Miracles Ended in the First Century? Someone Forgot to Tell the Early Church (3)

As we have seen, the earliest church after the apostles felt the need to distinguish true from false prophets. They knew there needed to be limits or boundaries within which the gifts operated. The one certain boundary was that those who claimed gifts lived like Jesus lived. Not everyone agreed on the limits.

Montanists

Sometime around 172 CE, Montanus, a Christian from Phrygia, began to declare prophecies. Two women, Priscilla and Maximilla, who also claimed the gift of prophecy, became his followers. The movement they spawned because known as the Cataphrygians, or just the Phrygians, but they seemed to prefer calling their movement “the New Prophecy.” While they did produce some writings, these have all perished except for the treatises by Tertullian (155–220), who adopted Montanism during the last part of his life (207–220). The scarcity of serving documents means that most of what we know about the Montanists comes from those who fought against them, such as Eusebius (263–340), and especially, Epiphanius (315–403), who left us an incredible catalogue of early Christian heretics and their teachings. His work is known as the Panarion. And, he as defender of orthodox Christian teaching, could be scathingly brutal in his depiction of others.

Epiphanius believed the Montanists were orthodox in their view of God (Pan. 48.1.4), but he questioned their understanding and use of spiritual gifts. Concern was expressed in Montanus’s claim that he was the mouthpiece of God (Pan. 48.4, 10-11), which can be understood either as orthodox or heretical, depending on what he actually meant by his pronouncement.

Nevertheless, it was ecstasy in the practice of prophecy, which was often characterized by ecstatic behaviour, that seems to have concerned the emerging Catholic church the most. So beyond question, despite the scarcity of information that we have about this movement, Montanism was, at its core, charismatic and prophetic in nature. Nevertheless, as Ronald Kydd notes, their general practice did not seem far off from what was happening in other parts of the church. No doubt, paganism influenced the practices of the Montanists, as well as the church at large.

Epiphanius’s objections against the Montanists reveal what the orthodox church thought about Montanism and the practices associated with it. In the remainder of this discussion of Montanists, I would like to grab some of Epiphanius’s complaints as a means of not only understanding the Montanists themselves, but also for understanding how the church would have argued against this activity when they thought practices and behaviour was off-base. Reasonably, a blog post cannot be comprehensive; I’m fully aware of the selective nature of this undertaking as I write this. I have added some resources at the end of this blog to further support the need for deeper examination.

In his Panarion, Epiphanius accused Montanus, along with the women, Priscilla (or Prisca) and Maximilla, of “giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils” (Pan 48.1.4, using the language of 1 Tim 4:1), and paying attention “to the spirits of error and fictitious stories” (48.1.7). Epiphanius asserts

Their stupidity will be refuted in two ways, then. Either they should show that there are prophets after Maximilla, so that their so-called “grace” will not be inoperative. Or Maximilla and her like will be proved false prophets, since they dared to receive inspiration after the end of the prophetic gifts—not from the Holy Spirit but from devils’ imposture—and delude her audience.

Panarion 48.2.3

What an intriguing quote! Epiphanius is pointing out Maximilla’s claim that Montanus, Priscilla, and Maximilla are the end of the prophets and that the gift of prophecy will cease after them, and thus they, points out Epiphanius, will be proven false by the continuation of the gifts. Epiphanius’s concern is not that they are prophets, but that they are working outside the bounds of the catholic (orthodox) church. They are, according to him, working for the devil, not the Holy Spirit. Notice that it never occurs to Epiphanius to argue that the gifts ended after the apostles, which should have clinched any argument that somehow the prophetic gifts had somehow survived until the time of Montanus. Epiphanius follows up on this with

If Maximilla says there will never be another prophet, she is denying that they have the gift, and that it is still to be found among them. If their gift persists [only] until Maximilla, then, as I said before, she had no portion of the gifts either.

Panarion 48.2.9

Toward the end of Ephiphanius’s treatment of the Montanists, his concern about Montanus and his followers’ commitment to the mother church becomes explicit:

And since [Montanus] is in disagreement, < he himself >, and the sect which like him boasts of having prophets and gifts, are strangers to the holy catholic church. He did not receive these gifts; he departed from them.

Panarion 48.11.4

For Epiphanius, the problem is not so much that Montanus and his followers are claiming the gifts, but rather they are claiming to have the gifts apart from the church because Christ has given “every regular gift,” whatever he means by that, in the context of the holy church (48.11.9). In fact, it is over the matter of the “gifts of grace” that they have left the church (48.12.1). As Epiphanius says, “Things that are different from gifts and——as your own prophets say—”not the same kind that the promises,” cannot be gifts” (48.12.2). Thus, from Epiphanius’s perpective, what the Montanists experience and express is qualitatively different than what is shown in the Bible and practiced in the church.

Of interest to this current series of blogs is that for Epiphanius, the OT and the NT, that is, the Bible, gives the boundaries for what true and what false prophecy and prophetic activity is. In fact, most of Epiphanius’s depiction of the Montanists is taken up with what the Bible has to say about the topic. For example, in response to Maximilla’s prophetic activity, he questioned:

But if she did speak and prophesy in the Holy Spirit—what sort of Holy Spirit would say, “Don’t listen to me?” The blindness of deceit is stone blind—and great is the word of God, which gives us understanding in every way, so that we may know what has been spoken by the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, here in the person of the Father, there in the person of the Son, there in the person of the Holy Spirit!

Panarion 48.12.11

Therefore, Epiphanius pointed out “their disagreement with the sacred text, and the difference between their notions and opinion, and the faith and following of God” (48.13.1). One could always wish we knew more about Montanism, but the centrality of the gifts were the issue and the church did not argue that they could not be real gifts, only that in accordance with Scripture, and within the traditions of the church, should they be practiced.

Finally, one should remember that Epiphanius is writing in the fourth century and in his castigations of Montanism, probably tells us more about himself than his now defunct adversaries. How simple it would have been just to cite 1 Cor 13:8–10 and make the claim that Montanus and his movement were wrong because the gifts have ended. So, if the church believed that the gifts ended in the first century, then anyone claiming gifts would be working against God. But that is not what he does because he does not believe the church has lost the gifts—the gifts from God in the church is a sign of God’s favour and grace upon the church.

_______________

The citations from the Panarion are from Frank Williams (trans.), The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III. De Fide. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 79. 2nd ed. (Leiden: Brill, 2013).

For further reading on the Montanists, see Rex D. Butler, The New Prophecy and “New Visions”: Evidence of Montanism in the “Passion of Perpetua and Felicitas.” North American Patristic Society Patristic Monograph Series18 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2006), Ronald A. N. Kydd, Charismatic Gifts in the Early Church: An Exploration into the Gifts of the Spirit during the First Three Centuries of the Christian Church (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1984), 31–36, and William Tabbernee, Prophets and Gravestones: An Imaginative History of Montanists and Other Early Christians (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009).

Miracles Ended in the First Century? Someone Forgot to Tell the Early Church (2)

In Pagans and Christians, Robin Lane Fox argues that Christianity was successful, partially at least, because its practitioners did better miracles than the pagan alternatives available. However, this could not at all be true if the earliest church after the apostles believed that miracles ended as soon as New Testament (NT) came into existence.

The first blog in this series considered the original testimony after the apostles regarding the continuation of miracles in the church. The impetus for this series is there is a vocal group of people who claim—without much research of their own—that the NT is clear that miracles will cease when the NT is in place. However, the early church after the apostles did not seem to get that memo.

In the previous blog we looked at the Didache (c. 96 CE), 1 Clement (also c. 96), the letters of Ignatius (c. 117), and the text known as the Martyrdom of Polycarp (c. 155). In all of these documents, the furtherance of miracles, especially prophecy, continued to be attested. In this blog, we will look at some of the writings from the end of the second century and on into the third.

First, let’s start here with The Shepherd of Hermas. This certainly is a strange document but the early church did read it and, in some cases, used it as Scripture and copied it along with NT writings. For example, the NT manuscript Codex Sinaiticus (4th cent) contains it. Check out the introduction to this work by Michael Holmes if you would like to learn more about this document (The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, 3rd ed. [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007], 442–53). Our best tradition about the identity of this Hermas is that he was the brother of Pius, the latter whom was later considered bishop of Rome sometime between around the years 140 and 154. Irenaeus refers to this work, so that could date it sometime before c. 175. Thus, mid-second century appears to be right.

More important to us are the contents of the work. The Shepherd is arranged in three literary groupings by genres: visions, commandments, and parables. Our concern, specifically, is with the engagement of the miraculous and the ways in which the writer understood the miraculous in his time.

Hermas claimed to be the recipient of several visions generally meditated and explained through angelic messengers. A key figure in the book is the “angel of repentance,” who appears to Hermas as a shepherd, therefore giving the work its title, The Shepherd of Hermas. Perhaps I need not say more about the miraculous as it is core to the book’s content, but we should probably venture into the actual text to make the case that the earliest church after the apostles continued to live in a supernatural and miraculous world, at least as they understood it.

Hermas never called himself a prophet, but he certainly acted like one. He was the recipient of visions and, in the case of two of them, he was commanded to make them public (46:2; 114:1–4). Consequently, he has visionary experiences he believed he was to share with others because an angel told him so.

In an important passage for our topic (Shep 43:1–21), the angelic shepherd instructs Hermas in how to distinguish between true prophets and false ones. The shepherd makes his case:

“So how, sir,” I asked, “will a person know which of them is a prophet and which is a false prophet?” “Hear,” he said, “about both the prophets, and on the basis of what I am going to tell you, you can test the prophet and false prophet. Determine the man who has the divine spirit by his life. In the first place the one who has the divine spirit from above is gentle and quiet and humble, and stays away from all evil and futile desires of this age, and considers himself to be poorer than others, and gives no answer to anyone when consulted. Nor does he speak on his own (nor does the holy spirit speak when a person wants to speak), but when God wants him to speak. So, then, when the person who has the divine spirit comes into an assembly of righteous people who have faith in a divine spirit, and intercession is made to God by the assembly of those people, then the angel of the prophetic spirit that is assigned to him fills the person, and being filled with the holy spirit the man speaks to the multitude just as the Lord wills. In this way, then, the divine spirit will be obvious. Such, therefore, is the power of discernment with respect to the divine spirit of the Lord.”

Shepherd 43:7–10

And then he adds later,

“You now have descriptions of the life of both kinds of prophets. Therefore test by actions and life the person who claims to be spirit-inspired (πνευματοφόρον). Put your trust in the spirit that comes from God and has power, but do not trust in any way the earthly and empty spirit, because it has no power, for it comes from the devil.”

Shepherd 43:16–17

What is not in question in Hermas’s text is the reality of prophets and the presence of prophetic gifts. As Ronald A. N. Kydd notes in Charismatic Gifts in the Early Church, 20–21, the fact that Hermas needs guidelines for the practice of prophecy and how to distinguish between the true ones and the false indicates how prevalent the practice was in Rome, even into the mid-second century. A simple solution would have been to recall 1 Cor 13:8–11 and point out that Paul said the gift would end when the NT came into being, but no one on record, until modern times, ever did that. The earliest interpreters of the NT—it would seem—did not understand Paul to mean that prophecy would end when the book was published.

While The Shepherd is strange to our ears, it was generally well-received by the early church. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Origen (as least early on) used it as Scripture. As late as the 4th century, Athanasius made use of it as did Didymus the Blind. Codex Sinaiticus, as we have noted, included it following the book of Revelation and The Epistle of Barnabas. So it appears that the early (proto-)orthodox leaders of the church did not see the content of The Shepherd problematic for the church. By extension, then the continuing gift of prophecy was an accepted reality in the life of the church. Again, it appears that someone forgot to tell the early church they were supposed to stop this craziness.

We have time for one more early Christian writer, so let’s discuss Justin, who became a martyr for his faith in Jesus sometime after the year 162 CE. Justin Martyr as he was known, was a philosopher who eventually turned to Christianity as the true philosophy. He is recognized for his First and Second Apologies in which he defends the Christian faith against Roman persecution. However, it is another work that catches the eye for the current discussion. Justin’s  Dialogue with Trypho, a Jewish contemporary, is interesting.

In his Dialogue, he incidentally gives us a window into the relationship of Judaism with Christianity during this period. Presumably, the Jewish communities connected with Trypho were experiencing defections from the synagogue to the church. Justin noted,

daily some [of you] are becoming disciples in the name of Christ, and quitting the path of error; who are also receiving gifts, each as he is worthy, illumined through the name of this Christ. For one receives the spirit of understanding, another of counsel, another of strength, another of healing, another of foreknowledge, another of teaching, and another of the fear of God.

Trypho 39

For Justin then, God continued to give the followers of Jesus gifts, among which were healing and foreknowledge. Later, more pointedly, Justin asserted,

For the prophetical gifts (προφητικὰ χαρίσματά) remain with us, even to the present time. And hence you ought to understand that [the gifts] formerly among your nation have been transferred to us.

Trypho 82

Justin, in Trypho 88, proclaimed, “Now, it is possible to see amongst us women and men who possess gifts of the Spirit of God.” Justin’s argument with Trypho is more involved than the few citations given here, but they are consistent with what Justin witnessed in the church in his day. Justin, in his apologies, is considered a reliable historical source for the early post-apostolic church. This would be no less true in this polemical dialogue with Trypho.

In the next blog, we will take up the challenge of reviewing a charismatic fringe group, the Montantists, who most definitely believed spiritual gifts continued in the life of the church. We will also critique a work by the pagan Celsus, ironically called True Doctrine.

A Really Bad Article on Textual Criticism

Kyle Huckins’s articles “Bible text amazingly stable but scholarly criticism, media coverage of it is faulty: professor” in the Christian Post (https://www.christianpost.com/news/bible-text-stable-but-media-criticism-isnt-professor-says.html) is really bad. It gets so many important things wrong. A Facebook friend of mine posted it this morning and as I read it I wondered how many other well-meaning Christians bought it because it supports the view they really want to be true–namely that the Bible, and especially, the New Testament represents a well-preserved text even though the text was transmitted for nearly 1500 years by hand-copying manuscripts (MSS). Now, while I’m all for arguing for a stable text, we must make our case on reality, and with a full appreciation for the complexity of the field of textual criticism.

Huckins is seeking to introduce readers to scholar Craig Evans’s new book Jesus and the Manuscripts, which I have not had the privilege to read yet, but will when I can find the opportunity. But I do live in the scholarly world of New Testament textual criticism and my issues today is with Huckins’s claims in his article. So, the first thing to be noted is the description of Craig Evans, who has a solid reputation as a biblical scholar, however, he is not generally numbered among those who are considered textual critics—and if Huckin’s reporting is correct—should not be.

While it is true that many biblical scholars do not know much about the details of the ancient manuscripts–it is virtually impossible for textual critics to know details about all of the MSS because of the vast amount of material available for study. And it is true that some scholars seek to undermine the stability and accuracy of the text (which I assume the author means that the words of the originals have been faithfully copied from manuscript to manuscript), though, Huckins leaves those scholars unnamed. More mysteriously, he offers that “one academician” (just one?) counts “errors” when scribes correct themselves (generally, in NT MSS, it would be a corrector, a second-hand, that would note corrections in any MS). Moreover, his next example is that this same academician will count an error when the article “the” is left out before a proper name. For example, proper names, like Jesus or Peter, often have an article before them—it’s a Greek grammar thing. However, contra Huckins, if the text originally had the article and a scribe dropped it, that is technically an error (in the field, we call this a variant) and often an error significant enough to provide clues to which MSS are copies of each other. So, in the vast world of textual criticism, these variants count.

Huckins announces that only forty lines of about 20,000 lines making up the NT original texts are in question. However, he gives the reader no clues to how Evans came up with this number (I will have to read the book on that one, I suppose. But Huckins follows this point with an example from Mark 3:5 where there are supposedly some questions as to the reading of “angry” or “pity” to express Jesus’s emotions in that context. However, Huckins (or Evans) is absolutely wrong. The MSS tradition is solid here. All witnesses read “angry” (ὀργῆς) with only one MS offering a slightly different spelling for the same word. Huckins has used the wrong example for his point. The correct text where anger vs. pity is an issue is actually Mark 1:41 where the vast majority of witnesses have that Jesus felt compassion and a few, less convincing witnesses say that Jesus was angry. The testimony for “angry” is so sparse that this really presents no real challenge to the reading of the text. It’s a shame that some recent revisions of translations have accepted it into their text (such as the NIV2011 with “indignant”).

Huckins does get a few things right. For example, the copying of ancient text was an expensive undertaking and MSS could last some three hundred years (and as our surviving hoard of MSS show, for much longer under the right conditions). However, even this point needs more nuance to put it in the larger context of all the variables involved in the transmission and survival of ancient texts.

Next our author notes that Tertullian, who wrote ca. 190 CE, suggested that one could find the autographs (authenticae) at certain apostolic churches. Scholars are not sure what is meant by this, whether it refers to the “originals” or “authentic copies.” Tertullian mentions Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, Ephesus, and Rome, which of course, could simply be deductions from the known destinations of some of the letters and listing Ephesus is interesting since we do know that not all of the earliest copies of Ephesians actually have “in Ephesus” in Eph 1:1. (Some quite impressive witness do not have these words; see P46 01* 03* 1739, where the * denote the original hand of the scribe).

Unfortunately, Huckins’s point bypasses the whole process of ancient literary production that usually had two originals, one that was sent, and one that was kept by the author. Evans, in fact, has been challenged on his notions that these autographs exerted a controlling influence to the transmission of the text. Oddly, this does not tend to be the case with the earliest writings, the Apostolic Fathers, who often almost quote the text the way we know it from our New Testaments, but not quite as if they knew it from oral tradition or from other texts available to them at that time.

The post next states, “There are several hundred complete copies of the New Testament within a few hundred years of the apostles, and several thousand more items containing parts of the text.” No! This is not true. We have our first complete copies of the entire NT in the fifth century with Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Sinaiticus, and these often have books beyond our protestant canon of sixty-six books. Before this time, we have fragments and pieces. (Remember that even a small piece is identified as a MS, for example, P52 of the Gospel of John is a small front and back fragment that has only words from John 18:31-33 on one side and vv. 37–38 on the back). So, no, there are not several hundred complete copies of the NT within a few hundred years of the original document—there were at one time, perhaps, but not among the remains we now have in our time. By the way, this point is made in contrast to the Quran which the author notes as a citation from Evans that it “was not committed to writing until the 700s A.D., long after Muhammad’s death,” which occurred in 632. Just do the math, please.

Finally, the reporter notes that for the Old Testament text that before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), our oldest copy of Isaiah was 1,700 years removed from the time of composition. With the discovery of the DSS, we now have a copy of Isaiah, from about 100–200 BC. According to Evans, so Huckins writes, the text is 99% the same. Actually, textual critics of the Hebrew Bible would put the that number around 95%. Still, impressive (but the care of transcribing the Hebrew Bible was not always shared by the Christians with the New Testament documents). However, this comparison with the state of Isaiah, simplifies the complexity of the transmission of the text of Isaiah via its popular Greek translation (the Septuagint), which is the text the apostles actually used both in their citations in the NT and in the life of the Christian community throughout the Roman Empire.

In the end, I would like to invite Christians, and especially, apologists, that if you are going to use textual criticism, please learn enough to use it well. May I recommend Myth and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, edited by Elijah Hixson and Peter J. Gurry, published by InterVaristy Press in 2019, as a great place to get your facts straight regarding the nature of textual criticism of the New Testament.

Mis-Reading Acts: Does Ekklesia (Church) mean the “Called Out”?

Not uncommon is the etymological wordplay on the word “church” in the New Testament (NT). Since ekklesia (ἐκκλησία) is a compound word, preachers and teachers have explained the meaning of the word based on its etymological components: ek meaning “out of” plus kaleo meaning “call, or calling” with the conclusion that the word must mean the “called-out” ones. However, you will search standard Greek lexicons in vain to find this meaning. For example, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG), considered the gold standard of lexicons, gives these options:

1. a regularly summoned legislative body, assembly
2. a casual gathering of people, an assemblage, gathering
3. people with shared belief, community, congregation

In short, the meaning of the word ἐκκλησία is assembly, gathering, community, or congregation. In the first-century hellenistic world, the word commonly refers to a gathering of people and–it is not a religious word–often expressed gatherings for governmental purposes.

The first occurrence of the word in the Acts of the Apostles is Acts 5:11. Here the word refers to the believers in Jesus who were afraid because of the judgement on Ananias and Sapphira. The word distinguished the Jesus-followers (the “whole church”) from those outside this group who heard the story about the couple. That this is the first time Luke has used the word ἐκκλησία is might be new to many of us who grew up with a version of the Bible that used the word “church” in Acts 2:47. However, the better manuscripts do not so read. [I treat this textual variant at https://stansscholia.wordpress.com/2016/02/02/no-church-in-acts-247].

After Acts 5:11, our word next occurs in Stephen’s speech in Acts 7:38. However, it is translated “assembly” in most English translations because it refers to the nation of Israel in the wilderness, though the KJV and the ASV oddly employed the word “church” here, instead of congregation or assembly, the latter options would be more consistent with Old Testament parlance.

First-century Jewish readers were quite comfortable with a broad range of meanings for ekklesia. Stephen in his sermon in Acts 7 cites from the Greek translation of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint (abbr. LXX). The Septuagint was available throughout the Roman Empire in the first century and widely used in the Jewish synagogue where people predominantly spoke Greek. In fact, the New Testament writers use the LXX more often than their own translations of the Hebrew OT. The LXX provides a great resource for listening to the OT the way most early Christians would have known it.

The LXX contains the word ekklesia 100 times in 96 verses (including the Apocrypha, which was and is a part of the LXX). The word is most often a translation of kahal קָהָל, which, according to standard lexicons of the Hebrew language, means “assembly, convocation, congregation.” The verbal form of the word means “to assemble.” In both Greek and Hebrew, the comparable words mean basically an “assembly.” So when Stephen speaks of the “church” (KJV and ASV) in the wilderness, he is echoing the way the word is used in the Greek translation of the OT.

In Acts, therefore, the word ekklesia refers to the community of believers. Sometime it refers generally to all of Jesus’s followers and, sometimes, in reference to a specific gathering of Jesus-followers in a particular location.

In the more general sense, Paul persecuted the church (8:3). The whole church prospered following the death of Herod (9:31). After Paul separated from Barnabas and takes on Silas as his new missionary partner, Paul strengthened various congregations (churches) in Syria and Cilicia (15:41). In one of Luke’s transitional statements, following the account of Paul taking on Timothy as disciple, Luke notes that the “churches were strengthened in the faith and grew daily in numbers (16:5),” thus denoting a number of congregations or assemblies.

In the more specific sense, news of the successful evangelization of among both Jews and Greeks came to the church in Jerusalem (11:22). For a year Paul and Barnabas met with the church in Antioch (11:26). Herod, at one point, arrested some belonging to the church and the church was praying for Peter (probably Jerusalem, but the context could be broader). The church in Antioch send out Barnabas, Simeon (not Peter), Lucius, Manaen, and Paul as missionaries or apostles for the church in Antioch (13:1). In their missionary work, Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in each church, thus, showing the word is clearly used in reference to geographically located groups of Jesus-followers (14:23). When the missionaries returned to Antioch, they gathered the church to report about their mission (14:27) and the church there sent Paul, Barnabas, and others to Jerusalem (15:3) where they were received by the Jerusalem church (15:4). At the conclusion of the Jerusalem council, the apostles, elders, and the whole church (15:22) choses delegates, including Paul and Barnabas, to disseminate the decision of the council. Later, when Paul returned from one of his missionary trips, he greeted the church in Jerusalem (18:22). On his last trip to Jerusalem, he stops in Melitus and calls for the elders of the church in Ephesus for one last visit with them (Acts 20:17). In his message to these elders, he reminds them to be competent shepherds over their flock in Ephesus, “Be shepherds of the ekklesia of God which he bought with his own blood (20:28),” which in context would refer specifically to the church in Ephesus. And here is the last use of ekklesia in Acts, some some seven more chapters to go.

One interesting outlier is Luke’s use of ekklesia in Acts 19. Here ekklesia refers to the group that gathered in the theatre in Ephesus. This ad hoc gathering  (mob) was a protest against Paul and his companions who had impacted Ephesian culture, economy, and pagan worship. Luke notes that the ekklesia was in disarray and that some of the people were not even sure why they were there-—apparently caught up in the moment (19:32). When the city clerk finally got control of the mob, he pointed out that if there were any matters to be resolved, they should be settled in a lawful ekklesia after which he dismissed the current unlawful ekklesia (19:39, 41).

No one in the first century thought ekklesia meant the “called-out ones.” It is not what they heard. The word is the normal and regular word for any gathering of people. In classical Greek, the word generally referred to the gathering of citizens for political purposes. In the Greek Old Testament the word ekklesia pointed often to the people of God in the wilderness. In Acts, Luke uses the word in reference to local church or occasionally to the universal church as the gatherings of God’s people. Luke’s usage in Acts 19 shows that the classical use of the word remained a normal way to understand the word.

If one wants to emphasize that the church is the called out people of God, there is an actual text in the NT that says that: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Pet. 2:9).

The church is certainly the “called out” people of God, but that understanding does not rest on nor arise out of a faulty etymological understanding of the word ekklesia.

For a fuller discussion of this kind of fallacy in exegesis, see Donald A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 27–64.

Mis-Reading Acts: Where the Church Met

The following diagram is making the rounds on Facebook these days. No doubt the current Covid-19 crisis is creating a vacuum that the church is filling by meeting in homes or online at home. Some would even argue that meeting in homes is the divine mandate–as the chart below seems to support. However, this chart is one-sided and does not include any evidence to the contrary that would show that the church was quite flexible and nimble at its beginning. The church, as reported in Acts, met wherever it could for the sake of God’s mission. In other words, the church met as was fitting to the local realities for the promotion of the Kingdom of God.

When we deal with the Book of Acts, we should discuss “description” versus “prescription.” Is Luke prescribing what the church should do from now on or is he merely describing what happened in each of his narrative contexts? Should the church henceforth should meet in houses only–which seems to be the point in the chart below? Or is Luke simply describing how the early church went about organizing community life which takes on different shapes from place to place? In this blog, I’m limiting myself to the texts from Acts. I illustrate that Luke is much more complex than this chart reveals.

I’m surprised the list did not include the upper room where early Christians were staying. The upper room (Acts 1:13) accommodated the apostles and the women, including Jesus’s family. This room, if Luke intends for us to see Acts 1:15 as taking place in the same context, could accommodate 120 people—which makes it a moot point if this is a private home or a larger commodious public facility.

Now Acts 2:46 describes the quality of Christian togetherness by noting that the church was breaking bread in various homes. However, this follows a note that every day, this early Jewish church continued to meet in the temple courts. In other words, they were still worshipping in the temple as well as having times of fellowship in their homes. Unlike, our chart, Luke does not see an either/or choice here. The church met in both the Temple courts and in homes at this point in the story.

Oops, Acts 5:12 is missing from the list. The believers met regularly for a time in Solomon’s Colonnade, one of the covered areas surrounding the temple structure. But that would hardly support the point the chart is designed to make.

And, once again, if one reads the whole of Acts 5:42, noted in the chart above, the earliest church is meeting in the temple courts and from house to house. Again, Luke does not have a either/or divide between the options.

In Acts 6:8 we learn that Stephen worshipped among those who belonged to Hellenistic (Greek-Speaking) Synagogues in Jerusalem. Luke reports that the early church existed in close contact with the Synagogue–for as long as the non-believing Jews would allow. The earliest Christians remained attached to the Synagogue and also met in houses to explore what it means to follow Jesus as the fulfillment of Israel’s hope. (See James 2:2 where the Greek is literally: “When a gold-wearing man in extravagant clothing enters your synagogue…”)

Acts 8:3 is not so much a comment on where the church met but rather on the extent to which Saul would go to stomp out the Jesus story among the Jewish people. He arrested believers at their homes. This is further emphasized by the taking of men and women (perhaps, husbands and wives). In this text, Luke is describing Saul’s persecution of the church not the manner in which the church met.

Acts 10:22 tells of Peter coming to Cornelius’s house where Peter preached to Cornelius and his family and friends. This is hardly a mandate for the church to meet in homes. In fact, we never hear of the church in Cornelius’s home. I like to think that happened. Luke’s bigger concern is will the church welcome into their space those who are not like them? The subtle point of Dr. Luke in Acts 10:23 is that Peter welcomed the Gentiles before he was later welcomed by the Gentiles.

Acts 12:12 is in the context of Herod Agrippa I’s persecution of the apostles and Peter’s miraculous release from prison. While this is certainly an occasion when the church was meeting in a house, they were also keeping a low profile from the authorities. At this time, a public presence would have created more harm for the believers. More to Luke’s concerns, however, is that Mary, a woman, is the paterfamilias (owner) of this household. Additionally, her son John Mark is introduced into the narrative and will have a role to play later in Acts.

Neither Acts 16:32 or 16:40 support the notions that the church met in either the jailor’s home or in Lydia’s home. Based on other background information, I would say that the church probably did start in Lydia’s home but this text is narrating that Paul and Silas were welcomed and encouraged after their ordeal in Lydia’s home with other believers. Besides, the church in Philippi was yet to be formed.

Did the church actually meet in Titius Justus’s house (Acts 18:7)? Or, as Luke says, Paul, rejected by the Synagogue, found hospitality next door to Titius Justus’s home. This text is packed with details that fills in our understanding of the relationship the early Christians had with the Synagogue. Titius Justus was a “God-fearer,” which for Luke means he was attracted to the Synagogue, but not a proselyte to Judaism yet. Living next door to a Synagogue made his connection to Judaism quite convenient. In 18:8, Luke tells us that even the Synagogue leader and his family became committed to the way of Jesus. This is the beginning of the church in Corinth, but does not specify where they met nor what the continued relationship to the Synagogue looked like after this point.

Finally, regarding the texts in the chart related to Acts, Paul in his last speech to the Ephesian elders, rehearsed that he had taught them both publicly and from house to house (20:20). The mention of both public and private keeps in balance that both were ways in which the early church met. Acts does not prioritize one over the other but shows that the early church met however the current local realities allowed.

One text in Acts give a particularly compressed but full look at how the early believers in Jesus interacted with the Synagogue. Acts 19:8–10 summarizes Paul’s mission in Ephesus:

Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God. But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. So Paul left them. He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. This went on for two years, so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord.

Some quick observations: Paul participated in Synagogue for three months. Paul was recognized as someone (a Rabbi?) who could teach in the Synagogue–at first. When the members of the Synagogue rejected the Way of Jesus, Paul withdrew from them and gathered those who believed in Jesus with him to the lecture hall of Tyrannus, where Paul conducted daily discussions. Interestingly, the early disciples mimicked the Jewish practice of Synagogue which was every bit a learning centre as it was a place of worship. Also Luke does not mention any meetings in homes here which probably means that they found the public venue sufficient. At the very least, in Ephesus, Luke did not see the house meetings as important enough to mention..

So where did the church meet? Wherever they could for the good of the mission of God. In the Temple, in the Synagogue, in lecture halls, and even in homes. I’m sure they would have met by videoconference, had that method existed in the first century.

Mis-Reading Acts: Steps of Salvation and Luke-Acts

One might be surprised to learn that the Bible does not speak of “steps of salvation,” nor does the Bible give a standardized procedure for what people need to do to be saved. Perhaps because the metaphor of “steps” does not capture the continuous nature of becoming a disciple. When one believes for example, one does not not move to the next step, leaving belief behind. Whatever response we associate with coming to God, we don’t climb the stairs or ladder, leaving the previous step behind. We keep on believing, praying, confessing, repenting, receiving the Spirit as we participate in God’s life.

Perhaps a look a couple of somewhat parallel texts from Acts might illustrate the way in which Luke, as one example, use varied language to speak of coming to Jesus.

Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38)

And now compare that with Acts 3:

Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,” (Acts 3:19)

Notice that in the second invitation, Luke does not mention baptism. Luke is not rejecting baptism or making it optional as his narrative makes clear, but neither is he tied to some kind of formula.

If Acts is primarily a narrative about conversion and how to be converted, one might expect that the way to get it done would be clearly and consistently laid out. Perhaps you have seen tables, like the one below, used to show the “steps of salvation” in Acts.

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1277-conversions-in-acts

One will note that several boxes have “implied” in them. “Implied” means that Luke did not feel the need to say it-—or more importantly, did not say the implied item. Furthermore, one would be hard-pressed to show that confession is a Lukan concern since the single explicit reference belongs to a textual variant that is not in our oldest and best manuscripts. That is why you don’t find Eunuch’s confession at Acts 8:37 in current translation of the NT. Without the variant, confession would not find a place in the chart.

In the chart above, elements that Luke does care about, such as the coming of the Spirit, prayer, and other attendant activities, are not included or considered. By broadening our scope a bit, we can see a more complex and richly nuanced view of conversion when elements, such as the Holy Spirit, prayer, the laying on of the apostles’ hands, and other attendant behaviors are noticed. Luke is just as interested in what God is doing through his Holy Spirit, as he is in peoples responses to the message about Jesus. Remember there are a number of non-conversion stories in Acts.

Said another way, systematizing the “steps of salvation,” is foreign to Luke—even my second chart fails imposes an alien rubric on Luke’s storytelling. Given Luke’s variety, we would look in vain for anything resembling a systematic presentation on “how to be saved” or even “how to receive the Holy Spirit.” I suggest that the larger question of Luke-Acts might be “Whom does God receive?”

If we take seriously authorial intent—that authors are actually trying to say something, that they are taking their readers on a journey—then we will need to learn to be patient and listen to their whole story rather than making this text or that text the whole story.

Mis-Reading Acts: Conversion Stories in Luke-Act

One of the ways I was schooled in reading Luke-Acts was to see Acts primarily as a narrative about conversions stories intended to be emulated by the church from that time on. However, in trying to hear what Luke was saying to Theophilus and other first-time readers, I have discovered that Luke might have had something entirely different in mind. Why do I think so? Thanks for asking.

The Gospel of Luke. When compared to other ancient two-part works, like Josephus’s Against Apion, it appears that Theophilus was not Luke’s sole intended audience for his work. At the beginning of the Gospel of Luke, Luke begins with a classically style introduction addressed to Theophilus, who is most likely Luke’s patron. That is, Theophilus underwrote the production of and publication of Luke-Acts. While we know next to nothing about Theophilus, the material following the introductions presumes a reader who is quite aware of the Hebrew Bible, especially, in its Greek form, the Septuagint (LXX). Luke indicates that Theophilus has been instructed (κατηχέω; the word from which we derive catechize) in the story and ways of Jesus. The normal import of this word would be that Theophilus is already a believer—he has already been converted. He is not in need at this point of conversions stories to get him there. As for the Luke’s wider readership, the intended audience of Luke-Acts are Jewish Christians who are struggle with the influx of Gentile into the Jesus Movement. [N. B. I have come to this conclusion after years of working closely with Acts and perhaps one day I will have time to blog about my journey to this understanding].

The Acts of the Apostles. One of our markers that Luke and Acts are to be considered two volumes of the same work is that the introduction to Acts again addresses Theophilus (as Luke’s sponsor or supporter in the production of Luke-Acts) and again the content of Acts would suggest that Theophilus and other implied readers of the narrative were conversant with the Hebrew Bible via the LXX.

In Acts 1:8, a three-part program for the spread of the Gospel from Jerusalem to Rome is laid out:

But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.

While Luke has a much more intricate way he outlines his material, this three-part outline is discernible:

1. Jerusalem (Acts 1:1–6:7)
2. Judea and Samaria (Acts 6:1–11:30)
3. Ends of the Earth–though really the end game is Rome (Acts 12–28)

The conversions stories tell of God’s faithfulness to each of these moves, as Jesus had promised the apostles. Furthermore, the conversion stories illustrate the extent of God’s inclusion of outsiders into the story of Israel. Allow me to offer a few examples.

1. Jerusalem. Pentecost (Acts 2) illustrates that God first calls the the people of Israel (from lands far away and including aliens living among Israel, remember, proselytes from Rome?). Notice there is not another conversion story (though a summary note here and there that people are continuing to accept Jesus) until chapter 8. The Pentecost baptisms the continuing ministry of Jesus starts with his historic people.
2. Judea and Samaria.The Samaritans (Acts 8) come to Jesus through the preaching of Philip. This conversion story includes a non-conversion (Simon Magus). This narrative includes both the apostles and the Holy Spirit. The apostles are there to make this extension of God’s mission to the Samaria apostolic. After all, it was the apostles who were to be the witnesses of and in the geographic spread of the Good News. The presence of the Holy Spirit, while showing that God showed up, has the effect of certifying that God accepts the Samaritans.
   1. The Ethiopian Eunuch (beginning in Acts 8:26) is a further extension of God’s mission to near-Jews, like the Samaritans, whom God welcomed into his family. The one thing certain about the Eunuch is that he is Jewish—maybe not ethnically, but certain religiously. He is possibly a proselyte to Judaism at the very least since he made the trip to Jerusalem to worship. His acceptance of Jesus includes the presence of God’s Spirit but not the same intensity as the Pentecost and the Samaritans. Perhaps the narrative of the Spirit in the story of the Samaritan believer was enough to show that God also accepted other near-Jewish believers.
3. Ends of the Earth.
   1. Saul’s call and conversion is a culmination of those Hellenistic Jewish believers. While the conversion stories of Stephen and Philip are not told, they are like Paul later Hellenistic Jews. They are comfortable with the Greek language and they live in a world that was simultaneously Greco-Roman and Jewish. The all knew the Hebrew Bible in the Greek language of the LXX. Saul/Paul’s conversion story is dramatic but not to the same degree at Pentecost and the Samaritans. Nevertheless, elements of his conversion include regaining his sight, being filled with the Holy Spirit and being baptized (Acts 9:18–19). Saul’s conversion appears to be Luke’s paradigmatic story as it is told three times in Acts. Why? Because Luke’s readers are suspicious of Paul’s radical hospitality to the Gentiles.
   2. Cornelius. Cornelius story is told twice; once, narrated in chapter 10 and then rehearsed before Jewish believers in chapter 11 and mentioned again in Acts 15. The narrative about Cornelius and his family culminates in a “pentecostal”-type outpouring of the Holy Spirit showing clearly that Gentiles can be accepted as full members of God’s family without satisfying Jewish standards of ritual purity. Peter’s preparatory dream points in that direction: “What God has made clean, you must not call profane” (Acts 10:15). Peter underscores that the Gentile received the same experience as had the Jews on the day of Pentecost (Acts 11:15–18).
   3. Believers in Corinth. We have so many questions about who these “baptists” are (Acts 19:1–7). They appear to be some of the followers of John the Baptist who have not been fully informed about the ministry of Jesus. When they hear Paul, they are baptized and then the Holy Spirit comes upon them and they spoke in tongues and prophesied, as had the Jewish believers in Jesus at Pentecost and the Gentile believers in Jesus in Caesarea. As has been pointed out in the previous stories of conversion the presence the Spirit speaks of empowerment, but more importantly for Luke’s overall project, it speaks to inclusion. These former “baptists” should be welcomed into God family because God has accepted them.

There are a few more stories of conversion in Acts but these are sufficient to identify some of Luke’s interests in telling them. Allow me to note particularly the stories where there was a significant outpouring or experiencing of the Spirit.

Pentecost is the first one. Here the Spirit clearly demonstrates that God is pleased with the Jews who embrace Jesus as God’s messiah.

The Cornelius narrative in Acts marks, maybe not the chronologically first Gentile to believe in Jesus, but a symbolic one for Luke who shows that a Roman official and his family are acceptable to God.

Finally the story of those baptists in Corinth. Because of Luke’s agenda to underscore the people God is willing to welcome, I suspect that these twelve followers of John the Baptist posed a problem for the early Jewish Christians and Luke puts their concerns to rest by saying again: anyone can come to Jesus and God will welcome them.

Mis-Reading Acts: The Primacy of the Name “Christian”

“The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.” (Acts 11:26)

In today’s media, when people speak of “Christians,” they don’t necessarily mean those who have made a deep commitment to following Jesus and living by his ways. In fact, “Christian” has become increasingly problematic in the way it can be politically loaded.

Also of interest is the way in Western Christianity, the word Christian has become the preferred moniker for those following (in a general sense) the teachings of Christ or those who claim some nominal connection to Christianity. To the contrary, the few times the label occurs in Christian Scripture, it appears to be the least preferred designation.

I have even heard apologists for the divine origin of name “Christian” cite Isa 62:2 as a prooftext:

“The nations will see your vindication, and all kings your glory; you will be called by a new name that the mouth of the LORD will bestow.” 

However, a bit of context will clear this reading up. The Isaiah belongs to an oracle about Jerusalem (v. 1), where Jerusalem’s name will be changed from “Deserted” and “Desolate” to Hephzibah (my delight) and Beulah (married) (v. 4). In other words, Isaiah is quite clear on what the new name will be.

A more accurate assessment of Acts 11:26 is that the followers of Jesus received the appellation “Christian” by Greek speakers who made the connection between Christ and his followers, thus, Χριστιανοί (Christians). In the same way that Herod’s adherents were known as Ἡρῳδιανοί (Herodians). Later, in Acts 26:28, Agrippa asks Paul if the the apostle was seeking to persuade him to become a “Christian.” Thus, it was Agrippa’s word not Paul’s.

The only other place the word appears in the New Testament is in 1 Pet 4:16 and there it serves as an accusation made of someone such as a governmental officials: “but if one suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God in this name” (ASV). “In this name” is best seen as reflecting the root of the word: Christ. And in this case, if an accuser calls you by the name Christian…

In his new commentary on Acts, Craig Keener is correct when he writes that the early

Christians called themselves “saints,” “brothers,” “believers,” “the way,” or “disciples,” several of these being terms that outsiders would not readily concede to them. (Keener, Craig S. 3:1—14:28. Acts: An Exegetical Commentary 2. Accordance electronic edition, version 1.0. 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013).

Perhaps these more generic terms might be more useful for Christian’s self-identity today. While I’m happy to be identified as a Christian-—when that word means one who is committed to Jesus and his ways—these terms that outsiders are not likely to use of us might be the more powerful designations for those of us who follow Jesus.

Mis-Reading Acts: Did the Apostles Distribute the Holy Spirit?

I learned a way of reading Acts that went something like this: The Holy Spirit came upon the Apostles, who were then able to pass the Holy Spirit on to others, but these others could not pass the Spirit beyond themselves. I later learned that this understanding was a major plank in Cessationism, once common among the Churches of Christ and a number of other protestant groups. Cessationism is the belief that the spiritual gifts were limited to the first century and after the New Testament was in place, the spiritual gifts were no longer necessary.

Those who espouse this view distinguish between the empowering of the Holy Spirit (sometimes called the “miraculous measure” of the Spirit) and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (or the “ordinary measure” of the Spirit), which all believers receive. Thus, in this way of thinking, the apostles received the empowering of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:1–4 but believers received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38–39. What a surprise it was to find that Luke does not seem to know these distinctions. In fact, Luke doesn’t deal much with any experience of the Spirit that might be called “indwelling,” instead he focused consistently on how the Spirit empowered the early church to do extraordinary things. The indwelling motif belongs to Paul and John but is not at home in Luke’s writings.

This article contends that only one person ever had the privilege of distributing the Holy Spirit and is so named by John the Baptist as the one who will baptize in the Holy Spirit (Luke 3:15–17; Acts 1:5; 11:16). Certainly the apostles experienced the Holy Spirit in powerful ways, but they do not actually “give” the Holy Spirit to others.

In the cessationist model, only those whom the apostles laid hands on could work miracles but they could not pass on the Holy Spirit in the way they had received it. A much more biblical understanding is possible.

An ambiguity on this topic reaches back to the tension found in the Pentateuch regarding Moses’s laying hands on Joshua. In Numbers 27:18, the Lord commands Moses to lay hands on Joshua who already has the spirit (over-translated as “spirit of leadership” in the NIV 2011) within him. Yet in Deuteronomy 34:9, Joshua is said to have the spirit of wisdom because Moses had laid hands on him:

Now Joshua son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom because (כִּי) Moses had laid his hands on him. So the Israelites listened to him and did what the LORD had commanded Moses.

For sure, the “spirit” texts in the Hebrew Bible can be hard to interpret since the word “spirit” does not always refer to the Holy Spirit. In the case the Deut 34:9, for example, the text could read that Joshua was filled with the “influence of wisdom,” or simply “wisdom.” Nonetheless, in this blog, I’m assuming the early church would have heard “Holy Spirit” in Deut 34:9.

More importantly for our purposes here is that “because” (כִּי) can be translated as “when” and a number of other coordinating words. In short, this word is not necessarily causal. I suggest that this ambiguity between these two texts in the Pentateuch support the understanding that Moses participated with God in the giving of the Spirit to Joshua but he was never source, cause, or conduit for the Holy Spirit. Thus, the ambiguity results from the coming of the Spirit on others at the occasion of hands being laid on an individual. 

Now let’s look at several proof texts in Acts used by cessationists to support the notion that the apostles could give pass on the Holy Spirit.

The first involves the commissioning of the seven servants to serve the Hellenistic Jewish widows in Acts 6:1–6. When these Greek-named servants were presented to the apostles, Luke tells us, the apostles prayed for them and laid their hands on them. Shortly thereafter, Stephen, one of the seven, is said to have “performed great wonders and signs among the people” (Acts 6:8), language previously used of the apostles (Acts 2:43; 5:12; cf. 14:3). The assumption that Stephen is able to do miracles because the apostles laid hands on him can only be maintained if one ignores what Luke has already made clear: all seven of those chosen to serve the widows were “full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom” (Acts 6:3; note the echo of Deut 34:9). 

Next, let’s notice the delayed coming of the Holy Spirit on the Samaritans in Acts 8.

When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. (Acts 8:15–17)

A couple of notes make this text clearer. First when Peter and John came to Samaria, it was because something was off with the way the earliest Christians experienced the Spirit: the Holy Spirit had not “yet” (οὐδέπω) fallen on them, they had simply (μόνον) been baptized. This is Luke’s contrast. From his point of view, some deficiency existed that needed a remedy. In response to this deficiency, the apostles came to pray that the Samaritans “might receive” (λάβωσιν; a subjunctive that expresses potentiality) the Holy Spirit. Therefore, even the apostles Peter and John came with the hope, but not the certainty, that the believers would receive the Holy Spirit. Finally God honoured their prayer for the believers by granting the Spirit when they laid hands on them. Luke keeps the relationship between the the Holy Spirit and the apostles’ hands loose by using “and” (καὶ) between the clauses in v. 17.

Surprisingly, it is Simon who makes the causal connection—and he was wrong here and with his assumption that he could buy the gift.

When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money and said, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit. (Acts 8:18–19)

Clearly Simon wanted the ability to pass on the Holy Spirit, even offering money in an attempt to gain this privilege. He, with modern cessationists, confused correlation with causation. The apostles certainly participated with God who gave the Holy Spirit to the Samaritans but Luke has already made it clear that even the apostles prayed that the believers might receive the Spirit. They are not Spirit-Pez dispensers.

The connection between hands and Spirit also occurs in the story of Saul’s call:

Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit. (Acts 9:17)

This text is the closest we have in Acts that might point to a causal relationship between laying on of hands and the reception of the Spirit. Ananias was sent so that (ὅπως) Saul might see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit. For those maintaining a cessationist viewpoint, this is an unfortunate text because Ananias is not an apostle. That is, the case of Ananias is the exception that breaks the cessationist contention that the only the apostles passed on the Spirit. And since those who received the Spirit could not pass it on to a third generation of believers, Saul breaks the other side of the case. Rather Ananias was the one who laid hands on Paul; Paul, in turn, laid hands on Timothy (2 Tim 1:6; cf 1 Tim 4:14). However, as I have argued here, this whole line of reasoning is faulty.

Simply the notion of human distribution of the Holy Spirit is not consistent with the whole biblical witness. Rather, and more properly, God sometimes allows humans to participate in sharing of God’s presence but humans should never be confused for the source, cause, or conduit of the presence of the Spirit. The presence of God always transcends human capacity to handle or control God’s power.

Finally, one last account in Acts involves hands and the Spirit. Paul has a rather unexpected encounter with some followers of John the Baptist in Ephesus (Acts 19: 1–6). In vv. 5–7, the NIV translates,

On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve men in all.

While the occasion of receiving the Holy Spirit is when Paul laid hands on them, the text does not say that Paul is some sort of conduit for the Holy Spirit. The relationship of the grammar of this sentence is that we have a circumstantial participle (“placed”) in relationship to the finite verb (“came”). In short, on the occasion of Paul placing his hands on them, the Spirit came upon them.

I believed that Luke picked up the ambiguity one finds in the Pentateuch between the Spirit and the laying of hands and he feels no need to alleviated that tension for us. Furthermore, this ambiguity plays into Luke’s understanding of the sovereignty of God and human participation in the presence of God. As far as spiritual gifts are concerned, Paul and Luke agree. Luke in Acts 2:4 wrote, “All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them ability”; Paul said in 1 Cor 12:11, ” the “same Spirit… allots to each one individually just as the Spirit chooses.”

Mis-Reading Acts: What Shall We Do?

“What shall we do?” When I hear this question, it always reminds me of Acts 2:38. After all it sets up Acts 2:38:

“When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” (τί ποιήσωμεν;) Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” (Acts 2:37–38)

So what we generally hear as the answer to this question is that people need to be baptized. However, if Luke is consistent, he is much more interested in the repenting side of the equation. And he has some outcomes we tend to minimize or not mention at all as we prepare people for baptism. Allow me to demonstrate.

Surprisingly the question occurs more than once in Luke-Acts. And it appears to be thematic for Luke.

The question first appears in Luke 3 as a response to John the Baptist’s preaching. John preached, “The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. The crowd responded, “What should we do then?” John’s answer undoubtedly caught his listeners off guard

Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.

Again, in the very same context (3:12), tax collectors who came for baptism and asked, “Teacher, “what should we do?”

Don’t collect any more than you are required to.

Yet, again and still the same context (3:14), soldiers coming for baptism also asked, “What shall we do?”

Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.

In each case, people are called on to repent relative to how they handle their stuff and the way they take stuff from others.

The questions at the beginning of Luke’s Gospel appears to parallel the same question at the beginning of Acts. John preached at the beginning of the Gospel; Peter at the beginning of Acts. They both called on people to repent. They both prepared people for baptism.

Perhaps, given Luke‘s interest to show how repenting has an impact on how we handle our stuff, Luke might have the same interest in Acts. In Acts, the people show that they repented by being baptism—the relationship between repenting and baptism is a topic for a later discussion—and by taking on other behaviours such as sharing their resources in common, including selling property to meet the needs of others (2:44–45; 4:32, 34–35). So as in Luke so also in Acts, repenting involves our stuff and how we might get our stuff.

So what should we do? Repent—and share your stuff and not take more than you need! Perhaps this teaching should be restored to what we tell people preparing to be baptized.