Acts 13

Acts 13:36

For David, after he had served the purpose of God in his own generation, fell asleep, and was laid among his fathers and underwent decay;

We often wonder why some people die unexpectedly.  Why does this person get cancer, or that person get killed in a car accident?  What possible reason could God have to cutting short the lives of such loyal followers of Him?

As painful as that situation can be, I think this verse sums it up.  When a believer dies, it is because he has served his purpose for God.  God has done what He needed to do with him, and now it is time to go home to receive his reward for faithful service.  That may not make the loss easier for us, but with an eternal perspective we can learn to accept it, even when we don't understand exactly why.

Acts 12

Acts 12:19

When Herod had searched for him and had not found him, he examined the guards and ordered that they be led away to execution.  Then he went down from Judea to Caesarea and was spending time there.

God let this whole situation play out, knowing that these soldiers would die.  There probably wasn't anything about those soldiers that was any worse than others.  They were just doing their job, obeying orders, but God divinely intervened in a situation and it cost them their lives.

This is a reminder that sometimes God's good work for His people can result in bad for others.  Peter lived to do His work, but these soldiers paid the price for that miracle.  However, sometimes the reverse is true, and God works that His people might die so non-believers live, and hopefully come to an understanding of why.

Acts 11

Acts 11:15

When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, "Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life."

The believers still held prejudices.  They thought that Jews were still the chosen people of God, and only they could be saved.  Gentiles were still filthy sub-humans, unworthy of God's real attention.  Perhaps some could come to believe in God and find a measure of grace, but they would still be second-class citizens, unworthy of contact with Jews.

God had different ideas.  Jesus had many times spoken with Gentiles, even healed them.  God never intended for there to be a permanent division based on ancestry; instead, any separation should only be after death, and that separation is based on our decisions, not God's.

Acts 10

Acts 10:33

So I sent for you immediately, and you have been kind enough to come.  Now then, we are all here present before God to hear all that you have been commanded by the Lord."

Cornelius is showing great faith here.  First, he sends for a man, sight-unseen, who he has never heard of, to come to him, something he knows would be against the Law.  He trusts that this message is from God, and that He will arrange the rest.

Second, he accepts this person, and asks him to speak on behalf of God.  He doesn't know what he's going to say (it doesn't appear Peter knows either), or how it may affect him.  All he knows is that he received a command from God, and he follows it without hesitation.

Acts 9

Acts 9:31

So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria enjoyed peace, being built up; and going on in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it continued to increase.

It seems that the believers have had thing as feast of famine recently.  First everything's going just fine, then suddenly they come under intense persecution and are scattered.  Then after Saul's conversion, suddenly it seems things calmed down again.

What was the cause of this new change?  Was Saul the driving force behind the persecution, and without its leader things fizzled?  Or was it a matter of his conversion and subsequent defense of Christianity such an amazing turnaround that the persecutors were spooked?

Acts 8

Acts 8:16

For He had not yet fallen upon any of them, they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

I've sometimes wondered if someone could have prayed "the prayer," but not actually be a Christian.  Obviously it's possible to say some words and not really mean them, but is it possible to sincerely pray, but not really be a believer?  Would this mean deathbed conversions and such aren't real?

So, at what point is someone really a believer?  Were these Samaritans believers before the Holy Spirit came on them, and if so how do we know when the Spirit has come upon us today?  Or is the Spirit not necessary to be a Christian, but in that case why does it come?

Acts 7

Acts 7:51

"You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did.

Up until this point, Stephen's been speaking very calmly, laying out history.  Looking at it like for the first time, you have to wonder where he was going, or if he was just filibustering to bore them.  However, with this verse, he makes a sharp turn.

Today, we always hear that we are to speak the truth in love. However, I have to admit I can't see the love in this statement.  It seems like he's chosen to be directly accusatory, almost hostile, rather than presenting things in a loving manner.

Acts 6

Acts 6:8

And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people.

Stephen wasn't called by the church to be a great teacher or miracle worker.  Instead, he was chosen to be what today would be called by many a deacon.  He was someone to deal with the administration of the church, so that other (the Apostles, or maybe today elders) would be able to do all that "spiritual," "miraculous" stuff.

However, here we find that Stephen was, it could be said, encroaching on the Apostles "territory."  He was the one performing miracles and getting noticed by the outsiders.  It shows that even though we may be called to do something seemingly mundane for the church, God may well have other (and bigger) plans for you.

Acts 5

Acts 5:8

And Peter responded to her, "Tell me whether you sold the land for such and such a price?"  And she said, "Yes, that was the price."

I've heard some say that they died for not bringing all the proceeds from the sale to the church (in effect, not tithing 100%).  However, this does not make sense.  Peter himself later says that the money was theirs to do with as they pleased; it was not required that they give it all.

Their sin was to lie to the church and God, saying that they sold the land for less than they actually did.  For some reason, they did not feel comfortable giving only part of the profits, either due to what they perceived as peer pressure, or looking for some special recognition from the congregation.  Instead, they lied, and paid the ultimate price.

Acts 4

Acts 4:20

for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard."

The apostles were not preaching about the Torah, or holding discourses on some subtle meaning of a Psalm.  Instead, they were speaking about what they had personally witnessed, and what Jesus had directly taught them.  This is part of why their speaking was so influential among the people; it was them giving their eyewitness account.

Maybe that's one reason I don't feel comfortable trying to share my faith.  I don't really feel like I have a testimony that would have an impact on anybody.  Having been raised in the church and all, I feel like most of what I could speak about that would impact someone are my mistakes, and many of them I've not moved past yet to where I can truly say knowing Christ helped.  My personal testimony feels half-baked, at best.

Acts 3

Acts 3:17

"And now, brethren, I know that you acted in ignorance, just as your rulers did also.

 The Jews had had Jesus crucified, perhaps only a few months before.  Whatever they thought about Him and the crucifixion, everyone knew about it.  Now they're hearing that Jesus was actually what He claimed to be, which puts them at risk of God's punishment.

However, Peter is extending a lifeline, of sorts.  He is acknowledging that they didn't realize what they were doing.  They still have an opportunity to choose correctly, just as we do today.

Acts 2

Acts 2:42

They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

I wonder if the order of actions here is important?  Is the priority first to be learning, then to be in community, and finally to be praying?  Also, does them being in two sets (learning and fellowship, food and prayer) have significance?

I like to think I'm doing okay at learning, though I don't know that I reach the level of devoted.  Fellowship is definitely a weak point for me, as most of it seems to be so shallow and pointless.  And prayer is definitely something I struggle with, between my ADD and general troubles and doubts.

Acts 1

Acts 1:6

So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?"

The apostles still don't get it.  I don't blame them for that, though.  They had been raised with one line of thinking regarding the Messiah:  that He would come and free them from their oppressors, and rule in God's name.

Now, they are certain that Jesus is this Messiah.  He's come back from the dead, in a way that no one could refute if He revealed Himself publicly.  But they didn't understand that the salvation would be a spiritual one, not a mere physical or political one.

John 21

John 21:22

Jesus said to him, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?  You follow Me!"

Peter had made a common error among believers, and non-believers also.  He started worrying about what would happen to him compared to everyone else.  He may even have been a little jealous of another's relationship with Jesus compared to his own.

One of the sayings I've tried to base my life on is that I can't control anyone else's actions, only my own; I can't make someone else do the right thing, I can only do the right thing myself and let the rest happen however it will.  I know I don't live up to that as often as I should, especially in spiritual matters, but it's a lesson I need to constantly be reminding myself of.

John 20

John 20:28

Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"

The fact that Thomas doubted the others is undisputed.  He thought they had gone mad, or were pulling a very bad joke or something.  Like them beforehand, he did not understand what Jesus had meant about rising again, and therefore demanded tangible proof.

When Jesus appears, He offers that proof to Thomas.  However, it's never recorded whether Thomas actually did touch Him to prove it was true.  Was seeing Him alone enough, or did he follow through and actually have to go all the way?

John 19

John 19:15

So they cried out, "Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him!"  Pilate said to them, "Shall I crucify your King?  The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar."

It's very easy for people to merge religion and politics.  Both are about who leads you, whose rules you follow.  The Israelites at one time had a direct theocracy, but decided they didn't like that and went to a monarchy instead.  Now the spiritual leaders are saying they want their spiritual leader killed, and are swearing fealty to their political leaders instead.

This kind of thing takes place in many parts on modern Christianity, particularly recently.  I like to think I keep the two separated, but I'm sure I blur the lines more than I should.  The important thing to remember is that our ultimate loyalty has to be to God, not any government of mortals.  Without that, we will ultimately lose our way and miss God's workings.

John 18

John 18:15

Simon Peter was following Jesus, and so was another disciple.  Now that disciple was known to the high priest, and entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest,

Apparently, John was someone of note somehow.  For one reason or another, he was known to the high priest, and not in a completely hostile way.  He was accepted enough that he was allowed to enter the court without incident, while Peter was not.

How did the son of a fisherman, who probably only had passing familiarity with Jerusalem, become known well enough that he was permitted entry into the high priest's house?  John was from Galilee, which probably isn't somewhere the high priest got often, given his responsibilities at the Temple.  So what did John do that was notable enough for the high priest's household to accept him, but not radical enough to be shunned?

John 17

John 17:2

even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life.

My first read-through of this, I got a little cross-eyed.  Jesus is talking about You and Him as if they are separate from Himself.  But isn't Jesus the one who gives eternal life?

Reading this, that seems to be wrong.  Since the You is obviously God the Father, and Jesus is the one speaking, I have to assume that Him is the Holy Spirit.  Does this mean that it is actually the Spirit, when He indwells us, that is giving eternal life?