Breaking Away from Family & Upbringing

Posted on March 20, 2026 by russellmckinney

If you are a Christian who was born into a “Christian” household, let me ask you a question: If you had been been born into a household that was not “Christian,” would you have still believed in Jesus Christ at some point and thereby gotten saved?

Let me get even more specific. If you had been born into a Jewish household, can you say with certainty that you would have converted from Judaism to Christianity at some point? If you had been born into a Muslim household, can you say with certainty that you would have converted from Islam to Christianity at some point? If you had been born into a Hindu household, can you say with certainty that you would have converted from Hinduism to Christianity at some point? If you had been born into a Buddhist household, can you say with certainty that you would have converted from Buddhism to Christianity at some point?

Now let me ask the same sort of question about the different denominations of Christianity. If you are a Southern Baptist — and by that I mean that your denomination is the Southern Baptist Convention, not just that you are a Baptist who lives in the south — are you a Southern Baptist by choice or by family tradition? If you are an Independent Baptist, are you that by choice or by family tradition? If you are a Freewill Baptist, are you that by choice or by family tradition? If you are a Methodist, are you that by choice or by family tradition? If you are a Presbyterian, are you that by choice or by family tradition? If you are a Pentecostal, are you that by choice or by family tradition? If you are a Charismatic, are you that by choice or by family tradition? If you are a Lutheran, are you that by choice or by family tradition? If you are Church of Christ, are you that by choice or by family tradition?

The fact is that one’s background can be a very, very hard thing from which to break clear. This is especially true in cases where the individual looks back with fondness upon his or her upbringing. I once had a fellow who had been brought up in a certain denomination, one that has some doctrines and practices with which I differ, attend the church I was pastoring. He came a few Sundays at the urging of his wife and her parents, all of whom hold to the same doctrines I do. This fellow is a great guy and we are still friends to this day, but I’ll never forget what he told me just before he and his wife stopped attending my church and went back to his family church. He said, “Russell, if I accept as the truth everything that you teach, it will mean that my parents have been wrong for years in what they have always believed.” Needless to say, since he loved his parents dearly, that was a bridge he just wasn’t willing to cross.

It took nothing less than a personal visit from Jesus to get the scandalous Samaritan woman to understand that her Samaritan religion was in error and that she needed to believe in Jesus, a Jew, as Savior (John 4:4-42). It took nothing less than a physical encounter with Jesus on the Damascus road to get Saul of Tarsus to lay aside his Jewish upbringing and believe in Jesus as Savior (Acts 9:1-19). It took nothing less than a divine vision from heaven to get Peter to step outside the walls of his Jewish upbringing and come to the knowledge that Gentiles can get in on the same salvation that God offers to Jews (Acts 10:1-48). Each of these stories can be cited as evidence that breaking clear from your religious upbringing and background doesn’t happen easily.

Reading these stories should make us appreciate Abraham (whose original name was Abram) all the more. There he was in the city of Ur in the land of Chaldea, minding his own business, married to Sarah (whose original name was Sarai), living his life, worshiping the same false idols his father Terah worshiped (Joshua 24:2). Then one day God said to him, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you” (Genesis 12:1, N.I.V.).

Did Abraham hear a voice or did He have some type of vision? The Bible doesn’t give us the details. Either way, though, can you imagine God speaking to you right now and saying, “I want you to leave behind everything that you know and everybody that you know (except for your spouse and your children), and I want you to follow My voice as I lead you to a completely new land, a completely new way of life, and a completely new religion?” I wonder, would you be willing to do it?

Actually, even Abraham’s obedience wasn’t perfect. Whereas God wanted him to leave behind his father and the rest of his family (except for Sarah), Abraham took along not only Terah (his father) but also Lot (his nephew). As a matter of fact, the way Genesis 11:31 reads Terah was actually the ramrod of the operation. That verse says:

And Terah took his son Abram and his grandson Lot, the son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, his son Abram’s wife, and they went out from Ur of the Chaldeans to go to the land of Canaan; and they came to Haran and dwelt there. (N.K.J.V.)

Notice two things about this verse. First, notice that Terah, not Abraham, is the dominant character in the verse. Did Terah horn his way into God’s unique call upon Abraham’s life? Maybe, but it’s likely that Abraham didn’t mind having his father and his nephew along for his trip into the unknown. Second, notice that the whole operation ended up settling down in Haran, which was only about the halfway point between Ur and Canaan, the land where God ultimately wanted Abraham. Evidently, Terah liked it in Haran and decided the family had traveled far enough. They even acquired some servants there in Haran (Genesis 12:5).

It wasn’t until Terah died in Haran that Abraham, Sarah, Lot, and those servants pulled up stakes from there and pressed on for the land of Canaan (Genesis 11:32; 12:4-5; Acts 7:4). Commentators believe that Abraham spent several wasted years in Haran. You see, this is the damage that can be done by the powerful pull of family, especially the pull of parents, especially the pull of fathers. We are even left to wonder if Abraham would ever have made it to his God-given land of Canaan if Terah had lived much longer. Remember, neither Terah nor Lot were even supposed to be along on the journey!

What I’m trying to show you in all this is that family and upbringing can be powerful dams that prevent God’s river from flowing in your life. Putting it another way, Satan can use your background against you to keep you from living out God’s will for your life. Certainly this holds true in regards to salvation itself, but it also holds true in regards to what we might call the various “stations” of your life. By “stations” I mean: where you live, where you work, which school you attend, which church you attend, which political affiliations you hold, etc.

I guess what I’m asking you is, “Are you really your own person or is your life dominated by your raising?” I’m not suggesting that God wants everybody to forsake family and friends in order to head off into the wild blue yonder with Him. But what I am suggesting is that each of us needs to be enough of a “free agent” that we can mind God completely no matter how radical His will for our life gets. Think of it this way: If God has a Canaan in mind for you, you will never know His best if you either stay in your Ur or settle for a Haran. And if you reaching that Canaan requires you to break away from your family and your upbringing, then so be it. Putting it simply, it’s a price worth paying.

Posted in Change, Children, Choices, Church, Church Attendance, Commitment, Courage, Decisions, Desires, Discernment, Dying To Self, Faith, Faithfulness, Family, Fatherhood, Fear, God's Guidance, God's Will, God's Work, Husbands, Individuality, Obedience, Parenting, Salvation, Service, Submission, Trusting In God, Wives, Work | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Road Signs

Posted on March 18, 2026 by russellmckinney

By the close of 1944, Adolph Hitler’s dreams of world domination were coming to an end. Just a few months later, on April 30, 1945, he would commit suicide, and May 8, 1945, would become the day Americans call V-E (Victory in Europe) day. But in December of 1944 Hitler’s Germany mounted one last major counteroffensive that employed 250,000 German troops and caught the Allied forces off guard.

The counteroffensive was launched 100 miles inside the Belgian border in the densely forested region of the Ardennes. Germany’s goal was to use a surprise blitzkrieg attack to split the Allied lines and prevent the Allied forces from using the Belgian port of Antwerp. If the splitting of the lines proved successful in separating and fragmenting the Allied forces, the Germans would be able to destroy no less than four Allied armies. The press dubbed the counteroffensive “the Battle of the Bulge” because of the way the fighting caused the Allied front line to bulge inwardly on maps.

