The Story of Ananias: Faith over Fear

The Story of Ananias: Faith over Fear

by | Jul 7, 2019 | Faith, Persecution

​Acts 9 tells the story of the conversion of Saul, one of Christianity’s greatest early enemies, to Paul – one of the faith’s greatest servants.  The chapter not only tells us that Saul was “breathing out murderous threats” against the early disciples, but also that he was hunting them down and commiting them to prison. 

​As Saul neared Damascus, however, intending to find Christians in that city, Acts tells us that the resurrected Jesus appeared to him, commanded him to go into the city and to wait till he was told what he must do. The account says that for three days Saul was blind, and did not eat or drink, but prayed. Saul’s level of repentance was clearly as deep as humanly possible (Acts 9:1-9).

But that’s the story as we know it, from our perspective – in safe hindsight.  Now think about the story from the perspective of Ananias – a Christian living in Damascus who was well aware of the destruction Saul was wreaking on the faith:

“In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, ‘Ananias!’ ‘Yes, Lord,’ he answered. The Lord told him, ‘Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight’” (Acts 9:10-12). 

It’s difficult to imagine how that instruction really felt to Ananias, but we get a glimpse of his reaction in his reply:

“‘Lord,’ Ananias answered, ‘I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your holy people in Jerusalem. And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.’ But the Lord said to Ananias, ‘Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel’” (Acts 9:13-15).

I think we have to put this in modern terms to even begin to understand the situation. Suppose you were a Jew living in hiding in World War II Europe, and God told you to go meet one of the highest ranking officers of the SS or the Gestapo.  Imagine you lived in Soviet Russia, or today in North Korea, where Christians are routinely executed, and were told to go help the head of the secret police responsible for eliminating Christians.  But look at Ananias’ response:

“Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, ‘Brother Saul, the Lord – Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here – has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.’ Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized” (Acts 9:17-18).

We read over those last few words telling us that Saul “got up and … was baptized,” but imagine Ananias’ feelings waiting to see exactly what Saul would do once his sight was restored. Was this just a trap?  What would Saul do next?  The obedience and faith that Ananias demonstrated in going to Saul and helping to restore his sight were incredible, to say the least. It was an act of faith and bravery equivalent to helping a lion out of a trap. And notice one more detail about the way in which Ananias did this.  It may seem like a small detail until you think it through, but the extent of Ananias’ faith was such that the man not only obeyed God’s instruction, but also fully accepted his enemy by addressing him with the words “Brother Saul.”  The level of Ananias’ faith is seen again toward the end of Acts 9 which records that after his conversion Saul returned to Jerusalem, and that:

“When he came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple” (vs. 26).  Ananias not only accepted God’s word in faith while it was still unclear what Saul’s intentions were, but also he accepted Saul as a brother.

Ananias is one of the many individuals who, although not mentioned by name in the great “Faith Hall of Fame” found in Hebrews 11, can nevertheless be included in the “all these” mentioned in verse 39 – the many others who are  worthy of inclusion in that honor roll of faith.

Watchful and Thankful

Watchful and Thankful

by | Jun 23, 2019 | Prayer

The apostle Paul begins and ends his letter to the Colossians on the subject of prayer.  He begins his epistle speaking about how he prayed for the Colossian believers (Colossians 1:3, 9) and ends, directly before the personal greetings that appear at the close of his letter, with a final counsel to his readers on how they themselves should pray: “Devote yourselves to prayer, being watchful and thankful” (Colossians 4: 2).

Military Expressions

To see Paul’s full meaning in this exhortation it helps to understand that here, as in several other places in his letter to the Colossians, he uses military expressions.  In the second chapter of the epistle, for example, Paul says that he is delighted to see “how disciplined you are and how firm your faith in Christ is” (Colossians 2:5).  Here, the word translated “disciplined” is a military term meaning literally to stand “shoulder to shoulder” as in a battle grouping, and the word “firm” means having a solid, immovable front, like a tight battle formation.

In the same way, when Paul writes that we should be “watchful and thankful” in prayer, he returns to this underlying military motif.  The idea of being “watchful” connotes the alertness and vigilance of a sentry on duty, a soldier standing guard at his post, or a watchman on a city’s walls or guarding a city gate.  

There is a lesson for us in Paul’s use of this term.  It brings to mind words of Isaiah from the Old Testament: “I have posted watchmen on your walls, Jerusalem; they will never be silent day or night. You who call on the Lord, give yourselves no rest, and give him no rest …” (Isaiah 62:6-7).

We do not know if Paul had these words in mind when he instructed the Colossians to devote themselves to being “watchful” in prayer, but the intent of both writers is identical.  Isaiah and Paul both make it clear that our prayer is to be continually active and that we should be constantly alert to our own needs and the needs of others.  This is the opposite of unfocused, ritual, or occasional prayer – it is specific, situational, and constant. Isaiah makes this last aspect particularly clear in telling us that we should give ourselves no rest (just like a guard on duty) and even that we should give God no rest!  Paul makes the same point in Colossians 4:2 less poetically, but just as clearly, in stressing that we should “devote” ourselves – a word meaning “to continue without stopping” – to this kind of watchful prayer. 

The Two Halves of Prayer

The apostle then proceeds to say that we should show that we are thankful. For Paul the activities of being watchful and thankful cannot be separated – they are two parts of the same activity of prayer just as inhaling and exhaling are two parts of breathing.   We already saw that Paul continually thanked God for the Colossians in his own prayers (Colossians 1:3) and now he shows that they too should give thanks.  The implication is that we should be no less alert to the things for which we should give thanks – whether they are blessings we or others have received. Nevertheless, Pauls’ stress in this verse is primarily on our own needs and thanks, as he adds, in the very next verse, “And pray for us, too … (Colossians 4:3).

Colossians 4:2 also indicates that our thanksgiving should be constant.  Just as Paul wrote that he and those with him “always thank God … when we pray for you” (Colossians 1:3), so now he implies the same continuity of giving thanks that we saw in his command to “devote” ourselves to asking for our needs.

Although our prayer should be set within praise and other aspects of interaction with God (see our free e-book on prayer), Paul shows in Colossians 4:2 that the two central aspects of prayer are in fact simply asking and thanking.  The two cannot be separated and they form, together, the core of our relationship with God himself.  Asking and thanking are not only the two aspects of prayer that Paul shows we must do, but also – and equally important –  the two things we must do continually.
 
* You can download our free e-book on prayer here.

Was Jesus Really a Carpenter?

Was Jesus Really a Carpenter?

by | Jun 9, 2019 | The Life of Jesus

Picture

Although most of the world thinks that before beginning his ministry Jesus Christ was “the Carpenter of Nazareth,” biblical scholars know that it is not at all certain that Jesus was a carpenter. In fact, there are a number of reasons why he probably did not follow that profession, and why he most probably was a skilled worker of a different type.

Before looking at the evidence for the profession Jesus most probably followed, consider the reason that most people presume he was a carpenter.   There is one verse – and one only – in the whole New Testament that directly links Jesus to carpentry.

The Gospel of Mark tells us that when he spoke in their synagogue the people of Jesus’ home-town of Nazareth angrily exclaimed: “Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us? …” (Mark 6:3). The Gospel of Matthew records the statement a little differently: “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?” (Matthew 13:55). This is not a direct statement that Jesus was a carpenter, although if his father was one it would be likely in that culture that Jesus would have followed the family profession.

But this is presuming that the Greek word used in these verses actually means “carpenter.”  In actuality, the word used by both Matthew and Mark was tekton which can mean someone who works with wood but can also signify what we today would call a contractor or house builder.  There is nothing in the immediate context of the two texts that can help us decide which meaning of tekton better fits the profession of Jesus, and we must look at the broader evidence of the New Testament in order to make an educated decision on this.

First, we should consider the fact that it is odd if Jesus made his living for thirty years as a carpenter making furniture or other items out of wood, that there is not a single example in his recorded teaching that uses an analogy or example from the carpenter’s trade.  On the other hand, it is interesting that all the Gospels record Jesus’ continual use of building in his teaching: his  comment on the stone wall that fell down (Luke 13:4), his story of the rich man who built a barn (Luke 12:16-21), the vineyard owner who built a wall (Matthew 21:33), the individual wanting to build a tower (Luke 14:28-30), the individual who built his house on rock as opposed to sand (Matthew 7:24-27), etc.  In fact, the Gospels contain more examples of Jesus using stories based on building than any other single activity.  So when we find one of the disciples commenting to Jesus on the impressive nature of the stones of the temple (Mark 3:1), it is in a way that would be very natural if he were a builder and interested in such aspects of building.

Archaeology also can contribute to our understanding of the possibility Jesus’ trade was actually that of a builder rather than a carpenter.  Good wood was scarce in Judea and was usually imported from Lebanon and too expensive for use by local populations in areas such as Nazareth.  On other hand, good building stone was readily available and even poorer homes were usually built of stone.

As it happens, Nazareth was only three miles from the town of Sepphoris, which was the focus of an intensive building program instituted during the reign of King Herod Antipas (c. 4 BC- AD 39) throughout Jesus’ lifetime.  Herod chose the site as the capital of his government and, as a result of his building projects, this lakeside town became the largest city in the region and was described as “the jewel of all Galilee” by the Jewish historian Josephus.  Importantly, its development doubtless required the involvement of every available tekton in the surrounding area.   So it is extremely likely that both Joseph and Jesus could have worked on this project which needed so many skilled builders.  Sepphoris was a reasonable “commute” from Nazareth and the road between them actually passed by a large rock quarry where most of the stone needed for building the town was obtained.

If Jesus was, in fact, a builder rather than a carpenter, then many of the things said about him in the New Testament may take on an additional layer of significance. When Jesus told the Jews regarding himself that “… The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone…’” (Luke 20:17–18 quoting Psalm 118:22), we may see an analogy that would have especially appealed to Jesus.  It was this thought that came to mind when the apostle Peter spoke of Jesus before the religious leaders of Jerusalem: “This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone…” (Acts 4:11).  In Peters’ first epistle he also writes: “you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5). Although we might expect Peter to say that believers were being built into a spiritual temple, the word oikos that he uses primarily means a regular dwelling house.

None of this proves that Jesus was a builder rather than a carpenter.  But when we compare the relative lack of carpentry work to the great demand for builders during his lifetime in the very area in which he lived,  the lack of carpentry analogies compared to the many building references in the teaching of Jesus, and perhaps even the  later New Testament spiritual references to Jesus in the context of building, it seems quite likely that Jesus was not a carpenter, but a builder.

Moving Beyond Acceptance

Moving Beyond Acceptance

by | May 25, 2019 | Relationships

Although we may know the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) well, there is an aspect of that story that is easy to miss – one that lies at the very heart of the parable’s message.

Luke tells us that when an expert in the law of Moses asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus confirmed that he should follow the biblical injunction to love God and to “Love your neighbor as yourself.”   This prompted the lawyer to ask Jesus “And who is my neighbor?”  – setting the stage for the parable of the Good Samaritan that Jesus then gave.

In this parable, of course, Jesus related that when a traveler was attacked by robbers and left naked and almost dead at the side of a deserted road, a priest and later a Levite traveling the same road both ignored the injured man and continued on their ways.  Only a Samaritan – one of the neighboring group of people hated and despised by many Jews –  who had pity on the injured man and helped him.

At the conclusion of the parable Jesus asked the lawyer “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?” (vs. 36), to which the lawyer correctly replied “The one who had mercy on him.”  We read that Jesus then told him, “Go and do likewise.”

But as we finish our own reading of this parable and move on to the following story in Luke’s Gospel, it is likely that we will miss a profound aspect of this final exchange between Jesus and the lawyer.  Remember that at the beginning  of the story we are told the lawyer asked “who is my neighbor,” but if we look carefully we see that what Jesus asked at the end of the story changes the wording of this question.

It is hard to see this subtle change because it is obscured in most English translations of the Bible.  For example, the NIV –  which we have quoted here –  has ““Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”   By translating this question with “was” –  the verb to be –  the translators made it match the lawyer’s original question “who is my neighbor?”

However, that is not what the Greek of the New Testament actually says.  The word (gegonenai)  used by Luke to record Jesus’ reply to the lawyer literally means “to have become,” and the question should be translated “who became a neighbor to the man?”   This literal translation is found in some carefully done recent Bible versions such as the New English Translation which has “Which of these three do you think became a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” (10:36 NET, emphasis added).

While this may seem like a small difference in meaning, it is actually a very important one. Jesus changes the lawyer’s question of “who is my neighbor” –  meaning “ who must I regard as my neighbor”–  to “who became a neighbor” –  meaning “who did something that made him a neighbor?”   Consider this difference. “Who is my neighbor” implies only theoretical acceptance of the person. “Who became his neighbor” implies an action that resulted in a relationship being established.  The difference is that of what we believe as opposed to what we do.

To really understand this difference, we must go back to the parable itself.  It is easy to presume that any priest who passed by the injured man must be callous and uncaring, but that is a judgment that may not be true. In the circumstances described in the parable it may be that a priest could accept the injured man as a neighbor but be afraid to do anything to help him.  Even apart from the possibility of being attacked himself, a priest might well have considered the fact that if he touched a dead or dying man he would have been rendered ceremonially unclean for a whole week (Numbers 19:11).   That would have resulted in him having to return to Jerusalem to undergo lengthy purification rituals – leaving his wife and family not knowing why he had not returned home when expected.  According to the priestly system in place at that time, it would also mean that he and his family would lose expected income.  
​
So, under such circumstances, it is perfectly possible that a priest could have viewed the injured man as a “neighbor,” and still not have done anything about the situation through selfishness or fear.   Seen this way, we realize that the change of wording Jesus insisted upon in the lawyer’s question was one that taught him –  and all of us who will listen –  that in our relations with others we must be willing to move beyond acceptance to action.  The changed wording teaches us that acceptance alone is not enough –  our neighbor is anyone in need to whom we extend help, anyone to whom we actually become a neighbor.

Christian Athiests?

Christian Athiests?

by | May 19, 2019 | History & the Bible

​It may sound like a contradiction in terms, but in ancient Rome Christians were often called atheists.   Most people in the Roman Empire believed that there were many gods, and the idea of worshipping only one God seemed so bizarre to the Romans that they viewed it as a denial of the existence of all the other gods – their gods – and as a result they labeled Christians as “impious atheists.”

Although Judaism held the same belief in monotheism, the Jews tended to keep their religion to themselves and generally did not attempt to witness to their religion or spread it in the way that Christians did.  Because of this fact, the Romans knew much more about the beliefs of Christianity and began to take issue with what they saw as Christian rejection of the Roman deities. Additionally, many did not like the fact that Christianity condemned a number of their socially acceptable behaviors.

So the Christians became known as intolerant of other gods and were soon being accused of being “atheists” along with a number of false accusations. The situation was so widespread that in AD 176-7 the Christian thinker Athenagoras (A.D. 133-190) wrote an explanation or “apology” on the matter that he addressed to the Emperor at the time, Marcus Aurelius. 

This work was called the Plea for the Christians and combats the three most common charges against Christians: atheism, incest and cannibalism.  The accusation of cannibalism was, of course, a misunderstanding of the Christian idea of eating the “flesh” and “blood” of the Son of God (partaking of the bread and wine – Luke 22:19-20) in the Lord’s Supper. The charge of incest was based on the common Christian practice of referring to all people – including husbands and wives – as “brother” or “sister,” and, as we have seen, the idea that the Christians were atheists was the result of the “intolerant” Christian belief of monotheism.  

In an interesting turn of events, as history has progressed to the day in which we live, Christianity is being increasingly viewed as intolerant. This is not only because of its rejection of many socially accepted behaviors, but also because the Christian Faith teaches of Jesus Christ that “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).  In today’s inclusive and politically correct world, such an idea seems as bizarre to many modern people as it was to the ancient Romans, and the response is frequently the same – “If you don’t accept my god, you are intolerant and I won’t accept you or your God.”

In ancient Rome the charge of Christian intolerance soon led to intolerance against Christians, and our own time is no different.   We see increasing intolerance regarding the Christian rejection of ungodly behavior just as the early Christians did, and we too can take to heart the words of Peter regarding those who are offended by that “intolerance”: “They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you” (1 Peter 4:4).

Perhaps the similarities between the situation at the time of early Christianity and where our own culture is leaning should not surprise us.  Paul spoke of the same factors affecting early Christians and believers today:  “… everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Timothy 3:12).  In these words we see that persecution involves the world’s response to both Christians’ moral choices (“live a godly life”) and their theological ones (“in Christ Jesus”), as both are seen as evidence of intolerance by those opposed to Christianity, and both become the grounds for persecution.

For many Christians intense persecution at the hands of other religions is already here, of course, and we are reminded again of Peter’s words: “Dear friends, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that has come on you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you” (1 Peter 4:12).  Peter was simply reminding his hearers of the words of Jesus himself:  “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Matthew 5:11-12).

History does, indeed, repeat itself.  But as the persecution of Christians becomes more common again – essentially for the same reasons – let us be encouraged to also repeat the outcome of that persecution.  Peter tells us: “…if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name” (1 Peter 4:16 ESV).  We can glorify God in this context by our good works despite the accusations and persecution we endure, and it  is by demonstrating God in us that we best disprove the charges of intolerance and godlessness.  Athenagoras understood that well – as he shows in his rebuttal of the charge of Christian atheism:

“…if [Christians] are unable in words to prove the benefit of our doctrine, yet by their deeds [they] exhibit the benefit arising from their persuasion of its truth: they do not rehearse speeches, but exhibit good works; when struck, they do not strike again; when robbed, they do not go to law; they give to those that ask of them, and love their neighbors as themselves …” (Plea for the Christians, Chapter 11).