The Hope of the Resurrection

Review and Context

Review

Paul has returned to Jerusalem following his third missionary journey. While on the way to Jerusalem he was warned of the trials and dangers he was to experience while in Jerusalem, but he continued anyway. After meeting with the elders of the church in Jerusalem, Paul took part in a Nazarite vow with four other men and moved into the temple for the required 7 days in order to maintain purity for the completion of the vow. While there, Jews from Asia saw him and stirred up the crowd into a tizzy using the false accusation that Paul was teaching against the temple and Moses, as well as bringing a Gentile into the temple beyond the Gentile court. Both accusations are false. The crowds began to beat Paul and the overwatch that was situated nearby broke up the mob and carried Paul toward the barracks to figure out what he was being beaten for. Paul asked for the opportunity to speak to the crowd and give a defense, and the tribune allowed it, he didn’t seem to understand what the accusation was anyway. Paul proceeded to tell the Jews that he’s a Jew’s Jew, following the law and following the way of Jesus. When he began to talk about his ministry among the Gentiles, the crowd is thrown back into an uproar and the tribune takes him into the barracks for further questioning. While there it is discovered that Paul is a Roman citizen and a Jew. That sets up where we’ll start today.

Context

In today’s passage we’re going to encounter the sanhedrin:

The supreme council in charge of Jewish affairs in Roman Palestine. . . It was common for cities and people groups under Roman authority to have their own local councils to decide legislative and judicial matters. The assembly could be a regular permanent governing body in the city, or it could be an informal group that convened as needed. The Jerusalem Sanhedrin seems to be the latter type, [a] group of prominent religious leaders including priests and Pharisees. This council had wide-ranging influence on political, legal, judicial, and religious affairs. . . .The most common opinion is that the Judaean Sanhedrin consisted of the elders of various sociopolitical Jewish classes, both priestly and nonpriestly. At least according to the New Testament and Josephus, the Sanhedrin was closely related to chief priests . . .

– Douglas Mangum and Vasile Babota, “Sanhedrin,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).

Along with the chief priests, there would have been Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes and elders making up a group of men that traditionally numbered 71, with the high priest as the president of the body.

What we know about the Sadducees is limited because none of the writings which they may have left are available, so what we know has to be reconstructed by those who opposed them, however we can make some comments on who they were and what their beliefs were.

Sadducees are tightly woven with the high priestly family, the sons of Zadok, who play an important role in the return of the priesthood to prominence during the time of the Maccabees (intertestamental period). They seem to be very wealthy and have considerable influence with the social elite of Judea. And there seems to be an indication that while they are religious leaders, they were influenced more by Roman politics than by Jewish religious teaching.

Some of their teachings that we can reconstruct are that there is no bodily resurrection; the written scriptures, particularly the Torah, take priority and are the only thing authoritative, oral tradition like Midrash was to be rejected; there was an emphasis on human responsibility and free will, similar to a deist approach to God; were materialists in that they did not believe in angels or spirits.

On the other hand we know a lot about the Pharisees because it is the Pharisaic tradition that has continued throughout Jewish development and the Pharisaic understanding of scripture that Jesus interacts with in his ministry. Paul was a Pharisee. The Pharisees were generally geographically located in Galilee and were the Jewish academic elites of the day. The writings of the New Testament assume a Pharisaic worldview.

With that in mind, let’s read Acts 22:30-23:11Acts 22:30–23:11 CSB

The next day, since he wanted to find out exactly why Paul was being accused by the Jews, he released him and instructed the chief priests and all the Sanhedrin to convene. He brought Paul down and placed him before them. Paul looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said, “Brothers, I have lived my life before God in all good conscience to this day.” The high priest Ananias ordered those who were standing next to him to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! You are sitting there judging me according to the law, and yet in violation of the law are you ordering me to be struck?” Those standing nearby said, “Do you dare revile God’s high priest?” “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest,” replied Paul. “For it is written, You must not speak evil of a ruler of your people.” When Paul realized that one part of them were Sadducees and the other part were Pharisees, he cried out in the Sanhedrin, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. I am being judged because of the hope of the resurrection of the dead!” When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. For the Sadducees say there is no resurrection, and neither angel nor spirit, but the Pharisees affirm them all. The shouting grew loud, and some of the scribes of the Pharisees’ party got up and argued vehemently, “We find nothing evil in this man. What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?” When the dispute became violent, the commander feared that Paul might be torn apart by them and ordered the troops to go down, take him away from them, and bring him into the barracks. The following night, the Lord stood by him and said, “Have courage! For as you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so it is necessary for you to testify in Rome.”

What we see here is that Paul was not imprisoned for breaking Roman Law, nor was he breaking any religious law, but his arrest and continued incarceration were political in nature. This is what it looks like for someone to undergo the same treatment as Jesus did. Paul’s commitment to the resurrection made him suffer not because of his actions but because of the hardness of the hearts around him.

Paul was committed to the resurrection of Jesus as guiding principle of his life. While we affirm the resurrection of the dead we must really come to face how it impacts our daily living.Christ’s resurrection brings us hope to endure suffering, it gives us courage to face uncertainty, and frees us to make decisions in light of the eternal not the temporal.

Jesus’ resurrection should be the guiding principle of our life right now, not just give a future hope of “one day in eternity”

Paul’s initial defense (v.30-5)

Explanation

By this time the commander knew the accusations against Paul were Jewish (cf. vv. 23–29), and the best way to unearth these was to have a hearing before the Sanhedrin. If the prisoner was found innocent he could be released, but if the charges were valid the case could be remitted to the procurator, the Roman governor (BKC).

In charge of the Sanhedrin as the president would have been Ananias. Ananias was known for his bad temper. The historian Josephus described him as “insolent, hot-tempered, profane, and greedy.” In fact he was so disliked, he was eventually assassinated by some Jews during a revolt in AD 66. We see the quick-tempered character in his treatment of Paul in verse 2.

