Acts 6-20
As I said last time, Acts is the boys' own adventure of the New Testament, and this section illustrates that perfectly. We've got visions, a prison break, an escape in a basket, several martyrdoms, a dramatic conversion, someone being raised from the dead, and a wonderful cast of characters. We look at three in this lesson.
Stephen
What do we know about Stephen? He must have been "of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom" (6:3) to be selected as one of the seven. He was "a man full of faith" (6:5), "full of faith and power, [who] did great miracles among the people" (6:8), people "were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake" (6:10) and when "all that sat in the council" looked at him they "saw his face as it had been the face of an angel" (6:15 - compare Alma 5:14).
Stephen's task as one of the seven was essentially to take care of the business of ministering and looking after the church and especially its needier members, freeing the apostles to "give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word." (6:4)
But that's not to say Stephen can't preach too, and preach he does, in chapter 7. Note that in his "sermon" he basically gives a full and lengthy history of Israel to people who already know it. (Acts 7:2-47). It seems to have been a tendency in those days to "recap the story so far" when preaching. Peter does it when they are choosing a new apostle, and in Acts 13 Saul does it too. Why? In class it was suggested (mostly by Carlos and Simon Terra) that it was to show those listening where Christ fits it to their story, to show that the speaker understands and shares the value of their heritage and covenant, and so that he can point out that they have betrayed it - which Stephen does in 7:48-53.
It makes him rather unpopular, and he is killed. As he is being stoned he sees a vision of "the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God." (7:55) This is significant for several reasons:
As Stephen is being killed we encounter Saul. "The witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul." (7:58) and "Saul was consenting unto his death." (8:1)
Before we get to Saul's conversion story we encounter Simon the Sorcerer in Chapter 8. A sorcerer was someone who made potions in order to induce a hallucinogenic state, part of pagan religious practice at the time which was thought to bring one into contact with the spirit world. When Simon saw the effects of having the priesthood and the Holy Ghost conferred he evidently felt that this was right up his alley, but Peter is quick to disabuse him of that notion, telling him "Repent of this thy wickedness" (20). In chapter 13 Paul encounters a sorcerer too, and is similarly scathing. The message is clear - magic, potions, drugs, are all things which have no place in Christianity.
Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus is very dramatic, but most people don't have a dramatic conversion like that. I did - like Saul I was an enemy of the church, fighting against it - but the type or means of conversion isn't as important as the fact of it. Some people, born into the church, can't pinpoint a conversion moment at all, but that doesn't make their faith any less valid. In April 2011 President Dieter F. Uchtdorf said, "There are some who feel that unless they have an experience similar to Saul’s or Joseph Smith’s, they cannot believe. They stand at the waters of baptism but do not enter. They wait at the threshold of testimony but cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the truth. Instead of taking small steps of faith on the path of discipleship, they want some dramatic event to compel them to believe. They spend their days waiting on the road to Damascus."
Jonny Bleakley said that conversion can also be many "mini-moments", whereby we are each converted daily to the gospel, or aspects of it. It's a lifelong process.
Acts 9:5 is part of Saul's conversion, and Come, Follow Me notes that "to kick against the pricks" refers to cattle who were driven forward using a pointed stick. Occasionally they would resist this, which would only serve to drive it in deeper and cause more pain. It was a commonly used Greek proverb at the time and the metaphor is powerful, but the King James version of the Bible is the only translation which includes this phrase. That's because since the King James version was translated further study has been done, and further manuscripts brought to light, which suggest that this phrase was a later addition to the original text written by Luke.
This brings us to consider the first part of Article of Faith 8: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." One of the things I appreciate about the church is that this article of faith basically gives us licence to say, "Well, we don't much like that doctrine or scripture, so it must be a mistranslation" but we don't. I've been a member of the church for a couple of decades, and not once have I ever been in a class, or read an article, where a Bible scripture which is difficult or challenging has been dismissed as a mistranslation. While we accept that the Bible may be subject to translation errors in theory, we generally accept it as correct in practice.
But this is one part where we could legitimately say that there is an error. We could choose to use other, more accurate, translations of the Bible. Why are we sticking with the KJV?
My sister worked as a freelance proofreader for a Christian publisher at one stage, and told me that all Bible translators (and in fact all translators and all writers) had their own agenda. People cannot help but interpret what they read in the frame of their own worldview, and when they are translating for the use of others it's difficult to keep their bias out of it. Every time a word has two slightly different meanings and they are forced to pick one their own beliefs are going to influence their choice.
The translators of the KJV had their own agenda (pleasing the King) and beliefs too, and their choice of words was doubtless influenced by it, but maybe the reason we cling to that translation is that their agenda has been somewhat rendered void by the passage of time. It's also the version which has been cross-referenced for us, it's beautiful and traditional, and while some of the other versions may be slightly more accurate, none are perfect. And, as was pointed out in the lesson, if God wants us to use a different version he will let us know through his Prophet.
