Paul in Acts

Why does the apostle Paul hijack the book of Acts?  I remember wondering about this question when studying Acts in seminary, and I was reminded of it in finishing Acts this morning.  About halfway through the book, the narrative switches from a big picture account of the whole church to a more detailed account of Paul and his ministry to the Gentiles.  In fact, after the release of Peter from prison in chapter 12, and the Jerusalem council in chapter 15, we learn almost nothing more about the original disciples, about Peter and John, about James and the Jerusalem church, about the spread of the gospel in directions other than North-West.  The narrative switches almost exclusively to Paul, and becomes much more detailed, giving a day-by-day account.  Just compare, for example, chapter 4 with chapter 27, and the difference is palpable.  This seems strange.  In a book titled, The Acts of the Apostles, where did all the apostles go?

I think part of the answer is that Luke is Paul’s travel companion (hence the “we” starting in 20:6), so he was drawing from personal experience in the latter half of the book, whereas for the earlier chapters he was using sources, as he did for his gospel (Luke 1:1-4).  As one who had lived through the harrowing shipwreck of chapter 27, for example, it makes sense that he would remember such nautical details as are described in 27:27-32.  Another part of the answer would simply be that Luke is being true to history – the apostle Paul was God’s specially chosen instrument for advancing his gospel (Acts 9:15).  His sufferings (II Corinthians 11), his sacrifices (I Corinthians 9), and experiences (II Corinthians 12) were unique even among the other apostles.

But the fullest and most illuminating answer, in my opinion, is that Paul is important for Luke because the spread of the gospel among the Gentiles is important for Luke. We tend to forget how big the Jew-Gentile issue was in the New Testament, but its a significant theme throughout Acts, from the disciples’ question in 1:6, to Peter’s experience with Cornelius in 10-11, to the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, to Paul’s ministry among the Gentiles in the last sections of the book.  Its also significant in Romans, where Paul devotes three chapters to discussing why so many Jews have not embraced their Messiah (9-11) immediately after his most thorough presentation of the gospel (1-8).  By focusing on Paul, the “apostle to the Gentiles” (Galatians 2:8), Luke highlights the way the early Christian movement is shifting away from Jerusalem and out into the Gentile nations.  Luke wants us to see how the mission of God is surging ahead against all obstacles, how God’s promise to bless the nations in Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3) and bring light to the ends of the earth through the Messiah (Isaiah 49:6) is really coming to pass.

It is significant, in this light, that Luke concludes the book with Paul quoting from Isaiah’s commission in Isaiah 6 (“be ever hearing, but never understanding”) to the Jews in Rome (28:25-27), and an emphasis on the continued spread of the gospel among the Gentiles in Rome, the center of the known Gentile world (28:27-31).  The implication is that Israel is being hardened, just as they were under Isaiah’s ministry, while the gospel continues to go forward and bear fruit among the Gentiles.  This emphasis helps account for another perplexing feature of Acts’ conclusion – its abruptness.  You might expect The Acts of the Apostles to conclude with the deaths of the apostles, or at least a kind of summary of their different ministries.  But not only does Luke stay narrowly on Paul, but he ends his book before Paul’s ministry ends.  (According to Eusebius and I Clement, Paul was released after his first two years in Rome, did further ministry and wrote I Timothy and Titus, was then re-imprisoned in Rome and wrote II Timothy, and was finally killed by beheading during Nero’s persecution).  With so much else going on that he could have focused on, the picture Luke leaves us with is Paul in house-arrest in Rome, quoting Isaiah 6 to the Jews, and boldly witnessing to Gentiles there day after day.  One gets the sense: the story continues.  Just as the beginning of Acts highlights continuity with Jesus’ former ministry (1:1: “all that Jesus began to do”), so its closure points ahead to all that is to come.  The mission goes forward.

Its awesome to get caught up in the story of what God is doing in the world.  I remember Hans Bayer, one of my New Testament profs in seminary, saying during a lecture on Acts: “you can’t get caught up in God’s mission and hold onto your own.”  Reading Acts reminds me how massive, how powerful, how unstoppable God’s mission is.  Its like a tidal wave.  It we let it, it will sweep us up, drown out our idols, give us something truly worthy to live for.  God’s mission will interrupt our missions and give us something bigger and worthier to spend ourselves on.  I want to join the apostle Paul in considering my life worth nothing to me, if only I may complete the ministry given to me by Jesus Christ, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God (20:24).

