Category: Other Books
Pentecost Sunday 2012
Pentecost by He Qi
When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tonguesas the Spirit enabled them. (Acts 2.1-4)
Worthwhile reads:
Craig Adams, Spirit Baptism: Wesleyanism and Pentecostalism
Daniel Kirk, The Spirit of Easter
Brian LePort, Pentecostal and not Pentecostal
Jack Levison, Pentecost for the Rest of Us
Bo Sanders, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Pentecost
The use of psalms in the Book of Acts.
I want to do a study on how psalms are used in the Book of Acts. Does anyone have any books, sections of books, or articles to recommend on the topic?
The μνῆμα of King David?
In Acts 2.29 Peter quotes and applies Psalm 16.8-11 to the resurrection of Jesus. Psalm 16 is designated a “Mikhtam of David” so Peter explains that it isn’t about David, but David foresaw Jesus’ resurrection. He presents as evidence that David has died and that David remains dead, even his tomb/memorial (μνῆμα) is “with us to this day (τὸ μνῆμα αὐτοῦ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν ἄχρι τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης, 2.29).” Why does Luke depict Peter as making this claim?
As people continue to discuss the discoveries at Khirbet Qeiyafa maybe someone more studied in archaeology can inform me how people treat this statement in Acts 2.29? Has anyone sought a memorial of David that would have been available for viewing in the first century or do most write off Luke’s statement as misguided?
SBL PNW Regional in Portland, OR.
Today the SBL PNW Regional begins here in Portland, OR. I will be giving my first SBL presentation titled, “Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the Disciples of John the Baptist? An Examination of Acts 19.1-7 as a Polemic Against the Remnant of the Baptist’s Disciples.” You can read it now: LePort. SBL PNW 2012.
This is an excerpt that highlights the goals of my paper (from the opening):
In the following paper I will argue that Acts 19.1-7 functions as a polemic against the remnant of the disciples of John the Baptist. It is apparent that there were some caught betwixt those who remained loyalist to the memory of John and those who respected John but demanded full allegiance be given to Jesus. It is possible that the controversy centered upon whether or not those baptized by John should be rebaptized into the name of Jesus as well. For some the baptism of John was sufficient as long as these disciples confessed Jesus as the Christ. For others this was unacceptable. If one believed that Jesus was the Christ then they should be baptized in Jesus’ name. Luke is on the side of those that expect full integration as signified by baptism in Jesus’ name. Luke presents the Pauline churches as standing in the apostolic tradition of the Jerusalem church—the church that first received the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. Those who do not follow the Pauline method of conversion not only stand outside the mainstream church, but they ignore the words of John himself concerning the coming Spirit.
I will aim to support this proposal as follows: First, I will examine the four group conversion narratives of 2.1-4; 8.14-25; 10.34-48; and 19.1-7 highlighting similarities and differences between them. Second, I will give close attention to 19.1-7 and its immediate surrounding context. Also, I will compare the depiction of John in 19.1-7 with the other times he is mentioned in Acts. Third, I will compare briefly the content of 19.1-7 with passages in the Gospels that contain a similar juxtaposition between John and Jesus based on the their relationship to the Holy Spirit. This should help us better understand Luke’s argument. Finally, I will converge these points to present my reason for reading 19.1-7 as I do.
I will be presenting at 4:45 PM.
Group Conversion Narratives in the Book of Acts.
On Friday I will be presenting a paper at the Society of Biblical Literature’s Pacific Northwest Regional Meeting. It will be titled “Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the Disciples of John the Baptist? An Examination of Acts 19.1-7 as a Polemic Against the Remnant of the Baptist’s Disciples.” I will be arguing that this passage was written as a polemic against any group who might advocate continual loyalty to the movement of John the Baptist to the exclusion of fully embracing the movement of Jesus. I think my title may be slightly misleading though because I think the readers of Acts are people who consider themselves disciples of Jesus with some arguing that their baptism by John was sufficient.
My central focus will be on the four group conversion narratives in the Book of Acts and how those influence our interpretation of 19.1-7. I have been perplexed by how these passages work in the context of Acts since my days in Pentecostalism. This is a chart that I will be giving to those present:
Chart 1: Acts Group Conversion Narratives Juxtaposed
| 2.1-4 | 8.14-25 | 10.34-48 | 19.1-7 | |
| Geo-Ethnic Motif? | Yes, Jews from Judea and afar. | Yes, Samaritans converted. | Yes, Gentiles in the household of Cornelius. | No. |
| Apostolic Witness? | Apostles present. | Peter and John. | Peter. | Paul. |
| Arrival of the Spirit? | Yes, including a rushing wind, flames of fire, and speaking in tongues | Implicitly so, since Simon sees powerful effects and seeks to purchase the power of the apostles. | Yes, speaking in tongues and “glorifying God.” | Yes, speaking in tongues and prophecy. |
| Integration into the Church? | Birth of church (arguably) | Samaritans integrated. | Gentiles integrated. | “Disciples” who had been baptized by John submit to baptism in Jesus’ name. |
Acts 19.1-7 shares important characteristics with 2.1-4; 8.14-24; and 10.34-38, yet there are some important differences as well.
It seems that all four narratives share (1) the necessity for apostolic authority and (2) a connection between the infilling Spirit and the full integration of representative groups into the church catholic.
Yet 19.1-7 departs in that there is no Geo-Ethnic Motif (i.e. the locations mentioned in 1.8).
It should be a fun passage to discuss.
Why doesn’t the Apostle Paul mention John the Baptist?
There were many memories of John the Baptist, but he is never mentioned by the Apostle Paul.
As I prepare my paper for this year’s AAR-SBL PNW meeting I have taken interest in the role of the memory of John the Baptist as juxtaposed with Jesus that receives attention in all four Gospels and the Book of Acts. It has a prominent place in the message of these books and there are points where it seems like the authors are writing a semi-polemic against those who may be giving special honor to the Baptist (e.g. Acts 19.1-7). Yet the Apostle Paul seems to have no interest in the man, even if he is depicted in the Book of Acts as meeting people like Apollos and other disciples who identify with John’s baptism. Why?
Well, there are two things that stand out as likely reasons: (1) Paul doesn’t give much time to the Jesus’ ministry in Judea/Galilee. He may have talked about such matters, but his letters are to established churches, and he doesn’t seem to feel the obligation to tell stories from the life of Jesus to make his point. (2) He wrote to audiences who may not have known about the role of John being that they were Gentiles or diaspora Jews.
If passages like Acts 18.24-19.7 have grounding in history it seems like John was not a person whose memory had faded all that quickly. In fact, Paul is said to have met some “disciples” who knew of the baptism of John alone and the Apollos of 18.24-28 is likely the same one met in his letters. He was someone who knew of the baptism of John as well.
That works like Mark and Luke-Acts (which seem to have audiences foreign to Judea/Galilee) felt the need to address the person of John and that the Gospel of John contains a semi-polemic against John seem to indicate that John the Baptist was a relevant figure for many late into the first century (unless one dates John earlier).
Any thoughts?
The transition from disciples of the Baptist to disciples of Jesus (Acts 18.24-19.7).
Jesus meets John.
In less than a month I will be presenting a paper on Acts19.1-7 where I argue that this story in included in the narrative as a polemic against the remnant of John the Baptist’s disciples. One matter I haven’t settled–and I don’t think it is necessary for the argument of my paper–in whether Apollos in Acts 18.24-28 and the “disciples” in 19.1-7 were still considered followers of John with limited knowledge of Jesus or followers of Jesus with limited knowledge.
At this stage I tend to see Apollos as someone who could be considered a part of the Jesus movement, but who has not heard much about what happened since Jesus received John’s endorsement. For a while I thought the disciples of 19.1-7 were those of John. When he asks if they “received the Holy Spirit when they believed” it would seem that (like Apollos) they believed John’s word about Jesus but they had not been updated. That they responded as having been baptized by John made me think they were John’s disciples and that they had believed his message (however vague that might be), but the fact that Apollos had the same limited knowledge has caused me to retract that.
So what are we to make of these disciples? Are they disciples of John who know a bit about Jesus? Are they disciples of Jesus who have yet to integrate fully into the Jesus movement? Who is Apollos and these others?
If there was a resurrection, so what?
Why does the resurrection matter?
On the Monday after Easter Sunday it is easy to go back to our day-to-day lives as if the world is the same place whether or not Jesus was raised from the dead. Yet those of us who confess “on the third day he rose again” must be careful to avoid the mere intellectualization of these words. We must be intentional about existing in this world as witnesses to the resurrection of Christ. We are asked the obvious question, “If there was a resurrection, so what?” It seems like everything is just as it has always been. In the face of hopelessness we declare hopefulness because Jesus Christ is risen.
What is different about the “post-Easter” world? These are a few things that come to mind:
(1) Jesus has been vindicated by Israel’s God and Israel’s God has been vindicated before the world: The resurrection is God’s response to theodicy. In the Book of Job we find no straightforward answer to why people suffer and die. In the Book of Ecclesiastes we are faced with existential hopelessness. It is apparent that the God of Israel has never been a God of simple answers. When God responds to the “problem of evil” he does so by allowing his Son to die at the hands of the misguided Jewish elite on a Roman cross. God does not prevent the evil, rather he allows it and then reverses it.
Whether or not we understand fully why God allows various forms of evil we do have a knowledge of sorts provided by the resurrection of Jesus that informs us of how God goes about bringing good from evil. God enters into human pain and suffering. God does not prevent it, nor does he avoid it. While there is an “already, but not yet” aspect to God’s vindication we do see the beginning of the end. In Christ God has been found to be the God who did not run from his covenant with Abraham, but fulfilled it through Christ. Christ is the one who brings the Abrahamic blessing to all the nations. Christ is the one who establishes the Davidic throne forever. God has been faithful to Israel (as the Epistle to the Romans argues) in that he gave them Messiah and he saved a remnant through Messiah. God has been gracious to the nations in that he has given them an opportunity to worship him by submitting to his Son (e.g. Psalm 2).
Jesus is vindicated in that his messianic claims have been established. He did not overthrow Rome, he did not command armies of soldiers, he did not establish Israel’s “earthly” Kingdom, and he did not do many of the things various groups of Jews expected from a Messiah, yet God proved to the world that he is the Messiah indeed because the Messiah is whoever God chooses. Also, God’s work through Messiah is not finished. Messiah is in the process of defeating the true enemies of God and when death, the last enemy, has been subdued forever then the complete vindication of Jesus will be established as well as that of God because he will be “all in all.” (1 Cor. 15.25-28)
(2) Jesus has been enthroned as Messiah: Paul opens his letter to the Romans speaking of Jesus who is the descendant of David who was “declared the Son of God” when the Holy Spirit lifted him from death (1.1-4). The “Son of God” is a royal term, a kingly term. So for Paul Jesus’ identity as the Son of God was established when he was risen from the dead.
In the Lukan paradigm it is the resurrection that preludes the ascension. Jesus goes into the heavenlies to sit at the right hand of God the Father for the time being with the intend to return (Luke 24.5-53; Acts 1.9-11). The ascension doesn’t mean that Jesus won’t have an earthly Kingdom, but it does mean we do not have to wait for him to begin his reign. The world is not a place of chaos. Again, there is an “already, but not yet” here: Jesus already reigns in heaven, but his reign has not been fully established on earth. Yet we should take comfort in the “already” side of things. Jesus is King, present tense.
(3) Jesus’ “appearing” or “return” is expected: While we know that many will mock Christians for our hope in the return of the Lord (2 Peter 3.3-9) this is something to which we must continually cling. Paul himself envisioned Jesus appearing like the Daniel 7 Son of Man so that he could gather his dead and living Saints before bringing his rule to earth (1 Thessalonians 4.13-18). In 1 John 2.28-29 we find Jesus “coming” equated with his “appearing.” It is as if Jesus is already “present” but not visible. In the Book of Acts Stephen sees Jesus in heaven and this isn’t some place in outer space (Acts 7.54-60). While it is depicted as “upward” it isn’t “out there.” Similar language is used in Titus 2.11-14. Without the resurrection we cannot take comfort in the reign of Christ now nor it’s utmost fulfillment when Jesus appears.
(4) Christ’s resurrection allows him to send the Holy Spirit: In John 14-17 there is an obvious connection between the going away of Jesus and the coming of the Holy Spirit. The resurrection opens the door for Jesus to go and send the Spirit. Paul makes this connection as well. In 1 Corinthians 15.42-49 Paul sees Jesus’ resurrection body as being Spirit animated in juxtaposition with our earthly bodies that are mere “flesh and blood” (v. 50) unable to inherit the fully established, eschatological Kingdom of God. Since Christ is the Spirit-animated one he is the Spirit-giver as well. This same point is made in Romans 8.1-25 (which I will discuss in more detail below) and Paul connects Jesus’ death and resurrection by the Spirit with our ability to receive that same Spirit as a guarantee that we will be raised from the dead one day as well!
(5) Creation will be redeemed: As Paul makes obvious in 1 Thessalonians 4.13-18 he sees the resurrection of dead saints and the immediate death-to-resurrection-life transformation of living saints as occurring when Christ appears. In Romans 8.1-25 he takes this a step further. The resurrection of the saints results in the releasing of creation from it’s state of deterioration. This is Genesis 3.17-19 imagery in reverse. In 2 Peter 3.10-13 emphasizes the discontinuation of creation wherein Romans 8.18-25 emphasizes the continuation. In Revelation 21 we get another image: the marriage of heaven and earth.
Often Paul speaks of “New Creation” and that includes the saints. They are new creation and creation is new creation. In Ephesians 1.10 he says that in Christ the heaven and earth come together. This whole Christ-Church-Cosmos connection can be found elsewhere, like Colossians 1.15-20, as well.
There is much more that can be said more explicitly that is implied in these points. Paul connects the work of the cross with the resurrection (Rom. 4.25, “He was delivered over to death for our sins and raised for our justification.”). As I’ve mentioned at other points the death and resurrection create “one new human” in Christ (see the Jew-Gentile relationship in Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians). Jesus’ resurrection allowed him to give his first “royal command” in Matthew 28.19 to go forth into the world to make disciples.
So how does this change our lives now? How should be live in light of Christ’s vindication; God’s righteousness being revealed; Jesus’ enthronement, current reign, future appearing and reign; the sending of the Spirit; the renewal of creation; our justification; the Great Commission; and many other things that we could say? What would you add and how does it change the world around you?
The message of the Book of Acts.
The Apostle Paul preaching in Athens.
Although I am done with my Master of Theology (Th.M.) program I intend to continue taking classes at Western Seminary. There are topics that I want to study and I find that following a syllabus gives me helpful goals and deadlines. Also, as a full time employee I receive free credit hours so I may as well use them.
This summer I will be studying the Book of Acts and the Book of Psalms. That will be my primary focus. In this post I want to ask readers to summarize the message of the Book of Acts. After my studies I may change my view, but if I were to state simply what this book is trying to convey I would say this:
The Book of Acts is about the disciples of Christ proclaiming his Kingdom to the world in continuation with his mission as Christ himself establishes his reign from heaven.
What would you add or remove? Or would you have a completely different answer?
Ceslas Spicq’s L’Épitre aux Hébreux available in English.
Now in English!
I received an email from Cliff Kvidahl of Logos Software informing me that they have translating the influential commentary on the Book of Hebrews by French scholar Ceslas Spicq into English for the first time. I have a functional knowledge of reading French so I’d like to try to read Spicq’s work in its original language, but this makes it even more accessible, especially since I’ve heard it is quite difficult to find a French copy since it is out of print.
Why does it matter that Spicq’s work be available to English audiences. Here is an eye-opening apologetic: “At Long Last!”
Kvidahl was one of the main people behind the project. He wrote a post on his personal blog explaining why this translation is important here.
If you’d like to order this product, go here.
The persecution of men and women in Acts 8.3, 9.2, and 22.4.
Women are empowered in the Book of Acts. Were they seen as leaders as well?
Larry Hurtado wrote a post today on “References to Women Christians in Acts” where he lists a few examples of the author intentionally mentioning the involvement of men and women. The Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts are the most egalitarian portions of the New Testament (not just between genders, but ethnic groups, socio-economic groups, and the like) so it is no surprise that women are mentioned. What I find quite interesting though are the references to women as relates to persecution.
The passages of interest are 8.3, 9.2 and 22.4 where Saul/Paul is discussed as a persecutor of the church.
I heard N.T. Wright briefly allude to these passages in a talk he was giving (though I cannot remember which talk now) and he said something to the extent that you wouldn’t round up every member of a movement but only the supposed leaders. He moved along to the main point of his talk leaving that statement without support. I have thought about it quite a few times since then. What does the author of Acts intend to say about the persecution of men and women? Is this is way of saying that women were part of the church’s leadership structure? If so, what do we make of it?
We should note in Luke-Acts women are given a prominent place in general. In Acts 16 Lydia is converted and her household follows her in coming to Christ. She seems to be the superior figure in this story and quite authoritative. In other words, I don’t see Paul saying, “Well, now you are a Christian, let the men take the lead from here.” In Acts 21 Philip’s daughters are prophetesses. On the Day of Pentecost women are present. We could say more. We know women are given an important role in the narrative. What do we say about the persecution narratives though?
Would Revelation 12 make for a good Advent/Christmas sermon?
A couple days ago I realized that I don’t think I’ve heard anyone preach on Revelation 12 around Advent or Christmas time. This doesn’t mean I wasn’t present for such a sermon, but I don’t remember one, and I’ve been hearing sermons in Christmas for two and a half decades.
Have you ever heard someone preach on Revelation 12 with the woman, the dragon, and the male child? It seems like it would make for a great text for Advent/Christmas!
If you preach with any regularity would you use this text?
The cosmic queen of Revelation 12.1-2: Israel, Mary, both, neither?
In Revelation 12.1-2 it reads:
A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; and she was with child; and she cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth.
In vv. 3-4 this woman is chased by a “red dragon” who is “the devil” according to v. 12. In vv. 5-6 the woman gives birth to a male child who is Christ.
Who is this woman in Revelation 12.1-2 who gives birth to Messiah, fights the devil, and appears as a cosmic queen dressed in the sun with the moon under her feet? Is she Mary? Is she the nation of Israel/people of God? Is she Mary embodying Israel? Is she someone else?
What do you think?
ἡ ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ or ἡ ἐκκλησία τοῦ κυρίου in Acts 20.28?
This Sunday I will be participating in a chat with Dr. Jeffery Garner at the San Francisco Lighthouse Church on Acts 20.13-38. Our primary subject is how the Apostle Paul multiplied himself by choosing overseers for the church, and the role of those people, but there is an interesting text critical issue that caught my attention as well. In v. 28 there is a statement that could result in a very high Christology. It reads, “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which he purchased with his own blood.” If this is the reading then we have language that is very incarnational. Christ’s death is seen as the death of God.
This is based on text evidence that includes the words ἡ ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ. Of course, there is a variant reading: ἡ ἐκκλησία τοῦ κυρίου. The former seems a bit odd for Luke-Acts wherein the author is focused on Jesus, the Lord. Yet there seems to be some evidence for this reading.
Bruce Metzger writes the following:
The external evidence is singularly balanced between “church of God” and “church of the Lord” (the reading “church of the Lord and God” is obviously conflate, and therefore secondary—as are also the other variant readings). Palaeographically the difference concerns only a single letter: ΘΥ and ΚΥ. In deciding between the two readings one must take into account internal probabilities.
The expression ἐκκλησία κυρίου occurs seven times in the Septuagint but nowhere in the New Testament. On the other hand, ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ appears with moderate frequency (eleven times) in the Epistles traditionally ascribed to Paul, but nowhere else in the New Testament. (The phrase αἱ ἐκκλησίαι πᾶσαι τοῦ Χπιστοῦ occurs once in Ro 16:16.) It is possible, therefore, that a scribe, finding θεοῦ in his exemplar, was influenced by Old Testament passages and altered it to κυρίου. On the other hand, it is also possible that a scribe, influenced by Pauline usage, changed κυρίου of his exemplar to θεοῦ.
In support of the originality of κυρίου is the argument (urged by a number of scholars) that copyists were likely to substitute the more common phrase ἡ ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ for the more rare phrase ἡ ἐκκλησία τοῦ κυρίου.
On the other hand, it is undeniable that θεοῦ is the more difficult reading. The following clause speaks of the church “which he obtained διὰ τοῦ αἴματος τοῦ ἰδίου.” If this is taken in its usual sense (“with his own blood”), a copyist might well raise the question, Does God have blood?, and thus be led to change θεοῦ to κυρίου. If, however, κυρίου were the original reading, there is nothing unusual in the phrase to catch the mind of the scribe and throw it off its balance. This and other considerations led the Committee (as well as a variety of other scholars) to regard θεοῦ as the original reading.
Instead of the usual meaning of διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου, it is possible that the writer of Acts intended his readers to understand the expression to mean “with the blood of his Own.” (It is not necessary to suppose, with Hort, that υἱοῦ may have dropped out after τοῦ ἰδίου, though palaeographically such an omission would have been easy.) This absolute use of ὁ ἴδιος is found in Greek papyri as a term of endearment referring to near relatives. It is possible, therefore, that “his Own” (ὁ ἴδιος) was a title that early Christians gave to Jesus, comparable to “the Beloved” (ὁ ἀγαπητός); compare Ro 8:32, where Paul refers to God “who did not spare τοῦ ἰδίου υἱοῦ” in a context that clearly alludes to Gn 22:16, where the Septuagint has ἀγαπητοῦ υἱοῦ.
Without committing itself concerning what some have thought to be a slight probability that τοῦ ἰδίου is used here as the equivalent of τοῦ ἰδίου υἱοῦ, the Committee judged that the reading θεοῦ was more likely to have been altered to κυρίου than vice versa.[1]
[1] Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (425–427). London; New York: United Bible Societies.
The ecumenism of exorcisms: What changed between Mark 9.38-41 and Acts 19.11-20?
This morning I was working through some of the case studies related to the Synoptic Problem. One of the comparisons was between Mark 9.38-41 and Acts 19.11-20. While these particular pericopes aren’t directly related to the development of the Synoptic Gospels they do juxtapose the author of the Second Gospel with the author of Luke-Acts. Likewise, they present two different pictures of whether or not someone who is not a follow of Christ can do exoricisms in his name.
In Mark 9.38-41 the disciple John tells Jesus that they saw a man doing exorcisms in Jesus’ name (authority) and they stopped him because he was not one of them. Jesus rebukes them saying that no one who does a miracle in his authority will be able to speak evil against him later. Jesus turns to an interesting form of ecumenism saying that if someone is not against him then he is for him.
Now turn to Acts 19.11-20 where some men try to do an exorcism in the name of Jesus whom Paul preaches. The result is that the demon springs from the man and gives them a thrashing. Prior to this the demon said he recognizes Jesus and knows of Paul, but he doesn’t know them.
What changed? Why was one person who was not a follower of Jesus able to cast out demons with Jesus’ support while another was physically abused by the demons showing no hint of being able to do something in Jesus’ name.
Both literarily and historically Acts follows Mark. I think that the author of Luke-Acts was familiar with Mark, so he must have been aware of Mark’s story. Why were these events different and did Luke have any particular agenda for telling this story?
Thoughts?
