I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh (Acts 10)

Acts chapter ten is also a turning point. We go back to Peter for a bit, and his discovery that the gospel is for Gentiles, which shouldn't have been so surprising since Jesus told him and the other disciples that the gospel was to go "to the ends of the earth." Perhaps Peter, like other believers we hear about later in Acts, believed that you had to convert to Judaism to be a Christian?

Anyway, the chapter starts with the focus on Cornelius, a Roman centurion who is not a Jew, but is a devoted follower of the God of Israel. It even says in verse 22 that he is "of good report among all the nation of the Jews." Cornelius has a vision of an angel who tells him to send men to Joppa to fetch Peter. So he sends two servants and a soldier with directions on where to find Peter according to his vision.

As the men are approaching, Peter is on the roof of the house praying, and he has a vision. In his vision, a sheet comes down from the sky filled with all sorts of animals, many (maybe all) of them not kosher, and a voice tells him to get up, kill something and eat it. Peter says, "Not so, Lord," (which I've heard in sermons pointed out to be a ridiculous thing to say in itself) because, as he explains, he keeps kosher. The voice (of God) tells him if God calls something clean, don't call it unclean. This whole thing repeats three times. I answered "What kind of animals may we eat?" way back in Genesis chapter nine, and it's actually a rather thorough response for my early work, some of which I'm not happy with now. As for What the Bible says about vegetarians, I think there's a need for cultural context with all of these verses. I think I already explained Peter's vision, but in case it's not fully clear, Jesus was trying to break down the wall between Jews and Gentiles for Peter so the gospel could spread. As for the two passages from Paul's letters, there were apparently some people who came to Christianity from faith traditions that had meat eating rituals and/or rules, and because of it, they chose to not eat meat at all as Christians. This was perhaps a sign of weak faith but Paul doesn't want people judged for that personal choice. On the other hand, if someone was against meat eating and wanted to force others to abstain, well, that's just false doctrine. I'm a vegetarian, but I don't judge people who eat meat.

So, the men arrive, and God tells Peter to go with them. It's an interesting thing here about God's character in that really, one would suppose anywhere in the process, God could have just simplified things by delivering the message himself. He could have just told Cornelius about Jesus directly; he could have told Peter to go find Cornelius instead of having Cornelius send men to fetch him; he could have told Peter what this trip was all about instead of "go with them, doubting nothing"; but God doesn't do any of those things. For whatever reason, God likes to set up people to meet and spread his message for him; he wants people to spread his love. Peter goes with the men and brings along a few fellow believers. When they arrive at Cornelius's home, Cornelius falls down and worships Peter, which Peter tells him not to do. Peter tells the people gathered there that normally a Jew wouldn't go among Gentiles, but God has revealed to him that he shouldn't be prejudiced. Cornelius shares his vision, and asks Peter to share his message, and Peter shares the gospel. I answered whether God respects people in Genesis chapter four. I answered whether Jesus was peaceful in John chapter 14. I answered whether there is an unforgivable sin in Matthew chapter 12.

After sharing the gospel, all the Gentiles believe, receive the Holy Ghost (another instance of the Holy Ghost being given!), and speak in tongues like on Pentecost. The Jewish believers are astonished, and decide to baptize them. The SAB has some interesting stuff here that I've never heard of about how if the disciples were surprised about Gentiles, but accepted them, wouldn't they also accept homosexuals? I'm not sure if the logic is sound, nonetheless it's my belief that anyone can be a Christian, so yes, regardless of what one believes about the morality of same-sex relationships, homosexuals can be Christian; whether they should abstain from same-sex intimacy is obviously a sticking point among Christians, however. I answered whose name people should be baptized in in Acts chapter two.

