six months passed between the two letters.) Paul remains proud of the people’s conduct, and again mentions their shared status with him as persecuted believers (1 Thessalonians 2:2, 14; 2 Thessalonians 1:3-7). But here Paul emphasizes the coming of a “just” repayment for the poor treatment they have received: “when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.” (7-8).
Paul tells the Thessalonians that God intends to “repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to give relief to you who are afflicted” at the appearance of Jesus (6-7). I think it is worth noting that God’s justice for those who mistreated the believers is not about providing ongoing torture, as some have imagined, but “the penalty of eternal destruction” (9). Paul used the same Greek word for “destruction” here and in 1 Thessalonians 5:3 (when he wrote of “sudden” destruction), but here he emphasized a link to the coming age. (To say “eternal” destruction, as the NASB chose to do, is not a great translation of the Greek. What Paul wrote conveys more “of the aion” or “of the age”.) But, to those who have believed, the Lord Jesus “comes to be glorified in His saints” and “to be marveled at among all who have believed” (10). That is a lovely image.
In a way Paul repeats his theme of preparation for the future at the end of the chapter. Paul says he always prays for the people in Thessalonica that God will count them worthy of their calling, and “fulfill every desire for goodness and the work of faith with power” (11). So, he wants them to be able to be as good and as faithful as they are desiring to be, knowing that it is God’s power which permits that desire to be fulfilled.
It feels like Paul is inviting the Thessalonians to think about their lives more in terms of the future. We don’t know what he has heard about them in the last few months, but he is concerned over them. They are afflicted, we don’t know how badly, perhaps they are very frustrated. But Paul wanted them to realize that what they were waiting for was more than worth all they were going through. Of faith, hope and love we know that love is the greatest (1 Corinthians 13:13), but it would never be enough on its own. As Paul also said, if Christ had not been resurrected we would be in an awful state (15:13-19). We would have no future to look forward to no matter how much God valued us, and no matter how much we valued God or each other. But we do have a future, a glorious future we can tell others about and seek for them to share with us, and a savior on whom to put our faith and our hope. Rejoice, brothers and sisters!
Lord, please help me to desire greater goodness, and more works of faith in my life. Please also clear out of the way whatever would prevent me from serving you as I ought to do, so that I can be the servant you desire me to be. Knowing that the day will come when Jesus is glorified in his saints, and that I hope to be among those saints, help me not to hold back from any good thing that I know I ought to do. Relying on you, I pray these things, Amen.
-Daniel Smead
Reflection Questions
How different do you think the New Testament would appear to us if we had not only the letters Paul sent, but also messages he received which prompted those letters, so we could better understand things like the situation in Thessalonica which prompted what he wrote? Do you think that not having the specific causes for the letters may help us to treat what Paul wrote as being more universal in its application? If so, is that sometimes a problem?
How often do you find yourself dealing with frustrations or concerns about your daily life by looking to the hope you have in the return of Christ? What aspects of that return do you find the most compelling to your thoughts? Is there some particular passage of scripture that draws you, or an image, or a piece of a song? Have you ever shared your perspective with someone else?
Paul reminds us that in large measure what our lives becomes is about what we decide to aim for. Words like “perseverance” and “desire for goodness” and “the work of faith”, these are about the choices we make, particularly the choices we make against external and internal opposition. When did you last examine your life to decide what you will seek?
1 Thessalonians 5 carries on Paul’s discussion from the end of chapter 4 about death and resurrection (13-18). Paul had just said what it meant for a person to be dead (asleep, as a metaphor), awaiting resurrection. He said this instruction was intended to avoid the Thessalonians being “uninformed” and allow them to “comfort” each other (4:13, 18). But it is hard to imagine that Paul had not already told them about these things. We aren’t told that the people received conflicting teachings from another source. Perhaps after members of the congregation died confusion developed about how events were meant to work out. It may be that they asked, through Timothy, for more instruction on the topic of death, resurrection, and the future.
In 5:1 the discussion shifts to when these things could be expected. Paul wrote “you have no need of anything to be written to you” on the subject of “the times and epochs” – a phrase used by Jesus in Acts 1:7 apparently to describe the basic idea of events for the future including his return. When Paul wrote “you have no need” it doesn’t seem like Paul meant that the believers in Thessalonica had a clear understanding of everything related to the future, but rather that they have heard about these things before and should not need to ask for more information on the topic. The essence of the situation, as Paul lays it out, is that believers know about what is coming and non-believers don’t – in the sense of being forewarned. It is not just this awareness that affects their conduct, of course, but they will behave quite differently. One group is in preparation for that time and the other is not (Luke 21:34-36). But the future issue of knowing when that time will come is beyond both groups. Jesus had earlier declared it was even unknown to himself and to the angels in heaven (Matthew 24:36, 43). It is for God to set the schedule, and to declare it.
The events of “the times and epochs” relate to judgment, rewards, resurrection, death, joy, sorrow, renewal, and discovery. There is more tied up in that than I would try to express in one devotional, and I don’t understand it all anyway. But even with the Thessalonians clearly not having understood all that was involved in that, Paul felt that he could write: “Therefore encourage one another and build up one another, just as you also are doing.” (5:11). He felt good about them, and what they were getting done, although they didn’t have their eschatology (ideas about the future) all straightened out. That is comforting. Still, Paul figured they were about to have it cleared up, since he had written his letter. I’m not saying none of this mattered to him (he didn’t want to leave them uninformed and figured it would have made them uncomfortable). But it is nice to think there is some room for uncertainty, while we seek to build each other up.
