Author: Charlie Garrett

Don’t remember what it is. Reminds me of the sanctum sanctorum of some old horror movie.

West Virginia Capitol.

Friday, 29 December 2023

But the following night the Lord stood by him and said, “Be of good cheer, Paul; for as you have testified for Me in Jerusalem, so you must also bear witness at Rome.” Acts 23:11

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen)

You can also read this commentary, with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

More literally, it reads, “And the following night, the Lord, having stood by him, said, ‘Fortify! For as you fully testified about Me at Jerusalem, so you must also testify at Rome’” (CG).

Paul was removed forcibly by the Roman guards from the out-of-control crowd in the council he stood before. Luke now continues the narrative, saying, “And the following night.”

This probably means that same night. If Luke is using the Jewish way of reckoning time, the following day begins at sundown. Thus, this would be the evening of the same day, but the start of the new day. From there, it says, “the Lord, having stood by him, said, ‘Fortify!’”

This is the seventh and last time that the word tharseó is seen in Scripture. It means to take heart, be of good courage, etc. HELPS Word Studies notes that its root signifies “emboldened from within.” As such, and to use a single verb that catches the meaning, fortify gets the point across. The Lord is telling Paul to strengthen himself from within to prepare himself for what was ahead.

If Paul is in the same chambers as that which the Lord had been in, then this is a return visit for Jesus. It is an amazing thought to consider. How much more in the content of the two stays! Christ was harassed and brutalized in the same place where He now stands and gives Paul words of comfort and even renewed vigor. His words to Paul now are reflective of His words to the other apostles in Matthew 14:27, “Be of good cheer! It is I; do not be afraid.”

As for His word to Paul to “Fortify!” That is then explained with the next words, “For as you fully testified about Me at Jerusalem, so you must also testify at Rome.”

Paul had already told those in Rome of his desire to travel there (Romans 1:13; Romans 15:23). Now, he is given the assurance that this will come about exactly as he had hoped. Further, this conversation surely lets him know that his service has been acceptable. Were it not so, then he would not be tasked with further work. The Lord’s presence, His words, and His approval of Paul surely worked like an elixir in him.

Life application: The last time the Lord appeared to Paul was in Acts 18:9, where He said, “Do not be afraid.” Paul was probably less afraid at this time and yet more weary and downtrodden. Hence, the word “Fortify!” is appropriate to the mood in which he found himself.

The Lord never fails to meet us in exactly the condition we are in and the circumstances we are facing, and then give us exactly the comfort we need at the moment. This doesn’t mean He is going to physically appear before us. But we still have Him with us through His word. When we are in some sort of difficulty, trial, pickle, conundrum, etc., we can find comfort, strength, emboldening, and so forth right in the word He has given us.

If you are a faithful reader of the word, how many times has this been the case in your own life? The Lord’s words to Paul were just what was needed. The word of the Lord is just what is needed for us at just the right time, every time. Keep in the word. It will carry you through the many trials, troubles, and tribulations that you are facing or will face as you continue on life’s path. Don’t neglect this comforting and necessary resource that God has lovingly set before you.

Heavenly Father, Your word is a gloriously wonderful light for our times of darkness. It is a calming hand in our times of distress. It is a soothing balm in our times of tribulation. Give us the wisdom, as Your people, to read it and carefully consider it all the days of our lives. Thank You, O God, for Your precious word. Amen.

Looks domish to me.

Thursday, 28 December 2023

Now when there arose a great dissension, the commander, fearing lest Paul might be pulled to pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go down and take him by force from among them, and bring him into the barracks. Acts 23:10

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen)

You can also read this commentary, with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

The Greek more literally reads, “And great dissension arising, the commander, having feared lest Paul should be torn apart by them, commanded the detachment – having descended – to seize him from among them and bring into the barracks” (CG).

In the previous verse, the scribes of the Pharisees protested Paul’s treatment, defending the fact that he could have been spoken to by a spirit or an angel. This upset the apple cart, and things immediately devolved, as seen in the next words, “And great dissension arising.”

It is the same word just used in verse 7 that indicated a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees. Now, the entire council is in an uproar. This was so much the case that “the commander, having feared lest Paul should be torn apart by them.”

Here is the second and last use of the word diaspaó in Scripture. It was only seen elsewhere in Mark 5:4, where it noted that the demon-possessed man tore apart the chains that bound him. This is now what the commander feared would happen to Paul.

This argument between the two parties grew to such a state that each side was probably grabbing onto Paul and pulling him in either direction – one to rescue him and one to pummel him. In the tugging, he could actually be ripped apart. But, being a Roman citizen, the commander was responsible for him. Therefore, he “commanded the detachment – having descended – to seize him from among them and bring into the barracks.”

The soldiers would be necessary by this time because of the violence of those who meant Paul harm. This included the high priest himself, and it shows the level of depravity that they had fallen to, despite being the supposed representatives of the Lord on earth.

In securing Paul and taking him to the barracks, it could be that Paul had been in and out of the very same room that had been used for Jesus on the night before His cross. In contrast to the sufferings He faced, Paul would be kept safe in that same location.

Life application: The conduct of the council seems entirely out of place, and it is. However, it is not uncommon. Innumerable fights have broken out in parliaments, congresses, and other bodies that rule the people. Many of them are recorded and can be seen on YouTube.

It is not unlikely that if you pick a country at random and do a search for a fight in that country’s government, you will find a video of a fight breaking out. An arbitrary search immediately brought up a lively brawl in Kosovo’s cabinet, including men and women, older and younger, etc. Following that came a long list of similar videos. The Indian parliament went full throttle, into chaos throwing microphones and lamps; the Taiwanese were throwing chairs; and there was a lot of slapping and punching in the Jordanian parliament.

Anytime you deal with religion or politics, tempers are bound to get out of control. In the council where Paul stood, it was a mixture of both. Thus, it was an explosive environment that Paul was able to successfully divide, taking the focus off of him and demonstrating the hypocrisy of those who stood over him with their accusations.

If you attend any large gathering to defend your rights as a Christian, such as a state or local meeting, you should be prepared to have accusations fly, angry people demanding your silence, and possibly fighting to break out. In the place where civility is most expected, it often is not. Thus, it is a clear indication that things will only continue to devolve in the world around us.

The message of Christ is the only true hope and saving message in the world. And yet, it is becoming less and less tolerated because it deals with the underlying problem in man: sin. Because it does, in highlighting this defect, people will continue to strengthen their enmity toward the message it proclaims. Be aware of this as you head out and speak about the goodness of God in Christ. Many will find it offensive.

Glorious Lord God, we were all at enmity with You at some point. But because of Jesus, we were reconciled to You. Help us to be willing to share this message, even if it brings about trouble in our lives. Without addressing the problem of sin, all people remain Your enemies. Give us the ability to explain this and to effectively speak about the goodness of what You have done in sending Jesus to fix the problem. Amen.

Looking up toward capitol dome. West Virginia Capitol.

Wednesday, 27 December 2023

Then there arose a loud outcry. And the scribes of the Pharisees’ party arose and protested, saying, “We find no evil in this man; but if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him, let us not fight against God.” Acts 23:9

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen)

You can also read this commentary, with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

The Greek more precisely reads, “And there was a great clamor. And having arisen, some of the scribes of the part of the Pharisees were contending, saying, ‘We find nothing evil in this man. And if a spirit spoke to him, or an angel, let us not fight against God’” (CG).

Luke had previously included an explanatory sentence to detail why the reaction in this verse now came about, “For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection—and no angel or spirit; but the Pharisees confess both.” Because of this division of thought between the sects, it now says, “And there was a great clamor.”

The loud outcry mentioned here was probably a lot of “harumphs” from one side and “here here’s” from the other. The word is kraugé. It is used, for example, to describe the loud cry in Matthew 25:6 and the crying noted in Revelation 21:4.

It indicates loud crying done with great emotion. Each side defended what they believed was possible based on Paul’s words. As it was a cry among many, the word “clamor” is well-suited to the intent. Next, it says, “And having arisen, some of the scribes of the part of the Pharisees were contending.”

The scribes are the learned men, whether from the Pharisees or the Sadducees. They were not an independent group but were simply those who were well educated and performed a scribal role. Being educated, they would be more disposed to protesting over the din of others and getting them to quiet down while they made their case.

In this situation, they probably sided with Paul more on a theological basis than on whether they agreed with him personally. In this case, they were saying, “We find nothing evil in this man.”

He had said nothing that was impossible from their worldview, and so, they defended his right to present his case based on that. Their protesting then shows they had a greater disdain for the opposing party than they did towards Paul’s misdirected (as they perceived) faith in Christ. Therefore, as a jab in the eyes of the Sadducees, they next called out, “And if a spirit spoke to him, or an angel, let us not fight against God.”

It should be noted that the final words of this verse, “let us not fight against God,” are disputed as to whether they are original or not. Many scholars see them as an insert to match what was said by Gamaliel in Acts 5:39. For this reason, they are not included in many translations.

Despite this, Paul’s diversion was successful. Their words, “And if a spirit spoke to him, or an angel,” are likely referring to Paul’s claim in Acts 22:17-21, of which they would be aware by now.

Unless they accepted that Paul’s vision was real and from a divine source, the words “let us not fight against God” seem to be out of place. Demons can speak as well as the Lord. And so, for them to include God in the statement would imply that they accepted his words, including being sent off to the Gentiles. This seems less likely, and the words may have been inserted at a later time by someone attempting to give additional credence to Paul’s case.

Life application: The old saying, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend,” seems to apply to this verse. The Pharisees stood against Jesus, and they continued to stand against those who followed Him. However, the theology behind the Sadducees’ theological position was so aberrant to them that they were willing to use Paul as an ally to poke at what they perceived as a completely misguided approach to Scripture.

This is not uncommon in Christian circles. There may be two completely divergent approaches to a particular concept, and yet adherents to one or the other may join together to defend a third, unrelated issue.

For example, Dispensationalists and Calvinists may be at odds over the state of Israel, but they may be united in their dismissal of evolution. Therefore, they may put aside their unhappiness concerning the former issue and unite in a letter to a Christian college that has recently hired an evolutionist professor.

Some things are worth setting aside differences over in order to secure an intended goal in another area. Looking for common ground in this manner is not caving to one side or another. And yet, protestations by others may rise to a crescendo, calling out charges of apostasy or compromise – “I didn’t get a harumph out of that guy!” This is inevitable. Some people feel so passionately about a particular issue that it will cloud their thinking in other areas.

Be on the lookout for such things and be ready to defend why you take particular actions. If feelings are hurt, or charges of apostasy are thrown at you, for standing up for the truth, so be it. You can’t please everybody, and some seed pickers will never be pleased with anything. Ignore them, and you will do well.

Heavenly Father, may we be willing to stand up and speak out when it is right to do so. Help us not to be timid or pusillanimous in our approach to sound doctrine and right conduct before You. Strengthen us in our resolve to stand for what is right. To Your glory, we pray. Amen.

Marble light pole. West Virginia Capitol.

Tuesday, 26 December 2023

For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection—and no angel or spirit; but the Pharisees confess both. Acts 23:8

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen)

You can also read this commentary, with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

Luke just noted that a dissension had arisen between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Now, as an explanatory thought concerning why, he records, “For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection.”

Although it has been said in a jillion sermons over the years, this commentary would be remiss if it didn’t include the words, “This is why they are sad, you see.” Like evolutionists today, the Sadducees believed that this life was all one got, and thus, they were to personally make the best of it.

The difference between Sadducees and evolutionists would be that the Sadducees believed that there is a God, and He rewards men in this life for right conduct. Thus, it would have been a religious expression filled with self-righteousness and works of the law to justify oneself before God. Along with this failed view, Luke continues describing their theology, saying, “and no angel or spirit.”

The doctrine of the Sadducees is hard to reconcile with the writings of Moses. As the rest of the Old Testament is an extension of the dispensation of the law, their doctrine is simply irreconcilable with what God had been doing in the stream of time concerning Israel’s history. It is generally believed that they believed, as described by Charles Ellicott –

“For them the ‘angels’ of the Pentateuch were not distinct beings, but evanescent manifestations of the divine glory.”

In other words, when an angel is referred to in the books of Moses, it was to the Sadducees actually God manifesting Himself in a supernatural way to those He encountered. It is true that, at times, this is the case. The angel of the Lord appeared in human form to Abraham in Genesis 18, for example. However, this doesn’t explain the two who came with the Lord.

Their explanation of such things was certainly out of line with a right reading of the words of Moses and later biblical writers. To complete the explanation of why the dissension arose, Luke next says, “but the Pharisees confess both.”

As for the word ‘both,’ it shows that the Sadducees are denying two things: 1) the resurrection and 2) any non-corporeal being. Hence, this stand lumps in angels, spirits of dead men, etc. It also, by default, means that they would not be able to accept God as Spirit. Their entire theology was twisted, just as Jesus demonstrated in Matthew 22:23-33.

Because of this, there was a great divide between these two camps. Both would have been extremely passionate about their view, and it is surprising they could even stand to be in the same room with one another at times. Such was the case now. Paul had effectively separated the two through his masterful use of understanding the layout of things and then taking advantage of the situation at hand.

Life application: As noted above, the doctrine of the Sadducees is hard to reconcile with the writings of Moses or of any of the rest of the Old Testament. It took a great deal of presuppositional bias and cognitive dissonance to come to such views and then stand by them.

However, the doctrines of the Catholic Church, the Mormons, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and many other sects and cults are just as convoluted today. It shouldn’t be surprising that there are those who claimed to follow Moses and yet denied or allegorized his words.

In saying that this is the only life, they would then have a special type of control over those whom they taught: “If you want God to bless you and make you rich and comfortable, you will do what we say.”

When the Roman Catholic Church teaches works, they have far greater control over man than when grace is proclaimed. Understanding grace means understanding that Christ has done all the work necessary to be saved and to keep being saved forever. This obviously leads to the understanding that wielding monetary control over people is wrong, as is having control over their afterlife.

An acceptance of, and then gratefulness for, God’s grace should alone direct where one gives. And a confident anticipation of glory because of faith in Christ should alone direct the steps of those who have been bestowed that grace through Him.

The doctrine of the Sadducees was one of bondage and denial, just as all heretical doctrines are. They are manipulative. They are set up to serve those who are in positions of power within the particular expression.

Lord God, please keep us from the twisting and manipulative minds of those who would lead us away from grace and toward bondage and self-righteousness. With grace, there can be no bondage because it is bestowed freely and without conditions. Simple faith alone results in the eternal blessings promised in Your word. Thank You, O God, for Your word and for Jesus who is revealed in it. Amen.

West Virginia Capitol.

Monday, 25 December 2023

And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the assembly was divided. Acts 23:7

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen)

You can also read this commentary, with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

In the previous verse, Paul, standing before the council, had called out in the assembly that he stood before them because of “the hope and resurrection of the dead.” With that remembered, it next says, “And when he had said this, a dissension arose.”

His words had the exact effect he intended. The council had the hope that he would be quickly voted as an offender of the law and punished according to the law. Before such a decision was rendered, the congregation instead had divided right down the middle of the two parties. As Luke said, the dissension was “between the Pharisees and the Sadducees.”

Rather, the Greek literally reads, “and there was a dissension, the Pharisees and the Sadducees.” Therefore, rather than “between,” it should say, “and there was a division of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.” In other words, there was always a theological disagreement between the two. However, this separated their ability to sit and reason together any longer.

One can see the same effect today in various situations. For example, if there is a gathering of Christian leaders to discuss the state of the nation of Israel, there will be obvious disagreements during the discussion. However, as long as the main subject, that of the state of the nation of Israel is addressed, things will normally go well.

However, if an instigator wants to start a division, he might inject something – such as the doctrine of the rapture – into his discussion. By doing this, he will uncover an underlying disagreement that will divert the attention away from the original topic. As it was not the main point being addressed, people will passionately divide into factions. With that, the dam will break loose, and a complete lack of control over the gathering is bound to ensue.

This is just what Paul did, knowing what the outcome of such a proclamation as his would bring about. And just as he had hoped, Luke records, “and the assembly was divided.”

The word translated as divided comes from the Greek schizo. It is where our modern word schism is derived. The rending of the veil in the temple at Jesus’ death uses this same word. In this case, it signifies that a complete division of thought on the subject was the result.

Life application: The example of introducing the rapture into a discussion about the state of the nation of Israel is bound to cause trouble because the two issues are actually interconnected. If someone thinks Israel has been replaced by the church, then he will normally dismiss the doctrine of the rapture.

In Paul’s case, he was originally accused of violating the Law of Moses. However, if his hope is in the risen Messiah, Jesus, then that means the words of Jeremiah 31:31 have been fulfilled in Jesus’ work. As such, the Law of Moses – which is a part of the Mosaic Covenant – has been superseded by the introduction of the New Covenant.

Therefore, Paul could not be a violator of the law. He had moved from Moses to Jesus. The council could still charge him and have him punished, but it would be based on a faulty rendering of their own law, which foresaw and planned its own obsolescence.

Even if the Pharisees disagreed with him over this, their own doctrine was still sided with Paul’s overall worldview. If one wants to get to the heart of a matter in such a forum, by knowing the underlying reason for holding onto the various views being discussed, that knowledge can be used to one’s advantage.

On the other hand, if one wants to avoid getting trapped in someone else’s machinations in such a situation, it can be done by quickly noticing the ploy and stating something like, “You may have a point on that issue, but this is not the time or place for it to be addressed. It is a red herring. We need to get back to the main issue of discussion.”

If you are on social media, this type of diversionary ploy is brought in with almost every topic that is introduced as a main matter of discussion. Within a very short time, matters completely irrelevant to the original topic will be introduced, cyber punches will fly, and friendships can quickly be destroyed.

Pay attention to such things, and you can easily weed out miscreants who love to stir the pot by watching how they sneakily enter into any given discussion.

O God, we often fail to think logically about matters we are involved in. People may want to divide others for their own perverse purposes and so they introduce a fallacious argument, hoping it will take root and cause a schism. Help us to identify such things and work to quash their intentions before they become established. Yes, Lord God, give us wisdom in such things. Amen.