In the end, the Allied forces won the Battle of the Bulge, but the victory came at a high cost. The U.S. forces alone suffered over 100,00 casualties, making the battle the deadliest ever fought by America’s army. The German attack came so close to succeeding because the Germans used a variety of ingenious tactics as part of it. One of those tactics involved, of all things, road signs.

A few days before the Germans launched the counteroffensive, a group of elite German soldiers parachuted behind Allied lines. These soldiers were dressed in American uniforms that had been taken from POWs. Other similarly dressed German soldiers made their way behind enemy lines by using American jeeps that had been captured.

And what were all those covert Germans supposed to do behind Allied lines? Their mission was to alter road signs so as to prevent reinforcing troops from being able to reach the Allied forces when the fighting began. By most accounts this particular tactic proved only moderately successful for the Germans, but we can’t deny that the attempt made a lot of sense. Road signs are certainly important to anyone who doesn’t know the way. Even if you have a G.P.S. you still need road signs to identify the roads.

Of course, just as we need road signs to get where we want to go on a trip, we also need them to get where we want to go spiritually. And where do we find these spiritual road signs? We find them in one place: the Bible. That book is a repository of spiritual road signs that serve to guide our way through this confusing land. Therefore, if we don’t study the Bible and build our lives around its teachings, we really shouldn’t expect to ever get to where God wants us to go.

Posted in Bible Study, Choices, Decisions, Discernment, God's Guidance, God's Will, God's Word, Scripture, The Bible, Truth | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

What Ever Happened to the Original Church of Jerusalem?

Posted on March 16, 2026 by russellmckinney

(Series: “The Early Church of Jerusalem” post #16)

The church of Jerusalem, the megachurch that was the world’s first church (Acts 8:1; 11:22), was never intended to be the planet’s only church. God’s plan was always for those believers to launch out from that church, take the gospel to all parts of the globe, and organize churches everywhere (Matthew 28:16-20; Acts 1:4-8). That dispersal was kick-started in earnest by the persecution that began with the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 7:54-60; 8:1-4).

What follows over the course of the New Testament is the founding of churches all across the Roman empire. Churches were started in cities such as Antioch (Acts 13:1), Cenchrea (Romans 16:1), Smyrna (Revelation 2:8), Pergamos (Revelation 2:12), Thyatira (Revelation 2:18), Sardis (Revelation 3:1), Philadelphia (Revelation 3:7), Laodicea (Revelation 3:14), etc. You get the idea.

The New Testament book of Romans is the apostle Paul’s letter to the church of Rome, the capital city of the empire. 1 and 2 Corinthians are his letters to the church of Corinth. Galatians is his letter to the churches of the region of Galatia. Ephesians is his letter to the church of Ephesus. Philippians is his letter to the church of Philippi. Colossians is his letter to the church of Colosse. 1 and 2 Thessalonians are his letters to the church of Thessalonica. As you can see, the emphasis of the New Testament becomes very much the local churches that were “birthed” from the “mother” church of Jerusalem.

The interesting thing, however, about these other churches is that they involved house-church congregations. We know this was the case because house churches are specifically mentioned in: Romans 16:3-5; 1 Corinthians 16:19; Colossians 4:15; and Philemon verses 1 and 2. Along the same lines, James 2:1-3 speaks of a “footstool” as being part of a local church assembly, and 2 John verse 10 talks about not receiving false teachers into your house.

So, what do we make of this? The best interpretation is that all the house churches of a city (such as Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, etc.) or a region (such as Galatia) totaled up to be the one “church” of that city or region. In other words, the church of Corinth was not one congregation of hundreds or thousands that met in a big building that sat on the corner of Oak Street and Elm Street. It was, instead, a series of house churches that were scattered throughout that large city.

As for the New Testament’s pastors (also known as elders, bishops, shepherds, and overseers in the New Testament), Acts 14:23 says that Paul and Barnabas appointed (“ordained” K.J.V.) elders in every church. But does that mean they appointed pastors in every house-church congregation or in every city? If we go with the old adage that the best commentary on the Bible is the Bible, the answer is found in Titus 1:5. There Paul says to Titus concerning the island of Crete, “For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you” (N.K.J.V.).

You see, if we stack Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5 beside each other, we find that the words “church” and “city” are used interchangeably in regards to where pastors were appointed (ordained). In one verse the pastors are appointed in every church, while in the other verse they are appointed in every city. This provides even more evidence that the “church” of any given city or region (or island in the case of Crete) was the sum total of all its house churches.

Furthermore, it seems logical to conclude that there was one pastor per house church, which explains how one church (one city) could have multiple pastors. For example, Acts 20:17 talks about the elders (pastors) of the church of Ephesus, and Philippians 1:1 talks about the bishops (pastors) of Philippi. These verses don’t mean that the cities of Ephesus and Philippi each had one huge church congregation, consisting of hundreds or thousands of members, and that each of those congregations was led by a pastoral team that consisted of multiple elders. Instead, the verses paint the picture of multiple house churches in each city, with each house church having a pastor. After all, even two pastors, let alone a pastoral team, wouldn’t be needed for a congregation small enough to meet inside a house.

But what about evangelism and church growth? What did a house church do when it outgrew the home in which it was meeting? Did the members establish a building fund for the purpose of building an addition on to the house? Did they look for a bigger house? The best answer is that some of the members simply branched off, started another house church, and found a new pastor to shepherd the new congregation. In this way, each house church was involved in church planting.

Meanwhile, back at the church of Jerusalem, that church certainly didn’t immediately disappear once all these other churches came into existence. As late as Acts 15:1-29 the Jerusalem church was still serving as the home base of Christianity, the place where the religion’s doctrinal disputes got settled. Even as late as Acts 21:20 it still boasted “many thousands” (N.I.V.) of Jewish believers.

However, the leadership of the Jerusalem church did change when the 12 apostles, who were the church’s original pastoral team, began to spend more time away from the city in their roles of authority over the ever-expanding realm of Christianity. The leadership void created by their absence in the Jerusalem church was filled by a team of elders/pastors (Acts 15:1-6; 21:18) who were led by James, the half-brother of Jesus (Acts 15:13; 21:18; Galatians 2:9). In Galatians 2:9, Paul lists the three “pillars” (N.K.J.V.) of the Jerusalem church as being James, the apostle Peter (Cephas), and the apostle John.

Ultimately, though, three factors ended the 40-year era of the original church of Jerusalem. The first two of these factors helped destabilized the church, and the third one finished it off completely. Let’s take these factors one at a time.

Factor #1: Acts 12:1-19 lets us know that Jerusalem’s Roman leaders eventually chimed in with the church persecution that had been begun by the city’s Jewish leaders. It started with the Roman ruler Herod Agrippa I having the apostle James, the brother of John the apostle, killed (Acts 12:1-2). Following James’ execution, Herod then had the apostle Peter arrested with the intention of executing him after Passover (Acts 12:2-4). But God sent an angel to help Peter escape from prison and avoid being executed (Acts 12:5-19). For good measure, a short time later God also struck Herod Agrippa I dead (Acts 12:20-24). Nevertheless, the Romans coming on board to help the Jews persecute the church of Jerusalem obviously made things much worse for that church.

Factor #2: The city of Jerusalem (including the church) was hit hard by a time of famine sometime around A.D. 46 during the reign of the Roman emperor Claudius, who reigned from A.D. 41 to A.D. 54. A Christian prophet named Agabus had even prophesied this famine would come (Acts 11:27-28). Evidently, the famine created such dire conditions in Jerusalem that the apostle Paul felt the church there needed relief help from other churches. Consequently, he spent a considerable amount of time openly asking the churches to which he ministered to contribute to that relief help. This “collection for the saints” is spoken of in: Acts 11:29-30; Romans 15:25-27, 1 Corinthians 16:1-4; and 2 Corinthians 8:16-21.

Factor #3: Even though the events aren’t recorded in the New Testament, history tells us that in A.D. 66 Jewish rebel factions in Jerusalem revolted against Rome and actually took control of the city for an extended time. To reclaim the city, the Romans eventually resorted to a long-term siege of it. Finally, in A.D. 70 they destroyed the city and leveled the Jewish temple in the process, thus fulfilling Jesus’ prophecy (Matthew 24:1-2; Luke 19:41-44). The Jewish historian Josephus reports that over one million people, most of them Jews, were killed during Rome’s siege and conquering. All this marked the end of the original church of Jerusalem.

Actually, though, we might say that the original church of Jerusalem, in a sense, continues on today. It continues on in all the Christian churches that dot the globe. These churches are the offspring, propagated down through the multiple eras and generations, of the work the Jerusalem church did to fulfill Christ’s Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20) in its day.

Whereas that church accomplished so much in its brief 40-year run, it’s to the shame of our modern churches that so many of them have done so little with so much more time and resources in regards to fulfilling that Commission. In Acts 17:6, the unbelieving Jews of Thessalonica say of the evangelistic efforts of Paul and Silas, “These who have turned the world upside down have come here too” (N.K.J.V.). You see, that’s how the lost people described the Christians of the early church, as people who had turned the world upside down. Unfortunately, if today’s lost people described us modern Christians, I’m not sure they could accuse us of causing the world much more than a minor shake.

Posted in Church, Evangelism, God's Work, Ministry, Missions, Pastors, Persecution, Preaching, Series: "The Early Church of Jerusalem", The Gospel, Witnessing | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The Most Shocking Convert Ever

Posted on March 14, 2026 by russellmckinney

(Series: “The Early Church of Jerusalem” post #15)

Imagine Osama Bin Laden becoming a Christian and asking to speak in Christian churches. Imagine Adolph Hitler converting to Judaism and asking to speak in Jewish synagogues. Imagine the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan becoming an advocate of civil rights and asking to speak to gatherings of Jews and blacks. Do you think such conversions might be met with skepticism? Do you think some of those churches, synagogues, and gatherings might say, “No way, you’re not coming here.” Well, allow me to introduce you to Saul of Tarsus.

My previous post provided the scriptural evidence that Saul was the leader of the persecution against the church of Jerusalem. I won’t rehash all those verses, but suffice is to say that the name “Saul of Tarsus” was on the lips of every Christian who lived in Jerusalem at that time. He was a terror.

Let me be clear, though, in saying there was nothing fake or hypocritical about Saul’s zeal for God. He was 1000% real. What you saw was what you got, no ulterior motives, no hidden agendas. Actually, it was the sincerity of his dedication to God that fueled his intense hatred of the followers of Jesus. Saul believed to the depths of his soul that Jesus was a false Messiah and that the God-ordained Jewish religion, Judaism, had to be protected and preserved against this new religion that so many were calling “the Way” (Acts 9:2; 19:9,23; 22:4; 24:14,22).

What’s the difference between a saintly reformer that history praises and an evil terrorist that history condemns? In many ways there isn’t much difference except for the fact that one fights for what turns out to be the truth and the other fights for what he believes to be the truth but turns out to be a lie. Do you see what I mean? I’m not defending Saul’s persecution of Christians. I’m just trying to help you understand it correctly.

But something happened to Saul, something that got him to rethinking everything he had been raised and trained to believe. That something was the death of Stephen. Saul was an eyewitness to that brutal stoning. He even stood guard over the coats and outer garments of the ones who did the stoning (Acts 7:58).

When the stoning began, Saul was in full support of it. No doubt he thought, “Yeah, get him.” Maybe he even mocked a bit when Stephen cried out just prior to the stoning, “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God” (Acts 7:55-56). Did Saul even bother to look? If he did, he saw nothing.

And so, the stoning was carried out, and Stephen breathed his last. He said two things, however, just before he died. First, he said, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts 7:59). Second, with his dying breath, he said, “Lord, do not charge them with this sin” (Acts 7:60).

Saul heard both of those statements, and they resonated with him. No matter how wrong he thought Stephen was about Jesus, he had to admit that Stephen’s faith was genuine. A dying man just doesn’t call upon a Savior he secretly knows to be a sham. Similarly, a man who is being executed doesn’t ask God to cut his executioners a break in regards to judgment. And yet, that’s exactly what Stephen did.

The days, weeks, and months that followed Stephen’s death saw Saul become the embodiment of persecution against the Jerusalem church (Acts 8:3). Even when that persecution caused many of the church members to flee the city and relocate to other places, Saul hunted them down and brought them back to Jerusalem to be tried by the Sanhedrin. He was relentless.

Years later, as he retold the story of that part of his life, he used graphic language to describe his behavior. Take the time to read what he says and hear the religious rage that drove him:

“Indeed, I myself thought I must do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. This I also did in Jerusalem, and many of the saints I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them. And I punished them often in every synagogue and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly enraged against them, I persecuted them even to foreign cities.” (Acts 26:9-11, N.K.J.V.)

One day Saul was on one of those hunts, making his way from Jerusalem to Damascus, a trip of about 140 miles. He was carrying with him official letters, signed by the Jewish High Priest, written to the synagogue leaders of Damascus. Those papers gave him the right to arrest any man or woman who were members of “the Way” and bring them back to Jerusalem to be tried and put to death (Acts 9:1-2).

Saul and his group were just outside Damascus when suddenly an exceedingly bright light burst down upon them (Acts 9:3). Saul would later describe it as “brighter than the sun, shining around me and those who journeyed with me” (Acts 26:13). The light was so overpowering that it knocked each man to the ground (Acts 26:14). Then came a voice saying in Hebrew, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads” (Acts 26:14). The men who were with Saul heard the voice, but they laid there speechless. For one thing, even if they did know Hebrew, they weren’t Saul. For another, they weren’t about to carry on a conversation with a bright light.

As for Saul, he managed to reply, “Who are You, Lord?” (Acts 26:15). Perhaps the fact that he addressed the speaker as “Lord” is a tip-off that he knew, deep down, the speaker was God. Whatever Paul did or didn’t suspect about the voice, Jesus quickly removed all doubt about His identity by saying, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting” (Acts 26:15).

By the way, isn’t it wonderful to know that Jesus takes it personally when His followers are persecuted? From His viewpoint, the persecution is being done to Him every bit as much (if not more so) than it is to His follower. Take heart in that, Christian, the next time you find yourself being persecuted for your Christianity.

Still, the part of Saul’s conversation with Jesus that I want to emphasize are those words: “It is hard for you to kick against the goads.” A goad (“prick” K.J.V.) was a prodding device by which a farmer would poke an animal to either get the animal moving or get it to change course. This is where we get the phrase, “He goaded me into doing that.”

