SAINTS IN ACTS, APOSTATES IN REVELATION? REALLY? - "LET'S STOP BEING SO CRITICAL" (PART 6 OF 6)

The Ninth Wave by Ivan Aivazovsky

Can you name the first European convert to Christianity? You say Lydia, the seller of purple from Thyatira? Very good.

Where else is Thyatira mentioned in Scripture? You say it sounds like one of the seven churches of Asia Christ gave letters to in Revelation? Again, correct answer. And you may remember that in that letter, Jesus condemns them for allowing an apostate woman called "Jezebel" in their midst.

Who is this "Jezebel?" Most don't consider that to be her real name. The leading views is the pastor's wife (based on the reading of some manuscripts) and an unknown false teacher. 

Yet some say that woman is Lydia, the first European convert, is that Jezebel. Any Biblical proof she fell away from the truth? Ab. So. Lute. Lee. None! 

I don't have to hide the identity of the minority who smear Lydia's reputation because I never have read that view - rather, I read another book that mentioned this theory and dismissed it.

However, there's another person mentioned in Acts that is associated with false teaching, even though it isn't clearly stated. That is Nicolas, one of the seven deacons, a proselyte from Antioch. Should we be leery of him? I see NO hints of that from the text.

But let's return to Revelation. In the letter to Ephesus, they're praised for hating the deeds of the Nicolatians, which Jesus hates. A few verses later, the church in Pergamum is condemned for allowing those who teach the doctrine of the Nicolatians, which Jesus hates.

What do we know for sure about the Nicolatians? Basically, nothing outside of these two mentions. They're not mentioned anyplace else in Scripture. There is no mention of that sect in any writings except commentaries of Revelation.

One question I have. Is this word supposed to be transliterated and treated as a proper noun? Or should it be translated and treated as a common noun? If you take the second view, you'd come up with "Controlling the People." If that is what Nicolatianism is, it should be condemned, though it is practiced both religiously and politically. 

But others - unfortunately a majority - assume that this was a Gnostic group formed by Nicolas. This is an ancient view, going back to the 2nd Century, and held by some of the Church Fathers. But is there Biblical proof that this Deacon went astray? Not a shred of evidence. Could it be named by somebody else named Nicolas? After all, later there was St. Nicolas - obviously not him, since he wasn't born yet, but still a sign others had that name? But no. They mimick the unprovable theory of the past and say this person had to be an apostate.

Does it make you mad when people jump to negative conclusions like this? It makes me mad. After all, we're commanded to love, and Paul says love thinks no evil (1 Corinthians 13:5). 

Why do we assume negative things when there are other options that are not negative? That's not Christian love. And we should be slow to make such assumptions of our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.
 

BARNABAS - "LET'S STOP BEING SO CRITICAL" (PART 5 OF 6)

San Barnaba by Anonimo Lombardo

What? Am I saying that people are being critical of the "Son of Encouragement?" Are they opposed to people encouraging others?

Take a deep breath. No, it isn't about his being encouraging, though it does affect one's thinking of his encouragement. And I can think of only one person who mentioned this criticism, and I won't mention his name because it might take away deserved respect from that pastor.

The root issue is similar to Matthias. How many apostles are there? If one limits it to 12, then that would either be the eleven and Paul or the eleven and Matthias. No place would exist for Barnabas being an apostle, and that is the basis of the criticism. 

Remember when Paul and Barnabas had a disagreement on taking Mark for the second missionary journey, resulting in the two going different directions? I have always thought (and I have the impression that I'm in the majority) that both sides have a point. Also, looking ahead, Paul mentions Mark in one place as someone to receive and in another as being profitable for the ministry (Colossians 4:10, 2 Timothy 4:11). 

Nevertheless, the critic believes that Barnabas was wrong for not going along with Paul because Paul was an apostle and he wasn't. But even if that was true, didn't Barnabas' encouragement and loyalty help move Mark from being a cowardly liability when he left Paul and Barnabas on the first missionary journey to being valuable for the ministry? The critic doesn't give him any credit, instead saying that working with Peter was what what made the difference (most people consider the Gospel of Mark to be more accurately the Gospel of Peter as told to Mark). 

Back to the issue of apostleship: are there portions that include others as apostles other than the twelve and Paul? We dealt with Matthias and why he should be considered part of the Twelve last week. James the brother of Jesus is also referred to as an apostle by Paul in Galatians 1. And there are portions that state that Barnabas also was an apostle.

• Barnabas brought Paul into the fellowship of the Jerusalem Church (Acts 9:26-28).
• Barnabas was chosen by the apostles to see what was happening in Antioch (Acts 11:22); in contrast, they sent Peter and John to the earlier revival in Samaria (Acts 8:14-15).
• When it listed the five leaders in Antioch (Acts 13:1), Barnabas was first, and Saul (i.e. Paul) was fifth. Lists often are mentioned in order of importance. Likewise, when they went to Cyprus, they were referred to as "Barnabas and Saul," and when they left Cyprus, they were called "Paul and Barnabas."
• When Paul healed the lame man in Lystra, and the people tried to worship to them, Acts 14:14 says, "But when the apostles Paul and Barnabas..." This should by itself end the theory that Barnabas was not an apostle, but the critic responds by saying they're two different types of apostles, a concept that might have shown up in Fifth Timothy or some book following Revelation.
• In Galatians 2:1-10, Paul implies that Barnabas was on the same level. Similar in his defense of his apostleship, putting himself and Barnabas on the same level in not using privileges other Apostles used (1 Corinthinans 9:3-6).

True, history follows Paul after he and Barnabas parted ways. But keep in mind - Paul and Barnabas both agreed to go visit the believers from the first missionary trip. When Paul went to Antioch of Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe with Silas, Barnabas and Mark went to Cyprus. Yes, Barnabas' home country, but also the first place of work, including the salvation of the procounsul. I heard one person say that the result of Paul and Barnabas' division meant there were twice as many mission teams going out.
 

MATTHIAS - "LET'S STOP BEING SO CRITICAL" (PART 4 OF 6)

St. Mathias by Peter Paul Rubens from his Twelve Apostles series at the Museo del Prado, Madrid, c. 1611

Sometimes, a person gets criticized because of someone else's actions. Matthias is in this point. The sole criticism of Matthias was not anything he did or said, but just that he wasn't God's choice as Judas' replacement. Nor was the other man on the ballot. Obviously, Paul was God's choice. At least, that's what they say, criticizing Peter for rushing ahead before the Holy Spirit came down.

Sigh. What is the real root of that theory? Simple. Paul is a prominent figure in Acts and the New Testament, and Matthias isn't. They add that there are references to the twelve apostles like "you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Matthew 19:28) and "Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb" (Revelation 21:14). So doesn't mean there are only twelve apostles?

Let me deal with these issues.

• Matthias is not an apostle because he's not mentioned as much as Paul? Let's see - give me all the references in Acts to Thomas and Andrew and Simon the Zealot. Matthias fits in the mix with them. Never mind that the view that prominence shows God's blessing is of the flesh; God saves by few as by many.
• What is the significance of twelve? Well, duh, it relates to the 12 Tribes of Israel. Matthew 19:28 talks about the Apostles judging the 12 tribes. Revelation 21:14 follows 21:12, which talks about the 12 tribes. Could the 12 Apostles be a signal of a rebirth of Israel, starting the day of Pentecost? Then why wasn't Paul there?
• Let's look at instances when Post-Judas the disciples are referred to as "The Twelve." First, Luke mentions them in Acts 6:2. Second, there is the reference of Jesus appearing to the twelve after the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:5. We know who 11 of the 12 are, and we know Judas wasn't there. Who was the 12th in both cases? Paul? No, not converted yet. Could the 12th be Matthias? Of course, it could. By the way, Paul considered Matthias to be one of the twelve; he did not consider himself one of the twelve.
• Again, the ministry of the 12 was to the 12 tribes. Paul's ministry was to the Gentiles. There is no indication that he ever was a part of the 11 in his ministry. 
• Of course, we're not saying that Paul's not an apostle. But is it possible that the references of the 12 apostles were connected to Israel, meaning apostles to the Gentiles could be apostles but not of the 12, like Paul?
• Also, who said Peter was jumping the gun? Jesus spent 40 days with the Apostles. There was no record that He spoke about replacing Judas... and no record that He didn't. He told them to wait in Jerusalem, but He didn't tell them what to do or not to do while in Jerusalem waiting. One friend made fun of casting lots - hey, God commanded lots be used in calling out Achan's sin and His choice of King Saul, as well as using that means in other instances. The qualifications? For a person to be a witness of Christ's life and resurrection? Not commanded. Not. Condemned.

Yes, this is an issue for me. After all, the text nowhere suggests Peter was jumping the gun or that they were to wait for Paul to be saved. Again, it's looking down on Matthias because of a lack of prominence. But all the references that say he wasn't God's choice are located either preceding Genesis or following Revelation.

 

THOMAS - "LET'S STOP BEING SO CRITICAL" (PART 3 OF 6)

 

St. Thomas by Peter Paul Rubens from his Twelve Apostles series at the Museo del Prado, Madrid, c. 1611

Continuing with a series urging believers to give up being inclined to negative thoughts for Lent and finding so much joy in that attitude they never go back to being critical.

How many look at the title and painting of today's blog and immediately think, "Oh, it's doubting Thomas?"

No, Doubting isn't his first name. No, Biblically his nickname isn't "Doubting Thomas;" it's "the Twin." 

Yes, Thomas doubted, but in Mark 16:9-14 stated that the eleven did not believe the report of the women or the two disciples from Emmaus and Jesus rebuked them. Also, Matthew 28:17 stated some (plural) doubted - this was at the Great Commission, and after Thomas showed up. So why single out Thomas? No! Good! Reason!

Let's look at what else we know about Thomas, starting with the Synoptic Gospels - we know he's one of the twelve. And that's it. Well, since Matthew and Luke's lists technically list six pairs of disciples, they both put Matthew together with Thomas.

When you get to John, you learn more. This is where we learn he's nicknamed "the Twin." It may be he had a twin, it may be that he looked similar to either one of the other apostles or Jesus Himself, and it may be that he used to play baseball in Minnesota. The last one is slightly less likely than the others.

Thomas also was on the passenger list for Peter's post-Resurrection fishing trip in John 21. I find it interesting that he and Nathaniel (aka Bartholomew) joined Peter and the Zebedee brothers, but Peter's brother and fellow fisher Andrew didn't.

Yes, I'm now working backward in John. We also hear from Thomas in John 14:5. Here, Thomas (and probably other) disciples were stumped by what Jesus had said. Unlike the others, he raised his hand (maybe) and asked "Lord, we do not know where you are going, and how can we know the way?" I'm sure you all know the answer. What you don't have John 14:6 memorized?

However, I want you to think of John 11 next time you want to dub him "Doubting Thomas." This chapter starts with Jesus being informed that his friend Lazarus was sick. I'm sure you know the story. Jesus waited two days, and then shocked his disciples by saying that Lazarus was dead and then left to Judea, where recently they tried to stone him.

But do you remember a disciple saying, "Let us go also that  we may die with him?" It's in John 11:16. Notice who that disciple was? Yep. Thomas.

After hearing that statement, do you think we should call him "Doubting Thomas?" Should we not rather call him "Ready to Die for Christ Thomas?" 

Maybe we should stop vilifying Thomas? You think?

 

JOTHAM - "LET'S STOP BEING SO CRITICAL" (PART 2 OF 6)

Joatham Rex (King Jotham), Guillaume Rouille

You can say Jotham was the inspiration for this present series. I was planning on putting him with the obscure people from the previous 6 weeks. But then, I realized that he just wasn't obscure, but also criticized by some based on presuppositions, not by the plan meaning of the text.

Allow me to give a little background. 2 Chronicles 26 tells the story of Uzziah. He was a good and godly king until he let it get to his head, and he entered the Temple to offer incense, which only the priests were allowed to do. He became a leper as a result.

What effect did that have on his son Jotham? 2 Chronicles 27:2 says, "He did what was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father Uzziah had done (although he did not enter the temple of the LORD). But still the people acted corruptly." NKJV

Was Jotham a good king? You have a difference of opinion. The nay-sayers point out that he did not lead to a revival like Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah did. Also, they criticize him for not entering the temple. More than one source goes through the line of Uzziah defiling the temple, Jotham not going to the temple (how dare the King not go to church), and Ahaz (Jotham's son) closing the temple.

Is there a chance that they're being too harsh on Jotham? Since we're dealing with those who look at him negatively, let me word and answer the question negatively: Is there a chance that they're NOT being too harsh on Jotham? NO! WAY! 

Allow me to focus on the two issues in the order the verse gives. First, it tells us Jotham imitated his father in living a godly life. Ah, but Uzziah had a hiccup in that godliness. To me, the wording makes it logical that all it's saying is Jotham copied what Uzziah did right but did not copy what Uzziah did wrong. The context doesn't imply he stayed away from the temple (the next verse states he built up the temple, which doesn't fit the nay-sayers interpretation).

How about the charge that he didn't do enough to reform the people? Should he have tried harder? Let's look at 2 Chronicles 27:6: "So Jotham became mighty, because he prepared his ways before the LORD his God." It sounds like Jotham did his part, but the people didn't follow. He led them to water, but he couldn't make them drink. 

I'd like to conclude with two points:

1. Jotham is an underappreciated, underrated King of Judah. Not in the highest tier, but he was a good and godly king, and sets an example for us to imitate what others do right and not what's wrong.
2. Too many Christians are quick to be critical when given an opportunity. 

So let me again invite you to give up being quick to be critical, at least until Lent is over with if not longer.

THE 7,000 WHO DIDN'T BOW - "LET'S STOP BEING SO CRITICAL" (PART 1 OF 6)

 

Statue of Elijah, "Cave of Elijah", Mt. Carmel; courtesy of Joe Freeman

Ash Wednesday started Lent. I have a suggestion on what to give up for Lent: Being critical when you don't have enough information to justify the criticism. So during the six Sundays of Lent (which technically are not part of the 40 days of Lent), As I dealt for the past 6 weeks with obscure people who grabbed my curiosity, the next 6 weeks will focus on Biblical people that have been unnecessarily criticized.

Today, I'll be dealing not with one, not with seven, but with 7000 individuals mentioned only a couple of times in Scripture. But first, background. Do you need me to recount the duel on Mt Carmel between Elijah and the Prophets of Baal? I'll assume you know that one, as well as the prophet's race into the wilderness when threatened by Jezebel and his conversation in the cave with the Still Small Voice. Elijah complained he was the only prophet of Yahweh left, and Yahweh countered He reserved 7000 men in Israel who had not bowed their knee to Baal.

Would you believe there are Christians who criticize these faithful believers?

Would you believe there are well-known, highly respected, godly gentlemen who criticize these faithful believers?

Surprisingly, the first question is answered yes. Scandously, so is the second. I'm not going to tell you who because it might take away deserved respect from these great Bible teachers. 

Why are the 7000 criticized? Because Elijah didn't know about them. Because they did not stand up and start a revival. Only thing - the text does not criticize them. Neither does the Lord. 

There are people who are called to start an awakening. But not all. All are called to be faithful. If they're not noticed for their faithfulness, there is no blame or shame for these faithful. Rather, they should be complimented for that faithfulness.

We need to remember that God uses everyday people, not just the big wigs.