As I studied this passage, I was surprised by the number of comment’s on Paul’s response to Ananias in verse 3. There is a spectrum of interpretation as to what Paul’s psychological state is when he makes the pronouncement against Ananias. On one hand there is the school that says that Paul lashed out in unrighteous anger and then responded in sarcasm and on the other there is the school that says that Paul was pronouncing judgment like an Old Testament prophet would do. Let’s take a look again at the exchange and see what we can decipher.Acts 23:1–5 CSB

Paul looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said, “Brothers, I have lived my life before God in all good conscience to this day.” The high priest Ananias ordered those who were standing next to him to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! You are sitting there judging me according to the law, and yet in violation of the law are you ordering me to be struck?” Those standing nearby said, “Do you dare revile God’s high priest?” “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest,” replied Paul. “For it is written, You must not speak evil of a ruler of your people.”

I think for us to give Paul a fair assessment, we have to actually look at his responses.

First, we have the whitewashed wall pronouncement and then an indictment of the injustice that occured. And like we’ve discussed before, Paul’s words do not come out of a vacuum, but rather straight from Scripture in the form of a remez. If you go searching, you’ll find that Ezekiel uses this phrase in these two passages: Ezekiel 13:8-16 and Ezekiel 22:27-31Ezekiel 13:8–16 CSB

“ ‘Therefore, this is what the Lord God says: You have spoken falsely and had lying visions; that’s why you discover that I am against you. This is the declaration of the Lord God. My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and speak lying divinations. They will not be present in the council of my people or be recorded in the register of the house of Israel, and they will not enter the land of Israel. Then you will know that I am the Lord God. “ ‘Since they have led my people astray by saying, “Peace,” when there is no peace, and since when a flimsy wall is being built, they plaster it with whitewash, therefore, tell those plastering it with whitewash that it will fall. Torrential rain will come, and I will send hailstones plunging down, and a whirlwind will be released. When the wall has fallen, will you not be asked, “Where’s the whitewash you plastered on it?” “ ‘So this is what the Lord God says: I will release a whirlwind in my wrath. Torrential rain will come in my anger, and hailstones will fall in destructive fury. I will demolish the wall you plastered with whitewash and knock it to the ground so that its foundation is exposed. The city will fall, and you will be destroyed within it. Then you will know that I am the Lord. After I exhaust my wrath against the wall and against those who plaster it with whitewash, I will say to you, “The wall is no more and neither are those who plastered it—those prophets of Israel who prophesied to Jerusalem and saw a vision of peace for her when there was no peace.” This is the declaration of the Lord God.’Ezekiel 22:27–31 CSB

“Her officials within her are like wolves tearing their prey, shedding blood, and destroying lives in order to make profit dishonestly. Her prophets plaster for them with whitewash by seeing false visions and lying divinations, saying, ‘This is what the Lord God says,’ when the Lord has not spoken. The people of the land have practiced extortion and committed robbery. They have oppressed the poor and needy and unlawfully exploited the resident alien. I searched for a man among them who would repair the wall and stand in the gap before me on behalf of the land so that I might not destroy it, but I found no one. So I have poured out my indignation on them and consumed them with the fire of my fury. I have brought their conduct down on their own heads.” This is the declaration of the Lord God.

This phrase of whitewash points to the Lord’s condemnation of Judah’s leaders from before the exile to Babylon and how they were leading Judah astray. Because they were whitewashed, they obscured what was actually underneath. They were covering up the filth and injustice that was being done in Judah and proclaiming God’s favor on them. Ultimately, God’s wrath was leveled on Judah and her leaders in part because of the leaders’ unwillingness to do what was right but instead cover it up.

So Paul starts with this remez about whitewash and then alludes to Deuteronomy 25:1-2 and Leviticus 19:15.Deuteronomy 25:1–2 CSB

“If there is a dispute between men, they are to go to court, and the judges will hear their case. They will clear the innocent and condemn the guilty. If the guilty party deserves to be flogged, the judge will make him lie down and be flogged in his presence with the number of lashes appropriate for his crime.Leviticus 19:15 CSB

“Do not act unjustly when deciding a case. Do not be partial to the poor or give preference to the rich; judge your neighbor fairly.

So we’re beginning to see a picture not so much of hot anger lashing out as an insult, as much as a pronouncement of judgment on an unjust leader in line with what we hear from Ezekiel.

The accusation of sarcasm against Paul in verse 5 assumes that Paul knew who the high priest was and that the response was more about Ananias not acting like the high priest: “I didn’t know you were the high priest because you certainly aren’t acting like it.” This school of thought sees Paul’s quotation of Exodus 22:28 as a reflective half-hearted apology recognizing he shouldn’t have spoken ill of the high priest.Exodus 22:28 CSB

“You must not blaspheme God or curse a leader among your people.

Ananias is believed to have taken the High Priesthood sometime near when the Acts 15 Jerusalem council took place and this hearing is about 10 years later. It is reasonable to assume that Paul had not encountered Ananias as High Priest and didn’t know what he looked like. If that’s the case, we can simply take Paul’s word at face value and the apology/quote of Exodus makes more sense.

Taking all the data we’ve looked at, it seems to me that Paul was not lashing out in anger, but he was responding in line with how he thought, through his deep knowledge of Scripture. I also think that Paul wasn’t using sarcasm because sarcasm, at its core, is an un-Christlike behavior.

Application

Sarah Swenson, a therapist rights this about Sarcasm:

I was surprised recently by a discussion among members of a group of therapists describing how they use sarcasm in their personal lives with their children and their spouses. I had assumed they would understand why that’s probably not a good idea. Why? Because sarcasm isn’t humor. It’s hostility. And it makes people feel bad.

It may be challenging to accept this, especially if your response to my statement that sarcasm is not humor raised your hackles. Some even believe that sarcasm is a sign of high intelligence. Well, no. Well-developed wit is a sign of high intelligence. Wit is insightful, showing us the world in a slightly new way. Great wit is a high art.

