A podcast hosted by Skeptics and Seekers, so Craig in dialogue with the hosts (one a believer, one a skeptic), regarding Acts.
Category Archives: Acts
What Revival Looks Like: III. Pentecost, Part B: Sharing Possessions
If Pentecostals and charismatics have taught the church much about the Spirit empowering our speaking (treated in part A), Anabaptists (and early monastic orders) have taught us much about sharing.
If the immediate expression of the outpouring of the Spirit on Pentecost was prophetic empowerment, the longer-range impact was a new community of believers who walked together in their lives and shared one another’s needs.
Much of Acts 2:41-47 follows the following structure:
A 2:41 Successful evangelism (3000 converts)
B 2:42 Sharing meals, praying together
C 2:44-45 Sharing possessions
B’ 2:46-47a Shared meals, worship
A’ 2:47b Successful evangelism
Whereas the conversions in 2:41 responded to Peter’s preaching, the conversions in 2:47 apparently responded to the life of the new community. Peter’s preaching explained divine signs at Pentecost; but the sacrificial love that Christians showed one another was no less divine, no less supernatural.
At the heart of this display of unity was the costly expression of commitment to caring for one another’s needs, in 2:44-45. This sharing exemplified on a literal level what Jesus taught, sometimes on a hyperbolic level. For example:
- Luke 12:33: “Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys” (NIV)
- Luke 14:33: “So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions” (NRSV)
- Luke 18:22: “One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me” (NASB)
- Cf. also John the Baptist in Luke 3:11: “Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise” (NRSV)
In Luke’s Gospel, sharing possessions is actually a sign of repentance, an answer to the question what one must do to have eternal life (Luke 3:9-11; 18:18, 22). It does not earn eternal life, but it concretely evidences the reality of their turning to God. In Acts 2:37, hearers ask Peter what they must do, and his answer is more general: repentance and baptism in Jesus’s name (2:38). The sharing of possessions, however, soon follows as a fruit of this repentance.
In Acts, believers do not immediately divest themselves of all possessions and move onto the street at conversion. They do, however, sell what they do not need to live on, whenever someone is in need (Acts 2:45; 4:34). That this mutual caring is no fluke is clear because at the next corporate outpouring of the Spirit on the Jerusalem church—the next “revival” or “awakening”—sharing again takes center stage (this time, if anything, more emphatically; 4:32, 34-35). Caring for the needy continues afterward, although eventually the Twelve have to delegate this ministry to some other Spirit-filled ministers (6:1-6). Churches in one location also helped churches in another in view of impending famine—even though the famine was predicted to strike them as well (11:28-30).
Often people today pray for revival, thinking of the emotional benefits to individuals involved. But we might demonstrate to God better our commitment to such revival if we recognized up front what it might cost us. If we are ready to devote everything to God that he asks of us, it is clear that we really want revival. And when we are really fully devoted to God and dependent on his grace and power, revival has already begun, at least with us.
For one longer video on this topic, see http://www.craigkeener.org/radical-for-jesus-sharing-possessions-acts-241-47/
What Revival Looks Like: III. Pentecost, Part A: Prophetic Empowerment
I will address this topic more briefly because I have touched on it in some earlier posts:
Video:
sort of related: http://www.craigkeener.org/what-is-baptism-in-the-holy-spirit-in-the-book-of-acts/
But let me summarize here. The outpouring of the Spirit in Acts is not self-focused. The purpose of the Spirit’s outpouring is not just to make us feel good (although that can often happen—the disciples were filled with joy and the Spirit in Acts 13:52, albeit in a context of persecution).
But the purpose of the outpouring of the Spirit is stated more directly in the closing of Luke’s Gospel and the beginning of Acts. (When I speak of the outpouring’s purpose there, I do not mean that this is the Spirit’s only activity, but only that it is the one that Luke is emphasizing.) Right at the transitional point between Luke’s biography of Jesus and his story of the church, as key elements of Jesus’s mission are becoming the mission of the church, Jesus lets us know what to expect.
- Luke 24:45-49 (NIV): “Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”
- Acts 1:8 (NRSV): “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
I describe this as “prophetic” speech because it is speaking for God inspired by the Spirit, as in the prophets of old. In fact, the Spirit often is associated with inspiring prophetic speech in the Old Testament, and that was the most common association of the Spirit in early Judaism: the Spirit that inspired prophets.
