In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that
Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up, after he had
given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. He
presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing
to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God. (Act 1:1-3)
So we come to Acts. Luke’s second book. A continuation of
his gospel really. When Luke wrote the Gospel According to Luke. (Luke’s gospel
doesn’t actually have a title, and to call it “his” gospel is a little
misleading. There is one gospel, it is recorded from four different view
points, hence “The Gospel” and “According to Luke.”) In any case, when Luke wrote his gospel, he
was occupied with the earthly mission of Christ. Acts picks up where Luke left
off, now he will talk about how Christ continues his work through the
disciples.
As a history it is incomplete. I suppose all history is, because
history is not finished. But you get the sense that this book was written while
Paul was very much still alive, and never completed to tell of Paul’s death.
Very early on this book will take as it’s focus the life and work of Paul. But
it ends with Paul going to Rome and doesn’t talk about much after that. For
this reason it is figured that the book was finished about 62 A.D. Thus the
book would end in that phase of Nero’s reign when Nero was still somewhat sane,
and indifferent to Christianity. That is, before he would burn the city of Rome
and blame it on the Christians, and then start burning them as candles in his
gardens. None of that is recorded. A person can get a more complete history from
reading Eusebius’ Church History, I like the one edited and translated by Paul
Maier for readability, and the pictures and explanations. Eusebius, in many
ways, picks up even amidst all that is going on in Acts, and drawing on many
sources, some lost to us except in his 4th century work, offers a
more complete picture of what is happening in the book of Acts. That is, he
talks about what happens to the other disciples, where they go and what they
accomplish. It is from him that we can learn of Paul’s beheading, and Peters
inverted crucifixion.
But Acts is far from a deficient piece of work, and is far
more than a mere history. That is a mistake people often make with Acts. They
view it as a history and seek to ignore many of the theological implications
with a debate over whether it is descriptive of prescriptive. That is always a
question, as Christians we are free, and just because Christians have done
things one way in the past doesn’t mean we necessarily have to do them the same
way today. But then Peter’s Pentecost sermon recorded in the second chapter is
a theological masterpiece that preaches to the soul of any modern Christian,
and it doesn’t do to say well that is just historical with no significance for
us today. Hidden in this historical account are many theological gems, which if
the history of it is taken in total wrests the book from the Baptists who would
like to pit the 8th chapter against Peter’s sermon in the Second
chapter and claim that the Spirit isn’t
given in baptism. Of course in order to think like that, you would have to
believe that the disciples didn’t have the Spirit before Pentecost even though
Jesus very explicitly gave them the Spirit in the Twentieth Chapter of John
just after his resurrection. But the Spirit can visit with many different
manifestations and gifts. Those who believe in Jesus have the Spirit even if it
is not accompanied with heart palpitations or gibberish, but the Spirit has
many gifts which he gives according to his own will and the need of the church.
I still pray for the gift of administration. Don’t kid yourself, if you have
been blessed with that gift you have been given a gift indeed and one greatly
needed in the church.
No, the book of Acts is far more than a mere history and to
bog down in a debate over prescriptive or descriptive is really a shame. There
is a lot that the Holy Spirit seeks to teach us in this book. I look forward to
mining the gems with you as we proceed.
4 comments:
Our men's group will start studying the book of Acts tonight. Do you have any recommendations of commentaries or study guides?
many thanks
jim davis
I'm reading through Bo Giertz's commentary on it. Unfortunately that is in Swedish.
I recently finished a study of Acts using the Concordia's People's Bible Commentary. It was quite helpful, as were the maps in Luther's Study Bible.
I was so glad to see your comments on the Holy Spirit, as I have wondered about the mention of disciples being given the Spirit in John and then again in Acts 2. I'm looking forward to your future posts on this book. It fascinates me, as does the work of the Holy Spirit throughout Paul's ministry. Thanks for your faithful postings.
Hey Barb! Thanks for those notes. I don't know why I always forget about "The People's Commentaries" They are good, especially for laity. One of these days I'll bite the bullet and get the Lutheran Study Bible too. You would think that would have happened already, wouldn't you.
Post a Comment