Paul Testifies Before King Agrippa

November 4, 2012 Background Scripture: Acts 25, 26 Lesson Passage: Acts 26:19 – 32 King Agrippa was a member of the Herod family. His great-grandfather, Herod the Great, ruled the entire region of Palestine at the time of Jesus’ birth. The Herod family was well connected politically in the Roman Empire. After the death of Herod the Great, the region was divided into four areas referred to as tetrarchs. Herod’s three sons each ruled an area. The ruling members of the Herod family appear to have been politically astute and managed to resolve matters of political unrest locally rather than allow them to become a problem for the capital city of Rome. It is no surprise then that great effort was made to try to resolve the matter between the Jews and Paul. The contention between the two was threatening to cause civil unrest because of their religious differences. After the political shenanigans of Felix—who was trying to make money as a result of this ordeal—Paul was kept imprisoned for two years. Paul’s case was remanded to Festus who replaced Felix. Festus had hoped to keep the peace by granting the Jews’ request to allow them to try Paul in their religious court before the Sanhedrin Council. To this, Paul objected and demanded that his case be referred to Rome seeing that he was a Roman citizen. This presented a serious problem for Festus since there were no Roman laws which had been violated and therefore no justification for this citizen of the Roman Empire to be imprisoned for two years. Adding to the confusion for Festus was what seems to be a lack of religious knowledge concerning Judaism and Christianity. Festus had a legal dilemma. He did not understand the religious arguments against Paul and yet there were no Roman laws violated by Paul. Festus had no way of writing a legal statement to be sent along with Paul to Rome where his appeal would be heard. Legally, Festus could not deny Paul’s request to be tried in Rome but Festus did receive another opportunity to at least obtain a legal summary to be put in the form of a letter to Rome. That opportunity came some days later when King Agrippa and Bernice came to Caesarea to visit Festus. After Festus reviewed the background of the case with King Agrippa, King Agrippa agreed to interview Paul. At last, Festus had hoped to receive some legal charges to justify Paul’s imprisonment and referral to Rome. Today’s lesson centers on the closing of Paul’s argument before King Agrippa and his royal court and their response to Paul’s argument. Paul continued to demonstrate his worthiness to speak in his own defense both against the religious accusations of the Jewish leaders as well as touching the law of the Roman Empire. Festus, seemingly confused by Paul’s religious testimony, interrupted Paul and accused him of being so intelligent that he had literally loss his mind. The things that Paul spoke of seemed to be impossible but yet Paul was known to be an intelligent person. Maybe this embarrassed Festus before his royal guests and therefore he sought to put an end to it. Paul responded to Festus’ unbelief but continued to press his case to King Agrippa whom Paul knew to be a religiously astute person who no doubt was aware of the events surrounding the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. Those events had not happened in secret but were all public knowledge. Surely the ruling family was aware of it. King Agrippa did not find fault with Paul’s defense yet he did not hazard himself by standing in the way of the legal process. Robert C. Hudson October 26, 2012

Simon Wants to Buy Power

October 21, 2012 Background Scripture: Acts 8:2 – 25 Lesson Passage: Acts 8:9 – 25 It appears to me that many people today have an insatiable appetite for power. In other words, they want to be the one person who has the final say in a multitude of situations. On the other hand, a brief conversation with some of them will quickly reveal that they have no knowledge of the very power they are hoping to obtain. How dangerous the thought that someone would be allowed the privilege of controlling something but have no desire to be held accountable for the consequences of the decisions they make. This should sound, at least, vaguely familiar to anyone who has ever had the privilege(?) of raising teenagers. Privilege without responsibility is reckless power that is bound to hurt some innocent person sooner or later. This inordinate desire for power is not restricted to the secular world. Too often it finds its way into the religious community. There it can fester and transform into cults and various other sects that spin off from the mainstream faith. When we hear or read about these situations after they go bad, we often ask, How could people be so gullible to follow such nonsense? The answer can be complex but no doubt some of the individuals had the same thirst for power as the leader of those groups. It behooves us to take a very close look at the lesson for today. After Stephen was martyred and laid to rest, the second of the seven men that were set aside by the Jerusalem congregation and ordained by the apostles to serve the church began his ministry of preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ and working miracles. This man was Philip and his ministry took place in the city of Samaria. Meanwhile, there was a man in Samaria who had deceived the people there into believing that he was a man of God. This man’s name was Simon. Simon had used sorcery—or magic—to convince the people that he was endowed by God with special powers. Apparently his deception worked since the bible says that the people of Samaria both small and great believed that Simon was indeed a man sent from God and endowed with power. The bible goes on to say that Simon had tricked the people for a very long time. When Philip showed up preaching the gospel and working miracles by the power of the Holy Ghost, the people believed the preaching and were baptized in the name of Jesus—as was Simon. Whether the people understood the difference between the sorcery of Simon and the miracles of God by Philip we do not know. The fact that Simon was baptized is at least an indication that he knew the difference. When the apostles in Jerusalem heard what was going on in Samaria, they went there and prayed for the people and laid their hands on them and they received the baptism of the Holy Ghost. This got Simon’s attention. Simon greatly desired the ability to lay hands on people and they subsequently be baptized in the Holy Ghost. He offered the apostles money to give him this power. Peter soundly rebuked him and explained that the gift of God is not for sale. Also implied in Peter’s response is that the working of the gift requires a heart that is right in God’s sight. This is a heart of faith and prayer. This is a heart that looks to God for directions as to when and how to use the gift. No amount of money could take the place of a righteous heart. God was not seeking individuals to receive the gift and use it at their own discretion but those who would yield to Him. This type of heart places responsibility ahead of power. Robert C. Hudson October 10, 2012

Philip Baptizes a Man from Ethiopia

October 28, 2012 Background Scripture: Acts 8:26 – 39 Lesson Passage: Acts 8:26 – 39 Today’s lesson continues to follow the ministry of Philip. In our text today, Philip is being led by the angel of the Lord into an encounter with a person whose heart’s desire was to be a worshiper of God. This encounter took place in the desert between Jerusalem and Gaza. On this desert road, Philip met an Ethiopian dignitary traveling in a chariot away from a worship gathering in Jerusalem. The Spirit of God directed Philip to pursue an encounter with the chariot. As Philip approached the chariot, he observed the man reading from the scroll of Isaiah. Philip engaged the man in conversation concerning the passage he was reading. This led to an invitation for Philip to join the Ethiopian in the chariot. The Ethiopian began to interrogate him about the meaning of Isaiah’s writing. Philip used the text from Isaiah to preach Jesus Christ to the Ethiopian. Because the man returning from worship apparently had a heart that was receptive to the gospel message, he asked a logical question concerning water baptism. Just as the Holy Ghost had arranged the encounter, he also provided a body of water in the desert that no doubt prompted the question of baptism. Although the question seems a simple one today, it was by no means simple then in terms of an answer that would have been obvious. The Ethiopian was returning from worship in Jerusalem and he had a copy of the Holy Scripture. This scenario suggests that the Ethiopian was a Jewish proselyte. As such, he would have been used to many restrictions or hindrances in terms of his participation in the Jewish religious rituals. In Jerusalem, he would have been restricted at the temple to only going into the court of Gentiles. And being a eunuch, he would have faced even further restrictions in terms of the Jewish rituals as stipulated in the book of Leviticus. Although the Ethiopian eunuch desired to worship the one true and living God and even pursued his desire through Judaism, he constantly faced restrictions and setbacks along the way. His question was indeed a valid one. What prevents me from being baptized in water? Is it because I am a gentile or is it because I am a eunuch? Philip provided a simple answer that was probably more refreshing to the Ethiopian than finding a body of water in the desert. The qualification for baptism in the name of Jesus is not dependent on nationality or absence of physical blemishes. Where there is water and the proper authority, the only qualification for the candidate for baptism is faith in the saving power of the blood of Jesus as the sinless son of God. Confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead. The Ethiopian quickly confessed to his belief in Jesus as the son of God. With that, he commanded the chariot to stand still and he and Philip went down into the water. They did not go down by the water but down into the water. We are not told how the rite was administered, but when it was over, they both came up out of the water. Mission accomplished. The Holy Ghost then translated Philip from that place to another where Philip continued to preach. Meanwhile, the new convert, the Ethiopian, went his way rejoicing in the Lord; for he had received the Lord as his savior but even better the Lord had received him as his child. Philip was there to acknowledge it through water baptism. Robert C. Hudson October 12, 2012

Stephen is Faithful to Death

October 14, 2012 Background Scripture: Acts 7:1 – 8:1 Lesson Passage: Acts 7:51 – 60; 8:1 Last week’s lesson ended with Stephen in full defense of his faith in Jesus Christ. As noted last week, Stephen’s summary statement inflamed the Jewish council more than the false accusations of blasphemy had initially aroused them. This week’s lesson takes a closer look at the Jewish council’s response to Stephen’s defense. In his closing statement, Stephen laid the blame for the death of Jesus squarely at the feet of the council while at the same time calling them out publically as law breakers. This was more than the council members could bear. Perhaps this caused their usual calm deportment to give way to outright rage. They were so deeply hurt emotionally by Stephen’s words that they started biting Stephen with their teeth. In the midst of this madness, Stephen continued to talk and looked towards heaven. God granted Stephen a vision of the risen Jesus standing at His right hand in heaven. When Stephen described the vision, his tormenters were so tormented by his testimony that they covered their ears and rushed him out of the city. There they stoned Stephen to death as though being outside the wall of Jerusalem made it safe for them to trample the moral Law of God. Stephen’s last words were a prayer for Jesus to receive him and to forgive his murderers for the sin that they were committing. Stephen died while praying. Not only was the Lord on his mind but he was also in his view. Of all of the circumstances and reasons that lead to so many lives being taken at the hands of others, none will ever be nobler than that of Stephen’s. Stephen stood for what he believed in even when it was obvious that it was leading to an unpleasant situation. One can think of many options that would have been available for Stephen to avoid such an outcome. He could have accepted the charges of blasphemy and apologized to the council. He could have held his peace and said nothing and perhaps he would have been released with no more than a whipping or scourging. He could have stopped arguing with the first group once it was clear that he had gotten the upper hand so as to avoid the situation escalating. Perhaps he could have run when they tried to apprehend him in the beginning. He could have stopped working miracles when it was clear that it was agitating the Jews. Any of these would have likely preserved his life. But what kind of life would it have been if he was not free to express his faith in Jesus and allow the gift of the Holy Ghost to work through him? How can one truly cover up the work of God in his life? I don’t believe that the outcome should be accepted merely as being Stephen’s inevitable fate. Indeed, everything that transpired was the result of his faith and not his fate. The end of Stephen’s life was a clear demonstration of his faith and the grace of God upon him. Stephen could count himself as blessed for having suffered for Christ’s sake. He did not exhibit spurts of faith but an undying faith even as his physical body was being put to death. Without doubt he attained to the challenge, Be thou faithful until death, and I will give thee a crown of life. Robert C. Hudson October 4, 2012

Stephen Defends His Faith

October 7, 2012 Background Scripture: Acts 6:1 – 7:53 Lesson Passage: Acts 6:8 – 15; 7:1, 2a, 22, 44a, 45b – 49 The title of our lesson manages to jump to the punch line without taking us through the steps. However, the steps are crucial to understanding the lesson. The main focus of the lesson is on Stephen. Stephen is one of the seven men selected by the Jerusalem congregation to participate in the daily administration of goods to meet the needs of the congregation. The congregation numbered at least three thousand and perhaps over eight thousand depending on how one interprets those who were part of the second infusion into the infant church. The members sold their belongings and brought the money to the apostles for the common good of the congregation. Teaching the word of God and looking after the daily needs of thousands of individuals were more than the apostles could handle. Inconvenience gave way to murmuring that caused a rift to start within the fledgling church. The solution the apostles brought to the church was for the members to make choice of seven men based on qualifications given to the church by the apostles. The congregation was please with the solution and the number of Christians continued to increase. One of the seven men chosen and set aside for the daily work was Stephen. Stephen did more than take care of the daily tasks that met the physical needs of the congregation. He did works of miracles that were a clear demonstration of his faith. And this is where the problem began for Stephen. He was met with great opposition by some of the Jews who disputed with him to no avail. Having loss the argument on philosophical terms, the Jews who were attacking him resorted to false accusations of blasphemy that led to Stephen’s arrest by the Jewish religious authority. When questioned by the Jewish religious leaders concerning the allegations, Stephen, rather than attempt to refute the lies of his accusers, gave a summary of Israel’s history as a precursor to the defense of his faith in Jesus as the anointed of God. Interwoven in Israel’s history is a constant thread composed of God’s promise to send a Messiah to His people Israel. Stephen’s defense was that the appearance of the Christ in Israel was inevitable because it is in accord with the promises of God. Stephen’s summary statement inflamed the Jewish council more than the false accusations of blasphemy had initially aroused them. His summary statement was that the Jewish leaders of his day had repeated the same error as Jewish leaders of the past who had slain the prophets of God because they disagreed with the message. Like their predecessors, they had totally missed the point. Although they had manipulated Pilate to carry out their sinister plot, Stephen reminded them that they were still accountable for slaying Jesus. Furthermore, the Law that they were so proud of representing and defending, they had not obeyed it themselves. Stephen’s defense of his faith in Jesus Christ went well beyond a philosophical argument about religion and religious rites. His defense became the centerpiece of his legal defense before the Jewish council. Stephen was willing to take a stand for the faith he held although it was clear that he was being persecuted for it. Robert C. Hudson September 26, 2012