Technically Speaking...

But striking a reef where two seas met, they ran the vessel aground; and the prow stuck fast and remained immovable, but the stern began to be broken up by the force of the waves. (Acts 27:41 NASB)

 In English, as in any language, there are sets of words reserved or with special meaning in certain specific contexts.  If I use the term schizophrenic, most people think of 'hearing voices' or 'multiple personalities' (Roses are Red, Violets are Blue, I'm a schizophrenic, and so am I).  But psychologists and psychiatrists understand it as a mental disorder sometimes exhibiting hallucinations and delusions, but also other things like mental and emotional 'blunting', intellectual deterioration, disorganized speech and behavior.  It's a technical term, but it has usage in common vernacular as well.

Terms on ships, and especially cargo ships, is an area few of us have much dealings.  Most people, unless in trucking, have ever heard of a "Bill of Lading", but cargo carriers and shippers live off the term.  It's a technical term, but isn't in common usage.  Parts of the ship such as bow, stern, port, starboard, may be familiar, but 'spar', 'mizzenmast' (versus mainmast), and so on may not be that familiar to people who don't sail.  To find the other meaning, the less common words, you would need to look them up or, even better, have a conversation with a sailor.

Paul is traveling from the coast of Judea to Italy.  With him are Luke and Aristarchus.  Luke is writing the account of their trip, and this voyage is especially harrowing.  But to really tell the story and get the sense and feel of it right, Luke would need to know something of the process of sailing.  From the details he records, he seems to have a good grasp of nautical terminology.  He uses specific terms for the ship, but also for the weather, the techniques and strategies of sailing, and the terms for different sorts of shoreline and coastal features.  How did a medical person come up with all those terms?

I suspect that the good doctor talked a lot with the sailors on the trip, and on other trips.  I suspect that he got to know them, their jobs, the terms they used for things, and listened to their stories (where the best terms are discovered - some actually printable).  I suspect that Luke got out of his comfort zone, and into the zones of others.  And I suspect he learned enough about them to write them and their struggles into his account of Paul's journey.  Luke doesn't shy away from details about this trip, he delves right into them, demonstrating that even in this journey, Jesus leads Paul to Rome through every barrier.

Decisions are made in this chapter, and dangers are avoided; sometimes by the skills of the sailors and sometimes by the advice of Paul.  Some dangers are faced head on and survived.  There is a lot of detail in this chapter.  And Luke could not have written the detail without some familiarity with sailing, and I believe he got that from sailors.  It may sound simple, and it may sound obvious, perhaps his knowledge doesn't require familiarity with sailors.  In any case, I believe he got it on the journey, hanging out with sailors, and I learn a lesson from that.

I meet a lot of people, and not all of them are 'comfortable'.  Most homeless people aren't comfortable for me.   There are various reason for that, but part is fear.  But there is a society of people adrift that I don't know or understand.  And I won't unless I overcome my 'uncomfortableness' and become willing to engage them.  They have far less trust of me, and more reason to fear me than I have of them.  Not that there is no danger in dealing with them, but there is more danger for them; I represent a society that fears, hates, and mistreats them.

The question is really whether I am willing to engage in the world and context of others.  If I am willing, then my Master can use me to reach people outside my comfort zone.  If I'm not willing, then I hinder my usefulness to my King.  What I learn from Luke's technical nautical terminology is that he was able to go outside his comfort zone to engage people in a different world.  And so should I be willing to engage people different from me.  Luke was used by my Master in that experience, and after.  So my Master can use me if I am willing and available to Him.

Scriptural Truth Found in Ancient Texts?

"So, having obtained help from God, I stand to this day testifying both to small and great, stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place; that the Christ was to suffer, and that by reason of His resurrection from the dead He would be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles." (Acts 26:22-23 NASB)

 While camping one year, I met a believer who had some very unorthodox views.  He said he was somewhat like a church movement trying to get away from "organized religion" and back to early church roots.  It sounded interesting until two topics popped up chained together.  First he was against tithing saying it was a thing created by large churches to get more money.  Second, he based this view on his rejection of the Hebrew Scriptures as valid for Christians.  He totally missed the irony, even when I tried to explain it to him.

How can any Christ-following movement claim to be anywhere near the mindset of the early church and yet reject the very Scriptures they used in worship?  While this person, and others in such a movement may be an extreme example, there are others who are functionally in the same boat.  I have heard all sorts of excuses for such a practice: We're under "grace" not "law", The Old Testament was superseded by the New, Jesus said to reject it when He taught on "wine skins", and on and on.  HOG WASH!

