Book of Acts

Acts 2 – Pentecost in the Book of Acts

The Jewish festival of Pentecost is important for understanding the events of Acts 2. The Feast of Weeks or Shavuot celebrates the first fruits of the harvest. It happens fifty days after Passover (seven weeks) in the late spring / early summer. This festival included an offering of two loaves made with the wheat given in the first fruit offering (Lev 23:15–16; Deut 16:9).

Pentecost, Shavout

For first-century Jews, Shavout was a declaration of “God’s ownership of the land and his grace in bringing forth food” (Sanders, Judaism, 139). The book of Ruth is read during this festival. That Ruth takes place during the wheat harvest may be the reason, but Ruth is not only a gentile convert to Judaism, she is the ancestor of King David. “There may also be a messianic significance in the choice of this work, i.e., that all the world will turn to Judaism eventually” (The Encyclopedia of Judaism; Leiden: Brill, 2000, 1:43). Since Acts begins the story of the Gospel beginning in Jerusalem and eventually going out to the whole world, this background may be significant. A significant problem for this view is our lack of certainty that Ruth was read at Pentecost in the first century. Even if it was, would Luke be aware of the reading, and would he want to tease out any messianic significance for reading Ruth at the Feast of Weeks.

According The Book of Jubilees, Pentecost was the day on which Moses was given the Law (cf. Tobit 2:1, 2 Macc 12:32). Although the Book of Exodus does not make this clear, there is a tradition that the Israelites arrived at Mount Sinai 50 days after the first Passover (Exod 19:1). Some scholars (Knox, Snaith) see a connection between this tradition and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Since Moses gave out the Law to Israel on this day, Jesus gives the Holy Spirit to the church. Joseph Fitzmyer suggested Luke was aware of the tradition since there are some indirect allusions to the giving of the Law in Acts 2, such as the image of fire descending from heaven (Exod 19:18). For some, the descent of the Spirit as “tongues of fire” alludes to the theophany at Sinai.

However, as Keener points out, there is no scholarly consensus on the meaning of Pentecost in this passage (Acts, 1:784). There are some parallels with a covenant renewal ceremony (Jubilees 6.17) or traditions about Pentecost in the (potentially later) Targumim. Keener concludes Luke use of Pentecost as a festival has no more significance to his narrative than providing large crowds and a short interval after Passover (Acts 1:787).

It is likely the first fruits of the harvest refers to those who receive the Holy Spirit in Acts 2. The new age has begun and the Holy Spirit has come for the first time. But there are two other potential Pentecosts in the book of Acts. In Acts 10 the Holy Spirit falls on Cornelius, a God-Fearing Gentile and he speaks in tongues just as the Jewish believers do in Acts 2. Peter makes this point himself in Acts 10:47: the Gentiles in Cornelius’ home received the Holy Spirit “just as we have.”

There is a third reference to Pentecost in Acts 20:16. Paul wants to return to Jerusalem before Pentecost if possible. This was a dangerous journey, especially since Paul wanted to deliver the collection from the Gentile churches at Pentecost. By delivering a gift to the poor in Jerusalem the Gentile churches demonstrate that they too have received the Holy Spirit. Paul’s return to Jerusalem at Pentecost is calculated to highlight his harvest among the Gentiles. That there are three references to Pentecost are not unexpected since Luke repeats important events three times several times in Acts (Cornelius’ conversion, Paul’s conversion, the rejection of Israel, etc.)

Whatever the intended imagery, the day represents the largest crowd in the Temple area since Passover fifty days before. Peter and the other apostles will be able to preach to large crowds of Jews gathered to worship God in the Temple (Acts 2-3).

What is there in Peter’s sermon that makes some use of this Pentecost imagery?  Why did God choose Pentecost for the outpouring of the Spirit?

 

Bibliography: W. L. Knox, Acts, (NCB, Oxford: Clarendon, 1967), 80-84; N. Snaith, “Pentecost, the Day of Power,” ExpTim 43 (1931-32): 379-80; Mark J. Olson, “Pentecost,” ABD 5:222.

Acts 1:8 – “You Will Be My Witnesses”

When asked if he was about to restore the Kingdom to Israel, Jesus reminds his disciples that “it is not for them to know” when the kingdom will be restored. Rather than knowing the “times and dates” God has planned, the disciples are to be witnesses to the good news of Jesus in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and all the earth. To some extent, the kingdom is about to begin in the Temple in a manner which is not unlike what many expected. The Holy Spirit will fall upon people and they will speak the Word of God in power in the Temple itself.

Acts 1_8

These men are to be witnesses, a very important word in Luke-Acts and this command is in many ways programmatic for the chapters which follow. In the chapters which follow, the 12 disciples are called witnesses 8 times, and the Holy Spirit bears witness on their behalf (Acts 5:32). Both Paul (22:15, and 26:16) and Stephen (22:20) are called witnesses in Acts.

The disciples are to give testimony of who Jesus was (the messiah) and what Jesus did (died for the forgiveness of sins) and what he intends to do (return to establish his kingdom). They are all eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus, his death and resurrection, and they will be witnesses to the coming of the Holy Spirit (in Acts 2). They are Jesus’ own personal representatives sent to report to others what Jesus said and did.

As in the modern use of the word, a ‘witness” often functioned in a legal context, giving testimony in a court case. As the disciples give their testimony in various speeches, sermons or other teaching opportunities, they are offering evidence concerning who Jesus is. This evidence can be corroborated other eye-witnesses. In Luke 1:2, the author claims to have done this already, confirming the events of his Gospel by eyewitnesses. That Luke himself is a part of the story after Acts 16 indicates that he is an eyewitness himself and can confirm the truth of his document.

This is an important historical point, since what accounts for evidence for a first century historian differs from that of a modern writer. As Keener points out, to call upon witnesses is common in other Greco-Roman histories. An eyewitness was the most important evidence a writer could give. Polybius, for example claimed that “sight is, according to Heracleitus, by far the truer; for eyes are surer witnesses than ears” (Hist. 12.27). As I suggested in a previous post, Luke can be both historical and theological, since the two are virtually the same in the literary world of the first century.

This commission to be the witnesses of the Messiah in Jerusalem is based on the activity of the Holy Spirit. They are verbally commissioned, but it will be the reception of the Holy Spirit which empowers them to preach and confirms the words of their preaching (through signs and miracles).

How does this theme of “witness” work out in the Book of Acts? How are the disciples witnesses for the Messiah? To what extent is “eye-witness” important in modern evangelism? (Or, is it?)

Acts 1:1-3 – Jesus Gave Many Convincing Proofs

After the resurrection, Jesus gives many “convincing proofs” of the resurrection (1:3). The word Luke selects for “proof” (τεκμήριον) in this opening paragraph is word associated with other historical texts in the ancient world. The word is different than witness (a key word in Luke’s introduction to Acts) since “proof” refers to “evidential proof credible on its own merits” (EDNT, 340). Keener says the phrase “many proofs” appears in Hellenistic  historiography (1:666). The Greek historian Thucydides, for example, makes a statement the offers proof for the assertion using this word (2.39), and he used the verb in his introduction of his history with the sense of “prove positively” (1.3). I am not sure Luke would have intended this word to be understood in the same sense as Aristotle, who used the word in contrast to fallible signs (σημεῖον). For Aristotle, the word refers to “demonstrative proof” (LSJ).

Road to Emmaus Robert_Zund_ZUR010

Another way of understanding of the word is as a “confirming sign.” When Josephus created a speech for Joshua just before the Israelites enter the Promised Land, he described the miracles Israel experienced in the wilderness as “many signs” (Ant. 5.39 διὰ πολλῶν τεκμηρίων). This is intriguing; perhaps Luke refers to Jesus doing things to prove he was actually alive (eating with the disciples, Luke 24:41-43) or miracles (John 21:4-8). The “signs” were proof Jesus was indeed alive.

Most likely the “evidence” Jesus gave was scriptural proof drawn from the Hebrew Bible. Jesus explained to the disciples the key texts about the messiah and demonstrated to them Scripture anticipated a suffering messiah who would die and rise again. Certainly the disciples needed to be convinced Jesus had really died and was not alive (John 20, Thomas), the bulk of the proof took the form of opening the disciples minds to the idea that messiah came to suffer and die before judging and ruling the nations. This is exactly how Luke ended his gospel, the disciples who met Jesus on the road to Emmaus: “and beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27).

Why would Jesus need to provide “convincing proofs”? In Second Temple Period Judaism, no one expected the messiah would die, let alone rise from the dead. A possible exception is 4 Ezra, but even in this book the messiah establishes a kingdom and dies after a very long reign. There was no Jewish expectation the suffering servant of Isaiah 40-55 would die, and no one read that text as messianic quite the way Christians do.

Jesus gives these proofs or signs to draw his disciples to the conclusion the messiah had to die and be raised from the dead. This claim demands a decision from disciples but also the reader of Acts. If Jesus was who he claimed, then what is going to happen at Pentecost?

When we read Peter’s sermons in Acts 2-3, there are several passages from the Hebrew Bible which could qualify as “convincing proofs.” What does Peter claim about Jesus in these sermons?

The Book of Acts and Modern Church Life

It might seem strange to even ask of the book of Acts ought to “apply” to the modern form of the Church. All Scripture is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. The real question is whether the Church in the book of Acts is a model for the modern church to follow. Is the book of Acts normative for Christian practice today? To draw an application from the narrative of Acts is no different than applying a story from the David. But few Christians would advocate David’s experience as the way we ought to do church today (presumably only harps for music in the church, and a strict no-giant rule). Acts is different because it does present the origins of many church practices still used today.

242Some Christians will argue that the book of Acts ought to be normative for Christian life and practice. For example, since the early church lived simply and held all things in common, we ought to live simply and care for the needs of others just like they did in Acts 2 and 3. Someone like Shane Claibourne would want to apply Jesus’ life of voluntary poverty followed by the earliest forms of Christianity. Often this is narrowed to just Acts 2:42 as a model for the ideal church (teaching, fellowship, prayer, breaking of bread).

On the other hand, most Christians dispense with Acts as a guide for how to “do church” today. This may take the form of a liberal Christianity which ignores Acts as authoritative for the church, but more often how we do church has little to do with Acts and we make no apology for this. The “Acts 2” community did not have elders and deacons, they did not have church buildings and they certainly did not baptize or take communion in ways even similar to modern practice. There are no youth groups, choirs, praise bands, hymnals or Sunday School.  They did not even take an offering before the sermon! In fact, if you think about the things modern churches spend most of their time doing, the earliest forms of the church did none of them.

It is almost impossible to know exactly how the earliest church services were designed, how they worshiped, when they took communion (or how they took communion), etc.  In most denominations, how we practice these things are based on developing traditions since the reformation or even later!  Few people make the effort to say “this is how they did it in Ephesus, and that is all we ought to do today.”

This confusion is perhaps a result of the transitional nature of the book. Luke-Acts is quite unique in that the story begins in one age (Jews under the Law) and ends in another age (the Body of Christ, Jews and Gentiles saved apart from the Law by the blood of Christ). We are naturally drawn to the cross as the center of the history – certainly the work of Jesus on the Cross is the single most important event in history! But it is not necessarily the theological shift from one age to the next because what Jesus did on the cross is the climax of the covenants of Abraham and Moses.

My goal in reading Acts, therefore, is to observe very carefully how the church as we know it developed over the thirty years covered by the book.  There is a distinct shift from Jewish messianic ministry to Gentile mission, and that shift will result in some difficult times for the early church.

Is there any way to decide what practices we read about in Acts ought to be “normative” and practiced in the church, other than “that is the way I was taught in my church”? Why do we cling to some practices (teaching and fellowship) but reject others (voluntary poverty)?

The Book of Acts as Theology

Theo LukeThere is a third element of the book of Acts which cannot be ignored. Luke is a theologian and his book is telling the reader about the work of God in the world. He has wide variety of theological interests, such as how God’s plan is unfolding in history, or the movement of the Holy Spirit as the gospel moves into new areas of the world. Darrell Bock’s recent The Theology Luke/Acts demonstrates that Luke had many theological interests which run throughout these two books and there are dozens of books on Luke as a Theologian.

Luke’s theological agenda is the main reason he writes Acts. While he does preserve history in an appealing and entertaining fashion, his main point to present a particular theological agenda. Does recognizing the fact a biblical writer has a theological perspective mean he is “non-historical”? Not necessarily, but there are some thinks Luke simply never addresses which are a matter of historical interest because they are not helpful for his theological agenda. For example, Galatians 2 seems to indicate a great deal more tension between Paul and Jerusalem than Acts 15. If all we had was Acts 15, then we might assume Paul and James worked through some minor differences and found an equitable solution. Galatians indicates Peter and Barnabas were both pressured by James to withdraw from table fellowship with Gentiles. Luke emphasizes the unity of the church at the time of the Jerusalem council; Paul emphasizes his independence from Jerusalem in his letter to the Galatians. Both are accurate, albeit both men write with different theological and apologetic reasons.

I want to suggest here at the beginning of a long series on the book of Acts that the final verses of the book may very well be the “theological statement” for Luke/Acts as a whole. In Acts 28:31-31 we are told Paul taught “freely and with boldness” because his preaching of the gospel was the fulfillment of God’s plan. The disciples of Jesus all endure trials and persecution as the boldly proclaim the gospel, including two who are killed on account of their testimony (Stephen in Acts 7 and James in Acts 12). Paul spends quite a bit of time under arrest in the book, often in Roman custody but occasionally he is subject to mob-rule (he is beaten and left for dead in Lystra, the mob at Thessalonica, the riots in Ephesus).

Paul also faced opposition from Jewish Christians who want to impose the Law on Gentile converts. From the letters, Paul sees these threats from “insiders” as potentially more damaging to his churches than persecution from civil authorities. Galatians makes it clear that if the Gentiles accept this “other gospel” then Paul’s efforts have been in vain. Divisions and factions in Corinth threaten to destabilize what was potentially Paul’s most successful established church!

But at no point in the book of Acts is the gospel itself restrained.  Peter might be put in prison, but the Gospel is still free. Stephen and James may be killed, but the Gospel is still free. Paul may spend years under house arrest, yet the Gospel is still going out to the whole world.

By looking at the last line of the book of Acts we see how Luke wanted to end the story.  The idea that God is fulfilling the great story of redemption in the work of Jesus is a major theme of his two books. Luke 1:1 states that his purpose for writing was so that Theophilus might have an accurate record of the “things which have been fulfilled among us.” The gospel of Luke concludes with the same idea: Jesus himself states that everything that happened fulfilled scripture (Luke 24:44-49).

Acts begins with Jesus telling the disciples to stay in Jerusalem and await the coming Holy Spirit which the Father promised to send (Acts 1:4).  This promise appears in Luke 3:15-17, but is drawn from the Hebrew Bible as well (Joel 2:28, Jeremiah 31:31-33). Acts is the story of how the fulfillment of God’s promise works its way from Jerusalem to the rest of the world, ultimately to Rome itself.

I think this “theology of mission” holds the book of Acts together and may explain why Luke omitted some details we would have liked to have known about. Since unity of the church is important for Luke’s view of Gospel spreading throughout the world, he is less likely to give all the details of factionalism in the early church. Are there other illustrations of this theological agenda to be found in the book of Acts?