Pietistic Virtue Signaling Number 1: “I’m a Dyed-In-The-Wool Sabbatarian."

I have in mind a series on Pietistic Virtue Signaling. This is the first entry. Keep in mind that I don’t necessarily agree or disagree with the underlying position being discussed, it is the publicly declared or intimated holier-than-thou proclamations that bug me. Pietistic virtue signaling is an insidious way to imply, without saying, that "I'm right and you're wrong, and I'm the better Christian for it." 

We begin with virtue signaling found among some strict Sabbatarians.

 

For background, there is no evidence in the bible than any person, from Adam to Noah to Abraham to Isaac to Jacob to Joseph, including all their families and countrymen, were under the command to keep the Sabbath. As a command to human beings, it doesn’t appear util very late in Patriarch history, the 16^th chapter of Exodus:

He said to them, “This is what the Lord commanded: ‘Tomorrow is to be a day of sabbath rest, a holy sabbath to the Lord. (Ex 16:23)

Nor is there any indication that the day set aside for worship (the Christian "Sabbath") was commanded to be the first day of the week. Rather Sunday worship, as Calvin taught, arose more by early tradition than from any Sabbath Day Savings Time shift decreed by God.¹

 

Whether the Sabbath command continues as a requirement or has been abrogated or has been superseded by the eternal sabbath rest in the finished work of Christ (my view) is a matter for legitimate theological discussion. ² None of these positions are in and of themselves “virtue signaling”. But as usual, once a position is claimed, it is time for many to yield to the temptation to double down. 

Sabbatarian Virtue Signaling comes in many forms3, but the most outrageous is the “I would never eat at a restaurant on Sunday because you are making people, possibly Christians, work on the Sabbath” view.4 Choosing to refrain from dining out on Sunday is a matter of liberty, but by using the "workers gotta work" reasoning you are in effect denying that God might be providentially providing the work.  

Strict Sabbatarians of the restaurant denier variety often descend into full blown hypocrisy when they relate their acceptable activities for Sunday, which almost always contribute to someone, somewhere, working. Listening to Christian music on the radio? Somebody is working at the station. Post on social media? Network engineers are monitoring traffic. Argue that they would still be working if you didn’t tweet? The same argument applies to restaurant workers. Argue (as I have heard) that while this is theoretically true, one’s “percentage” contribution is in the noise compared to the restaurant example? That excuse deserves the response used in an old (distasteful) joke about negotiable morality—well now that we’ve established what you are, the only remaining question is the cost. No, if you are really a strict Sabbatarian, I don’t want to hear your virtue signaling unless your Sabbaths look something like the Tevye household in Fiddler on the Roof.

 

Future posts on Pietistic Virtue Signaling could touch on these subjects:

• We have communion every time we assemble. Why wouldn’t you want to sup at the Lord’s Table at every opportunity?
• We follow the Regulative Principle – like the Amish who know just what year in the 19^th century that technology surpassed what was acceptable, we know exactly what instruments and music styles are pleasing to God’s ear.
• We are the Truly Reformed™, the theological direct-line descendants of the Great Reformers and all others else claiming the honorific are pretenders. 
• We are not Biblicists. We derive doctrines using philosophy, and this is nothing like the secret knowledge of the Gnostics. Biblicists are uneducated bumpkins, often with three rows of buck teeth.
• Confessions are not Scripture, and we promise we won’t use them like scripture, but they are the best summaries of scripture, even though they often differ irreconcilably on important matters (like Baptism.) 
• The Ten Commandments are the Eternal Moral Law of God, not merely the Laws of the (Mosaic) Covenant, even though they are referred to that way in scripture.

___________________________________________

¹ Criticizing Seventh Day Adventists merely on the basis of the day they choose to worship is a particularly mean-spirited form of virtue signaling. 

² In any event, resting one day in seven for gathering, worship and rest is at a minimum a good practice. 

 

³ One of the more frustrating sorts of micro virtue signaling related to the sabbath is to feel the necessity of an incessant weekly reminder that “every Sunday is Easter Sunday.”

 

⁴ Not to mention that when personally advantageous, one can opt-out and be excused with a convenient “works of necessity” loophole. This allows a pastor or elder to “keep the sabbath” and preach “keeping the sabbath” while sagely acknowledging “works of necessity” so that they can also, with a solemn nod, excuse those congregants who don’t in fact keep the sabbath. It’s a “works of necessity” loophole for me and mine, but not thee and thine.

