Two thoughts

from John 19:

i) The correlation in v.7 & v.12 of the terms 'Son of God' and 'King' suggests that the Jewish leaders were not accusing Jesus of claiming divinity but of claiming to be the Messiah;

ii) The irony of the Jewish leaders' assertion, "We have no king but Caesar" being followed in the text by Pilate finally handing Jesus over to be crucified: the irony lies in the fact that to say they have no king but Caesar is the final capitulation.

voluntary gifts (Volf)

Since God gives freely, we should too. That's how the apostle Paul thought of gift giving; it should be voluntary. He praised believers from Macedonia for giving "voluntarily" to the poor of Jerusalem (2 Corinthians 8:3). Similarly, he urged that the Corinthians' gift be ready when he came to collect it "as a voluntary gift and not as an extortion" (2 Corinthians 9:5).

Why is freedom in giving so important? Because the gift consists more in the freely undertaken choice to give than in the things given. In this regard, the Apostle might well have agreed with Seneca, the great stoic writer on gift giving, who said: "For, since in the case of a benefit the chief pleasure of it comes from the intention of the bestower, he who by his very hesitation has shown that he made his bestowal unwillingly has not `given', but has failed to withstand the effort to extract it."' As for Seneca, for the Apostle the "eagerness" of the giver matters more than the magnitude of the gift. God loves "a cheerful giver" (2 Corinthians 8:12 and 9:7).

And yet we noted earlier that we are obliged to give. God's gifts themselves oblige us, and God's commands reinforce that obligation. Now we see that we are obliged to give freely - and there's the rub. How can we give freely if we are obliged to give? Inversely, how can we be obliged to give if we give freely? Is it possible to be obliged to give freely?

The apostle Paul thought so. True, he never commanded the Corinthians to give, and he underscored this for them (2 Corinthians 8:8). But he exerted enormous pressure on them using some potent rhetorical weapons. He played with their sense of shame: they would humiliate themselves if they didn't give (2 Corinthians 9:4). He had them compete with other donors: the Macedonians gave, so the Corinthians should stick to their promise and give (which is also what he said to the Macedonians in 2 Corinthians 9:2). He appealed to their debt to him: he would be humiliated if they didn't give (2 Corinthians 9:4). And he did all this in order to nudge them to give, as he put it, "not reluctantly or under compulsion", but voluntarily (2 Corinthians 9:7)!

Was the Apostle twisting their arm to be free? Some strange freedom this must be! But maybe our sense that to be free is to act under no constraint whatsoever is mistaken. We tend to think that we must be autonomous and spontaneous to act freely. Behind this identification of freedom with autonomous spontaneity lies the notion of a self-defined and free-floating person. Strip down all the influences of time and place, abstract from culture and nurture, and then you'll come to your authentic core. This core is who you truly are, the thinking goes - unique, unshaped, unconstrained.

But that's more like a caricature of a divine self than an accurate description of a human self. Using the image of the beast, Luther argued that human beings are always ridden by someone, either by God or by the Devil. That's a crude way of putting it, but it's basically right. The point is not that either God or the Devil compels us. In that case, our will would turn into, as Luther put it, "unwill". It's rather that, unlike God, we always exercise our will as beings constantly shaped by many factors - by language, parental rearing, culture, media, advertising, and peer pressure, and through all these, we are shaped either by God or by God's adversary. Often we don't perceive ourselves as shaped at all. If we are not visibly and palpably coerced, we think that we act autonomously, spontaneously, and authentically. Yet we are wrong.

Take our preferences for one soft drink over another. I am thirsty, walk into a store, reach for a Pepsi, and walk away, never doubting that I acted autonomously and spontaneously. But why did I choose Pepsi over Coke or just plain water? I may like its taste better. But most likely it's because Pepsi's ads got to me the way Coke's didn't. I don't autonomously and spontaneously choose to be a Pepsi drinker; I'm made into a Pepsi drinker. Yet I freely chose that Pepsi can that is in my hand.

Recall what I said about the old and the new selves. Our old self died, and our new self was raised. It's a self in whom Christ dwells and through whom Christ acts, a self that has put on Christ and "learned" Christ. We are these new selves, and that's why we give (though non-Christians can give for many other reasons). We don't give mainly because God or God's messengers command us to. If we did, we would be giving under compulsion, and therefore, reluctantly. Instead, we give because we are givers, because Christ living in us is a giver. Informing every seemingly small act of Christian giving is a change in our very being, a transformation of a person from being one who either illicitly takes or merely legitimately acquires, into being one who beneficently gives. As I will explain in chapter 3, even as such transformed people, we still need to grow into the joy of giving. But the command to give is not compelling us to act against ourselves, even if it often feels like this.

That feeling that the command is against us, a sense of reluctance in giving, is not unfounded. When we have failed to put away our "former way of life", the new self becomes an obligation that butts against the ingrained habits of the old self. Yet as uncomfortable as it may feel, the pressure is not to our detriment, but in our favor. It pushes us to act true to who we most properly are. That's why we can be obliged to give freely: the obligation nudges us to do what the new self would do if the old one didn't stand in the way.

Imagine your life as a piece of music, a Bach cello suite. You've heard it played by a virtuoso. You love it and would like to play it well. But try as you might, you fail - not so much because you've had a bad teacher or haven't practiced enough, but because your left hand has a defect. You make music, but it's nothing like it's supposed to sound. Then you have surgery performed by a magician with a scalpel. Your hand heals. You return to your lessons with new vigor. And then one day, you play the piece nearly perfectly. Full of joy, you exclaim, "Yes! I love it! This is the way the music of my life should sound!" Constrained by the score because you have to follow its notation? Well, yes. But loving every moment of that constraint - and not feeling it as constraint at all - because the very constraint is what makes for the beauty and delight.

Something like this is what it means to be a free giver. God obliges us to give. But it is precisely when we act in accordance with the obligation that we have a sense of unspoiled authenticity and freedom. So in our best moments, we forget the command and just give the way we are supposed to give. We are like a motor-powered sailboat when it's "running", as sailors say: With the wind at the back of a powered boat, all resistance is gone; the boat is always where the wind would push it to be. The same is true of us when we give freely. Living out of our new selves, we are always already where the command would want us to be.

(Miroslav Volf, Free Of Charge, pp.64-67)

the psalms & us

The attempt to recover and renew psalmody in our time must not be undertaken merely as an embellishment of liturgical practice. Crucial possibilities for the theological, liturgical, and pastoral life of the church are involved. The liveliness and actuality of the language of the reign of God supply an organizing milieu for all the principal topics of the Christian faith. It constitutes the basis and medium of the three primary functions of our religion - praise, prayer, and the practice of piety. It provides a way of thinking and understanding that holds the individual and corporate relation to God together. Said and sung as Christian liturgy, the language of the psalms discloses the unity of the canon of scripture. It articulates a polemic against the polytheism and paganism that go unnoticed in our culture. It establishes a critical resistance to the domination of any human politics and the apotheosizing of any ideology, including democracy. The language of the psalms puts all who use them in the role of servants to the LORD God, and so lays a basis for an ethic of trust and obedience. It opens up a realm for existence in which the dying may take hope, the afflicted find strength, and the faithful encouragement.

Mere recitation of the psalms will lay hold on none of these possibilities. If, however, in the use of psalms as our praise and prayer and scripture we are led to feel and think and decide as those who live in the kingdom of God in hope of the kingdom of God, then we might begin to grasp some of them. We might be better able to trust ourselves to the One who comes saying, "The kingdom of God is at hand." That would be the right reason for the renewal of psalmody today.

James L. Mays, The LORD Reigns - A Theological Handbook to the Psalms, p.11

augustine & the psalms

In his Confessions, Augustine tells how he used the psalms in a period of retreat between his conversion and baptism. "What utterances sent I unto Thee, my God, when I read the Psalms of David, those faithful songs and sounds of devotion.... What utterances I used to send up unto Thee in those Psalms, and how was I inflamed toward Thee by them" (IX, 4).

For Augustine it was a time of preparation for a different life, of initiation into a new existence, a period in which habits of thought, customs of practice, and feelings about self and others and the world had to be reconstituted. As part of the transformation, he was learning a new language.

He spoke the psalms to and before the Christian God, who was now source and subject of his faith and life. He took their vocabulary and sentences as his own. He identified himself with the speaker of the psalms. He said the psalms as his words, let his feelings be evoked and led by their language, spoke the words that resonated in his own consciousness in concord with those of the psalms. He was acquiring a language world that went with his new identity as a Christian. It was the vocabulary of prayer and praise, the "first order" language that expressed the sense of self and world that comes with faith in the God to whom, of whom, and for whom the psalms speak.

James L. Mays, The LORD Reigns - A Theological Handbook to the Psalms, p.3

In a different light

It has always struck me as a great (and regrettable irony): Festus and Agrippa agree that Paul could have been set free (Acts 26:32) but because Paul has appealed to Caesar (Acts 25:11 ), to Caesar he must go. If only he'd held on a little while longer before making that last-ditch appeal, it could all have been so much simpler; still, I'm sure the Lord is able to use it for Paul's and the gospel's good. He is sovereign, after all.

But no; it's much more definite than that, in every sense. Paul has already been told that the Lord is taking him to Rome (Acts 23:11) - the only thing not specified was the how and why of the way in which that journey would come about. The purpose for going was as clear as day:

As you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome (Acts 23:11)

So Paul's appeal to Caesar is neither impetuous nor desperate; it arises in the context of the Lord's clear direction and decision to send his apostle to the heart of the empire. And the forcing of Festus' hand is not a matter for regret; it is simply the Lord's time and place for enacting his plan to send Paul to Rome.

I'd never seen it that way before. I do now.

doctrine & competence

Doctrines, then, are profitable for celebrating, communicating, criticizing - and coping - provided they are used competently. The present work sets forth an account of theological competence, which involves more than academic expertise. Theological competence is ultimately a matter of being able to make judgements that display the mind of Christ. Individual Christians, and the church as a whole, have no more crucial task than achieving such theological competence. One of the chief means of doing so is by attending to doctrine - to its derivation from Scripture and its development in the believing community."

Kevin J. Vanhoozer, in the introduction to The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Liguistic Approach to Christian Theology, p. 2

final blessing

God bless you, Dad;
God bless you, Dad.

You've been
a wonderful father,
a good husband
and
a lovely grandad.

You've loved us all so much;
we all love you so much.

God bless you, Dad;
God bless you, Dad.

(the final words spoken to George Myerscough, early morning 30/11/05)

Closure

A year ago
I closed your eyes
after that last, long
gasp of life.
It was the hardest thing I've ever done.

You were there
when my eyes opened in life
and I was there to close yours in death;
your eyes brimmed with joy at the sight,
mine with savage pain.
The colour remained
but not the life.

A year ago
I closed your eyes;
the bruise remains.

resemblance

Some people say
I have my father's
eyes

but I've always known
I had his
heart.

the longest time

For the longest time
your voice has been
silent;
that voice which could boom
out, calling for tea,
while preserving
from sight
a thousand realities.

I've waited to see you
and to hear you
once more
but even the fullest dreams
are empty;

void.

I saw you last
in that morning light;

still and gone.

How John Mark Became Helpful

He was a deserter; a failure. And the cause of a sharp disagreement between two Christian ministers, one of them his uncle. So sharp in fact that they no longer worked together.

Later on, the one who had objected to John Mark's continued presence on the team speaks of him in very warm terms; he has proved himself to be a valuable colleague in gospel work.

So how did the change come about? How was this fallible young man recovered? Who mentored him into being a faithful gospel servant?

Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus. (Acts 15:39)

The one who didn't give up on him, presumably.

Strengthen your brothers

Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers. (Luke 22:31,32 TNIV)

Satan wants to sift the disciples like wheat - he wants to put them to the test, chew them up and spit them out. Jesus tells Simon about this. They are all in Satan's sights. But Jesus has prayed for...Peter, that his faith would not fail him. And those prayers are answered: in the event of Peter's testing, his faith doesn't fail him; in faith, he repents of his sin when Jesus looks at him.

But what about the others? Did they not need Jesus' prayers too? Why tell Simon that they were all vulnerable but that he had prayed only for Simon? The pronouns are deliberate and deliberately disclose that distinction.

The answer is in the commission Jesus gives the soon-to-fall and soon-to-be-restored Peter: when he has turned, he is to strengthen his brothers. Jesus will help them in their vulnerability through Peter, their fallen and restored brother.

We need the community of such brothers and sisters. They are part of the Lord's means of strengthening us in the face of our vulnerability.

Exodus 17:8-16

1. Fightings Without
Israel has been delivered from the terrors of Egypt and has begun to self-destruct in the wilderness. It is often the case that when the heat is off in one direction, trouble looms in another. But they really have no time for grumbling and accusing Moses and testing the Lord - other battles await them and, in this scene, assault them. The Amalekties take the place of Pharaoh and come out to attack Israel at Rephidim.

Although it is early days for Israel, a pattern is being set here. The problem is not just Egypt; it is that "the whole world is under the control of the evil one" (1 John 5:19). The battles that Israel face are spiritual in nature; they arise from Satan's opposition to the Lord and his plans to reconcile all things to himself and to heal his fractured creation.

Here is the Christian's life and the life of the church - a life of battle; serious, costly and intense. Israel needs to awake to that reality; they are to engage in a true holy war, a war that will ultimately not be fought with worldly weapons but with the weapons of righteousness and prayer and the word of God.

We must be alert to the reality of our own situation - every day is another day of battle, of warfare. We must do all that we can to avoid internal divisions that inflict wounds within the body and take our place on the true field of battle.

2. Deliverance through human effort and God's help
When Israel was rescued from Egypt and brought through the Red Sea, they stood still and saw the salvation of the LORD. Now, they need to put to use the armour and weapons they left Egypt with. They need to join the Lord in fighting the battles of faith, the battle for the salvation of the cosmos.

And so Moses tells Joshua to take men and to fight the Amalekites on the plain; for his part, he will go and stand on the hill with "the staff of God" raised.

That action on Moses' part has been the subject of quite a lot of debate over the years. Is it a symbol of prayer? Or is Moses symbolising the Lord as he stands over the battle? Certainly, raised arms are often used in the OT as a posture that signifies prayer. And there can be little doubt but that the whole battle is bathed in prayer and is fought in dependence upon the Lord.

But the clearest aspect of this scene is the sheer effort expended by Moses in keeping his arms aloft and the connection between his raised arms and the progress of the battle. The Lord chooses to involve his people in his battles and that involvement takes courage and effort.

If it is right to see Moses' raised arms as signifying prayer, our own experience would no doubt bear out how tough that can be. How demanding it can be to wrestle in prayer! But this is our calling; we are enlisted as the Lord's servants and must engage in the battle with all our heart, with all our energies, for his glory.

3. Supporting leadership
But however we understand the raising of Moses' arms and the holding aloft of the staff, it is clear that he needs help to do so and Aaron and Hur step forward to give that help. In a sense, this is almost a preview of what transpires in the next chapter where Moses takes Jethro's advice and delegates some of the work to others.

I want to say two things in the light of what we see here.

i) Seeing Moses as a type of Christ - The NT is not shy to make connections between Jesus and Moses, seeing Moses as a shadow and Jesus as the reality. Moses here is seen to be a man of flesh, one who needs the support of others if Israel is to win the day.

In some ways, that picture is replicated in the life of Jesus - he grew tired and needed to sleep; he was hungry and thirsty; and, in the garden of Gethsemane, he asked 3 of his disciples to stay with him in his hour of need and he benefited from the ministry of angels at that time too. Jesus was a real man in all those ways and we should not be afraid to say so.

But, having said that, the NT emphasis is that Jesus won the battle alone; he is the great leader and champion of his people. He is all we need to know victory over sin and death. Moses was faithful as a servant in God's household; Jesus was faithful as a son set over that household (Heb. 3:5,6). Whilst we remember the lives of men like Moses and learn from them, it is Jesus we honour, it is Jesus we worship, it is Jesus we lean all our hopes on. And he will not fail us.

ii) Moses as a leader in need of support - The second thing I want to say about Moses and the help of Aaron and Hur is that it demonstrates to us the very real need of leaders in the church to be supported. All leaders are weak and fragile; however blessed a man's ministry might be, he remains fallen and fragile. Ben is a man called and equipped by God; that is clear and that is crucial. But he will need your support. How can you best give that to him?

• pray for him, but also pray with him - make the prayer meeting a time when he knows that the church is at one in the great gospel battle.
• support by showing that you are seriously engaging with the word he ministers week by week. Talk to him about it; ask him to help you to apply it. Tell him how God's Word has helped you, how it has been relevant in your daily walk. He won't be looking for compliments at the door; it's real engagement with God's Word that truly encourages those whose responsibility is to minister that word.
• encourage him by bearing with one another in love;
• encourage him by being active witnesses to the grace of God in whatever way the Lord opens for you.

In all those ways and so many more you can show your support for Ben - and in showing that support, you demonstrate that your heart is for God and his glory.

4. The LORD is our banner
So the battle is fought and arms are raised to the Lord and the battle is won - the Lord delivers his people. And, just as much as a time of failure such as occurred at Massah and Meribah, a victory of this nature demands to be memorialised. Notice two things:

i) The Lord tells Moses to record this event on a scroll and to make sure that Joshua hears it "because I will completely blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven" (v.14). That isn't a vindictive gesture but rather the Lord's determination to rid this world of all that oppose his plans to rescue and to restore.

ii) An altar is constructed by Moses and called "The LORD is my Banner". The people of Israel are under his banner and therefore under his care.

The church belongs to the Lord and is his responsibility. He will give the victory and has done so in Jesus. That is to be the source of all our confidence and hope as we do battle in his name. We go out into the daily battles with the Lord as our banner – the God who enlists us into his army to do battle for righteousness, to hold out the word of life, the demonstrate the value and the power of redeeming love.

God grant us grace ever to do so. Amen.

Yahweh's mercy

let me fall into the hands of Yahweh,
for his mercy is very great;
and let me not fall into the hands of men
(1 Chron. 21:13)

David was offered 3 choices as punishment for numbering Israel: three years of famine; three months of war or three days of the Angel of Yahweh bringing death on the people. Three years seems a long time but they might just be able to eke things out; three months against military enemies for a seasoned warrior might not seem too long; but who knows how much damage the omnipotent God could do in just three days?

David opts for the three days, yet only on this basis: Yahweh's mercy is very great. Unlike fallen humanity, in wrath he remembers mercy. And his mercy is very great. It is indeed a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God but faced with the choice between Yahweh's merciful judgement and human cruelty, David chose the former.

Because Yahweh's mercy is very great.

The Holy Scriptures

1.
Oh Book! infinite sweetnesse! let my heart
Suck ev’ry letter, and a hony gain,
Precious for any grief in any part ;
To cleare the breast, to mollifie all pain.

Thou art all health, health thriving, till it make
A full eternitie: thou art a masse
Of strange delights, where we may wish and take.
Ladies, look here; this is the thankfull glasse,

That mends the lookers eyes: this is the well
That washes what it shows. Who can indeare
Thy praise too much? thou art heav’ns Lidger here,
Working against the states of death and hell.

Thou art joyes handsell: heav’n lies flat in thee,
Subject to ev’ry mounters bended knee.


2.
Oh that I knew how all thy lights combine,
And the configurations of their glorie!
Seeing not only how each verse doth shine,
But all the constellations of the storie.

This verse marks that, and both do make a motion
Unto a third, that ten leaves off doth lie:
Then as dispersed herbs do watch a potion,
These three make up some Christians destinie.

Such are thy secrets, which my life makes good,
And comments on thee: for in ev’ry thing
Thy words do finde me out, and parallels bring,
And in another make me understood.

Starres are poore books, and oftentimes do misse
This book of starres lights to eternall blisse.

(George Herbert)

Professional Daydreamer (Over The Rhine)

Part of me
You are a part of me
I never want to lose
Hard for me
This is too hard
Maybe I can't get through
What will I miss the most
Pray that I'm haunted by your ghost

Listening
You're always listening
I don't know what to say
Why don't you turn and run at break-neck speed
Just to get away
And when you catch your breath
Pray I said every word I meant

Alright it's alright now
Alright it's alright

Broken down
We're all so broken down
Bandages on our wings
I know I don't have to tell you
Only broken hearts can sing
I'm hoping for a sign
Pray that I'm anything but fine

Some things are never gonna change
You ought to know by now

*******

words: Bergquist/Detweiler
music: Bergquist

Exodus 17:1-7

Israel are well and truly in the wilderness and have been for some time now. The problem for them is that the wilderness “is no longer simply a place but a state of mind” (Fretheim). They are caught in- between promise and fulfilment and that poses significant challenges to their faith.

We, too, are like Israel, in the in-between – having been saved and yet being saved; called out from the world into the Lord’s kingdom but not yet in the fullness of all that will mean. And when you’re in the wilderness, it is often difficult to sort out what is perception and what is reality. In this passage, we see Israel still struggling with that.

1. Being Led
Israel, for all their faults, do at least display here some semblance of obedience, in that they respond to the Lord’s leading – they set out “as the LORD commanded”. The road of discipleship is a case of ‘one step after another’ and the hymn-writer was right that ‘each victory will help you some other to win’.

But you’ve got to keep putting one foot in front of the other, which is what Israel fails to do here. They are led to Rephidim but there is water there and, instead of seeking God in faith, they once more complain. But this is even worse than before; the term used here is very strong – they quarrel with Moses and again accuse him of having led them out simply for them to die in the desert.

The mistake Israel makes here is to assume that being led by the Lord means a life without difficulty; as one writer has helpfully said, “God’s leading does not always move directly toward oases” (Fretheim). To encounter difficulty and hardship is not proof that we have been mistaken is terms of the Lord’s leading – we must not think that we have taken a wrong turn if we encounter challenging situations.

In fact, it is part of God’s purposes to lead his people into this difficult situation, just as we see the Spirit leading Jesus after his baptism into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan. That may have seemed a strange choice on the Lord’s part but he knows what he’s doing.

The end in view in all the leading of God is fullness of life and joy in his presence but there are many turns to be taken along the path that leads there and some of those turns will be into darker times in which the Lord’s purpose is to cause his light to be seen more brightly, for his grace to be seen as all-sufficient, for us to be built-up in our most holy faith.

But Israel has yet to see that. They test the Lord in their unbelief, making their continued belief in him to rest upon a demonstration of his power and provision. What they’re doing is trying to turn faith into sight – and, sadly, we can find ourselves unwittingly doing the same.

The Lord leads; it may even be into times of difficulty but his purpose is not to crush but to conform us; he wants us to know the riches of his love in the wastelands of this world, the delights of his grace in the darkness of a world in sin. We can trust him; he’s proved that he’s worthy of that trust in the cross of Calvary.

2. Being Gracious
When the people quarrel with him, Moses asks why they’re testing the Lord and then goes in person to the Lord for help, asking what he should do with the people. Whether we’re in leadership in some capacity or whether we’re not, Moses’ example is a good one to learn from – take it to the Lord in prayer.

The Lord doesn’t directly answer that question but instead tells Moses to take his staff and to take the elders with him and to go to the rock at Horeb where the Lord will stand before him. And at Horeb, with the elders as witnesses and with the Lord before him, Moses is to strike the rock and water will flow from it. The same staff that struck the Nile and brought about judgement is to strike the rock and bring relief and blessing.

So that is what Moses does and that is what we see – the Lord acting in mercy and grace, bringing the blessings of creation into the wilderness. Here is a beautiful demonstration again of why he has brought Israel out of Egypt – his plans are to heal creation and make fruitful that which is barren.

In the light of the fact that the people are now quarrelling with Moses (and hence the Lord), it’s all the more remarkable to see God’s patience with them here. This is the third time they have reacted badly and once more the Lord bears with his people and meets their need.

And he does so in person – Moses may strike the rock but the Lord is right there before him. When Paul reflects on this incident in the NT he tells us that the rock was Christ, the Messiah – the people are given physical drink but, more than that, they are drinking from the spiritual rock that is Christ (1 Cor. 10:1ff).

Just as the manna points forward to Jesus, so this water also reflects that perspective. Yet it is more than that; the people drink of Christ himself – God is present with them and feeds them with himself and satisfies their thirst in ways that are deeper than the physical.

That is the measure of the grace and the provision of God for his people. He gives not just gifts but himself – that is at the heart of his mission. That is to be our goal and aim too – to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings.

3. Being named
The Lord is gracious to his people but that doesn’t mean he is indifferent to their sin in quarrelling with him and testing him in their unbelief. And so this place is memorialised as Massah and Meribah, ‘testing and quarreling’.

In time, this incident came to stand as one of the chief evidences of the hardness of the people’s hearts – they had been recipients of great mercies, blessed so signally by the Lord and yet they failed him so badly. And so the failure was marked down and used as an object lesson for generations to come, just as we have seen Paul using it in 1 Cor. 10:1-4.

Maybe there are places in our histories that also deserve just such a name – times and places where we have quarrelled, where we have made our hearts hard and distrusted the Lord. If we know that there are such places in our own history, does that mean we can no longer walk with the Lord?

Such places are named not in order to shame but to teach, to humble and to encourage fresh faith and obedience. Israel would always remember Massah and Meribah and would be exhorted to listen and to learn from this incident.

As we look at our own stuttering discipleship in the light of Israel’s failure, we need to take to heart their example and humble our hearts. We also need to do what they singularly failed to do: look to the Rock in faith and trust.

The message they heard and that they witnessed in the great exodus events was not combined with faith; if we’re Christians this morning, we have come to faith in Jesus and we share in the true exodus in him, but we must make sure that our faith is an ongoing reality, that our trust is living and real.

And take heart from Paul’s words in 1 Cor 10:13 – “No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to us all. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.”

May God work in us what is pleasing in his sight. Amen.

Election and Covenant

"The Sinai event is a kind of axle for holding together two basic realities: one, everything God does involves me (election); and two, everything I do is therefore significant (covenant). Because I am chosen, I have consequence. Election creates a unique identity; covenant describes a responsible relationship. Election is the declaration that God has designs upon me; covenant is the description of how the things I do fit into those designs."

Eugene H. Peterson
Five Smooth Stones for Pastoral Work

Ruth

"is the inconsequential outsider whose life is essential for telling the complete story of salvation."

"is the instance of a person uprooted, obscure, alienated who learned to understand her story as a modest but nevertheless essential part of the vast epic whose plot is designed by God's salvation."

Eugene H. Peterson
Five Smooth Stones for Pastoral Work

Exodus 16:1-36

A desert is a hostile environment. Even for those used to living there, life in the wilderness poses severe challenges. And that is a picture the Bible often uses to describe the Christian life.

Here, we see Israel is a physical desert but it is also more than that. For them, it is a place of spiritual challenge. And in the scene before us, a food crisis turns into a faith crisis.

1. Community challenge
We have already seen the people face an issue similar to this one but there is a key difference in how this chapter opens and then continues: four times we read about the “whole community” (vv.1,2,9,10).

They have been brought out of Egypt by the Lord to be a real community, to be the first-fruits of a whole new society, a people belonging to the Lord. And in that community they are to help and support each other, they are to encourage and strengthen one another as they journey on with the Lord.

But it is just at this point that they singularly fail. Instead of urging each other to remain faithful to the Lord they complain and grumble as a whole community.

It’s all too easy for us to be guilty of something similar, of failing to stand for faith in the face of difficulties. The days we live in are full of challenges that demand a robust faith from the church as the church. We all have a part to play in that; it is vital that strengthen each other to face those challenges. The last thing the world needs is a church that falls like a house of cards under the first breeze of trouble.

Are you looking to be an encouragement to others? Do you pray that others’ faith will not fail them? Our calling is to be faithful as a whole community.

And it is at that point that Israel failed here so badly. They judged their lives (and their God) by their appetites; all that mattered was getting food and the lack of it signified to them a lack of care.

We are very physical creatures and have been made that way by the Lord but we must not allow our appetites to govern our thinking about the Lord and his purposes for us. He does not intend to harm us; his reason for calling us to be his own is not in order to keep us chained in misery. The lesson they had to learn (and learned painfully slowly) was that people do not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from God’s mouth.

And because they judge their God by their bellies they end up making a preposterous charge against Moses and Aaron (v.3b) and presumably think the same about the Lord too. It’s almost laughable but we might see something of ourselves in their words if we look closely enough. Have there been times when you have thought that the Lord had it in for you, that he didn’t want you to prosper, that for some reason (usually because you weren’t holy enough) he needed to treat you harshly?

We need to tell ourselves to grow up. The Lord is not like how we portray him in our thinking. Such attitudes and fears on our part are deeply immature and tragically insecure. How can we ever think he is variable and his love for us unstable once we have truly seen the cross?

2. Testing and teaching
As before, the Lord’s amazing response to such immature thinking and behaviour is to be patient with his people and to graciously provide them with food – with manna and quail.

The reason the Lord does so is stated in two ways. Having given his people manna, the Lord is going to test them, to see if they will follow his instructions (v.4). But alongside the testing of the people – and, perhaps, in this context more prominent – he is going to teach them. They will “know” that the LORD brought them out of Egypt (v.6) and they will “know” that the LORD is their God (v.12).

There is more that we can and will say about that teaching in terms of its details but we need first to grasp what is being said here because it is utterly vital to genuine and healthy Christian living. We are called to know the Lord and he will do all that is necessary to bring us every more deeply into that knowledge.
Here we get to the heart of why he called Israel out of Egypt – that they might know him, that they might be restored into relationship with the Creator and, in that relationship, that they might then be a witness, a light, to the nations.

We need to know that it is the LORD who has rescued us and that the LORD is our God. We need to know that he is not a tame God but the self-existent, eternal and all-glorious God. There is no rival to him and we need to know that afresh and ever more deeply.

And we need to know that this God of glory has pledged himself to be our God, to be our Lord, to take complete ownership of us and responsibility for us. We need to know that more deeply and more truly. Grasping those points will greatly enhance our walk with him, encourage our faith and make us a blessing to others.

3. Further lessons
But this incident allows us to go further into the nitty-gritty of knowing the Lord and responding to his ways with us (it was, after all, a test for them). I want to say a number of things quite briefly on this point.

ii) Having enough – In a way that is not explained, they all collected just enough for themselves. None had too much; none had too little. Quite how it happened, we aren’t told – it just did. But when Paul refers to it in the NT, he uses it to encourage those who have much to share with those who have little (2 Cor. 8:13ff). That’s how a growing maturity shows itself.

ii) Having enough daily – The LORD provides for his people daily and so they are to trust him every day. This, of course, is the lesson Jesus teaches us in the Lord’s prayer – “Give us today our daily bread”. We are to rely on the Lord not periodically but perpetually; it is not maturity to think we can somehow go beyond that.

Some of the people test that out and get a shock – the manna has gone off. The Lord has tested them and they have failed the test. They want to do things their way; they want to go the road and God’s promises plus their own efforts. It doesn’t work for them and it won’t for us either.

iii) Having enough daily within God’s rhythm of work and rest – The Lord tells the people to collect extra on the 6th day and they’ll have enough not to need to collect any on

Whatever your take on the whole Sabbath issue, whether it continues into the NT unchanged or is modified (and I think it’s the latter), this scene at the very least shows us that as people created in God’s image we need to live within the pattern he sets for work and rest.

This incident comes before the giving of the law on Sinai; it is clearly linked to it but it is also linked backwards to creation and the Lord resting on the 7th day – which is just what he does here. They aren’t to try to collect manna on the Sabbath because there won’t be any – the Lord is resting from that activity.

The rhythms of work and rest are important for us as the Lord’s people. He has made us that way. We do well to learn that lesson.

iv) Passing on the lessons – All this is taught in the specific situation of Israel is the desert needing to be fed and the Lord responding in grace through manna and quail. When the situation changed (entering the promised land), that provision stopped (v.35).

But while the situation is specific, the lessons learned are suitable for every generation to reflect on. And so a sample of the manna is kept as a kind-of exhibit for future generations to learn from.

Some say that we have to learn from our mistakes; no doubt we do. But alongside that, we can and should also learn from the mistakes and the experiences of others. The manna in the jar would allow future generations to be taught important lessons about knowing and trusting the Lord – they would need to make those lessons their own but they ought to help them not to make the same mistakes.

The NT says the same to us as we read the OT. God grant us grace to do so. Amen.

The best questions

about heaven are usually those to which the answer demands a sustained and creative reflection upon our current life in this world.

For example, will I be able to paint well in heaven? My artistic ability with paints is very limited, if not entirely absent. But will everything not be perfect in heaven? If yes, surely I'll be able to paint and paint well? Me and Rembrandt (should we both be there) would be on a par.

Given that part of the way in which humanity is created in the image of God is the diversity of people and their gifts, I wonder if there will still be differences between us when glorified? If everyone was perfectly capable of doing everything themselves, would that not also militate against true community and our mutual dependency, which again seems part of living in the image of God.

Maybe others will be able to teach me how to paint. Maybe I won't be jealous of those who can.

And maybe not.

Acts 17:16-34(ii)

Athens in Paul’s day was strikingly similar to our own society. All views were welcome; none were right, none were wrong. It was a society with every shade of belief. As Paul went round the city, he noticed it was “full of idols” and he was “deeply distressed” at what he saw. His response was to engage with it in two ways.

Firstly, he went into the synagogue to preach to those gathered there. They were, in a sense, a captive audience with a biblical heritage he could draw on. Secondly, he went into the market place, where the ordinary Athenians were, and reasoned with them too. There he came into contact with some Epicureans and Stoics who were very keen to debate and to listen to new ideas.

They wanted to know what he babbling about so they asked him to appear before the Areopagus. Here is a great opportunity to explain the gospel to some of the leading figures in the town! We’re going to look at how Paul approached that situation, in order to learn something of how to handle what is a similar situation in our own society.

This account is clearly a summary of what Paul said; his actual speech may have lasted as long as a couple of hours. Each point here would have been greatly expanded and explained. We can see how he may have expanded the points by reading his letters which have many of the same points (e.g. Rom 1).

Before we look in detail at what he said, notice what he did as a whole. Having been attentive to the situation as he walked around Athens, Paul is now creative in how he shares the gospel with them. He counters their telling of the big story and conveys the Bible’s big story. He didn’t trot out a pre-planned formula for telling the gospel but engaged creatively with them.

One thing he did was use terms his audience were familiar with, words that meant something in how they told the big story of life, even quoting one of their poets. But he gave those terms a new twist. We need to learn how to do the same with today’s buzz words and use them to convey genuine reality.

1. God the Creator
Given that he is dealing with people who believe that there is a god (or gods), Paul counters their views by conveying the biblical reality of God. What is especially important is what he says about this God; he declares that he is “the God who made the world and everything in it”. He focuses on God as Creator.

He didn’t argue with his hearers about how God created the heavens and the earth, a subject on which they held many views. What he did was stress the fact that God is Creator of all. That’s an important difference. The creation debate can regrettably downplay the fact that God is the Creator by concentrating too much on the way in which he created. Scripture never does that; the emphasis is always on the fact that he is the Creator, on theology and not science.

Paul then goes on to assert that the God who is Creator of all is also “the Lord of heaven and earth”. There is no rival to the one true Creator God. There isn’t a pantheon of gods in the heavens; there isn’t a great struggle going on between rival deities; there is one God who made all and who is Lord of all.

Furthermore, God is entirely self-sufficient. He is “not served by human hands, as if he needed anything”. He is not in danger of going hungry if we don’t feed him; nor can he be manipulated by the offer of a bed for the night in some temple or other.

He is the God who does not need us. He is not enriched by our serving him; we can add nothing to him and can take nothing away from him. Here is God in his self-existent glory!

And this is the God Paul proclaims: one who made us and is in every respect above us. But although above us, he is not uninterested in us; he is not remote in that sense. Rather, he “himself gives all men life and breath and everything else”. He is involved with us on a daily basis.

So much of this is contrary to how Athenians thought and so vastly different to how so many think today. Either God is so far away he can’t be bothered with us or else he’s simply there at our beck and call, a kind-of heavenly emergency service.
If people are to be challenged with the gospel, they’ll need to know about the true nature of God. Years ago this wasn’t so necessary; if people didn’t believe in God, it was the Christian God they didn’t believe in. But now all sorts of things are doing the rounds and we need to get across a truly biblical picture of the one true God. Maybe we need to dwell more upon this ourselves in order to share it with others.

2. Man the Creature
With that understanding in place, Paul moves onto its natural corollary: if God is the Creator, man is his creature. In vv.25-28 Paul shows that we all utterly depend on God for everything. He is sovereign over the whole of history and over the ordering of the world. Far from being absent, he has been intimately involved in his world. As such, he is the only legitimate God of all peoples.

And why has he done what he has done? “So that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him”. Not only does that show us something of God’s heart and the destiny of all history, it also hints at mankind’s great problem: we’re adrift from our Creator.

We need to know who God is and what he is like; we also need to know who and what we are: creatures in need of their Creator but estranged from him by sin.

3. Jesus the Judge
And here Paul moves into more direct confrontation with his audience. Ignorance of God is not simply a personal tragedy; it is an assault upon the one true God. Such ignorance is not neutral; it is utterly sinful, since it denies God his place and his praise. To pick up Paul in Rom. 1, all people are guilty since “what may be known about God is plain…because God has made it plain”. Ignorance of God is culpable.

Their profound ignorance of God was highlighted in their altar “to an unknown god” in their thinking that “the divine being in like gold or silver or stone”. The fact that we are his creatures should make us realise how foolish such ideas are. And yet we don’t! Still today gods of silver and gold are worshipped, albeit in different forms.

Here is the desperately ugly nature of sin: it is first and foremost idolatry, the de-godding of God. And this is what we need to get across to people in our treatment of sin. It doesn’t simply ruin society and the lives of individuals (an atheist could make that point). It is a denial of the one true God in his glory; it is an outrage against him.

And as such, sin invites judgement: “he has set a day when he will judge the world by the man he has appointed”. Hard as it may be to share, the gospel message is not simply about how we get to be happy but about how we get to be saved from destruction.

This is why we need someone to reveal the one true God to us and to reconcile us to him; this is why we need someone to die in our place and to rise from the dead in triumph over sin and evil.

This is where Paul begins to speak of Jesus (v.31). He doesn’t start with him because he needs to do the groundwork first; they need to understand about God and themselves in order to see where Jesus fits in. Many who we meet today are in the same need. We must be careful to lay that foundation.

4. Response
But declaring the resurrection gets Paul short shrift. These folk wanted to escape the physical world, not be brought back to it! Faithfully telling the gospel in ways that are relevant and compelling will invite rejection. We need to be prepared for that and cling to the non-negotiables of the gospel.

But there were some who followed Paul and began to walk the road of discipleship. It was worth the effort and the ridicule. What counted was not the esteem in which the philosophers of Athens held Paul but whether any of them would respond to the gospel message and be saved. And, praise God, some were.

May it please him to give us the same wisdom and boldness that Paul had and to have the joy of seeing many saved in our day too. Amen.

Acts 17:16-34(i)

1. Setting the Scene
For those who want to share the gospel, which ought to mean every Christian in one way or another, we live in strange times. A while back, it could be assumed that ours was a nominally Christian society but that's no longer the case.

There are still some who go to church and who might think of themselves as 'religious' people but the rest of the picture is much more confused. Today, religion is out and spirituality is in. Precisely what that means is another question but a lot of people have some kind of yearning for it.

Whether they're into spirituality or a card-carrying atheist, all people have a way of looking at the world, all people have a 'big story' to tell about life and its meaning (or lack of it). And in this day of multiple ways of looking at the world, we're told that none are wrong and all are right, if they're right for you.

This situation poses great challenges to us as we seek to share the gospel. We're probably all more comfortable trying to speak to someone who perhaps went to Sunday School and has at least some background. But all the time there are less and less people with that kind of heritage. The recent census may have shown that 71% of people in the UK call themselves Christian but the reality is that most of those haven't a clue as to what it means.

In our country, not only has the tide turned but it is running out at an alarming rate. We face a situation in which there is massive biblical illiteracy and an aggressive commitment to a pluralism that won't allow for genuine debate over truth.

Facing such a situation, this passage is a great help to us, not least because the situation Paul faced was remarkably similar. In the synagogues he encountered religious folk and in the market place and in the Areopagus were others who held widely divergent views on life. Athens was a place where you could find most flavours of first-century spirituality.

In particular, Paul encounters two groups of thinkers, the Stoics and the Epicureans. The Stoics refused to be ruled by their passions because the gods were not and they espoused a godlike principle of reason. The Epicureans on the other hand thought the gods so far removed from us that it doesn't matter what they're like. They dwell in the spaces between the atoms in a state of calmness and that's what we should be looking for too.

But although the Stoics and the Epicureans had quite different ways of seeing reality, the one thing you couldn't do was to say 'This way is right and this way is wrong'. Which just goes to show that there is nothing new under the sun!

Paul had to deal with people who had some background in the scriptures, just as some folk today have some degree of Christian heritage we can connect with. But he also found people who were biblically illiterate, with no background in the Bible and with their own ways of telling the story of what life is all about.

Our situation is not new; the challenges we face have been faced before. There is much we can learn from this highly important account of Paul's visit to Athens.

The one significant difference is we face a certain boredom with Christianity, the sense of having 'been there, done that'. That brings additional challenges in terms of showing the abiding relevance of the good news about Jesus. There is a degree of apathy that needs to be overcome that wasn't present in Athens.

2. Reacting to Idolatry
This passage shows us how he handled those different needs, focussing in particular on those who were biblically illiterate. Before we look at the details of that, we need to notice how he responded when he got to Athens.

He begins by taking a tour around this famous old city, which by now was way past its heyday but still with a big reputation. Was he just playing the part of a tourist until his friends arrived? It seems not. His tour is more like Nehemiah going around Jerusalem to inspect the damage to the walls. Paul is taking in the kind of situation that he faces. He is using his eyes and ears to get a feel for the situation.

And on his tour, he noticed that the city was full of idols and seeing them "he was greatly distressed". He could have easily been impressed by the architecture or intimidated by the city's reputation but he is neither. He is deeply and profoundly upset by what he sees. Why? Because he has such passion for God's glory and compassion for the people who are living in such darkness.

His reaction is a challenge for us. How do we react to what we see? Are we impressed by man's achievements or intimidated by PhDs? Are we blind when it comes to today's expressions of idolatry and arrogance? Do we see all culture as being somehow neutral and without much spiritual significance?

In his speech to the Areopagus, Paul lays bare the desperately sinful nature of idolatry; it is that understanding which fuels his passionate response to what he sees. We perhaps need to recapture something of that same understanding.

3. Engaging Others
What does Paul do about what he sees? He engages both with those who have some heritage and those with none.

In the synagogue he takes the opportunity to convey the message that Messiah has come and he is Jesus. But in a sense that was the easy option. They were a fairly captive audience, with a biblical background, who were meant to be waiting for the Messiah. What about the rest of the city?

Paul engages them through direct encounter: "in the market place day by day with those who happened to be there". And that led him into direct contact with some Stoics and Epicureans, followed by an opportunity to speak before the Areopagus.

He didn't wait for them to come to him. He went to where they were and engaged them directly with the gospel. That is an extremely important lesson for us and one that needs to be carefully worked out. It has the most serious ramifications for those who have been set apart to the work of evangelism and teaching God's Word but it doesn't stop there. As a church and as individuals we need to ask serious questions about how we reach those who haven't heard the gospel.

It is not enough to wait for them to come to us; we need to create (rather than contrive) gospel opportunities. For many of us, those opportunities abound in terms of our daily contact with people at work or in the neighbourhood. But if the opportunities are there, they need to be taken. We need to be looking out for some way in, praying for some opening that will provide a natural way of introducing the gospel.

But when we get that chance, what are we to say? How do we approach the complex and confusing situation where anything goes and just about anything is believed? Paul's speech has much to teach us on that score and we'll look in detail at it next time. Let me close today by asking you to take time this week to pray about how you might both encounter and engage unbelievers with the gospel. And to ask God to give you the wisdom and the courage to take those opportunities.

Acts 17:1-15

It's sometimes said that a person's reputation has gone before them. That certainly seems to be true in this passage for Paul and his friends. They are described as "These men who have caused trouble all over the world."

In some cases a reputation, whether good or bad, is deserved. Why does this crowd make such a claim? We're going to see that the answer lies in a confrontation that challenges us and is the forerunner of further conflict.

1. Confrontation
It all begins when Paul and his friends arrive in Thessalonica from Philippi. When they got there, they went as usual into the synagogue to speak to the Jews there, along with non-Jews who had attached themselves to Judaism.

During the course of 3 Sabbath days, Paul "reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead" (vv.2,3). And having shown that, he told them, "This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ."

He has a message that the Jews could follow, based on their own scriptures. He endeavoured to explain the text and show how the OT prophecies about the Messiah had been fulfilled in Jesus, the one who had died and rose again.

There is nothing here to suggest that Paul was whipping the crowd into a frenzy, that he played on their emotions or tried to exploit them. So why the accusation about causing trouble? Why the big scene in the town?

The trouble arises on 2 scores that are, in essence, the same. Paul's message confronts both the Jews in the synagogue and the non-Jewish crowd in the town. In terms of the Jews, Paul is explaining that God's promised Messiah had come. He is able to show quite definitely from the OT scriptures that the Messiah had to die and rise again. This was God's plan to rescue a world lost in sin. And the Jesus he is proclaiming fits the bill perfectly.

This is confrontational because the Jews and those who had given their allegiance to the Jewish faith were waiting for the Messiah. If he had really come, then they needed to pledge their allegiance to him. But for many of them, this picture of the Messiah didn't fit with their expectations.

And there's the rub. What would they do with the one who God had shown was the true Messiah? To hear this message left them with a profound choice. Some responded positively to what they heard. But some of the Jews decided this Messiah was not for them and went to make trouble for Paul and Co.

On one level, this looks like just another argument over religion and further proof you shouldn't raise the topic in polite company. But if this is simply about religion, why is the whole town in uproar over it?

The crowd clearly sees what has been said by Paul as having deep implications for them too. Listen to what they accuse them of: "They are all defying Caesar's decrees, saying that there is another king, one called Jesus."

You see, this is not simply about religious preferences. The coming of Jesus and his dying and rising again has profound relevance for the whole world. In raising Jesus from the dead, God has declared him to the rightful ruler of the whole universe and so the gospel message calls all people everywhere to turn from their own ways and to worship him as Lord.

Why is this so upsetting to the Thessalonians? For some time, the Roman Emperor had been venerated as a god and, since he brought a certain amount of peace and prosperity to the empire, he was declared to be a saviour. His rule had brought a lot of material prosperity to Thessalonica.

The message about Jesus as Lord and Saviour directly challenged that whole way of thinking. The town was worried that any challenge to Caesar's rule would bring trouble, disturbing their peace and robbing them of their properity.

The message about Jesus confronts Jews with the promised Messiah and confronts all peoples with one who stakes a claim as rightful Lord of the whole universe.

But this confrontation is not limited to the first century. Each of us is being called today to follow Jesus as Lord and to turn away from all that challenges his lordship, whether that is material security or human relationships. The true Lord must come first; genuine peace and prosperity are only found in him as the one Saviour of sinful men and women.

But to believe this message and to genuinely embrace Jesus as Lord means trouble. It upsets the status quo, at work, in the home, in society at large. Each of us is confronted with the same choice that the people of Thessalonica faced: will we put our faith in human beings to bring us peace and prosperity or will we trust Jesus as Lord and so find in him genuine peace and a prosperity that is more than material?

2. Challenge
That confrontation brings a real challenge with it: will you take the time to evaluate what is being said? Will you come to this message with an open mind, ready to check out the claims of Jesus? No message could be either more demanding nor more rewarding.

We need to learn from the example of those in the next town Paul visited, Berea, who "were of more noble character than the Thessalonians". What that is saying is that they were more willing to learn than the others had been.

We live in the information age and all too often suffer from information overload. It's easy to dismiss something we aren't all that interested in. Please don't reject this message out of hand. It deserves your closest attention. You owe it to yourself to investigate it personally. Why not try reading one of the gospels and asking God to show you the truth about Jesus as you read. Are you willing to take that challenge?

3. Conflict
If you are willing, I need to be very straight with you from the evidence not simply of this passage but of the whole NT. All who see that Jesus is the rightful King and only Saviour and put their trust in him won't have an easy ride in this world.

That was true for Paul and his friends and, when Paul wrote to the young church in this city, it's clear that they too had suffered at the hands of their neighbours (1 Thes. 1:6). Maybe for some it had been at work, for others at home. But wherever it was the suffering was real.

It's the same today. If you're going to follow Jesus as Lord, you need to count the cost of doing so first. But that cost pales beside the wonder and the glory of knowing God personally, of knowing that Jesus died to save you and that in him you have genuine peace and eternal prosperity.

May the description Paul gives of the response of some in Thessalonica be true for each one of us: "You turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead - Jesus who rescues us from the coming wrath." (1 Thes. 1:9,10)

Acts 16:6-40

1. Under God's Control (vv.6-10)
Prov. 16:9 says that "In his heart a man plans his course but the LORD determines his steps." That principle is worked out in the experience of Paul and his companions in vv.6-10. Twice they plan to move with the gospel and twice they are stopped from doing so by the Spirit.

Moving on down to Troas, Paul then has a vision of a man of Macedonia begging them to go over and help them. Taking all these together, Luke tells us that "we got ready at once to leave for Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them." (v.10) In his gospel work, Paul has clear aims and makes plans to achieve them, targeting significant cities. Yet although he is right to make those plans, these verses show us that it is the Lord who is always in control of the gospel mission.

Quite how the Spirit prevented them we aren't told. But it was obviously made clear to Paul and his friends, although it may have only been when he had the vision that they were able to conclude that the two previous incidents were the Lord's way of saying 'no'. All gospel work is under his direction. We need to think and pray hard about what to do, where and when, but in all our planning, the Lord is free to overrule in his wisdom. That theme is further seen in the conversion of Lydia and the Jailer.

When they reach Philippi, they follow their usual practice of finding a place where Jews worshipped in order to tell them about the Messiah. On this occasion it is down by the river. There some women gathered, presumably both Jews and those who had embraced Judaism. It is while Paul is preaching to them that Lydia, a seller of purple cloth, is converted.

But notice how her conversion is described: "The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message" (v.14). No-one will ever believe except the Lord does just this. The human heart is too wrapped in sin, too dead to God, to respond unaided.

This is very humbling, since it shows our lack of power to save a single person. It is also tremendously encouraging. Not only is the Lord at work in Lydia's life before Paul arrived (she worshipped the one true God) but he does what we cannot do and reaches into the depths of a soul and makes them alive to himself, leading them to repent and to put their faith in Jesus.

The Lord was quietly at work in the heart of someone he has already been dealing with. The contrast with the Jailer is quite marked - here is someone who is not a Jew nor a convert to Judaism but no doubt a worshipper of some pagan deities and clearly within the Roman system. How will he be reached?

The answer this time is not through a quiet work in the heart but by a fearful and noisy earthquake! His duty was to guard the prisoners in his charge and a failure to do so could well lead to public humiliation and even death. So when he is aware that the earthquake has caused the prison doors to open, he is ready to kill himself.

But the Lord is again at work here. Paul and Silas were in jail because of opposition to the preaching of the gospel but in reality the Lord is still in control. No doubt the jailer had heard these two prisoners singing praise to their God and now Paul calls to him not to kill himself for they are all still there.

This leads to one of the great questions in the Bible: "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" It may be that he is simply asking how he can escape judgement, having been terrified by the earthquake. Or he may have heard something of the gospel in their songs and prayers.

Whichever is the case, they tell him straight to believe in the Lord Jesus and he will be saved. The same would be true for his family. And that is just what happens! They speak "the word of the Lord" to him and his household and, in the middle of the night, he and they are baptised as new believers in Jesus.

How remarkable the whole scene is! From the quiet order of the riverbank to the chaos of a prison under seismic shock, from a cultured proselyte to Judaism to an uncouth pagan - God is at work and is at work in power to save.

Mission that is under his control is guaranteed to accomplish what he plans for it.

2. A New Society in Philippi
The comparison between Lydia and the Jailer not only teaches us about the Lord's ability to work in any person's life, it also shows us something more of the new society he is making through the gospel.

Here you have the cultured cloth-seller and the uncouth jailer. And they are now brother and sister in the Lord! In fact, it seems that they would have met fairly soon since the church seems to have begun meeting in Lydia's home (see v.40).

The Lord is both willing and able to take the high and the low, the rich and the poor, male and female and bring them into his family. As we saw in 1 Cor. 1:26-31, he isn't swayed by worldly status. Paul shows that here by eating both with Lydia and with the jailer. The gospel breaks all barriers down.

It is vital that we also embrace the Lord's ways for his new society. Lydia and the jailer are a real 'odd couple' but here is the wisdom and power of God! In control of the mission, he furthers his purpose of making a whole new society.

3. Pagan Opposition and Roman Citizenship
In the earlier missionary journey and in the early chapters of Acts, the primary source of opposition to the gospel came from the Jews. But Luke shows us here that it is not simply the Jews who are opposed to the message but the spiritual battle is a universal one.

During their time at Philippi, Paul and his friends were followed by a slave girl who could predict the future through an evil spirit within her. In dealing with her (because she was distorting and confusing the message) Paul and Silas got into trouble with her masters and through them with the authorities.

Nowhere in the world is this message accepted unless God is at work. Not only were the Jews opposed to it but so too were pagans whose chief god was money. Although we can go out with confidence to proclaim this same message today, we too must expect all kinds of opposition.

Which makes it urgent that we learn from the way in which Paul handled the trouble. On one level they simply accept what is happening to them but on their release they appeal to their Roman citizenship. Why did they wait to do that? They could have saved themselves a night in jail! It seems likely that they didn't use their citizenship as a 'get out of jail free' card because that would put too much emphasis on the protection of the Roman state. They were the servants of the one true God; he knows how to take care of his own!

We need real wisdom to work this principle out and faith to believe that the Lord knows how to rescue his own from trials. Paul and Silas were willing to suffer rather than to give the impression of being dependent on Rome. May we be given similar grace to take hard decisions when necessary. And may they also lead to the conversion of others!

Acts 15:36 - 16:5

1. Separate Ways (15:36-41)
Luke has portrayed the church behaving wisely and faithfully in dealing with the circumcision controversy. But he isn't painting an idealised picture of the church, for he follows up with an incident that shows two great friends and missionary partners, falling out and separating.

Their disagreement centred on John Mark, who accompanied them for some of their first missionary journey but left them to go back to Jerusalem. When Paul suggests revisiting the churches, Barnabas wants to take Mark but Paul disagrees.

Both points of view are understandable. Mark was Barnabas' nephew; he could argue that he knows him and he won't let them down again. Paul, on the other hand, could argue that he needs to gain not simply their trust again but the trust of the churches. That he accepts that Mark can recover is clear when he later speaks well of him (2 Tim 4:11). He isn't saying, 'One strike and you're out' but he is concerned about his suitability.

Is there anything in what Luke says that inclines toward one view and not the other? In v.38 he speaks of Mark having "deserted them"; that word is a very strong one and implies defection or apostasy. That isn't saying Mark renounced the faith but it does show how serious his going back had been. He had abandoned them in the work. And, following the split, we read that the church at Antioch commended Paul and Silas to the grace of God, which perhaps indicates they felt he was more right than Barnabas.

But, as we saw last time, it isn't enough to be right; how we handle ourselves is also very important. Which makes it very sad that Paul and Barnabas "had...a sharp disagreement".

They didn't simply have opposing views but they fell out over them. It goes without saying that we will not always agree with each other; the Christian life is not an exact science and judgements will be necessary.

But where we differ in opinion, we must be mature enough to handle that without the kind of sharpness spoken of here. "It is often hard to voice disagreement within a church, for fear of appearing out of step with the 'truth', or out of kilter with the majority. How good it would be to model the kind of unity which demonstrates to a watching world that Christians don't always have to agree, or conform, to live in love." Mark Greene, LICC's Connecting with Culture, w/e 28/3/03

This is a reminder that even the best, most faithful Christians have their flaws. Paul and Barnabas may be heroes but they are fallen heroes. We need to learn from their weaknesses as well as their strengths.

This scene raises the question of what to do when you cannot reach agreement over an issue. Should one have given way for the sake of the work? In matters of judgement and not principle, that is something we ought to seriously consider. But the sad truth is, their disagreement was so sharp it was almost impossible for them stay together in the work.

Although we can say that in God's providence the situation is used to move the work onto two fronts rather than one, it's hard not to go away from this scene with a heavy heart. It's a reminder to us that we need to pray for ourselves and for all Christian workers that we would work out our differences in grace, with mutual submission and for the glory of God.

2. Paul: Team Player
For some, this scene might support their view that Paul was not a team player, that he was a loner and wanted to be in the limelight. Two things that Luke reports here show that to be a wrong conclusion.

Firstly, with Barnabas choosing to go to Cyprus, Paul asks Silas to go with him on his journey and to share in the work of "strengthening the churches" (v.41). This choice of Silas is clearly a good one. Paul isn't after someone to simply be his bag-carrier; here is a man with a proven ministry, one who will be able to help Paul to explain the letter from Jerusalem. He was also a Roman citizen which would come in useful (see 16:37f).

Secondly, Paul wants to take Timothy with them on the journey (16:3). Some more seasoned campaigners can only see faults in the young; not Paul! Here is someone committed to training younger men and who later encourages Timothy to do the same (2 Tim. 2:2). But it must be the right person at the right stage of maturity. Timothy was ready for it, as the churches recognised; in Paul's view, John Mark wasn't.

Paul wasn't a loner. His passion for God's glory meant he wanted to see churches being established and strengthened. For that to be accomplished, it needed others to share the work but care had to be taken in choosing those people.

3. Paul: All things to all men
So Paul, Silas and Timothy carry on the work of strengthening the churches, delivering the letter from Jerusalem. It is highly significant that wherever the letter was shared, Luke records the fact that the churches were helped by it (15:31,41; 16:4f). This is further confirmation that the Lord had been in the decision and was honouring the wisdom he had given.

But there is something that Paul did that has raised many an eyebrow. In 16:3 he had Timothy circumcised "because of the Jews who were living in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek".

Can this really be true, that the man who held out against the Judaizers and had gone to Jerusalem to get the problem sorted has now given in on the issue?

Although they were travelling back to churches they had founded, Paul is conscious they will come into further contact with unbelieving Jews and it is for their sake this decision is taken. The reference to 'Jews' in v.3 is almost certainly to unbelievers.

What Paul is doing here is working out a principle that he lays out in 1 Cor. 9:19-23: "to the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews...I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some." This is not going back on what was settled at Jerusalem; salvation is by grace, not keeping the law. And so there is no need for anyone to be circumcised in order to be saved. The reason Paul has Timothy circumcised is in order not to put a stumbling block in the way of Jews coming to faith.

This issue needs very careful handling. We need wisdom to discern what is negotiable and what isn't. Paul who was completely inflexible on the essentials of the gospel is quite flexible on matters that are of merely cultural relevance. We need to have that kind of flexibility and must ask what the stumbling-blocks may be in our situation that could hinder others coming to faith.

4. Conclusion
The passage that began in sorrow with the disagreement over Mark ends with "the churches...strengthened in the faith and [growing] daily in numbers" (16:5). The split between Paul and Barnabas is deeply regrettable but even where our flaws come to the surface and seem to threaten the work, the Lord is able to overrule and still use us for his glory's sake.

What we need to be, as one commentator has observed on the basis of this passage, is "spiritually fruitful, morally faithful and culturally flexible". God grant we would be such people. Amen!

Acts 15:1-35(ii)

The events recorded in this chapter are of central significance in the book of Acts. They address what the gospel truly is and whether a person needs to become a Jew (or something else) in order to be saved. But the chapter is significant not simply for the 'what' but also for the 'how'. The issue needed to be dealt with for the good of the church and the future of the gospel message. But how the church tackled it is also extremely important.

1. The Personal Touch
There are a number of ways in which what might be termed the 'personal touch' is seen in these events.

i) The matter clearly causes great difficulties in Antioch. What is notable is that they don't resort to writing in derogatory terms about Jerusalem to the rest of the churches, nor do they simply cut them off. What they do is to choose to send Paul and Barnabas and some other men to up to see the Apostles and sort it out.

This is exactly the approach Jesus laid down in Mt. 18:15. In this case it marries respect for the apostles in Jerusalem with respect for the right way to handle tensions. It is all too easy to react with hostility and to badmouth fellow-believers but the easy path is not the right path. Problems are best solved by personal contact. We should apply that principle consistently when tensions or problems arise, whether they be theological in nature or more personal.

ii) Then notice the way the leaders in Jerusalem handled the situation and the part played by the whole church. Clearly an issue like this not going to be solved in a meeting of the whole church. The leaders will need to lead. And that is what they do. In verse 6 we learn that "the apostles and elders met to consider this question". They're the ones who must lead and are best equipped to handle such an issue.

But there is still a role for the whole church. When the decision is reached about writing to the churches, the church is involved in choosing who to send. The issue may be complex and the leaders have a duty to lead but the matter concerns the whole church and so there is a need for the whole church to be involved, one way or another. It's important that no-one sits back thinking, "It's theology and not to do with me".

iii) The letter that is written is a model of how to resolve an issue like this. It isn't a blunt laying down of the law but caring and sensitive. They deal with the issue of the troublemakers, they refer to Paul and Barnabas as "dear friends" and they write sympathetically of their readers ("not to burden you").How we say what we say is a matter of real importance. It isn't enough to simply be right, we need to evidence a spirit of humility and of care for others.

iv) They don't just send the letter back with Paul and Barnabas but send some of their own men with them, to explain the letter, to answer any questions that may arise and to minister to the churches. This brings the matter full circle and doesn't simply bring closure but it moves the churches' relationship with Jerusalem onwards and upwards.

And the outcome is that the letter is received with joy and when Judas and Silas head back to Jerusalem, they're sent off "with the blessing of peace". The bonds that were threatened have been strengthened because of how the whole affair has been handled.

These points are not simply diplomatic niceties that help to smooth troubled waters, they have a far greater significance than that. Taken all together they show the church existing as a kind-of parallel society within society, able to conduct itself in an orderly way and with wisdom and integrity.

It's the sort of point that Paul makes in 1 Cor. 6:1-8 where he deplores the fact that the Corinthians have had to resort to law to sort their troubles out. Such a thing should not be!

Luke's portrait of the church sorting out its troubles would no doubt have great apologetic impact on Theophilus and his high-society friends. What we're seeing is a fully-fledged alternative society that reflects the peace and order of the Creator and the redemptive harmony of its Saviour.

How we conduct ourselves as a church and as churches really does matter. It matters internally and it matters as a witness before the world. We must make sure we deal with tensions with a respect for the points made here.

2. Searching the Scriptures
The second key aspect of how the issue is handled surrounds the speech of James. Although there are questions about his status in the church, what is most important is how he handles the issue.

A lot of weight is attached to what is said by Peter, Paul and Barnabas as they have report their experiences of what the Lord has done. When James speaks, he focusses on the Bible and shows that what has happened has scriptural support and warrant. This isn't searching for a text to take out of context to support what they wanted to do anyway; this is searching the Bible in order to do God's will.

'What does the Bible say?' is always a key question to ask as we seek to understand our experiences and to resolve issues in the church. We may not find there a detailed answer to our particular question but we will find principles that enable us to wrestle with the issue and reach a conclusion.

The apostles were not driven by 'How can we get our way?' but by 'What is the Lord's way?'. We need to be too.

3. The Ministry of the Spirit
The last point to make about how they sorted out the problem relates to the role played by the Holy Spirit. On the one hand, he seems strangely absent for most of the chapter but when they write the letter, they give him first place in the decision, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us...".

How are we to understand this last-minute reference to God's Spirit? Why wasn't he spoken about before? And why didn't he speak before? Couldn't they just have prayed for a word from the Lord to settle the matter? Can't we just do the same?

Although this is the first direct reference to the Spirit's ministry among them, he has not been absent from the discussions. When we are depending on him, open with each other and eager to hear God's voice in the scriptures and to obey it, then we can be sure that the Lord is with us, guiding our thoughts, helping us to resolve the issue.

Why didn't he just simply speak a direct word? Because that wouldn't be the way to maturity, not for the church then nor for the church today. Wrestle with problems in this way, relying on the Lord and searching his word leads to greater maturity.

We shouldn't resent the struggle but come to it with humility, honesty and hunger for God's Word. That's the way to know his mind and to grow in maturity together.

Acts 15:1-35(i)

From the heights of multiple conversions to the depths of persecution and deceit in the church, the experience of the church has been quite varied. Yet even with those negatives, the greatest challenge to the life and unity of the church - to the gospel itself - occurs in the events recorded in this chapter.

In terms of way Acts is structured and the way Luke tells the story of the early church, this chapter forms the central focus. Strategically and theologically, it is utterly crucial.

1. The Problem (v.1)
The issue arises in v.1 tells when "Some men...". The problem being raised here is not simply one of salvation by works but of salvation through becoming Jews. They were quite happy for Gentiles to come into God's family but it had to be by becoming Jews (proselytes) otherwise they couldn't be saved.

For centuries, Jews were used to Gentiles embracing the ancient faith, coming to worship the one true God. But to do that, they needed to become as Jews. These Jews, who are now Christians, are still working under that old system: to be saved, part of the family of God, you need to believe in Jesus and become Jews.

This brought them "into sharp dispute and debate" with Paul and Barnabas - a 'full and frank exchange of views'. A major storm is brewing that threatens the Gentile mission & the unity of the church.

2. The Solution
The church at Antioch send Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem to try to sort the problem out. As they go, they tell in Phoenicia and Samaria what the Lord has done and there is great rejoicing. But how will Jerusalem react?

When the meeting is convened, there is much discussion and some of the believing Pharisees put the case for the Gentiles being circumcised. There follows 3 decisive speeches which effectively resolve the issue:

i) Peter - The first to speak at length is Peter who recounts his experience with Cornelius and his household. He makes a number of points that are extremely important.

He recalls in v.9 how God showed he accepted them just as he had the Jews by giving them his Spirit when they believed, as Gentiles. Then in v.10 he speaks of the law as having been a burden to the Jews, a burden they'd found hard to bear. And he concludes in v.11 by affirming that "it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are".

Salvation is, and always was, by grace, for all peoples. But now, all who believe are saved as they are, without being required to come under the law and become Jews.

ii) Paul & Barnabas - The second main speech is made by Paul and Barnabas (v.12). They too speak of their experiences, referring to how the Lord has been with them, working signs and wonders among the Gentiles through them.

Their point is that God has authenticated their work, a work that had not required Gentiles to become Jews in order to be saved. Would God have been with them in such power if they were fundamentally wrong in what they were doing?

iii) James - Last of all, James speaks, clearly with authority, although quite how much authority is a moot point! But whatever the answer to that question, what is not in doubt is the decisive contribution his argument makes to the debate (v.15ff).

Peter and Paul have related their experiences of God at work among the Gentiles; James now brings those experiences to the bar of scripture and shows how what has happened is entirely in line with what the Lord had said would happen.

He refers to part of the prophecy of Amos, a passage that has in mind the last-times when the Lord would act to restore his people. Clearly that is what has happened in Jesus for all Jews who would believe. But what of the Gentiles?

These verses from Amos show conclusively that when God acted to restore his people, he would also at that time bring in the Gentiles too. We read here of "the remnant of men" seeking the Lord and of "the Gentiles who bear my name". And in v.17 it's clear that the Gentiles would come in as a result of God's work among the Jewish people.

So the OT scriptures show that this coming in of the Gentiles was to be expected and that they were to come in as Gentiles. After these speeches, there is no more debate. The issue is settled: salvation is by grace, whoever you are, and the law is not a requirement that is to be added to faith.

3. Applying it today
This issue has resonated down through the centuries as people have grappled with how a person is saved. But, as we've seen, the issue is not simply about salvation by works, it is also to do with the difference between proselytism and conversion.

The brothers who caused the trouble were not denying that salvation is through faith in Jesus; what they were doing was adding to that the requirement to become Jews. They were clinging to Jewish exclusivity and in doing so pushing a Christ-plus theology.

The issue of how a person is saved is still with us today and must be contended for and settled on scriptural grounds. The whole gospel is at stake where a 'Christ-plus' theology is at work and God is robbed of his glory. Such teaching must be countered.

But the issue of proselytism versus conversion is also still with us and is capable of much damage. We can find ourselves thinking in terms that are strikingly similar to the Judaisers: new converts must become like us in every way, since our expression of Christian faith is the only authentic one.

So you have Africans made to worship in Western style, unspoken rules about what to wear in church, the right way of doing church and so on. Those examples are only the tip of what is probably a very large iceberg but they illustrate the point being made.

Are we seeking proselytes or converts? Do we even sub-consciously add anything to faith in Jesus for salvation? Are we in danger of making the church in our own image, instead of the diverse body God has created? Part of the glory of the gospel is that it unites people from all races in the one family of God.

4. The Decree
Gentiles who become Christians remain Gentiles. But if new converts stay in their particular culture, does that mean anything goes in terms of that culture? That issue is also addressed here and we'll close by briefly looking at it.

The stipulations that James mentions and that are laid down in the letter that is sent have attracted a lot of comment. What are they referring to and why are they mentioned?

One possibility is that they simply refer to certain ceremonial matters under Jewish law that the Gentiles need to observe in order to not upset the sensibilities of Jewish Christians.

But that position is not easy to sustain. So what do they refer to? When James speaks of abstaining from food polluted by idols, it seems likely that he is referring to an occasion (a public feast perhaps) where animals are offered to idols and the food is eaten.

The other things he mentions fit into that scenario too: at such pagan feasts, animals would often be strangled and their blood consumed, and people would often indulge in all sorts of sexual immorality. To partake at such feasts as they had done in the past would pose grave problems to these new believers.

So whilst they are not being required in conversion to leave their culture, they are not to just simply go along with it. Their new faith is to critique their culture; within their old culture they are to live counter-cultural lives that witness to the transforming grace of God.

The implications of this for us are also far-reaching. Within our culture, do we live distinctively Christian lives that critique the culture or do we simply go with the flow? We need wisdom as we seek to live in the world whilst not being of it. May God give it to us! Amen.

Acts 14:1-28

Having been expelled from Antioch by the unbelieving Jews, where would Paul and Barnabas go next? Ch.14 gives a 3-part answer to that question - a bit like a missionary slide show, giving details of the places they went, the people they met, the experiences they had. Let's look at those slides.

1. In Iconium (vv.1-7)
Their first stop was Iconium, where they followed their usual pattern of going to the synagogue first. Here they met with real success: "they spoke so effectively that a great number of Jews and Gentiles believed" (v.1). How encouraging this must have been for them, having so recently been troubled in Antioch!

But trouble is never far away! The Jews who didn't believe "stirred up the Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brothers" (v.2). They deliberately opposed the message and distorted what was being said and ran down the messengers. This is clearly very serious. God is at work in a powerful way; many people have been saved. But the opposition is also real and powerful. What will Paul and Barnabas do? The situation could get very ugly.

Despite the potential for danger, and on account of the trouble stirred up by the Jews, they "spent considerable time there" (v.3). Where the gospel is opposed and distorted, it needs to be met with a determination to explain and defend it; the lies need to be countered and answered. And so the disciples stayed on there, "speaking boldly for the Lord" (v.3).

But they were not on their own: "the Lord...confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders" (v.3). This is not a settled pattern but where the Lord chooses to do so for his own purposes, he can confirm what is being said in incontrovertible ways. And yet, despite the display of God's power to authenticate his word, the city is split over the issue and a plot to mistreat and stone the disciples is hatched. Because of this turn of events, it's decided that it would be best for them to leave.

Here is an issue still faced by missionaries today. When trouble comes, should you stay and face it or should you leave and hope to return when things are quieter? Didn't Paul and Barnabas trust the Lord to protect them? Hadn't he shown his power in the miracles they'd done? So why leave now? And what about those who can't leave?

Great wisdom is needed on this issue because both courses of action are found in the NT. It seems the usual option is move on or to withdraw for a time, except where it is clear that the Lord has other plans. We need to pray for missionaries and mission boards handling such issues and also for those they leave behind, that they would be kept safe and that they would understand the decision taken.

2. In Lystra
The second slide takes us to the city of Lystra. Here they "continued to preach the good news" (v.7); they weren't put off by what had just happened. Again the Lord is at work: a crippled man is not only healed but saved as he listens. This amazes the crowd who think that the gods have come to them in human form and want to sacrifice to them.

They could have been glad to be popular for once but they won't have anything of it: "We too are only men, human like you." And with that they try to enlighten the crowd with the truth.

As we've seen, the gospel is shared according to the context. Paul doesn't speak about God's dealings with the Jews as he did at Antioch; he starts where these people are, with God's dealings with them in what we call common grace.

He speaks of the Creator and the evidence on every hand of the his care for them. Like all the nations they had gone their own way in sinful idolatry but God had not abandoned them; every day he'd given a testimony of his care and concern.

Here is a vital lesson in speaking to people with little or no Christian background: start where they are, with what is common ground. They had experienced God's care without knowing it, so Paul used that as a way in to sharing with them.

And yet still they want to sacrifice to him and Barnabas. When confronted with the gospel, paganism doesn't simply roll over. The human heart is highly resistant to God's truth. It needs God's truth to be accompanied by God's power to change the heart.

The perversity of human nature is seen in the way the crowd is so easily won over by the Jews from Antioch who come to cause trouble for the apostles. The next thing you know they're stoning Paul and dragging him outside the city. From a god to a dog in no time at all! A crowd that has been impressed by a healing is suddenly incited to hatred. Such is the human heart.

Paul is very badly hurt. But the disciples gather round him and he's soon back on his feet and, amazingly, goes back into the city. But they leave the next day, it's simply got too dangerous to stay - both for them and the new converts.

3. To Derbe & Back
And so they head off to Derbe. Luke gives a quick summary of what happened there: nothing dramatic, just preaching the good news and a large number saved. Just an ordinary day at the office!

Luke's focus here is on what they did on their return trip and what they did when they got back to Antioch.

i) On the Way - Instead of simply going back by the shortest route, they go back the way they came, stopping in each place and "strengthening the disciples and encouraging them to remain true to the faith". Life would be tough for these new believers; Paul makes that clear (v.22) but commits them "to the Lord in whom they had put their trust". The Lord would be with them and would bring them safely into his kingdom.

Along with their own work of teaching and encouraging, Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in every church, men who would be able to lead the churches and teach God's Word, keeping going what had already begun.

The work of mission is not simply about gaining converts but also equipping them for a life of discipleship in a hostile world. A ministry of strengthening and encouraging is vital to that, as is the appointing of elders in the churches. That's something to pray for every church.

ii) Reporting Back - When they reach Antioch, Paul and Barnabas called the church together and told them all that had happened to them, dwelling on what God had done through them and how he had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles.

This isn't a debriefing session, with the church sitting in judgement on what they'd done. Here are believers gathered to hear what the Lord has done and to give him the praise and glory. Paul and Barnabas had been faithful to the task the Lord had committed to them and he had been faithful to them in keeping them safe and blessing their labours.

May we too be found faithful and know ourselves the ongoing faithfulness of God as we seek to serve him in our own day, whatever the cost. Amen.