Rather than debate these ridiculous excuses or give them any further thought time, let me ask the following:

1. When Jesus is tempted, where does He get His responses to Satan?  Where are those references found?
2. When Jesus corrects the Pharisees and religious leaders, what does He quote to them? Where are those references found?
3. On the road to Emmaus in Luke 24, what did Jesus use to support His statement that what happened was supposed to happen?  Where did He get those references?
4. How can Paul claim that he follows the law of the Jews in his repeated self-defense in Acts 22-26 if he has rejected the Hebrew Scriptures?
5. Why would he claim in Acts 26:22-23 that the core of his good news is "...nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place..." if he has rejected the Hebrew Scriptures?
6. What was being read in the Early Church gatherings in Troas since we don't have a "letter" from Paul or anyone else to them?  One isn't even mentioned, so what were they reading?  The ink was drying on the other letters we do have, so what did everyone else read?
7. How can Jesus claim that He did not come to abolish the law, that not least stroke would disappear until all is completed, if He didn't want His followers reading those Scriptures?  Unless I suppose that those in these reject movements believe they are completed, which would fit their arrogance.

The only conclusion I can reach is that anyone claiming to follow Jesus yet rejecting, functionally or openly, the very Scriptures He used Himself are not even reading the Scriptures they claim as valid.  This is a rant, perhaps a "straw man" argument, and I am clearly emotionally hot about this topic.  I admit it, confess it, but I'm not apologetic.  A view of God that does not incorporate both the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Scriptures together is not only wrong, but dangerous.  That's not an opinion, it cannot be done and my Master be honored, be worshiped, or be obeyed.  There are sixty-six books, no more, no less, or someone else is being worshiped.

Repenting: Changing And Turning, Changes Everything

"So, King Agrippa, I did not prove disobedient to the heavenly vision, but kept declaring both to those of Damascus first, and also at Jerusalem and then throughout all the region of Judea, and even to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance." (Acts 26:19-20 NASB)

 One of the things that drove me to study the Scriptures in original languages was to better understand terminology used in theology.  At least I couch it in those terms now, but at the beginning of my studies I really couldn't articulate it that way.  All I knew is that I wanted to understand those discussions for myself.  I knew I had to be able to work with the text as it truly is rather than as someone told me it is.

As with most lessons my Master brings me through, I never end up anywhere close to where I aimed at the beginning.  In this case, in studying original languages, I discovered "textual criticism" and the reality that I would never be able to 1) work with the text as it truly was; and 2) never really understand theology all by myself.  It was a very "unAmerican" discovery to make, that I would always be dependent on others for my understanding.

Instead, where I wound up was learning that terms and thoughts are much more vibrant and deep than I expected.  I wanted to know the real meaning of church-word, "holy" and all its uses.  What I discovered is a pagan word used by idol worshipers which was adopted and redefined by Scripture.  That wasn't what I expected to find.  All across my scope and range of assumptions, I found that I was usually wrong, or at least severely limited.

This passage in Acts 26 is an excellent example of the journey where I lost an assumption, replaced it with a false one, and then lost that one to be replaced by an uncomfortable combination of the two.  It's an example of how my Master speaks and says what He wants, rather than what I want to hear.

Repentance, I had been taught, was a 180 degree turn in my behavior from sin to obedience to Jesus.  To repent was to stop behavior.  So, no stop of behavior meant no repentance.  Well, it's not so easy.  Such a definition of repentance leaves it in my court, my choice, my power.  The reality is that Scripture uses three concepts for repentance, not this limited pale feeble guilt-ridden one with which I started.

In verse 20, Paul says that his message to both Jews and Gentiles was "...that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance."  Obviously there was more to his message, but this is how he boiled it down in this particular presentation.  Notice three elements in his message.

First, the word almost always translated as "repentance" refers to a change of mind or manner of thinking.  It's made up of the preposition, "after" and the word, "mind" or "thought".  It refers to what is concluded after thinking through something and arriving at a different place in the mind.  In other words, the mental perceptions about a thing have been altered to reflect a different point of view.  In this sense, and in all of its use in Scripture, this new point of view matches that of my Master.  So repentance is a change of mind to match the mind of my Master; partly.

The second piece is almost always translated as "turn", and is the common definition for "repent" although it's never translated as repent.  At first I said, "Aha!  See, repentance is a change of mind not behavior!"  And on the surface it might look that way, perhaps from other occurrences of this word or the previous one.  This is where my first assumption (that repentance was only a change in behavior) was crushed.  This word was never used for repentance.  In one sense I was free from the requirement to behave and be judged on my behavior, but such freedom didn't last long.

The third piece completes the structure of repentance.  Paul goes on to say in the same breath, "...performing deeds appropriate to repentance."  And there went the false prop for my new assumption.  This inescapably ties behavior to repentance.  There is a change in behavior tied to repentance.  The question I then asked was how do these three connect?

The three pieces may not require a particular order, but they must all be present.  In order to repent, my mind must be changed to match the point of view of my Master.  In order to repent the direction of my life must be aimed at my Master.  And, in order to repent, my behavior must reflect the previous two changes.

Now, I will admit that it can happen that I change my behavior, and learn to see things from my Master's perspective through obedience.  It's possible to change my behavior and discover the direction of my life has changed more toward my Master.  But I can't say that it always happens this way.  Now my belief is that, more often than not, these three are intertwined; first one preceding the others, then at another time the order changes.  But my belief can never separate the three from my understanding of repentance.  There is no longer an option for leaving out a change in my behavior to obedience to my Master, a change in the direction of my life toward my Master, and a change in my way of thinking to His way of thinking.  You see, I repented of my former misunderstanding of repentance. 

Politicians Then...And Now

But as he was discussing righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come, Felix became frightened and said, "Go away for the present, and when I find time I will summon you."  At the same time too, he was hoping that money would be given him by Paul; therefore he also used to send for him quite often and converse with him.  But after two years had passed, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus, and wishing to do the Jews a favor, Felix left Paul imprisoned. (Acts 24:25-27 NASB)

After Paul arrived, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood around him, bringing many and serious charges against him which they could not prove, while Paul said in his own defense, "I have committed no offense either against the Law of the Jews or against the temple or against Caesar."  But Festus, wishing to do the Jews a favor, answered Paul and said, "Are you willing to go up to Jerusalem and stand trial before me on these charges?" (Acts 25:7-9 NASB)

Festus said, "King Agrippa, and all you gentlemen here present with us, you see this man about whom all the people of the Jews appealed to me, both at Jerusalem and here, loudly declaring that he ought not to live any longer.  But I found that he had committed nothing worthy of death; and since he himself appealed to the Emperor, I decided to send him.  Yet I have nothing definite about him to write to my lord. Therefore I have brought him before you all and especially before you, King Agrippa, so that after the investigation has taken place, I may have something to write.  For it seems absurd to me in sending a prisoner, not to indicate also the charges against him." (Acts 25:24-27 NASB)

 'Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it wrongly, and applying unsuitable remedies'.
Sir Ernest Benn

If you don't understand my thought connection between the above passages, I recommend reading entire chapters where I found them.  If that doesn't help, please avoid polling places at all costs.  Please.

It almost goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway.  It seems my Master can still work through any political bonehead who somehow winds up elected or appointed.  It is a testimony to my Master's Sovereignty that no lack of intelligence, morality, or integrity can thwart His purposes.  It also gives me hope that I'm not such an incompetent idiot that I can't be used by my Master.  Perhaps I should run for office?

Light And Smoke: Knowing When To Use Each

 Paul, looking intently at the Council, said, "Brethren, I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day."  The high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him on the mouth.  Then Paul said to him, "God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Do you sit to try me according to the Law, and in violation of the Law order me to be struck?" But the bystanders said, "Do you revile God's high priest?"  And Paul said, "I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, 'YOU SHALL NOT SPEAK EVIL OF A RULER OF YOUR PEOPLE.'"  But perceiving that one group were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the Council, "Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!" (Acts 23:1-6 NASB)

What sort of person, living what sort of life can stand before the elders of his people and claim he's lived his entire life in good conscience?  Of course, the word he used for "lived" is a Greek word derived from the same Greek word from which we get "politics". It typically refers to the conduct before God in Christian writings, but in normal usage among Gentiles it referred to living as a good citizen.  It's kind of a cool word which we don't have in English.

What the high priest understood he found offensive to some degree, so he had Paul slapped.  I'm not sure if it was Paul's reference to "brethren" including the high priest in that reference, or if something about claiming to live in good conscience was distasteful to him.  Paul seems to be offended by his response, and directs his venom at "him" whom I assume is the high priest.  He seems not to know he's addressing the high priest.  It's weird, really.  Paul knows who directed he be slapped, but not to know that person was the high priest.

Paul's response is to call the high priest a "whitewashed wall" and declare that God will strike him.  He points out that this person sits to judge and yet breaks the law himself.  But when those next to him point out that he's addressing the high priest, he backpedals.  He speaks with humility acknowledging this high priest to be the "ruler of your people" and that he was not to be spoken of in an evil manner.  It's an odd reversal.  But the next reversal is even more strange.

Then Paul declares that he's on trial for his "hope and resurrection of the dead."  This is true, in a sense.  But Paul's true "crime" is faith in Jesus, and His resurrection from the dead.  That is where Paul's hope finds its root, and with what these elders have a problem.  These are the ones who were responsible for the crucifixion and persecuting the followers after Jesus' ascension.  But Paul frames his defense this way because he perceives a division in the group he's addressing.  He perceives this because he is actually one member of one side of the debate.  He was once one of these people.

So, why frame it that way?  What does his hope have to do with his perfectly good conscience?  How does he get from his initial declaration to the verbal "grenade" with which he winds up?  Well, let's look at who said what.

Paul states that he is addressing "brethren", that he has a good conscience, that he has this good conscience before God, and that this good conscience has been until this day.  So, what about before he was blinded by God on the road to Damascus?  Does his good conscience go back beyond that?  The council had to be very aware of his change of heart.  It's not like he was addressing people who thought he was some new-comer, knowing nothing of his background.  It turns out he has family right there.  They knew him, and they would know the veracity or falsity of his claim.  It seems that something about what he said spurred the order for him to be struck.

Paul makes another claim.  Paul claims that his being struck was contrary to the law.  Interesting that no one denies this.  Instead they ask him if he will revile "God's high priest" which, for Paul is a hugely ironic question.  He gets the point though, and acknowledges that he is not to speak evil of the leader of the people.  He brings the issue down to "politics" in one sense.  He's not addressing "God's high priest" since that role is held by Jesus alone.  He is addressing "a high priest" and therefore the leader of the Jewish people, and therefore one of his leaders.  He relinquishes his "high ground" to the council.  But why?

I don't know exactly why, but I suspect that Paul realizes how this event will go for him.  The Roman commander called this meeting, which will immediately cause animosity among the council.  There is no way this will go well for Paul.  His presence is not at the request of the council, but by Roman command.  It had to be resented by the council.  That on top of what these men knew of Paul's rejection of their status among the people of Israel created an environment that could not be conducive to a fair trial.  He was a scary anomaly to their tight socio-religious world view.  He was living proof that they were not immune to this "sectarian view" he preached.  That one of them could follow such a path had to be unnerving.  They had already lost a few to it, but not like Paul.  He was fanatical, or had been.

So Paul lobs his verbal grenade into their midst.  He sees that some are Pharisees and some Sadducees, and sees that there were enough of each to spark a nice size debate.  What resulted was pandemonium, and he had to be "rescued" again by the Roman commander.  I suspect this was Paul's exit strategy rather than something he hoped to use to win his case.  I doubt he truly expected that the Pharisees would all support his position regarding Jesus, even believing in resurrection.  Had he thought that they would support his side in this case he would have said the "resurrection of Jesus" rather than simply "resurrection".  I think he caused the riot intentionally.

If I'm right, then what I see here is God leading one of His servants to be wise or circumspect in his dealings with people outside the Church.  It's not that God doesn't love Jews or Gentiles, but that Paul sees that his calling is not to persuade the council of the Jews that Jesus is their Christ.  He saves his best work for when he is before the Roman governors and a regional king.  Is it possible that I get so focused on God saving everyone, that I spend time where my Master is not working because I think these should be people He calls.  Part of the sovereignty of my Master is over who He calls.  He's not willing that any should perish, but is not working through me into everyone's life either.  He wants the sovereignty in my life to determine what I do and for whom.  Paul tried to begin a defense that may have led to his normal testimony about Jesus, but that quickly derailed.  So, he went with the flow, trusting that his Master was leading him a different way.

It would be good for me to be willing and able to spot those deviations of my Master, and follow them once perceived.  It would be good for me to stop trying to "guide" my Master to those to whom He should be working.  So, since He's the Master, all-knowing, and all that, perhaps I should let Him choose for me...