Saul of Tarsus and his Ignominious (yet necessary) Beginning

The initial persecution of the early Christian church was notably driven by a single, determined Pharisee: Saul of Tarsus. Interestingly, his aim did not appear to be the complete eradication of the church. This is evident as he did not target the apostles in Jerusalem. 

On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. (Acts 8:1, NIV)

Instead of adopting a "cut off the head of the snake" strategy, Saul focused his efforts elsewhere. He primarily targeted the Hellenists, perhaps to curb the spread of "The Way" which was rapidly gaining traction. It was, as we would say today, going viral. There was only an indeterminant but assuredly brief interval between Deacon Phillip bringing the gospel to Samaria—approximately 55 km from Jerusalem—and Saul setting off for Damascus, some 220 km away, to confront an already established community of believers. Remarkably, it was during this journey that Saul experienced what might be termed the most dramatic Calvinistic conversion in history, marked not by Saul's searching for God or Saul's response God's wooing, but rather by a sudden, divine intervention. God elected Saul right off his horse and down to the ground.

Both Saul and his most famous victim Stephen arguably were the first to recognize that “The Way” represented not merely an errant Jewish sect but something profoundly different. This realization spurred Saul to persecute and Stephen to defend. However, after Saul's conversion, the Christian movement returned to being viewed as what might be seen as a benign anomaly (from the perspective of Saul's "Ph.D" advisor, Gamaliel).

Following Saul's conversion, the church experienced a period of relative tranquility. However, this peace lasted only about a decade before significant challenges reemerged. The next bloody persecution was quite different, viz,

• Peter was the catalyst.
• The Romans once again played a role.
• Herod Agrippa, grandson of Herod the Great, was the instigator and architect.
• The apostles lost what semblance of diplomatic immunity they had, with James of Zebedee facing martyrdom.

More to follow.

I can't believe I'm saying this but...

1) I ain't dead yet.

2) I'm getting a hankering to blog again, all with the advent of ChatGPT and such. 

3) Is anybody out there?

C.S. Lewis and Evolution

C. S. Lewis seems to accept evolution and an "ensoulment" type view regarding the creation of Adam and Eve, supernaturally crossing Imago Dei threshold through divine intervention acting upon genetically equivalent hominids. If I read him correctly, I agree, and further speculate (wildly) ¹ that those hominids provided, for a time, the reproductive mates of A&E's descendants.

 

---

¹ Everyone speculates wildly here. YECs outdo themselves, often speculating the Seth's wife was a mysterious sister, never mentioned. And how Cain established cities in exile... well who knows? This speculation, in addition to a yechh factor, implies that God's moral law, in this case a prohibition against incest, is not absolute.

Did David Rape Bathsheba?

This is a hot topic, at least in the twitterverse. And nobody on either side of this debate will agree with me.

Let us approach it with two propositions: 

1. Bathsheba did not entice or seduce David. The bible makes it clear that David alone is responsible for this sin. There is no condemnation of Bathsheba anywhere in scripture.
2. Bathsheba acquiesced to the liaison because David was King of the Land. 

Was it rape?

By the definition of rape in the modern western world, it was. We now accept that taking advantage of a massive power differential is a form of irresistible force, ergo rape. Bill and Monica; David and Bathsheba; professor and student.

But by the definition of rape prior to, say, the 1990s, it was not. It was atrocious, cad behavior. Cause for dismissal and disgrace perhaps, but not meeting the legal definition of rape. We may not like that view, but that's the way it was. 

And it was not rape 3000 years ago in Palestine, otherwise the Bible would have referred to it as rape, lest you think the Holy Spirit is incapable of inspiring truth and accuracy. But the sin the Bible ascribes to the incident is adultery, not rape and not adultery and rape.

I wish people would use a qualifier, such as: By the currently accepted definition of rape, David raped Bathsheba. It would be impossible to argue with such a conclusion assuming you accept the two propositions above.

I believe in micro physics, but not macro physics

I often hear from my Christian brothers and sisters that they accept “microevolution” but not “macroevolution”. In truth there is no difference. The processes are exactly the same. ¹ However, we can, arguendo, adopt an artificial but common working definition: microevolution does not result in a new species; macroevolution does. 

Of course, we are then faced with the challenge of defining species, which is harder that it would seem. However, we can again, arguendo, agree (even though it has problems) to accept the common working definition: if two populations cannot successfully breed, then they are distinct species. 

I'll say from the onset there is no point is actually arguing with someone who affirms micro but not macro evolution. No amount of evidence will persuade them. Been there, done that, and didn't get as much as a T-shirt. I have never (and I have witnessed literally hundreds of such arguments) encountered someone who changed their position on macroevolution. This is not a debate that is approached with open minds. 

But for the sake of completeness: the evidence is overwhelming. There is the fossil record with millions of snapshots of macroevolution occurring as an aggregation of microevolutionary steps. For a “living” example, there are ring species. ² There are also candidates for witnessing speciation in complex organisms in much smaller time scales than previously imagined. Birds that suddenly (from microevolution) split into populations with two very distinct migratory paths appear to be on the cusp of speciation. 

The purpose of this post is to present an analogy, which will convince nobody because, as already mentioned, nobody who says “micro-yes, macro-no” is actually willing to evaluate the evidence. So this is mostly for fun. 

Micro and macro physics evolution 

An astronomer with a telescope is a cosmic paleontologist. When an astronomer gazes at something a billion light years away, they are, given the finite speed of light, looking back in time approximately a billion years. ³ What they are seeing, in every sense of the word, is a fossil. The farther we look is just like the deeper we dig. 

Looking farther away we are seeing (a bit counterintuitively) younger things, in the sense they are as they were at a time closer to the creation event, the big bang. And what we see as we gaze from the farthest reaches to our local area is physics (cosmic) evolution. Far away we see nascent galaxies and stars made from the products of the big bang but with low metallicity (because metals, which to astronomers includes anything beyond helium, didn't exist when the star formed. Why not? Because it takes stars to manufacture metals and then die and obligingly seed space with these heavier elements that can then be incorporated in the next generation of stars.) ⁴  As we gaze closer to home we see more complex structures (such as mature galaxies) that formed later.

So we see fossils with a clear evolutionary process, from clouds of hydrogen and helium to the interstellar medium condensing to early stars and galaxies all the way to more recent (but older in terms of time from the big bang) complex galaxies and structures such as our Milky Way. We see fossils including transitional forms. 

So imagine this point of view:

Ken: I believe in micro physics evolution, but not macro physics evolution. If I drop my phone, the laws of physics cause it to fall and hit the earth. The screen might crack, but it’s still a phone. The earth might change ever so slightly, but it’s still the earth. 

Charles: But the very same process (gravitation) is what caused stars and galaxies to form from the primordial hydrogen and helium produced by the big bang, from a long drawn-out series of gravitational micro-steps. We see this evolution very clearly in our telescopes. 

Ken: How do you know there was a process? Has anyone seen it in real time? Maybe the distant galaxies look “young” not because we are looking back in time, but that’s how they will always look, even to their nearby observers, if there are any. They were just created that way. No, unless I see hydrogen and helium clouds form a spiral galaxy, I’m not going to believe it.

It’s the same argument, is it not?

 

---

¹ I’m a theistic evolutionist. Which means that I accept the theory of evolution but add to it the supernatural presupposition that the process was/is never outside the domain of God’s sovereignty. Just like I accept the physics laws governing gravity, even though I don’t accept that they operate outside of God’s sovereignty. There is no scientific consequence of this presupposition. A practicing theistic evolutionary scientist would perform the same experiments and analyses as their atheistic colleagues. Science doesn’t give a rat’s derriere about your philosophical leanings. It only demands that you follow the rules of the scientific method. 

² In a nutshell a ring species is like this: species A is thriving in California. Part of the population, for whatever reason, moves east to Iowa. After a while this B population is visibly distinct. But A and B can still breed. Same species. Now part of B migrates farther east, to Virginia. After awhile this group, call it C, is visibly distinct from both B and A. However, there is a lack of breeding transitivity. While A can breed with B, and B with C, A cannot breed with C. A and C are distinct species, arrived at by a series of microevolutionary steps, even though A (where it all began) is not extinct. 

³ This is only approximate because of the expansion of space (which is really, in some sense, the continuous creation of space which leads to the appearance of expansion). The range of our vision (a physics limit, not a technology limit) is about 43 billion light years, at which point we see objects as they were very shortly after the big bang, a bit shy of 14 billion years ago. 

⁴ Astronomers designate the generations of stars by Population 1, 2 or 3. But astronomers are crazy people who do everything bass-ackwards. The first stars created are Population 3.

The Raiders of the Lost Ark of the Moral Law

Viewed against the span of Christian history, Dispensationalism is very new, and Covenant Theology only a little older. Though both, along with the General Baptists, have deluded themselves and claim they have been around since apostolic times, if not earlier. 

As I have written many times, I am in closer agreement with Covenant Theology, though I have many disagreements. 

I certainly disagree with the way they often simply make things up. Then they attempt to justify what they make up using classical philosophy while calling those who disagree with them biblicists (a term I embrace, but not in the form of the grotesque caricature they use as a straw man) antinomians, and other types of heretics. 

In truth (and acknowledged by some of their own, such as Bavinck^[1]) the development of Covenant Theology had at first a singular purpose: to preserve paedobaptism. To accomplish this goal, they developed the concept of a single over-arching covenant (of grace) that spans human history. This is in spite of the fact that the bible makes no reference to such a covenant, and in fact makes plain reference to the old and new (and better) covenants as being utterly distinct. But only simpleminded biblicists point that out, for we are somewhat incapable of invoking Plato to tease out new doctrine that is not only not present but actually superficially (to us chowderheads) at odds with scripture. 

Once you have a single over-arching covenant, you are forced into a theology that stresses continuity. Over stresses continuity—all so that infant circumcision can morph into infant baptism.^[2] (Dispensationalism, on the other hand, over-stresses discontinuity.) 

We must admit that covenant theologians are among the cleverest people who delve into theology. When they invent something to fit their theology, they make it sound like something that you could not possibly be against unless you were a minion of the antichrist. 

One complex invention of Covenant Theologians are the (not found anywhere in scripture—sorry that’s again the biblicist within) arbitrary divisions of the law. They were created when their zeal for continuity came face to face with the reality of all the covenantal laws the Jews were under. We want continuity, but we don’t want circumcision! 

Well, to satisfy their continuity lust, they relabeled the Decalogue the “Eternal Moral Law of God” and the other laws became “ceremonial” or “civil” or “positive”. This satisfied most (but not the theonomists, who in some ways are the most self-consistent covenant theologians) as it allowed them to be “as continuous as they could be.” 

Some even argue the that Decalogue was the law written on the hearts of all people, even before the fall. But there is not one jot or tittle of scripture to support this. The Decalogue is never referred to as the moral law of God, let alone the fully revealed eternal moral law of God. It is referred to as law of the covenant, and the box that carried around the tablets as the ark of the covenant, not the ark of the moral law. 

Here we summarize some distinctions: 

Covenant view: There were many types of laws given to the Jews. There were positive laws, there were ceremonial and civil laws, and there were moral laws. And the moral laws are either entirely found in the Ten Commandments, or there is a subset of the moral laws, those that are eternal, that are the Ten Commandments. And these eternal moral laws (since they are eternal) simply must be the laws that were written on hearts going back to the garden. Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, is not giving new law, he is merely correcting bad teaching. 

Biblicist View: All of God’s laws are moral. Jews were not morally obliged to obey the Decalogue and ceremonially obliged to obey the law on circumcision. They were morally obligated to obey both and all other laws of their covenant. These old covenant laws went away with the onset of the new covenant, and Mosaic law was replaced by a new and better revelation of the law given by Jesus. 

It is actually quite strange, when you think about it, to call only a subset of God’s law moral.

Interestingly enough, the great confessions are quite revealing in this matter. For example, in the WCF we read:

Beside this law [the Decalogue], commonly called moral, (WCF 19.3)

Even by the rather weak standard of scriptural proof texts for the pronouncements of the confession, none is provided to justify renaming the Ten Commandments as the moral law of God. The only justification provided is that it was “commonly called” such. By whom we are not told. And since the confession was written, the rather mild “commonly called” has evolved an understanding more in line with: “Thou Shalt Call it the Eternal Moral of God and Nothing Less.”

 

---

^[1] “The covenant was the sure scriptural objective ground upon which all the Reformed, together and without distinction, based the right to infant baptism. They had no other deeper or more solid ground." (Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics.) 

^[2] That’s not to say I disagree with infant baptism. I disagree that the justification for infant baptism is connected to circumcision.

THE Reformer did not teach that the Christian Sabbath must be on Sunday

¹Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also: ² On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come. (1 Cor 16:1-2., NKJV)

The literal translation of the start of verse 2 is along the lines of “On one of the Sabbaths.” By tradition, it gets translated as “on the first day of the week” and is then taken (incorrectly, in my opinion) to mean that Paul is prescribing that Sunday is to be the Christian Sabbath. John Calvin disagreed. He argued that what Paul meant was the literal: That on one of the Sabbaths (or more) before Paul arrives they should collect an offering for Jerusalem. A day of the week is not in mind. Given that Paul was coming at some indeterminate time in the future and not the following week, the literal interpretation is a better fit.

Calvin writes:

The clause rendered on one of the Sabbaths, (κατὰ μίαν σαββάτων,) Chrysostom explains to mean — the first Sabbath. In this I do not agree with him; for Paul means rather that they should contribute, one on one Sabbath and another on another; or even each of them every Sabbath, if they chose. For he has an eye, first of all, to convenience, and farther, that the sacred assembly, in which the communion of saints is celebrated, might be an additional spur to them. Nor am I more inclined to admit the view taken by Chrysostom — that the term Sabbath is employed here to mean the Lord’s day, (Revelation 1:10,) for the probability is, that the Apostles, at the beginning, retained the day that was already in use, but that afterwards, constrained by the superstition of the Jews, they set aside that day, and substituted another. Now the Lord’s day was made choice of, chiefly because our Lord’s resurrection put an end to the shadows of the law. Hence the day itself puts us in mind of our Christian liberty. We may, however, very readily infer from this passage, that believers have always had a certain day of rest from labor — not as if the worship of God consisted in idleness, but because it is of importance for the common harmony, that a certain day should be appointed for holding sacred assemblies, as they cannot be held every day. For as to Paul’s forbidding elsewhere (Galatians 4:10) that any distinction should be made between one day and another, that must be understood to be with a view to religion, and not with a view to polity or external order. (Calvin's Commentary on 1 Cor., emphasis added)

Regarding the Lord’s Day, Calvin is arguing that the early church held it on Saturday, but to avoid confusion with the Jewish Holy Day they moved it, as one might naturally expect if you are going to move it, to the next day, Sunday, or the first day. Not because scripture mandated that the day of corporate worship to coincide with the day of the week of our Lord's resurrection (although that's certainly a wonderful alignment) but because it was convenient.  In that view, this passage:

Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight. (Acts 20:7, NKJV)

is describing, not prescribing. Which is how it reads.

R. C. Sproul was, as far as I can tell, in agreement with Calvin and summarizes Calvin’s position this way:

John Calvin argued that it would be legitimate to have the Sabbath day on any day if all of the churches would agree, because the principle in view was the regular assembling of the saints for corporate worship and for the observation of rest.

Modern uber-reformed confessionalists argue that worship must be on Sunday, not as a matter of convenience or tradition (which are perfectly fine reasons to hold worship services on Sunday, not to mention most people have the day off) but for incorrect legalism-- that is they falsely teach that scripture calls for Sunday worship. What choice do they have? Many take an all or nothing approach the a giant uninspired confession that calls for prescribed Sunday worship, with scriptural proof texts that, is often the case, fall short of living up to their billing. 

Many of the uber-reformed agree with Calvin except when they don't, such as his position on the necessity of Sunday Worship, the perpetual virginity of Mary (and consequently that Jesus had no blood brothers--Calvin affirmed this) and, if they are Baptists, on paedobaptism. When they lament "what has happened to the Reformation?" what they really mean is "What has happened the part of the Reformation we agree with?"

Sin that does not lead to death, vs. sin that does.

¹⁴ Now this is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. ¹⁵ And if we know that He hears us, whatever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we have asked of Him. (1John 5:14-15, NKJV)

This passage provides the context for the discussion to follow. These two verses reemphasize our “First Amendment Rights” when it comes to God. We have a God we can approach with confidence, and a God who can multitask—while maintaining the universe he will hear our prayers.

¹⁶ If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that. ¹⁷ All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death. (1John 5:16-17, NKJV)

With the context and principle provided by verses 15 and 16, we have in the next two verses an application: pray for a fellow believer who is in spiritual distress due to sinning. This presumably means a believer who has, for a season, descended into a lifestyle besotted with sin. (I’ve lived in that zip code). 

However, this passage (which could be so simple!) also makes a seemingly mysterious distinction between sin that does vs. sin that does not lead unto death. To me, an unexpected and unwelcome complication. 

Our Catholic friends might readily find in this the difference between venial and mortal sin, but in truth that dogma would not be developed for centuries. Even more to the point, there is no prohibition (in fact, quite the contrary) in Catholicism regarding praying for someone who has committed a mortal sin. Abortion is a mortal sin according to Roman Catholicism, yet the Catholic Church does not instruct its adherents to avoid praying for the women involved. 

Nor does “unto death” versus “not unto death” seem to refer to sin that leads to actual and immediate physical death, a la Ananias and Sapphira. It would be rather pointless to tell us not to pray for someone who just dropped dead after committing a sin. I think we'd intuitively "get it" if, while watching an ISIS terrorist about to behead an innocent person, a consuming fire rained down from the sky and took him out. Nor would it be worth mentioning such a rare (if ever) occurrence, one that (even in less spectacular form) virtually no believer will never have to be equipped to handle. 

At the (always real) risk of pulling verses out of context,  let us add two others to the discussion:

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, (Heb 6:4, NKJV)

But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector. (Matt 18:17b, NKJV)

Adding these along with our difficult passage from 1 John, I personally arrive at somewhat unsatisfying (as in, I’m not confident I’m right, but it’s the best I got) view that “sin leading to death” refers to someone who, after our best intentions and fervent prayer over an extended period, appears to be absolutely unmovable, unrepentant, and unashamed in regard to their sin. In other words, we are literally instructed to (in extreme cases) give up on some, in regard to our finite prayer budget. 

In simpler terms, “sin leading unto death” is synonymous with the condition leading not to reconciliation, but excommunication, at which point we stop praying for the person. (It sounds wrong, but I think it just might be right.) 

This does not mean that we do not give them food, water, clothing, shelter, etc. if they have the need. I think it means what excommunication means, that they are not entitled to the benefits of members of the body including prayer. In crude terms, they had their chance, in fact many, many chances, and they blew it. (We would not withhold prayer regarding those for whom we have reason to hope may some day join. They have not been excommunicated.) 

It is a judgment call, as excommunication always is, and we may get it wrong, but it is nevertheless a difficult duty we are instructed to perform and a frightening assessment we are called to perform. Of course, such a person, though dead to us, can be resurrected by God without our help and in spite of our failings. And we can take comfort that God will present such a person to be welcomed back to the body.

But for the love of all that is holy, the conscious decision to withhold prayer and its cousin (excommunication) are to be done ever so sparingly.         

Paul at Lystra, where there's a first time for everything

Paul’s (and Barnabas’) first missionary journey is one eventful stop after another. But the most interesting (or at least the most unique) stop may have been in Lystra in Asia Minor (modern day Turkey). Lystra is also (many speculate) the hometown of Timothy. There, in Lystra, Paul (well not really Paul, but you know what I mean) heals a lame man. This was a seriously lame man, as we see from the somewhat redundant description of his condition:

And in Lystra a certain man without strength in his feet was sitting, a cripple from his mother’s womb, who had never walked. (Acts 14:8, NKJV)

So far, so good. But things are about to go squirrely. After the miracle is observed by the natives, they expressed their marvel in their native language, which neither Paul nor Barnabas understood:

¹¹ Now when the people saw what Paul had done, they raised their voices, saying in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!” ¹² And Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. (Acts 14:11-12, NKJV)

We surmise the missionaries lack of understanding of the Lycaonian dialect by the fact that they did not object to being identified as Greek gods. 

So we have good news and we have bad news. The good news is that Paul and Barnabas started a revival! The bad news is that it was in the wrong religion. 

 Only later, when they surmised that plans were being made for an unholy and idolatrous sacrifice (to them!) did Paul and Barnabas realize what was happening, and of course they then objected strenuously:

¹⁴ But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude, crying out ¹⁵ and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them, ¹⁶ who in bygone generations allowed all nations to walk in their own ways. ¹⁷ Nevertheless He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.” ¹⁸ And with these sayings they could scarcely restrain the multitudes from sacrificing to them. (Acts 14:14-18, NKJV)

Luke refers to Paul and Barnabas as apostles in v14. A factoid: this is the only place in Acts where Luke uses that title for either of the men. 

Apart from being mistaken for human manifestations of Greek gods, what is interesting is the “sermon” Paul preaches in verses 15-17. This is Paul, the master of being all things to all people, morphing to fit his audience. On previous stops in their trek, the audience (found at synagogues) was knowledgeable about the God of Israel and Old Testament prophecy. (Even the Gentile listeners, who were typically “God Fearers”.) Not so here; this rambunctious crowd was purely pagan. In fact, this is the first time Paul preaches to a purely pagan gathering, with the only other recorded occurrence being his preaching at the Areopagus (Acts 17). 

Paul has a simple message, appropriate for a crowd of pagans, namely that they should turn from useless and dead idols to the living God, who cared for them even when they knew him not. 

And if Paul then launched into a deep academic discussion of metaphysics and epistemology, and using such philosophical tools went on to derive (through infallibe extrapolation) strict divine aseity, immutability, impeccability, and impassibility, well for some reason it was not recorded by Luke.