Read Full Post »

Flexibility

This morning I was reading Acts and was struck by Paul’s willingness to purify himself along with Jewish Christians at the suggestion of James and the Jerusalem elders (Acts 21:17-26).  It would have been so easy for Paul to harden his heart toward his Jewish brothers in this scenario.  So much of his ministry to the Gentiles had been plagued by Jewish Christians adding Jewish rites onto the gospel.  It would have been so easy for him to take offense, to separate from the Jerusalem church, to exercise his freedom from the law at their expense, perhaps even to look down on them.

He could have said, “brothers, if I let myself undergo Jewish purification rites, I will be playing right into the hands of all my opponents.  They’ll use this to prove that these rites are necessary for all Christians.”  That would actually be a pretty good argument.

Or he could have said, “brothers, I have already suffered much, and am about to suffer much more, at the hands of Jewish agitators.  They have consistently rejected Christ and persecuted me.  They are hardened.  They don’t deserve further sacrifice.”  We’d probably be tempted to feel that way if we had received the 39 lashes 5 times from the Jews (II Corinthians 11:24)!

Or he could have said, “brothers, you are fearing man rather than God by adding onto the gospel.  We are free in Christ and under no obligation to undergo these rites.”  This would have been true, for Paul was free from the law (I Corinthians 9:1, 20).  No one could have judged him for abstaining from purification.

Or he could have said, “Look at all the miracles and conversions God is doing through my ministry among the Gentiles.  That’s where my calling is.  I am not an “apostle to the Jews” like James, John, and Peter (Galatians 2:9).  This is not my mission field.”  Once again, there would have been some truth to this.  But Paul cared about all kinds of people in all locations, not just those within his most immediate sphere of calling.

Or Paul could have withdrawn and whispered to his travel companions, “these Jewish Christians can’t be trusted.  The Jerusalem church has been compromised.  Now its up to us.”

But Paul doesn’t say any of these things.  He shows amazing concern for the unity of the Jewish and Gentile wings of the early church, and amazing love for unreached Jews being presented with the gospel in Jerusalem.  Just as he had Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3) despite having written to the Galatian Christians that circumcision would make Christ of no avail to them (Galatians 5:2), so also he underwent purification with the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem – even paying their expenses (21:24)!  Paul is flexible.  In love he goes out of his comfort zones in order to give as little offense as possible to all kinds of people.  He adjusts his strategies and habits according to the different real-life scenarios in which he is placed, seeking to be faithful to the gospel without putting a stumbling block to Christ and the gospel in anyone’s way.  He’s virulently opposed to circumcision and the ceremonial law being demanded of Gentiles, but is willing to submit to these practices when not doing so would damage gospel ministry among the Jews.

Being flexible is not the same as selling out on the gospel.  Being flexible honors the gospel.  Being flexible is Pauline.  What might it look like for us today to follow Paul’s example in being flexible for the sake of the gospel?

“We endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ” (I Corinthians 9:12).

Read Full Post »

New Study Topics

After seminary I chose Christ’s resurrection (systematic theology), Hebrews (Bible), and Anselm (historical theology) as three study projects for my continued learning.  I’ve focused on the resurrection with much of my time this spring, and have been writing an article on how it relates to Christ’s prophetic, priestly, and kingly offices which I hope to finish during the month of June.  As of June 30 (my 27th birthday) I will consider my resurrection study officially finished.  Hebrews and Anselm will be, Lord willing, life-long projects, but I’m also going to take a break from them.  I don’t want to become lop-sided, and there are some new projects that are attracting my attention.  So I have a new triad of Bible, theology, and church history as I launch into the summer.

First, I am going to do some study in Habakkuk, trying to go more slowly through the whole book, using my Reader’s Hebrew Bible and O. Palmer Robertson’s commentary (NICOT) for help.  I’ve always been struck by Habakkuk’s radical message of faith in God in the midst of terrible suffering, and its a book I want to keep returning to and growing in my understanding of it.

Second, I want to do some work in the doctrine of justification.  I’ve been increasingly finding what a refuge this doctrine is amidst the all the various buffetings of life, but I’d like to tighten up my understanding of what it precisely means.  I’m not so much interested in the current debates (although I will read Piper vs. Wright) – I want to stick close to Scripture and try to come to a deeper understanding of what Martin Luther saw that enabled him to stand against the whole world.  I believe that there is enough power in this doctrine to make the weakest, most dejected believer dance for joy right and mock the devil.

Finally, I want to increase my knowledge of pre-reformation theology.  One the convictions I’ve been growing in lately is that we Protestants should avoid an entirely negative or neglectful orientation toward pre-reformation church history and theology.  Even the most radical anti-Roman Catholic voices among the Protestant Reformers (like Luther, or later Turretin) insisted that God had always faithfully preserved a regenerate people, that even during the seasons of greatest corruption and darkness the true church had never completely vanished from the earth (though Luther, typically tongue-in-cheek, speculated that at times it had perhaps dwindled down to a few maidservants!).  They were trying to reform the church, not recreate the church.  When Roman Catholic theologians appealed to Augustine and the church fathers to vindicate the tenets of the counter-Reformation, Calvin did not respond by saying, “who cares about Augustine and the fathers?  They are nothing.”  Instead he disputed those claims, pointing to the reality of the truths of Scripture in the history of the church.  Sola Scriptura meant that the Bible alone was authority; it did not mean that the Bible alone is valuable.

Are there lots of errors in pre-Reformation theology?  Yes.  But then, so are there in Reformation theology.  Every era of the church has problems, but these problems do not render any of them unworthy of study.  While almost all Protestants would agree with this in principle, many of us tend to restrict our study of pre-reformation theology almost entirely to Augustine.  I’m convinced that if we neglect pre-Reformation Christian theology, our Christology and doctrine of the Trinity (for starters) will suffer the consequences, because we stand on the shoulders of the courageous and faithful pre-Reformation Christians  (like Athanasius) who spent their lives fighting for and hammering out these foundational doctrines.

Therefore I am setting aside the month of July to focus on these books/figures:

1) Robert Letham’s The Holy Trinity (it has a good historical overview section).
2) The Medieval Theologians, edited by G.R. Evans
3) John of Damascus (the “final Father”)
4) Gregory the Great (pictured above; Calvin called him the last good Pope)
5) The Cappadocian Fathers (Basil, Gregory, Gregory)
6) Athanasius’ On the Incarnation of the Word
7) Augustine’s De Trinitate
8) Boethius’ The Consolation of Philosophy

More posts to come as I learn…

“And we confess that which has been established by the ancient councils, and we detest all sects and heresies which were rejected by the holy doctors, such as St. Hilary, St. Athanasius, St. Ambrose and St. Cyril.”   -John Calvin

Read Full Post »

Apostles and Cessationism

One of the arguments used for cessationism is the presence of apostles in spiritual gifts lists in Ephesians 4:11 and I Corinthians 12:28-29.  Richard Gaffin, for example, writes: “many continuationists are in fact cessationists, in that they recognize there are no apostles today….  A flat ‘all the gifts are for today’ will not do” (Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?  Four Views, ed. by Wayne Grudem [Zondervan, 1996], 45).  This argument deserves a thoughtful response.

Its best to begin by asking, what does the Greek term apostolos mean?  This word was not invented in the New Testament.  It was used prior to the New Testament in Classical Greek to mean herald, ambassador, envoy, messenger.  I remember seeing this word when translating through Herodotus (5th century B.C.) in a college Greek class.  There’s no question that the New Testament takes this more general term and gives it a specific and technical meaning, referring to the authoritative 13 (12 disciples – Judas + Matthias + Paul), and perhaps others.

However, the older sense of apostolos is also used in the New Testament.  For example, in Philippians 2:25, Epaphroditus is called the apostolos of the Philippian church (ESV and NIV translate “messenger”).  In II Corinthians 8:23, Paul’s coworkers who are traveling with Titus are called apostoloi (ESV: “messengers;” NIV: “representatives”).  A clear example of the non-technical use is in John 13:16: “no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger (apostolos) greater than the one who sent him.”  That apostolos does not always refer exclusively to the 13 is evident from I Corinthians 15:3-8 alone, where Christ appears first to the twelve, then to the rest of the apostles, then last of all to Paul.  Barnabas (Acts 14:4, 14) and James the brother of Jesus (Galatians 1:19, Acts 15) would be further examples of individuals outside the 13 who are nevertheless referred to as apostles.  Finally, the reality of “false apostles” in II Corinthians 10-13 is only intelligible if the term could be used more broadly.

What is my point?  That when we come to apostolos in Ephesians 4:11 and I Corinthians 12:28 (and any other passage where it is used), we cannot simply assume that it is referring to the 13.  Rather, we must ask, in what sense is apostolos being used here?  Should we translate it as “apostle,” or should we translate it as “ambassador” or “herald” or “messenger” like we do in Philippians 2:25 and II Corinthians 8:23 and elsewhere?  The best way to proceed is to ask, what sense of apostolos best corresponds to what we know from the rest of the New Testament about spiritual gifts?  Is it even coherent to consider “apostle” in the technical sense a spiritual gift?  Here are four reasons why I think the older, more literal translation makes better sense as a spiritual gift in Ephesians 4:11 and I Corinthians 12:28-29:

1) If you compile all the lists of spiritual gifts in the New Testament, every gift listed is associated with a particular skill or ability.  Teachers teach.  Prophets prophesy.  Administrators administrate.  Leaders lead.  Showers of mercy show mercy.  Encouragers encourage.  And so forth.  What do apostles in the technical sense do?  Apostle-ize?  The 13 performed all kinds of spiritual gifts, but their apostleship itself was not a particular skill or ability, but an ecclesiastical office.  In that office they performed a wide variety of functions, but the office itself is not a skill or ability.  Conversely, apostleship in the literal sense (translated as messenger, ambassador, etc.) fits very well with other spiritual gifts.  One could see it next to, say, the gift of administration (I Corinthians 12:28) or leadership (Romans 12:8) without skipping a beat.

2) Spiritual gifts are wrought internally by the Holy Spirit (I Corinthians 12:11).  They are called “kinds of service … kinds of working” (I Corinthians 12:5-6) and even “manifestation[s] of the Spirit” (I Corinthians 12:7).  One could become a messenger or ambassador through the internal working of the Spirit, but one did not become an apostle in the technical sense by an internal working of the Spirit but rather by an encounter with the risen Christ (I Corinthians 9:1) or by having been with Christ since the beginning of his ministry and therefore publicly recognized by the whole church (Acts 1:21-22).

3) Spiritual gifts are given liberally to all Christians in the body (I Corinthians 12:7-11).  Even prophecy, for example, which Gaffin sees as an authoritative gift, Paul exhorts every Corinthian Christian to pursue no less in than 6 times in the space of one chapter (I Corinthians 14:1, 5, 12, 26, 31, 39).  Tongues, also, is commended to all (e.g., 14:5).  And so with other gifts – even one who lacks a particular gift can exercise that gift occasionally.  Non-teachers can occasionally teach.  Non-encourager can occasionally encourage.  Non-showers of mercy can (and should) occasionally show mercy.  And so with the literal sense of apostolos, but its technical sense is by its very nature restricted to particular men called of Christ.

(By the way, if Gaffin is right that the spiritual gift of prophecy functions with the authority of Scripture, then Paul is in the awkward position of encouraging every lay Corinthian Christian to pursue and exercise Scriptural authority at every church gathering [e.g., I Corinthians 14:26].)

4) Spiritual gifts like are commonly associated with the ongoing ministry of lay Christians at particular local churches.  Yes, they also accompany the apostolic spread of the gospel in Acts (Acts 2, 8, 10, 19), but they are not restricted to this.  They are also exercised among lay Christians at established churches in at least Rome (Romans 12:3-8), Corinth (I Corinthians 12-14), Galatia (Galatians 3:5), Ephesus (Ephesians 4:11-13), and Thessalonica (I Thessalonians 5:19-21).  One could likewise see messengers and ambassadors serving in local congregations, but apostleship in the technical sense is not associated with the ongoing ministry of lay Christians at local churches, but rather the unique ministry of (frequently itinerant) individuals who oversaw those churches.

To summarize: spiritual gifts are (1) abilities/skills (2) wrought by the Spirit (3) among all Christians (4) for the building up of their local churches.  Apostleship in the technical sense is an awkward candidate on all these accounts; apostleship in the literal sense is a perfect match.  All of this makes the literal sense a better candidate for translation in Ephesians 4:11 and I Corinthians 12:28-29.

So has apostleship ceased?  As an office, yes: its simply a historical fact that the 13 are dead.  But as a spiritual gift, no, not any more than the gift of administration (I Corinthians 12:28) or leadership (Romans 12:8).  God still gives administrators, leaders, and messengers/ambassadors in the church today.  But these gifts have nothing to do with the 13 and their unique, first-century authoritative office.  Nor does the death of the 13 have anything to do with the cessation of spiritual gifts.

Read Full Post »

An Absent-minded Scholar

This is truly hilarious:

“Occasionally, (Einstein) would take rambling walks on his own, which could be dicey.  One day someone called the Institute and asked to speak to a particular dean.  When his secretary said that the dean wasn’t available, the caller hesitatingly asked for Einstein’s home address.  That was not possible to give out, he was informed.  The caller’s voice then dropped to a whisper. ‘Please don’t tell anybody,’ he said, ‘but I am Dr. Einstein, I’m on my way home, and I’ve fogotten where my house is’ (Walter Isaacson, Einstein: His Life and Universe [Simon and Schuster, 2007], 439).”

I have been accused of being absent-minded before, but nobody can I say I’m this bad!

Read Full Post »

Simplicity and Trinity

Divine simplicity means that God is not composed of different parts, but utterly whole and indivisible.  Its opposite is not “complex” but “composite.”  To affirm divine simplicity is to affirm that each of God’s attributes is identical with his essence: God is not merely loving and righteous and holy, but Love and Righteousness and Holiness.  Whatever God is, He wholly is.

I used to really struggle to understand how the doctrine of God’s simplicity fits together with the doctrine of the Trinity.  After all, if God has no parts, how can we say that He exists in three Persons?  How is it not inconsistent to affirm both that God has distinct relations within Himself and that He is simple and indivisible?  Lately I have come across some helpful treatments of this problem in some older theologians.

First, Anselm in chapter 23 of Proslogion: “you are so simple that there cannot be born of You any other than what You are.  This itself is the Love, one and common to You and Your Son, that is the Holy Spirit, proceeding from both….  Whatever each is singly, that the whole Trinity is altogether, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; since each singly is not other than the supremely simple unity and the supremely unified simplicity which can be neither multiplied nor differentiated.”

Second, Basil the Great (On the Holy Spirit, 18.23): “how does one and one not equal two Gods?  Because we speak of the emperor, and the emperor’s image – but not two emperors….  Since the divine nature is not composed of parts, union of the persons is accomplished by partaking of the whole.”

And finally, Bavinck (Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 2, 149): “nor is simplicity inconsistent with the doctrine of the Trinity, for the term simple is not an antonym of ‘twofold’ or ‘threefold’ but of ‘composite.’  God is not composed of three persons, nor is each person composed of the being and attributes of that person, but the one uncompounded (simple) being of God exists in three persons.”

These passages have helped me to see not only are divine simplicity and trinity compatible, but they stand in the closest possible relation and inform one another.  The crucial insight that helped remove any sense of inconsistency was seeing that there is a difference between divisions in the Godhead and distinctions in the Godhead.  The Father, Son, and Spirit are not divisions, or composite parts, in the Godhead – they don’t combine together to add up to God.  Its not as though the Father equals 33.3% of God, the Son another 33.3%, and the Spirit the remaining 33.3%.  Rather, the three Persons are distinctions, or relations, in the one God, each one being fully God Himself.  As Anselm puts it: “whatever each is singly, that the whole Trinity is altogether.”  And how is this?  Because of divine simplicity.  If God were divisible, we might be tempted to veer off into tritheism.  But because God has no divisions or parts, the Son who is begotten by the Father is not other than the Father, and the Spirit who is generated from both is not other than the Father or the Son.

In other words, not only are simplicity and trinity compatible, but they interpret and protect one another.

Read Full Post »

How to tell if you are preaching in the power of the Spirit

From Edmund Clowney’s Preaching Christ from All of Scripture (Crossway, 2003), 55:

One one occasion I had tea with Martin Lloyd-Jones in Ealing, London, and decided to ask him a question that concerned me.  “Dr. Lloyd-Jones,” I said, “how can I tell whether I am preaching in the energy of the flesh or in the power of the Spirit?”

“That is very easy,” Lloyd-Jones replied, as I shriveled. “If you are preaching in the energy of the flesh, you will feel exalted and lifted up.  If you are preaching in the power of the Spirit, you will feel awe and humility.”

Read Full Post »

Encouragement

Given Tolkien’s current fame, and the obvious quality of his work, I find this statement amazing, and very telling about the power of encouragement:

“I have never had much confidence in my own work, and even now when I am assured (still much to my grateful surprise) that it has value for other people, I feel diffident, reluctant as it were to expose my world of imagination to possibly contemptuous eyes and ears.  But for the encouragement of C.S.L. I do not think that I should ever have completed or offered for publication The Lord of the Rings” (J.R.R. Tolkien to Clyde S. Kilby, 18 December 1965, in The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, ed. by Humphrey Carpenter [Houghton Mifflin, 2000], 366).

I wonder what other masterpieces throughout history were never finished or published simply because the author lacked a friend to encourage him/her.

Read Full Post »

Unlocking Femininity

Esther and I have some friends down at Southwestern Theological Seminary who have a great blog which discusses the meaning of biblical femininity.  If you haven’t seen it, check it out here.

Read Full Post »

The New Blog

As you can see, I’ve updated from Blogger to WordPress.  I like the formatting better, and they have more features.

What is new?

1) the blog’s name (you can read about why in the “what this blog is” section above).

2) the above pages which introduce me and the blog.

3) to the right you can see how I have categorized my older posts for easier retrieval.

Thanks for checking in!

Read Full Post »