IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?
If so please EMail us with your question and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer.EMailus. (But preferably not from aol.com, for some reason they do not deliver our messages).
FREE Scholarly verse by verse commentaries on the Bible.
THE PENTATEUCH --- GENESIS ---EXODUS--- LEVITICUS --- NUMBERS --- DEUTERONOMY --- THE BOOK OF JOSHUA --- THE BOOK OF JUDGES --- SAMUEL --- KINGS --- PSALMS 1-50--- ECCLESIASTES--- SONG OF SOLOMON --- ISAIAH --- JEREMIAH --- EZEKIEL --- DANIEL --- --- HOSEA --- --- JOEL ------ AMOS --- --- OBADIAH --- --- JONAH --- --- MICAH --- --- NAHUM --- --- HABAKKUK--- --- ZEPHANIAH --- --- HAGGAI --- ZECHARIAH --- --- MALACHI --- THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ---THE GOSPEL OF MARK--- THE GOSPEL OF LUKE --- THE GOSPEL OF JOHN --- THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES --- READINGS IN ROMANS --- 1 CORINTHIANS --- 2 CORINTHIANS ---GALATIANS --- EPHESIANS--- PHILIPPIANS --- COLOSSIANS --- 1 THESSALONIANS --- 2 THESSALONIANS --- 1 TIMOTHY --- 2 TIMOTHY --- TITUS --- HEBREWS --- JAMES --- 1 & 2 PETER --- JOHN'S LETTERS --- JUDE --- REVELATION --- THE GOSPELS & ACTS
By Dr Peter Pett BA BD (Hons-London) DD
Introduction.
The Book of Acts is the second volume of a two part work of which the first volume is the Gospel of Luke. Both books are based on the same general plan. His claim is to ‘have traced all things accurately from the first’ (Luke 1.3) and to be concerned that his sources were both eyewitnesses and Christian leaders (Luke 1.2). This does indicate a determination to arrive at the facts, even though admittedly from a Christian point of view. He is not therefore to be looked on as someone who just writes about things without taking the trouble to check his sources.
Can We Have Confidence In Luke’s Accuracy?
The first point that we do need to note is that Luke does claim to have taken great care to ensure the accuracy of the facts on which he based his history. He wanted it known that what he wrote was on the basis of carefully researched facts, and that he did so because so much had been written and he felt that it was necessary to sift what was true from what was not (Luke 1.1-4). If we are to be fair to him this is something that we must not overlook. We must accept that either he was a barefaced liar, or he did take great trouble to sift fact from fiction.
Furthermore, contributing to our confidence in what he wrote is the undoubted fact that the writer has been shown to be historically accurate in his use of terms. He clearly knew his way about the Roman Empire. He knew that a proconsul was in charge of Cyprus at the time when Paul was there. He knew that the officials at Philippi were called strategoi. At Thessalonika he correctly refers to the politarchs. At Malta the chief man is correctly referred to as the primus. While at Ephesus he rightly calls the controllers of religious affairs Asiarchs. All these diverse titles have been confirmed archaeologically. Thus we know that he was always precise and accurate in his use of such titles in a world which was by no means straightforward. He has proved himself to be very competent, at least in this regard.
We also know that he reveals a good knowledge of Roman law and medical practise, and that his familiarity with geographical, political and territorial details in the areas of which he speaks is clear and verifiable. In the light of the complicated world of that day, all this can only be looked on as evidence that the writer gave careful consideration to the facts and knew what he was talking about. We are thus able to conclude that he was not just a hearer of stories. He was someone who looked carefully into what he wrote about.
Is There A General Consensus About the Book?
We do not intend to go into detail on many of the controversies which have been fought over the book, for many of them merely arise from the disparity between the kinds of people who have studied the book. As we might expect of a book which is so important, (it is the only record of early church history that we have), views about it are many and varied, and are the result of the thinking of atheists, deists, rationalists, and people of other religions, as well as of Christians. And they have regularly each interpreted in the light of their own ideas. They have tended to see in it what they wanted to see. Their interpretations are thus regularly the result of the viewpoint of the writer rather than something that was demanded by the text of the book itself.
And having been tackled from so many differing viewpoints the fact that there is no consensus demonstrates that this is so, that many of the differences arise precisely because of the differing viewpoints, rather than because they are intrinsic in the text. For we can certainly safely say that scholars are no nearer to coming to a consensus about it now than they have ever been. This serves to confirm that there is in fact no straightforward answer to the questions that have been asked, and that while the solutions might appear obvious to each interpreter, they are not such as can produce a general consensus, demonstrating that they depend on particular viewpoints rather than on the demands of the text.
This wide diversity of opinions thus demonstrates the general uncertainty and unreliability of the theories that have been raised, rather than uncertainty about the text itself, and should rather make us recognise that if we do wish to grasp the truth about them we will do it best by giving consideration to the text itself rather than by following one or other of the theories, which have simply been shown to be what they are, unproveable theories.
What is good about the theories is that they have made us think more deeply about the text itself, and given us new lines along which to think. Indeed the book is considered so important that its language has been analysed in detail over and over again, its sources have been discussed continually, its historical accuracy has been thoroughly questioned, carefully examined, and then reinstated by competent scholars, and the resultant fact is that while any number of positions have been fought for by people of many beliefs and no beliefs, it still stands firm today in the eyes of many competent scholars as an accurate record of those early days and of what the significance of those events was. No other books in the world have been subjected to such detailed examination as the books of the Bible. But what tend in the end to be put aside are not the books themselves, which still continue to stand firm, but rather all the theories that have been invented about them. Even today, after two hundred years or more of careful scrutiny by some of the most brilliant minds in the world, they are still not fully understood, and there is no consensus of opinion about them. Some people once thought that they were getting there, but they have been proved wrong. No real evidence has been produced showing them to be other than what they claim to be.
Applying this to Acts we can safely say that no one position has been demonstrated to be the most likely to be true from a totally objective point of view in such a way that it commands majority support. The disagreements thus do not arise out of the book itself, but rather out of the viewpoint taken in its interpretation. All would agree that its first half is in some way affected by Aramaic Greek, but views about its literary nature still contradict each other. There is no consensus on why this is. Thoughts about its sources are varied. Yet all suggestions about such are to be seen as open to doubt, because someone equally competent is unconvinced and will come up with a different suggestion. All we can probably safely say is that it is not a virgin piece of literature but did have some sources, which of course Luke stated from the very beginning.
The one who is looking for contradictions and does not look below the surface will, of course, find them. That is inevitable with any piece of literature. But then he will find that other scholars of equal calibre do not consider that they are contradictions. Indeed much of such controversy has been very much dependent on, (as so much controversy is), the particular prejudices of the particular interpreter (and we all have them). To some extent each finds what he is looking for, which suggests that the book itself is not so amenable to our theories as we would like. And thus our best way of deciding the issue for ourselves is by taking into account the best of what has been said, and then looking at the book itself and coming to our own conclusion with regard to it, having especially a regard, on careful study, to its quality, and its moral and spiritual impact, and giving recognition to the fact that there are able scholars today who still do accept it as a true record of what did happen. There has not been sufficient evidence to convince them otherwise.
One thing certainly stands out, and that is that after over a century and more of detailed study by scholars of all backgrounds, no certain grounds have been discovered for rejecting its historical truth. Indeed the opposite is the case. The gradual accretion of knowledge has served more to demonstrate its overall accuracy, and to give us confidence in the fact that it can be relied on, than otherwise. No one has been able to clearly demonstrate that for all practical purposes it is fictitious. In so far as it can be tested it has been shown to stand securely against the background of its day.
We must accept, of course, that its truth is declared from a Christian viewpoint. No one would doubt that this is the case. Nor as Christians would we want it any other way. We do not want just a potted history. We want to know positively from the inspired writer what the facts reveal about Jesus Christ and about the Christian message. And that was after all why Luke was writing a history. He was presenting a case and seeking to get over more than just facts. He was, under the guidance of the same Holy Spirit of Whom he writes, selecting and interpreting those facts. This last is something all historians do. And Luke was both a historian and a theologian, which was a necessity for the kind of books he wrote. But that is a very different thing from saying that he invented the facts, which the evidence suggests that he did not do.
In fact the truth about all history is that very little of it is objective. In the main what we need to recognise is that once we get beyond a few basic facts, the existence of objective history is a myth. History as we know it today is actually based on ideas and opinions which interpret relatively few facts, and even these regularly depend on the objectivity of their source. Some see Sir Francis Drake as a noble patriot who saved England, others as a self-seeking pirate who nearly sacrificed England’s safety for the sake of booty. Depending on your viewpoint will be how you see the facts. For in the end most of history is an interpretation of facts.
For the fact of the matter is that different people see everything that happens, however small, in different lights. No one can fully isolate himself from his own environment, his own background and his own point of view. What to one will be important will be dismissed by another. Thus most interpretation of history depends on viewpoints and outlooks, and while some few do seek as best as they can to isolate themselves from these influences, they are not very many, and even they are relatively unsuccessful, the reason being that to do so completely is totally impossible. Each person necessarily approaches facts from the point of view of his own prejudices. The one who believes that miracles cannot happen will interpret accordingly, whatever the facts are. To such people, whatever the evidence may be, the assumption will always be that the miracle cannot have happened and that an alternative explanation must therefore be found. The one who does not believe in a God Who acts, will interpret accordingly. From their viewpoint nothing can be an act of God. No sceptic, even having been given all the facts, could possibly have written the book of Acts, or could even have appreciated the issues involved. But that does not mean that Luke was historically inaccurate, only that he presented the facts from the point of view of one who did believe in miracles because he had seen them happen, and did believe in a God Who acts. That does not mean that he distorted the facts, or simply accepted things through prejudice. It simply determined how he interpreted the facts that he discovered.
For Luke’s aim was to get over Who Jesus is and what He had come to do, and how the message about him was spread abroad from Jerusalem to Rome. He makes no secret of it. He makes it absolutely clear from the beginning. But if we wish to treat him fairly we must also recognise that he actually claims that he does so after a careful researching of the facts. He claims quite strongly that for this reason he did research the facts carefully (see Luke 1.1-4). Unless we are going to say that he was just being dishonest, we must necessarily take this into account in studying the book. We may disagree with his interpretation, but in view of his general proven historical accuracy, we must be careful before we dismiss the facts he states.
Of course he was influenced by the fact that he believed in a God Who acts, and believed in miracles. No one would deny that. But nor can we doubt that he also genuinely wanted to ensure that he only spoke the truth, and basically claimed with regard to that, that he did not just invent things in order to get over his message. We may accept that his facts were right, or we may claim that they were wrong, but we have no genuine reason for doubting that he had looked into them very carefully and had concluded that they really were facts. Certainly his interpretation of them was Christian. And equally certainly a non-Christian Pharisee or Sadducee would each have interpreted the facts very differently, both from Luke and from each other. But the underlying facts stand firm. All, for example, saw the miracles, (no one claimed that they did not apparently happen) but each interpreted them from his own viewpoint. Indeed in chapters 3 & 4 we have a clear example of how different people knew the facts and interpreted them in different ways. In those chapters all admitted the facts, but each interpreted them in different ways because of their own background beliefs. And Paul certainly interpreted the facts very differently after he had been converted from how he did prior to being converted.
Thus all we can ask of Luke is that he was careful about the facts, genuinely sought to obtain his information from eyewitnesses, and did not try to make everything fit in with his own presuppositions. And it is our view that he has demonstrated that he did accomplish all three of these aims.
The Spirit’s Work In Luke and Acts.
The first thing that we must draw attention to about both his books (Luke and Acts) is that they each commence with a great emphasis on the new work of the Spirit which was taking place in the days of which they write, which was then mainly assumed as going on in the remainder of each book, with but an occasional reminder necessary to confirm it. And while the happenings at Pentecost in Acts 2 in one sense open up a new era, they are seen as by no means the beginning of the work of the Spirit. The emphasis is rather on a second surge of the Spirit, following on the one which was the mainspring of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ.
The beginning of Luke’s Gospel laid great emphasis on the work of the Spirit. John the Baptiser was described as "filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb" (Luke 1.15). The word for ‘filled’ is pimplemi which always refers to a special gift for a particular occasion or ministry. In other words John was prepared from birth to be the instrument of God's sovereign work. He would walk "in the spirit and power of Elijah" (Luke 1.17). But he would do no miracles (John 10.41), the Spirit’s power is revealed in the success of his preaching. Notice in the prophecy of John's birth the contrast between strong drink and the Holy Spirit (Luke 1.15). Paul the Apostle also points out that the man who would be filled by the Spirit must avoid excess of wine (Ephesians 5.18).
The power within John as a result of the permanent fullness of the Spirit will be all the stimulation that he needs, and will enable him to "turn many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God" so as to prepare a people for the Lord's coming (Luke 1.14-17). As he grows the 'hand of the Lord' is 'with him' (Luke 1.66; compare Psalm 89.21, Acts 11.21). This would remind Luke's readers of Elijah (1 Kings 18.46) and Ezekiel (1.3 and often), although the preposition here is different signifying a more permanent and less emphatic experience.
It was not, however, only on John that the Spirit was depicted as coming. Luke seems at pains in his first chapters to stress the new activity of the Spirit. The coming age, the age of the Spirit, is seen as dawning. Elizabeth (Luke 1.41) and Zechariah (1.67), his mother and father, are also "filled (pimplemi) with Holy Spirit" and prophesy, while Simeon, an aged servant of God, is described as having Holy Spirit 'upon him' (Luke 2.25). Indeed the Spirit has revealed to Simeon that he will not die until he has seen the coming king (2.26), and when the baby Jesus is taken to the Temple in accordance with God's law, Simeon is 'inspired by the Spirit' to go there. It is stressed that he is righteous and devout, and looking for ‘the consolation of Israel’ (2.25), as are Elizabeth and Zechariah (1.6) and a number of others in Jerusalem (1.38), including a godly prophetess (1.36-37).
Being "filled with the Holy Spirit" is seen to be a temporary experience for Elizabeth and Zechariah, enabling them to prophesy the once, while it is a permanent experience for John, the specially chosen instrument of God's purpose. The fact that he is filled with the Spirit from birth demonstrates that in him God had begun the new work of the Spirit by a Sovereign act. The phrase "filled (Gk. pimplemi) with Holy Spirit" is clearly synonymous with the phrase "the Spirit of the Lord came upon --" in the Old Testament (e.g. in Judges). There also it could be temporary or permanent, and was for those chosen out for special service, or for a special prophetic word.
This phrase is used in Acts in a similar way, thus identifying the experiences of Acts with those of the past. In this regard we must distinguish “being filled (pimplemi) with the Holy Spirit” (2.4; 4.8; 4.31; 13.9), which is limited to certain people, is always for some only, for a specific purpose, and very often occurs in a particular circumstance, and is mainly with rare exceptions temporary, and “being filled (pleroo) (13.52) and therefore full (pleres) (6.3, 5; 7.55; 11.24) of the Holy Spirit” which is a more general and continuing experience, is for all, and which produces general spiritual benefit, the latter being in mind in Ephesians 5.18.
When Jesus is to be born Mary is told, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you. And the power of the Most High will overshadow you, Therefore the child who is to be born will be called holy, The Son of God.” (Luke 1.35). Thus it was through the Holy Spirit’s activity that Jesus came into the world.
John begins his preparatory ministry with great success. People flock to him from Jerusalem, Judaea and Galilee and he calls them to change their ways in readiness for one who will come. He makes it clear that he is only the preparer of the way. He has come to call men to turn from sin, and, as a sign of a changed heart and mind, to be baptised (drenched) in water for the forgiveness of sins, but with the promise that the Greater One who is coming “will baptise (drench) you with Holy Spirit and with fire.” (Luke 3.16 compare Matthew 3.11). The thought here is of comparison with the lifegiving rain and the fires of purification and judgment, two Old Testament themes. This will produce the harvest of wheat to be gathered in, while the fire will burn up the useless chaff (Luke 3.17). But he stresses that he is preparing for the coming of Jesus Who will drench men in the Holy Spirit. That is what his baptism pointed to.
When Jesus goes down into the water to be baptised, as He comes out “the Holy Spirit comes down on him in a bodily shape like a dove” (Luke 3.22 compare Matthew 3.16; Mark 1.10). At the same time a voice from Heaven says, “You are My son, My beloved, in whom I am well pleased.” This immediately links Jesus with the kings of Israel who were crowned with the words, “You are my son --” (Psalm 2.7), along with the promise of eventual worldwide rule. Thus He is depicted as the king who is coming, upon whom will rest the Spirit of the Lord (Isaiah 11.2) resulting in wisdom and understanding. The final part of the sentence links with Isaiah 42.1, the promise of a coming Servant of God who will have God’s Spirit upon him and proclaim God’s justice to the nations of the world. (The final destiny of this Servant is found in Isaiah 53). So Jesus is seen as both King and Servant and endued with the Spirit of God.
Jesus returns from the Jordan ‘full (pleres) of the Holy Spirit’ (Luke 4.1), something which will carry Him through His ministry, and it is by the Holy Spirit that He is led into the wilderness (Luke 4.1) to face up to the temptations of Satan and the significance of His ministry. He begins His ministry in the power of the Spirit (Luke 4.14) and immediately proclaims Himself to be the prophet on whom the Spirit of the Lord rests as promised in Isaiah 61.1-2 (Luke 4.18-20). He declares, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because He has anointed me to proclaim the good news to the poor. He has sent me to heal the broken hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are bruised and to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”. This idea of the anointing of the Spirit also appears in Acts 4.27; 10.38. Luke then brings out how exactly Jesus is carrying out this ministry of the great prophet. He teaches the people with authority (4.32), He releases the captives of the demons (4.33-36), He delivers those oppressed with diseases (4.38-40) and He proclaims the good news of the Kingly Rule of God (4.43 compare Matthew 11.4-6).
It is made quite clear then that His ministry is to be in the power of the Holy Spirit. But having abundantly and quite clearly established that the new work of the Spirit is taking place in a number of ways Luke now almost ceases to mention Him. The reason for this can only be that having established the source of the power in Jesus’ ministry, He wants all attention now to be turned on Jesus. Thus he wants us to recognise that the Spirit’s work in the background is of a continuing nature while at the same time putting the focus on Jesus Himself, the One Who fully manifests the Spirit. John’s Gospel in fact makes clear the continual nature of the Spirit’s work throughout (John 3.1-11; 4.1-26 based on the fact that God is Spirit; 6.63; 7.37-39). Luke, however presents things differently. In Luke Jesus does later rejoice over the fact that God has revealed His truths to the lowly, He does describe Him as rejoicing “in Spirit” (Luke 10.21), and we are probably justified in seeing here the idea of the joy-giving work of the Spirit (Ephesians 5.18-19). Luke also tells us that He promises his disciples that when they are dragged before accusing judges the Holy Spirit will teach them what to say (Luke 12.12; compare Matthew 10.20), and this must in context be seen as including while Jesus Christ was on earth. The Spirit is thus seen still to be there and active, but on the whole he is unquestionably kept in the background by Luke from chapter 5 onwards.
That it is probably fair to say that there is in Luke’s Gospel from chapter 5 onwards a studied absence of mention of the Holy Spirit, comes out in that he deliberately translated the Aramaic as ‘the finger of God’ (Luke 11.20) where Matthew uses ‘the Spirit of God’ (Matthew 12.28) and even more emphatic is the fact that while pointing to the coming pouring out of power from above during Jesus’ resurrection appearances he seems specifically and deliberately to refrain from mentioning the Holy Spirit (Luke 24.49). In vies of Acts 1 this can surely not be accidental. It would seem to us that the reason for this is twofold. Firstly, it is in order, once having established the new working of the Spirit, to concentrate the attention on Jesus, and secondly it is in order to allow for the greater impact on the reader of the second great work of the Spirit in Acts when it occurs as a new climactic event (so much so that popular opinion often sees Acts as when the Spirit commenced His work).
Acts can overall be said to follow a similar pattern. Like Luke it commences by emphasising the drenching of the Holy Spirit connected with John the Baptiser’s ministry (1.5) and stresses that it will occur through Jesus’ ministry, and he emphasises that the Holy Spirit spoke through Jesus’ ministry (1.2) and explains that the power from on high mentioned previously in the Gospel (Luke 24.49) will be because the Holy Spirit comes on them (1.8). And he then goes on to speak of an epoch-making experience of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 followed by abundant reference to the Spirit over a number of chapters (44 times in the first thirteen chapters). This then becomes less in the middle chapters (12 times in chapters 14-21) and after that there is no further reference to the Holy Spirit until we arrive in chapter 28, and there the reference is simply to the Holy Spirit as speaking through the Scriptures. Furthermore the Spirit parallels Jesus’ ministry in teaching the people with authority (1.8; 2.4; 4.8, 31-33; 5.32 etc), releasing the captives of evil spirits (8.7; 16.18; 19.12), delivering those oppressed with diseases (3.1-11; 6.5-8; 19.12) and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom (8.12; 14.22; 19.8; 20.25; 28.23). The prophetic ministry of Jesus is thus clearly being carried on in the power of the Spirit. The Servant’s work continues (13.47).
We have seen what the reason for the silence was in Luke, but what could be the reason for it in the final part of Acts? It will in fact be at once apparent that mention of the Holy Spirit ceases when Paul is taken prisoner for the last time, so that the remaining chapters deal with his captivity. From then on the Spirit is not mentioned. Yet it is in these very circumstances of appearing before kings and governors that we would expect mention of the Holy Spirit, for Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would speak through His disciples when called before judges (Luke 12.12). Thus we could argue that while Luke has made it clear that the Holy Spirit would be at work through Paul at this time (Luke 12.12 compare Acts 4.8), as he would be through all persecuted disciples, he is, like he did in his Gospel, deliberately not mentioning Him in this context. It is only when he is established in Rome that the Holy Spirit is again mentioned so at to make clear that the word going forth comes from the Spirit.
This would seem to suggest that He wants us to concentrate on the work of the Holy Spirit as being that of carrying forward the movement from Jerusalem to Rome, with a kind of hiatus occurring once Paul has been arrested. It is as though Luke sees Paul’s arrest as having somehow interfered with that process. It is not that he doubts that Paul’s arrest is within God’s purposes, only that he sees it as an indication of an interruption in the forward flow of the preaching of the Gospel.
It is true that the Holy Spirit does aid Peter in his defence in 4.8, and that that is not directly indicating the forward movement of the Holy Spirit, but in view of what results it undoubtedly became so. So that even this may be seen as part of the forward surge and witness. On the other hand it may be that he wants us to see that Paul’s final journey to Rome, while being in God’s purposes (23.11), was not a matter of being borne along by the Holy Spirit but of being borne along by the hand of Rome, something which God would certainly finally turn to His own account, but of which Luke wanted to express his disapproval. He is saying that for a while men appeared to have taken over control. And while in the end he makes it clear that it was all in God’s hands, and results in the accomplishment of God’s final purpose to bring Paul from Jerusalem to Rome (23.11), where again the Holy Spirit is mentioned (28.25), his non-mention of the Holy Spirit surely expresses his disapproval of what Rome has done without actually saying so. He wants us to recognise that for a time both the Jews and Rome had interfered in the purposes of God, while at the same time letting us know how God used it in his purposes. For it did not prevent God’s work continuing. Witness was made to governors and kings, people were converted. There was thus still evidence of God’s power. But he wants us to see that in general it comes under God’s disapproval.
This may therefore suggest that we are called on to recognise the distinction between the forward movement of the Spirit throughout the world of that day, and the stark reality of Paul having to face his accusers and captors, prior to his arrival in Rome (where the Holy Spirit is again mentioned) which is seen as not on the whole of the Spirit. In these circumstances he needed no special guidance as to the direction of his ministry, nor to be driven forward, for his movements were not in his hands (the help of the Holy Spirit when before governors being assumed). He is making the point that, in the same way as Jesus was, in his final days, Paul was being led about by others, and that on the whole he utilised no special powers (with the exception of Publius’ father (28.8) and his promise of safe arrival on land during the shipwreck (27.22)) apart from in his testimony.
We may compare this part of his life with the last days of Jesus, when Satan was active (26.18) in doing all that he could to destroy him. But he makes clear that both Jesus and Paul triumphed in the end. God was in the experiences of both. We may also note that after the journey to Jerusalem in Luke his enemies were thwarted by the resurrection, while after Paul’s journey to Rome they were thwarted by his being able to live in his own house and declare the Kingly Rule of God to both Jews and Gentiles.
So while revealing the work of the Holy Spirit must be seen as one of Luke’s main purposes in Acts it cannot be seen as the one central one, otherwise He would have been mentioned in these final chapters in places where mention of Him might be expected
The Language of Luke and Acts.
Interestingly the same general picture of a change between two part of each book also applies to the language of both books, but with the split being very different. Speaking generally, in Luke’s Gospel the first three chapters are suffused with Aramaic Greek, followed by the remainder in more general Greek. In Acts the first fifteen chapters can be said to give strong suggestions of Aramaic Greek while the remainder may again be said to be in more general Greek. To some extent this may well be seen as due to sources, whether written or oral, (for parts of Acts 1-15 would mainly tend to come from witnesses who used Aramaic Greek, as would Luke 1-3), and to the use of the Septuagint and other Greek texts for the benefit of his readers (for both include much quotation). This would then suggest the careful way in which Luke did not alter his sources overmuch, while considering his readers. But that could be said to be equally true of the whole of Luke’s Gospel, and yet that did not prevent Luke from putting it in more general Greek. It must be seen therefore as quite probable that Luke wanted chapters 1-3 to reflect the Old Testament prior to the commencement of Jesus’ ministry, while feeling more at home in general Greek, and that he wanted parts of Acts 1-15 to reflect the mainly Jewish Christian background of that section of Acts, changing to more general Greek in Acts 16 onwards once the Jew-Gentile Christian conflict was officially resolved. It suggests that he was no mean author. He wanted us to recognise the source from which the church sprang, while at the same time emphasising that it eventually became universal.
Luke’s Aim In Producing Acts.
Apart from wanting to report on the doings of the early church, and the advance of the Spirit, we may ask, what were Luke’s purposes in writing Acts? While we must not reduce Luke’s purpose to only one specific aim, for he was not so limited, there would certainly seem to be good grounds for seeing one main aim as being expressed in the words of the risen Jesus in 1.8, “But you shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come on you: and you shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and to the uttermost part of the earth.” He wanted the world to know that Jesus’ words and God’s purposes were being fulfilled. For there is no question but that the book of Acts does portray the witness about Jesus Christ being proclaimed in Jerusalem (1-7), moving to ‘Judaea and Samaria’ (8.1), with the ministry to Samaria then being overseen by Apostles (8.14-25), and finally going out into the Roman world, first through Peter with Cornelius (10-11), then with Paul’s missionary journeys (13-21), then before kings and governors (21-27) and finally with the presence of an Apostle in Rome, dwelling there and proclaiming the Kingly Rule of God (28.31). And this is confirmed by 23.11, ‘as you have borne witness concerning me at Jerusalem, so must you bear witness also at Rome’. Testimony is given at the centre of the Jewish world, and then at the centre of the Gentile world, and he wants us to see that the movement from the one to the other was with the approval of God. Indeed it is made clear that it was God Who made absolutely sure that Paul arrived in Rome.
We can compare here how in Luke the author laid great emphasis on the journey to Jerusalem. It was there that God would manifest His glory and provide the springboard for the future. In Acts the concentration is on movement from Jerusalem towards Rome, not in order to glorify Rome, but because Rome was the hub of the world, and while it must be recognised that the information given about the Samaritan ministry fits in badly with other aims, it does not with this one.
Furthermore the book makes clear that all this was due to the sovereign power of God. It is seen not to be a humanly planned scenario but almost forced on men by the power of God. Necessity forced the appointment of the Hellenistic Jews as deacons, one of whom began to preach to the Samaritans. Persecution drove the Christians out of Jerusalem, when they were settling down snugly to form their own Utopia. The angel of the Lord forcibly directed Philip to the Ethiopian eunuch. Paul was converted by the direct and unexpected appearance of Jesus to him. Two visions were responsible for Peter being called to meet Cornelius. The Holy Spirit called on the Antioch church to send out Barnabas and Paul. A vision of a man from Macedonia called Paul over to Macedonia. Circumstances beyond his control, then stated to be of God (23.11), sent Paul to proclaim the Gospel before kings and governors, and then finally in Rome. It was all to be seen as of God.
Another parallel aim, although very similar, was equally certainly in order to portray that the proclamation of the new Kingly rule of God began with Jesus Christ, continued with the Apostolic ministry, with the first outreach being by the Jewish Christian Apostles to Jews, including the Jews of the Dispersion (Acts 2). Then under Jewish Christian Apostolic authority the witness is seen as expanding to Samaritans, and then finally to Gentiles, at which point the important decision was reached that those who united with the new Israel did not need to be circumcised or keep the ritual law. The proclamation of the Good News then expanded outwards among Gentiles until it was being successfully proclaimed by an Apostle in Rome on a continual basis. The Kingly Rule of God was being established in Rome.
Alongside this was emphasised the fact that to begin with in every city the ministry was to Jews first, which was a sensible procedure as it was in the synagogues that Jews could be found whose background had prepared them for the message, and there also God-fearers could be found, Gentiles who had been attracted by the monotheism and morality of the Jewish teachings but had not become proselytes, who were ripe for the Christian message of the fulfilment of Old Testament teaching in Jesus but without the need for circumcision. But eventually the Jews disqualified themselves from special treatment by their behaviour, so that the Gospel became more freely available on equal terms to all. The old Israel having been given its opportunity the new Israel became separated from the old, although firmly founded on the Jewish Apostles (Ephesians 2.11-22) and in the end was freed from its grip. Thus is emphasised Paul’s injunction, ‘to the Jew first and also to the Greek’ (Romans 1.16).
This in fact paralleled the ministry of Jesus which was first for the Jews (Matthew 10.5-6; 15.24), but then after the incident of the Syrophoenician woman (Matthew 15.21-28; Mark 7.24-30) began to also include on its periphery Gentiles, although strangely enough this is stressed in Matthew and Mark rather than in Luke.
A third subsidiary aim would appear to have been in order to vindicate the Apostleship of Paul, that is to say, to demonstrate that Peter and Paul operated on equal terms and that Paul was approved by the Apostolate, for the first part of Acts largely centres on Peter, with Paul then taking over the centre stage with the approval of the Apostles, and parallels are clearly drawn in order to demonstrate that Peter and Paul performed the same ministry. But Acts cannot rightly be described as a life of Peter and Paul, for Peter drops from view after the Jerusalem Council. And while it is Peter who first goes as an Apostle to Judaea, Samaria and then to the Gentiles, it is Paul who goes extensively among the Gentiles, and finally goes as an Apostle to Rome.
Examples of parallels demonstrating their equal effectiveness are as follows:
The list appears to be impressive. On the whole, however, most of the above are what might be expected from men gifted and chosen as they were, operating in the circumstances of the day, and we should note the differences. And we should also note that he has not, for example, introduced in the case of Peter, as compared with Paul, a stoning (14.19), or threats against life (9.23-29; 14.5), or an exorcism (16.16-18), or in the case of Paul, as compared with Peter, that the Holy Spirit aided his defence against rulers (contrast 4.8) even though in the latter case he could have. Thus we must recognise that while he probably does select from the facts, he does not invent them or alter them in order to achieve his purpose.
Similarly, in respect of Paul, we should note that many of the items enumerated in 2 Corinthians 11.23-27; 12.12 are omitted. This last may be explained, at least in part, by the supposition that the writer had no definite knowledge about them. It would seem that he has, in fact, confined himself to matters genuinely preserved by tradition of which he was made aware by witnesses, and has not invented events or spoken by general hearsay. He has merely made a selection of what he did receive and put them into reasonable shape. But it also suggests that he was not interested in writing a complete life of Paul. What he was more interested in was the advance of the Gospel and the revelation of the power of God, first through Peter and then through Paul, until Apostolic ministry was established in Rome.
A fourth subsidiary aim was clearly in order to demonstrate that, while the unbelieving Jews were antagonistic to the church, and sought to bring it into disrepute, which explained why there were so many seemingly questionable incidents, (although this did not apply to all), the Roman authorities continually looked with favour on the church, rejected accusations against it and made its decisions in its favour, looking on it with general approval.
For example, in the third Gospel we have already found Pilate, a Roman governor, declaring that he found no fault in Jesus, a judgment confirmed by Herod, a Roman appointee, who in the other Gospels is not mentioned at all in connection with the examination of Jesus. Pilate then declares three times that he will release Jesus, and is prevailed on to pass adverse sentence only by the insistence of the Jews (Luke 23 1-25). In Acts, which has even been regarded by some as an apology for Christianity intended to be laid before Gentiles in Paul’s defence, or as a general defence of Christianity before the authorities, the first converts of Peter and Paul are Roman officers (10.1;13.7), while it is the civil authorities who continually and definitely declare Paul not to be a political criminal in spite of the insistence of the Jews (18.14f: 19.37; 23.29; 25.18ff; 26.31ff) ; it is also by them that he is protected, in more than one instance, from conspiracies (18. 12-17; 19.31; 21.31-36; 23.10, 22-33; 25 2-4), and it is made quite clear that he was welcome in Rome and was allowed to preach from his own home without being forbidden. The strong and continual emphasis on these latter instances certainly confirms that one aim of Acts is to clear Christianity of any charge of subversion made against it, and to demonstrate that it was a religio licita, an officially approved religion. But it can only be seen as one aim among many. For the large amount of material that does not contribute to this aim, and is clearly irrelevant to it, prevents us from seeing it as its main purpose.
A fifth aim, emphasised by the extent to which he introduces the teaching of others, was clearly to bring home the message of these preachers to his readers. People wanted to know what Jesus had taught, and what the Apostles had taught. So, from his wide knowledge of this, Luke wanted to pass on to them what he knew and what he had learned. He was aware that the church were more interested in the words of Jesus and the Apostles than in what he thought, and humble enough to provide what they wanted (see Speeches in Acts below).
A sixth subsidiary aim, although an extremely important one underlying the whole purpose of Acts so that it might even be seen as a main purpose, was in order to illustrate how people of all kinds personally came to Christ and found salvation through His name, and how testimony to Christ, with full details of what that testimony was, was given before men of all traditions and status. This was indeed at the heart of all that was happening. But in the end what was really of the deepest significance was undoubtedly the fact that the Gospel moved from Jerusalem to Rome under the auspices of God’s duly appointed Apostles.
The Sources of Acts.
It is clear that Luke must have gathered the information in the first part of Acts from people who were present at what happened. He had good connections with such people including among others both Mark and Philip the deacon, who had both been involved with the church from the beginning. And he would meet many others as he travelled around. He knew most of the companions of Paul at one time or another, would have met Peter, and as his set purpose was to write an accurate history, he would have taken the opportunities presented by his travels to discover and confirm all his facts (Luke 1.3).
Especially significant in Acts are the passages where the writer uses ‘we’, which on any reasonable interpretation suggests that the author was actually present at those times. These are found in 16.10-18; 20.5-16; 21.1-18; 27.1-28.16. Additional to these might be passages where ‘we’ would not have been expected because of the content of the passage.
So overall there is no really good reason to doubt that Luke was able to obtain accurate information from eyewitnesses for most of what he wrote, and was of course able to call on Paul for other information unobtainable elsewhere. Thus there are no real grounds for questioning the historical accuracy of the narrative.
Why Is There So Little Indication In Acts Of The Controversies So Prominent In Paul’s Letters?
The reason that there is so little reference to controversies which early on affected the Christian church is to be found in the purpose of the book. It was intended to reveal the forward movement of the Gospel against all opposition, rather than to look at the controversies of the church arising from the original Jewishness of the church (although some indication of them is certainly given), for the latter would only have sidetracked the reader from the main aim. The point is being made that the church triumphed as one and that therefore the controversies were of little importance. What mattered was the continual advance and establishment of the Gospel, and the fact that a solution to the controversies was agree on by the principle leaders of the church.
Why Did Luke End The Book Where He Did?
The most obvious solution to this question would be that the point at which he ended was about the time at which Luke ended his writings. For if the book was written after the stoning of James the Lord’s brother in Jerusalem had become generally known, or after persecution of Christians by Nero, or after Paul himself had been executed, or after the fall of Jerusalem, it might be thought hard to understand why none of these were at least mentioned.
He had after all mentioned the martyrdom of James the Apostle (12.2), why not then that of James the Lord’s brother at the hands of the Jews? Furthermore Nero’s acts were despised by the people of Rome who suspected him of duplicity, and might therefore even have obtained sympathy for Christians, and would probably not have been counted against them, while Paul’s martyrdom could have been a genuine comfort and strength to Christians in the face of their difficulties. And reference to the destruction of Jerusalem would have had a great impact in releasing Christianity from its original Jewish ties, as it certainly did for the Jerusalem church that fled to Pella, and would have indicated God’s wrath against the Jews. Furthermore it must have been quite apparent, had Acts been written later, that anyone interested would know about the Neronic persecution and could soon check and discover what had happened to Paul, so that there was no point in pretending that they had not happened. Indeed such a book, ending like it does, might well have raised questions and resulted in an interest in the carrying out of such investigations. We might ask, if it was written later why does Luke not end with Paul in a place not quite open to such suspicion?
But having said this it is always dangerous to suggest that an author must include certain things, just because it seems sensible to us. Possibly rather we need to review our ideas of what the book is aiming at. One possible explanation, apart from that which sees this as determining the date of the writing of the book, is that the writer had a particular aim in view, and that that aim might have been to demonstrate how the work of the early church had resulted in the establishment of the Kingly Rule of God in Rome along with a fruitful authoritative Apostolic ministry, which would have been seen by many in the early church as the ultimate of blessing and triumph. It may be that he did not want anything to draw attention away from that. Thus he might have considered that any further information would have detracted from that message, that being the punch line at which he had been aiming. He might simply have in effect been saying, the next step will be the culmination in Heaven itself.
Indeed he might well have intended comparison with the way that Luke’s Gospel had ended with the final work of Christ, something which had resulted from the activity of His enemies, and which had resulted in His resurrection triumph which all knew was a huge blessing. A parallel may therefore have been intended between Jesus’ glorification in Heaven to the right hand of God as King, and Paul’s exaltation on earth by God to his own house in Rome as a servant of Christ, from which to declare the Kingly Rule of God in Rome. The Messiah was enthroned in heaven, while God’s rule could be seen as being established on earth in Rome through Paul His representative. And no one in authority would be able to suggest that Paul had come to Rome with evil intent, for it was by Caesar’s choice, and not by his own, that he had come. Thus anything that followed might have been seen as irrelevant or indeed as being a hindrance to the emphasising of this message. Perhaps he wanted it to be established that despite everything that man could do, God ruled in Rome.
Of course there was a church in Rome long before Paul arrived, for he wrote to them, and we do not know how it was established, (probably as a result of Christians moving or travelling to Rome) but the point being made here may have been the establishing of Apostolic authority, in other words Messiah’s authority, in Rome under God.
Furthermore, to record Paul’s death might also have been seen as unsuitable for a different reason. Luke’s Gospel ended with an emphasis on the death of Jesus, followed by His resurrection. It may well be that he felt that to end Acts with the martyrdom of Paul, as though his death could be paralleled with that of Jesus, might wrongly have suggested an equation between the two, which would not have been seen as acceptable, as Jesus’ death was unique. Comparison might have been seen as odious, as detracting from the message of the cross.
Why Does Luke Not Draw Attention To The Atoning Significance of the Cross?
Much has been made of Luke’s failure to draw attention to the atoning significance of the cross. However, this is not a strictly accurate assessment, for there are certainly occasions when he does so. He cites the words of Jesus, ‘this is my body which is given for you’ and speaks about the new covenant in His blood (Luke 22:19-20). He cites the words of Isaiah 53.12, ‘he was reckoned among the transgressors’ as referred by Jesus to Himself, and the atoning significance of this idea in the context of Isaiah could hardly be overlooked (Luke 22.37). He informs us that Jesus pointed out that ‘the Messiah should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all the nations’ (Luke 24.46-47), which connects the two ideas. And in Acts 20:28 the church of God has been ‘purchased with His own blood’. So Luke tends to let his sources speak for him. At the same time he might not have seen the presentation of the doctrine of the atonement as his main purpose, except generally in his emphasis on the cross. Once Theophilus and his other readers had been attracted to the resurrected Christ and His church, then would be the time to stress the doctrine of the atonement.
But Acts certainly proclaims that it is through the death and resurrection of Jesus that men find life (2.23-24, 33, 38). Compare also 13.29-30 with 37-39 where His death and resurrection are the means of men’s justification apart from the Law. This was preaching which offered eternal life (13.46). And he emphasises that salvation is by the grace of God and not through circumcision and legalism (15.10-11). Furthermore in many places these connections are simply assumed. Thus it is only true to say that Luke does not put a continual strong emphasis on the atonement, not that he does not include the idea at all.
Could The Paul Of The Letters Have Behaved in The Way That Paul Does In Acts?
It is often argued that the Paul of the letters could never have done some of the things spoken of in Acts. Paul, it is said, was so firm in his belief concerning the freedom of the Christian from the Law, even for the Jewish Christian, that he could never 1). have agreed to the circumcision of Timothy (16.3) or 2). have agreed to subject himself to a vow in the Temple (21.20-26).
However, with regard to this it must be remembered that Paul had already passionately stated that he was willing, in order to convert Jews, to become as a Jew to them (1 Corinthians 9.20). This is a strong counter to the above argument. And this is especially so because his reason for circumcising Timothy, who was half Jewish by birth through his mother, was actually said to be in order to make him more effective in witnessing to the Jews in the area (16.3). Circumcising him was therefore a very different thing from circumcising the Gentile Titus at a time when circumcision was being required by the Judaisers as necessary for him in order to be a Christian, a thing Paul adamantly refused to allow because it would have surrendered his case. In view of Paul’s statement about his willingness to become as a Jew for the sake of winning Jews it is impossible to argue that he would not have behaved in this way, and have allowed Timothy to do the same. Indeed for such a reason, if it had not been for the arguments of the Judaisers, he may well have been willing to circumcise Titus as well. His refusal was because Titus had become a test case, and therefore because his being circumcised would have yielded the case to the Judaisers and prevented the full truth of the Gospel from being apparent.
This is rather an example to us of how, while we must never do anything to compromise the truth, we must always be ready not to allow secondary matters to hinder the presentation of the Gospel.
With regard to the Vow in the Temple (21.20-26), the first question is as to whether it was a Nazirite vow? 21.20-26 does not in fact say that Paul made a full Nazirite vow, and thus we have no right to assume so. We are never told that Paul grew his hair long, nor that he shaved his head. The point was that he would purify himself and pay the expenses of the four men, giving them assistance while they completed their vows. The truth is that our knowledge of the system of vows in Judaism at that time is strictly limited. And in view of the complications of religious ritual and religious vows in the religion of Israel, about which we do not have full information, it is absolutely impossible without further evidence for us to know all the different situations with regard to vows, and the types of vow that a Jew could make. (Compare Leviticus 27). Thus we cannot suggest that Paul’s participation did not follow the correct requirements, because we cannot know whether it did or not, and the only question needing to be dealt with is therefore whether Paul would ever, under any circumstances, assist in the fulfilment of a vow and pay the costs of the offerings for others who took such a vow?
In 18.18 we read of him that he had ‘shorn his head in Cenchreae because he had a vow’. There is no reason for mentioning it there if it did not happen. Nor is there any explanation given for it. Thus Luke clearly seems to have seen it as nothing out of the ordinary. He clearly saw vow-making as something that Paul took part in and treated seriously, and was a part of the tradition.
When we consider that in 21.23 ff. he was personally being pressed to do what he did by James, the Lord’s brother, who had sided with him in his contest with the Judaisers, and that he had said that he was willing to do anything reasonable to further the Gospel, there would seem no credible reason why he would not have done so. For his reason for doing so was to be because it had falsely been said that he forbade any Jewish Christian to continue to fulfil the Law or circumcise their children. As he had not forbidden it, and indeed would favour it where, as in the case of James, it helped him to make a good witness before Jews, such as in Jerusalem, there was no reason for him to refuse.
What he had taught was that it was allowable before God for Jews not to fulfil the full requirements of the Law, (because they were seen as fulfilled in Christ), and he may well have been glad to put any misunderstanding right if it was causing offence. And if he thought at the same time that it would help his brethren in the Jewish church to survive in difficult times, it gives us even more reason for suggesting that he would be very willing to do so. After all he was simply being asked to take a minor part in a ritual that he had been through at least once before and probably also in his youth. If it would help to uphold the Jewish church in the Jerusalem community he may well even have felt obliged to do it, and at the same time have recognised that he could get some religious benefit from such a dedication, as it would not be compromising his firmly stated beliefs which had been upheld by the Council.
We must remember that Jesus had always fulfilled the Jewish Law during His lifetime. Paul would therefore be following in His steps. And it would give Paul an opportunity of upholding the other four vow-makers, and of witnessing to Jews in the Temple. Even if he was not very happy about the situation, he would have been in a very difficult position, for he knew that he partly owed it to James that his arguments against the need to circumcise Gentiles had won the day. His gratitude may thus have helped to sway his decision. His position had after all been made quite clear to, and by, the Council, who had openly confirmed it, so that he would not see himself as compromising on essentials. And as God used it to get him to Rome, and so that he was able to witness to kings and governors in the meantime, we could well argue that it was in fact God’s intention for him as well (23.11).
Some have also argued that it would have been questionable, morally, if he could really have held his peace about his Christianity and have described himself, especially before a court of justice, simply as a Pharisee (23.6, compare 24.21; 26.5-8; 28.20), asserting that he was accused only on account of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. But Paul may well have seen Christianity, with its firm belief in eternal life and the resurrection of the dead, which were central to Pharisaism, as the true fulfilment of the Pharisaism that had once gripped him, and thus have seen himself as representing the true Pharisaic position, as one who had come to a position which was the fulfilment of Pharisaism. For the final aim of Pharisees was by all means to be faithful to God’s covenant, and that was certainly Paul’s aim, although now seen differently. It was not on the whole on basic doctrines, but in the detail, that he disagreed with the Pharisees. He was certainly far nearer to the Pharisees than the Sadducees. And we must remember that he had personally seen the finest side of Pharisaism in his connection with Gamaliel.
Furthermore Paul did see the church as the Israel of God (Galatians 6.16), and in Ephesians 2.11-22 made clear the acceptance of believing Gentiles into oneness with Jews in the covenant, and in Romans 11 stresses that Gentiles have been grafted in to the olive tree, while unbelieving Jews have been cut out of it. This being so there is no reason why he should not have argued for himself as being now a true Jew, a true Israelite and a true Pharisee.
It really is therefore impossible for us to know the nature of Paul’s thinking on such a matter, or to reach a verdict about how he saw things. Consider how some Christian Jews today can proudly proclaim themselves as Jews, and would certainly be prepared to defend that claim, even in a court of law, and see themselves as the true Jews, and might well side with certain Jews on some issues as in some ways one with them. Many a Pharisee probably did become a Christian and continue to see himself as a Pharisee, simply considering that he had found a better way to obtain what he as a Pharisee had been looking for. By still being a covenant fulfiller, and by receiving eternal life, which was the general aim of Pharisaism, he may well have seen himself as fulfilling the Pharisaic ideal in Christ (Who Himself was never criticised by the Pharisees for not on the whole following their customs).
Furthermore Paul may well, as he stood there and heard the accusations being levelled against him, especially if his view of the resurrection was part of what was being attacked, have felt at one with the Pharisees over the questions at issue, and have been quite happy to identify himself with them on these main points, because at least to that extent they agreed with each other, especially if he thought that by that tactic he might woo them to Christ. Thus it was not necessarily duplicity. He may well have seen himself as a genuine Pharisee just as he saw all Christians as genuine Israelites by adoption.
In all this then we see a man of great tact who, while he was firm for the truth when it was being questioned, was also willing to compromise where that truth was not at stake in order to woo men to following Christ.
The Speeches in Acts.
The question of whether the speeches in Acts genuinely reflect what was said at the time has been hotly debated. Part of the difficulty is clearly that most of the speeches were mainly a precis of actual speeches which would no doubt have been a lot longer, something which can hardly be doubted. So we are not really asking whether we have here the exact words, but whether we have the correct sense and phraseology. Certainly reputable writers did seek to ensure that, when they wrote down what men had ‘said’, their words gave the true meaning of their utterances, as Thucydides strongly affirms. He says that he was, ‘of course adhering as closely as possible to the general sense of what was actually said’, even of speeches which he could not fully recall, and stresses that their content either came from his having heard them himself or from reliable sources. On the other hand he also spoke of making plain ‘those subjective elements which cannot easily be displayed in an impartial narrative, but are indispensable to a proper understanding of events’. He also wanted what was meant to be made clear. Polybius was actually critical of this and went further, for he insisted that what should be recorded was what was actually said. So it is wrong to assume that it was ‘normal’ in those days just to invent speeches, although no doubt some writers did do so, as some do today.
Thus we would expect a reliable author like Luke, where he had not heard the speech himself, to ensure from his sources what was actually said, and to ensure that those sources would be people who had listened carefully with the intention of remembering, and were people who were used to remembering such things. And they would certainly be helped by the fact that the Biblical quotations used would be familiar to them. Furthermore, as they had no New Testament to consult for an understanding of their faith, and were used to memorising, they would be the more particular to remember words that came from a reliable source. Nor were they likely to forget them. For many of the listeners would treasure up the words that they had heard with a view to passing them on, and have been careful to remember them correctly because they were Apostolic words, with the result that as they continually passed them on to one audience after another their words would take on a specific never to be forgotten form based on what was actually said, which would also become a treasured memory to others. Having nowhere else to turn for material they would preach what they had heard preached, and would be careful to remember it accurately so that they did not alter the inspired words of the original preacher. Indeed if they did alter the words there would be others who had also heard the original speech who would soon remind them accordingly. For, as Papias tells us, emphasising the importance laid on this by the early church, all would be eager to know what were the actual words of the Apostles. They did care about truth.
Analyses of the speeches have both recognised their different kinds, and to some extent their common approach, with differences seen as depending on the context. And this common approach would seem to be, not that of the writer, but of the early preachers themselves, for parallels to aspects of Acts speeches can be found both in the Gospels and in Pauline letters. Indeed it is now largely accepted that we actually know the main basis for most evangelistic speeches at that time, following a pattern which begins with a brief reference to past prophecy in order to indicate that the time promised by the prophets was at hand, followed by an explanation of the life and activities of Jesus, followed by a description of His death and resurrection duly explained, and all accompanied by explanatory texts from the Old Testament Scriptures, followed by the description of His exaltation, with an application to the need of the hearers at the end calling on them to repent and receive forgiveness. Where speeches differ from this it is mainly because of their special purpose or because of the particular audience that is in mind. We know therefore that we would expect Peter to have spoken as he is said to have done in Acts. Luke must therefore be acquitted from the charge of manufacturing speeches, although clearly he did have a hand in the selection of what part of the content he would use.
The pattern for such speeches was certainly not new. We can trace it backwards to the Gospels, and in Paul’s letters. John preached ‘a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins’ (Mark 1.4; Luke 3.3), declared, “Repent, for the Kingly Rule of Heaven is at hand” (Matthew 3.2 compare 4.17), and proclaiming the coming judgment, promised also the coming of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3.11-12). When Jesus sent His disciples out to preach, no doubt having given them full instructions on what they were to say, He told them, ‘Preach, saying, “The Kingly Rule of Heaven is at hand” (Matthew 10.7; ). Luke says they were to preach, “The Kingly Rule of God is come near to you” (Luke 10.9 compare 9.2). And in all cases they were to intimate that judgment awaited those who rejected their message (Matthew 10.14-15; Luke 9.5; 10.11-13). This is amplified in Mark 1.15 where the preaching of the good news of God was, “The time is fulfilled, and the Kingly Rule of God is at hand. Repent you and believe the good news”. So we already have a pattern of preaching with the central points emphasised that appear in Acts. Clearly Jesus would also have filled this out with references to the Scriptures and instructions on how to amplify this message. After all, the Apostles did not just go out repeating one sentence like parrots.
So the pattern He has given His disciples, and which they had preached on time and again, was:
Added by John the Baptiser were the call to be baptised and await the reception of the Holy Spirit. And we may see it as certain that the disciples would also make reference to Jesus and His life and teaching, which were the basis of the Kingly Rule of God.
When Jesus was preparing His disciples for their ministry after His resurrection He ‘opened their minds to understand the Scriptures’, that is, to ‘all things which were written in Moses and the prophets and the Psalms concerning Him’, and informed them, ‘Thus it is written that the Messiah should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all the nations’ (Luke 24.46-47).
In Matthew His commission was, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth, go you therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them into the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28.18-19).
We could now see the overall pattern of preaching taught them by Jesus as expanding to be as follows;
Thus we should not be surprised to find that this was the pattern which Peter emphasised in his first preaching after the resurrection in Acts 2-4. It was in fact what he had been taught by Jesus Himself. In Acts 2-4 we have four speeches by Peter. The first (2.14-36, 38-39) was delivered by Peter to the crowds assembled on the Day of Pentecost, the second (3.12-26) was to the people after the healing of a lame man, the third and fourth (4.8-12; 5.29-32) were to the Sanhedrin after the arrest of the apostles, and all in general follow this pattern. The speech of Peter to Cornelius in 10.34-43 is similar to the earlier speeches, but it has some special features and suggests even more an Aramaic original.
These first speeches of Peter cover substantially the same ground as we have described above. The phraseology and order of presentation may vary slightly, but there is no essential difference between them. They supplement one another, and taken together afford a comprehensive view of Peter’s approach which seems to have become the standard for early preaching on the basis of what Jesus had taught them. It was based on training given by Jesus when they went out preaching the Kingly Rule of God, but extended to take account of the crucifixion and resurrection, and the exaltation of Jesus. Peter was no longer a novice when it came to preaching, and now the Holy Spirit had come with power.
Consider the basis of the speeches in Acts:
And this tied in with Jewish teaching for it was a central feature of Rabbinic exegesis of the Old Testament that what the prophets predicted had reference to the "days of the Messiah." In other words they predicted the time of expectation when God, after long centuries of waiting, would visit His people with blessing and judgment, and bring to a climax His dealings with them.
This could include, 1) His Davidic descent. "David, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, He would set one on his throne, foreseeing the resurrection of the Messiah ---," who is therefore proclaimed, by implication, to have been born "of the seed of David" (2.30-31; citing Psalm 131.11 compare Psalm 16.10. See Romans 1.3).
2) His life and ministry. "Jesus of Nazareth, a man divinely accredited to you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by Him among you" (Acts 2.22). "Moses said, The Lord your God will raise up a prophet --- like me; him you must hear in all things that he may say to you" (Acts 3.22; regarded as fulfilled in the preaching and teaching of Jesus).
3) His death. "Him being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you, by the hands of lawless men, did crucify and slay" (2.23). "His servant Jesus, Whom you caused to be arrested, and denied before the face of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him. And you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and killed the Prince of Life" (3.13-14). "Jesus Christ of Nazareth Whom you crucified" (4.10).
4) His resurrection. "Whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death, because it was not possible for Him to be held by it. For David says with reference to Him, --- ‘You will not leave my soul in Hades, nor give Your Holy One to see corruption’ " (2.24, 27-28). "Whom God raised from the dead, whereof we are witnesses" (3.15). "Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead" (4.10).
We can compare with this, " Him did God exalt at His right hand as Prince and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins" (Acts 5.31); "To Him bear all the prophets witness, that through His name everyone who believes in Him will receive remission of sins" (Acts 10.43).
This then is what the author of Acts meant by "preaching the Kingly Rule of God." It is very significant that it follows the lines of the summary of the preaching of Jesus as given in Mark 1.14-15 : "Jesus came into Galilee preaching the Good News of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the Kingly Rule of God has drawn near. Repent and believe the Gospel", the lines of the preaching of John the Baptiser to whom Peter had been a disciple, and the lines Jesus Himself laid out in His resurrection appearances, which together covered everything that Peter said.
The first clause in Mark’s description, "The time is fulfilled," is expanded in the reference to prophecy and its fulfilment in accordance with what Jesus had no doubt taught them while He was alive, and had certainly taught them after His resurrection. The second clause, "The Kingly Rule of God has drawn near," is expanded in the account of the ministry and death of Jesus, and His resurrection and exaltation as Lord and Messiah to receive all authority in heaven and earth, having suffered as the Messiah. The third clause, "Repent and believe the Gospel," reappears in the appeal for repentance and the offer of forgiveness with which Peter’s sermons close. Even if we had not known what Peter preached we could have pieced it together from the Gospels.
That this pattern was acceptable to Paul comes out in the first four verses of Romans. There he describes the Gospel of God as being - promised beforehand by his prophets in the Holy Scriptures (verse 2), concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord (verse 3), Who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh (verse 3), and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. That this included the cross comes out in what follows (Romans 3.24-28) and is stressed in 1 Corinthians 1.18; 2.2; 15.3-4.
Parallels Between Luke and Acts.
There are some interesting parallels between Luke and Acts. In Luke the first part is in Aramaic Greek and the second part is in general Greek, and the same applies in Acts, although in different proportions. The general Greek section begins in Luke when Jesus goes out to preach, and in Acts it begins once the Gentile believers’ freedom from the Law has been confirmed. In Luke 4 Jesus goes forth full of the Holy Spirit, and commences preaching the Kingly rule of God, healing, casting out evil spirits, as do His Apostles, and in Acts 2 the Apostles are filled with the Holy Spirit and go forth in the same way, healing, casting out evil spirits and proclaiming the Kingly Rule of God. In Luke 4 Jesus is immediately challenged about His ministry and His behaviour is treated as blasphemous, and a similar result follows the going out of the Apostles and their disciples. So the Acts ministry parallels the ministry of Jesus in a number of ways. And that this is a continuation comes out in that Jesus is the Servant of God, ‘His chosen’, in Luke (Luke 2.32; 3.22; 9.35 RV/RSV; 22.37; 23.35), while in Acts the early church (as well as Jesus) is the Servant of God (Acts 13.47).
In Luke Jesus calls His Apostles in order to expand His ministry (Luke 6.23-19), and in Acts 1 the number of the Apostles is made up ready for the expansion of the ministry through the Holy Spirit. In Luke Jesus is transfigured before His three main disciples (Luke 9.29), while in Acts He appears in glorious light to Paul, something drawn attention to three times (Acts 9.3; 22.6; 26.13 with 1 Corinthians 15.8). In Luke Jesus is ‘compelled’ to take His journey to Jerusalem (Acts 9.51-53;13.22; 17.11), while in Acts Paul is compelled to take his journey to Rome (Acts 21.32-27), both finally being held under restraint, which finally results in the triumph of God. Luke finishes with Christ enthroned triumphantly in heaven with all authority in heaven and earth (Luke 24.51 compare Matthew 28.19), while Acts finishes with Paul firmly established in Rome proclaiming the Kingly Rule of God (Acts 28.30-31). In Luke Jesus follows His ministry to the Jews with an attempted ministry to the Samaritans (Luke 9.52; 17.16), and in Acts 8.5 onwards the ministry to the Jews is followed by one to the Samaritans. However, Luke gives no obvious examples of a ministry to the Gentiles, although it is latent in Luke 7.1-10; 8.26-39. In Luke there is early concentration on the work of the Spirit, followed by silence, and the same applies, although to a lesser extent, in Acts, although in Luke the reason is probably in order to draw the whole of his reader’s attention to Jesus, whereas in Acts it is to draw attention to Paul’s being constrained and not free. In Luke Jesus passes his final days before His exaltation under restraint. In Acts Paul is held under restraint before his being established in Rome.
The parallels are far from exact, but they may well be deliberate (had they been too exact we might have doubted them). This is, however, no stereotyped representation. Rather it illustrates on the whole that we His people are called to follow in His steps.
Commentary on Acts - The Pattern.
The commentary divides naturally into six sections each of which ends with a summary. The first three major on the ministry of Peter, the second three on the ministry of Paul. They are as follows:
The Ministry Under Peter (1.1-12.24)
The Ministry Under Paul (12.25-28.31).
These six sections establish a pattern. The first section sees the Gospel established in Jerusalem, the second sees it as being established among the Judeans and the Samaritans, the third sees the proclamation of the Gospel to the Roman centurion Cornelius and his fellow-Gentiles in Antioch. In each case the person who is prominent in sealing and giving approbation to the work is Peter. The fourth sees the expansion of the work to Asia Minor, the fifth (making three to the Gentiles in all) see the expansion of the Gospel into Europe, and the sixth sees the proclamation of the Kingly Rule of God in Rome by a resident Apostle, first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles. In each case the prominent authority is Paul.
Note also the pattern and emphases in the endings, the word of God, the fear of the Lord and encouragement of the Holy Spirit, the word of God, strengthening in the faith, the word of the Lord, the Kingly Rule of God and teaching about Jesus Christ. It will be seen that the continual expansion of ‘the word’ alternates with advancement in the faith, expressed in terms of ‘walking in the fear of the Lord and encouragement of the Holy Spirit’, ‘being strengthened in the faith’, and the preaching ‘of the Kingly Rule of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ’. And along with it is the emphasis on continual increase of Christ’s church as God’s purposes go forward.
For a commentary on Acts go to
If so please EMail us with your question and we will do our
best to give you a satisfactory answer.EMailus.
(But preferably not from aol.com, for some reason they do not deliver our messages).
FREE Scholarly verse by verse commentaries on the Bible.
THE PENTATEUCH ---
GENESIS ---EXODUS--- LEVITICUS --- NUMBERS ---
DEUTERONOMY --- THE BOOK OF JOSHUA --- THE BOOK OF JUDGES --- SAMUEL --- KINGS ---
PSALMS 1-50--- ECCLESIASTES--- SONG OF SOLOMON
--- ISAIAH --- JEREMIAH ---
EZEKIEL --- DANIEL --- --- HOSEA --- --- JOEL ------ AMOS --- --- OBADIAH --- --- JONAH --- --- MICAH --- --- NAHUM --- --- HABAKKUK--- --- ZEPHANIAH --- --- HAGGAI --- ZECHARIAH --- --- MALACHI --- THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ---THE GOSPEL OF MARK--- THE GOSPEL OF LUKE --- THE GOSPEL OF JOHN --- THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES --- READINGS IN ROMANS --- 1
CORINTHIANS --- 2 CORINTHIANS ---GALATIANS --- EPHESIANS--- PHILIPPIANS --- COLOSSIANS --- 1 THESSALONIANS --- 2 THESSALONIANS --- 1 TIMOTHY --- 2 TIMOTHY --- TITUS --- HEBREWS
--- JAMES --- 1 & 2 PETER --- JOHN'S
LETTERS --- JUDE --- REVELATION
--- THE GOSPELS & ACTS
problems,questions,speeches,Acts,Apostles,Luke,accuracy,reliability,
IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?
peter,pett,Jesus,Messiah,Stephen,James,John,Peter,faith,facts,
repent,Holy,Spirit,Apostles,God,Christ,Jesus,Lord,Baptiser,
Baptist,Psalms,Pentecost,man,Macedonia,kingly,rule,heaven,
kingdom,God,Heaven