And the voice of God answered him (Acts 9)

Acts chapter nine is where the story really pivots and follows Paul, here still known as Saul. (I don't think we're ever given a specific time when or reason why he changes his name, but maybe I forgot and we'll get to it.) So Saul is working hard at persecuting Christians and apparently now the Jewish leaders have some pretext for throwing them in prison, although I don't think it's made real clear what that is. He gets a letter from the high priest explaining that he can do this and heads to Damascus. On the way to Damascus, he has a vision; a bright light shines from the sky and apparently the voice of Jesus speaks to him and convinces him to cease his persecution and become a Christian. He is temporarily blinded. Did the men with Paul hear the voice? There's a standard explanation for this apparent discrepancy, and that is that while the men heard the voice, they didn't hear the actual words that were spoken; it was just a noise to them. I don't know if there's anything in the Greek that supports that, but there it is. Were the men with Paul knocked to the ground? Yes, the response to this is that just because it's not mentioned in this chapter doesn't mean it didn't happen. The assumption is that the voice knocked them down, and then they stood up again.

So Saul has to be led to Damascus, and he remains blind for three days, during which time he doesn't eat or drink. It's not specified whether Saul had chosen to fast, or if he couldn't eat because of shock. Nearby, a Christian named Ananias has a vision in which "the Lord"--assumedly Jesus--speaks to him and tells him to go find Saul and lay hands on him to restore his sight. Ananias is hesitant, and essentially asks if going to Saul is safe. The Lord tells him that Saul is going to be some sort of super missionary, and Ananias goes. Ananias lays hands on Saul, giving him his sight and the Holy Ghost, and Saul is baptized. After spending a few days hanging out with the believers in Damascus, he starts preaching the gospel in the synagogue, and now the Jews want him dead, so he has to be snuck out of the city in a basket. Did Paul go to Jerusalem immediately after his conversion? There is no contradiction here, because there is no time frame given in Acts; it doesn't say "immediately" here. Did Paul visit all of the disciples when he went to Jerusalem after his conversion? Well, it never says "all", but Luke certainly makes it sound like it's more than two Apostles. I wouldn't say it's a clear contradiction, but it's certainly confusing, and the SAB page should say "Apostles" rather than "disciples" which is obviously not true.

The chapter ends with some miracles by Peter. He cures a man of palsy in Lydda, and raises a woman from the dead in Joppa. As with pretty much all miracles, the SAB marks these with "absurdity" and "science". Jesus said the disciples would do greater works than him, and it certainly seems that way.

Neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree (Acts 8)

Acts chapter eight has a lot of interesting stuff, not all of which is noted on by the SAB. As I said in the comments of the last chapter, I find it interesting that the SAB doesn't mark a passage as violent if the violence is against Christians or Jews; here I note we start the persecution of the church, but the passage is not marked for intolerance.

Philip goes to Samaria to preach the gospel, and is apparently well received. However, there is an interesting distinction here in that for some reason the Samaritans aren't given the Holy Ghost, and Peter and John have to come and lay hands on people. I already answered the question of what name people should be baptized in back in Acts chapter two, but this passage would also fit under the question of when the Holy Ghost was given, and I wonder why the SAB doesn't put it there.

One of the people is a sorcerer named Simon, which prompts the SAB to ask, Is magic OK? I think that what the SAB is missing here is there is a difference between supernatural acts that come from the power of God and ones that come from another source. In fact, generally those that come from God tend to be called "miracles" rather than "magic". There are a few things on that page that need clarification nonetheless. When Hezekiah destroyed Moses's bronze serpent in 2Kings 18, it's not because it's magic; it's because people were worshipping it as an idol. Also, it's worth noting that the two run-ins with sorcerers in the Book of Acts don't end with them being killed, but merely rebuked; in fact, here in this chapter there's nothing to suggest Simon wasn't a Christian, he was just one who was misled in his intentions. Oh, and while it's not an entirely clear passage one way or the other, it's notable that the witch in 1Samuel 28 does actually manage to call up the spirit of Samuel, so does the Bible at least give legitimacy to magic? It seems to. I answered "Should the gospel be preached to everyone?" in Acts chapter one, although the page links to a much less thorough response in Matthew chapter ten. I should get that redirected.