Lord, thank you for those who have built me up and encouraged me. Help me to accept the strengthening they have offered me, and to not allow myself to be torn back down by the world. Let me use that strength for useful purposes. Help me to encourage and build up others. Please let me take that goal seriously and give me opportunities to do so. Let your Spirit work in your people to draw us closer together and show your love more clearly. Thank you, Amen.
-Daniel Smead
Reflection Questions
We hear a lot about the day of Christ’s return being “like a thief” meaning it will catch people unawares – but it seems like that is meant to emphasize the effect on unbelievers. Do you think the real effect of the metaphor might have been to make us concerned about other people not being ready for that day?
We don’t know what confusion the believers in Thessalonica had about death, we could imagine all kinds of things. Maybe they just assumed that believers weren’t supposed to die before Jesus returned, having heard of believers who were returned to life. What difficulties do you think there were for Christians as they moved into a second generation of believers?
How might things have been changed if God simply told the first generation of disciples exactly when Jesus was going to return? Do you think they might have left that information out of the Bible if they had received it? What if Jesus promised to give the believers a 30-year warning alert of when he would return? Is it better to be left with each generation not aware if it is the generation that will be alive when the trumpet sounds?
First Chronicles 28 and 29 relates the end of David’s time as king. Mostly it discusses an assembly where David laid out responsibilities his son Solomon would have for building God a temple and encouraged the people to join in that work with him. By gathering that assembly David was also making it clear that Solomon was the chosen heir – chosen by God. The line of succession had been contested before, and David called on all present to commit their loyalty to both God and Solomon (28:5; 29:24).
David had desired to build God a dwelling place but was denied that role because he had shed blood. Joyfully for David, the time when he learned of his rejection was paired with learning about the promise of a special covenant with God. In the years that followed David stockpiled resources in preparation for the Temple to be constructed by his promised son. In 22:14 we read of huge amounts of gold and silver David stored up. In 29:4 we are told of additional sums he provided near the end of his reign. That was followed by him encouraging the people to offer their own commitments (6-9). They gave tons of gold and silver and brass and iron, along with precious stones. And “the people rejoiced because they had offered so willingly, for they made their offering to the Lord with a whole heart, and king David also rejoiced greatly.” (9). As David had said, this was not a temple “for man, but for the Lord God” and they were able to rejoice in the idea of giving to the project (1).
I read some years ago about a study in which people of varying incomes were asked what they considered would be enough money for them to be content. There was a remarkable similarity in the answers given to the researchers, from those who made fairly little, on through those who made far more. People tended to want 15% more income than they currently had. Knowing this, of course, we can guess that very few people whose income increases become content – instead they adjust to their new circumstances and change their target for “contentment.” Of course we are not to view the world in that way, though we can all too easily become caught up in the distractions of worldly thinking. If we are seeking to store up for ourselves treasure in heaven, rather than on earth, we are less susceptible to such errors.
I find it a matter of joy that the people of Israel in David’s time chose to join in setting up the Temple. They could have hesitated to give, and left matters to David and Solomon. They could have suggested that the vast amounts David had already collected would be enough for the task. (To try to put some numbers to this, we are told in 22:14 that David had collected 100,000 talents of gold. One calculation puts a talent at about 75 pounds, which would mean David had collected about 3,000 tons of gold. By a useful coincidence it is estimated that 750,000 pounds of gold were collected during the California Gold Rush, so a tenth of what David had gathered.) But the people still wanted to be involved with honoring God by contributing from their own wealth, which had itself come from God’s blessings (29:14, 16).
(I find it interesting, as well, how God’s intentions may have been set up across the generations. David being a man of war could tie in with the extent of the nation’s wealth and how he prepared the way for Solomon. David was not accepted to build God a Temple, but he was freed to go forward in fighting against the enemies of God’s people and to help prepare a time of peace for Solomon. At the same time David’s victories brought in wealth that would enable the Temple to be funded to an incredible degree.)
While David thought of the promises he had received in terms of Solomon, and prepared for his reign, we recognize a greater fulfillment in terms of another son, Jesus. Even in the text of these chapters there are hints at that, statements that “if” Solomon will serve God “with a whole heart” his descendants will continue to possess the land forever (28:8, 9). That kind of obedience was not available from Solomon, or any of the kings in David’s line who lived in Old Testament times. So while Solomon was able to fulfill the prophecy in one sense, building a house for God, it was destroyed after only a few hundred years. Another house waited to be built by a son yet to come.
Lord, please help me not to be caught up in material concerns to the detriment of spiritual calls. Please let me have my daily bread so that I will not be distracted by wants, but please help me not let desires for more than I actually need get in the way of things that truly matter, like other people, and worshipping you. Help me to recognize how truly kind you are to me, and to give you credit and praise for your blessings to me and my family. Help me be willing to go out of my way for things that are important to you. Thank you for your care, Amen.
-Daniel Smead
Reflection Questions
David and Solomon approached worship very grandly, perhaps more so than anyone today. What lessons might we be meant to take from the stories of the Temple?
It may seem like an absurd amount of gold and silver was collected for use with the Temple construction, and we aren’t sure how all of it was used, but what impression do you think it would give to worship at a Temple where the walls were coated with gold? What if you knew that you, or your ancestor, contributed to building that Temple?
Do you think it is harder to see yourself as receiving blessings from God when your income is from wages instead of through farming or spoils of battle?
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?
