The Book of Acts

Lesson 10

Authorship and Date

(1) In our discussion of Luke’s Gospel we made the point that the Book of Acts is the companion volume to this Gospel and we discussed evidence for Lukan authorship of both. We noticed that the Book of Acts contains no references to events later than 62 or 63 AD and that there is good reason to date Acts a little later than this (see comments found in our survey of the Gospel of Luke regarding the date and place of composition). We also noted that some (eg F. F. Bruce) favour a slightly later date, arguing that Luke did not provide an account of Paul’s activities after his release because he was not an eyewitness of these events.

(2) Early writers such as Polycarp, Justin Martyr and Tatian allude to the book and clearly recognise it as authoritative, while Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Ireneaus testify to Lukan authorship. For example:

“But that this Luke was inseparable from Paul, and was his fellow-labourer in the Gospel, he himself clearly evinces, not as a matter of boasting, but as bound to do so, by the truth itself… And all the remaining facts of his courses with Paul, he recounts. … As Luke was present at all these occurrences, he carefully noted them down in writing, so that he cannot be convicted of falsehood or boastfulness, etc” (Ireneaus: Against Heresies).

“And assuredly, God fulfilled his promise, since it is proved in the Acts of the Apostles that the Holy Ghost did come down. Now they who reject that Scripture can neither belong to the Holy Ghost, seeing that they cannot acknowledge that the Holy Ghost has been sent as yet to the disciples, nor can they presume to be a church themselves, who positively have no means of proving when, and with what infant-nursings this body was established” (Tertullian: On Prescription Against Heretics xxii).

(3) In the Muratorian Fragment, we read:

“The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. (3) Luke, the well-known physician, after the ascension of Christ, (4-5) when Paul had taken him with him as one zealous for the law, (6) composed it in his own name, according to [the general] belief…

Moreover, the acts of all the apostles were written in one book. For ‘most excellent Theophilus’ Luke compiled the individual events that took place in his presence - as he plainly shows by omitting the martyrdom of Peter as well as the departure of Paul from the city [of Rome] (39) when he journeyed to Spain.”

Also note the close similarity in style and language between Luke and Acts.

Purpose, Theme and Characteristics

In the preface to his Gospel, Luke explains that he is writing to Theophilus in order that the latter might “know the exact truth about the things (which he had) been taught” (Lk 1:3). Luke describes the Lord’s ministry, death and resurrection, proving an account of “all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up to heaven” (Acts 1:1-2). In Acts, Luke takes the account forward by describing the Lord’s ascension and the systematic spread of Christianity amongst the Jews, Samaritans and Gentiles under the direction of the Holy Spirit. The two leading characters are Peter and Paul. Acts begins in the city of Jerusalem, capital of Israel and ends in Rome, capital of the world’s greatest empire.

The Kingdom

The Coming of the Kingdom

Again and again the Old Testament prophets had looked into the future and had spoken of a time when the Kingdom of God would be established (eg Isaiah 2; Joel 2; Daniel 2:44 etc). The Gospels, especially Matthew, tell us that this Kingdom was “at hand” during the days of John the Baptist and Jesus (Matt 3:2; Mk 1:15). The Lord emphasized that this kingdom would come “with power” during the lifetime of His listeners (Mk 9:1) and Luke’s gospel actually concludes with this promise of Jesus to the apostles: “And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high” (Lk 24:49). The “city” is Jerusalem, and thus the message of the Gospels is that the long-awaited Kingdom would come when power came upon the apostles in Jerusalem.

The Establishment of the Kingdom

The Book of Acts is a continuation of the themes discussed in the Gospels, and in particular, as the companion volume to the third Gospel. Not surprisingly - Acts tells of the establishment of the Kingdom which was “at hand” during the days of John and Jesus. Thus:

· Following His resurrection, Jesus appeared to “the apostles whom He had chosen” (Acts 1:2) over a period of forty days “speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3).

· Jesus tells the apostles that the promised “power” (associated with the establishment of the Kingdom - Mk 9:1) would come upon them in the city of Jerusalem (as in Lk 24:49) “not many days from now” (Acts 1:3-8, esp. 5). This “power” is identified as baptism in the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5, cf Matt 3:11).

· Just ten days after Christ’s ascension (Acts 1:9), the promised power/Holy Spirit baptism came upon the apostles in the city of Jerusalem on the first Pentecost (Feast of Weeks – eg Deut 16:10) following the Passover after Christ’s death (Acts 2). In Acts 2:1-2 we read that “When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting.” Some have incorrectly concluded that the pronoun in Acts 2:1 includes the “one hundred and twenty persons” of Acts 1:15. However, baptism of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost was limited to the twelve apostles. (The importance of The Holy Spirit Baptism will be discussed next). The “tongues as of fire” (Acts 2:3) rested upon the apostles, not upon the “one hundred and twenty persons” of Acts 1:15. On this occasion, the impartation of the gift of “tongues” was to the apostles only. (On the nature of the miraculous gift of tongues in the apostolic period see our Acts Study 2: Tongues in the New Testament). A few days earlier Jesus had told the “apostles whom He had chosen” (not “the one hundred and twenty”) to wait in Jerusalem for “power” (Acts 1:1-12) – (see our Acts Study 3: The Apostolic Office).

· Peter preaches the first gospel sermon (Acts 2:14-39) to Jews and proselytes (converts to Judaism – Acts 2:5, 10) and some 3,000 obey the gospel on that day (Acts 2:41). Those who obey the gospel are citizens of the Kingdom. God’s long-awaited spiritual Kingdom (Jn 18:36) – the church (Matt 16:18-19) - is established and from now on the Kingdom is spoken of as a present reality (eg Col 1:13; Heb 12:28). Peter has used the “keys” (Matt 16:18) to open the door of the kingdom, having preached the first gospel sermon.

The Expansion of the Kingdom

In Acts 1:8 b, Jesus says to the apostles: “and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.” F. F. Bruce says:

“It has often been pointed out that the geographical terms of verse 8 provide a sort of “Index of Contents” for Acts.” “You will be my witnesses” might be regarded as announcing the theme of the book; “in Jerusalem,” covers the first seven chapters, “in all Judea and Samaria” covers 8:1 to 11:18, and the remainder of the book traces the progress of the gospel outside the frontiers of the Holy Land until it reaches Rome” (New International Commentary on the New Testament: Acts).

Some details of this expansion of the Kingdom:

Jerusalem - Chapter 1 to Chapter 7

Having described the establishment of the kingdom/church at Jerusalem, Luke tells us of the daily growth of the Kingdom (Acts 2:47). He records:

· Peter’s second sermon (Acts 3:11-26).

· The resulting opposition of the Jewish authorities (Acts 4:1-22).

· The sin of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11).

· The numerical growth of the church (Acts 5:12-16).

· An internal church problem is solved by the appointment of seven deacons (Acts 6:1-7)

Again we are told that “… the number of the disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem” (Acts 6:7). Stephen’s heroic defence of the truth and subsequent martyrdom take us through to the end of this section. Notice that the focus of our attention throughout this section is the church in Jerusalem.

Judea and Samaria - Chapter 8:4 to Chapter 11:18

Following Stephen’s martyrdom “a great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered through-out the regions of Judea and Samaria except the apostles” (Acts 8:1). The kingdom continues to spread because “…those who had been scattered went about preaching the word” (Acts 8:4). A little later we read “so then, those who were scattered because of the persecution that arose in connection with Stephen made their way to Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no-one except to Jews alone” (Acts 11:19). However, Luke records that although these brethren were evangelising among the Jews as far north as Phoenicia, the island of Cyprus and the city of Antioch, others worked to good effect in Judea and Samaria. Acts 8 describes Philip’s work in Samaria (Acts 8:4-25), his conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-29) and his efforts at Caesarea.

The first recorded instance of Gentile conversion is the baptism of Cornelius at Caesarea (Acts 10) after Peter learns the important lesson that “God is not one to show partiality” (Acts 10:34). Since the Book of Acts has a great deal to say about the inclusion of the Gentiles in the blessings of the gospel, Acts 10 is an important chapter - showing Peter’s growing understanding of the universal nature of the message entrusted to him and the other apostles. While Peter’s having enjoyed table fellowship with “uncircumcised men” initially met with opposition (Acts 11:1-3), the eventual result is that the Gospel is preached to the Gentiles (Acts 11:20). We notice that thus far, the Jerusalem church has formed the base for evangelistic activity among the Jews. We also notice that in this section (Acts 8:4-11:18), it is Judea and Samaria which provide the main backdrop for the events described.

The remotest part of the earth – Chapter 11:19 to Chapter 28:31

We noticed earlier that the Jewish Christians (who were scattered because of the persecution that arose in connection with Stephen) preached the gospel only to the Jews (Acts 11:19). However, “…there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene who came to Antioch and began speaking to the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus” (Acts 11:20). Evidently this occurred after the baptism of Cornelius, and following Peter’s defence of his actions (Acts 11:4-18). Shortly afterwards Barnabas began his association with the church at Antioch (Acts 11:22-23), having been sent by the brethren at Jerusalem. Barnabas enlisted Saul (Paul) to help with the work at Antioch (Acts 11:21-30).

Tenney tells us:

“The church at Antioch was important because it possessed certain distinctive features. First, it was the mother of all the Gentile churches...from the Antioch church went the first recognised mission to the unevangelised world... The church at Antioch was distinguished also for its teachers... Of those mentioned in Acts 13:1, only Barnabas and Paul were known from later references, but their ministry must have made the church famous as a centre of teaching. Antioch virtually superseded Jerusalem as the home of Christian preaching and as the head-quarters of evangelistic missions.”

William M. Ramsey has:

“There is indubitably a certain feeling that a new start is made at this point… The subject demanded here a fresh start, for a great step in the development of the early Church was about to be narrated, “the opening of a door to the Gentiles” (14:27). The author emphasised this step beyond all others, because he was himself a Gentile; and the development of the Church through the extension of Christian influence was the guiding idea of his historical work” (St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen).

We read in Acts 13:1-4 that following his return from Jerusalem, the church at Antioch sends Paul out with Barnabas upon what we usually call The First Missionary Journey. This journey started after the death of Herod (Acts 12:21-25) in 44 AD, so it likely began in about 45 AD and ended about 48/49 AD.

The First Missionary Journey – Chapter 13:4 to Chapter 14 (ca 45-48/49 AD)

Briefly:

· Antioch of Syria (Acts 13:1-3).

· Seleucia of Syria (Acts 13:4).

· Salamis (Island of Cyprus) – “through the whole island as far as Paphos” (Island of Cyprus) where we meet Sergius Paulus and Elymas (Acts 13:5-12).

· Perga in Pamphylia where John Mark leaves (Acts 13:13).

· Pisidian Antioch, capital of South Galatia (Acts 13:14) where Paul and Barnabas are driven out of the district (Acts 13:50).

· Iconium (Acts 13:51) where they were forced to flee (Acts 14:5-6).

· Lystra (where Paul was stoned and dragged out of the city – Acts 14:19), Derbe and the surrounding region of Lycaonia (Acts 14:6).

· Back through Lystra, Iconium to Pisidia Antioch (Acts 14:21, 24).

· Through Pisidia into Perga of Pamphylia (Acts14:24-25).

· Attalia - a seacoast town in Pamphylia (Acts14:25).

· By sea to Antioch of Syria (Acts14:26) from which they had been sent out.

This was a journey of more than 1200-1400 miles which saw the establishment of more than half a dozen churches.

The Second Missionary Journey – Chapter 15:36 to Chapter 18:22 (ca 51-54 AD)

Briefly:

· Antioch, through to Syria and Cilicia “strengthening the churches” (Acts 15:41).

· Derbe and Lystra where Timothy joins them (Acts 16:1-3).

· Through the Phrygian and Galatian region, having been forbidden to speak the word in Asia (Acts 16:6).

· Passing by Mysia, they came down to Troas (Acts 16:7-8) where a certain man from Macedonia calls (Acts 16:9).

“and when they had come to Mysia” seems to suggest that they were on the eastern border of the area - either they passed through the area without stopping at cities or they passed around by travelling along its southern borders to Troas.

Troas (in Asia) was the pivotal point between land masses of Europe and Asia Minor.

(Into Europe)

· By sea to Neapolis (Macedonia, the northern part of what is now modern Greece) (Acts 16:11).

· Philippi, “a leading city of the district of Macedonia” (Acts 16:12) where he converts Lydia and the Jailer (Acts 16:14-40).

· Through the Macedonian cities of Amphipolis and Apollonia (Acts 17:1) to Thessalonica where they were mistreated (Acts 17:1-9).

· Berea (Macedonia) (Acts 17:10-14).

· Athens (Achaia) where Paul gives a sermon on Mars Hill (Acts 17:15-34).

· Corinth (Achaia) where he meets Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:1) and settles there for 18 months (Acts 18:11).

· From Cenchrea (eastern seaport serving city of Corinth) (Acts18:18) to Ephesus (Acts 18:19).

· By sea to Caesarea (on western border of land of Palestine) where Paul “went up and greeted the church” likely at Jerusalem and then on to Antioch (Acts 18:22).

This was a trip of about 2,800 miles.

The Third Missionary Journey – Chapter 18:23 to Chapter 21:16 (ca 54-58 AD

Briefly:

· Antioch.

· Passed successively through Galatian region and Phrygia, strengthening all the disciples (Acts 18:23).

· Ephesus (Acts 19:1) where Paul spent between 2 years and three month and three years (Acts 19:8-10; Acts 20:31).

· Paul determines to go to Jerusalem after passing through Macedonia and Achaia and then to go to Rome (Acts 19:21).

· North from Ephesus into Macedonia, where he meets Titus returning from Corinth (Acts 20:1; 2 Cor 2:12-13, 2 Cor 7:6). It is likely Paul’s three months in Greece (Acts 20:2, 31) were spent at Corinth (2 Cor 9:4).

· Back through the Province of Macedonia (Acts 20:3).

· By sea from Philippi to Troas (Acts 20:6).

· Travels overland to Assos (Acts 20:13-14).

· From Assos by sea, anchoring on the way at Mitylene, capital of the island of Lesbos (Acts 20:14).

· Anchorage near mainland opposite island of Chios, crossed over to Samos (an island about 50 miles southeast of Chios) and arrived at Miletus (Acts 20:15) where Paul sends for the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:16).

· By sea to Cos (the chief city on the island of Cos some 40 miles south of Miletus) and then to Rhodes (an island about 50 miles southwest of Cos) and from there to Patara (a harbour on the coast of Lycia) (Acts 21:1).

· Tyre of Syria and overland through Ptolemais (30 miles south of Tyre) (Acts 21:3-7).

· Caesarea (Acts 21:8).

· Jerusalem (21:15-17).

A trip of about 2,700 miles.

“Paul seems to have had a carefully designed strategy for evangelism. He aimed to establish churches in the largest population centres, which he could easily reach on the paved Roman roads. From there local converts could take the message into more remote towns and villages. This was evidently successful. At least one of his letters (Colossians) was written to a church founded in this way, and later in the first century most of the areas he visited had many flourishing congregations” (Bruce M. Metzger, Michael D. Coogan The Oxford companion to the Bible).

Arrested by the Roman authorities under suspicion of having fomented a riot in the temple (Acts 21:27-36), a threat against his life caused Paul’s transfer to Caesarea (Acts 23:23 ff) where he spent two years (Acts 24:27). Paul appeals to Caesar (Acts 25:11) and is taken to Rome for trial (Acts 27:1-28:16). His journey involved a shipwreck off the island of Malta where he spent the winter (Acts 27:11- 28:11). Luke concludes his account with Paul under house arrest for two years in Rome (Acts 28:30, 31), about 61-63 A.D.

Thus the Book of Acts records the establishment of the Kingdom of God and its expansion over the first 30 years of its existence, developing one of the important themes of the Gospel accounts.

“Streeter suggested that an alternative title for the book of Acts might be ‘The Road to Rome’, for this is indeed the significance of Luke’s work. Whatever minor motifs Luke had in mind…his main concern was to show that, in God’s plan for the renewal of the life of mankind, Jerusalem, the heart of old Israel, was the goal of Stage I [as seen in the Book of Luke], while Rome, the centre of the world, was the goal of Stage II [as seen in the Book of Acts]” (William Neil, The Acts of the Apostles).

Without this Book we would find it difficult to understand why Christianity, which has its roots in the Old Testament and Judaism, came to be a worldwide religion. In Acts we see that “the Christian movement was one movement, whether the believers were Jews, proselytes, Samaritans or Gentiles. It shows how Jewish and Gentile believers are related to each other in the church” (Gareth L. Reese, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Acts).

The Spirit was poured out upon all mankind (Acts 2:17) not simply Jews; all had been granted “repentance that leads to life” and conversion to Christ did not involve submission to the Mosaic Law (chapter 15).

The Holy Spirit

Just when Luke’s second treatise came to be titled “The Acts of the Apostles” is not clear, but some insist that it should be called “The Acts of the Holy Spirit,” and certainly no other part of scripture more emphatically sets forth the action of the Spirit in the establishment and growth of the Kingdom-Church.

· It was from the lips of John the Baptist that we first hear the promise of Holy Spirit Baptism (Matt 3:11). Jesus’ promise of the Holy Spirit as the Paraclete (Comforter, Helper or Advocate) which is recorded by John (Jn 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7), is the promise of Holy Spirit Baptism, and is made only to the apostles in the Gospel here. As we saw above, it is the apostles as specially-chosen witnesses (Acts 1:1-8, 22; 2:32) who receive “power” when the Holy Spirit comes upon them on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), guiding them to all truth (Jn 14:26) and providing miraculous confirmation of the gospel (Heb 2:4) (see Acts Study 4: Gifts and Confirmation). This special baptism was directly from heaven, involved no human instrument and was essential to the establishment of the Kingdom-Church.

The only other instance of Holy Spirit Baptism in the Book of Acts is the case of Cornelius and his household in chapter 10. Peter says that they had received the Spirit “just as we did” (Acts 10:47) and later explains this to mean that the Holy Spirit “fell upon them, just as He did upon us at the beginning” (Acts 11:15). The “beginning” is of course the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, and the “us” are the apostles. Later Peter will explain that God gave these Gentiles “the same gift as He gave to us” (Acts 11:17) meaning baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 11:16). What amazes the Jewish visitors on this occasion is the fact that the Holy Spirit has been poured out directly upon Cornelius without the laying on of the apostles’ hands. The only parallel that they can find is what happened in Jerusalem to the apostles years before, as recorded in Acts 2. Acts 10 is often called the “Gentile Pentecost.” Significantly up until that time, those Jewish Christians who had been scattered because of persecution had been speaking the word “to no one except to Jews alone” (Acts 11:19), but after the “Gentile Pentecost” we read that some “began speaking to the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus” (Acts 11:20). The preaching of the gospel to the entire world gets under way. Thus, it is by the power of the Spirit that the Church is established in the great centres of the world: Jerusalem, Antioch Cyprus, Antioch of Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, Philippi, Thessalonica, Beræa, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, and Rome. It is from these centres that the message goes out to the surrounding districts.

· Acts helps us to understand that the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit were bestowed by the laying on of the apostles’ hands (Acts 8:12-19; 19:1-6) and helps us understand why these gifts are not available today (see our Acts Study 3: The Apostolic Office).

In short, the record in Acts provides ample proof that the whole Christian movement is indeed of God. To select just a few examples:

· Signs and wonders take place at the hands of those preaching the Word (Acts 2:43; 3:6 etc).

· Philip’s work is Spirit-directed and equipped (Acts 8:26, 40).

· Paul is set apart by the Spirit (Acts 13:2), guided into Europe by the Spirit (Acts 16:7) and warned by the Spirit (Acts 21:11) etc.

· Through the ministry of the church, the Word of God which is the sword of the Holy Spirit (Eph 6:17), confronts men everywhere (Acts 4:29, 31; 6:2, 4, 7; 8:4, 14, 25; 10:36; 11:1, 19; 12:24; 13:7, 44, 46, 48-49; 15:35-36; 16:6, 32; 17:11, 13; 18:5, 11; 19:10).

Thus, virtually every page of Acts tells us that God’s hand is in the spread of the gospel. The Holy Spirit equips His servant for work in the Kingdom and the power of God protects them (Acts 12:7-11; 16:25-26; 27:23-24). The spread of the kingdom is a work of God, a continuation of the work and teaching of Jesus Himself (Acts 1:1) and the kingdom/church guided by the Holy Spirit is the instrument through which that teaching is carried out.

Luke the apologist

F. F Bruce, (The Book of Acts: New International Commentary) describes Luke as “the pioneer among Christian apologists,” an apologist being one who defends by argument. Bruce suggests that the Book of Acts contains the following forms of apologetic (among others):

A defensive argument “addressed to the civil authorities to establish the law-abiding character of Christianity”

The founder of Christianity had been executed by the Roman authorities on a charge of sedition and Christianity was “everywhere spoken against” (28:22). Charges of disturbing the peace by teaching customs contrary to Roman law (16:20-21), of defying Caesar’s decrees (17:7) and of encouraging prohibited forms of worship (18:13) are levelled against the early preachers, and as the gospel spread over the Roman world, it was accompanied by friction and disorder.

Luke demonstrates that those involved in keeping order were favourably impressed by the early Christians and found no grounds for complaint. For example:

· The proconsul on the island of Cyprus (13:7, 12).

· The apologetic magistrates at Philippi (16:37-39).

· Gallio, who declares that Paul has not broken Roman law (18:12-17).

· The officials at Ephesus (19:31, 35-41).

· Felix and Festus, who find no charges for Paul to answer (24:22-25:25).

Thus Luke demonstrates that Christianity is not a lawless movement threatening the Roman peace, and that it is, in the main, Jewish opposition to the gospel which causes upheaval (eg 8:3; 14:5; 17:5-13; 21:27 ff). Acts makes its clear that the Sadducees, who denied the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, were greatly alarmed at the Apostle’s teaching this doctrine (4:1-2) and “filled with jealousy” at the people’s ready reception of the gospel message (5:17).

An argument designed to show that “Christianity and not Judaism is the true fulfilment of the word of God spoken through Moses and the prophets”

There is emphasis upon the fact that Christ’s death was according to the predetermined plan of God (eg 2:23; 4:28; 13:27); Stephen’s speech (chapter 7) shows how the Jewish system pointed to Jesus and how the Jewish rejection of Christ is consistent with their behaviour in the Old Testament era; Jewish rejection of Christ amounts to their judging themselves unworthy of eternal life (13:46) and is a fulfilment of prophesy (2:26 ff).

Luke demonstrates that:

· The truth of Christianity stands despite Israel’s rejection of the gospel.

· The church rather than fleshly Israel constitutes the true people of God.

· God’s rejection of the nation of Israel is the consequence of the nation’s having rejected the gospel of His Son.

(Some argue that the main purpose of Acts is to explain how a movement which began among Jews became predominantly Gentile in makeup).

Paul’s address to the Athenians is one of the earliest examples of Christian apologetic to pagans, designed to show that the true knowledge of God is given in the gospel and not in the idolatrous vanities of paganism (17:22-31)

Righteous pagans like Cornelius turn to the one God (chapter 10) and away from occultic practices (19:17-19). The gospel dissipates the darkness of paganism.

Acts demonstrates that through the providence of God, the early church was united

There being no division among Gentile, Jewish and Samaritan Christians.

Defence of Paul’s apostleship

Paul frequently had to defend his apostleship against those who challenged his authority but “No one could read Acts and doubt that Paul was really commissioned by the risen Christ as ‘a chosen instrument’ in His hand for the widespread proclamation of the gospel.” Three accounts of Paul’s conversion are contained in Acts (chapters 9, 22 and 26) as well as extensive accounts of his missionary journeys and the Holy Spirit’s provision for all of his activities. Luke leaves his readers in no doubt as to Paul’s divine calling, especially important in light of ongoing opposition to the apostle (eg 1 Cor 9:1-2; 2 Cor 11:5) and the fact that he had at one time violently opposed Christianity.

Luke clearly parallels the ministry of Peter (who dominates the first part of Acts in chapters 1 to 12) and Paul (who dominates the second part of Acts in chapters 13 to 28). In his The Acts of the Apostles, Richard N. Longenecker has:

“(Peter and Paul) both heal a lame man (3:2-8; 14:8-10); both do miracles at some distance (5:15; 19:12); both exorcise evil spirits (5:16; 16:18); both defeat sorcerers (8:18-24; 13:6-11); both raise the dead (9:36-43; 20:9-12); both defend themselves against Jewish authorities (4:8-12; 5:27-32; 22:3-21; 23:1-6; 28:25-28); both receive heavenly visions (10:9-16; 16:9). Both are involved in bestowing the Holy Spirit on new converts (8:14-17; 19:1-7) and both are miraculously released from prison (5:19; 12:7-11; 16:25-27). More importantly , both proclaim the same message and even use to some extent the same set of proof texts (eg Ps 16:10, c.f. 2:27; 13:35)” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary).

Luke thus demonstrates that Paul’s apostleship is on par with that of Peter. Paul is described as “an apostle to the Gentiles” (Rom 11:13) and Peter is called “an apostle to the circumcised” (Rom 2:8), but in the Book of Acts they are both involved in the conversion of both groups. It is true that Peter preaches mainly to Jews but Luke describes his work with both the Samaritans (Acts 8:14-25) and the Gentiles (Acts chapters 10 and 11). Paul may be the apostle to the Gentiles but his practice is to begin preaching first in local synagogues to a Jewish audience (eg 13:5, 14, 44; 14:1; 17:1).

Salvation

Central to Luke’s writings is the theology of salvation. In his Gospel he describes how salvation is procured and in Acts he describes its proclamation.

· “First, salvation has been prepared by God… Far from being an afterthought, it had been planned and promised for centuries… In the sermons of Peter and Paul, not to mention Stephen’s defence, Jesus’ death, resurrection, reign and Spirit-gift are all seen as the culmination of centuries of prophetic promise”

(John R.W. Stott The Message of Acts). Thus Peter speaks of Jesus as having been “delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23) and of “the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets” namely “that His Christ would suffer” (Acts 3:18).

· “Salvation is bestowed by Christ… Indeed, salvation was to be found in no-one else (Acts 4:12). For God had exalted Jesus to His right hand as ‘Prince and saviour that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins…’ (Acts 5:31)” (ibid).

· Salvation is offered to all. As we have seen, the book of Acts describes the spread of the Kingdom throughout the world.

The Book of Conversions

It is clear that scripture contains but one body of truth which is called (among other things) the “one faith” (Eph 4:5). This body of truth (the faith) was delivered “once for all” to the saints by inspired men in the first century (Jude 3). It is (among other things) designated “the word of God” and “the teaching of the Lord” (cp Acts 13:7-8, 12 and see how these terms are used). Inspired men taught the same body of truth “everywhere in every church” (1 Cor 4:17, cf 7:17; 11:16; 14:33-34). That body of truth set forth a particular “form of teaching” which had to be obeyed in order for an individual to be “freed from sin” (Rom 6:17-18) and those who submitted to this teaching are described as “becoming obedient to the faith” (Acts 6:7).

Luke provides numerous examples of individuals rendering such obedience. For example:

· The Jews on Pentecost (Acts 2:36-42).

· The Samaritans (Acts 8:4-12) and the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:26-39).

· Paul (Acts 9:17-20; 22:1-16).

· Cornelius (Acts 10; 25-48; 11:12-14).

· Lydia (Acts 16:13-15) and the jailor (Acts l6:23-34).

· The Corinthians (Acts 18:4-11).

Since there is but one form of teaching to be followed in order to become a Christian, it follows that in each case the individual or individuals involved obeyed that one form. In each of the above cases, specific mention is made of hearing the gospel message and of baptism; faith, repentance and confession are mentioned in some cases but are of course understood in each case. The Book of Acts tells us how good-hearted first century individuals responded to the message and provides one pattern for every age. There is but one gospel plan of salvation (see Acts Study 4: Baptism and Acts 2:38).

Church life

Tenney says concerning the record in Acts:

“By this review of the growth of Christianity is revealed the pattern of church life: its power, its objective, its methods, its essential organization and discipline, and its missionary expansion. Acts is not only a history of a given period on the life of the church, it is a handbook for Christians. It illustrates the procedure and the effectiveness of a church built on the principles which the Holy Spirit administers.”

Thus we find the early church meeting on a regular basis for teaching, study and prayer (Acts 2:46; 12:12 ff). The early disciples were “continually devoting themselves to:

· The apostles’ teaching.

· Fellowship.

· The breaking of bread.

· Prayers (Acts 2:42).

Loving concern for one another characterized these early disciples and contributed to the spread of the Gospel.

“Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles. And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved” (Acts 2:43-47).

“And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them. And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all. For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales and lay them at the apostles’ feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need (Acts 2:32-36).

The early disciples observed the Lord’s Supper in assembly upon the first day of the week (20:7 ff). We find a plurality of elders exercising authority in the local churches (11:30; 14:23; 15:2, 4, 6, 22; 16:4; 20:17; 21:18), missionary activities by individual churches (eg Antioch), the formal appointment of church servants (6:1 ff) and the like. It is clear from Acts that the apostles had no successors and that no universal organization was established to oversee the church universal.

Background material

Acts provides a great deal of useful background material which helps us to place some of the epistles in context. Reese reminds us:

“And the book furnishes the background for at least ten of Paul’s epistles. We find here the historical setting for 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians, and Philippians. And we think that Paul is the author of Hebrews, and that the book of Acts furnishes the background for the writing of Hebrews, written we suppose from the first Roman imprisonment.”

This is very useful information. For example, consider how certain details in the Roman epistle are fleshed out by Acts:

· At the writing of this epistle Paul was taking a contribution from the churches of Macedonia to the saints at Jerusalem (Rom 15:25-26).

· Paul’s plans were to go to Rome after his visit to Jerusalem (Rom 15:24-25).

· These were his plans when he was in Macedonia, Achaia (of which Corinth was a part) and Greece for three months (Acts 19:21; 20:1-2).

· Paul’s letters to the Corinthians were written about this time and the contribution is an important phase (1 Cor.16:1-2; 2 Cor. 8-9).

· Names of certain people of the city of Corinth are associated with Paul. Gaius (Paul’s host -16:23) was one of the few baptised by Paul in Corinth (l Cor 1:14) and Erastus was treasurer of the city (Rom l6:23) where Paul was. Most identify Erastus as the individual with the Corinthian connection mentioned in Acts 19:22 and 2 Tim 4:20.

Thus, certain incidents recorded in the Roman and Corinthian epistles dovetail with the account in Acts. This is the case for other epistles as well.

Luke the historian

Liberal theologians used to regard Acts as a product of the post-Apostolic age and did not attach much credence to it as an historical document. However, archaeological research gradually confirmed the accuracy of much of Luke’ record and Carson et al tell us:

“William Ramsay, A. N. Sherwin-White, and Colin Hemer have demonstrated the accuracy of Luke’s knowledge about detail after detail of Roman provincial government, first-century geographic boundaries, social and religious customs, navigational procedures and the like. This accuracy shows not only that Luke knew the first-century Roman world but that he was intimately acquainted with the specific areas and regions in which his narrative is set.”

International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia lists a few examples of Luke having been vindicated by archaeology:

“The most obvious are the following: The use of ‘proconsul’ instead of ‘propraetor’ in Acts 13:7 is a striking instance. Curiously enough Cyprus was not a senatorial province very long. An inscription has been found in Cyprus ‘in the proconsulship of Paulus.’ The ‘first men’ of Antioch in Pisidia is like the (13:50) ‘First Ten,’ a title which ‘was only given (as here) to a board of magistrates in Gr cities of the East... The ‘priest of Jupiter’ at Lystra (14:13) is in accord with the known facts of the worship there. So we have Perga in Pamphylia (13:13), Antioch in Pisidia (13:14), Lystra and Derbe in Lycaonia (14:6), but not Iconium (14:1). In Philippi Luke notes magistrates are called strategoi or praetors (16:20) and are accompanied by lictors or rhabdouchoi (16:35). In Thessalonica the rulers are politarchs (17:6), a title found nowhere else, but on an inscription of Thessalonica. He rightly speaks of the Court of the Areopagus at Athens (17:19) and the proconsul in Achaia (18:12). Though Athens was a free city, the Court of the Areopagus at the time were the real rulers. Archaia was sometimes associated with Macedonia, though at this time it was a separate senatorial province. In Ephesus Luke knows of the Asiatchs (19:31)... (and so on)”.

Many who are well qualified to pass judgment view Luke as an historian of the first order (see our Acts Study 1: Luke the Historian).

Outline

For a brief summary of events see our earlier comments on The Kingdom. Acts lends itself to various outlines. Below is an outline which follows six summary statements in the book and has merit because it highlights certain similarities between the structure of Acts and the third Gospel. It also highlights parallels in the ministries of Peter and Paul.

Part 1 Introduction - Chapter1:1 to Chapter 2:41

The initial proclamation of the Gospel and its basic elements.

Part 2 The Gospel goes out to the Jews – Chapter 2:42 to Chapter 12:24

The early days of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 2:42-6:7).

Summary: “The word of God kept on spreading; and the number of the

disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith” (Acts 6:7).

Significant events in the lives of three key figures, Stephen, Philip and Saul (Acts 6:8-9:31).

Summary: “So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria

enjoyed peace, being built up; and going on in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it continued to increase” (Acts 9:31).

Progress of the Gospel in the Palestine-Syria region (9:32-12:24).

Summary: “But the word of the Lord continued to grow and to be

multiplied” (Acts 12:24).

Part 3 The Gospel and the Gentiles - Chapter 12:25 to Chapter 28:31

Paul’s first journey and the Jerusalem Council (Acts 12:25-16:5).

Summary: “So the churches were being strengthened in the faith, and

were increasing in number daily.”

Paul’s second and third journeys (Acts 16:6-19:20).

Summary: “So the word of the Lord was growing mightily and

prevailing” (Acts 19:20).

Paul’s journey to Jerusalem and Rome (Acts 19:21-28:31).

Summary: “And (Paul) stayed two full years in his own rented quarters

and was welcoming all who came to him, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all openness, unhindered. (Acts 28:30-31).

Acts Study 1: Luke the Historian

A First Class Historian

Liberal theologians used to regard Acts as a product of the post-Apostolic age and did not attach much credence to it as an historical document. In the introduction to his commentary on The Acts of the Apostles, Richard N. Longenecker explains:

“In the 19th century (criticism of the Acts)...was largely dominated by the Tubingen School of the German critics and their so-called tendency criticism, based on an Hegelian understanding of the course of early Christian history. In 1831 F. C. Bauer proposed that early Christianity developed from a conflict between Peter, who expressed the faith of the earliest believers and was in continuity with Jesus himself, and Paul who epitomized a later Christian viewpoint, with Acts being a second-century endeavour to work out a synthesis between the original thesis of Peter and the antithesis of Paul” (The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol 9).

Now clearly if the Book of Acts was written by a second century author, it is not the work of an honest man because the writer claims to have had personal knowledge of the events which he relates (Lk 1:4, and see the “we” passages found in our survey of the Gospel of Luke regarding authorship).

One scholar who was initially enamoured with the Tubingen treatment of the New Testament was 19th century scholar Sir William Mitchell Ramsey, the greatest figure in the archaeology of Roman Asia Minor. When he came to Turkey in 1880, Ramsey was committed to the views of the Tubingen School. Concerning the Book of Acts, Ramsey wrote:

“I began with a mind unfavourable to it for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me” (St Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen).

Ramsey’s own researches in Asia Minor caused him to re-evaluate Acts as an historical document. He explains:

“I found myself often brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvellous truth. In fact beginning with the fixed idea that the work was essentially a second century composition, and never relying on its evidence as trustworthy for the first century conditions, I gradually came to find it a useful ally in some obscure and difficult investigations” (ibid).

According to Dr Clifford Wilson:

“Ramsey showed that Luke was accurate in statements of provinces, regions, cities; that he had intimate knowledge of local officials with titles varying from city to city; that he correctly identified various religious practices such as at Lystra and Ephesus; he correctly refers to various local buildings and areas such as the Areopagus at Corinth and the Temple of Diana at Ephesus” (That Incredible Book: The Bible).

Edwin Yamauchi adds:

“Ramsey effectively challenged the radical Tubingen School’s dismissal of the Acts of the Apostles as a late and unreliable composition. In the years since Ramsey’s death many of the major positions which he advocated have been accepted and reinforced by subsequent discoveries” (The Archaeology of New Testament Cities in Western Asia Minor).

Other leading specialists have concurred with Ramsey’s verdict upon Luke. Carson et al tell us:

“William Ramsey, A. N. Sherwin-White, and Colin Hemer have demonstrated the accuracy of Luke’s knowledge about detail after detail of Roman provincial government, first-century geographic boundaries, social and religious customs, navigational procedures and the like. This accuracy shows not only that Luke knew the first-century Roman world but that he was intimately acquainted with the specific areas and regions in which his narrative is set.”

Some Specifics

Luke’s Use of Proper Titles

In his very useful little book The New Testament Books: Are They Reliable, F. F. Bruce reminds us that any writer who relates his story to the wider context of world history “is courting trouble if he is not careful; he affords his critical readers so many opportunities for testing his accuracy.” Bruce continues:

“Luke takes this risk, and stands the test admirably. One of the most remarkable tokens of his accuracy is his sure familiarity with the proper titles of all the notable persons who are mentioned in his pages. This was by no means such an easy feat in his days as it is in ours, when it is so simple to consult convenient books of reference. The accuracy of Luke’s use of the various titles in the Roman Empire has been compared to the ease and confident way in which an Oxford man in ordinary conversation will refer to the Heads of Oxford colleges by their proper title - the Provost of Oriel, the Master of Balloil, the Rector of Exeter, the President of Magdalen, and so on. A non-Oxonian like the present writer never feels quite at home with the multiplicity of these Oxford titles. But Luke had a further difficulty in that the titles sometimes did not remain the same for any great length of time; a province might pass from senatorial government to administration by a district representative of the emperor, and would then be governed no longer by a proconsul but by an imperial legate (legatus pro praetore).”

In the following paragraphs we will cite just a few examples of Luke’s “sure familiarity with the proper titles of all the notable persons who are mentioned in his pages.”

The “proconsul of Cyprus”

In Acts 13, Luke tells us that in the course of the first missionary journey, Paul and Barnabas arrive at the island of Cyprus where they encounter “the proconsul Sergius Paulus, a man of intelligence” (Acts 13:7). Gareth L. Reese says that: “For a long time, sceptics argue that there was a mistake in the Bible where Luke calls Sergius a proconsul” (New Testament History: Acts).

According to the critics, at this time the area was governed by an imperial legate, and Luke should have referred to him as a governor. Reese continues:

“In the years since the sceptics first assailed the historicity of Luke, coins and inscriptions from the time of Claudius have been found at Curium and Citrium in which the title of Proconsul is given to Cominius Prolus, Julius Corduo, and L. Annus Bassus, who must have been the immediate successors of Sergius Paulus. Still later at Soli, a coin with the inscription ‘Paulus the proconsul’ was found and Luke’s veracity is again affirmed” (ibid).

(Although the Paulus mentioned on the coin may not be Luke’s character).

Interestingly, “Cyprus was not a senatorial province very long” (International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia). In fact up until 22 AD, it had been an imperial province governed by a legate. This is a further indication that Luke had first-hand knowledge of Roman provincial government of the first century, since it is likely that a second century writer would have erred on this point.

The “politarchs” of Thessalonica

Luke was charged with having made a similar error in his account of Paul’s visit to the city of Thessalonica. In Acts 17:6, Luke uses the term “politarchs” (politarchoi) in his reference to the city authorities (although different translations render the term “city officials,” “city authorities” and suchlike). Donald J. Wiseman and Edwin Yamauchi have:

“Luke’s accuracy is again attested when he speaks of the politarchs of Thessalonica (Acts 17:6). As this term was not found in any classical author, Luke’s use of the word was suspect. But the term has been found in at least 17 inscriptions from the area of Thessalonica” (Archaeology and the Bible: An Introductory Study).

Festus’ use of “Lord” with reference to the emperor

Allegedly Luke makes another error when he says that Festus applies the title of “lord” to the emperor (Acts 25:26) - the contention being that this title was not used for the emperor. However, while it appears to be true that Octavian and Tiberius refused to let anyone address them with this title, it is also evident that Caligula and Nero not only permitted the use of this term, but even gloried in it. Nero was emperor at this time.

In this context many other examples of Luke’s vindication could be cited. Archaeology has shown that in speaking of the “first men” or “leading men” of Antioch (Pisidia), Luke was actually using the title given only “to a board of magistrates in Greek cities of the East” (International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia). In recounting Paul’s experiences at Ephesus, Luke refers to certain friends of the apostle’s as “chief officials of Asia,” (Asiarchs) and also to the “town clerk” (19:31, 35) - terminology appropriate to the area. He notes that magistrates at Philippi are called strategoi or praetors (16:20) and are accompanied by lictors or rhabdouchoi (16:35). We now know that he is correct to identify Gallio as “proconsul of Achaia” (18:12), to speak of the chief official at Malta as “the first man of the island” (28:7) and so on. Again and again Luke makes incidental references to proper titles which were in use in widely scattered districts, affording his readers ample opportunities for testing his accuracy, and again and again he passes the test.

Luke’s References to Specific Historical Events and Personages

Luke’s first-hand knowledge of the events which he describes is also evident from the accuracy with which he describes particular events and individuals, from the time of Christ’s birth through to the time of Paul’s imprisonment in Rome. At various points, extra-biblical information has provided us with independent accounts of different events and individuals mentioned by Luke. For those not blinded by their presuppositions, this information from secular sources has served to enhance the good doctor’s reputation as a careful and accurate observer. The following examples simply touch the hem of the garment. The first cases relate to statements in the third Gospel and the rest relate to incidents and characters encountered in Acts.

Lysanias

“Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness” (Lk 3:1-2).

Under the heading The Gospel of Luke, we find the following in the Catholic Encyclopaedia:

“Gfrorrer, B. Bauer, Hilgenfeld, Keim, and Holtzmann assert that St Luke perpetrated a gross chronological blunder of sixty years by making Lysanias, the son of Ptolemy, who lived 36 B.C., and was put to death by Mark Antony, tetrarch of Abilene when John the Baptist began to preach (iii, 1). Strauss says: ‘He [Luke] makes rule, 30 years after the birth of Christ, a certain Lysanias, who had certainly been slain 30 years previous to that birth - a slight error of 60 years.’”

But did the error lie with Luke or with the critics? The article goes on to point out that Josephus (Bel. Jud, II, xii, 8) makes reference to the tetrachy of Lysanias, and that since Lysanias (son of Ptolemy) was king over the whole region, one small portion of it could not be called his tetrachy or kingdom. We are told that “it must be assumed as certain that at a later date the district of Abilene had been severed from the kingdom of Calchis, and had been governed by a younger Lysanias as tetrarch.” What’s more:

“The existence of such a late Lysanias is shown by an inscription found at Abila, containing the statement that a certain Nymphaios, the freedman of Lysanias, built a street and erected a temple in the time of the “August Emperors”. Augusti (Sebastoi) in the plural was never used before the death of Augustus, A.D. 14. The first contemporary Sebastoi were Tiberius and his mother Livia, i.e. at a time fifty years after the first Lysanias. An inscription at Heliopolis, in the same region, makes it probable that there were several princes of this name.”

How sad it is that Luke’s critics take the position that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Would it not be better and more honest to suspend judgment when an otherwise reliable writer is thought to have made a mistake?

Incidentally, in November 1990, the ossuary of the high priest Caiaphas (also mentioned in Lk 3:1-2) was discovered by workers building a water park in the city of Jerusalem. He is also known from the writings of Josephus. Luke also makes reference here and elsewhere to Pontius Pilate and “in 1961, a stone tablet was discovered at Caesarea, bearing the Latin names Pontius Pilate and Tiberius, thus affording archaeological proof of Pilate’s historical reality”” (The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible vol 4).

The Census: Quirinius

Probably no part of the New Testament has been subject to more hostile criticism than Luke 2:1-5, where we have the following:

“Now it came to pass in those days, there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be enrolled. This was the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all went to enrol themselves, every one to his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David; to enrol himself with Mary, who was betrothed to him, being great with child.”

Predictably, hostile critics have taken Luke to task on a variety of points, arguing against the likelihood of a census involving the entire Roman world, ridiculing the notion that Joseph would be obliged to return to his home town, that Mary would be required to accompany him and so on. Allegedly, Luke invents the census in order to make it appear that Jesus was born in Bethlehem in fulfilment of Micah 5:2 ff. Many objections, grounded upon the critics’ views of what is reasonable and unreasonable, are subjective and require no comment. However, one argument which does deserve attention relates to Luke’s alleged error with respect to Quirinius. Briefly, the problem is this: Josephus speaks of a census conducted under the Syrian Governor Quirinius which dates to 6 AD. He says:

“Now (Quirinius) Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them till he had been consul, and one who, on other accounts, was of great dignity, came at this time into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to be a judge of that nation, and to take an account of their substance.” (Antiquities of the Jews 18:1).

But Luke associates the census with the time of Christ’s birth (Luke 2:1) which, according to Matthew, took place during the reign of Herod the Great (Matt 2). However, we know that Herod was dead after 4 BC and thus (the argument goes), Luke missed the correct date for the census by about a decade.

Now those of us who are impressed by Luke’s work as a historian will not readily concede that he is in error here, and various solutions have been offered by Bible believers. Let’s consider a number of facts which I believe contain the key to resolving the apparent difficulty:

· First of all, it is simply not true that the census mentioned in Luke 2 is the same census as the one to which Josephus refers. Luke is fully aware of the census referred to by Josephus and in fact, he makes reference to it in Acts 5:37, where he refers to one Judas of Galilee who ‘rose up in the days of the census.’ We can be sure that this is the census referred to by Josephus because the latter records that when Quirinius (Cyrenius) came to Judea to ‘take account of their substance,’ a Gaulite named Judas ‘became zealous to draw them to a revolt’” (Antiquities of the Jews 18.1.1).

· Next, there is good evidence that the emperor ordered, not one census but a succession. William Hendriksen reminds us:

“That such periodic enrolments actually occurred can no longer be denied. The very papers indicating a registration every fourteen years, have been found; namely those proving that a census must have been taken in the years A.D. 230, 216, 202, 188, 174, 160, 146, 132, 118, 104, 90, 62, 34. There are also indirect references to the censuses of A.D. 48 and 20” (Luke: New Testament Commentary).

Interestingly, the census papers which have been discovered were called apograthai, the name used by Luke - so although we do not have direct evidence of a census at the time of Jesus’ birth, there is absolutely no reason to deny that one occurred just as Luke said.

· What of the argument that the census of Luke 2 took place 10 years prior to governorship of Quirinius? Interestingly, an inscription called the Lapis Tiburtinus, which records the achievements of a distinguished military man, refers to the fact that this individual was governor of Syria twice. Although the name of this man is missing from the broken monument, many like Ramsey believe that the inscription referred to Quirinius, and that he was governor of Syria at the time of both the first census (Lk 2) and the second census (Acts 5). This is a very real possibility.

Here’s another possibility and one which in my view has great merit. In the Greek, the word translated “governor” is the present active participle of a verb which has the general meaning of “to rule, to lead, to govern.” This word can be translated “governor” but it has the more general meaning as well. Luke may be telling us that this was the first census when Quirinius was in a leadership role of some kind in Syria. He need not have been governor, but may have been responsible for the census. In this context a tombstone inscription called Lapis Venetus has been discovered which reads in part: “On command of Quirinius I have carried out the census of Apamea, a city-state of one hundred and seventeen thousand citizens...” So the memorial is that of a military man who was under the authority of Quirinius and who conducted a census under his command. There’s more…

In his Annals, Tacitus has the following:

“About the same time (Tiberius Caesar) requested the Senate to let the death of Sulpicius Quirinus be celebrated with a public funeral... An indefatigable soldier, he had by his zealous services won the consulship under the Divine Augustus, and subsequently the honours of a triumph for having stormed some fortresses of the Homonadenses in Cilicia. He was also appointed adviser to Gaius Caesar in the government of Armenia, and had likewise paid court to Tiberius, who was then at Rhodes... But people generally had no pleasure in the memory of Quirinus, because of the perils he had brought, as I have related, on Lepida, and the meanness and dangerous power of his last years” (Bk 3:48).

Now Cilicia was located between Pamphylia and Syria, south of Cappacodia (Bakers Bible Atlas), and since Gaius Caesar died in 4 AD and Tiberius left Rhodes in 2 AD, this Tacitus passage strongly suggests that Quirinius was in a position of power in the area of Syria well before the time of the census to which Josephus refers.

· Finally, the argument that the authorities would not have required families to return to their homes in order to enrol is answered by a papyrus containing an edict of Gaius Vibius Maximus from around the turn of the first century which reads:

“Because of the approaching census it is necessary that all those residing for any cause away from their homes should at once prepare to return to their own governments in order that they may complete the family registration of the enrolment and that the tilled lands may retain those belonging to them.” (as quoted by Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict).

The Famine

In Acts 11:27-28 we read:

“Now at this time some prophets came from Jerusalem to Antioch. And one of them, named Agabus, stood up and began to indicate by the Spirit that there was going to be a great famine all over the world. And this took place in the reign of Claudius Caesar.”

It is likely the expression “all over the world” means the whole Roman Empire (cf Lk 2:1). On the basis of the reference to Judea in 11:29, some commentators limit the expression to Palestine, but this is not the likely meaning here. Unaware of any independent confirmation of this event, and unwilling to give Luke the benefit of the doubt, many critics insisted that this was yet another of the good doctor’s inventions. Once again their excessive scepticism was unwarranted.

Claudius reigned from 4-54 AD and during this time at least four famines are known to have occurred - two in Rome (ca 42/43 AD and 51 AD) another in Greece (50 AD) and yet another in Judea. (45 AD). In fact, Suetonius makes the general comment that during the reign of Claudius: “There was a scarcity of food, which was the result of bad harvests that occurred during a span of several years” (Life of Claudius 18:2). Mention of a specific famine during the time of Claudius is found in Antiquities 20.2.5 where Josephus says concerning a certain royal lady named Helena:

“Now her coming (to Jerusalem) was of very great advantage to the people of Jerusalem; for whereas a famine did oppress them at that time, and many people died for want of what was necessary to procure food withal, queen Helena sent some of her servants to Alexandria with money to buy a great quantity of corn, and others of them to Cyprus, to bring a cargo of dried figs.”

Now it may not be possible at this date to determine which particular famine Luke has in mind in Acts 11, but in view of all this, how foolish it would be to doubt his accuracy on this point.

Luke’s Account of Agrippa’s Death

In Acts 12 we find the only reference in the New Testament to Herod Agrippa 1, son of Aristobulus and Bernice and grandson of Herod the Great. Luke tells us that Agrippa “laid hands on some who belonged to the church, in order to mistreat them” (12:1) and that he won favour with the Jews by doing so (12:3). However, Agrippa enjoyed no favour with God, and Luke gives the following account of his sudden death:

“And on an appointed day Herod, having put on his royal apparel, took his seat on the rostrum and began delivering an address to them. And the people kept crying out, ‘The voice of a god and not of a man!’ And immediately an angel of the Lord struck him because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and died” (Acts 12:21-23).

Josephus gives the following parallel account of Agrippa’s death in Antiquities 19.8.2:

“Now when Agrippa had reigned three years over all Judea, he came to the city Cesarea, which was formerly called Strato’s Tower; and there he exhibited shows in honour of Caesar, upon his being informed that there was a certain festival celebrated to make vows for his safety... On the second day of which shows he put on a garment made wholly of silver, and of a contexture truly wonderful, and came into the theatre early in the morning; at which time the silver of his garment being illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun’s rays upon it, shone out after a surprising manner, and was so resplendent as to spread a horror over those that looked intently upon him; and presently his flatterers cried out, one from one place, and another from another, (though not for his good), that he was a god; and they added, ‘Be thou merciful to us; for although we have hitherto reverenced thee only as a man, yet shall we henceforth own thee as superior to mortal nature.’ Upon this the king did neither rebuke them, nor reject their impious flattery... A severe pain also arose in his belly, and began in a most violent manner... Accordingly he was carried into the palace, and the rumour went abroad everywhere, that he would certainly die in a little time... Now the king rested in a high chamber, and as he saw them below lying prostrate on the ground, he could not himself forbear weeping. And when he had been quite worn out by the pain in his belly for five days, he departed this life, being in the fifty-fourth year of his age, and in the seventh year of his reign.”

Josephus was not nearly as good an historian as Luke, but the two accounts are not in conflict in any way.

Claudius’ Expulsion of the Jews

In Acts 18:2 Luke makes passing mention of the fact that two Christian Jews came to Corinth from Italy “because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome.” In his Life of Claudius, Suetonius has the following:

“He banished from Rome all the Jews, who were continually making disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus.”

Chrestus of course is Christ. It is likely that difficulties among the Jews in that city had arisen because of different responses to the preaching of the gospel. Now clearly Suetonius is under the mistaken impression that “Chrestus” was a troublemaker living in Rome at the time, but this does not detract from the value of his testimony.

Gallio proconsul of Achaia

Luke’s reference to Gallio “proconsul of Achaia” (18:12) is interesting on several counts. Gallio (Marcus Annaeus Novatus) was the brother of Seneca and the adopted son of rhetorician Lucius Junius Gallio and by all accounts he was an easy going man with great charm.

F. F. Bruce refers to an inscription found at Delphi in Central Greece, recording a directive from the Emperor Claudius, and tells us that from this inscription “it can be inferred rather precisely that he entered on his proconsul ship in the summer of A.D. 51.” (The Book Of Acts, The New International Commentary on the New Testament). This is helpful because it enables us to date Paul’s visit to Corinth. Longenecker also makes the following interesting point about the fact that Luke uses the title “proconsul” here:

“That Luke distinguishes correctly between senatorial and imperial provinces and has the former governed by a proconsul on behalf of the Senate and the latter governed by a propraetor representing the emperor says much for his accuracy, for the status of the provinces changed with the times. Achaia was a senatorial province from 27 B.C. to A.D. 15 and then again from A.D. 44 onwards... It was therefore governed by a proconsul...”

The point of course is that a writer living long after the events he purports to describe is bound to make mistakes in such incidental references. Luke however, never places a foot wrong!

Incidentally, an ancient monument may have preserved a reference to one of the members of the Corinthian church - one Erastus, the city treasurer at Corinth. E. M Blaiklock tells us:

“A tantalizing block of marble found near the theatre, bears another fragmentary inscription which reads: ‘Erastus, for the office of aedile, laid this pavement at his own expense.’ Is this Erastus, the city treasurer, who was a foundation member of the Corinthian church?” (The Archaeology of the New Testament).

Certainly the time period is right, and the aedile was an elected official in a Roman colony responsible for the upkeep of buildings and other properties.

No Entry - Except For Jews!

We recall that a riot broke out when certain Jews from Asia accused the apostle Paul of having taken Greeks into the temple at Jerusalem (Acts 21:28). Luke tells us that these Jews accused Paul of having “defiled this holy place.” Of course Paul had done no such thing, and was always very careful not to offend the sensibilities of either Jew or Greek.

In a beautifully illustrated book entitled Treasures From Bible Times, Alan Millard has a picture of a notice engraved upon limestone which Paul would have seen along the wall of the temple building. He tells us that one of these notices was discovered in 1871 and another in 1936, and that the inscription reads as follows:

“No foreigner may pass the barrier and enclosure surrounding the temple. Anyone who was caught doing so will be himself to blame for his resulting death.”

In his Wars of the Jews, Josephus has the following:

“When you go through these [first] cloisters, unto the second [court of the] temple, there was a partition made of stone all round, whose height was three cubits: its construction was very elegant; upon it stood pillars, at equal distances from one another, declaring the law of purity, some in Greek, and some in Roman letters, that ‘no foreigner should go within that sanctuary’ for that second [court of the] temple was called ‘the Sanctuary,’ and was ascended to by fourteen steps from the first court.”

Millard adds that “anyone who disobeyed would almost certainly be lynched,” and Luke tells us that Paul experienced this at first-hand.

These are not the only specific references to historical events and personages by Luke for which extra-biblical confirmation has been found. There’s the high priest Ananias (Acts 23:2; 24:1), whom Josephus describes as “a great hoarder of money” and whose greed was lampooned in the Talmud in a parody of Ps 24:7 which reads:

“Lift up your heads, O ye gates; that Yohanan ben Narbai, the disciple of Pinqai may go in and fill his belly with the divine sacrifices” (As quoted by F. F. Bruce, Acts).

Extra-biblical references to “the Egyptian” who “led four thousand men of the Assassins out into the wilderness” (Acts 21:38), to Felix, Drusilla, Festus, Agrippa, Bernice and others are to be found in Josephus (eg Antiquities 20.7) and other writings close to the time. Luke’s knowledge of these individuals along with various details of their marital situations, official titles and such like strongly supports his claim to have been a contemporary of the apostle Paul.

Some Specifics on Political and Geographical Details

Iconium

An outstanding example of Luke having triumphed over his captious critics is found in the controversy surrounding a geographical note found in Acts, chapters 13 and 14. From Acts 13:51-14:1 we learn that Paul and Barnabas come to the city of Iconium, and then in 14:6 we are told that they fled from this city to the cities of Lystra and Derbe which are identified as cities of Lycaonia. The implication is that Iconium is not in Lycaonia, and for years Luke’s critics accused him of error on this point, seemingly with good reason. For example, both Cicero and Pliny, who lived close to the apostolic period, speak of Iconium as a Lycaonian city, whereas Luke suggests that it was not part of this area. Allegedly, Luke had simply borrowed from a much earlier writer Xenophon, who had made the following comment concerning Cyrus some 400 years earlier:

“From this place he marched on three stages-twenty parasangs-to Iconium, the last city of Phrygia, where he remained three days. Thence he marched through Lycaonia five stages-thirty parasangs” (Anabasis 1.2.19).

Luke’s critics argued that he had not realized that since Xenophon’s day the regional frontier had shifted, and of course they were delighted to have found another blunder in the good doctor’s account.

As it turned out, the blunder belonged (once again) to the critics. In fact Ramsey tells us that as he became acquainted with the literary and epigraphic evidence from the period, it was this geographical note which caused him to re-evaluate Luke as an historian. Longenecker tell us:

“Ramsey...has shown that between A.D. 37 and 72 - and at no other time under the Roman rule - Iconium was on the Phrygian side of the regional border between Phrygia and Lycaonia, not only linguistically but also politically.”

Given the changing political conditions of the area, how easy it would be for a writer living sometime after the first century to make a mistake - but Luke did not do so.