A goad could be as simple as a slender piece of wood that was blunt on the handle end and sharp on the prodding end. Sometimes when an animal was stuck with a goad, the animal would respond by kicking back against the device. The animal soon discovered, though, that kicking back only drove the goad further into its flesh and caused more pain.

So, what was Jesus trying to goad Saul into doing? What course change was He trying to get him to make? The answer is obvious. He wanted Saul to stop persecuting the church and accept Him as Messiah/Savior. To that end, it seems clear from Christ’s words that Saul had inwardly been under conviction to make that change for some time prior to that day.

But what were the “goads” that Jesus had been using to create that conviction in Saul? First, surely Saul had heard the reports of Christ’s ministry. Perhaps Saul had even personally seen Jesus teach, perform a miracle, cleanse the temple, or die. Based upon the fact that by Saul’s own admission he cast votes in favor of Christians being put to death (Acts 26:10-11), some scholars believe that he was a member of the Sanhedrin council that had tried Jesus and relentlessly pushed the Romans to crucify Him. Even if Saul wasn’t a full-fledged member of the Sanhedrin, he was certainly closely associated with the group and as such would have had intimate knowledge of Christ’s arrest, trial, crucifixion, and purported resurrection.

Second, there’s no doubt that Jesus had been sticking Saul over and over again with the goad of Stephen’s death. It can’t be a coincidence that the Bible’s first mention of Saul places him guarding the clothing during Stephen’s stoning. Watching Stephen die that horrific death affected Saul. Even the defense that Stephen so eloquently provided for himself before he was stoned had to have resonated with Saul. After all, Saul himself was a scholar, an expert in the history of Israel, and Stephen’s defense was all about that history.

Because of these goads of conviction, by the time Jesus supernaturally appears to Saul on the Damascus road, Saul is ripe for conversion. Trembling, Saul asks, “Lord, what do You want me to do?” That’s the question of a man who has stopped kicking at the goads. Jesus then instructs him to go into the city of Damascus (Acts 9:6). As Saul rises from the ground to carry out those marching orders, he realizes that he has been struck blind. What a scene it must have been to see the great Saul of Tarsus, the most feared man in all the land if you were a follower of Jesus, being humbly led by the hand by some of his companions into Damascus (Acts 9:8).

For three days Saul remained in darkness, not eating anything or drinking anything (Acts 9:9). Then a man named Ananias, a follower of Jesus, showed up at the house where Saul was staying. Jesus had sent Ananias there to heal Saul’s blindness. Ananias laid his hands upon Saul and said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 9:17, N.K.J.V.).

As soon as Ananias mouthed those words, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes and his sight was restored (Acts 9:18). Saul was then promptly baptized and given food, after which he stayed several days with some of Christ’s followers there in Damascus (Acts 9:18-19). To the astonishment of all, Saul even preached Jesus in the synagogues of Damascus (Acts 9:20-22).

Those first sermons there in those Damascus synagogues were merely the initial sparks of the roaring blaze that Saul’s ministry would become. Beginning with Acts 13:9, he will no longer be called “Saul.” Instead, he will be known as “Paul.” Even though that name means “little,” Paul’s ministry would be anything but small. He would become recognized as an apostle. He would perform miracles. He would write half the New Testament. He would embark upon three missionary journeys by which he would take the gospel to the Gentiles, win untold numbers to Jesus, found churches, ordain pastors, instruct Christians, and become the man that many refer to as the greatest Christian who ever lived. All this came from the worst persecutor the early church knew.

In closing, let me say that Saul’s conversion proves beyond all doubt that Jesus can reach anybody, even the person who seems the most unreachable. Christ has all kinds of goads He can use to melt even the hardest heart. Because of this we should never classify any lost person as being beyond hope. If Jesus could convert Saul of Tarsus, He can convert anybody. And when He gets all of that passion, fervor, emotion, and zeal turned around and working for Him, then look out. That’s how an apostle Paul is born.

Posted in Brokenness, Change, Church, Conscience, Conviction, Dying To Self, Evangelism, God's Sovereignty, God's Work, Ministry, Missions, Persecution, Salvation, Series: "The Early Church of Jerusalem", Service, Submission, The Gospel, Witnessing | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

How God Brought Good Out of Persecution

Posted on March 12, 2026 by russellmckinney

It takes quite a bit of time and energy for a mob to literally stone someone to death. Coats and outer garments must be taken off so that rocks can be gathered and thrown most effectively. But what should be done with the coats and garments to keep them from getting stolen during the proceedings? The best solution is to lay them all in one big pile and appoint a person to watch over them. Well, guess who guarded the clothes pile during the stoning of Stephen. It was a zealous young Jewish Pharisee named Saul of Tarsus who had trained under the tutelage of the famous rabbi Gamaliel (Acts 7:58; Acts 22:3, 20; Galatians 1:14; Philippians 3:3-6). This Saul would ultimately become better known as the apostle Paul.

The stoning of Stephen marked a turning point in the Jewish persecution of the church of Jerusalem. Acts 8:1 says: “At that time a great persecution arose against the church which was at Jerusalem…” (N.K.J.V.). And do you know who took the lead role in that intensified persecution? Young Saul of Tarsus. His life was so intensely invested in Judaism that he could only see the followers of Christ as blasphemers who preached lies about a false Messiah and sought to corrupt the one true religion that God Himself had instituted. He hated the followers of Jesus with a passion and stood by in full approval (watching the clothes) as Stephen was stoned to death. Read carefully the following passages, which all speak of Saul’s rage-filled hatred of the followers of Christ:

Acts 8:3: As for Saul, he made havoc of the church, entering every house, and dragging off men and women, committing them to prison. (Acts 8:3, N.K.J.V.)

“I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women, as also the high priest bears me witness, and all the council of the elders, from whom I also received letters to the brethren, and went to Damascus to bring in chains even those who were there to Jerusalem to be punished.” (Acts 22:4-5, N.K.J.V.)

For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it. (Galatians 1:13, N.K.J.V.)

Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. (Acts 9:1-2, N.K.J.V.)

We might question why God would allow Saul and his fellow Jews to persecute the Jerusalem church this severely. But the answer is found in Acts 8:1 and Acts 8:4. Those two verses say:

Now Saul was consenting to his death. At that time a great persecution arose against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. (Acts 8:1, N.K.J.V., emphasis mine)

Acts 8:4: Therefore those who were scattered went everywhere preaching the word. (Acts 8:4, N.K.J.V., emphasis mine)

You see, Christianity couldn’t become a worldwide movement as long as all the Christians were stationed in one city, Jerusalem. As wonderful and as idyllic as the church of Jerusalem was, God wanted churches here, there, and everywhere, not just one big megachurch in one big city. What was the great commission that Jesus had left His followers? “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations…” (Matthew 28:19, N.K.J.V., emphasis mine). Likewise, what had been Christ’s departing words to that group of approximately 120 of His followers? “But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8, N.K.J.V., emphasis mine).

It had always been God’s plan for the Christians of Jerusalem to start branching out by winning people to Christ in every city and founding churches in those cities. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, people tend to remain entrenched where they are comfortable. That includes Christians.