So God tells Philip that he should go to Gaza, and apparently, it's so he can have an appointment with an Ethiopian eunuch of some importance. (This is perhaps how Christianity got to Ethiopia.) The man is reading the book of Isaiah, and when he meets Philip, he asks him about the meaning of the passage. Philip explains that the passage is a prophecy about Jesus and proceeds to share the gospel with him. The eunuch is very excited, and asks to be baptized, which Philip does. The SAB asks: May a eunuch enter into the congregation of the Lord? It's important to understand what these verses are saying, and what they are not saying. I'm pretty sure that the Leviticus passage is saying that that a eunuch (among others) may not serve as a priest. The Deuteronomy passage may possibly be echoing this, or it may be a more general ban on eunuchs participating in Jewish religious practices at all. Now the Isaiah passage is saying that while a eunuch can't participate, he can still actively serve God in his life, and God will definitely accept him. The New Testament passages that mention eunuchs are a completely separate matter, because the requirements for being a Christian are pretty much wide open. As for the possibility that the eunuch was a homosexual, I don't know about that, but I don't think it really matters, as I said, anyone can be a Christian.

The chapter ends in a bit of a strange way, with the statement that Philip goes away as soon as they come out of the water. As the SAB notes, it rather sounds like God magically teleported Philip to a town over 20 miles away, and some people interpret it like that, but it's also entirely possible that what's meant here is that Philip got abother call and immediately left, traveling quickly to Azotus. (If Philip was able to keep up with a chariot, he probably had a horse.)

And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed (Acts 7)

I'm not sure why Acts chapter seven is a new chapter, as it's clearly a continuing of the story from chapter six. Nonetheless, we pick right up with Stephen answering the accusation of blasphemy. He for some reason decides to respond by summarizing the Old Testament. Now, I've said this before in the blog, because it's come up: Stephen makes a few factual errors in his speech here, and I consider them errors by Stephen rather than Biblical contradictions, so I'm not likely to answer cases of claimed contradiction based on this speech. (I will ask the SAB to link to this explanation, however.)

Stephen starts with Abraham, and gets some timing matters wrong in his life, but the gist of the story is correct. He also rounds off the length of the Egyptian captivity, although God did the same thing in Genesis 15, which Stephen is referring to. (I also answered that issue in Genesis chapter 15.) After Abraham, he moves quickly to Joseph to tell the story of how the first generation Israelites came to be in Egypt. Somehow Stephen counts Jacob's family wrong (which I actually addressed in Genesis chapter 45-46) and gets some burial details off. Then he moves on to Moses, a man he calls "mighty in words" completely at odds with the impression you get of him in Exodus, although that's mainly Moses's impression of himself, and he does manage a few good speeches here and there in his story. The SAB takes issue with the description of who appeared in the burning bush, which oddly enough I didn't discuss in Exodus three, but in Mark twelve, where I explained it's a technicality. Stephen recalls the incident of the golden calf. He jumps from there to David and Solomon, and mentions the latter built the Temple, but the SAB asks a question here that is dependent on more than just Stephen, so I'll address it: Does God dwell in Temples? I would say the answer is "no", actually, and I'm appealing to the words of the verses on that page. The verses claimed for "yes" do call the Temple a "house", but neither actually says God dwells there. 2Chronicles seven says that God's name would be there, which is fine enough, but when it says his eyes and heart will be there, I think the sentiment is that God will watch over it rather than actually be contained by it, as Stephen quotes Isaiah 66 in verses 49-50.

As he finishes his speech, "Stephen blames the Jews for persecuting the prophets and murdering Jesus." (As the SAB puts it...) It sounds antisemitic, but it's true, and as I said in a previous chapter, when addressing the Sanhedrin, it's essentially true about Jesus as well. Anyway, this infuriates his audience, and he has a vision of Jesus in Heaven just before they grab him and take him outside to stone him to death. As they stone him, Stephen prays for them and falls asleep.

The persecution that arose about Stephen (Acts 6)

Acts chapter six is a pretty boring chapter, as the SAB notes, but it's a lead-in to seven, which is a bit more exciting. The Apostles have some trouble with squabbles among the believers, and they get worried that with the church growing, they're going to be distracted from their work of preaching. So, they pick out seven men to deal with day-to-day administrative issues, and they list them, but watch those names, because five of them you're never going to hear again. So some nonbelievers at the synagogue start having issues with Stephen, and since they can't win a debate with him, they slander him with blasphemy. The chapter ends with an observation that Stephen had the face of an angel, which I've always just assumed that meant he looked calm and innocent, but who knows?