Author: Charlie Garrett

Washington Coast.

Sunday, 22 October 2023

Then Paul answered, “What do you mean by weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” Acts 21:13

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).

To match the Greek, the words read, “Then answered Paul, ‘What do you, weeping and pulverizing my heart? For I hold readily not only to be bound but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus’” (CG).

The previous verse told of those around Paul begging him not to go up to Jerusalem. With that stated, it next says, “Then answered Paul, ‘What do you?”

The word means to do or to make. In essence, their words produce an action, making something happen. Today, we would say, “What are you doing to me?” Paul then explains what it is they were doing, saying, “weeping and pulverizing my heart.”

The first action is that of those with Paul, weeping. The response to their weeping is then Paul’s action. They were pulverizing his heart. Here, Luke introduces another word only seen once in the New Testament, sunthruptó. Strong’s defines it as break in pieces, crush, or thoroughly weaken. It is derived from two words signifying “with” and “to crumble.” Thus, one can think of someone grabbing Paul’s heart and crushing it so that it crumbles. Hence, pulverize gives a good sense of what he means.

His words indicate that their weeping was only making matters worse because, as he next says, “For I hold readily.” It is an adverb. Thus, the word readily appropriately gives the sense of what is being conveyed. He was set and would not be dissuaded from his mission, and he was readily set to continue on it, even if the extreme occurred. He conveys this first in relation to the prophecy, saying, “not only to be bound.”

This is what Agabus had prophesied. It included being handed over to the Gentiles. If such happened, who knows what might then occur? Paul, evaluating the matter and considering the greatest potential threat continues with, “but also to die at Jerusalem.”

Being bound meant to be considered a lawbreaker. In such a state, various judgments could be rendered, up to and including execution. This meant little to Paul if he had successfully done what he was called to do. And, of course, his calling was by the Lord. If the Lord determined that was the path for him to go, then he would take it “for the name of the Lord Jesus.”

It was Jesus who had called him. It was Jesus who had saved him and given him his commission. It was the Lord who had fashioned him and who would someday transform Paul’s lowly body to be like His. So why should death be any concern at all? He was fully accepting of whatever was to come because he belonged to the Lord Jesus. The victory was already won, and the path to eternal life was secured for him.

Life application: The words in this verse are emphatic. Paul essentially says, “You are breaking my heart.” “I, for my part, am ready . . .” His intent wasn’t merely a stoic resolve. Rather, his heart was truly broken by their sadness, but he didn’t want his determination to be weakened because of it. Instead of worrying about what might happen, he had his eyes fixed on Jesus and his heart set on glorifying the Lord with his life. He was, as it were, an example of the words penned by Solomon –

“For love is as strong as death.” Song of Solomon 8:6

In the seven letters to the seven churches, Jesus said to the church at Ephesus, “…you have left your first love.” Paul was a man of doctrine. He never waffled on it, and he directly spoke against what was incorrect, even when it meant openly confronting another apostle. His inspired words are what set doctrine for the church age, and he would readily stand against anyone who incorrectly taught them or misapplied them in his walk.

Despite this, Paul remembered his first love before all other things. He fixed his eyes on Jesus in everything he did, including arguing sound doctrine, for the sake of that love he felt. Sound doctrine is important, but other than accepting the simple gospel as it is properly understood, doctrine is not what saves a person. Instead, it is what allows a person to mature. In maturing, the love one has for Christ should only deepen.

If, however, the doctrine becomes the most important point to a person, his love will grow cold. Be sure to include Jesus in every step you take towards full Christian maturity. Without it, you will never attain what you are attempting to reach. Keep the love of Jesus as the paramount point of what you do, and you will do well.

Lord Jesus, may we never turn our eyes from You in our attempt to become doctrinally sound believers. We can dot every i and cross every t, but without having our hearts directed toward You, our walk will be dark and cold. Help us to remember this most important point. We love You, our God and our Lord. Amen.

