Steve Walton has been a friend for many years—but he is also a great scholar, and has just published a collection of essays on the theology of Acts, and the first volume of his Word commentary on Acts. So I thought it was a good time to ask him about his study, Acts as a key part of the New Testament, and its importance for us today.
IP: Why are you so interested in Acts of the Apostles? What drew you to it in the first place?
SW: In my first term at theological college, I wrote an essay on ‘Luke’s theological themes’ for Charlie Moule, and that got me into the debate about how far the portrait of Paul in Acts is similar to or different from that in the letters. This topic remained with me, and I was very drawn to reading Luke-Acts. I wrote a final year undergraduate dissertation on the gentile mission in Luke-Acts, and then followed that with my PhD work on Paul’s speech to the Ephesian elders in Miletus (Acts 20:18-35). There I argued that there are similar themes using some strikingly rare similar words in the speech and in 1 Thessalonians. Not long after that, I was invited to write the Word Biblical Commentary on Acts, and the rest is history!
IP: Between his gospel and Acts, Luke is the largest single contributor to the New Testament, with his writings making up around 28% of the whole text—compared with Paul’s 24%. Do we pay enough attention to him, in in particular to Acts, in the contemporary church?
SW: It depends which part of the contemporary church you’re talking about! One of the down sides of the three-year lectionary used by many mainstream churches is that Acts only appears between Easter and Pentecost, and then only the early parts of the book. That’s a huge pity. On the other hand, pentecostals are very taken with Acts and do a lot of work and preaching on the mission in Acts and, particularly, the work of the Holy Spirit in Acts.
Indeed, it was the effects of the beginnings of pentecostalism in the early twentieth century and the charismatic movement of the mid-twentieth century which persuaded ‘mainstream’ scholarship to start engaging with Acts, notably in Jimmy Dunn’s doctoral work (published as Baptism in the Holy Spirit), with responses by Bob Menzies from a pentecostal perspective (Empowered for Witness) and Max Turner from a third-wave charismatic perspective (Power from on High and The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts Then and Now). One of my hopes for my Acts commentary is that it will feed discussion, study and preaching and teaching on Acts in the years to come.
IP: You have also recently published a collection of essays on the theology of Acts. What key theological themes do we need to engage with here?
SW: At the centre of Acts is the movement and action of God. I called the book Reading Acts Theologically partly because I have become convinced that God is the driver of the narrative of Acts. The mission of the earliest Christians is not dependent on clever strategy and careful planning by the believers, but is led by God opening doors into new areas and new territory. Philip’s encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch (8:26-40) and Peter’s ‘divine appointment’ with Cornelius and his household (10:1–11:18) are good examples of this taking place, and the church having to reflect on events in the light of Scripture to deal with the new reality of what God is doing.
In addition, there is clear and significant human discernment and responsibility. The believers are not mere puppets whose strings are being pulled by God, but are responsible to follow God’s lead. That can be hard work at times, as the puzzling sequence of events in Acts 16:6-10 shows. There, Paul and his companions are prevented by the Spirit from going one way and then another, and fetch up at Alexandria Troas, on the west coast of modern Turkey, before Paul has a night-vision of a man from Macedonia saying, ‘Come over to Macedonia and help us.’ There’s an interesting shift from ‘after he [Paul] saw the vision’ to ‘we were convinced that God had called us’. There was clearly a process of the group reflecting on Paul’s vision and drawing a conclusion from it—necessary partly because there was no divine figure or agent in the dream (by contrast with other visions in Acts).
The other parts of that book look at the believing communities in their world, studying how they engage with life amidst a culture which was at best ambivalent towards the Jesus-communities, and ways in which God—including Jesus and the Spirit—is portrayed in Acts.
IP: What has surprised you most about Acts as you have studied it? And are you offering us any surprises—any new proposals that might change the way we read Acts?
SW: Scholarly study of Acts when I was at theological college in the late 1970s was very focused on historical questions—could any of the stuff in the book have happened? So the lines of debate were drawn between skeptics (notably Ernst Haenchen, Hans Conzelmann and Martin Dibelius) and conservatives (notably F. F. Bruce and I. Howard Marshall). The advent of narrative readings of the Gospels and Acts in the late 1970s onwards changed that considerably. While scholars didn’t neglect the historical and cultural settings of the stories in Acts, they began asking questions about how the story of the whole book, and the individual stories within the book, were organised in order to communicate. In other words, the focus of research shifted from what was behind the text—the settings, culture, sources, and history—to what the author was seeking to say to his readers/hearers. Bob Tannehill and Luke Johnson were two giants in that period who moved forward our reading of Acts considerably. More recently, Beverly Gaventa’s commentary does a fine job of reading the text this way.
My work seeks to follow in the train of folk like these, while not neglecting historical, cultural and social questions. I’m aiming to get readers under the skin of the book, and to see the story from God’s perspective. In particular, I’ve learned from my friend Matthew Sleeman about the importance of the heavenly dimension of Acts. Past study has tended to focus on the human characters in Acts, with good reason, but to the neglect of divine action. Acts begins with Jesus ascending to the place of power and authority at his Father’s right side, and continues with Jesus acting on earth from heaven: he pours out the Spirit (Acts 2:33), he heals (Acts 9:34), he meets Saul on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:3-6), and orchestrates Saul’s meeting with Ananias (Acts 9:10-19a), and much else. It is not that the Spirit comes playing Superman to Jesus’ Clark Kent, so that only one can be present at once—both Jesus and the Spirit are active in the church’s mission.
IP: How has being immersed in this work affected you in your thinking about the New Testament and biblical studies?
SW: To work in Acts necessarily entails work in the synoptic Gospels, since Acts is Luke’s volume two. It also necessarily entails work in Paul, since so much of Acts is focused on God’s work in and through Paul. As a result, I have done some research in Luke-Acts and some in Acts and Paul, and I’ve found the sets of text mutually informative. This is by contrast with the rather siloed nature of much NT study these days, where someone can be an expert in one specific area without knowing much about anything else in the NT (or the Bible as a whole).
Reading Luke-Acts also takes study into the Jewish Scriptures, since Luke so frequently quotes or echoes those Scriptures. I’ve found the work of (in an earlier generation) C H Dodd and (more recently) Richard Hays very helpful in thinking about that, for Luke’s Jesus and Jesus-followers are portrayed in scriptural categories—both are God’s servant, familiar from Isaiah, for instance. So although I’m thought of as an Acts scholar, my interests are much wider because Acts compels me to think canonically as I read it, and to look for connections with other parts of both OT and NT.
IP: How has being immersed in Acts affected your spiritual life? What have you learnt anew about God?
SW: I’ve found myself greatly challenged as to how far I am actually open to God, rather than deciding what I want to do and then asking God to bless my plans. Kierkegaard said that we understand life looking backwards, but we have to live it forwards, and I’ve found myself reading parts of my life retrospectively in the light of God bringing good things out of tough situations, as God does for Paul and Silas in jail in Philippi (Acts 16). John Goldingay and Helen Collins have helped me, in different ways, to see theological reflection as not starting with my life and my concerns, but starting with Scripture and asking how it shapes my thinking and understanding of what’s going on in my life. Reading Acts has been deeply helpful in that regard.
It’s also profoundly challenging, since the attitude to material goods among the earliest Christians is very different to that in the West today, where we regard ourselves as owning things which are ours to dispose of as we wish. The earliest Christians had a radical attitude of holding their goods and money on an open palm before God, ready to give to those in need (e.g. Acts 4:34-35). And this goes on into the life of the churches as the Antioch church send a gift to Jerusalem at a time of famine (Acts 11:28-30)—the radical attitude to material goods continues, even when not expressed in the kind of communal living in the early days in Jerusalem.
IP: What does the church in the West need to learn from Acts today?
SW: A serious openness to God is the key thing, I think. It’s striking how, in every church I’ve belonged to, the prayer gathering is the least well attended meeting of the church. I know people can and do pray at other times and in other ways, but the power of gathering to pray and seek God is clear in Acts—the one recorded prayer is in response to John and Peter being told to stop speaking in the name of Jesus (Acts 4:23-31). I wonder if our lack of impact is related to our lack of prayer.
Further, there are strong implications about the interconnectedness of the Jesus-communities. Churches should not live to themselves and die to themselves, but they help and support and encourage each other in Acts. That applies today to connections in a geographical area (within a denomination and ecumenically), and across different parts of the world. My church near Cambridge has a link with a church in Rwanda, and that makes us richer as we interact with our brothers and sisters there. I spent three weeks teaching in Morogoro, Tanzania, last September, and the welcome I received from Tanzanian Anglicans was wonderful—I’m richer as a result, and I’m working to find ways to develop a greater partnership with the theological college there.
IP: Thank you Steve—what fascinating reflections! And thank you for your gift of scholarship, offered to the people of God. I hope and pray that as people read both your essays and the commentary that we will make these lessons our own.
Professor Steve Walton is Senior Research Fellow of Trinity College, Bristol. He has taught in Nottingham and London, and for several part-time ordination courses. He has published widely, including a co-authored textbook, Exploring the New Testament vol 1: The Gospels and Acts (SPCK), and numerous works on Acts. He lives near Cambridge with his wife, Ali (a retired Church of England minister) and their Border Terrier, Flora.
Buy me a Coffee
Might I recommend the further new book, “The untold story of the New Testament church” by Frank Viola (greatly revised 2nd ed, 2025), which tells the story of Acts and puts in it at the right places the letters of Paul and the others, explaining what was going on to elicit those letters. Viola is not the first to write a history of the church up to the point where scripture closes which takes the Bible as authoritative, but he is probably the best.
We have never been so fortunate as in the golden years 1980-2005 when a slew of marvellous painstaking critical commentaries came out. They have slowed (good – the important thing is to read those that exist) but I know this will rank with the best – a landmark publication.
Christopher, you are almost certainly right about Dr Walton’s commentary being ‘a landmark publication’.
But did you notice something in his comments on the way through?
Scholars ‘began asking questions about how the story of the whole book, and the individual stories within the book, were organised *in order to communicate*. In other words, the focus of research shifted from what was behind the text—the settings, culture, sources, and history—to what the author was *seeking to say to his readers/hearers*.’ (My emphasis). He refers to Tannehill, Johnson and Gaventa and says ‘My work seeks to follow in the train of folk like these’.
So maybe ‘linguistics’ isn’t so peripheral to interpretation after all?? Just sayin’ 🙂
Thank you Bruce. Absolutely essential point.
As my New Testament teacher as an undergraduate used to say – “what did they believe then that made them express themselves in the way that they did?”
That tutor was a RC Priest from Oscott. The most inspiring NT teacher I have ever known.
Hi Bruce
You are speaking to someone who thinks linguistics is peripheral. That person is not me. My position is as below, which amounts to the reverse. Where previously did I say anything different, as opposed to being superficially misunderstood on quick first impressions as having done so? There are about 20 large dimensions that underlie everything, including linguistics (e.g.: psychology, anthropology, sociobiology/evolution, sociology, economics, semiotics, literary theory). To say that nothing would ever get said if we prefaced all discussion with even one of these is both true and regrettable. There is no reason apart from personal expertise, which varies from person to person, to elevate linguistics above the other 19.
The second point, of course, is that Dr Walton is not writing in the field of linguistics. The third is that I did come across Tannehill’s work 30+ years ago but found it a backward step because its comparative subjectivity (the subjective is so infinitely various and so variedly grounded at all that it can never be a possible area for study – are we to ask every world citizen, those who have studied Luke and those who have not, what they think? Why?), & remember writing a review at college where I strongly backed Fitzmyer. The fourth point is the most important – that if you are opposing historical-critical to Tannehill etc, they are asking different questions therefore complement each other, and the essence of good scholarship is comprehensiveness and asking the maximum number of questions. Both well done can be good in their own way, but it would be unfair to ask reader-response to compete with Fitzmyer, dense and deep as it is. You seem to approve the said shift. How can anyone approve it? Firstly, different dimensions are not in competition with each other, and secondly looking at one dimension is impoverished when one can and should look at more – indeed, at the maximum number. If you thought otherwise, then that was inaccurate. Now, historical-critical work is already notoriously multi-dimensional, particularly in commentary form (and the Word Commentary format shows this as well as any). So it already fulfils the criteria, and if the idea is that it then ought to add more subjective dimension to the multitude of other dimensions it has already included, then that would only succeed in lowering the [objective-]scholarship level. Having striven to be objective it would needlessly fail at the final hurdle. More to the point, the new type of works started coming in c late 1980s, because people (including some of the new generation of NT scholars) no longer had the historical-critical grounding that they used to have (often: a classical grounding). This was easily seen in the shift in the questions asked in the Carus Greek Testament prize papers. Suddenly from being entirely historical-critical, then branched out into also including reader-response and so on. Sanders duo ‘Studying the Synoptic Gospels’ also combines in this way (1989). In terms of classics (to which NT studies is very similar), the historical-critical was always the gold standard. Combining it with other approaches (rather than the idea of jettisoning one to be replaced by the other, as though they were somehow alternatives) only increases the comprehensiveness and therefore the excellence, but I do not know how it is possible to pursue the said other approaches in a sufficiently verifiable/falsifiable way.
So are you saying here, Christopher, that Steve Walton’s assessment of the history of Luke studies (the paragraph I quoted) is wrong but yours is right?
Bruce, you disappoint me in the mismatch between what you say and the words that I wrote.
The trend mentioned certainly did take place at that time (Tannehill is late 1980s; MA Powell and NT Wright and J Resseguie are some of the few narrative critics I have read anything of – and profited from them all). which is why I mentioned it as having taken place then.
I didn’t profit much from Tannehill’s 2 volumes, but that was not because he was a narrative critic but because of the looseness of his organisation which seemed to compare unfavourably to Fitzmyer’s sculpted and honed scholarship. Different degrees of refinement.
A chief emphasis of Dr Walton’s work seems to be on the literary, on communication. That is one of the great dimensions of historical-critical work (inasmuch as it cannot be studied in isolation from knowledge of literary background, and inasmuch as it is one of the main strands of a classical education). Which is why I have always thought it to be chalk and cheese with the sort of reader-response criticism which (at worst) is a schooldays’ ‘How did the writing make you feel?’.
Christopher, you pick up the worst case scenario (‘at worst’). But you haven’t said anything about what part a hearer/reader is expected to play in interpreting/understanding a piece if text. How did “your” ‘historical-critical work’ deal with the place of inference in communication? As context, ‘literary background’ (one of your ‘main strands’) is completely inadequate.
It is impossible to read much of what you say without realising that you are constantly pushing the linguistics angle when you could equally be pushing 10-20 other angle, and are pushing this one purely because it is your own specialism not because it is the most relevant in every case. It is good to bring in these overarching contexts at those point where they are the most relevant. To bring in as few as one and to ignore so many others, works against the comprehensive approach which is scholarship.
But what happens, Christopher, if what people have researched on the use of language in communication or what they have discussed about how language seems to work in general (that is *linguistics*) is ignored by those who are involved in writing commentaries? Or, maybe worse, what if commenters make silly statements about language — comments such as ‘this word is not a proper word’. Should those people who *have* studied some linguistics point out such things?
And what are we to make of a quite common experience — that some commentaries (even those historically-critically detailed) are of very little help to people translating scripture texts into other languages, often because of the issues that Steve Walton talked about in the piece above and I quoted?
The Acts of the Apostles matters today, because it exhibits great examples of people being brought to faith by people of faith.
We have to understand what Christian faith means. First and foremost, I have to be convicted of my sins; that is, I have to accept that the crucifixion represents the wages of my own personal sin. Based on this, I trust that Christ took the death that was due to me on himself and, in the resurrection, I understand that my sins have been forgiven. Conviction of sin is the starting point.
We see tremendous examples of this in Acts. The main example, would be Stephen the Martyr, who was a Godly man, proclaiming the Word, without fear, even unto death. Through this witness, Saul was convicted of his own sin – on the Road to Damascus – and came to believe. Before he came to believe, he was persecuting those who were spreading the Word.
Of course, we see the charismatic element clearly in Acts; those who came to believe were endowed with various sign miracles (for example, healing the sick, being bitten by serpents and recovering). The charismatic element means absolutely nothing – and in fact much less than nothing – if the object of bringing people under the conviction of sin and in a position where they find that there is nothing else to trust in other than the cross – is not at the forefront.
I’m afraid I didn’t see this perspective in the article.
Was Saul convicted of his own sin? I tend to think it was more about being forced to see who Jesus actually was, the awaited Jewish Messiah. In other words, it was a revelation of the truth, reality. Clearly part of that was then a realisation of what he’d been doing, persecuting followers of the Messiah, was a great sin. He thought he’d been doing good, being a committed Pharisee, instead he had done a great evil.
I am very aware of my own sinfulness, to the extent I sometimes think the main thing I seem to say to God is, forgive me. But my own conversion was more about the realisation of the truth about Jesus. Truly appreciating my own sinfulness came a little later.
I think the ‘charismatic’ aspect is important though often downplayed or outright ignored today. Could you imagine how short Jesus’ ministry would have been if he did nothing but teach? No healing, no dealing with the demonic, no raising the dead, no supernatural knowledge. The same applies to the apostles and other early disciples. Christianity would have disappeared very quickly without the power of God behind the message. Yes the cross, and resurrection, are central. But that is not all there is to reality.
PC1 – I’ll respond in reverse order. Firstly, the ‘charismatic’ aspect is of extreme importance. In Matthew 11:4-5, Jesus responds to the question posed by John the Baptist ‘are you really the Messiah?’ by quoting the book of Isaiah. The sign miracles that Jesus is performing correspond to the signs which were foretold by Isaiah. Without these signs, the prophecy of Isaiah would not have been fulfilled and therefore the correct conclusion would have been that Jesus was not the real Messiah. But he *did* perform those signs and wonders – so a paraphrase of Jesus response to John would be ‘read the prophet Isaiah – I’m doing everything he said I would be doing.’
At the same time, I would be very open to the ‘charismatic movement’ today if I saw, as the starting point, that those performing the signs and wonders really had fallen under the conviction of sin (their own sin) as a fundamental building block of their own faith – and, from this position of an awareness of their own worthlessness before a Holy God (as a result of their own sin for which they fully responsible), they were proclaiming the Word, with a view to bringing others under the conviction of sin – and faith in Christ based on this starting point. Sadly, any negative remarks I have made here concerning the charismatic movement, are based on the universal experience (and – due to family connections I have had quite a lot of experience) that conviction of sin very much takes a back seat. In Acts, all the example we see where people of faith are endowed with sign gifts which the exercise, are with a view to bringing people under the conviction of sin and, based on this, into the Saviour’s family.
Now, was Saul really convicted of his own sin? Well, the Apostle Paul does come up with many very good one-liners, such as ‘All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God’, ‘The wages of sin is death’, quoting Isaiah (of which he understood the full import) Romans 3:12 ‘All have turned away, they have together turned *worthless*, there is no one who does good, not even one.’ He describes himself as the ‘chief of sinners’ 1 Timothy 1:15. For me, this is sufficient to conclude that he really had understood his own problem before a Holy God – and the basic problem that every single human being (other than Jesus Christ) has before a Holy God – namely, our own personal sin.
It’s also worth taking a look at how people at that time (1st century Palestine, just after the crucifixion) understood the book of Isaiah, which we get from Acts 8:26-39. Note that the Ethiopian eunuch is not bamboozled at some intellectual level; he is asking (Acts 8:34) ‘who is this man?’ We just have to ask ourselves why the Ethiopian was dwelling on this particular passage, what he was getting from it, why the identity of the man-of-sorrows was of importance to him ….
Which leads on to 1 Timothy 2:5 ‘there is one Mediator between man and God ….’; Paul understood why the Mediator was necessary and the role of the Mediator.
Without the conviction of sin at the centre of our faith, there isn’t any need for a Mediator. Sign gifts (i.e. the charismata) with the offence of the cross at the centre of the faith, with a view to bringing others under the conviction of sin and, from this starting point, to faith, is a very biblical concept – and we dismiss it at our peril. Sign gifts without conviction of sin at the centre look like the sort of mysticism through which the believer gets nice and close to God directly and without the need of a Mediator (leading to a false peace with God).
PC1 – p.s. I don’t think we can underestimate the importance of the Prophet Isaiah here. In Matthew 11, the response of Jesus to John the Baptist can be summarised as ‘I’m your man; as you can see, I fulfill what Isaiah prophesied about the Messiah’. With the Ethiopian eunuch, we can see from his question ‘who is this man?’ that he had studied Isaiah in great detail, with some care and that he had, no doubt, assimilated the import of the verses that Paul quotes in Romans 3:12. I don’t think it’s going to far to suggest that the Ethiopian understood Isaiah so well, that Philip’s job would only have been to point out (as Jesus did to John the Baptist) that Jesus completely fulfilled, in every detail, what the Ethiopian already understood Isaiah to be prophesying.
I think we can more-or-less understand from the Acts and Epistles that before the gospels were written, the apostles and first witnesses were using Isaiah as a basis for proclaiming the good news. Religious people at the time seemed to have a profound understanding of Isaiah – and hence Saul’s reaction against Stephen was a point blank refusal to accept a truth that was, in some sense, clear and plain to him.
Hi Jock – I dont doubt conviction of sin was part of Paul’s life, but I suspect he was pretty aware of his own sin being a devout Jew. As he said himself, the law brought condemnation. But Jesus brings life. And it is His death, resurrection and the Spirit that brings life.
As for charismatics, Ive heard a number refer to ‘total depravity’ and a definite conviction of sin. Youll notice a number of well-known, primarily American charismatic church leaders are being called out over their sinful behaviour.
I know I sin. But sometimes I think it’s easy to stay stuck in the mire of condemnation, too ashamed to even ask for forgiveness. There’s a balance to be had.
PC1 – this was the insight that he had – this is what forced him to renounce his opposition to Christ – and embrace faith in Christ – that his observance of the law fell so far short of the mark that it indeed brought condemnation to him, because he was a sinner.
Before that, he was the one who was travelling over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he succeeded, he was making them twice as much a child of hell as he was (to paraphrase Matthew 23:15).
The whole business is (of course) about forgiveness. It was on the road to Damascus that Paul understood that he stood condemned and in need of forgiveness, that Jesus brings life – and indeed is the only way to life – and it is through His death and resurrection that the Spirit brings life.
The whole business was understanding that he stood condemned – and getting out of the mire of condemnation.
You can’t really ask for forgiveness if you haven’t really understood that you justly stand condemned and that you actually need forgiveness.
Glad to hear that you have found the Doctrines of Life in some charismatic circles – the whole point is that there wasn’t a hint of them in the article above the line – so that the article could be read – and enjoyed – by followers of the synthetic gospel (namely people who enjoy the idea of Jesus – but bypass the seriousness of sin in their own lives).
And here I was thinking that Paul’s ‘insight’ was that Jesus the Messiah had been raised from the dead!!
Bruce – did it ever occur to you to wonder why He was crucified in the first place and what it says about you? That is the bit that is always missing from every comment you make.
BS … but you’re in good company here – it is also missing from the piece above the line.
Bruce Symons – you are stating that you believe that Paul’s ‘insight’ that Jesus the Messiah had been raised from the dead (yes, ten out of ten, we all know that Paul had this ‘insight’ – your statement is actually vacuous – nobody was suggesting that this wasn’t his ‘insight’) can be entirely separated from all the implications that this had about his own sinful nature – that the law brought condemnation to him personally – and that his personal salvation was only to be found in the cross.
Because if your statement makes sense in the context, then you are saying that (a) Paul’s ‘insight’ on the Road to Damascus was that Jesus was the Messiah who had been raised from the dead and that (b) he had completely failed, at that point, to understand the further implications of this which we find in his later letters, about his own sinful nature, that the law in fact brought condemnation, etc …
Are you really trying to say that there was none of this understanding at all on the Road to Damascus? That it all came later? I find this incredible. Before the Road to Damascus, Paul was clearly offended in Him (Blessed is he who is not offended in Me – Matthew 11:6) and there must have been some reason for this.
I have a very personal view of Luke-Acts, if I might be offered the indulgence of sharing it. I believe that whatever else he as doing, Luke-Acts is an intentional reconciliation of Pauline & Petrine factions within the church. The church was heading for its first major schism, which Luke skillfully & successfully resolves. Hence the deliberate inter-twining of Peter’s then Paul’s ministries in the beginning of Acts. We see the rumblings of this in 1 Cor 1, and pick up the vibes at various points in Acts, played down but not glossed over by Luke.
It is notable in Paul’s writing (so Gerd Theissen among others) Paul’s distinct lack of knowledge or even interest in Jesus’ Galilean ministry (with the notable exception of Paul’s eucharistic comment in Corinthians), which ought to strike us as odd. We skate over it because we are used to it, but really it should give us cause for thought. Paul’s theology is post-resurrection theology.
He has neither time for nor interest in a Galilean ministry. His starting point is the Risen Messiah, his foundational claim becomes “I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision”.
Saul the Pharisee then disappears for three years, reconciling his experience with his Pharisaical training and the Hebrew scriptures. When he emerges he spends an astonishingly short time with the Jerusalem mission, just long enough to convince Peter of his credentials, but not long enough to learn much detail or information about the pre-resurrection Galilean Jesus. We get hints of a basic mistrust between Paul and the Galileans, and rather than engaging with the mission he disappears to Tarsus until Barnabas comes to call.
Mark and Paul fall out over this very issue. Mark wants to preach the Galilean ministry of Jesus. Paul won’t have it. He knows nothing of it and thinks Mark is over doing the whole thing. Paul’s gospel begins with the resurrection, he is dubious about the validity of Mark’s claims, exaggerated, over the top. So Mark returns to Peter, and makes written notes, whether loose preaching notes, some form of proto-Mark, whatever, enough to validate his preaching. Saul still rejects Mark’s ideas of gospel, Paul’s gospel is a post-resurrection gospel, and that’s it. So Mark & Barnabas minister together, and in whatever format, oral or written, Marks proto-Gospel becomes widespread among the Asian church.
Paul is disturbed and mistrustful, so chooses Luke, the careful, scientific, faithful companion to investigate, basically to de-bunk the hype. Luke talks to the chief actors in Jerusalem, the key eye-witnesses of the Galilean ministry, Peter, Matthew, Mark, James, Mary, Cleopas among others and soon recognises the validity of Mark’s account.
Now he has a twin task. To report back to Paul, is such a way as to reconcile Paul to the Galileans and their accounts of a pre-resurrection Jesus, but also to present an account of Paul which will overcome the suspicions and antagonism of the Galileans.
His Gospel begins in the temple, the Holy of Holies. For Saul the Pharisee the Lord must come suddenly to His Temple, so that is where the action starts, (even before the genealogy). Having thus mollified Paul, Luke can safely re-locate Gabriel to Galilee. In Acts also, the Lord comes suddenly to His Temple, and phase two begins again.
So Luke interwines Peter ad Paul’s ministries in Acts. validating each to another, and to their respective followers who are already (according to Corinthians) taking sides. We have seen the same game played out so often in church history since. A mix of personalities and theological emphases, each based on their own experiences, dismissing the experiences of others. Academic Pharisees mistrusting Hill-billy Galileans, simple folk with their own experiences both mistrusting and being doubted by aristocratic scholars . (think 20C Pentecostalism!)
Luke successfully resolves this potential schism, by careful honest research, and diplomatic literary skills. We should note at the end of Acts a deliberate repetition of the phrase “so Paul went about preaching the gospel of the kingdom”. Not normal Acts type vocabulary, but a deliberate referral back to Luke’s favourite description of Jesus’ own ministry in his Gospel. Luke is saying to both sides that Jesus and Paul are doing the same thing, it is one mission, one continuuum, whatever the surface differences, the pre and post resurrection theologies are part of the same Kingdom ministry.
Of necessity a very brief and crude summary of ideas I have nurtured for many years. Personal, not terribly scholarly, I’m afraid, but maybe there is something there which may interest someone.
Fascinating ideas; thank you!
Frank,
Yes, interesting stuff. The TikTok video I mention below does refer candidly to some of those tensions.
I think historians are programmed to see factions everywhere, and will sometimes rush into delineating them on the basis of just one or two disagreement. Honest colleagues will naturally disagree several times a day, and will continue to do so until we know everything, which is never.
Public arguments between historians are vicious, and excellent spectator sport.
I am sure there is much good stuff in the book — I have put it in on my list.
But in his “A bit about me” on the Trinity College website he describes himself as “an ordained priest.” I realise this is an Anglican blog — but are any who accept sola scriptura happy with this? If he believes a clerical priesthood continues into the NT (even in a ‘renewed’ capacity), I think it is such a fault line in his approach to the NT that I would have to read with caution any of his work.
I have the same caution with N.T. Wright — and some scholars have made this point — his (Anglican?) understanding that the NT is a renewal of the Mosaic Covenant seems at odds with so much unambiguous NT teaching.
Steve Walton’s contribution to this book looks of interest:
‘Evil in Ephesus: Acts 19:8–40’ in Evil in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity, edited by Chris Keith and Loren Stuckenbruck (WUNT II/417; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016) 224–34.
The clearest explanation of Paul’s journeys in Acts that I have seen is on TikTok:
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZNdMGoBmJ/
“an ordained priest.”
I’m sure Steve can speak for himself…but I think you’ll find he doesn’t accept your definition of being “a clerical priesthood continues into the NT”. Nor do I.
As the Alternative Service Book pointed out… “priests also known as presbyters”… it doesn’t translate “heirus” but “presbuteros”. Evangelicals in the CofE know this… others don’t necessarily….
Nothing to do with Sola Scriptura… Just Hebrew, Greek words and historical contextual understanding.
What? