The baptism of John, whence was it? (Acts 19)

Acts chapter 19 opens with a few more people in Ephesus who are only familiar with the work of John the Baptist. Paul meets these men and asks them if they've received the Holy Ghost, and they essentially respond with, "Holy Ghost? Never heard of it!" Paul tells them about Jesus, and baptizes them again. It's an interesting doctrinal point here that Paul makes, saying the baptism of John was a baptism of repentance, which might make one wonder what the baptism of Jesus is about, because it sounds like Paul is contrasting here. The men receive the Holy Ghost and speak in tongues, prophesying. (Here's another instance of the Holy Ghost being given for the SAB.) After speaking in the synagogue for three months, the non-believing Jews start slandering Paul, so he leaves the synagogue and relocates to "the school of one Tyrannus" which the SAB notes as the only school in the entire Bible; while this may be technically true (that is, it's the only mention of "school") I think the idea of education is present throughout the Bible, and on the flipside, it's not really clear what kind of "school" this is. Anyway, Paul is in Ephesus for two years, and apparently his teaching of the gospel spreads throughout Asia (note that "Asia" in the Bible is referring to what we would call "Asia Minor" today).

There is mentioned some actually rather strange miracles here. It seems that Paul was working in Ephesus, and people would take his sweat rags and aprons and touch sick people with them, causing them to be cured. The Bible doesn't explain why this is effective, and yeah, I can see the "Absurdity" tag here. In a related story, some professional exorcists who are non-Christian Jews try to cast out a demon by saying, "We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth." The demon apparently finds this amusing saying he knows Jesus and Paul (with a different Greek word for "know" in each case, the NIV rendering the response, "Jesus I know, and Paul I know about, but who are you?") but doesn't know who the exorcists are, and he beats them up and strips them naked. Once again, the absurdity of this story is pretty obvious, although to those contemporary to it happening, it was apparently scary, and a bunch of people are essentially spooked into the kingdom of heaven.

Then there is noted a book burning. The SAB should really include this passage on their Is magic OK? page, because it's implied here that these are something like spellbooks. Paul is apparently thinking about traveling back to Jerusalem and then to Rome, but for now he sends Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia. In Ephesus, a silversmith named Demetrius gathers together craftsmen in the city who make money crafting (I assume) idols of the goddess Diana, and points out that the idol making craft is losing money from all these people turning to Christianity. They stir up a sort of rally for Diana, which turns into a would-be lynch mob for some Christians. The town clerk gets them to calm down and implores them to not do anything rash and illegal that they will regret, and the crowd disperses.

Timothy our brother (Acts 16)

Acts chapter 16 opens with a vingette that seems to contradict the previous chapter, and the SAB takes it that way. Is circumcision required? This was really answered in chapter 15, which oddly enough isn't linked to on this page, but I suppose there's no specific verse to link to there. The answer is no for Christians, yes for Jews. (If the question is required for salvation, it's a straight across the board "no".) The Old Testament passages are all for Jews (as well as the Luke passage, because Jesus was Jewish), and most of the New Testament passages are addressed to Gentile Christians. Timothy, whose mother was a Jew and father was a Greek, is a believer, and wants to go with Paul, but for some reason, Paul decides Timothy needs to be circumcised. It's not made particularly clear why Paul decides this, especially so soon after the Jerusalem council; it may be because what with Timothy's mother being Jewish Paul felt a need for Timothy to have some Jewish cred, so to speak. (Paul notes in Galatians that he didn't compel Titus to be circumcised because he was Greek.)

I already responded to whether the Gospel should be preached to everyone in Acts chapter one, where I pointed out, as I will again, that Phrygia and Galatia are in Asia, so it's not even very clear what verse six is trying to say! Paul has a dream about a man in Macedonia asking for help, so Paul goes there. The SAB, always with an attention to detail, notes that the narrative switches to first-person, and wonders why. The standard Christian explanation is that Luke (the author of Acts) must have joined Paul around this time. Anyway, shortly after they get to Macedonia, they meet Lydia, and convert her. The SAB's suggestion that Lydia might be a lesbian because she sold purple (I assume purple clothes rather than the actual dye) seems a bit of a stretch, as purple is more likely associated with nobility; it is interesting that she does appear to be an independent woman, which may have been more common in Europe. (Note I'm not saying Lydia definitely wasn't a lesbian, I just don't think the evidence is compelling enough.)

Paul's encounter with the demon possessed woman is actually pretty absurd, I have to agree. She's demon possessed, but follows Paul around hyping him up. Apparently there's something annoying or otherwise distracting about it, and she is demon possessed, so Paul casts the demon out of her. Her owners are pissed off, because they were making money off of her, so they bring Paul and Silas to the rulers of the town where they are beaten and thrown into prison. That night, while they're sitting in prison in chains, they are singing praise songs, and a miraculous earthquake happens, that opens the doors of the prison and loosens everyone's chains. The warden wakes up, and seeing the doors open, makes to commit suicide, as apparently he's going to be in trouble. Paul calls out to him, letting him know they are still there, and not to kill himself. He comes in to Paul and Silas and asks how he can be saved. Paul gives him a curious answer, saying if he believes in Jesus, he and his whole family will be saved! There are actually Christians who believe that if the husband is saved, that covers the whole household. I actually used to know a witch online who said she had a husband who was a pastor, and as far as he was concerned, she was saved because he was. So the SAB has to ask, Is salvation by faith alone? I'm sure I've answered this question elsewhere at least in part, but as the page doesn't have a link, I'll address it here in full. The answer is yes, but it's complicated. There are a few things that need to be said that may address the "no" verses. First of all, despite the fact that a person is "saved" doesn't mean they won't be judged; there seems to be both a judgment concerning salvation and a judgment concerning rewards and punishment that is separate. Also, many of the Old Testament passages are talking about judgment here on earth, the idea that God rewards good people and punishes bad people. Also, there is another important teaching that is especially accentuated in the book of James: that faith, if it is genuine, should result in good works, and if the good works are not present in a person's life, you should question their faith. Oh, and said works also include one's words that one speaks. So, for those passages not covered by these issues... The Matthew five verse I explained in Matthew five, basically saying that Jesus is using hyperbole to say that you can't get in to Heaven on righteousness. Matthew 19 in the broader context is illustrating that most rich people are violating the first Commandment by having money as their god. The Romans two passage is, I think, being taken wrong, as the broader context of the entire book is salvation by faith; perhaps Paul is saying, as Jesus sometimes did, that nobody is capable of keeping the whole of the law, because in the end, we are all sinners. The Philippians two verse is not at all clear in and of itself, and certainly could be saying to keep the faith. Revelation 22 is a tricky one, but I think it can certainly be said that Jesus had Commandments (the SAB has them all tracked, in fact), which were mainly about faith. If a husband believes, is his wife saved also? I think it's arguable that the point of all of these verses is that the faith of one spouse has a great influence on the other, although as I said above, some people believe the answer is a simple "yes".

So, the warden puts his faith in Jesus, and is baptized, along with his family. Just because it doesn't say what the rest of his family thought about all of this doesn't automatically imply that they were baptized against their will; it's entirely possible that the whole family made confessions of faith as well. Lack of information doesn't imply that something didn't happen, but it's certainly true that it leaves us wondering. In the morning, the order is given to let Paul and Silas go. Paul is apparently offended that they arrested them publicly, but want to release him privately. The people in charge hear about this, and the fact that Paul and Silas are Roman citizens, which is serious business, since there are special rules about how you treat citizens, and they haven't been treated properly. The rulers release them and ask them to leave the city. After visiting with Lydia one more time, they depart.

A righteous man hateth lying (John 7)

There's an important thing to say about the opening verse of John chapter seven that's related to antisemitism which I may have already noted elsewhere. When the Bible says Jesus is avoiding "the Jews" it's important to understand that generally with that definite article, the Bible is referring to the Sanhedrin, the council of Jewish leaders who were located in Jerusalem. It's definitely not talking about Jews in general, because Galilee was an area primarily populated by Jews as well. It's actually rather unfortunate that many of the writers of the New Testament used this shorthand because I imagine it has been used historically as an excuse for antisemitism among Christians.

The SAB says it's absurd that Jesus's brothers didn't believe in him, but I'm not sure why. I imagine having grown up with Jesus as a brother made him seem too mundane to possibly be the Messiah.

Now, the SAB brings up the meaty question Is it OK to lie? Now I thought I would have covered this in Exodus chapter one, but apparently I didn't; I've no idea why. The reason it's particularly meaty here is that it appears in verse eight of our chapter that Jesus lies! While I can certainly point out that Jesus says, "I go not up yet unto this feast," making it technically not a lie, one can't deny that Jesus is making a statement with the intent to deceive. So what is the Bible's stance on lying, and is there a contradiction here? My position on this matter has always been that while lying in general is bad, there is such a thing as situational ethics; you should tell the truth unless telling the truth will cause something terrible to happen. In most of the examples given of people lying in the Bible and being right to do so, there's a matter of life or death. The Egyptian midwives are lying to save the lives of Jewish babies; Rahab is lying to save the lives of the Israelite spies; David is lying to save his own life; and that may be the reason Jesus says what he does here, because letting his disciples know that he's going to the feast might in some way endanger him. (Perhaps the reason Elisha lies to the king of Syria is so that events unfold as they do in the next few verses, and that serves to save lives in some way? I don't know.)

So Jesus goes to the feast eventually, and we see there's a lot of controversy about him. Some people like him, while others--perhaps the Sanhedrin in particular, or various others who are listening to the Sanhedrin--think he's a charlatan. Eventually, Jesus appears at the Temple to preach, and a lot of people are impressed with what he has to say. When Jesus says that there are people trying to kill him, some people accuse him of being possessed which, as the SAB rightly notes, is apparently a common thing (either in actuality, or simply the culture assumed anyone with mental problems must be possessed). Jesus brings up the issue that is between him and the Sanhedrin: the sabbath. Whether you should keep the sabbath was addressed in John chapter five, but Jesus brings up something that I meant to bring up there, but no matter, because the discussion is here in the text: circumcision. As Jesus points out here, a male child is circumcised on his eighth day, and if that day happens to be the sabbath, they don't postpone the procedure to the ninth day. It's arguably a breaking of the sabbath, but Jews do it all the time! As I said about situational ethics in the last post about lying, so it applies to the sabbath; it's a rule...unless something more important comes up. If circumcision is important enough, surely healing a paraplegic should be acceptable.

To judge or not to judge? The SAB brings up this question, which is actually one of the more common questions non-Christians have, or at least they know Matthew 7:1, "Judge not, that ye be not judged." While there does appear to be a contradiction here, the real distinction is that there are different kinds of judgment. It's just a natural fact that humans judge each other, and there's nothing wrong with most kinds of judgment. The places where the Bible warns us not to judge are referring to the kind of judgment where you condemn another person, whether you fully think, "That person is going to Hell," or maybe even just, "That person is really evil." In a few of these verses, it's said that when you judge, you make yourself answerable to the same standards of judgment, and you probably wouldn't want that.

Jesus makes another reference to "scripture" in this speech that, as the SAB notes, is not really at all clear as to what scripture he's referring to. There are a few references to "living water" in the Old Testament, but none of them are anything like what Jesus is saying here, so it's a mystery.

When was the Holy Ghost given? I'm sure I covered this one before, but I'll answer it again rather than hunt it down. In addition to the New Testament verses given here, there are a few Old Testament references to "the Spirit of God" that probably fit here. The thing of it is, there was a specific event at Pentecost when the Holy Ghost was given en masse to all of the believers, and thereafter, upon conversion to Christianity, to all other Christians. The Holy Ghost was always there (from Genesis 1:2!), but the "giving of the Holy Ghost" is referring to the time from Pentecost onwards.