Category Archives: Acts

Posted on

The Future is Now: Prophetic Empowerment in the Last Days—Acts 2:17-18

When God pours out the Spirit in Acts 2, hearers recognize some of the languages in which Jesus’s followers are (presumably rather loudly) praising God. In Acts 2:16-21, Peter begins to explain this marvelous event in light of God’s earlier promises. He quotes from Joel 2:28-32, while also paraphrasing as needed (as was the custom) to highlight key points. In context, Joel announces the restoration of God’s people; Peter thus adjusts Joel’s “afterward” to “in the last days.” If Luke regards this occasion as already part of the “last days,” he must also view all subsequent events as “last days” as well.

For Luke, then, the future has invaded history: God’s promised restoration has already begun to dawn; “the kingdom of God has come to you” (Luke 11:20). Other early Christians spoke of the Spirit as the first fruits or first installment of our future inheritance (Rom. 8:23; 2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5). The Spirit provides a foretaste of the future age, when God makes everything new (1 Cor. 2:9-10; cf. 2 Cor. 5:17). Because we have tasted the life of the future, nothing in the present can ever be the same for us again. As citizens of a new age, we must work, like Jesus, to bring divine wholeness into the brokenness of the present age.

Because Joel speaks of prophesying, visions and dreams, Peter understands that the promise is also about prophetic empowerment. Even more frequently than in earlier Scripture, early Judaism often associated the Spirit with prophecy, but to make sure that no one misses the point, Peter adds in another line (the final line of Acts 2:18): “and they shall prophesy.” The Spirit empowers God’s servants to speak for God just as did the prophets of old. A wise preacher or witness may well tremble at the awesome task of speaking God’s message; but our confidence can be in God’s ability to touch hearts rather than in ourselves.

In the writings of the biblical prophets, the promise of the Spirit was for the time of the end, the time of Israel’s restoration (note in context Isa 11:2; 32:15; 59:21; 61:1; Ezek 11:19; 36:27; 37:14; 39:29; Joel 2:28-29). That is why the disciples suspected that God would even restore the kingdom immediately (Acts 1:6-8).

The Spirit brings into our lives a foretaste of the future age, so we can work for God’s kingdom here and now. If this broken world cannot see in the church at least a foretaste of God’s promised restoration, we have settled for too little. Let us, like the first disciples (Acts 1:14), pray for God to empower, transform, and renew us by his Spirit (Luke 11:13).

Posted on

Paul, Apostle of Christ—the movie

Here are my first impressions of Paul: Apostle of Christ, which came to our area today. First of all, I am very grateful that such films are being made. That gratitude overwhelms reservations on any other points. As you might guess (because I am a biblical scholar), movies about biblical themes are my favorite, and among the few kinds of movies I must see.

The various scenes of Rome are splendidly done; they make ancient Rome look like ancient Rome. For modern viewers far removed from the world of the New Testament, this provides an invaluable benefit. The film also dramatically captures the horror of people being murdered for their faith (or because the powerful in society deem them expendable). I appreciated the numerous echoes of Paul’s letters (and a crack about the Corinthians), although sometimes when Paul tells Luke to write something down it comes from Paul’s earlier letters, not from Acts.

Among major roles, Aquila and Priscilla are depicted particularly movingly. (I doubt that their domicile was as large as in the movie, unless they were fairly rich, but that they would have taken people in is quite plausible.) Paul’s discouragement and determination are depicted clearly, but given the Paul of the letters I would have also expected a greater display of broken-heartedness over the suffering of the believers (cf. e.g., Phil 2:27; 1 Thess 2:8; 3:1-5, 8) and greater expressions of joy when he contemplated his future with Christ.

I felt that many scenes of Paul and Luke could have moved faster with more concise dialogue rather than lingering so often for dramatic effect; in turn, I would also have preferred to see more of Paul’s past in flashbacks. But admittedly, I am an Acts and New Testament backgrounds scholar, not a film critic. (I am also ADHD and need to catch up on sleep, which may explain my current preference for faster scenes.)

Much of the background is very helpful, though obviously the producers had to make choices. I agree with their choice about why Luke ends Acts where he does, and I personally appreciate their drawing on the full range of Pauline material in the New Testament (as well as some subsequent tradition, as with the Mamertine prison) to flesh out their picture of Paul’s final custody. They correctly recognize Nero’s persecution to be local.