Sarcasm, on the other hand, derives from Greek words that mean “tearing of the flesh.” Sarcasm is hostility disguised as humor. That’s why when someone says something sarcastic to you, you don’t feel good. Sarcasm is unsettling. If you challenge it, the person can say, “What? I was just kidding!” But it doesn’t feel like kidding. It feels like veiled criticism. Because that’s exactly what it is, regardless of its superficial deniability.

For some individuals who identify as highly sensitive persons, sarcasm is particularly biting. But most people respond negatively to it, whether they show it or not. Think about the last time someone made a sarcastic remark directed specifically at you. Maybe they made a comment about your “ballet shoes” if you were wearing hiking boots. Maybe they cut closer with something like, “Take all the time you need. The rest of the world can wait.” Did you appreciate it? Did it help you?

We hear the term passive-aggressive often to describe someone whose orientation is sarcastic. It means that on the surface, the person’s words and actions are neutral, but that underneath them lies a second layer of meaning which is aggressive. It doesn’t mean wavering between the two; it means both at once. Sarcasm is passive-aggressive speech.

Mrs. Swenson speaks of sarcasm as veiled hostility. Other writers talk about sarcasm as veiled emotional violence. If this seems a bridge too far, let’s compare what Paul says about how to speak to one another to sarcasm.Ephesians 4:20–32 CSB

But that is not how you came to know Christ, assuming you heard about him and were taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus, to take off your former way of life, the old self that is corrupted by deceitful desires, to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on the new self, the one created according to God’s likeness in righteousness and purity of the truth. Therefore, putting away lying, speak the truth, each one to his neighbor, because we are members of one another. Be angry and do not sin. Don’t let the sun go down on your anger, and don’t give the devil an opportunity. Let the thief no longer steal. Instead, he is to do honest work with his own hands, so that he has something to share with anyone in need. No foul language should come from your mouth, but only what is good for building up someone in need, so that it gives grace to those who hear. And don’t grieve God’s Holy Spirit. You were sealed by him for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness, anger and wrath, shouting and slander be removed from you, along with all malice. And be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving one another, just as God also forgave you in Christ.

Paul suggests that our speech be true, not foul, good for building up, give grace to the other, and show compassion.

Sarcasm on the other hand uses intentional ironic dishonesty to make a point, tear down, slander, or insult someone. It’s the exact opposite and does not show oneself as created in God’s likeness in righteousness and purity of the truth.

Think about it, when was your sarcasm ever used as a way to build someone up or show someone grace?

Another problem of sarcasm for the one using it is that it becomes ingrained into their communication habits and reflects a type of character they may not even be aware of any more. When our character uses veiled insults and hostility as a way of communicating, it is definitely not reflecting Christ’s character of love for one’s enemy and the truth of speech that comes out of the overflow of the heart.

Paul’s Shrewd Statement (6-9)

Explanation

In this next section, we see Paul, knowing he’s not going to get a fair hearing, divide the Sanhedrin in order to show the injustice of his imprisonment. To do this, he boils down the reason for his imprisonment in verse 6 as the result of his hope in the resurrection of the dead.

Paul understands that his whole ministry to the Gentiles hinges on Jesus’ resurrection from the dead and the hope of our participation in it.

We often talk a lot about Paul’s theology surrounding the cross, but his theology of the resurrection is just as important. Here are some examples

Romans 4:20–25 (CSB)

(Speaking of Abraham) He did not waver in unbelief at God’s promise but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, because he was fully convinced that what God had promised, he was also able to do. Therefore, it was credited to him for righteousness. Now it was credited to him was not written for Abraham alone, but also for us. It will be credited to us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.Romans 5:10 CSB

For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, then how much more, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life.1 Corinthians 15:12–19 CSB

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say, “There is no resurrection of the dead”? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation is in vain, and so is your faith. Moreover, we are found to be false witnesses about God, because we have testified wrongly about God that he raised up Christ—whom he did not raise up, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Those, then, who have fallen asleep in Christ have also perished. If we have put our hope in Christ for this life only, we should be pitied more than anyone.

It seems to be Paul’s opinion that if there is no resurrection, there is no reason to follow Jesus at all, which means that his ministry to the Gentiles was a fool’s errand.

Application

Clifford and Johnson, in their book, The Cross is Not Enough, discuss the problems with not recognizing the importance of the theology of the Resurrection. They suggest that, while the cross is important in its work of atoning for our sins, it is the resurrection that gives us the power to live a life like Jesus. They suggest twelve resurrection zones of discipleship for living that are only possible in light of the resurrection: forgiveness; caring for the whole person; empowerment for daily living; future hope of a general resurrection; our view of the end times as a time of reigning with Christ; Eden breaking into our daily experience; confidence in Jesus as the Son of God; God’s face of compassion, mercy, and love; ethics of the Christian life and the value of our bodies; justice for those around us; the new community of God’s people; and mission.

So a question that we need to wrestle with as individuals and as a congregation is whether we live in light of the resurrection or not. If we live in light of the resurrection we are able to see the temporal for what it is, we will be willing to endure suffering on account of the Kingdom of God, and help us experience the Kingdom of God that is right now not that will happen one day after we die.

The Christian life is not about getting to heaven when we die. The Christian life is living the abundant life of eternity right now in the midst of the brokenness around us. It is a life that is marked by joy and community with one another and God that makes us stand out when there is suffering in our lives. It is this type of life in the midst of suffering that Peter says we ought to have a reason for the hope that is within us. A life where hope is based on some time in the future will not carry us through right now when there is suffering and pain. A life based on the reality of abundant, eternal life right now will make us look like Jesus people.

Assurance for Paul (10-11)

Explanation

In these last two verse we see a couple of important things.

First, tribune sees that the issue that got Paul arrested was not a Roman civil issue, but a matter of religion. But because of the uproar that Paul’s presence has caused, he didn’t feel justified in letting him go. The safest place for Paul would be in the barracks where he wouldn’t be torn apart by the mobs objecting to his existence.

Second, we see that Paul received a message of encouragement from the Lord. Over the last few weeks, we saw how much of what he had received from the Lord through others was the danger that was ahead. Now that he was in that time of trial, he received a message of comfort and encouragement from the Lord.Acts 23:11 CSB

The following night, the Lord stood by him and said, “Have courage! For as you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so it is necessary for you to testify in Rome.”

Paul experienced the Lord’s comfort just like Jesus promised.

John 14:26 (CSB)

But the Counselor (comforter), the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and remind you of everything I have told you.John 15:26–27 CSB

“When the Counselor comes, the one I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father—he will testify about me. You also will testify, because you have been with me from the beginning.John 16:13 CSB

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth. For he will not speak on his own, but he will speak whatever he hears. He will also declare to you what is to come.

Application

One of the challenges we experience today is the many voices that are around us. It’s not just the people we’re around, but the music, podcasts, radio, tv, and other media or social media that are trying to give input to us. We are drowning in voices such that it’s hard to decipher what is true. With so many voices, we become deaf to the voice of the Lord.

The Lord is speaking, but we often aren’t listening or can’t hear his voice through all the other noise that we’ve surrounded ourselves with. You can’t expect to hear the voice of the Lord if your only engagement with him is at church on Sunday or occasionally reading your Bible. Hearing the voice of the Lord after so many years of noise takes time and attunement.

“DJ, you don’t understand the pressures I’m under. I just don’t have time.”

To that, I have 2 responses: First, you make time for what you prioritize. Instead of saying, “I don’t have time for that” say, “I am not going to prioritize that.” What we give priority in our life is what we give our time to. Second, if we are so busy and under so much pressure that we aren’t able to know God and enjoy him forever, our priorities are out of line. Parenting is tough, leading people is tough, the responsibilities that some of you have make life really tough. But if we’re not spending time cultivating our relationship with Jesus, our personal relationship, we are climbing the ladder of success on a building that is going to crumble.

You’ve heard me talk about this subject over and over again, listening to the Holy Spirit, cultivating relationship with the Lord. If you’ve heard it and week after week think, “that’s something that I’d like” come talk to me. I would love the opportunity to help you begin the process of attuning to the voice of God so that you can have a personal relationship with him. If your hackles are raised because it sounds new-age or unbiblical, come talk to me about that too.

We’ve been given the opportunity to walk in communion with God through the death and resurrection of Jesus. Let’s not waste the opportunities he’s given us to do that together!

Conclusion/Application

As we wrap up, I just want to reiterate some of the ways we can apply this passage to our lives today.

First, consider your use of sarcasm. I know this is something that I’ve been working on and something that I’m still struggling with, especially in work contexts. But let’s also pay attention to how we use it with our spouses and children, with our church family and with our neighbors. Let’s speak in ways that give life and grace to those around us, not cut and tear their flesh.

Second, live our lives in the hope of the resurrection. Maybe that’s by beginning to look at life through the lens of the Kingdom of God breaking into our life today and right now. Maybe that’s by looking for justice for those around us. Or maybe its showing God’s face of compassion, mercy and love in tangible ways to those around you.

Third, assess the level of priority that you give to your relationship to God. If you want it to grow and aren’t sure how to do that, come talk to me! Let me help you in your discipleship to Jesus, in your communion with God, by helping you learn to attune to God’s presence in your life.

“Dying’s easy, living is harder” – Acts 21:1-36

‌

If we know suffering is coming even as part of God’s plan for us, will we participate in it or will we flee. To follow Christ is to experience suffering as he did, which was through reliance on the comfort of the Holy Spirit.

‌There are times when we know what God’s will is for us and that it will include specific types of suffering. Suffering is not a reason not to follow through with something the Lord has communicated that you need to accomplish. Jesus is our prime example: Knowing the certainty of his death in Jerusalem, he still went. Living for Jesus will include suffering with Jesus

‌We’re going to see some people’s names that we’ve seen before like Philip, Agabus, and Trophimus. The character references are important, its a reminder of people who have taken part in various parts of the narrative thus far, acts as a summary before the final third of the book start. This section acts as a summary and transition into the final section.

‌Paul’s Travels to Jerusalem (1-16)

‌Paul’s journey back to Jerusalem demonstrates the balance of his ministry. While recent chapters emphasized his work among Gentiles, his ministry in a location regularly began with his fellow Jewish people and now he desires to return to Jerusalem to report on his work (Acts 20:16). His priority is to unite Jew and Gentile in their faith in Christ.

‌In this section, Luke mentions a couple times that people were warning Paul about what was to come. There are some warning him “through the spirit” (verse 4) and then there was Agabus who came down from Judea (probably Jerusalem) who acted out a prophecy. Agabus came down from Judea and understood what the climate was surrounding Paul’s ministry and what the non-Christian Jewish leaders thought of his ministry.

‌What is Paul to do? Is Paul to heed the warning of the disciples and Agabus?

‌A couple of things to pay attention to regarding why Paul went on to Jerusalem even after the warning.

‌First, even though Paul was sure that imprisonment was coming and there was at least one other prophet describing what would happen, there does not appear to be any command given that Paul should not go. The people interpret the descriptions and appeal to Paul based on their concern for his safety: don’t go to Jerusalem. Their first instinct is to help Paul avoid the suffering

‌There was no command given to Paul through the Spirit to not go, and Second, Paul believed he was bound, compelled, or constrained to go to Jerusalem regardless of the outcome Acts 20:22-24 “And now I am on my way to Jerusalem, compelled by the Spirit, not knowing what I will encounter there, except that in every town the Holy Spirit warns me that chains and afflictions are waiting for me. But I consider my life of no value to myself; my purpose is to finish my course and the ministry I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of God’s grace.”

‌So while Paul recognizes their care for him, he also knows he’s under compulsion to go to Jerusalem. But that doesn’t take away the sting of their pleading. Paul was ever compassionate, using emotional language. He was in touch with his whole being, did not hide his emotions. Just as Jesus experienced emotions, we see Paul expressing his emotions. Paul was affected by the concern of his brothers and sisters and it broke his heart. It crushed him on the inside. Yet he was still going to go to Jerusalem.‌

The hit Broadway show, Hamilton: An American Musical, tells the story of the rise and fall of founding father Alexander Hamilton. During a song midway through the first act, Hamilton is speaking with General George Washington during the Revolutionary War. Hamilton is telling Washington about his dreams of fighting for his country and making a name for himself through selfless acts of heroism and even martyrdom. He is not afraid to die in battle and wants to go out to lead the troops. Washington has continually resisted Hamilton’s requests because he sees his gifts in other areas (i.e. writing, military strategy, etc.).

‌What Washington says to Hamilton here is instructive for us today: “Dying is easy, young man. Living is harder”

(https://www.stmattsav.org/post/2017/02/12/dying-is-easy-young-man-living-is-harder-vi-epiphany-a)‌

General Washington suggests to Hamilton that dying is easy because it doesn’t require any more effort, yet living requires us to follow up and continue to make decisions and give effort.

‌When we look at what he’s being warned, we could see how Paul could anticipate death coming to him. In continuing on with his journey to Jerusalem, Paul was in effect saying whether by living or dying, I will walk with Jesus and continue on this journey. Paul wrote about this in Philippians 1:20-24 “My eager expectation and hope is that I will not be ashamed about anything, but that now as always, with all courage, Christ will be highly honored in my body, whether by life or by death. For me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. Now if I live on in the flesh, this means fruitful work for me; and I don’t know which one I should choose. I am torn between the two. I long to depart and be with Christ—which is far better—but to remain in the flesh is more necessary for your sake.” Paul recognized how death is easier, and maybe even more desirable, yet was ready to continue with life.‌

The question this section confronts us with is what do we do when we know suffering is coming our way. Are we going to avoid suffering or are we going to embrace the way of Jesus regardless of what suffering may come our way. Let’s bring it down to brass tacks, right here in our context: Are we going to devote ourselves to the family of this church, getting vulnerable, developing deep relationships that become family bonds even when our time here is limited? Are we going to attach to one another knowing that when it is time to leave, it will cause pain? It’s so easy to come to a new church after a PCS and maintain surface-level relationships because we’ll be leaving again in a couple of years. We save ourselves pain by putting some distance between us and the people we go to church with because it is painful to leave. But what if deep relationships are what God desires of his church? What if God wants us to make these deep connections despite the pain that will occur when we leave, or they leave? I really believe that in 21st century military communities we get to experience the suffering of Christ by the relationships that come and go. The joy that we are offered in deep relationship will cause sorrow when we are separated, but the joy gets to continue because of the impact that the people have on us and we have on them. If we look at our relationships in this church right now as if they are temporary, then we can put up walls and keep distance, but the reality of the body of Christ is that this is a forever bond. While we may mourn separation through PCS, we have the hope of continuing the bond of family into eternity.

As an important sidenote to this section: Luke is sure to point out the importance of all members of the family (both genders included in the story throughout this passage) particularly in verses 5 and then in 8 and 9. He also includes Philip’s four daughters. Several commenters see the fulfillment of Joel 2:28 as recorded in Acts 2:18 here. Joel 2:28 says “After this I will pour out my Spirit on all humanity; then your sons and your daughters will prophesy, your old men will have dreams, and your young men will see visions.” Philip likely raised his family with a high view of scripture and a clear understanding that everyone has a place in the church. His children, daughters in particular, had parents who cultivated the gifts that they had. A call to parents: are we paying attention to the ways our children are gifted spiritually and cultivating that as much as we cultivate their athletics or intellect?

‌Paul with the Elders (17-26)

‌As we move into this next section, I need to make this comment about the CSB’s titling of this section. The CSB calls the section from 15-25 “Conflict over the Gentile Mission” which seems to me to be very misleading. Within the group of men that the discussion is taking place, there is no conflict. They are all in agreement, but alerting Paul to what many say about him which leads to the counsel of taking a vow. This meeting is about Jews misunderstanding of what Paul is teaching Jews, not about Paul’s mission to the Gentiles.

‌Now that’s been said, let’s take a look to see what is happening here in this meeting.

‌After Paul’s arrival in Jerusalem we see him quickly receive an audience with the leaders of the church in Jerusalem.

‌First, he explained all that had happened since his last trip to Jerusalem. He likely described Ephesians riots, the impact of the gospel in Athens and Corinth, escaping assassins and death threats, Eutychus’ swan dive and resuscitation, as well as some of his disciples.

‌Second, something that isn’t mentioned here in Acts, but is mentioned elsewhere is the presentation of the offering for the poor brothers in Jerusalem. In Acts 11:28-29 “Agabus, stood up and predicted by the Spirit that there would be a severe famine throughout the Roman world. This took place during the reign of Claudius. Each of the disciples, according to his ability, determined to send relief to the brothers and sisters who lived in Judea.” Romans 15:25-31 tells us that Paul is taking an offering for the saints there and he’s concerned about its reception. But the reception is warm and we see in Acts 21:20 “When they heard it, they glorified God. . .”

‌At this point we see the concerns of the Christian leaders in Jerusalem and what will become their proposition to ease concerns in the city.

‌Some Jewish people had been telling Jewish believers in Jerusalem that Paul was discouraging Jews from keeping the law. The word that Luke uses to describe Paul’s teaching to the Jews is apostasia – rebellion; abandonment (v.21 – CSB/NASB to abandon Moses; ESV to forsake Moses; NIV to turn away from; NLT to turn their backs on). The Jews in Jerusalem believed that Paul was teaching Jews to turn away from Moses and the Law and that he himself had turned away from the law.

‌And just like most rumors, there is a kernel of that is twisted into a lie. The truth is twisted in this way: Paul is including Gentiles in the family of God, calling them sons of Abraham, yet not requiring them to follow the law. If they are sons of Abraham and don’t have to follow the law, he must also be teaching that the Jewish sons of Abraham must not have to follow the law. But we see that the Jerusalem church recognized this wasn’t the case, but show considerable pastoral sensitivity to the Jews around them. James suggested that Paul take on a vow in order to show that there was nothing to the charges of him teaching Jews to turn away from Moses. The whole point of the vow was to show that he still observed the Law. Paul willingly agrees to the vow and its not the first one that he undergoes in the book of Acts. See Acts 18:18 for that vow. We’ll talk a little more about the vow in a few minutes.

‌Paul saw the wisdom in what James suggested and agreed. Paul was free to take the vow or not, he was under no compulsion either by the Law or by the elders. But he embodied Galatians 5:13-15 by undergoing this vow. Galatians 5:13-14 “For you were called to be free, brothers and sisters; only don’t use this freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but serve one another through love. For the whole law is fulfilled in one statement: Love your neighbor as yourself.” Paul was undergoing this vow as a way to show his love for the Jews and for his brothers and sisters in Jerusalem.

‌There are a good number of commenters that believe that Paul was coerced into this vow, that the vow was distasteful to Paul, and even that Paul was in sin to undertake that vow. They often point to 1 Corinthians 9:19-22 as evidence that Paul no longer lived following the Torah, it says this 1 Corinthians 9:19-22 “Although I am free from all and not anyone’s slave, I have made myself a slave to everyone, in order to win more people. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win Jews; to those under the law, like one under the law—though I myself am not under the law—to win those under the law. To those who are without the law, like one without the law—though I am not without God’s law but under the law of Christ—to win those without the law. To the weak I became weak, in order to win the weak. I have become all things to all people, so that I may by every possible means save some.”

‌On its face, it may seem that Paul is saying that depending on where he is, he may or may not follow Torah the way he was raised. But I’m convinced that this line of argument, though still popular, misreads Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:19-22 and doesn’t take into account 1 Corinthians 7:17-24 in their analysis of Paul’s life. 1 Corinthians 7:17-24 “Let each one live his life in the situation the Lord assigned when God called him. This is what I command in all the churches. Was anyone already circumcised when he was called? He should not undo his circumcision. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? He should not get circumcised. Circumcision does not matter and uncircumcision does not matter. Keeping God’s commands is what matters. Let each of you remain in the situation in which he was called… (24) Brothers and sisters, each person is to remain with God in the situation in which he was called.” If Paul is saying that if you’re a Jew live like a Jew, or if you’re a Gentile, don’t take on circumcision, it sure seems that he would live in line with that. Jesus did not teach freedom from Torah observance for Jews, he freed them from sin and thinking their justification came from works of the law, justification is by faith.

‌In my opinion, the commenters who remark about Paul being in the wrong to take part in the vow misunderstand the actual conflict and the Jerusalem council. The Jews are still under the law, but the big difference is that it has been made clear that their justification has not come from the works of the law, but the justification by faith. The Jews are still Jews and, those in Jerusalem, are still living zealously for or under the law. Paul is teaching Gentiles that they don’t need to take on the law for their justification because theirs also comes through faith in Christ. The Gentiles are still Gentiles, the Jews are still Jews. None of these are at issue for the Church in Jerusalem, hence the letter from Acts 15 and reference to it, and that’s is why there are Jewish Christians from Jerusalem who are undergoing a vow. Paul had undergone a vow in Acts 18. There is nothing in Paul’s writing or in the example saved for us in Acts that suggests he wasn’t Torah observant throughout his ministry. Still being a Jew and living a Torah observant life, he is still free to go about the vow without any violation of his conscience. He was, throughout his ministry, a Jew who followed Jesus.‌

This section requires us to consider what it means to love our neighbors as ourself and to think of other’s needs as more important than our own. Paul’s decision to take on the vow was not required, he was free to avoid it, but he took it on in order to show his love for the fellow believers in Jerusalem and the Jews that didn’t believe in Jesus. Paul shows us what it looks like to love our neighbor, by setting aside our freedom in order to serve. We like to talk about freedom, this is America after all. But are we willing to set aside our freedom in order to serve those around us. We kind of get this in the military, we set aside our freedom to become contractually obligated to the federal government who tells us where to go, when to be there, and what to do so that our nation can remain in freedom. But what Paul’s doing is beyond that. So who is the neighbor in your life that you know God wants you to serve in love? What is the thing you need to give up in order to help a brother or sister in the faith grow in their discipleship? What things do you need to sell or give away in order to provide for a brother or sister in need?

‌Paul in the Temple (27-36)‌

Some important context for this section is that this is taking place around Pentecost. Pentecost was one of the major festivals that required all males to come to present themselves in Jerusalem. This meant that the population of Jerusalem would swell as Jews from around the world would come to Jerusalem to take part in the festival. Because Jerusalem was a volatile place with a tendency toward revolt, the Romans had a routine of reinforcing the garrisons in Jerusalem around the festivals to prevent any revolts. The Roman governor, or prefect, would come along with hundreds of extra soldiers from the Roman Tenth Legion. This is why Pilate was in Jerusalem during Passover and why there are seems to be a quick reaction force near the temple.

