The player is loading ...
Sign up to get updates from us
Monday, 13 February 2023
And Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. Acts 14:12
In the previous verse, those in Lystra who had seen the miraculous healing of the crippled man had raised their voices and excl...
And Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. Acts 14:12
In the previous verse, those in Lystra who had seen the miraculous healing of the crippled man had raised their voices and exclaimed that the gods had come down to them in the likeness of men. With that remembered, it now says, “And Barnabas they called Zeus.”
The verb is imperfect and more rightly says, “And they were calling Barnabas Zeus.” They proclaimed him Zeus and kept telling everyone that came around that he was Zeus. The name translated as Zeus is found only here and in the next verse, Dzis (vs. 12) and Dzios (vs. 13). Strong’s defines the name as, “Zeus, the Greek god of the sky in all its manifestations, corresponding to the Roman Jupiter and to the leading god of the native Lycaonians.”
Along with this name for Barnabas, it next says, “and Paul, Hermes.” This name, Hermés, is found only here and in Romans 16:14 when referring to one of the congregants by that name. Strong’s defines the name as, “Hermes, the messenger and herald of the Greek gods, or rather the corresponding Lycaonian deity.” The name may come from the verb ereó, to speak or say. He would correspond to the Roman god Mercury. This name is applied to Paul “because he was the chief speaker.”
It is clear that Paul was the main orator. As this is so, these people probably thought that he spoke on behalf of Zeus as a herald might call out a proclamation while the royal figure who issued the proclamation stood by.
Those in Lystra were set in their minds that the gods had truly come among them. Giving them names only helped establish this supposed truth in their minds.
Life application: Simple logic can nail down that there is only one God. It can also tell us that this one God has a plurality within Himself. A monadic “god” would have no ability to reach out beyond himself. These things can be deduced by simply thinking through what are known as the First Principles. Take time to consider them.
They are not intended to be a tool for evangelism. The gospel is that tool. God has made the gospel extremely simple, and we will only taint the message by adding superfluities. However, it is good to be able to explain complicated matters to those who ask. And so, make yourself aware of these First Principles, consider them, and be ready to defend what is logical and orderly because God is the author of logic and everything He does is purposeful and with order.
The First Principles as outlined by Dr. Norman Geisler are as follows:
1. Being Is (B is) = The Principle of Existence 2. Being Is Being (B is B) = The Principle of Identity 3. Being Is Not Nonbeing (B is Not Non-B) = The Principle of Noncontradiction 4. Either Being or Nonbeing (Either B or Non-B) = The Principle of the Excluded Middle 5. Nonbeing Cannot Cause Being (Non-B>B) = The Principle of Causality 6. Contingent Being Cannot Cause Contingent Being (Bc>Bc) = The Principle of Contingency (or Dependency) 7. Only Necessary Being Can Cause a Contingent Being (Bn --->Bc) = The Positive Principle of Modality 8. Necessary Being Cannot Cause A Necessary Being (Bn>Bn) = The Negative Principle of Modality 9. Every Contingent Being Is Caused by a Necessary Being (Bn--->Bc) = The Principle of Existential Causality 10. Necessary Being Exists (Bn Exists) = Principle of Existential Necessity 11. Contingent Being Exists (Bc Exists) = Principle of Existential Contingency 12. Necessary Being Is Similar to Contingent Being(s) It Causes (Bn ---similar --->Bc) = Principle of Analogy
Doctor Geisler’s First Principles are either undeniable or they are reducible to the undeniable. Hence, any attempt to deny them will validate them. This is evident from an analysis of them –
1. Being Is (B is) = The Principle of Existence
To say “There is no being” is self-refuting. One must exist in order to make the claim.
To say “Being isn’t being” is self-refuting. One must be a being in order to make a claim about not being a being.
If being exists (see Principle #1), then it cannot be non-being. The principle is self-evident and undeniable.
Something cannot come from nothing (and we cannot have an infinite regress in matter or being). This is proven by Einstein in his Theory of General Relativity). The principle is undeniable.
This would lead to an infinite regress of causes which is disproved by Relativity – Time, Space, and Matter came into existence simultaneously and are dependent upon each other. The principle is undeniable.
A being that cannot Not exist must, therefore, exist if contingent beings exist. The principle is reducible to the undeniable.
The fact that there are contingent beings (I think, therefore I am, and I am not necessary) necessitates a Necessary Being. We exist, therefore a Being that cannot Not exist must exist. The principle is undeniable in and of itself.
Contingent beings exist (see next principle); therefore, a Necessary Being must exist. The principle is reducible to the undeniable.
The principle is undeniable. To say “I (a contingent being) don’t exist” is self-refuting. I do exist (Principle 1), which is self-evident.
Nothing can exist which doesn’t reflect the nature of the Necessary Being. To state something doesn’t is self-refuting. The principle is undeniable.
Based on these 12 First Principles “belief in God” is “rationally justifiable.” Further, “belief in God is rationally required.” To not believe in God, then, is both irrational and illogical. Unless these principles, which are undeniable, can be logically denied (please do so if you can!), then there are no “reasons to think that belief in God is not rational.”
Further, there are no “reasons to think [that] belief in God is not required.” In other words, belief in God is both rational and required. The reciprocal must then be true. To deny God is both irrational and illogical. It is a form of arrogance that is revealed in one who cannot face the logical, orderly, and harmonious universe in which we live, and which is clearly guided by an unseen hand. After all, ex nihlo nihil fit – out of nothing, nothing. There must have been a Being (who is God) who has brought all things into existence.
However, to bring this to the simplest and most basic of human levels for those who simply want to argue against what is self-evident, all we need to do is look at the reaction of anyone – be it a fully developed believer in “God,” or a self-purported atheist – who faces a major disaster in his life. Let us go with the death of a child. When the child is run over in front of the parent, whether in a Hollywood movie or in real life, the very first reaction from any of them is inevitably and invariably to cry out “O GOD!”
The Necessary Being of these great thinkers of the past has infused even the most depraved soul with a purposed knowledge of Himself deep in the recesses of their minds. Though we can actively shut Him out most of the time, when we face our most primal moments, we turn back to Him for an answer to the horror which we have faced, thus demonstrating that we do, in fact, find Him both rational and required in a world of confusion and chaos.
Lord God, help us to think rationally about You and what You have done. Our emotions should not be a basis for our faith in You, but a result of it. They should also not drive our theology, but they should result from it, exclaiming, “How great You are, O God, for what You have done for us. Thank You, O God, for Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