Washington Coast now heading south to Oregon. Waves. Wish I took my board…

Now when we heard these things, both we and those from that place pleaded with him not to go up to Jerusalem. Acts 21:12

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).

A literal rendering would be, “And when we heard these things, implored him – both we and the residents – not to go up to Jerusalem” (CG).

In the previous verse, the prophet Agabus tied himself (or Paul) up by his hands and feet and prophesied that the same would happen to Paul in Jerusalem, noting that he would be delivered into the hands of the Gentiles. Now, Luke records, “And when we heard these things.”

The reaction is immediate, and Luke includes himself in the words of the verse with the use of “we.” He and all those with him “implored him.” The word is variously translated, having several different meanings, depending on the context. In this verse, translations still vary widely: beg, intreat, entreat, beseech, urge, plead, etc.

In this case, it was certainly a mixture of begging and admonishing. Thus, he was implored. Further, the word is imperfect, indicating that they continued to implore him. But the words were not just from his companions alone. Rather, it next says, “both we and the residents.”

Here, another word unique to the New Testament is seen – entopios. It is an adjective derived from en (in) and topos (region). Hence, a single English comparable word would be “residents.”  Luke was a master of using interesting words to make simple points. Those who were residing there and heard, along with the missionaries who were going to Jerusalem with Paul, implored him “not to go up to Jerusalem.”

Luke and the others who accompanied Paul were fully capable of taking the gift themselves, and there was no need for Paul to go and thus endanger himself. Therefore, they continued to implore him not to go with them on this final portion of the long voyage they had been on.

Life application: One of the things that makes a sermon, narrative, or story interesting is a wide range of words. Why use one adjective when two or even three will do? If you want to excite the minds of others, it is important not to repeat the same words in sentences if at all possible. In this, you will keep the minds of your readers active as they listen.

Having said that, it is important for translations of Scripture to convey the meaning of the words as originally presented. There are various ways of doing this. The first and most obvious is a literal translation. The word noted above is a single plural adjective preceded by a plural article indicating “those residents.” That is the most literal way to translate it.

However, it is not the only way to do so. Saying “the residents” means the same thing because the plural marker in English sufficiently carries the meaning. It also sounds smoother to the ear than “those residents” when taken in the context of the rest of the sentence. The words can also be translated in an equivalent paraphrase: those of that place, they of that place, the locals, the people there, etc.

A literal translation will often get clunky or cumbersome to the mind of the hearer. Thus, the equivalent rendering may be preferred. Don’t get too negatively excited over varying translations. Instead, look at them as opportunities to understand more fully what is being conveyed while also learning to expand your own lexicon and ability to form interesting sentence structures.

This appears to be Luke’s goal as he continuously introduces nifty new words to Scripture. Remember that in order to fully understand the meaning of his words, it is often necessary to refer to a concordance, lexicon, or formal word study. As this is so, then it may be that you had to read an entire paragraph, or more, just to get what is being said. Therefore, a single translation will never fully express what the intent of the entire original text is saying.

Study! Enjoy! And then turn around and express. Use your words in a way that will bless and benefit others without overwhelming them. Be one that will excite the minds of those around you. The Bible has shown, right in the diverse and unique words that it uses, that this is a commendable thing to do.

Lord God, You have given us a precious word meant to excite our minds and fill our thoughts with delight and wonder. Thank You for this precious gift. May we be willing to study it deeply all the days of our lives and then use our words in a manner that will also bless and excite others. Praise to You, O God, for the gift of Your precious word. Amen.

I think (?) it was a lighthouse. Something made me take a photo of it.

Friday, 20 October 2023

When he had come to us, he took Paul’s belt, bound his own hands and feet, and said, “Thus says the Holy Spirit, ‘So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man who owns this belt, and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’” Acts 21:11

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).

The words are more closely rendered, “And having come to us, and having taken up the belt of Paul, having bound his hands and feet, he said, ‘Thus says, the Holy Spirit, “The man whose is this belt, thus will bind in Jerusalem the Jews, and will deliver into the hands of Gentiles.”’”