God was giving the Spirit as a gift for his people so they could be witnesses to all nations. This gift is also the evidence that Christ has been exalted (2:33, NASB): “Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear.” The mighty one greater than John the Baptist is now pouring out the Spirit, even though in the OT it is clear that only God can pour out God’s Spirit. That is, Jesus is divine: “He will be baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire” (Luke 3:16).
What is the sign or evidence of this empowerment to speak for God? At the risk of sounding tautological, it is: speaking for God! When the Spirit comes on the gathering of disciples, they begin speaking other languages, as the Spirit is giving them utterance (2:4). That the Spirit gives utterance indicates not just any kind of speech, but speech empowered and directed by the Spirit. That they were worshiping God in other people’s languages signifies the purpose of this prophetic empowerment: if we can worship in other people’s languages that we don’t know, how much more can we evangelize in languages that we do know. The speaking in other languages shows us that God seeks a body for Christ from all peoples, and that he is ready to speak in and so consecrate all langages to reach them.
(One may leave aside here the question as to whether every believer empowered to speak for God will speak in tongues. Clearly in Acts 2, the tongues-speaking shows what the empowerment is about: declaring Christ to all peoples. But does everyone so empowered express that gift? Acts does not make that explicit claim. One logical inference, however, is that those who receive this prophetic empowerment ought to express it, sooner or later, by prophetic speech, and ultimately in cross-cultural witness.)
Peter is clear in his interpretation of this experience: “In the last days” (which, since we are later than Peter, are presumably still going on!), Peter quotes the LORD as saying,
“I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh,
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
and your young men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dream dreams.
Even upon my slaves, both men and women,
in those days I will pour out my Spirit;
and they shall prophesy”
(Acts 2:17-18, NRSV)
The last line, “and they shall prophesy,” is not in Joel, but belongs to Peter’s expansive paraphrase to ensure that we do not miss the point. This is prophetic empowerment. It might be expressed in visions or dreams or direct speech, but it will be moved by God’s Spirit.
It is also clear that it is for everybody. When Joshua was jealous for Moses’s sake about the Spirit coming on the elders, Moses declared, “I wish that all the LORD’s people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his Spirit on them!” (Num 11:29). In Joel 2:28-29, after a time of repentance, this is fulfilled: both genders (sons and daughters, male and female servants), both ages (old and young), and both classes (Israel was not supposed to have other classes besides these two: slave and free). Moreover, “male and female slaves” in the OT often designated gentile slaves, suggesting that the “all flesh” on which God pours out his Spirit is on Jew and gentile alike, all peoples.
Although Jesus spoke the promise to the eleven appointed witnesses and those who were with them, we also are witnesses of God’s work. The mission to the ends of the earth (1:8) continues in our day, and so does the power to go with it. This is clear from Acts 2:38-39, which evokes language (“promise,” “gift”) of the earlier promise to the first witnesses: “Turn from sin, and be baptized, each of you, identifying with the name of Jesus Christ, so your sins may be forgivem; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For this promise is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away [cf. Isa 57:19, possibly imply gentiles], whoever the Lord our God calls.”
We can experience this empowerment of the Spirit individually, of course. “Revival” can happen on an individual level, but we also pray for it on a corporate level. Lest we suppose this experience of the Spirit in Acts 2 was a one-off rather than simply the first and seminal corporate experience, it is not the last outpouring of the Spirit even on the Jerusalem church. In Acts 3 and 4, after a healing the apostles preach boldly, and are ordered by local officials to stop doing so. So they gather and pray again for yet more healings and more boldness (4:29-30), and God’s Spirit fills the community of believers again: “and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke God’s message with boldness!” (4:31).
This gift is for you and for me. Let’s welcome the Spirit’s power, praying and trusting that he enables us to share the message of Jesus Christ to those around us and ultimately to those culturally distant from us. Revival is not just to make us feel good, though that may be a side benefit in the process. True revival makes us agents of God’s grace to change the world for Jesus, by preaching him as the true, rightful Lord and Savior of humanity.
The faithless prayer meeting—Acts 12:5-16
Have you ever been in a situation where you felt like you didn’t have enough faith to pray? Or where something turned out differently than you’d hoped, and you assumed that it was because you lacked faith? Or where God answered your prayers, but you weren’t sure it was God or you initially couldn’t believe that it really happened?
In Acts 12, James, brother of John, is arrested and executed by King Herod Agrippa I. Jesus explained that the twelve apostles would sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes (Luke 22:30); he did not say that it would happen before their death and resurrection (Mark 10:38-39). For those who expected the kingdom immediately, however, the death of one of the apostles was a faith-testing event. James was not only one of the twelve, but one of the three closest to Jesus (Luke 8:51; 9:28).
Now Peter, leader of the twelve, is arrested and scheduled to face the same fate. The church prays fervently for his release (12:5). While believers pray, an angel of the Lord comes and leads Peter out of the prison, and he heads for a Christian household where, it turns out, believers are praying (12:12). Yet when he first arrives, the believers initially do not believe that their prayer is answered.
The narrative bristles with irony:
- Israelites at the first Passover were girded and sandaled, ready to escape captivity (Exod 12:11)—in contrast to Peter, at a later Passover season (Acts 12:4, 8)
- Whereas the church is praying fervently for his deliverance (12:5, 12), Peter is sound asleep (12:6-7; cf. Luke 22:45)
- Neither the people praying (Acts 12:12, 15) nor Peter himself (12:9) initially believe his release
- Peter thought the angel he was seeing was a “vision” (12:7) just as Jesus’s male followers once had supposed that his female followers saw only a “vision” of angels (Luke 24:23)
- An angel frees Peter (Acts 12:7-11) but his supporters suppose him an angel (or ghost; 12:15)—as some supposed when they saw the risen Lord (Luke 24:37)
- When a woman joyfully proclaims his survival (Acts 12:14), others faithlessly dismiss her testimony like that of the women at the tomb (Luke 24:11)
- Whereas Peter’s guards in 12:6, 10 fail to keep him in, in 12:13-15 his own supporters keep Peter out
- Whereas the iron gate in 12:10 opens of its own accord, in 12:14 the gate of the house where fellow-Christians pray for his safety remains barred to him
- Whereas Peter comes to his senses only when he recognizes that the “vision” (12:9) is real (12:11), believers accuse Rhoda of madness (12:15) for declaring Peter’s presence
To borrow an analogy from Luke’s Gospel, Those inside have been “knocking” in prayer that a figurative door may be “opened” for them (Luke 11:5-10), for Peter’s release (Acts 12:5, 12)—yet fail to believe that the answer to their prayers is knocking on their door!
We can be happy that God is not limited to acting on our faith. That was certainly the case when Gabriel was sent to Zechariah to let him know that his wife Elisabeth was going to have a son (Luke 1:18-20). (Moses certainly didn’t have faith to make the burning bush burn.) To a lesser extent, it was also true when believers were praying for Peter’s release from Herod Agrippa’s plans to kill him in Acts 12:5-16.
But while their faith wasn’t perfect, they had enough faith to pray. They came to the right place with their needs. Although I called this a “faithless prayer meeting,” they weren’t really faithless; they just had limited faith that didn’t match God’s much greater power. It takes just a mustard seed, because the real issue is not how big is our faith, but how big is the God in whom we trust. That is, we don’t need to put faith in our faith, as if faith itself is a force of imagination that makes things happen. We can trust a God who is bigger than us being perfect or having everything figured out. Yes, God invites us to have faith. Yes, confidence in him matters. But we can thank God that he is not controlled by or limited to our faith. He is bigger than we can ask or imagine, and we grow deeper in faith as we witness and consider his gracious acts.
Immigrants and welfare in Jerusalem—Acts 6:1-6
A conflict arose between the Hellenist and Hebrew Jewish followers of Jesus in Jerusalem in Acts 6:1. Most of the Hellenists spoke only Greek, having originated in the Diaspora. They included “Cyrenians, Alexandrians, and others of those from Cilicia and Asia” (6:9). These immigrant Jews remained loyal to the temple; most settled in their ancestors’ homeland precisely because they retained respect for its institutions and customs. This conflict in the church thus pitted local Judeans against immigrant coreligionists.
Today we read about conflicts between local people and immigrants in many places, and it is helpful to understand that such conflicts are not new. (Lest I be accused of simply pandering to the news cycles, I started with the biblical text before and during the writing of my Acts commentary, published in 2012-2015, and only after my initial exegesis did I consider analogies and applications.)
Analogies today can help make their predicament in the text feel more concrete. For example, many people from former French colonies have migrated to France and found less opportunity there than they had expected. (A closer ancient parallel to that in the first century would be the many provincials who settled in Rome, but that would be background for a different lesson.) Some, in fact, have found discrimination, something that my wife experienced during her education in France (though she also received great blessings from others there). Or we may consider Latino/a immigrants in the United States, some even with ancestral ties to parts of the U.S. that were once part of Mexico. (That was nearly two centuries ago—about twice as long as a Roman general had deported Judeans to Rome before the scene in Acts 6.)
Any such analogies have weaknesses; boundaries within the empire were porous for travel, for example, but those who were not indigenous to a city could remain “resident aliens” rather than citizens for generations! The analogies do, however, help us to feel more concretely the sorts of feelings reflected in Luke’s description of the text, and that he might have expected his audience to feel. Much of Luke’s audience probably lived in urban areas with significant populations of resident aliens. The churches would include a mixture of both resident aliens and long-time citizens, with the former probably predominating (at least in Roman colonies, where most Jews and Greeks were resident aliens). Because many were gentiles and all lived in the Greek-speaking Diaspora, however, they would probably identify first of all with the Hellenists rather than the Hebrews.
In the Jerusalem church, the immigrant widows complained that they were not receiving their fare share of the community’s care for needy widows (6:1). Back then, most women could not earn very much, and most widows were dependent on their social networks for support. Based on biblical teaching about caring for widows, Jewish communities provided for their own widows. But in this period, the support seems to have been local, through relatives or local synagogues. But Hellenists, some of whom settled in Jerusalem in old age, probably had a disproportionate number of widows. Certainly they had fewer local relatives to support them. Not surprisingly then, Hellenist widows received less support. And, not unlike today, problems from the wider society also could impact the church.
Luke emphatically favors concern and respect for widows (Luke 2:37; 4:25-26; 7:12; 18:3-5; 20:47; 21:2-3; Acts 9:39-41). At the same time, his term for their “complaining” is not a positive one, either in his work (Luke 5:30; 15:2; 19:7; cf. 12:13) or in biblical precedent (see Exod 16:7-9, 12; 17:3; Num 14:27, 29; 16:41; 17:5, 10; Ps 106:25). If the term suggests that their approach to the problem was less than ideal, perhaps they did not try to raise the problem with the leadership (not that leadership always listens).
In whatever manner we construe their complaining, however, it soon becomes clear that the apostles consider their cause to be just (or, at the very least, not worth dividing over, Acts 6:3).
Even though Luke does not explicitly identify the Galilean apostles among the “Hebrews” against whom the widows complained, the apostles were in charge of the food distribution program (Acts 4:34-35), so they bore ultimate responsibility for solving the problem. Luke may use the massive growth of the church (6:1a) to help explain how the apostles had missed the problem, but what is clearer is that they move quickly to remedy the situation.
The apostles hand over the food distribution program to others. Matters had grown too large for personal attention even to each of the sick who needed healing (Acts 5:15-16; cf. Luke 5:15-16, 19; 8:19; 19:3), so the apostles follow Jesus’s example and delegate (Luke 9:1-2; 10:1-2). (One may compare how inappropriate complaints in Num 11:1 nevertheless led to the appointment and Spirit-filling of seventy elders in Num 11:16-17. The apostles, however, most clearly evoke Exod 18:19-21; Num 27:18-20; and Deut 34:9.)
These were not simply any new leaders, however. Although only a minority of Judean residents had Greek names, all seven of the new leaders have Greek names (Acts 6:5). They are not only Hellenists, but very conspicuously Hellenists. The community selected (6:3, 5) and the apostles blessed (6:6) members of the offended minority group.
But again, these were not merely any members of the minority group, but those whom both groups could trust to put God’s work first and to act fairly (6:3). The church was growing in cultural diversity and needed culturally diverse leaders (cf. 13:1); whoever was truly full of the Spirit and wisdom could be trusted in the other matters. (Genuine fullness of the Spirit needs to be spiritually discerned, but it is not limited by culture or ethnicity.)
Why appoint diverse leaders? Perhaps for the peace of the community. Or perhaps because those culturally closer to the situation could more readily see needs that Hebrew “blind spots” had missed. Or perhaps both. In Acts 8, the culturally sensitive Hellenist Philip paves the way for Peter’s ministry to Samaritans and Gentiles. In Acts 15, the church seeks a consensus solution, at least sufficient for working agreement.
I know from experience that if I state applications here that I think should be obvious, some will protest and accuse me of mixing my opinions with Scripture. So instead, I offer an invitation. Pray about what I have highlighted in this passage. Ask the Lord what he may want you to do about it.