Some background could be argued differently: they date the persecution to A.D. 67, and I date it to much closer to the fire in 64 (although they may envision the persecution continuing since 64). They depict Christians burned to light Rome’s (surviving) narrow streets at night, but the source, Tacitus, is clear only about the burning in Nero’s gardens. (Admittedly, Luke wouldn’t be walking around in Nero’s gardens, so their choice makes cinematic sense.) In the movie Paul claims that he spent three years in Arabia to get to know Christ, as Peter got to know Christ for three years. On the former point, some of us think that Paul evangelized among Nabateans; and on the latter, the three-year-period (based on inferences from the Gospel of John) is possible but disputed. Prostitutes in temples are also a matter of dispute, though this appears only as a passing mention (like the Prince of Egypt’s “There go the pyramids,” although Goshen was in northern Egypt, far from the pyramids). In one scene the officer apparently pours sacrificial blood over his head; this may evoke the taurobolium and Mithraism, but Mithraism began sweeping the Roman army especially in the second and third century, not the first.

These are each extremely minor questions; of greater concern to me was the downplaying of healings associated with Paul, although signs and healings constitute roughly 20 percent of Acts. The healings are acknowledged as real, but almost so backhandedly that only one familiar with Acts will realize it. Film is a perfect medium for the dramatic, and even Paul receiving his sight could have been made more dramatic by showing scales falling from his eyes when he was healed as in Acts 9:18. (I suppose, returning to my previous allusion, that Prince of Egypt spoiled me.) Most of the movie’s viewers probably have no problem with miracles. Moreover, historically, ancient medicine was not generally very reliable; why does Paul then express greater confidence in Luke’s success, which appears almost miraculous, than in God performing a more direct healing? Nevertheless, Paul in the movie directs both the Roman officer and the modern viewer to the right place: God, not Paul, does the miracles, and the gospel is about a salvation that goes deeper than miracles.

From my vantage point as a New Testament scholar, however, what is most profound about the movie is its emphasis on the way of love and disavowing revenge. The viewer understands why some in the movie want to strike back; it is precisely what many of us might want to do. That passion runs deep in our culture (like many others). Paul’s insistent refusal to support such violence therefore poses a challenge to widely held personal values today and also to the stereotype the wider North American society often holds of Christians. The value of these scenes for the present cultural moment outweighs any possible weaknesses elsewhere in the movie, as a reminder both to Christians and to the wider culture of what Christ stands for.

In the same way, the film brings home the reality and grotesqueness of suffering in a way that invites us to consider how we would respond. Paul’s (and Jesus’s) message about eternal life outweighing the cost of martyrdom is a needed reminder for a generation of Western Christians that has not experienced death on the scale of a massive invasion and has certainly not experienced lethal persecution. If we someday face such challenges, that message will be essential for us to remember. Nor is that message a reminder only for the future; if we are able to die for Christ, we are also to live for him, devoting our time and resources to him while we live. May God burn this reminder deeply in our hearts.

Posted on

The Point of Speaking in Tongues in Acts 2

Pentecost (Acts 2:1) was a significant festival in the Jewish calendar, offering the first fruits of grain to the Lord (Lev. 23:16). Its significance in this narrative, however, may be especially that it was one of the major pilgrimage festivals, when Jewish people who lived all over the world came back to visit Jerusalem. This sets the stage for the experience of the Spirit that will drive the church in Acts across all cultural barriers.

The narrative opens with God’s people in unity (Acts 2:1). They have been praying together (1:14), and prayer often precedes the coming of the Spirit in Luke-Acts (Luke 3:21-22; 11:13; Acts 4:31; 8:15).

Suddenly, they experience signs of the Spirit. The first two signs touch key senses, hearing and sight. They evoke biblical theophanies, perhaps also as foretastes of the future age. First, they hear a wind, perhaps prefiguring the promised wind of God’s Spirit that would bring new life to God’s people in Ezekiel 37:9-14. Second, they witness the appearance of fire, which was often associated with future judgment (cf. Luke 3:9, 16-17).

The third sign, however—speaking in tongues—is the most important of the three. This is clear because it occurs again at two other outpourings of the Spirit in Acts, although no one present on those occasions recognizes the languages spoken (Acts 10:46; 19:6). On this first occasion, though, their experience is also important because some people do recognize the languages and it therefore forms the bridge to Peter’s sermon. The crowds hear this sound (2:6) and ask what this phenomenon means (2:12). Peter goes on to explain that this tongues-speaking means that the promised time of the Spirit has dawned (2:16-18).

Since tongues-speaking represents an example of the prophetic outpouring of the Spirit in “the last days” (2:17), we should no more suppose that tongues have ceased than that prophecy has ceased, and we should no more suppose that prophecy has ceased than that the last days have now been supplanted by days later than last days that are no longer “last”! If we take the Bible seriously, it makes no sense to deny that God who poured the Spirit out (2:17-18) has now poured the Spirit back, or that we no longer need the Spirit empowering us for evangelism (1:8) so long as the task of reaching the ends of the earth still remains to be fulfilled. Of course, when that task has been fulfilled, and our mission is complete, Jesus will return (Matt 24:14; Rom 11:25-27; 2 Pet 3:9-12). We will no longer need these gifts that provide windows on God because we will know him even as we are known (1 Cor 13:8-13).

What is speaking in tongues in Acts? It seems quite implausible that Paul would use related wording to describe a gift of the Spirit only by coincidence. Both Luke and Paul refer to the Spirit enabling worship in unlearned speech (Acts 2:11; 10:46; 1 Cor 14:2, 14-17). In 1 Cor 12:10; 14:2, 13, 18-19, however, only God understands the speech, unless someone present is divinely gifted with the understanding (the gift of interpretation). What matters for Paul is not the linguistic element, but that one’s heart communicates with God. Likewise, in Acts 10:46; 19:6, apparently no one present understands the language.

Acts 2 seems to reflect a special situation for this first outpouring of the Spirit, in which God inspires the worship in languages that will be recognized by the many foreign Jewish hearers on this occasion. There have been subsequent occasions of languages being recognized by someone present (see e.g., Del Tarr, The Foolishness of God: A Linguist Looks at the Mystery of Tongues [Springfield, Mo.: Access, 2010]; Jordan Daniel May, Global Witnesses to Pentecost: The Testimony of “Other Tongues” [Cleveland, Tenn.: CPT Press, 2013]). That is not, however, the normal purpose of tongues in the Bible or subsequently.

Yet Luke has a special reason to highlight this special occurrence of recognized tongues in Acts 2. Luke’s “thesis statement” for Acts is Acts 1:8: the Spirit empowers witnesses for Jesus to the ends of the earth. (The witnesses are in the first case “the eleven and those who were with them” in Luke 24:33, but they become a model for the continuing mission of the church, since the spread of the good news must continue to the ends of the earth, far beyond the conclusion of Acts 28.)

In another major programmatic statement for Acts, the Spirit inspires all believers to speak prophetically for God (2:17-18), a last-days gift (2:17) that continues for subsequent generations (2:38-39). Although this wide potential for prophetic speech continues in Acts in the narrower sense (11:27; 13:1; 19:6; 21:9-10; cf. 1 Cor 14:5, 31), all believers, including those who think that other gifts have ceased, at the very least must surely depend on the Spirit in our witness for Christ.

But where does tongues (2:4) fit on the spectrum of witness (1:8) and prophecy (2:17-18)? How do tongues fulfill Joel’s promise of God’s people being able to prophesy (2:17-18)? Like witness and prophecy in the narrower sense, worship in tongues is speech for God and moved by the Spirit of God. Nor is it simply a random example of this sort of speech; Luke’s narrative highlights in Acts 2 a particular dimension about tongues-speaking that is distinctive: it portends the mission to the ends of the earth (1:8).

What greater sign of the purpose of Spirit-empowerment, stated in 1:8, could God offer on the day of Pentecost than for God to empower his people to worship in other people’s languages? That is, God signifies right from the start that the Spirit empowers us for our mission to the ends of the earth. The Book of Acts then provides further examples of God continuing to empower new and unexpected groups of believers, who thereby become colaborers in the mission (8:14-17; 9:17; 10:44-48; 13:52; 19:6).

Various groups of Christians today debate how many Christians should speak in tongues, but all of us can appreciate what tongues on the first Pentecost most of all means for us: God has empowered his church to reach all peoples. Until that mission is complete, let us continue to call on him for his power to use us. This is a prayer that he is sure to answer (Luke 11:13).

Posted on

The story of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:26-40

Some regard the story as unreliable, but I argued in an article in 2008 that we have good reason to believe that the account is in fact reliable. I also worked some with cultural background about this passage.

The article is available for download or reading here (Andrews University Press):

http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/auss/vol46/iss1/1/