Cornelius
We know quite a bit about Cornelius too. He was a Roman centurion, and "a devout man, and one which feared God" (10:2) and "a just man … and of good report." (10:22) Cornelius is given a vision to send for Peter, and the timing is perfect. Peter's vision is in 10:9-16. He had gone up to his roof to pray. Simon Terra did a bit of research for us and told us that the roof was considered a room of the house for most of the year, and was somewhere people often went for solitude.
In Peter's vision he is shown many types of animals and told "Kill, and eat". He refuses, because many of them are animals considered unclean under Mosaic law. God sets him right. "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common." (10:15) Slowly, Peter comes to the realisation that this means more than just which animals are fit to eat. First he "doubted … what this vision... might mean" (17), then he "thought on the vision" (19), and realises that "God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean" (28) and eventually "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons." (34) Thank goodness for this truth. Not only can those of us with no Jewish blood become baptised followers of Jesus, but we can also be reminded that the gospel is for everyone, all our brothers and sisters, even if they are people we might wrongly feel we don't want or who don't fit into our "exclusive" church "club".
Cornelius's servants appear just after this vision. In class it was asked, what if Peter hadn't had the vision? Would he have gone with them to see Cornelius? Almost certainly not. The video that accompanies this lesson in Come, Follow Me shows Peter hesitating before entering Cornelius's house, and checking the doorway for the mezuzah which would have been on every house he had ever entered in his life.
Cornelius becomes maybe the first gentile convert to "Christianity". ("The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch" 11:26) The other possible contender for this title is the Ethiopian Eunuch baptised by Philip in Chapter 8.
Later in these chapters we see that others of the church have a hard time accepting this change. We are in a church which is going through a period of change. Do we feel as those earliest Christians did - resistant and annoyed? Or do we welcome and recognise revelation which comes from having the Holy Ghost, and a living prophet and apostles, and enables the church to adapt to suit the times? At the beginning of this section we saw a change made - seven called to help administer the church - and then we see a bigger change, with the opportunity of baptism opening up to the gentiles too. Doctrines don't change, but this is a living church, and living things grow, change, and develop. We must grow with it.
Stephen
What do we know about Stephen? He must have been "of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom" (6:3) to be selected as one of the seven. He was "a man full of faith" (6:5), "full of faith and power, [who] did great miracles among the people" (6:8), people "were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake" (6:10) and when "all that sat in the council" looked at him they "saw his face as it had been the face of an angel" (6:15 - compare Alma 5:14).
Stephen's task as one of the seven was essentially to take care of the business of ministering and looking after the church and especially its needier members, freeing the apostles to "give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word." (6:4)
But that's not to say Stephen can't preach too, and preach he does, in chapter 7. Note that in his "sermon" he basically gives a full and lengthy history of Israel to people who already know it. (Acts 7:2-47). It seems to have been a tendency in those days to "recap the story so far" when preaching. Peter does it when they are choosing a new apostle, and in Acts 13 Saul does it too. Why? In class it was suggested (mostly by Carlos and Simon Terra) that it was to show those listening where Christ fits it to their story, to show that the speaker understands and shares the value of their heritage and covenant, and so that he can point out that they have betrayed it - which Stephen does in 7:48-53.
It makes him rather unpopular, and he is killed. As he is being stoned he sees a vision of "the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God." (7:55) This is significant for several reasons:- It's the first time God the Father and Jesus have been seen together. We speculated that this could be because Jesus' work is now finished, bringing mankind to God, and thus we can now see not only Jehovah, but Elohim too.
- It demonstrates clearly that God the Father and Jesus the Christ are separate and distinct beings.
- It's very similar to what Joseph Smith saw; it opens the possibility of the truth of visions of God and Jesus.
As Stephen is being killed we encounter Saul. "The witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul." (7:58) and "Saul was consenting unto his death." (8:1)
Before we get to Saul's conversion story we encounter Simon the Sorcerer in Chapter 8. A sorcerer was someone who made potions in order to induce a hallucinogenic state, part of pagan religious practice at the time which was thought to bring one into contact with the spirit world. When Simon saw the effects of having the priesthood and the Holy Ghost conferred he evidently felt that this was right up his alley, but Peter is quick to disabuse him of that notion, telling him "Repent of this thy wickedness" (20). In chapter 13 Paul encounters a sorcerer too, and is similarly scathing. The message is clear - magic, potions, drugs, are all things which have no place in Christianity.
Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus is very dramatic, but most people don't have a dramatic conversion like that. I did - like Saul I was an enemy of the church, fighting against it - but the type or means of conversion isn't as important as the fact of it. Some people, born into the church, can't pinpoint a conversion moment at all, but that doesn't make their faith any less valid. In April 2011 President Dieter F. Uchtdorf said, "There are some who feel that unless they have an experience similar to Saul’s or Joseph Smith’s, they cannot believe. They stand at the waters of baptism but do not enter. They wait at the threshold of testimony but cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the truth. Instead of taking small steps of faith on the path of discipleship, they want some dramatic event to compel them to believe. They spend their days waiting on the road to Damascus."
Jonny Bleakley said that conversion can also be many "mini-moments", whereby we are each converted daily to the gospel, or aspects of it. It's a lifelong process.
Acts 9:5 is part of Saul's conversion, and Come, Follow Me notes that "to kick against the pricks" refers to cattle who were driven forward using a pointed stick. Occasionally they would resist this, which would only serve to drive it in deeper and cause more pain. It was a commonly used Greek proverb at the time and the metaphor is powerful, but the King James version of the Bible is the only translation which includes this phrase. That's because since the King James version was translated further study has been done, and further manuscripts brought to light, which suggest that this phrase was a later addition to the original text written by Luke.
This brings us to consider the first part of Article of Faith 8: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." One of the things I appreciate about the church is that this article of faith basically gives us licence to say, "Well, we don't much like that doctrine or scripture, so it must be a mistranslation" but we don't. I've been a member of the church for a couple of decades, and not once have I ever been in a class, or read an article, where a Bible scripture which is difficult or challenging has been dismissed as a mistranslation. While we accept that the Bible may be subject to translation errors in theory, we generally accept it as correct in practice.
But this is one part where we could legitimately say that there is an error. We could choose to use other, more accurate, translations of the Bible. Why are we sticking with the KJV?
My sister worked as a freelance proofreader for a Christian publisher at one stage, and told me that all Bible translators (and in fact all translators and all writers) had their own agenda. People cannot help but interpret what they read in the frame of their own worldview, and when they are translating for the use of others it's difficult to keep their bias out of it. Every time a word has two slightly different meanings and they are forced to pick one their own beliefs are going to influence their choice.
The translators of the KJV had their own agenda (pleasing the King) and beliefs too, and their choice of words was doubtless influenced by it, but maybe the reason we cling to that translation is that their agenda has been somewhat rendered void by the passage of time. It's also the version which has been cross-referenced for us, it's beautiful and traditional, and while some of the other versions may be slightly more accurate, none are perfect. And, as was pointed out in the lesson, if God wants us to use a different version he will let us know through his Prophet.
Cornelius
We know quite a bit about Cornelius too. He was a Roman centurion, and "a devout man, and one which feared God" (10:2) and "a just man … and of good report." (10:22) Cornelius is given a vision to send for Peter, and the timing is perfect. Peter's vision is in 10:9-16. He had gone up to his roof to pray. Simon Terra did a bit of research for us and told us that the roof was considered a room of the house for most of the year, and was somewhere people often went for solitude.
In Peter's vision he is shown many types of animals and told "Kill, and eat". He refuses, because many of them are animals considered unclean under Mosaic law. God sets him right. "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common." (10:15) Slowly, Peter comes to the realisation that this means more than just which animals are fit to eat. First he "doubted … what this vision... might mean" (17), then he "thought on the vision" (19), and realises that "God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean" (28) and eventually "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons." (34) Thank goodness for this truth. Not only can those of us with no Jewish blood become baptised followers of Jesus, but we can also be reminded that the gospel is for everyone, all our brothers and sisters, even if they are people we might wrongly feel we don't want or who don't fit into our "exclusive" church "club".
Cornelius's servants appear just after this vision. In class it was asked, what if Peter hadn't had the vision? Would he have gone with them to see Cornelius? Almost certainly not. The video that accompanies this lesson in Come, Follow Me shows Peter hesitating before entering Cornelius's house, and checking the doorway for the mezuzah which would have been on every house he had ever entered in his life.
Cornelius becomes maybe the first gentile convert to "Christianity". ("The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch" 11:26) The other possible contender for this title is the Ethiopian Eunuch baptised by Philip in Chapter 8.
Later in these chapters we see that others of the church have a hard time accepting this change. We are in a church which is going through a period of change. Do we feel as those earliest Christians did - resistant and annoyed? Or do we welcome and recognise revelation which comes from having the Holy Ghost, and a living prophet and apostles, and enables the church to adapt to suit the times? At the beginning of this section we saw a change made - seven called to help administer the church - and then we see a bigger change, with the opportunity of baptism opening up to the gentiles too. Doctrines don't change, but this is a living church, and living things grow, change, and develop. We must grow with it.
Comments
Post a Comment