But what is a surefire way to upset a comfort zone? Let the comfortable start experiencing intense persecution. That will put a lot of “For Sale” signs in yards. Therefore, the persecution against the Jerusalem church accomplished something that allowed the early church as a whole to go to a new and more prolific level. Summing up the matter, that persecution put the followers of Christ on the move, and wherever they went they took the gospel.

You might recall, though, that I closed my previous post by saying that the persecution against the Jerusalem church accomplished two things that allowed the early church to go another level. Okay, so, if many of the Jerusalem Christians fleeing town and relocating to other cities and regions was one of those things, what was the other? It was the introduction of Saul of Tarsus into the storyline of the early church. That, too, will prove to be a game changer.

But, first, God has to get Saul converted. That conversion will be the subject of my next post. I’ll preview that post just a bit by saying that watching Stephen’s stoning had much more of an impact on Saul than even he realized at the time. Actually, it created the small crack of a fault line in his thinking, one from which he wouldn’t be able to recover.

Posted in Adversity, Church, Contentment, Evangelism, God's Guidance, God's Sovereignty, God's Will, God's Work, Ministry, Missions, Persecution, Problems, Series: "The Early Church of Jerusalem", Spiritual Warfare, Suffering, The Gospel, Trials, Witnessing | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Church’s First Martyr

Posted on March 9, 2026 by russellmckinney

(Series: “The Early Church of Jerusalem” post #13)

I take no pleasure in reporting that much of what a lot of Christians believe about God really doesn’t stand up to the test of scripture. “God wouldn’t let me remain sick.” Tell that to Trophimus (2 Timothy 4:19). “God wouldn’t let me be poor.” Tell that to the Christians of Smyrna (Revelation 2:9). “God wouldn’t let Satan have his way with me for years.” Tell that to the woman who remained stooped over for eighteen years (Luke 13:10-17). “God wouldn’t let me lose a child.” Tell that to David (2 Samuel 12:15-23) and Job (Job 1:18-19). “God wouldn’t let me be physically harmed for serving Him.” Tell that to Abel (Genesis 4:1-8) and John the Baptist (Matthew 14:1-12).

This brings us to the story of Stephen, the church’s first martyr. We first meet him in Acts 6:1-7 as he is chosen to be one of the seven men assigned the responsibility of the Jerusalem church’s daily distribution to its widows. Really, if that was the man’s sole claim to fame it would be enough to classify him as a tremendous servant of the Lord. But Stephen’s resume doesn’t stop there.

In Acts 6:8, we’re told that he was “full of faith and power” (N.K.J.V.) and that he did “great wonders and signs among the people” (N.K.J.V.). That means the indwelling Holy Spirit had gifted him with the spiritual gift of the working of miracles (1 Corinthians 12:29). In addition to this, Stephen was also a great Christian debater. Acts 6:10 says that a group of unbelieving intellectuals “were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke” (N.K.J.V.).

Sadly, as happens so many times with outstanding servants of the Lord, Satan aimed his sights at Stephen. He did so by leading that group of unbelieving intellectuals, who were embarrassed because they couldn’t discredit Stephen in a fair debate, to secretly provoke certain men to accuse Stephen of blasphemy against God and Jewish law (Acts 6:11-12). This led to Stephen being seized and brought to trial before the Sanhedrin, the Jewish ruling council that served as the Supreme Court of all things Jewish (Acts 6:12).

Not surprisingly, the corruption that had previously marked Jesus’ trial before these same men also marked Stephen’s. As had been done to Jesus (Matthew 26:37-61), false witnesses were employed to say that Stephen had spoken blasphemous words against the law and the Jewish temple (Acts 6:13). These false witnesses even used the same quote from Jesus that had been used against Him in His trial:

“for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs which Moses delivered to us.” (Acts 6:14, N.K.J.V.)

This set the stage for Stephen’s defense of himself, which amounted to a retelling of Israel’s history beginning with God’s call to Abraham and ending with Solomon building the Jewish temple (Acts 7:1-50). Following this defense, Stephen held nothing back in offering his assessment of those members of the Sanhedrin. He said:

“You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit: as your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers, who have received the law by the direction of angels and have not kept it.” (Acts 7:51-53, N.K.J.V.)

Stiff-necked? Uncircumcised (at least in heart and ears)? People who always resisted the Holy Spirit? Descendants of persecutors of prophets? Murderers of the Messiah of whom those prophets had foretold? People who didn’t keep the Mosaic law? Wow! Tell us what you really think of the members of the Sanhedrin, Stephen. No Jewish person, and I mean NO Jewish person, dared talk to those men like that.

Therefore, it’s not a bit surprising that those men flew into a blind rage and “gnashed at him with their teeth” (N.K.J.V.). In other words, they ground their teeth together. It was at this point that Stephen looked up and was granted the privilege of literally seeing into heaven. There he saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God the Father (Acts 7:55). Was Jesus standing in honor of Stephen’s courage or was He standing to receive Stephen’s soon-to-be disembodied soul into heaven? I like to think it was both.

Stephen exclaimed, “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” (Acts 7:56, N.K.J.V.). Evidently that vision of heaven was for Stephen’s eyes only because the members of the Sanhedrin couldn’t see it. Their response to Stephen’s exclamation was to cry out loudly, put their hands over their ears so they didn’t have to listen to him anymore, and rush toward him (Acts 7:57).

Once they had laid their hands upon him, they unceremoniously bum rushed him out of Jerusalem, picked up stones, and stoned him to death (Acts 7:58). With his dying words Stephen said, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts 7:59) and, “Lord, do not charge them with this sin” (Acts 7:60). Those statements were virtually identical to two statements Jesus had made while hanging on the cross: “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do” (Luke 23:34, N.K.J.V.) and “Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit” (Luke 23:46, N.K.J.V.)

Even though death by stoning was the Mosaic law’s sentence for blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16), the Israel of Stephen’s day was merely one small slice of the vast Roman empire. That being the case, the Jewish Sanhedrin could not legally put anyone to death. No, they had to get Rome’s permission for that. This, of course, was why they had been forced to get Pontius Pilate on board regarding the death of Jesus.

So, why did the members of the Sanhedrin stone Stephen without first asking permission from the Romans? Well, does the term “mob violence” mean anything to you? You see, Stephen’s death wasn’t the result of the Sanhedrin working in an official capacity through official channels. It was, instead, a gang of angry men who were royally ticked off at what Stephen had said about them. If Acts chapter 7 was part of an old Western movie, Stephen’s death would have been a lynching rather than a stoning.

No doubt the illegal nature of the death only made the shockwaves from it even greater. Even though this wasn’t the first time the Jerusalem church had experienced persecution, the persecution had never resulted in death. For example, Peter and John had been arrested and brought before the Sanhedrin, but the two apostles had gotten off unscathed (Acts 4:22). A short time afterward all twelve of the apostles had been arrested by a group of Sadducees and thrown into prison, but an angel had opened the prison doors and led them to freedom (Acts 5:17-21). Later, those same apostles had been rearrested and again brought before the Sanhedrin, but that trial had resulted in them merely being beaten and commanded not to speak in the name of Jesus (Acts 5:22-42).

It was Stephen’s death that took the persecution against the church to a whole new level. Now the gloves were off.  While the last verse of Acts chapter 7 closes with Stephen dying, the first verse of Acts chapter 8 says that at that time “a great persecution arose against the church which was at Jerusalem” (N.K.J.V.).  Don’t miss the connection between those two happenings.

But would you believe that God was going to use the heightened level of persecution against the Jerusalem church to accomplish not one but two things necessary in order for the early church as a whole to go a new and more prolific level? In my next post, I’ll identify what those two things were. So, until then I’ll ask you to stay tuned. And in the meantime just know that even when God either causes or allows a “bad” thing to happen, He always has a multilayered plan to bring tremendous good out of it (Romans 8:28). We just have to be patient until we can see the full unfolding of that plan.

Posted in Adversity, Christ's Death, Church, Commitment, Death, Faithfulness, God's Will, God's Work, Heaven, Ministry, Obedience, Persecution, Perseverance, Problems, Series: "The Early Church of Jerusalem", Service, Sickness, Sin, Spiritual Warfare, Suffering, The Old Testament Law, Trials | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Is Acts 6:1-7 the First Deacon Election?

Posted on March 7, 2026 by russellmckinney

(Series: “The Early Church of Jerusalem” post #12)

The first serious problem that threatened to split the early church of Jerusalem centered around what Acts 6:1 calls “the daily distribution” (N.K.J.V.). No definition is given for what this distribution was, but the apostles described it as serving tables (Acts 6:2). Interestingly, the Greek word used for “tables” in Acts 6:2 is the same Greek word that is used in reference to the money-exchange tables Jesus overturned as part of His two attempts to rid the temple complex of commerce and greed (John 2:13-22; Matthew 21:12-13). With this type of table in mind, two possible definitions have been offered for the serving that was required.

First, the tables could have functioned like stations the church’s widows stopped by each day to receive an allotment of food provided by the church. This would have made the role of serving akin to manning a distribution point. Second, the tables could have been the sit-down variety where the church’s widows were literally served meals each day. This would have made the role akin to being a waiter in a restaurant.

Whichever definition of the serving is correct, what isn’t in doubt is the fact that the Hellenist Jewish Christians (who spoke Greek) thought their widows were getting shafted in the deal. The disagreement eventually reached a boiling point that led the Hellenists to complain to the apostles. Rather than opting to take over the distribution themselves or ask for volunteers to do the job, the apostles called for the church to choose seven worthy men from the membership ranks. These men would become the “table servers” who would be delegated the responsibility of overseeing the daily distribution.

This plan of action pleased the church members, and seven men were chosen. The men were: Stephen, Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas (Acts 6:5). Since all seven names are Greek names it’s possible that all seven men were from the Hellenist group, which would make sense because the Hellenist group was the one doing the complaining. Whatever the exact details were, though, God must have been pleased with their selection because following the election the word of God spread even more and the church’s numbers swelled yet again. This time the new converts even included many of the Jewish priests (Acts 6:7).

So, there’s no question that the Acts 6:1-7 election was a great thing that produced marvelous results. But was it the first deacon election of the church age? Many solid students of the Bible believe that it was and that the seven men became officially recognized deacons for life. There are, however, other equally solid students who understand the election to be a one-off type of deal along the lines of a temporary committee being elected to serve for a limited time to achieve a stated goal.

Having studied this subject quite a bit, I understand how people can reach either conclusion. Therefore, it’s not my intention to use this post to praise one interpretation and bash the other. Instead, I’m simply going to list the evidences that can be used to support each interpretation and let you, the reader, form your own opinion. I will, however, offer my opinion toward the end of this post.

I’ll begin by listing the evidences that support the interpretation that Acts 6:1-7 is not describing the first election of deacons. The evidences are as follows:

  1. While the actual words “deacon” and “deacons” are used in our English translations of the New Testament (Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:8, 10, 12, and 13), neither word is used in Acts 6:1-7.
  2. The qualifications (“of good reputation” and “full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom”) stated for the Acts 6:1-7 men are not the same as Paul’s list of qualifications for deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8-13. Not only is the 1 Timothy list much more extensive, it doesn’t even include “of good reputation” and “full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom.” One might think that if Paul was describing the same office as Acts 6:1-7, God would have inspired him to provide a direct tie-in to the Acts passage by somehow restating those two descriptive qualifications.
  3. While the New Testament uses the titles “elder,” “pastor,” “bishop,” “shepherd,” and “overseer” interchangeably to describe the office most commonly referred to nowadays as “pastor,” that office hadn’t been officially established in the church age as of Acts 6:1-7. Even though we understand that the apostles were playing that role in the colossal Jerusalem church, they were still referred to as “apostles.” The fact is, the office of pastor (elder, bishop, shepherd, overseer) isn’t specifically mentioned until Acts 14:23, which tells us that Paul and Silas appointed (“ordained” K.J.V.) elders in every church. All of this raises the legitimate question: “In light of the fact that the pastor is the God-appointed shepherd of the church (1 Timothy 3:4-5; Hebrews 13:7,17,24; 1 Peter 5:1-4), would the office of deacon be formally instituted in the church age before the office of pastor?”
  4. Even though two of the seven men, Stephen and Philip, are mentioned prominently in subsequent stories (Acts 6:8-15; 7:1-60; 8:4-13; 8:26-40; 21:1-14), neither man is ever described by way of the title “deacon.” For example, in Acts 21:8, as part of a story that takes place many years after Acts 6:1-7, Philip is specifically described as “the evangelist” and as “one of the seven.” He is not described as “the deacon.”

Now let me list the evidences that support the interpretation that Acts 6:1-7 is describing the first election of deacons:

  1. Paul, in his writings, does not hesitate to include the office of deacon as part of each local church (Philippians 1:1). He even provides a list of qualifications for the candidate for the role (1 Timothy 3:8-13). The question becomes then: “If the office of deacon did not begin in Acts 6:1-7, when exactly did it begin?” It seems strange that the New Testament wouldn’t even mention the beginning of the office. This possible omission — if that’s what it actually is — is made even more glaring by the fact that the beginning of the office of pastor (elder, bishop, shepherd, overseer) is recorded in Acts 14:23.
  2. Even though the words “deacon” and “deacons” aren’t used in our English translations of Acts 6:1-7, variations of diakonos, the Greek noun from which we get the word “deacon,” are found in three places in the passage. First, the word “distribution” in verse 1 translates diakonia. Second, the word “serve” in verse 2 translates diakonein. Third, the word “ministry” in verse 4 translates diakonia.
  3. In regards to the Acts 6:1-7 qualifications not matching up with the 1 Timothy 3:8-13 qualifications for deacons, that doesn’t necessarily mean the two passages aren’t describing the same office. As evidence of this, 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 are clearly describing the same office — the word “bishop” is used in both passages — and yet those two lists of qualifications, though similar, aren’t exactly the same.
  4. The word “deacon” comes from the Greek word diakonos, and diakonos literally means “servant.” Obviously, the seven men elected in Acts 6:1-7 did become servants as they served the tables of the Jerusalem church’s daily distribution.

Well, as you can see, there is a pretty solid case to be made for either answer to the question: “Is Acts 6:1-7 the first deacon election?” As for me, I tend to think that it was. For one thing, it’s hard for me to believe that the New Testament would assume the office of deacon in the church without giving us an account of the office’s origin. For another, everything about what those seven men did speaks to deaconship (servanthood).

Finally, in closing, let me point out one last thing about this whole topic. Even if we accept the premise that those seven men were the church’s first deacons, it should be noted that the Jerusalem church didn’t hold a deacon election until the church had upwards of 20,000 members. Contrast this with the fact that many small churches today, with memberships less than 200, try to have seven deacons! You see, if Acts 6:1-7 really is talking about deacons, then it should teach us two things about them. #1: God-approved deacons are scarce. And #2: It doesn’t take many God-approved deacons to get the job done in a local church, no matter how big that church might be. This, of course, makes perfect sense in the light of the fact that God wants every Christian (including all the non-deacons) in a local church to play the role of servant to others.

Posted in Church, Deacons, God's Work, Ministry, Pastors, Series: "The Early Church of Jerusalem", Service | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Pastor’s Main Job

Posted on March 5, 2026 by russellmckinney

(Series: “The Early Church of Jerusalem” post #11)

What do you do when one group of members from your church claims that another group is showing favoritism in regards to church benevolence? If you are the 12 apostles — with Matthias taking the place of Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:15-26) — and if your church is the church at Jerusalem, you hold the first church vote to appoint a group of men to fix the problem. In other words, I could also call this post “The Church’s First Business Meeting.”

Please allow me, though, to draw your attention to the motivation the apostles gave for holding that meeting. Faced with the option of taking over the church’s benevolence ministry themselves, they deemed that option unproductive. Rather than take the attitude, “If you want something done right you’ve got to do it yourself,” they chose to delegate. And what was their reason for doing so? We find it in Acts 6:2:

Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables.” (N.K.J.V.)

I wish churches knew this verse as well as they know John 3:16. You see, those apostles were, for all intents and purposes, the pastoral team of the church at Jerusalem, and as such they understood that a pastor’s primary job is to study God’s word, preach God’s word, and teach God’s word. (For the record, in Acts 6:4 they also add spending time in prayer to the list.)

So, are pastors too good or too aloof to serve tables, mow the church yard, mop the floor of the fellowship hall, change the light bulbs in the sanctuary, order the church literature, and visit every sick person within a 100-mile radius? Hardly. After all, Jesus calls every Christian, including every pastor, to exhibit the same humility He exhibited when He washed the feet of the apostles (John 13:1-17).

No, the issue is not spiritual superiority. Instead, it gets into the realm of Christians having differing spiritual gifts, talents, and abilities. If nothing else, we’re talking here about a church making the best use of its personnel. Basically, while other church members can perform most tasks just as effectively (if not more so) than the pastor, what those other members can’t do as effectively as him is teach the word of God.

Sadly, many pastors today don’t have adequate time to study the word of God so they can properly feed it to their flocks because those pastors spend so much time running around doing this, that, and the other thing for those flocks. This is especially true in smallish churches where the pastor is “chief cook and bottle washer.” For example, I once had a man tell me that I, as the pastor of the community’s local church, was responsible for the spiritual well-being of the entire community. That included all my church members who lived in the community, but it also included not only all the lost people of the community but also all the people in the community who attended other churches. I thought to myself, “Man, that’s a high standard you’ve got there. I guess it’s handy for you that you are not a pastor.”

The fact is, it takes serious time and serious effort to really learn the word of God so that you can rightly divide it and dole it out to others (2 Timothy 2:15). It’s no wonder that 1 Timothy 5:17 says the “elders” (a title the New Testament uses interchangeably for “pastors”) who labor in the word and doctrine should be counted worthy of double honor. That’s another verse I wish churches knew as well as they know John 3:16.

In the end, the apostles handled the Jerusalem church’s benevolence dispute by presiding over the election of a worthy group of men who were granted oversight concerning the dispute. In my next post, I’ll address the question of whether or not this was the first election of deacons. For now, though, let me stick with the primary subject of this post. Those apostles said:

“Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business; but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” (Acts 6:3-4, N.K.J.V., emphasis mine)

Notice that in our opening text verse, Acts 6:2, the apostles begin their decision with a word about their main job: “It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables.” And then, in Acts 6:3-4, they end their decision with a similar word: “…but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” It’s obvious that the apostles, who were the pastoral team of the Jerusalem church, wanted to drive home the point to their church members. They wanted those members to understand that the call to the ministry is the call to spend a lot of time in God’s word and a lot of time in prayer. Therefore, we might say that whatever else a pastor is doing, if he is neglecting these duties, he is failing in his calling. Even though many Christians — and dare I say, some pastors — don’t see it this way, this is exactly what the Bible teaches.

Posted in Bible Study, Church, God's Word, God's Work, Individuality, Ministry, Pastors, Prayer, Priorities, Series: "The Early Church of Jerusalem", Spiritual Gifts, Talents, The Bible | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

The First Church Fight

Posted on March 2, 2026 by russellmckinney

(Series: “The Early Church of Jerusalem” post #10)

The world’s first church, the church of Jerusalem, was colossal in terms of sheer numbers. Acts 4:4 puts the number of men at 5,000. If we assume there was one woman per man, that’s 10,000 members. If we assume there was one woman and one child per man, that’s 15,000 members. Furthermore, both Acts 5:14 and Acts 6:1 speak of multitudes of men and women being added to the fold even after that. So, I feel safe in saying that the church consisted of at least 20,000 people, perhaps considerably more.

In a church that size, internal conflict is inevitable as somebody is going to get mad at somebody else over something. And that’s what happened. The church members classified under the heading “Hellenists” (“Grecians” K.J.V.) brought a formal accusation to church leadership (the 12 apostles) against the church members classified under the heading “Hebrews” (Acts 6:1). Keep in mind, though, that both of these groups were Jews. The Gentiles wouldn’t be ushered into the church age until a bit later (Acts 8:26-40; 10:1-48).

The “Hellenists” were the “out-of-town” Jews. They were Jews who had grown up outside the land of Israel. They spoke Greek in addition to whatever specific languages each of their local regions used, had been raised in Greek culture, and used the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament.) Because they had spent their lives living among the Gentiles, they weren’t particularly obsessed with keeping the Mosaic law. These were the foreign Jews who had made their pilgrimages to Jerusalem to observe the feast of Pentecost (Acts 2:5), had heard that group of approximately 120 of Christ’s followers speaking in their foreign languages (Acts 2:6-12), had responded to Peter’s Pentecost sermon (Acts 2:37-39), and had become part of the Jerusalem church’s original 3,000 members (Acts 2:41).

Their counterparts in the church were the “Hebrews.” These were the “home folk” Jews. They were Jews who had grown up in Israel. They spoke Aramaic, had been raised in Jewish culture, and used the Hebrew translation of the Old Testament. Their lives were dominated by keeping the Mosaic law. Many of them had been living in Jerusalem on that famous day of Pentecost and still had homes there (Acts 2:46). Others of them had made the trip to Jerusalem from their homes in either the northern region of Israel or the southern region of it and had become part of the church.

Church members from different homelands? Church members from different backgrounds? Church members speaking different languages? Church members using different translations of the Bible? Church members placing different levels of importance upon the Old Testament law? Let’s admit that any one of these things has serious potential to destroy church unity. Frankly, we have to marvel that the church of Jerusalem made it without a church fight as long as it did!

But what was the fight about anyway? What was the charge the Hellenist Jews brought before the apostles concerning the Hebrew Jews? It had to do with that communal system of support by which the church functioned (Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-35). Human nature being what it is, you just had to figure that the good will that was required for such a system to function smoothly would eventually start to take on some water.

The Hellenist church members accused the Hebrew church members of neglecting the Hellenist widows in regards to the daily distribution of food. Since the church had made it as long as it had without that charge arising, obviously the Hellenist widows were receiving some food each day. The problem must have been that they weren’t receiving as much food as the Hebrew widows. (At least that was the opinion of the Hellenists.) Was this a legitimate complaint? We have no way of knowing because the Bible doesn’t tell us.

Regardless of whether or not the accusation was true, the apostles were now expected to render a verdict. A serious charge had been made and it couldn’t be ignored. So, how would they decide? What course of action would they settle upon? The previous time a problem had arisen within the church, the offending parties had both been struck dead (Acts 5:1-11). Would this new problem result in more deaths? That answer will be the subject of my next post. So until then, stay tuned….

Posted in Anger, Christian Unity, Church, Complaining, Favoritism, Leadership, Pastors, Series: "The Early Church of Jerusalem" | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

The First Church Scandal

Posted on February 27, 2026 by russellmckinney

(Series: “The Early Church of Jerusalem” post #9)

I don’t care how smoothly a church is humming along, it isn’t immune from scandal. The problem is that people can’t help but be people. They are sin-marred individuals who are members of a sin-marred race. We are sinners by birth and by choice, and our fault line can be traced all the way back to the Garden of Eden.

Someone might ask, “But doesn’t the indwelling Holy Spirit help Christians in regards to their sin problem?” Yes, He does, but His help is tempered. What His presence inside our bodies does is create a civil war within each of us. On the one hand, we feel the Adamic nature’s pull toward sin. On the other hand, we feel the indwelling Spirit’s pull toward godliness.

Back and forth the tug of war goes. Sometimes we allow the indwelling Spirit’s pull to win the moment. Other times we allow the Adamic nature’s pull to win it. Sometimes we act in a godly manner. Other times we act in an ungodly one. Sometimes we choose God’s will. Other times we choose our will.

I don’t think anybody ever described this inner civil war better than the apostle Paul, who was a pretty fair Christian himself. He wrote:

I don’t understand myself at all, for I really want to do what is right, but I don’t do it. Instead, I do the very thing I hate. I know perfectly well that what I am doing is wrong, and my bad conscience shows that I agree that the law is good. But I can’t help myself, because it is sin inside me that makes me do these evil things. (Romans 7:15-17, N.L.T.)

This brings us to the story of Ananias and Sapphira, a married couple who were members in good standing of the church of Jerusalem. If they were wolves in sheep’s clothing (lost people masquerading as Christians), the Bible gives no indication of it. Nevertheless, even though they seem to have been authentic Christians who were each indwelt with God the Holy Spirit, they succumbed to the temptation to sin. And their sin created the first church scandal.

The problem centered around that unique financial setup that was one of the distinguishing marks of the early church in Jerusalem. As you might recall, all the members of that church sold their possessions and goods and contributed the proceeds to the church treasury so that the needs of each member could be met from that communal fund (Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-37). It should be understood, though, that participation in this plan was voluntary, and any member who didn’t go along with the plan was certainly not excommunicated from the church.

So, as the story goes, Ananias and Sapphira sold a piece of land, and Ananias brought some of the proceeds and laid it at the feet of the apostles as a contribution to the church fund (Acts 5:1-2). Notice, however, that I said he brought some of the proceeds from the sale rather than all of them. Now we are getting at the heart of the problem.

You see, it wasn’t sin for the couple to keep back part of those proceeds for themselves. Again, everything about the church receiving contributions was voluntary. The couple’s sin was them pretending that the money Ananias brought to the apostles constituted all the proceeds from the sale. In other words, the transgression was lying, not money mismanagement. It was a lack of integrity, not a lack of giving.

Peter was the apostle who called out Ananias for the sin. Somehow, someway, Peter knew what Ananias had done. Maybe Peter had heard from someone just how much the couple had made from the sale. Or maybe the indwelling Holy Spirit imparted to Peter the spiritual discernment to know that Ananias was trying to pull something. Whatever the details were, as soon as Ananias laid the money at the feet of the apostles, Peter began his interrogation:

But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” (Acts 5:3-4, N.K.J.V.)

If Ananias had answers to Peter’s questions, he never got to voice them. The very next verse says that when Ananias heard these things he dropped dead on the spot. His death was then quickly followed by some men wrapping him up in a sheet or a blanket, carrying him out, and burying him. No funeral. No flowers. No visitation. Since his wife, Sapphira, wasn’t present at the time, she didn’t even know she was now a widow.

Three hours passed before Sapphira herself came to the apostles, and she still wasn’t aware of what had transpired. Peter, not knowing if she was in cahoots with her husband concerning the sin, asked her, “Was this the price that you received for your land?” “Yes,” she said. That was all the evidence Peter needed to include her in the fatal sentencing, and Acts 5:9-10 is quite graphic in describing her death:

Then Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” Then immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. And the young men came in and found her dead, and carrying her out, buried her by her husband. (N.K.J.V.)

You talk about setting a tone for the Jerusalem church! You talk about raising the bar for standards! You talk about throwing a scare into all the members! It’s no wonder that Acts 5:11 says:

So great fear came upon all the church and upon all who heard these things. (N.K.J.V.)

Needless to say, throughout church history God hasn’t enforced this same standard for Christian behavior in church. What if lying, scheming, pretending to be something you’re not, and trying to play big shot in church were still causes for immediate death in our congregations? If they were our church rolls would be a lot smaller and our church cemeteries would be a lot larger. For the record, I file Ananias and Sapphira in the category of born-again Christians who committed what the King James Version calls “the sin unto death” (1 John 5:16-17; 1 Corinthians 11:27-30).

In the end, though, what the story of Ananias and Sapphira shows us is that sin can arise even in the best of churches. Not every pastor who has an affair with the church secretary is lost. Not every deacon who gets charged with “driving under the influence” is a charlatan. Not every church treasurer who steals from the church was always lurking in reeds, waiting for just the right chance to run off with the money. Not every youth minister whose addiction to pornography gets found out is a spiritual sham with a bogus calling to the ministry.

No, sometimes genuine Christians seriously drop the ball by engaging in grievous sins and exhibiting behavior that is shockingly worldly. But that doesn’t mean the Holy Spirit doesn’t dwell inside them. It just means that the Spirit doesn’t win every battle of the civil war. Tragically, sometimes those lost battles do collateral damage in our churches just as the sin of Ananias and Sapphira did collateral damage in the world’s first church. So, while I haven’t heard of God striking any church members dead lately, we shouldn’t think He hasn’t poured out other forms of chastisement upon our churches. My guess is that we are just too spiritually dense to recognize those chastisements for what they are.

Posted in Addiction, Adultery, Alcohol, Backsliding, Church, Deacons, Depravity, Discernment, God's Chastening, God's Judgment, Holiness, Hypocrisy, Lying, Ministry, Money, Pastors, Personal Holiness, Series: "The Early Church of Jerusalem", Sin, Temptation, The Holy Spirit, The Sin Unto Death | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment