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.

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.

Mis-Reading Acts: God Gives the Holy Spirit to Those Who Obey Him.

“We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him” (Acts 5:32).

The text above has been read to say that God gives the Holy Spirit only to those who obey him or even God gives the Holy Spirit because people have obeyed him. However, neither of these readings quite get what Luke is actually saying.

Context. The context of this text is Peter and the other apostles explaining to the Jewish Sanhedrin why they must continue to speak in the name of Jesus despite the Sanhedrin’s prohibition. Peter explained,

We must obey God rather than any human authority. The God of our ancestors raised up Jesus, whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him (Acts 5:29–32).

The point Peter makes here is that the apostles are witnesses of the life and work of Jesus to give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. The Holy Spirit is also a witness and that Holy Spirit has been given to the apostles and not the Sanhedrin. [See on this point, 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].

Grammar. Sometime English just won’t do. This text is more nuanced than “so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him” would reveal. The phrase “to those who obey him” (τοῖς πειθαρχοῦσιν αὐτῷ) contains a present participle that might be rendered better as “to those who are obeying him.” The Sanhedrin is not obeying at present; the apostles are. (Note also that “we must obey” [πειθαρχεῖν] begins Peter’s response in v. 29).

Implication. Frederick D. Bruner (A Theology of the Holy Spirit [Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1997], 172) is correct when he notes that here obedience is the result of the prior presence of the Spirit in the lives of the apostolic witnesses (172). Thus consistent with Luke, the Holy Spirit empowers the believers to obey God.

Thus, God has given the Spirit to those who are currently obeying him! Does your obeying reflect the presence of the Spirit?

Mis-Reading Acts: Promised Only to the Apostles?

A narrow reading of John’s prediction that Jesus would baptize in the Holy Spirit, as repeated in Acts 1:4–5, is that John’s prediction was specifically about the apostles. However, Luke’s presentation of John’s prediction is much broader, in fact, much broader. For example, Luke records,

The people were waiting expectantly and were all wondering in their hearts if John might possibly be the Messiah. John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit… (Luke 3:15–16 NIV).

Luke is clear that John’s audience were people in general. John claimed that he could only baptize the people in water but the Messiah will baptize “you” (his audience) with the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 13:24; 19:2–4). These words are then picked up in Acts to refer to what the apostles would soon experience on Pentecost (Acts 1:4–5). Later when Luke narrates how the Holy Spirit came on Cornelius and his household, he recalled John’s words:

“Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”(Acts 11:16–17)

The “us” of this text is Peter’s Jewish Christian audience (“us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ”) and the “same gift” (ἴσην δωρεὰν) is the Holy Spirit which parallels what Peter promised to all believer in Acts 2:38 (δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος). Luke does not see the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost to be fundamentally different from other “comings” of the Spirit on people throughout Acts. This topic will be treated more fully in a later blog, but for now the word “promise” through Acts 1 and 2 is my focus.

1. The early disciples are commanded to go to Jerusalem and “wait for what the Father has promised which you have heard about from me” (1:4; cf. Luke 24:49). He then links this promise to be what John had said (1:5).
2. In Acts 2:33, Peter, in his first sermon, explained that the exalted Jesus “has received the promised Holy Spirit and now pours out what you see and hear.”
3. In Acts 2:38, Peter’s well-known invitation to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sin is followed by “and you will receive (future tense–think about it!) the Holy Spirit.” Baptism and repentance, then, prepares the way for the Holy Spirit to come. For Luke, this is not so odd as Jesus received the Spirit following his baptism, as he was praying (Luke 3:21–22).
4. Luke is not done yet. After noting that people who come to Jesus will “receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,” he continued, “The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call” (Acts 2:39 NIV). This is Luke’s way to say that the Messiah will continue to pour out his Spirit on his people. Luke gives us no reason to think that he is now talking of a different experience when it comes to receiving the Spirit of God.

This is consistent in Paul’s writings, too. In 1 Cor 12:13, Paul writes, “For we were all baptized by [in, with] one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.” Paul see all Christians as those who have been baptized “in” one Spirit.

And then in Titus 3:4–6, Paul rejoiced that “…when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior.” Here Paul used the language of Pentecost to speak of all those who have been saved.

Finally, from Luke’s perspective, the Holy Spirit is the certain sign that God has kept his promise.