They didn't try to escape

The crowd rose up together against them, and the chief magistrates tore their robes off them and proceeded to order them to be beaten with rods. When they had struck them with many blows, they threw them into prison, commanding the jailer to guard them securely;and he, having received such a command, threw them into the inner prison and fastened their feet in the stocks. But about midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns of praise to God, and the prisoners were listening to them; and suddenly there came a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison house were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone's chains were unfastened. When the jailer awoke and saw the prison doors opened, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped. But Paul cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Do not harm yourself, for we are all here!" And he called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas,and after he brought them out, he said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"

This account from Acts 16:22-30 is pretty telling of a great posture of a Christian. One, Paul and Silas were beaten up. Then they were jailed. What was their response? They sung praises to God. I would argue that these weren't calculated, manipulative gestures as to raise curiosity among the other prisoners. I believe they were so in love with God, and so unconcerned with appearance or status with others that they sang unabashedly.

Would you sing praises to God aloud walking down a busy street, unaffected by those around you simply because I adored God that much? I think this is what Paul and Silas were doing.

Not only that, God demonstrated His power by releasing an earthquake that rendered the restraints useless. Yet they did nor flee. They remained, seeing it as an opportunity to minister to the jailor who now feared reprimand (execution) for allowing an escape.

Paul and Silas did not consider themselves first, trying to flee, but they remained. And they never harbored bitterness or contempt against their enemies (persecutors and the jailor).

Perhaps with such an attitude of worship in me, may I have opportunity to be used by God because I consider no one to be a worthy adversary, and they will know me by my love for God.

Paul Departs Silas Over John Mark

^{Acts 15:36} Then after some days Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us now go back and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they are doing.” ³⁷ Now Barnabas was determined to take with them John called Mark. ³⁸ But Paul insisted that they should not take with them the one who had departed from them in Pamphylia, and had not gone with them to the work. ³⁹ Then the contention became so sharp that they parted from one another. And so Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus; ⁴⁰ but Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brethren to the grace of God. ⁴¹ And he went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.

It seems as though Paul didn't like John Mark at this time. He felt betrayed by him, as he bailed on a previous missionary journey (Acts 13:13). How could Paul trust John Mark to come with them to visit those they shared the gospel with when he proved unreliable? I can imagine emotions were dictating a lot of the decisions. So there a two positions: Barnabas looked past weakness and included John Mark; Paul wouldn't have any of that and went off just with Silas. Is one more proper than the other?

Honestly, I don't know. I'm not sure the text tells explicitly. We know in Colossians 4:10, that Paul was reconciled to John Mark, as he instructed the church to welcome him upon his arrival. I imagine Paul valued the unity of the Body more than holding grudges. John Mark could well have been in the wrong, leaving for selfish or fearful reasons. This well may have set back the mission. His frustration with John Mark is not unmerited.

So where does that leave us?

For sure, the unity of the faith and "one accord"-ness is most difficult considering the influences of ego (flesh), world and enemy.

Jesus' Encounter with the Woman at the Well

I explored Jesus' encounter with Nicodemus last week. Now, I look at the woman at the well encounter to see still more a grander picture of Jesus' posture toward people. It's striking that these events are recorded right after one another. John did this deliberately, I'm sure, to be compared and contrasted. Where Jesus was pursued by Nicodemus at night, Jesus initiated the interaction with the Samaritan woman by day, when He knew He could reach her alone.

That Jesus even spoke to her is astounding. A male Jew does not associated with Samaritans, let alone a woman. Why would Jesus break this cultural taboo? He wanted to have relationship with her. Any relationship Jesus pursues serves a purpose of advancing His Father's Kingdom. He saw it fit to "include" her in on the things of God, regardless of what reputation He may acquire.

As I read the account, I'm struck by how resistive the woman is, dodging Jesus' line of thought, changing the subject (John 4:19), especially when Jesus touches on subjects that are sensitive, mainly her sin. Funny, He called her out, and yet in a way that was never belittling. You can feel Jesus' motives exuding from Him, almost thinking aloud as He speaks, "If I can just get through her defenses, remind her of her brokenness so I can get her to think about the Messiah, I can reveal myself to her and she will believe." Exposing her error is not to demean her and leave her naked and exposed; exposing her makes her ready to be restored. With no sense of sin, one never realizes the need for repentance, the need for God.

So we are to expose sin. Jesus did it. But He did it in a way that was loving. He did not talk down (one can speculate His tone was kind or neutral) to her, but spoke with authority, to the extent that she trusted He would have the answers to all her questions. He drew them in like that.

For me, I like the approach Jesus took with Nicodemus. I feel much more comfortable having people approach me than being the initiator. Giving resistance to test others of how much they value me, seems safe. I need to realize my motives (what I value) when taking this approach, and judge whether I need to be more like Jesus as with the Samaritan woman. Sometimes people need to be engaged and pressed. I just wish I could discern the heart of mankind like Christ could; I might better know which battles won't bear fruit.

Jesus' Encounter with Nicodemus

This is the first blog entry of about fifteen in which I will be looking to the Scriptures, particularly narrative for Jesus or Paul or another key Christian leader, to evaluate the posture such a leader took with interacting with his audience.

Today, I look at Jesus' encounter with Nicodemus.

The first thing that stands out is that Jesus did not initiate this encounter. Nicodemus was curious to know more about this strange Jew who spoke with authority regarding the Scriptures despite being a carpenter. This is how the discussion began:

Nicodemus: "Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him."

Jesus answered: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."

I'm sorry, but Jesus doesn't seem like he's too concerned with making Nicodemus feel welcome. That response to such a premise is cryptic, if not downright standoffish. Nicodemus came to Jesus because he recognized Jesus had a connection with God. Jesus' first words were that none could participate in knowing and understanding God's work unless they were born again. Okay, step into Nicodemus' shoes; there's a familiarity with this phrase that Nicodemus never had. He interpreted this as thinking one had to exit the womb of one's mother a second time. That's how cryptic Jesus was speaking.

It never got any better. Jesus remained very mysterious, speaking riddles in a sense. Why? I thought Jesus was all-loving, all-embracing, always approachable. At least, that's the construct we build of Him in our minds, the image we hold of Him that inspires our posture with others. Okay, so this is one event in Jesus' life and by all means should not define His predominant posture with people. In context, this posture was taken with a religious leader, one of prestige. We know Christ discerned the hearts of mankind (John 2:23-25) and so knew that Nicodemus had a to accepting His gospel; yet Jesus remained cryptic. Was this a test for Nicodemus? Like speaking in parables, was Jesus deliberately making it hard for him, knowing Nicodemus would have to truly wrestle with these words if he wanted to know God?

So I have one posture of Jesus. More to come.