Luke’s geographical note in Acts 14 is simply one example of this author’s excellent geopolitical knowledge of the first century circumstances. This knowledge is evident in his description of Philippi as “a leading city of the district, a Roman colony” (16:12) and indeed throughout the entire narrative, under girding his claim to be part of the world which he describes.

Philippi “the first district”

Luke was also charged with error in having spoken of Philippi as “the first of the district” (Acts 16: 12). Blaiklock explains:

“Even Hort marked this as a mistake, since the Greek word meris appeared never to be used for ‘region.’ The Egyptian papyri, however, revealed that Luke’s Greek was better than that of his scholarly editor. The word, it was obvious, was quite commonly used for ‘district’ in the first century, and especially in Macedonia.”

Towns and Cities

With unerring accuracy Luke provides us with details of the customs, beliefs, religious practices, institutions, racial make-up, vocations etc. of the citizens of very diverse towns and cities, often doing so by way of incidental references and off-hand comments. A. N. Sherwin-White says that “Acts takes us on a conducted tour of the Greek and Roman world with detail and narrative so interwoven as to be inseparable” (Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament), and it’s not difficult to find examples. Ramsey tells us that archaeological discoveries have shown that at Lystra, the two deities Zeus and Hermes were linked in the local cult, which explains why the superstitious citizens “began calling Barnabas, Zeus, and Paul, Hermes” (Acts 14:12). At Athens, Paul’s spirit was “being provoked within him as he was beholding the city full of idols” (Acts 17:16), even discovering an altar devoted to “an unknown god” (Acts 16:23). Reese tells us:

“Pausanias (about 16 A.D.) has ‘the Athenians greatly surpassed others in their zeal for religion’ (Pausanias, in Attic 1:24). Lucian wrote, ‘on every side there were altars, victims, temples, and festivals’ (Lucian, The literary Promethius p.180). And Petronius says, somewhat in humour, ‘It is easier to find a god than a man there’” (Petronius Arbiter, Petronii Arbitri Satyrican XVII).

The description of Paul’s visit to Ephesus in Acts 19 provides another outstanding example of Luke’s accuracy and ability to capture the local colour of a particular city. In this one chapter we have a host of details relating to the city, her citizens and local customs, many of which have been confirmed from extra-biblical sources. For example, we are told concerning the Ephesians:

“And not a few of them that practiced magical arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all; and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver” (Acts 19:18-19).

There is good evidence that the magic arts were the speciality of Ephesus, and the city was full of astrologers and magicians etc, with their charms, spells, incantations, books of divination and so on. It is likely the “books” mentioned by Luke included the so-called Ephesian letters to which Clement of Alexandria makes the following reference:

“And why should I linger over the barbarians, when I can adduce the Greeks as exceedingly addicted to the use of the method of concealment? Androcydes the Pythagorean says the far-famed so-called Ephesian letters were of the class of symbols” (Stromata V.8).

According to Plutarch: “The magicians compel those who are possessed with a demon to recite and pronounce the Ephesian letters in a certain order by themselves” (Symposiaca VII. 5.4). In his commentary, Bruce tells us:

“The closest parallel to the Ephesian exorcists’ misuse of the name of Jesus appears in the Paris magical papyrus, No. 574, where we find an adjuration beginning on line 3018, ‘I adjure thee by Jesus the God of the Hebrews’.”

From Acts 19:24-25, it appears that silversmiths and “workmen of similar trades” made a good living from the manufacture of idols of the goddess Artemis. According to International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia:

“The makers of the shrines of Diana formed an exceedingly large class among whom, in Paul’s time, was Demetrius (Acts 19:24). None of the silver shrines have been discovered, but those of marble and of clay have appeared among the ruins of Ephesus. They are exceedingly crude; in a little shell-like bit of clay, a crude clay female figure sits, sometimes with a tambourine in one hand and a cup in the other, or with a lion at her side or beneath her foot” (Diana, Artemis).

Also:

“An interesting discovery in the theatre was an inscription of A.D. 103-104, in Greek and Latin, telling how a Roman official, C. Vibius Salutaris, presented a silver image of Artemis and other statues to be set on their pedestals at each meeting of the ecclesia or citizen body in the theatre” (Bruce, New Testament Documents).

From Acts 19:27 ff, it is evident that the goddess Artemis had a temple at Ephesus, and in 1869, J. T. Wood discovered the base of the temple at the bottom of a 20 foot test pit. D. G. Hogarth continued the excavations in 1904 and discovered “a pit full of votive gifts, including jewellery and bronze and ivory statues of Artemis, which date to about 700 B.C.” (Blaiklock). It has been calculated from the remains that the temple was over 340 feet long and 160 feet wide, and that the interior was decorated with gold and silver.

Based on information supplied by Pliny the Elder (Natural History XXXVI. 95 ff), William Barclay gives the following description of the temple:

“It was 425 feet long by 220 feet wide by 60 feet high. There were 127 pillars, each the gift of a king. They were all of glittering marble and 36 were marvellously gilt and inlaid. The great altar had been carved by Praxiteles, the greatest of all Greek sculptors. The image of Diana was not beautiful. It was a black, squat, many-breasted figure, signifying fertility; it was so old that no one knew where it had come from or even of what material it was made. The story was that it had fallen from heaven” (Daily Study Bible).

In Acts 19:35 the town clerk refers to Ephesus as the “guardian” of the temple (the “temple sweeper”) and “there is evidence from coins and inscriptions that Ephesus was acknowledged as temple keeper both of the emperor and of Artemis” (F. W. Beare, The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible vol 1).

Again we have simply touched the hem of the garment, but the point is that in his description of very different cities scattered throughout the Roman world, Luke provides a wealth of details about customs, beliefs, institutions etc, and there is every indication that his account is accurate even in the details. As Ramsey explains:

“In Ephesus St Paul taught in the school of Tyrannus, in the city of Socrates he discussed moral questions in the market-place. How incongruous it would seem if the methods were transposed! But the narrative never makes a false step amid all the many details as the scene changes from city to city; and that is the conclusive proof that it is a picture of real life.”

Conclusion: “You could not fool Doctor Luke”

In their book The Changing World of Mormonism, the Jerald and Sandra Tanner record the following comment by Michael Coe, one of the best known authorities on archaeology of the New World:

“Mormon archaeologists over the years have almost unanimously accepted the Book of Mormon as an accurate, historical account of the New World peoples... Let me now state uncategorically that as far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing the foregoing to be true, and I would like to state that there are quite a few Mormon archaeologists who join this group...”

“The bare facts of the matter are that nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith, is a historical document relating to the history of early migrants to our hemisphere” (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1973, pp. 41, 42, 46 and p. 134).

What a contrast between this verdict upon the Book of Mormon archaeology by a leading New World archaeologist and the verdict rendered upon the Book of Acts by specialists in Old world archaeology!

Hopefully this very brief discussion of Luke’s record as an historian will encourage us in our faith and enhance our respect for Paul’s travelling companion, the good friend whom he call the “beloved physician.” There is so much more we could have discussed. For example, in 1848 James Smith, a skilled sailor who retraced Paul’s journey from Jerusalem to Rome, published a book entitled The Voyage and Shipwreck of Saint Paul, in which he showed that Luke’s account of the voyage accurately describes ancient sailing methods, wind and weather conditions in the Mediterranean, and employs the correct nautical terminology and so on. He describes Luke’s account of the journey as “a narrative of real events, written by one personally engaged in them.” In similar vein, those acquainted with Roman law and legal procedures of the first century have remarked upon the fact that the writer of Acts shows great familiarity with Roman provincial jurisdiction of the period.

We conclude this all-too-brief study of Luke’s writings with the following comment from Kenneth S. Wuest:

“Luke had the historian’s mind, a thing native to the educated Greek. Herodotus, the father of Greek history, exhibited the Greek determination to get at the truth no matter how much work it required, when he travelled to central Africa to verify the account of the annual rise and fall of the Nile River. In those days this was a long and difficult journey. Sir William Ramsey said, ‘I regard Luke as the greatest historian who has ever lived, save only Thucydides.’ Thus we have no doubt but that Luke made a personal investigation of all the facts he had recorded. He interviewed every witness, visited every locality. If Mary was still alive, he, a doctor of medicine investigated the story of the virgin birth by hearing it from Mary’s own lips. And as Professor John A. Scott, a great Greek scholar has said, ‘You could not fool Doctor Luke’” (Word Studies in The Greek New Testament).

Acts Study 2: Tongues in the New Testament

The word “glossolalia” - from the Greek word for tongue/language (glossa) and the word “to speak” (lalein) - is frequently used in connection with one of the miraculous gifts mentioned in scripture. Our present interest is in the nature of that gift. Today, many insist that speaking in tongues involves “utterances approximating words and speech, usually produced during states of intense religious excitement. The vocal organs of the speaker are affected, the tongue moves without the conscious control of the speaker and unintelligible speech pours forth” (Britannica). However, while many believe this to be an accurate description of the gift of tongues spoken of in scripture, I am convinced that this gift actually involved the miraculous ability to speak in real human languages which the speaker did not know, and that it had nothing whatsoever to do with “unintelligible speech” or “utterances approximating words and speech.” Let’s consider some of the relevant points.

Ecstatic Utterances

Earlier we pointed out the difficulty of explaining how individuals and groups with conflicting doctrines could all claim supernatural attestations for their teachings and this difficulty is especially evident in the case of tongue speaking. For example, the early “church father” Tertullian was for a while a follower of Montanus and he believed that the latter’s incoherent utterances were messages from God - yet the prophecies of the Montanists concerning the descent of Jerusalem never eventuated. What’s more, Tertullian strongly condemned the Gnostic sect (Against Marcion) which also laid claim to tongue speaking abilities. Closer to our time, our Mormon friends say “We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues” (James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith). The “tongues” of Catholic charismatics, Pentecostals, Faith Movement adherents etc are linguistically indistinguishable. Since God cannot confirm or endorse error, this constitutes a real problem.

When we look beyond the borders of Christendom we find that ecstatic utterances are common to many pagan religions as well. In their The Charismatic Phenomenon, Peter Masters and John C. Whitcomb say:

“Any number of false religions can do exactly the same things, but many charismatic adherents have no idea of this fact. Tongues-speaking such as we know today (ie ecstatic utterances -Rex) is engaged in regularly among Buddhists, Hindus...Moslems, Shintoists, spiritists and voodoo devotees…

One scholar, writing for a prestigious American sociological institute, found tongue-speaking was practised by the Hudson Bay Eskimos, as well as by the priestesses of jungle tribes in North Borneo…

Indeed, various medical authorities tell us that tongue-speaking is occasionally manifested in connection with certain mental health conditions, such as dissociation, hysteria, epilepsy and schizophrenia. Tongue-speaking has also occurred under the influence of LSD....Jung....describes a spiritualist medium who spoke in tongues ‘fluently, rapidly and with charm. She spoke with bewildering naturalness, and when she had finished there passed over her face an incredible expression of ecstatic blessing.’”

Britannica tells us that “glossolalia occurred in some of the ancient Greek religions and in various primitive religions.” By way of example:

“The Pythia (priestess) of the Greek oracle at Delphi often went into an ecstatic state during which she uttered sounds revealed to her by the python (the snake, the symbol of resurrection), after drinking water from a certain spring. Her ‘words’ were then interpreted by a priest to help a suppliant find a way to avoid calamities, especially death” (emphasis mine).

Those who have some knowledge of the New Age Movement will not be surprised at the following by Texe Marrs in his New age Cults and Religions:

“Here is how a conference brochure described the course, What is Sumari, and How Did it Come About? to be taught by Toni Kosydar:

Toni will speak on how Jane Roberts came to sing in Sumari and what the experience meant to her... Jane: ‘I heard a babel of voices in strange languages... Suddenly I chanted the words in a loud ringing voice ‘Sumari, Ispania, Wena nefarie...’ (And so on -Rex).

The brochure went on to explain that this is what was called “speaking in tongues…”

We could multiply examples many times over, but enough has been said to show that there is nothing unusual about the practice of uttering unintelligible words and certainly nothing difficult about the practice. Even without a close look at the relevant texts, it is surely evident that when Paul described tongues as a “sign...to unbelievers” (1 Cor 14:22) he cannot have meant that a stream of disjointed words would constitute proof of God’s presence. Also keep in mind that since the inhabitants of Roman-Greek Corinth would have been very familiar with mystery religions (there was even a temple of Isis in the city), ecstatic utterances would have been nothing new at all.

With this in mind, let’s take a look at the relevant passages in the New Testament itself.

Tongues in the New Testament

Mark 16:17-18

“And these signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it shall not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

· Prior to Mk 16:17-18, the word “tongue” has been used in the gospels of the physical organ or of language. If this is not its meaning here it would have conveyed nothing to Jesus’ hearers. Under “glossa,” Thayer cites Mk 16:17 and has: “to speak with other tongues which the speaker has not learned previously” (emphasis mine). Gareth L. Reese makes the following comment on the word translated “new” here:

“The fact that kainos is used rather than another word for new (neos) is easily explainable if the ‘tongues’ are foreign languages unfamiliar to the speaker. Neos has the implication of ‘new in time’ never existing before’; whereas kainos simply means ‘fresh, recently made, unused.’ ‘New tongues’ are a language unused by the speaker before” (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Acts).

· Mk 16:20 tells us that the signs “confirmed the word.” How would unintelligible language do this? Consider the case of Corinth for example. Gordon Fee reminds us in his comments upon 1 Cor 8:5 (“there are many gods and many lords”) that the word “kyrios” (lord) “is the normal title for the deities of the mystery cults” (International Standard Commentary on the New Testament: 1 Corinthians). Elsewhere he tells us that “the Gentiles who had become believers in Corinth had probably attended... (cultic meals) all their lives.” How would unintelligible utterances function to confirm the truth of the gospel to those already very familiar with the phenomenon from their own pagan backgrounds?

Acts 2:1-11

· Acts chapter 2 records the beginning of the church on the Day of Pentecost following the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. We are told that “when the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place” (Acts 2:1). Now according to the rules of grammar, the antecedent of the pronoun is usually found by referring back to the nearest noun with which it agrees in person, number and gender. The verse prior to Acts 2:1 ends “and he (Matthias) was numbered with the eleven apostles,” and thus we must take it that “they” refers to the twelve apostles. It is important to keep in mind that those who insist that the pronoun in Acts 2:1 includes the “one hundred and twenty persons” of Acts 1:15 are ignoring a basic point of grammar. Also we note that the individuals spoken of were all “Galileans” (Acts 2:7), and that Peter took his stand “with the eleven” not the “one hundred and twenty” (Acts 2:14). A few days earlier Jesus had told the “apostles whom He had chosen” (not “the one hundred and twenty”) to wait in Jerusalem for “power” (Acts 1:1-12).

· In Acts 2:2-3, the manifestation of the Spirit was accompanied by “a noise (from heaven) like a violent, rushing wind” and “tongues as of fire.” Only the most implacable enemies of supernaturalism would refuse to be convinced by such a sign but many “tongue-speaking” episodes today are unaccompanied by such objective supernatural proofs.

· The twelve “began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance” (Acts 2:4). The multitude “were bewildered...were amazed and marvelled” (Acts 2:6-8) because all who were speaking were Galileans (Acts 2:7), and in their amazement they ask “how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? (Acts 2:8). And again “we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God” (Acts 2:11). Clearly what these individuals heard was not unintelligible speech but recognizable languages. The word translated “language” in 2:6, 8 is the word from which we get “dialect.”

· Some have attempted to argue that two miracles occurred on this occasion -one enabling the apostles to utter ecstatic speech and another enabling the hearers to understand this ecstatic speech in their own languages. Not only does the text say nothing of the sort, but listen to Acts 2:13: “But others were mocking and saying, ‘They are full of sweet wine.’” Clearly these were individuals who could not recognise any of the languages spoken by the twelve, but this could not have been the case if a miracle had been performed upon the hearers as well as upon the speakers. The “tongues” of Pentecost then, were human languages.

Acts 10 - Cornelius Household

While Peter was preaching “the Holy Spirit fell upon” the household of Cornelius and the “circumcised believers” were hearing them “speaking with tongues...” (Acts 10:44-46). Peter very clearly identifies this with the Acts 2 event, describing these Gentiles as those “who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did” (Acts 10:47). Later when Peter speaks of this event he says “And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, just as He did upon us at the beginning” (Acts 11:15). Thus the tongues of Acts 10 are the same as the tongues of Acts 2 - languages.

Acts 19:1-7

Since Luke has twice defined the nature of the tongues in the book of Acts, we must take it as read that the incident described in Acts 19 involved the same phenomenon.

1 Corinthians 12-14 (especially chapter 14)

· The Corinthian church is plagued by immaturity (1 Cor 3:1 ff) which has lead (among other things) to division (1 Cor 1:10 ff), arrogance (1 Cor 4:18; 5:2) and selfishness (1 Cor 11:20 ff). In this section of the Corinthian epistle, Paul attempts to correct problems which have arisen in the assemblies as a result of jealousy and competitiveness. The Corinthians must come to understand that the gifts of the Spirit (which had become a stumbling block to the church because of misuse) were from the same divine source (1 Cor 12:4-6), were bestowed for “the common good” (1 Cor 12:7) and were valueless without love (chapter13).

· In the course of giving instructions relating to the exercise of spiritual gifts in the assembly, Paul has more to say about the gift of tongues, and many argue on the basis of chapter 14, that the apostle is discussing unintelligible speech. In my view the opposite is true, and chapter 14 supplies further proof that first-century tongue-speaking involved real human languages. Hopefully this can be demonstrated without getting too bogged down in this chapter (which has a number of red herrings).

· As mentioned earlier, Paul here tells us that “tongues are for a sign...to unbelievers” (1 Cor 14:22) and we have argued that ecstatic language is no kind of sign at all. It is very common and would not have been distinguishable from the phenomenon found in the mystery religions of the time. It is simply not reasonable to think that garbled inarticulate sounds could constitute proof of divine activity.

· In 1 Cor14:21 Paul quotes Isaiah 28:11 ff as follows: “In the law it is written, ‘By men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers I will speak to this people, and even so they will not listen to me’ says the Lord.” Isaiah’s point was that since Israel would not listen to God, He will speak to them through the language of the Assyrians - a human language. In the same way, tongues are designed for unbelievers (1 Cor 14:22) and they are as much human languages as was the Assyrian tongue.

· Some remind us that in 1 Cor 14:2, Paul says that “no one understands” the one who speaks in a tongue and argue that this is proof that unintelligible speech is under discussion. However, we need to keep context in mind. Consider a similar statement by Jesus in John 3:32 - “no man receives His (Jesus) witness.” Now clearly the “no man” limited by context as the very next verse (Jn 3:33) shows. So too, when Paul says “no one understands” the tongue-speaker, he is making the obvious point that, as a general rule, a message delivered in a foreign language (say the Persian tongue) is going to be lost upon most in the local assemblies.

· 1 Cor 14:23 is also cited in support of the ecstatic language position. Paul says that the ungifted or unbeliever entering an assembly where “all speak in tongues” would conclude that those assembled are “mad.” But this would also be true if tongue-speaking involved real languages. If all members of the assembly spoke in different foreign languages unknown to the majority present, a visitor would surely conclude that something very strange was afoot (especially if they failed to speak “in turn”). After all, those who did not understand the languages in Acts 2 drew a similar conclusion.

· Paul’s statement that “in his spirit” the tongue-speaker “speaks mysteries” (1 Cor 14:2) has also been a source of misunderstanding for some. It is not true that the language suggests something mysterious or beyond understanding. It is not difficult to show that the term mystery or mysteries is used to speak of divine truth or truths hitherto unrevealed but now made known in the New Testament period. In this very letter Paul uses the term to speak of the gospel (1 Cor 2:7, cf Rom 16:25-27). So Paul’s point in 1 Cor 14:2 is not that tongue-speaking involves something mysterious, but rather that the message consists of “divine truths, things which God has revealed” (Charles Hodge, A Commentary on 1st and 2nd Corinthians).

Clearly when Luke wrote the book of Acts several years after Paul had written 1st Corinthians, he knew exactly what the apostle had meant by “tongues” and he used this same term to describe the miraculous ability to speak in foreign languages (Acts 2) because in both cases, the same phenomena were under consideration.

Concluding Comments

Not so long ago, a first-time visitor to one of our assemblies suddenly stood up just before our guest speaker ascended the podium. Our visitor delivered a message “in tongues” which he then “translated” himself. He told us that he had been led by the Spirit to endorse our guest speaker as a man of God who taught the word accurately. A little later in the course of leading our Bible class, the guest speaker who had received the endorsement brought a lesson on the subject of miraculous gifts in which he explained from scripture why these gifts (including tongue-speaking) had ceased. Our visitor meant no harm. He intended to encourage us with his message - but clearly there is something wrong when a “miraculous gift” testifies to the truth that miraculous gifts have ceased! Our visitor turned out to have a position of leadership and influence in a local denomination and was no novice.

Acts Study 3: The Apostolic Office

When Jesus told his Jewish listeners that “the Law” would remain in place in its entirety until “all is accomplished” (Matt 5:17-18), He was of course speaking of the Law of Moses which had been given to Israel some 1500 years earlier. Clearly then the provisions of the Mosaic law remained in place until that very day, and we remember that Moses had given strict instructions that the divine legislation not be altered in any way (Deut 4:2; 32:44 ff).

Now many of the events surrounding the giving of the Law, the inauguration of the Levitical Priesthood and the ministry of Moses were unique in the history of the nation. The giving of the Law was accompanied by “a blazing fire...darkness and gloom and whirlwind” (Heb 12:18). The construction of the Tabernacle, the induction of the tribe of Levi into the Priesthood and the Lord’s custom of speaking to Moses face to face (Ex.33:11) were events which were associated with the ushering in of a new covenant and were not repeatedly witnessed by every generation which followed. Gideon for example, wonders why the miracles which the “fathers” witnessed at the time of the Exodus were not being performed in his day (Judges 6:13), and we are told that in the days of Eli, “word from the Lord was rare...(And) visions...infrequent” (1 Sam 3:1). (This is not to say that there were no prophets or miracle-workers throughout Israel’s history. This is not my point. My point is that certain arrangements at the time of the giving of the Law were unique).

While it is true that once having been given, the Mosaic Law was to last until Christ’s new Covenant in His blood, it is equally true that many of the events surrounding the actual giving of that Law were unique. They were one-off because the laying of a new foundation is a one-off event. Prophets in succeeding generations did not communicate with the Lord as Moses did and the special gifts bestowed upon such men as Bezalel and Oholiab (Ex 31:1 ff) for the construction of the Tabernacle were not regularly available after its completion. Thus, the fact that God employed certain tools and made certain necessary arrangements in inaugurating the Mosaic Covenant did not mean that these tools and arrangements were to remain with the people of the covenant throughout its duration.

Now this same distinction between permanent provisions and temporary arrangements must also be kept in mind when studying the New Covenant which was instituted by Christ in His blood. It is certainly true that the New Testament sets forth definite, precise, understandable doctrines which will remain in force until He returns and it is certainly true that no man has the right to add to or remove from this all sufficient body of truth. However, we must be careful not to confuse this permanent body of teaching with the temporary arrangements necessary to inaugurate the New Covenant. Clearly the establishment of the church of Christ was a one-off event. The church was not re-established from scratch in every succeeding generation. Clearly too, the giving of the New Testament was a one-off event. Having once been given, the full and final revelation of God’s Son will never pass away (1 Pet. 1:24-25). And so, just as special temporary arrangements were necessary for the giving of the Law, so too certain special temporary arrangements were necessary for the inauguration of Christ’s New Covenant.

The failure to make a distinction between the body of truth provided for Christians of every generation and the temporary provisions which accompanied the establishment of the New Covenant once and for all in the days of the apostles, lies at the heart of the confusion which surrounds the question of modern day miracles. In this context, we need to look carefully at what the New Testament has to say about the apostolic office.

The Apostolic Office

The New Testament was of course written in ordinary first century Greek and the inspired writers made use of words and expressions which were well known to their readers. However, it is also clear that certain common words are used in a special sense in the New Testament documents. For example, the word “ekklesia” was commonly used in the first century to speak of an assembly and it is used this way in the New Testament (eg Acts 19:39-41). But the word also takes on a special meaning in scripture, and this is evident from the fact that it is often translated “church.” Now clearly as students of scripture, our task is to let the inspired writers define their own terms for us and this is why it is so important to examine scriptural usage carefully when studying a particular word or expression. This is certainly true in the case of the word “apostle.”

The word translated “apostle” is found in classical Greek but is not common. It is used to speak of a naval expedition or a group of colonists, and Herodotus uses it of a personal envoy. The verbal form is used of the ideal Cynic teacher “sent by Zeus.” In the Jewish translation of the Old Testament, the noun form is found only in 1 Kings 14:6 where Ahijah the prophet tells Jeroboam’s wife “I am sent to you with a harsh message” (from God). The term appears to be the equivalent of the Hebrew word shaliah which was used of agents sent out by the Jewish rabbis to visit Jews of the Dispersion. These agents collected taxes for the support of the rabbinate and also preached and taught in the synagogues. However, while all of this is interesting, it does not give us an accurate picture of New Testament usage.

In the New Testament the word “apostolos” occurs 79 times and it “always denotes a man who is sent, and sent with full authority” (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament). So it is used, for example, of the “commissioned representative of a congregation” (ibid) such as in the case of the men who accompanied Paul to Jerusalem with the collection for the saints (2 Cor 8:23). It is also used in the case of Epaphroditus who is an “apostle” of the church at Philippi (Phil 2:25). In this sense too, Andronicus and Junias are “men of note among the apostles” (Rom 16:7). Thus, just as the word “ekklesia” is used in the New Testament in the general sense, so too the word “apostolos” is used in the general sense to speak of individuals sent out with authority.

But this is not the full story. In Lk 6:13 we are told that Jesus “called His disciples to Him; and chose twelve of them, whom He also named as apostles.” We do not know how many disciples were with Jesus but later on He sends out the twelve “apostles” (Matt 10:1 ff; Lk 9:1 ff, esp. v10) and then “seventy others” (Lk 10:1). Thus the “twelve” who are “named as apostles” are distinguished from the “others.” Jesus speaks of the “regeneration” as a time when Peter and others will “sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matt 19:28) while the “twelve foundation stones” of “new Jerusalem” bear the names of “the twelve apostles of the lamb” (Rev 21:14). Judas, one of the twelve, betrays Jesus and then commits suicide. After the Lord’s ascension and prior to the day of Pentecost, Peter, guided by the Holy Spirit, tells a gathering of one hundred and twenty disciples that Judas’ “office” (Acts 1:20) is to be taken by another. He says:

“It is therefore necessary that of the men (here the word for males) who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us-beginning with the baptism of John, until the day that He was taken up from us- one of these should become a witness with us of His resurrection” (Acts 1:21- 22).

Notice that the individual chosen was to “occupy this ministry and apostleship” from which Judas had turned (Acts 1:25) and according to Peter, in order to be considered for the office he had to be a male who had:

· Accompanied the Lord and His disciples from the time of John the Baptist’s ministry until the day of His ascension.

· Seen the risen Lord and able to become a “witness with...(the other apostles) of His resurrection” (Acts 1:22).

Two candidates were put forward and the Lord chose (Acts 2:24 - note the divine initiative) Matthias who was then “numbered with the eleven apostles” (Acts 1:26).

Clearly then, in addition to its general meaning, the word “apostle” is used in a narrow “technical” sense. Paul, who was later chosen by the Lord Himself as the apostle to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15) describes himself as “one untimely born” (1 Cor 15:8), a reference to the abnormal circumstances surrounding his call to the apostolic office. Nevertheless, Paul did not regard his having seen the Lord on the Damascus road as a visionary experience but as an actual resurrection appearance (1 Cor 15:8) and can say “Am I not am apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” (1 Cor 9:1). Writing in the 50s of the first century, he can say that the Lord appeared to him “last of all” (1 Cor 15:8) – thus, no-one after Paul has had a similar experience. As an apostle, Paul can say that (like the other apostles), he was “not sent from men, nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the father who raised him from the dead” (Gal 1:1). As an apostle he can claim authority in the churches (1 Cor 14:37-38; 2 Cor 13:10; 2 Thess 3:14)

Much more could be said on this subject but the important point is that the word “apostle” is used in the New Testament to designate a group possessing certain qualifications which individuals in subsequent generations could not possess. In other words, the office of apostle was not designed to be a permanent fixture within the body of Christ, and this was clear from the outset. Victor Budgen says in his book, The Charismatics and the Word of God:

“Other Christians readily recognized the uniqueness of apostolic authority... Ignatius, an early Christian leader, writing between AD 100 - 115, makes a clear distinction as he declares, ‘I do not lay injunctions on you as did Paul and Peter; they were apostles...’ These were men whose ministry God had sealed in a special, unique and powerful manner.”

Clement of Rome wrote in 1st Clement about 96 AD:

“The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe.”

A number of different groups today claim to have living “apostles,” by which they mean that the apostolic office survives within their fellowships. Judged by the Biblical standard, all such claims are wrong.

The Apostle-Gift Connection

Now once we recognise that the apostolic office was a unique feature of the early church, it helps us to understand why the miraculous gifts did not survive the apostolic age, because scripture teaches both directly and by implication that the gifts and the apostolic office go hand in hand. Let’s take a look at some relevant facts:

· On the day of Pentecost the twelve apostles were “filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:4) and began to speak in languages which they had never learned. Just days earlier, Jesus had promised the apostles that they would “receive power” when the Holy Spirit came upon them (Acts 1:8) in Jerusalem (Acts 1:4). Following Peter’s sermon in Acts 2, 3000 people obeyed the gospel (Acts 2:41).

· These 3000 people received an infinitely precious gift at the point of baptism. According to Romans 8:9, “if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ (the Holy Spirit - 1 Pet 1:11) he does not belong to Him.” Now, whatever Paul meant by these words in Romans 8:9, it is clear the 3,000 new Christians did indeed come to “have the Spirit” in this sense. Again, whatever Peter meant by the promise “you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38), it is clear that this promise was fulfilled to those to whom it was made on that day.

· We read on and are told that sometime after the conversion of the 3,000 (Acts 2:41), “many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles” (Acts 2:43). Sometime later still, we read that “at the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were taking place among the people” (Acts 5:12). Of course by now many more had become Christians in addition to the 3,000 (Acts 2:47; 4:4) but the apostles are singled out as the ones through whom the miracles were taking place. We can draw an important conclusion from all this and the conclusion is that whatever it means to “have the Spirit” as in Romans 8:9, it does not involve possession of miraculous abilities because many thousands of faithful Christians in Jerusalem who did indeed “have the Spirit” were not performing miracles.

· The first record of “wonders and signs” at the hands of a non-apostle occurs in Acts 6:8 where we read that “Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people.” Earlier Stephen has been introduced as “a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 6:5). Along with six other men “of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom,” Stephen is brought before the apostles, who, “after praying...laid their hands upon them” (Acts 6:6). Concerning the imposition of hands,

F. F. Bruce has:

“The imposition of hands is mentioned in a variety of contexts in the Old Testament for the bestowal of a blessing (cf Gen 48:13-20), for expressing identification, as when the sacrificer laid his hands on the head of the sacrificial victim (Lev 1:4; 3:2; 4:4; 16:21 etc), for commissioning a successor (cf Num 27:23) and so forth. According to the Mishna, members of the Sanhedrin were admitted by the imposition of hands” (The Book of Acts, New International Commentary).

· This is the first time that we read of the apostolic laying on of hands in the book of Acts. It is immediately followed by the first account of wonders and signs at the hands of a non-apostle, upon whom hands have been laid. As we read on, we learn that Philip (Acts 6:5), another of the seven upon whom the apostles had laid hands, goes to the city of Samaria where he preaches the gospel and performs many miracles (Acts 8:5 ff). Many are baptised, including a magician named Simon, who is amazed at the “signs and miracles” performed by Philip. When the apostles in Jerusalem heard the news about Samaria, they sent them Peter and John. Why did they do this?

· We are told that when Peter and John came down from Jerusalem they “prayed for (the Christians at Samaria) that they might receive the Holy Spirit” (Acts 8:15). We are told that the Spirit “had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16). Now clearly, since these Samaritans were already Christians they did indeed “have the Spirit” (as in Rom 8:9) and thus Peter and John have something else in mind when they pray for the Spirit. This becomes clear in Acts 8:17 where we read that the apostles “began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit.”

· So here we have a reception of the Holy Spirit by those who already “have the Spirit” (Rom 8:9). It is a reception of the Spirit which results from the laying on of the apostles’ hands. This is expressly stated in Acts 8:18 where we are told that “Simon saw that the Spirit was bestowed through the laying on of the apostles’ hands.” What Simon “saw” was that the apostles could do what Philip, a non-apostle, could not do - they could impart miraculous gifts of the Spirit to those who, as Christians, already possessed the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:9) .

What we learn then is that:

Ø The ability to perform miracles was available to Christians like Philip and Stephen and the Samaritans.

Ø It was imparted by the laying of the apostles’ hands.

Ø The non-apostolic recipients of these miraculous gifts did not themselves receive the ability to pass the gifts on to others.

Thus the apostles Peter and John come to Samaria to do what Philip, a non-apostle, could not do. Later when the apostle Paul laid his hands upon a group of baptised believers, “the Holy Spirit came upon them and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying” (Acts 19:6).

· Many passages of scripture make more sense once we understand the connection between the apostles and the miraculous gifts. For example, Acts 8 closes with a word about Philip and we are told that he travelled from Azotus to Caesarea “preaching the gospel to all the cities” (Acts 8:40). Now Azotus is 60 miles from Caesarea and Philip’s preaching tour likely took him through Lydda and Joppa. It is likely the “saints at Lydda” (Act 9:32) and the “disciples” at Joppa (Acts 9:38) are the fruit of Philip’s efforts. Since Philip was a non-apostle, he could not have passed on the miraculous gifts to his converts in these cities and this may well explain why they sent for Peter when Tabitha/Dorcas fell sick and died (Acts 9:36-43). The Christians at Lydda believed that Peter could do what they could not do.

· Paul’s defence of his apostleship may also throw light upon this matter. Since the truth of the gospel message is at stake, Paul boldly informs the Corinthians that he did not consider himself “in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles” (2 Cor 11:5). He asks them indignantly: “Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?” (1 Cor 9:1). He adds “If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord” (1 Cor 9:2). In 2 Corinthians, he returns to this theme and says: “The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles. For in what respect were you treated as inferior to the rest of the churches...” (2 Cor 12:12-13).

· Now in just what way are the Corinthians Paul’s “work in the Lord” and the “seal of...(his) apostleship”? True he did introduce them to the gospel, but church-planting is no proof of apostleship (eg Philip). However, Paul can remind the Corinthians that they “are not lacking in any gift” (1 Cor 1:7) and this is significant. Paul is appealing to the fact that the Corinthians, his “work in the Lord,” possess spiritual gifts as proof of his apostleship. Paul, as an apostle could bestow upon the brethren at Corinth what Philip could not bestow upon the brethren at Samaria. Thus, the Corinthian church was the “seal” (or “sign” or “stamp of approval”) of his apostleship. The “signs of a true apostle” would include the ability to do what the non-apostolic miracle-workers at Corinth could not do - confer the gifts of the Spirit.

· Some have argued on the basis of 1 Tim 4:14, that Timothy received his “spiritual gift” from “the presbytery” (ie a group of elders) rather than from an apostle, but this is not taught in this text. If Timothy had a miraculous gift, then he got it from the apostle Paul who elsewhere tells the young man to “kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you through (dia) the laying on of my hands” (2 Tim 1:6). In 1 Tim 4:14 however, the gift is said to have come “with (meta) the laying on of hands by the presbytery.” A. T. Robertson points out that “meta does not express instrument or means but merely accompaniment” (Word Pictures). So the laying on of hands by the elders was by way of appointing Timothy to a ministry (cf Acts 13:3) and it was not the means of bestowing a miraculous gift.

This connection between the apostolic office and the miraculous gifts is so important to grasp, because as we have seen, the apostolic office was limited to the first generation of Christians. This being the case, it follows that when the apostolic office ceased, the miraculous gifts also ceased because they could only be passed on by the imposition of the apostles’ hands. In a nutshell, there are no gifts today because there are no apostles today. However, before leaving this topic we do need to say a word about the one exceptional situation of Cornelius and his household in Acts chapter 10.

Acts 10 -Cornelius and His Household

Acts chapter 2 describes the establishment of the church when the apostles were “clothed with power on high” (Lk 24:49) and the gospel was preached for the first time. In the first gospel sermon, Peter tells the assembled crowd that the miraculous events which they had witnessed were a fulfilment of Joel’s prophecy concerning “the last days” - a prophecy in which the Lord promised to “pour forth...(His) Spirit upon all mankind” (Acts 2:17). Now by “all mankind,” Joel meant people of all nations. Later Peter says to the assembled Jews and proselytes: “the promise” (ie the gift of the Holy Spirit) “is for you and your children and for all who are far off” (2:39). Again the “far off” ones are the Gentiles (Eph 2:13), and Paul will later explain that “the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (Eph 3:6).

However, subsequent events prove that neither Peter nor his hearers grasped this fundamental doctrine concerning the full, equal, participation of the Gentiles in the gospel. The fact is that for a number of years, no effort is made to preach to the Gentiles. In the first nine chapters of Acts we read of the conversion of Jews, proselytes and Samaritans but not Gentiles. (The Jews distinguished between Samaritans, who were of Abrahamic descent, and Gentiles - Matt 10:5). The divine plan of course was for the apostles to be Christ’s “witnesses” in “Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). By the time we get to Acts 10, Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria have all received the good news. It is now the turn of the Gentiles and in many ways, Acts 10 may be seen as the “Gentile Pentecost.” Consider the following points:

· When Peter made the good confession in Matt 16:16 (“Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God”), Jesus pronounced a blessing upon him and said “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 16:19). In Acts 2, Peter opened the door of salvation by preaching the first gospel message. In Acts 10, he opens the door for the Gentiles and Peter will later say that it was “God’s choice” that he be the one to first preach the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 15:7).

· The opening verses of Acts 10 record how the Lord uses a vision of “clean” and “unclean” animals to teach Peter that he must not “consider unholy” that which God has “cleansed” (Acts 10:15). The Lord is preparing Peter to preach the message of salvation to a devout Gentile named Cornelius (Acts 10:1-2). It is interesting that Peter still needs this lesson a number of years after Pentecost, but he is quick to apply this principle (Acts 10:28) and to draw the conclusion that “God is not one to show partiality” on the basis of race (Acts 10:34-35).

· As Peter “began to speak” (Acts 11:15) the message of salvation (Acts 11:14) to these Gentiles, “the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message (ie upon Cornelius and his household)” (Acts 10:44) so that Peter and his Jewish brethren “were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God” (Acts 10:46). Now earlier we were told of Peter’s having concluded that “in every nation” God fearers are acceptable to Him, but now we are told that the Jewish visitors are “amazed” at this turn of events (Acts 10:45). Why is this the case?

· They are amazed, we are told “because the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also” (Acts 10:45). Peter says that they had received the Spirit “just as we did” (Acts 10:47) and later explains this to mean that the Holy Spirit “fell upon them, just as He did upon us at the beginning” (Acts 11:15). The “beginning” is of course the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, and the “us” are the apostles. Later Peter will explain that God gave these Gentiles “the same gift as He gave to us” (Acts 11:17) meaning baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 11:16). What amazes the Jewish visitors then is the fact that the Holy Spirit has been poured out directly upon Cornelius without the laying on of the apostles’ hands, and the only parallel that they can find is what happened in Jerusalem to the apostles years before, as recorded in Acts 2.

· We recall that in Acts 2, Peter explained by inspiration that the powerful and dramatic manifestation of the Spirit with respect to the apostles, was in accordance with the prophecy of Joel; the prophecy that God’s Spirit would be poured forth “upon all mankind” (Acts 2:17). Now “all mankind” meant Jew and Gentile, but no Gentile was present on the day of Pentecost. Thus Joel’s prophecy was not completely fulfilled until the outpouring of the Spirit upon Cornelius in Acts 10. Significantly up until that time, those Jewish Christians who had been scattered because of persecution, had been speaking the word “to no one except to Jews alone” (Acts 11:19), but after the “Gentile Pentecost” we read that some “began speaking to the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus” (Acts 11:20). The preaching of the gospel to the entire world gets under way.

Concluding Comments

The New Testament records certain unique events associated with:

· The coming of the New Covenant.

· The establishment of the church.

· The giving of God’s full and final revelation through His Son.

It also sets forth a body of teaching which will never pass away. The apostolic office was held by uniquely-qualified men of the first century church and claims by different groups today that they possess living apostles flounder upon the Biblical description of the office. Moreover, since it was through the laying on of the apostles’ hands that miraculous gifts were bestowed, these gifts did not survive the apostolic age.

Acts Study 4: Gifts and Confirmation

Central to the Hebrew epistle is the message that the gospel of Jesus Christ is superior to anything that Judaism had to offer. In Heb 2:3-4 there is a warning not to neglect the great salvation offered by Christ, along with a reminder that the gospel message had been “confirmed” to the recipients of the letter by those who heard it from the Lord. The Hebrew writer then speaks of “God also bearing witness with...(those who heard) both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will.” F. F. Bruce comments on this verse:

“The witness of their informants, however, was confirmed by the signs and wonders and mighty works which attended their proclamation of the message: these were tokens granted by God to attest the truth of what was proclaimed. The testimony of the New Testament writings to the regularity with which these phenomena accompanied the preaching and receiving of the gospel in the early apostolic age is impressive in its range... The New Testament writers...would not have appealed to the evidence of these miraculous manifestations if there was any possibility that their readers would reply that they had never seen or heard of such things” (Hebrews, New International Commentary).

Despite differing views on the purpose of the gifts, I know of no-one who denies that divinely-bestowed supernatural gifts functioned to confirm the truth of the message proclaimed by the miracle worker. This is important because, since God cannot lie (Tit. 1:2; Heb 6:18), He cannot confirm doctrinal error. It is also evident that if two doctrines cannot both be true then at least one of them must be false. Clearly if individuals or groups teach conflicting doctrines in the name of Christ, God cannot be the author of them all and the Holy Spirit cannot be providing supernatural confirmation for all of them. Yet the reality is that on every side, we encounter groups claiming miraculous attestation for a whole spectrum of conflicting doctrines, as the following examples show:

· In his Counterfeit Miracles, B. B. Warfield writes concerning the Roman Catholic Church:

“This continuous manifestation of supernatural powers in its bosom constitutes one of the proudest boasts of the Church of Rome; by it, it conceives itself differentiated say, from the Protestants; and in it finds one of its chief credentials as the sole organ of God Almighty for the saving of the wicked world (emphasis mine).”

Warfield speaks of the “distinctive teachings of this church as to monasticism and asceticism, relics and saints, transubstantiation, and the like, in honor of which the alleged miracles are performed,” and eleven years of attending Catechism classes gave me first hand knowledge of these and other “distinctive teachings” (such as Papal infallibility) for which miraculous attestations are claimed. In his Is The Holy Spirit For Me? Harvey Floyd says:

“Another thing that disturbs the old Pentecostal is that Catholics lay claim to the ‘Pentecostal experience.’ And this makes them better Catholics. (Floyd here quotes Ray Hughes a traditional Pentecostal writing in the ‘70s) ‘According to a number of Catholic writers, Catholic Pentecostals tend to go back and begin using avenues of contact with God that they had abandoned - the rosary, the Real Presence, devotion to Mary’” (emphasis mine).

Clearly since the Holy Spirit cannot testify to the truth of contradictory doctrines, and since Protestant charismatics are firmly opposed to such doctrines as the Real Presence and such practices as praying to Mary, at least one group is mistaken in claiming divine support for its position.

· We confront the same situation when we leave the Roman Catholic Church out of consideration. How confusing it must be for sincere truth seekers who sit at the feet of leading Faith Movement figures such as Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, Fred Price, Jerry Saville, and Charles Capp, to hear leading “charismatics” accuse these and other members of the Movement of spreading heresy. For example, in his influential book Christianity in Crisis, Hank Hanegraaff points out that the most scholarly rebuttals of the Faith Movement have come from within the ranks of the charismatic movement from men like Gordon Fee and Charles Farah. In his A Different Gospel, D. R. McConnell writes: “I would no more reject charismatic renewal than I would reject the Holy Spirit who gave it.” But like many who embrace charismatic renewal, McConnell argues that the Faith Movement has not emerged from the Wesleyan-Holiness movement from which the Pentecostal and charismatic movements came but from quite a different source. He says:

“First we will use the historical approach to prove that the founder of the Faith movement, E.W. Kenyon, has a direct historical connection to institutional cults... Second we will employ the theological approach to prove that because of Kenyon’s historical connection to the metaphysical cults, the modern Faith movement teaches doctrines that are neither biblical nor orthodox. In other words, because the historical root is cultic, the theological fruit is cultic as well”

(McConnell goes on to express the view that most members of the Movement are sincere, and that it is not a cult to the degree of Mormonism and Jehovah Witnesses).

“(This is about) doctrine, killer doctrine, doctrine that has taken hundreds of human lives and destroyed thousands of faiths and churches. Someone must give an account for theses lives” (emphasis mine).

This is strong language. Whatever we make of this, one thing is clear - if doctrine taught by those claiming miraculous gifts is openly denounced as “killer” doctrine by others committed to a belief in charismatic renewal, God’s hand is not in both.

· Just as committed to a belief in present-day miracles as our friends within the Wesleyan-Holiness-Pentecostal movement and the Faith movement, are those individuals within groups which are generally labeled “cults” by mainstream Protestantism. Our Mormon friends of course find the following in the Book of Mormon 9:7-8:

“And again I speak unto you who deny the revelations of God, and say that they are done away, that there are no revelations, no prophecies, nor gifts, nor healing, nor speaking with tongues, and the interpretation of tongues; Behold I say unto you, he that denieth these things knoweth not the gospel of Christ; yea, he has not read the scriptures; if so, he does not understand them.”

In his Charismatic Chaos, John F. Mac Arthur asks and answers the following question concerning Jehovah’s Witnesses:

“And do the Witnesses believe they have new revelation? Indeed they do! They have plainly said so in their magazine, Watchtower: ‘The Watchtower is a magazine without equal on earth... This is not giving any credit to the magazine publishers, but is due to the great Author of the Bible with its truths and prophecies, and who now interprets its prophecies’” (Watchtower [April 15, 1943], 127).

In the 1939 Yearbook of Jehovah Witnesses we have:

“It should be expected that the Lord would have a means of communicating to his people on the earth, and he has clearly shown that the magazine called The Watchtower is used for that purpose.”

Our friends within the Seventh Day Adventist movement look to their own “prophet” Ellen G. White, who wrote in the introduction to The Great Controversy:

“Through the illumination of the Holy spirit, the scenes of the long-continued conflict between good and evil have been opened to the writer of these pages. From time to time I have been permitted to behold the working, in different ages, of the great controversy between Christ the Prince of life...and Satan....”

In modern times Christendom has seen the rise of many groups claiming direct supernatural guidance and divinely bestowed miraculous powers. Under the leadership of charismatic figures teaching fundamentally different doctrines, many of these groups have attracted a wide and dedicated following - but still God is not the author of confusion.

· Finally, it is important to keep in mind that it is not only in the modern era of the post-apostolic period that individuals and groups claiming supernatural illumination and power have won many ardent followers. One of the earliest figures of controversy was a second century convert from mystery religion who was called Montanus. Concerning him, Britannica has:

“Little is known about Montanus. Before his conversion to Christianity, he apparently was a priest of the Oriental ecstatic cult of Cybele, the mother goddess of fertility. According to the 4th-century church historian Eusebius of Caesarea, Montanus c. 172-173 entered into an ecstatic state and began prophesying in the region of Phrygia, now in central Turkey. Montanus became the leader of a group of illuminati (‘the enlightened’), including the prophetesses Priscilla (or Prisca) and Maximilla. The members exhibited the frenzied nature of their religious experience by enraptured seizures and utterances of strange languages that the disciples regarded as oracles of the Holy Spirit.”

Among other things, Montanists prophesied that “the heavenly Jerusalem was soon to descend on the Earth in a plain between the two villages of Pepuza (Montanus’ own village - Rex) and Tymion in Phrygia” (ibid). Montanus also prophesied that he would have a leading role in this new kingdom, and he claimed to possess the final revelation of the Holy Spirit. Clearly since his prophesies never came to pass, the Bible believer must conclude that he was a false prophet (Deut 18:22) and that his “tongue speaking” and other signs were not of divine origin. Nevertheless, we read that “The movement spread throughout Asia Minor (and) inscriptions have indicated that a number of towns were almost completely converted to Montanism” (ibid). Clearly popularity is no guarantee of truth.

Succeeding centuries brought other claimants at various times but although many welcomed them as instruments of spiritual renewal, history has been especially unkind to those who, like the Montanists, tried their hand at prophesy. For example, Britannica has the following on Edward Irving, whose teachings became the basis of the religious movement known as Irvingism:

“After working as a mathematics teacher and studying theology part time, Irving was called in 1822 to the Caledonian chapel in London as a preacher. His chapel congregation grew so rapidly that in 1827 a new and larger church was built for him in Regent Square. His popularity waned, however, because of his increasing stress on apocalypticism and eschatology, including his prediction in 1825 that the Second Coming of Christ would occur in 1864” (emphasis mine).

The Irvingites suffered many other prophetic failures, and thus like Montanus and many others, they failed the Biblical test. Popularity does not determine truth.

Concluding Comments

The Bible believer who knows anything of history and anything of the present state of Christendom has to confront a difficult reality:

· He knows that God is not the author of confusion.

· He knows that God cannot endorse error.

· He knows that a kingdom divided against itself is laid waste (Matt 12:25).

Yet, he also knows that earnest, committed seekers have claimed and continue to claim that supernatural works testify to the truth of a multitude of conflicting doctrines. Montanists, Gnostics, Catholics, Albigensians, Mennonites, Ranters, Quakers, Moravians, Shakers, Irvingites, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Pentecostals, Faith Movement adherents etc - all with competing theologies and all claiming supernatural endorsement.

Sometimes those of us who deny the reality of modern-day miracles are warned that we are in danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. We are reminded that the existence of false signs and wonders does not prove that genuine miracles do not occur today. This is true, but there are other facts which, in my view, support the cessationist position.

Acts Study 5: Baptism and Acts 2:38

Any serious discussion of baptism and its relationship to salvation inevitably involves a consideration of Acts 2:38 and Peter’s admonition to repent and be baptized “for (eis) the forgiveness of sins.” Now it is quite clear that according to this verse (and others) baptism is essential for salvation, but unfortunately many of our denominational friends fail to draw this conclusion, and in many cases, this is due to the fact that they bring certain presuppositions to their study of the biblical teaching on baptism. Specifically, many have erroneously concluded that the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith is simply incompatible with the idea that baptism is essential to salvation and consequently they approach Acts 2:38 having eliminated the very possibility that this could be the apostle’s teaching here. Left with the need to provide some explanation for the phrase “for forgiveness of sins,” many faith-only advocates insist that we have here an example of “the causal use of eis,” by which they mean that in Acts 2:38, the preposition eis means “because of.” Thus Peter is urging his hearers to be baptised because their sins have already been forgiven. What are we to make of this argument?

First of all it is significant that many lexicons do not even give a “causal use of eis.” This is the case “(...because out of 1,773 occurrences of eis in the New Testament, only four might mean ‘because’), and those that do, admit that such a translation is at best controversial” (G. L. Reese, Commentary on Acts). In a footnote, Reese notes that Arndt-Gingrich (Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature) “give no example of causal eis in the church fathers,” and that according to a scholarly source cited by these lexicographers “there is no example of causal eis in the papyri of the first century” (ibid). On the other hand, Dana and Mantey claim that the use of eis in Matt 12:41 and Luke 11:32 provides “forceful evidence for a causal use of this preposition” (Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament). They argue that Ninevites repented “because of” the preaching of Jonah. Commenting upon Matt 12:41, D. A. Carson says that the phrase at the preaching of Jonah “cannot be final (meaning that it cannot mean with a view to or resulting in - Rex) but establishes the ground for the Ninevites repentance” (The Expositors Bible Commentary, vol 8, p.297, footnote). Carson adds that this is a “rare use of eis.” Citing Matt 12:41, Thayer has “at the preaching of one, i.e. out of regard to the substance of his preaching.”

However, not everyone is convinced that Matt 12:41 provides an example of causal eis. According to J. W. McGarvey and Philip Y. Pendleton, the Ninevites “repented into the preaching of Jonah.” They explain: “The meaning is that they repented so that they followed the course of life which the preaching prescribed” (The Fourfold Gospel). We are told that “This is not idiomatic English but it conveys the exact thought which a Greek would derive from the original.” Along with most other commentators, McGarvey and Pendleton take the phrase “in the (eis) name of a prophet” (Matt 10:41) to mean “because he is a prophet”, but let’s keep an important point in mind: it is one thing to say that this is what the phrase means, or what it amounts to, and quite another thing to say eis should be translated “because” here in Matthew 10:41.

Now if all this sounds confusing, let’s keep in mind that we have mentioned verses where “translation is at best controversial” (Reese) and that even those who argue for the causal use of eis acknowledge that such a use is “rare” (Carson). As far as Acts 2:38 is concerned, there is simply no doubt that forgiveness of sins follows and is conditional upon scriptural baptism. The phrase “for (eis) the forgiveness of sins” occurs in three other New Testament verses (Matt 26:28, Mk 1:4, and Lk 3:3) and clearly no one argues that Christ’s blood was poured out because sins had already been forgiven (Matt 26:28), or that John preached baptism of repentance to those who were already cleansed (Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3). Consistency is truly a rare gem. Isn’t it equally clear that if Peter’s hearers were already forgiven in Acts 2:38, then Acts 2:40 makes no sense at all? Why would the apostle urge saved people to “Be saved from this perverse generation?” Salvation comes later, when “those who had received his word were baptised” (Acts 2:41). Note too the connection between the two verbs “repent” and “be baptized.” Both repentance and baptism are said to be “for the forgiveness of...sins” and certainly no one argues that Peter is urging his hearers to repent because they have already been forgiven. Attempts have been made to drive a wedge between the two verbs (“repent” and “be baptised”) but “This interpretation compels us either to do violence to the construction, or to throw the argument or the course of thought in the context into complete confusion” (J. W. Wilmarth).

Discussions of the preposition eis in Acts 2:38 by the grammarians are also instructive:

· Thayer notes the use of eis in connection with the verb baptise (p.185) and refers us to his treatment of this verb elsewhere (p.94). There, he cites Acts 2:38 and explains the meaning of the relevant phrase as “to obtain the forgiveness of sins.”

· In the Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament, vol 1, p. 539, Albrecht Oepke discusses the syntactical connections of the verb baptise and cites Acts 2:38 (among other verses) to show that “eis is mostly used finally to denote the aim sought and accomplished by baptism” (emphasis mine).

· C. F. D Moule quotes Acts 2:38 as an example of the use of eis to mean “with a view to, or resulting in - i.e. final or consecutive (sense)” (An Idiom-Book Of New Testament Greek, p.70).

· In his New Commentary on Acts, J. W. McGarvey quotes “the testimony of two eminent philologists” Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer and C. L. Wilibald Grimm. According to McGarvey, “Meyer says under Acts 2:38: ‘eis denotes the object of the baptism, which is the admission (remission?) of the guilt contracted in the state before repentance.’” We also read that “Grimm, in his great lexicon of the Greek New Testament defines ‘for the forgiveness of sins’ Acts 2:38, ‘to obtain the forgiveness of sins.’”

Clearly these word specialists cite Acts 2:38 because Peter’s use of eis here provides an excellent example of the use of this preposition to speak of the aim, purpose, end, goal and suchlike.

Finally, a word about the treatment of “eis” by Daniel B. Wallace (Dallas Theological Seminary) in his 1996 book Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Professor Wallace makes his position clear when he considers the possibility that “The baptism referred to here is physical only, and ‘eis’ has the meaning of for or unto.” Wallace argues:

“Such a view, if this is all there is to it, suggests that salvation is based on works. The basic problem of this view is that it runs squarely in the face of the theology of Acts , namely: (a) repentance precedes baptism (cf Acts 3:19 ; 26:20 ), and (b) salvation is entirely a gift of God , not procured via water baptism (Acts 10:43 [cf v 47]; 13:38-39, 48; 15:11; 16:30-31; 20:21; 26:18).”

Now of course it is simply not true that baptism is a work of merit and that the doctrine of salvation by grace is threatened if baptism is essential to salvation. However, Wallace’s discussion of Acts 2:38 is instructive. He tells us that “An interesting discussion over the force of ‘eis’ took place several years ago, especially in relation to Acts 2:38.” He explains that “J. R. Mantey argued that ‘eis’ could be used causally in various passages in the NT, among them Matt 3:11 and Acts 2:38” adding: “It seems that Mantey believed that a salvation by grace would be violated if a causal eis was not evident in such passages as Acts 2:38.” Wallace continues:

“On the other hand, Ralph Marcus questioned Mantey’s non-biblical examples of a causal eis so that in his second of two rejoinders he concluded (after a blow-by-blow refutation: It is quite possible that eis is used causally in these NT passages but the examples of causal eis cited from non-biblical Greek contribute absolutely nothing to making this possibility a probability. If, therefore, Professor Mantey is right in his interpretation of various NT passages on baptism and repentance and the remission of sins, he is right for reasons that are non-linguistic.

Marcus ably demonstrated that the linguistic evidence for a causal ‘eis’ fell short of proof.”

It is sad that many of our denominational friends approach Acts 2:38 having ruled out the very possibility that baptism is essential to salvation. They fail to appreciate that baptism is not a work of law wherein one may boast (Rom 3:27; Gal 2:9) but rather a simple act of humble obedience whereby an individual takes possession of a gift freely offered by God on the basis of Christ’s sacrificial death. Paul specifically sets baptism (“the washing of regeneration”) in contrast with “deeds which we have done in righteousness” and connects it to that salvation which is “according to His mercy” (Tit 3:5). Could it be that in our desire to see our friends enter the kingdom of God and enjoy eternal life, we fail to focus enough upon the source of salvation - the blood of Christ? Oepke reminds us that:

“The significance of baptism...depends on the fact that it is a real action of the holy God in relation to sinful man. Hence both a superstitious and also a purely symbolic understanding are excluded... Standing in a definite and absolutely indispensable historical context, baptism derives its force from the reconciling action of God in Christ, or more exactly from the atoning death of Christ” (p.540).

We must take care to assure our denominational friends that we believe in salvation by grace. We must also take great care to explain the difference between a work of faith and a work of law. Perhaps then, the truth of Acts 2:38 will not be resisted so strenuously.