Reliability of Acts (52-minute audio interview)
Audio interview on the reliability of Acts for Alisa Childers podcast:
Struck Dead—Acts 5:1-11
Ananias and Sapphira wanted to look sold out to God like so many others in the heat of revival. Others, moved by God’s Spirit, were selling property to meet the needs of the poor (Acts 4:31-35), including a disciple named Barnabas (4:36-37). But instead of being sincere in their devotion, Ananias and Sapphira faked it—and God struck them each dead (Acts 5:1-11).
It wasn’t because they didn’t give everything—what they did with the money was still their own choice (5:4). (It was not like the Qumran sect, where everybody who wanted to join contributed their goods, though they could get them back at the end of a year if they decided to leave.) It was because they pretended to be what they were not. God does not want pretend revival; hypocrisy can corrupt the entire movement, if not exposed and expunged (Luke 12:1-2). Like a little yeast that spreads throughout the loaf (1 Cor 5:6; Gal 5:9) or cancer that metastasizes throughout the body (cf. 2 Tim 2:17), fake commitment can infect the entire community and turn real revival into fleshly imitation revival, a toxic substitute for the real thing.
Some of the wording of Acts 5 recalls wording from Joshua 7. Achan kept for himself some of the things from Jericho that had been devoted to the Lord for destruction. Perhaps because of Jericho’s devotion to false gods, everything in Jericho was spiritually polluted, and had to be destroyed (Josh 6:17-18, 21; cf. Exod 22:20; Deut 7:25-26; 13:17), except perhaps for what could be purified by fire and consecrated to the Lord (Num 31:22-23; Josh 6:19, 24). By violating this ban and bringing what was spiritually impure into the camp, Achan removed God’s hand of protection, leading to the deaths of other people (Josh 7:5).
The situation could be remedied only by destroying what was corrupted—now including Achan. Achan’s family surely knew about him hiding the loot under the tent floor, yet they went along with him in the secret, valuing the wealth or family ties above God’s commandment. In contrast to Rahab, who hid Israelite spies on her roof and rescued her family, Achan hid loot under his tent and brought death to his family. After the assembly executed them, they burned them with fire to remove the spiritual impurity.
Obviously church discipline in the New Testament is different: its harshest form involves exclusion from the community, but not physical execution, and the excluded person is welcomed back if they repent. As for spiritual impurity, Jesus showed repeatedly that holiness can remove impurity, rather than the reverse (e.g., Mark 1:41; 2:16-17; 5:30; Matt 11:19//Luke 7:34), a reality that continues among those in whom Christ lives. Of course, that does not permit voluntary participation in things associated with idolatry or evil spirits (1 Cor 10:20-21).
Yet God struck dead Ananias and Sapphira, presumably for the same reason that he struck dead Aaron’s two sons who offered strange fire on the altar (Lev 10:1-2) or Uzzah who, probably more innocently, touched the ark to steady it (2 Sam 6:6-7; 1 Chron 13:9-10). (It is not only readers today who are unhappy about this; David was upset about Uzzah [2 Sam 6:8; 1 Chron 13:11], and Aaron was naturally upset about his sons [Lev 10:16-20]. One of his grandsons, Phinehas, afterward proved quite zealous for holiness [Num 25:7, 11].) God’s holiness is not to be trifled with.
Now, God striking people dead is not common in the Old Testament, and it is even rarer in the New Testament. This is the only example in the Gospels and Acts, where God’s character is regularly revealed in Jesus as he compassionately heals the sick and delivers those who are demonized. But it still has something to teach us, especially when we pray for revival. In deeper intensity with the Spirit, we become more aware of God’s holiness, and more aware of what it means to be consecrated to him. We desire to honor his holiness, to draw deeper in his presence. Just as poison is bad for the body, some things are spiritually toxic for our personal or communal spiritual welfare. A life or community sensitive to God’s holiness will be allergic to spiritual toxins.
Ananias’s and Sapphira’s death struck fear into the hearts of everyone, even the Christians (Acts 5:11). As a result of this and other signs, people were scared to join the movement unless they were really serious about following Christ—no fake devotion was welcome (5:13). No nominal Christians in that setting! But because Jesus’s movement was pure and without hypocrisy, more people ended up joining the movement in the long run (5:14).
May we desire ever deeper holiness, and may those around us be drawn to such holiness. That comes not by legalism—that’s just fake holiness. It comes by the Spirit, who reveals to us the holy and awesome God, maker of heaven and earth, who has graciously chosen to dwell among us.
Why a “minimal facts” approach is valuable
Many apologists use what is called the “minimal facts argument,” advanced by Gary Habermas to argue for Jesus’s resurrection.
Some Christians do not like the sound of “minimal facts,” supposing that it means we believe as few facts as possible. I briefly want to respond to their concerns here, because the approach, under other kinds of names, appears not only in apologetics but basically in most scholarly dialogue, regardless of the position for which one is arguing.
Scholars and other communicators normally start from common ground, however small or large, before trying to persuade readers or hearers of anything else.
Starting from minimal facts does not mean that we believe or know nothing else than those facts. Almost no one who starts with points of common ground perpetually empties themselves of everything they have previously learned each time they want to dialogue (even though one may be open to learn new things in the course of dialogue).
We communicate with people in terms that they understand, starting where they are for the sake of argument. If I am dialoguing with someone who does not know Greek, for example, I have to explain myself in English, even if I have the Greek text in my head. (Too often I am intuitively taking for granted some background knowledge that my hearer does not really have. In conversation I don’t always catch myself on that, although in writing I often catch it as I am revising.)
Scholars regularly work from common ground in our discussions. In the academy, there are certain ideas taken for granted, including a measure of scholarly consensus on many issues. Scholars debate with one another precisely because we do not all agree with one another, but we do so on the basis of certain working assumptions. We may challenge those assumptions; certainly this includes challenging some opinions that are current majority opinions (which is why majority opinions on various issues fluctuate so often over the course of generations). But we have to do so explicitly rather than taking for granted that someone else shares our unstated premises. It is impractical to throw every issue on the table at once; we try to discuss them systematically.
Did Paul ever start with some minimal points of agreement before moving forward to explain something else? Those familiar with Stoic thought will recognize how much common ground Paul established with his Athenian hearers in Acts 17:22-29 before moving on to points that would utterly challenge their worldview. (Those unfamiliar with it and skeptical of my claim are welcome to consult my Acts commentary, vol. 3, pp. 2626-76.) It is difficult to imagine why Paul would appeal to their “unknown gods” inscriptions (17:23) or quotes from their pagan poets (17:28) if he was not establishing some common ground.
By contrast, Paul quotes Scripture in synagogues (Acts 13:16-47) and preaches to a farming community about a God who gives fruitful seasons (14:15-17). Paul does not agree with everything for the people to whom he is preaching in these cases, but he starts with points shared in common. Otherwise his hearers might not still be listening by the time he gets to the points where they disagree.
Stephen was able to preach a bit longer, communicating material in Acts 7:2-50 that laid a groundwork for what followed, than he could have had he started out with 7:51-53. I imagine some people were already starting to try to shout him down in verse 51. He doesn’t seem to make it past verse 56 before getting assaulted.
Paul addressed the rioting crowd in Acts 22 in Aramaic, the traditional language in Judea. (This language, incidentally, would have shut out his accusers from Ephesus, who probably only understood Greek.) He provides details there that were not necessary in some other accounts of his background, such as being educated under the famous teacher Gamaliel (22:3) and the law-devotion and good Jewish reputation of Ananias (22:12). If Paul had started out with his commission to the gentiles, he probably would not have gotten to preach much about Jesus beforehand (22:21-22).
If we read Scripture in light of the cultural background, we will see that God repeatedly contextualizes the message in terms that the first audience could understand (even if they did not always like it). Many of God’s agents in Scripture did the same, in some sorts of settings. Paul even makes nice to the Corinthians (1 Cor 1:4-9) before correcting them in most of the rest of the letter (1:10—15:58).
Sometimes a biblical writer might, on a secondary point, even temporarily accept for the sake of argument a hearer’s position that is not their own. This is at least what many Christian readers have suggested regarding baptism for the dead (1 Cor 15:29) and sometimes Jesus’s use of Ps 82 (John 10:34-36).
Almost no one who starts with “minimal facts” believes only those facts. Most people, whether atheists or Muslims or Christians, etc., believe more than the common ground they start with in dialogue. Yet out of courtesy we build our case from what we agree on—at least if our intention is to persuade someone. This is not to deny that God often works in other ways. It is also not to deny that in principle we could just have different groups present their positions and then lay them side by side for comparison. But starting from facts that everybody agrees on can be a great beginning for discussion—especially when those facts are pretty significant.
All this is to say: Christians should not be attacking a “minimal facts” approach. They should be celebrating that there are some fairly undisputed facts that really invite consideration even from those who do not share all their views.
Historical Reliability of Acts–video interview (2 hours)
The following interview addresses the historical reliability of the Book of Acts: