An Easter-related Sermon: Acts 13

In Acts 13:14, Paul arrives at Antioch in Pisidia and proceeds to share the gospel with the Jews in the synagogue. It is probably a classic and typical example of his preaching to the Jews who have not yet heard the gospel message. And in his sermon (vs. 16-41), we have these verses:

27 For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.
28 And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain.
29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.
30 But God raised him from the dead:

Considering that tomorrow is Easter, that last verse is exceptionally appropriate. Those seven simple words, stated as plain fact (because it is a fact!), are the absolute bedrock of the Gospel Message. As Paul also wrote in 1 Cor. 15:12-19, if there was no resurrection of Christ on that blessed day two millennia ago, our faith in vain; we are in our sins; there is no hope of heaven or blessing after this earthly life.

But God raised Jesus from the dead! And because of this, our faith is not in vain! We can have hope of heaven after this earthly life!

And if you do not have this faith, but want it, please get in touch with me.

And Are We Being Too Hard on John Mark?

(Also see previous post)

The other related point is that John Mark usually is painted as a quitter, because it says in Acts 13:13, "and John departing from them returned to Jerusalem." Of course, the fact that Paul didn't want to take him along on the next journey (Acts 15:36-40) seems to add a deeper tone of negative color to his decision.

Seems to. But once again, the premise is: We can't be sure.

The Bible's silence on John Mark's reason for returning to Jerusalem cannot be implied as condemnation. The Scriptures neither say "John was led of the spirit to return to Jerusalem" nor "John gave up the work of the spreading of the gospel." He is only mentioned twice again in Scripture: In Acts 15, where he may not have been present at the dispute; and in 2 Timothy 4:11, where Paul desires his company many years later. (If Col. 4:10 is referring to him also, then he was the nephew of Barnabas. This would also add some information about the dispute.)

Furthermore, it is possible—although the Bible is silent about this, too, so we should classify it as speculation—that John Mark had indeed quit, but later repented; and that Barnabas for this reason thought it good to bring him with them on a second missionary journey. Presumably he wanted to go with Barnabas and Saul (if he didn't, the dispute becomes foolish).

I already discussed that both Paul and Barnabas were strong-willed leaders. If John Mark was indeed Barnabas' nephew, that would also add another layer to the disagreement between Paul and Barnabas. [Aside: We who are Baptist have probably all seen disputes involving a pastor, one of his relatives, and someone else in the church—regardless of who was right in the dispute. Nepotism seems to be universal.]

In short, it seems reasonable that John Mark may have quit, but we cannot be certain; it is equally reasonable that if he did quit, he repented and wanted to go again; and if we know anything, it is that in later life he was a useful servant of God. The moral of the story: We need to be careful about condemning John Mark in this situation. Perhaps he was wrong. But we do not know...and as Christians, we must be careful about passing judgment when we are not in possession of adequate knowledge of the facts of the matter.

Didn't I say that once before?

Barnabas and Saul; Paul and Barnabas

One of the interesting stories of the Scriptures is the disagreement between Paul and Barnabas in Acts 15:36-40. They disagree over whether to bring John Mark along with them on a second missionary journey; eventually they go in different directions.

I have heard preachers preach with vigor that, to put it bluntly, Barnabas was wrong. They cite that Paul was "recommended by the brethren" (vs. 39) and that Barnabas is not mentioned again in the text of Acts. They also cite Paul's apostolic authority, which seems to mean that his decision trumped Barnabas's. Galatians 2:11-14 is also used.

But was Paul right in this contention between them? My premise is this: We can't be sure.

Silence on the subject of Barnabas is not automatically evidence of censure. He and John Mark may have had many years of fruitful ministry after the split with Paul...we simply do not know.

Taking Barnabas's side for the moment, I want to posit three points:

1. Cutting to the chase: Barnabas is never censured in Scripture for his decision to take John Mark with him. And John Mark, of course, is desired by Paul many years later (2 Tim. 4:11).
   