The was a fort built by Herod on a high rock at the northwest corner of the great temple area, and called after Mark Antony. It was called Antonia’s fortress. Two flights of steps from the fortress would lead directly into the outer court of the temple. There the soldiers could quell any disturbance that may arise.‌

Most commenters throughout church history work with the idea that the vow that Paul is undergoing is a Nazarite vow. Numbers 6 contains the rules for a Nazarite vow. There are regulations for cutting hair, certain things to abstain from and the ritual ending of the vow with a time of purification and sacrifices. Some Nazarites that are mentioned int he text would be: Samson, Samuel, and John the Baptist. They were all Nazarites for life. However the typical term for a Nazarite vow was 30 days. There’s evidence that someone who had not undertaken the entire vow could take part in the final seven days of special purification by paying for the vows of the ones that they were to join. This is likely what was going on‌.

With that in mind, we see that Paul went and took part in the vow, paid the charges, and in the last seven days, he went to live in the temple, as was the custom to protect from any accidental defilement.

‌In a perfect storm, a large crowd of Jews from around the world are in Jerusalem, Jews unhappy with Paul’s impact in Ephesus see him with his disciple Trophimus, they find Paul in the temple and assume that he brought Trophimus who was a Gentile into the temple with them and the result is a mob.

‌The crowd is stirred up into a frenzy and they take Paul out of the temple and begin beating him. The Ephesian Jews stir up others by making a false accusation about Paul’s teaching and actions of bringing Trophimus into the temple and more people join in. Very quickly we see the QRF mobilized and spring into action.‌

This section forces us to reconcile with the possibilities of what could happen when we follow the Lord in self-sacrifice. Paul subjected himself to the vow, but then as a result of the vow he becomes the target of a mob and being handed over to the Gentiles, just as was predicted by Agabus earlier in the chapter. Paul had made up his mind: whether in life or in death, he was going to live for the Lord. No suffering would prevent him from following Jesus and living out what God had made him to do. What about you? Is dying easy, but living harder for you? Are you avoiding suffering in your life? Are you avoiding self-sacrifice for the sake of your brothers and sisters? This passage makes us wrestle with these questions.

‌The hymn, “I have decided to follow Jesus,” helps us wrestle with these questions. The simple lyrics state: “I have decided to follow Jesus, no turning back. Though none go with me, I still will follow, no turning back. The cross before me, the world behind me, no turning back.” The song’s origin story is uncertain, but there is an account that describe the words based on the last words spoken by a martyred Indian tribal man from Meghalaya named Nokseng. The story goes that he, his wife, and his two children were evangelized by a Welsh Methodist missionary. Upon hearing of the man’s conversion, the

[a]ngry . . . village chief summoned all the villagers. He then called the family who had first converted to renounce their faith in public or face execution. Moved by the Holy Spirit, the man sung his reply, “I have decided to follow Jesus. No turning back.” Enraged at the refusal of the man, the chief ordered his archers to arrow down the two children. As both boys lay twitching on the floor, the chief asked, “Will you deny your faith? You have lost both your children. You will lose your wife too.” But the man replied, again singing, “Though none go with me, still I will follow. No turning back.” The chief was beside himself with fury and ordered his wife to be arrowed down. In a moment she joined her two children in death. Now he asked for the last time, “I will give you one more opportunity to deny your faith and live.” In the face of death, the man sang, “The cross before me, the world behind me. No turning back.” He was shot dead like the rest of his family. .

https://www.umcdiscipleship.org/articles/history-of-hymns-i-have-decided-to-follow-jesus

May we have that same view of following Jesus today: “I have decided to follow Jesus, no turning back. Though none go with me, I still will follow, no turning back. The cross before me, the world behind me, no turning back.”

Review of Spiritual Companions by David Benner

Sacred Companions is an evangelical introduction to spiritual friendship as a practice. The book is written in three parts, each part building on the previous part to provide a comprehensive view of spiritual friendship and what it can look like. Each chapter includes a section for reflection that uses questions to guide the reader to reflect on the implications of the chapter for their life. The preface sets the tone as it describes the need for spiritual friendship and how in our day of constant busyness, a relationship that helps us slow down and see God’s activity and presence around us is necessary for healthy discipleship.

Part one develops the idea of Spiritual Friendship. The Transformational Journey describes the life following Jesus as a pilgrimage or journey, but one that requires companions. While we have companions on the journey, each person’s journey is unique and is not able to provide the exact path for another person on the journey. The best we can do is accompany people on the journey. For Benner, the journey leads us to become a great lover, wholeness and holiness, and become our true self-in-Christ.

The chapter entitled Hospitality, Presence, and Dialogue provides some understanding of what is required of a companion on the journey of faith. Within the concepts of hospitality, presence, and dialogue there are common themes of sacrificial giving of oneself, withholding judgment, and being willing to be changed by the interaction with the other person. Attending to the other is a concept that is picked up and developed through the book, but the attending is done both to God and the other person in the conversation so that the conversation is a three-way interaction. Stillness plays a big role in attending to God and the other and must be practiced and refined as we go through life.

The Ideals of Spiritual Friendship are explored in the third chapter by first examining some of the friendships described in the Scriptures. The friendship of David and Jonathan is the first example, but Brenner also looks to Jesus’ friendship with the disciples as a model for us. He goes on to describe five ideals of friendship: love, honesty, intimacy, mutuality, and accompaniment. Each one of these has some overlap and some distinction from the other.

The second part of the book moves from general spiritual friendship to spiritual direction. His first chapter in this section is about Demystifying Spiritual Direction. He goes about that demystification in two ways. First, he describes what Spiritual Direction is not: new, authoritarian, advice-giving, discipling (though he points out that our definitions may blur lines here), preaching, moral guidance, counseling, or teaching. In doing this, Benner sets out to separate Spiritual Direction from more familiar types of interactions between Christians. After describing what Spiritual Direction is not, he gives a great definition: “Spiritual direction is a prayer process in which a person seeking help in cultivating a deeper personal relationship with God meets with another for prayer and conversation that is focused on increasing awareness of God in the midst of life experiences and facilitating surrender to God’s will” (p. 94). What is continually returned to in Brenner’s description is that the direction that is given is back to God and his presence and not directing a person in what they ought to do next.

Chapter five is about Soul Attunement. Attunement is attending to God’s presence and revelation in order to respond to him. Oftentimes, attunement to God is something that is left out of the discipleship process but is required for communication to occur. If God is revealing himself to us, we must be able to attune to it, or we will miss his revelation. The spiritual director’s goal is to facilitate attunement to God’s presence and revelation. People start to get concerned because attunement is very experience-oriented, but Benner is quick to remind us of the importance of having theological thoughts about God and experiential knowledge of God: knowing about versus knowing. It is the meeting of God in an experience that makes doctrinal instruction and teaching meaningful. Benner explores several facets of the experience of God including a small section about dreams (as the inmost thoughts of an individual, not as predictive oracles that require interpretation).

Chapter six is a portrait of the direction process. It is a debrief of a spiritual direction relationship that Benner had with someone via email. Included in this chapter are a collection of the emails as well as explanations of Benner’s inner dialogue about how best to respond to his directee. The conversation spans many months and there are many points of encouragement for both a hopeful director and a potential directee.

The final chapter of part two is about becoming a spiritual director. Benner speaks first of discerning the call to spiritual direction as a ministry. He then points to several areas of life that need to be cultivated while undergoing training and throughout a spiritual direction ministry including personal experience in being directed, understanding the dynamics of the soul (to include psychospiritual concepts), a commitment to a deepening knowledge of self and God, knowledge of Scripture and theology, skill in holy listening, and then training and supervision.

Part three is about the combination of spiritual friendship and direction in what he calls Spiritual Accompaniment. Chapter eight discusses Spiritual Accompaniment in Small Groups. Benner describes a couple of different types of small groups that would benefit from spiritual accompaniment, most notably, they are not Bible studies. Benner suggests that these groups should be a place for questions that don’t have to be answered, for time for prayer and silence, and for sharing spiritual experiences. It was interesting to reflect on this type of group and I feel like it is outside of the mainstream evangelical world to have any spaces like these let alone a regular experience of them in a group. The evangelical world would be wise to allow space for reflection before we cram more doctrine into people’s heads.

Finally, the book concludes with a chapter on Spiritual Accompaniment in Marriage. Benner suggests that this should be ideal, where the married couple accompanies each other on the journey of faith. He recognizes that even in his own marriage, there was very little opportunity to develop these habits, especially while the family is young. The friendship with which the couple enters the marriage is foundational to their ability to spiritually accompany one another throughout the raising of the family and into empty nesting. He brings his example of spiritual accompaniment with his wife as he discusses how she gives him spiritual direction regularly but makes no claim that it must be done. He is merely providing an example.

I highly recommend this book on account of its compelling description of spiritual accompaniment and the down-to-earth explanations of what it means to be a spiritual friend, director, or Sacred Companion. There is so much room in evangelicalism to return to a practice of Christianity that is not just cerebral. Spiritual direction and practices associated with it are an opportunity to move from the knowledge about God to an intimate knowledge of God that is based on the experiential reality of God’s presence and activity in one’s life. Without this, we are left with propositional knowledge that has no impact on our whole self (heart, mind, soul, and strength).

A neat opportunity

I was given the opportunity to preach at the church we’ve recently joined as members. Joshua 23 was the passage and allegiance to God was the topic. Feel free to leave comments!

Spiritual Direction in a Journey of Worship

The journey we go on is a relational journey with Jesus. He invites us to follow him. He doesn’t tell us where we are going, just that we are to go. Abraham is a great example of this when he is told to leave his country and go to the place that God would show him. In a very similar way, when Jesus calls us to follow him, he is asking us to put our preconceived notions aside and let him lead us, little by little.

Sometimes though, just as in relationships with friends or spouses, our relationship with God starts to get stale: the disciplines we have been using seem to have lost their effectiveness, our ministry is becoming more and more burdensome, and God seems distant. What used to work has run its course and it’s time to dive deeper into the relationship with God. This is not an indication that the relationship is over, but that it is ready for deepening.

When this becomes the case, we probably need the help of others to get through this stage and onto a fuller relationship with Jesus. Over the course of church history the type of help that has been provided to people in this position has been called spiritual direction. The Roman Catholic Church has preserved the ancient church’ practice of spiritual direction, but it is receiving some revival in evangelical and mainline denominational circles. The Soul Shepherding Institute defines as “an emotionally honest conversation with mature Christ-follower who helps you appreciate God’s presence in your life.” Through discussion of what’s going on in your life with a spiritual director they are able to point you to God’s presence in your situation and aid you in pursuing a better awareness of God’s presence in everyday situations. The spiritual director doesn’t tell you what you should or shouldn’t do, they point you instead to the ultimate Spiritual Director, Jesus, so that you can go to the place that God is showing you.

Spiritual direction isn’t just for people who’ve hit a wall in ministry, but it can be useful for people who have spiritual questions that they are afraid to ask church leaders about because they are afraid of judgment or being told how they ought to think. For those going through deconstruction, it can be helpful to have a guide help you understand what you’re actually rejecting versus throwing out the proverbial baby with the bath water. For newer believers, it can offer a solid foundation upon which to grow in your interactive relationship with Jesus. Just about everyone can benefit from spiritual direction even just to have an empathetic ear that can sit and listen to what is happening in your life and point you back to the Lord’s work in your life.

I’ve been drawn into the psycho-spiritual dynamics of spiritual direction and felt that I should dive in. I applied to training program and was accepted. It’s a two year program that includes class time, supervision, receiving spiritual direction, and 4 week-long retreats to help us learn empathetic listening and various ways of helping people connect with God in the experiences we have every day. I hope to use the blog as a place to process some of what we’re learning and doing including book reflections and reviews. I hope you’ll join me in it!

Now for a shameless plug: I need people who are willing to help me practice the things that I’m learning. If you are interested in receiving free spiritual direction (and by extension helping me practice), let me know. We can meet in person or over Zoom.