The previous verse told of the coming down of Agabus from Judea to the missionaries staying in Caesarea. In his coming, it next says, “And having come to us, and having taken up the belt of Paul.”

There is no indication of how long he was there before this occurred, but Luke, using participles to show action, writes his words to make it seem as if it is the first thing that happens. Agabus was just called a “certain prophet.” So, one gets the sense of this prophet arriving at Caesarea, walking up to Paul, and then lifting Paul’s belt off of him.

The belt noted here is zóné. It indicates a girdle, belt, or waistband. This is not a belt to hold up the pants as we use today. Rather, it would be worn on the outside of the loose-fitting garments worn by men. They would pull it tight to remove the slack from the garment. Thus, to lift it off of Paul would be a simple process.

At times, such a belt would be hollow and used as a money belt. This is why some versions will say “girdle.” Of this belt that was just taken up by Agabus, it next says, “having bound his hands and feet.”

It is generally believed that Agabus tied his own hands and feet, not Paul’s, but some scholars think maybe it was Paul. Different manuscripts use a reflexive pronoun that would definitely indicate it was Agabus tying himself up rather than Paul. Also, the words vary in order saying either “hands and feet” or “feet and hands.”

It would be hard to tie up one’s feet if the hands were already bound. Therefore, the action may be tying up Paul, or it may be Agabus tying himself up. Either way, it is a symbolic gesture not unlike many other examples found in the Old Testament and which are worthy to be considered, such as –

“In the year that Tartan came to Ashdod, when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him, and he fought against Ashdod and took it, ² at the same time the Lord spoke by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, ‘Go, and remove the sackcloth from your body, and take your sandals off your feet.’ And he did so, walking naked and barefoot.” Isaiah 20:1, 2

With that action directed, the Lord then explains the command –

“Then the Lord said, ‘Just as My servant Isaiah has walked naked and barefoot three years for a sign and a wonder against Egypt and Ethiopia, ⁴ so shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians as prisoners and the Ethiopians as captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt. ⁵ Then they shall be afraid and ashamed of Ethiopia their expectation and Egypt their glory. ⁶ And the inhabitant of this territory will say in that day, “Surely such is our expectation, wherever we flee for help to be delivered from the king of Assyria; and how shall we escape?”’” Isaiah 20:3-6

As for the action taken by Agabus, he then proclaims, “Thus says, the Holy Spirit, ‘The man whose is this belt, thus will bind in Jerusalem the Jews.’”

Just as Isaiah was used as a warning and an object lesson for Israel, Agabus’ action is also an object lesson to warn Paul. The Lord, through Agabus, has given an advanced sign to Paul and those with him that what will occur has been ordained by Him and that it is the way that things were supposed to be.

Israel at Isaiah’s time could not say that what occurred to them was not the will of the Lord. Likewise, those who saw Paul being bound could not say that this was out of the will of the Lord or something that they should act against. It was a part of a greater plan, already known and authorized by God. From there, it next says that the Jews “will deliver into the hands of Gentiles.”

A greater plan was going to be worked out which included Paul being handed over to the Gentiles. Therefore, the people who saw these things come about should not interfere with the events, nor should they think that Paul was out of favor with the Lord. The events to take place were meant to be, and those who would interact with Paul should do so with this in mind.

Life application: As reading the Bible is an important part of the things we do each day, take a few more minutes and read one or more of the following object lessons that are found in the Old Testament: 1 Kings 22:10-12; Jeremiah 13:1-11; Jeremiah 27:2-11; Ezekiel 4:1-13; Ezekiel 5:1-10; Ezekiel 12:1-14; Ezekiel 24:15-24.

There are other such object lessons to be found. The book of Hosea is built around such an idea, where the prophet is asked to marry an unfaithful woman. Throughout the book, the interactions of the prophet with her, as directed by the Lord, mirror the interactions of the Lord and Israel.

Consider the things you are reading in Scripture and why the Lord places such things there. In the end, we can more fully understand the mind and intent of the Lord, His faithfulness even in our unfaithfulness, etc. The Bible tells us that God has everything under control and that we should trust that His plan is being worked out in a way that will bring His people to a very happy end, even if the road we are currently on may be a bit rocky.

Lord God, thank You for Your tender care of us. We can know from Your word that You have a plan that is already set and that will lead us back to Yourself. Help us to faithfully endure in this life and to walk in a manner that is pleasing to You, knowing that our actions reflect our trust in You as we continue our trek to our heavenly home. Amen.

Almost to the top of the bridge…

Thursday, 19 October 2023

And as we stayed many days, a certain prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. Acts 21:10

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 reads, “And remaining many days, a certain prophet came down from Judea, by name Agabus” (CG).

The previous verse was a short note about Philip’s four daughters who prophesied. Luke next says, “And remaining many days.”

The adjective which is used here is given in the comparative degree. Therefore, Ellicott believes that this means that they stayed longer than originally intended. But because there was still time available, either because of quicker travel on the voyage to Israel than expected, or because they cut another stop short, they stayed on for a while.

The only time limitation that is known to be weighing on them is what it said in Acts 20:16 –

“For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus, so that he would not have to spend time in Asia; for he was hurrying to be at Jerusalem, if possible, on the Day of Pentecost.”

Therefore, even if they stayed with Philip longer than intended, as long as they had time to spare before the short trip to Jerusalem, it was of no great matter. It is during these “many days” that “a certain prophet came down from Judea, by name Agabus.”

This Agabus is probably the same prophet by that name was first seen in Acts 11. At that time, it was said that he had come down from Jerusalem to Antioch. Now, it says that he has come down from Judea. Thus, it is highly probable that this is the same prophet again being drawn into the narrative.

Life application: We should be prepared to expect the unexpected. We don’t know what the future holds, and our plans are just that, plans. They may or may not come to pass. If you are in the Lord and living in accord with His word, then wherever you are – regardless of whether your plans are coming about – the Lord has you exactly where He needs you to be.

It may not be comfortable for you, or the changes that come up may be surprisingly nice. But it is where you are, so make the best of it. Throughout the book of Acts, people make plans, and they don’t always come out as originally intended, but time has gone on, and the lives of these people came out in the way God knew they would.

If you can have this attitude when plans get changed or frustrated, you will be much better off in your own mind. Don’t become discouraged but look for opportunities that may have been placed in your path. You are the Lord’s, so have the proper attitude about the situation you are in. He has you there for a purpose.

Lord God, help us to be content in the situations we find ourselves. We make plans, but ultimately it is Your will that we need to be obedient to. If we are living in accord with Your word, then we are in Your will. May we find peace, joy, and contentment in that. Amen.

Bridge. Fancy. 1 each.

Wednesday, 18 October 2023

Now this man had four virgin daughters who prophesied. Acts 21:9

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 reads, “And to him were four daughters, virgins, prophesying” (CG).

In the previous verse, it noted that Paul and his companions departed and came to Caesarea. There, they entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, one of the seven. Now, that continues, saying, “And to him were four daughters.”

The verb is imperfect, signifying that it was ongoing and indeterminate in duration. It cannot be implied that this was their permanent state. As for Philip, he was an evangelist. He held the duty of “preaching the full message of Christ’s salvation” (HELPS Word Studies). Having four daughters meant he had a wife.

Therefore, this is contrary to the false doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church that those who are in such a position were to remain celibate. This is obvious from Paul’s pastoral epistles, but it is a valid point of doctrine that is substantiated here and elsewhere. Of his daughters, it next says that they were “virgins.”

Luke takes care to mention this. Therefore, it has a bearing on their state. Otherwise, it would be a pointless addition to the context of his note. Being virgins, they were still living in his house, awaiting the time when they would be married. If they never married, they would remain in his house. The matter would have been decided as families determined such things at the time and within the culture. Finally, Luke notes that they were “prophesying.”

This is not unique in Scripture. It is something that several women of the Old Testament did. Deborah, the Judge of Israel, was a prophetess. A married woman named Huldah, the wife of the keeper of the wardrobe, was noted as a prophetess in 2 Kings 22:14. These and others were noted as having this ability.

It is, however, noted in 1 Corinthians 14 that women (or wives, the word can mean either) are to remain silent in the churches. It may be that being noted as virgins provides an exception to the prohibition of 1 Corinthians. But their prophesying cannot extend to teaching or having authority over men. That is explicitly forbidden in 1 Timothy 2:11, 12.

Further, Paul’s words concerning the selection of elders and deacons in the pastoral epistles are directed to males only. There is no provision in Scripture to allow for the ordination of women. Thus, Luke’s words here must bear these limitations. These women prophesied. Nothing more can be gleaned from the narrative.

The coming verses will mention another man who will prophesy over Paul. What he says is very clearly recorded by Luke. Such is not the case with these four daughters of Philip. Therefore, their ability to prophesy obviously did not include the matter that would be brought forth by him.

What is possible is that Luke’s note concerning these women is a generous acknowledgment of their ability to pass on what has already been received by Philip. This would be similar to the first noted woman to prophesy in Scripture, Miriam, the sister of Moses. In Exodus 15, it says –

“Then Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took the timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances. ²¹ And Miriam answered them:
‘Sing to the Lord,
For He has triumphed gloriously!
The horse and its rider
He has thrown into the sea!’” Exodus 15:20-21

Miriam’s prophesying was not her own words but those already given by Moses –

“Then Moses and the children of Israel sang this song to the Lord, and spoke, saying:
‘I will sing to the Lord,
For He has triumphed gloriously!
The horse and its rider
He has thrown into the sea!’” Exodus 15:1

In the case of these four daughters, it is best to take the most conservative view of their words, keeping them also completely in line with what is elsewhere stated as doctrine for the church.

Life application: Q: Is this verse prescriptive or descriptive? It is a descriptive verse that sets no doctrine forth for the conduct of the church.

These words, along with scattered other verses in the Bible, are incorrectly used at times to justify women preachers and “prophetesses.”  In doing this, one must completely disregard the prescriptive and authoritative writings of Paul. Further, context is necessary to understand what is going on. Outside of this descriptive verse, there is no additional context to justify women instructors or preachers with authority over men in a New Testament context. Rather, exactly the opposite is the case.

If one is to logically claim that the words of this verse mean that women today also are entitled to prophesy as these girls did, then the entire description of them must be considered applicable. Luke was careful to note that they were the daughters of an evangelist. Therefore, only the daughters of an evangelist would meet the requirements.

Next, he takes special care to note that they were parthenoi, virgins. Therefore, that must be applied as a required standard. As such, it would mean that this ability only applies to virgins. As they were not married, they also wielded no authority over a man. Should they marry, they would then fall under the authority of their husbands. Luke is being careful to show that their role in no way contradicted what Paul was already teaching concerning women.

These daughters prophesied because they were, at least for a season, set apart as virgins to prophesy. This was probably to other women while Philip was conducting evangelism. There is no need to go beyond what is written here and assume that they held any other duties than those intended for women by women. Their status as virgins is what sets them apart as acceptable for ministry. Should their status change, it would mean a change in their life roles.

Finally, as no other gifts are listed, the most one could claim is that the gift of prophesying alone could be appropriated by virgin daughters of evangelists. This is not a verse that allows for women to prophesy in a congregation. It is not a verse that allows for teaching or having authority over men in a congregation. It is also not a verse that would allow for the ordination of women. None of these things can be deduced or appropriated by women from the words of this verse.

Lord God, help us to stay in the proper lanes as we travel on life’s highway. May we be careful never to take single verses out of their intended context in an attempt to justify what Your word elsewhere forbids. May we be obedient to the overall standards that prescribe our conduct as clearly revealed in Your precious and sacred word. Amen.