2. Until Acts 13:9, when "Saul" is referred to as "Paul," Barnabas is frequently seen as the probable leader of the pair. It is interesting to notice that in all references prior to this verse, when the two of them are named together, it is always "Barnabas and Saul"—even by the Holy Spirit in Acts 13:2, at the outset of the first missionary journey. It is also interesting to notice that in all references after this verse, when the two of them are named together, it is always "Paul and Barnabas" [Exception: In Acts 15, when the two of them went to the council in Jerusalem, they are twice referred to as "Barnabas and Paul" (vs. 12, 25); this might have something to do with the fact that in this peer group, Barnabas may still have been perceived as the more "senior" member]. It was Barnabas who "introduced" this former persecutor of the saints to the Christians in Jerusalem (Acts 9:27). Barnabas, clearly, exhibits leadership in the early church.
3. Without ignoring that God chose Paul as an apostle, we see at the human level that a mentor and leader [Barnabas] sees his charge [Saul/Paul] exalted to a level of leadership that, in a sense, exceeds his own. This is no way diminishes Barnabas' leadership—if anything, Barnabas should have been thrilled to see one whom he knew as a "young Christian" become such a strong leader, used of God in the church. Paul's ascendence did not necessarily come with corresponding subordination for Barnabas. Furthermore, it is possible (though speculative) that Barnabas may have been an older man than Paul, making it difficult for him to submit to the leadership of one both younger in age and in faith than himself.
   

One other possibility has come to mind: It is highly likely (to me) that both men were strong-willed (and possibly stubborn) leaders with a strong desire to do the work of God. Consequently, neither was likely to give in if convinced that his was the way God wanted. Paul also evidenced a strong will (stubbornness?), even in the face of prophecy, concerning his desire to travel to Jerusalem in Acts 21.

We need to be careful about condemning Barnabas in this situation. Perhaps he was wrong. But we do not know...and as Christians, we must be careful about passing judgment when we are not in possession of adequate knowledge of the facts of the matter.

Prayer: A Lesson From Acts 4:23-31

In Acts 3-4, the narrative begins with Peter and John healing a lame man. This is followed by subjection to questioning and threats from the Jewish leadership, and then they are released. They return "to their own company" to share what happened, and to pray. This is their prayer:

24 And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:
25 Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?
26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.
27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.
29 And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word,
30 By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.
31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.

The prayer is seven verses long in our Bible (vs. 24-30). A few observations:

• The first five verses are used in praising God! Do we spend approximately 5/7 (or 5/70, for that matter) of our prayers in praising the One to Whom we speak?
• The only "current" reference to their situation is in vs. 29: "behold their threatenings." They do not ask God to strike down or to curse their enemies—they merely ask the all-knowing God to "be aware" of their situation. I see an implication of trust, that God will not only be aware, but meet the needs of the situation.
• They make three requests:
• To speak the Word boldly
• Healing from the hand of God
  
• Signs and wonders to be done in Jesus' name
• These three requests are clearly made so that God be glorified, not so that they be better off in some way or another.
  

Are our prayers similar to this? And is the response of the Holy Spirit similar? Although we may not expect a shaking of our buildings when we pray, it is worthwhile to note that they went forth and preached with boldness—just as they had requested!

Nuggets From The Greek: Acts 3:6-8

6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.
7 And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up: and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength.

In the Greek, two things stand out to me about the verbs "rise up and walk" in verse 6:

(1) Both are in the "indicative" mood. In short, both verbs are commands. The lame man is not offered a suggestion—he is told to rise up and walk!

(2) The verb "rise" in verse 6 and the verb "lifted up" in verse 7 are actually the same word in the original Greek. Although they are different forms (evident also in English), what Peter commanded the man to do, he helped him to do! The verb "walk" in verse 6 and "walked" and "walking" in verse 8 are also the same word in the Greek.

8 And he leaping up stood, and walked, and entered with them into the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God.

It is also interesting that the formerly-lame man doesn't merely walk: He also "leaps" [not surprisingly, the verb means "leap" in the Greek] and "praises" God.

This verb for "leaps" is only found three times in the N.T. One of them is Acts 14:10, where Paul similarly heals another "lame" man ["lame" and "cripple" in these verses are also the same Greek word]. But the other use of that same Greek verb is John 4:14, as Jesus speaks with the woman at the well:

13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:
14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

Isn't that an interesting thought?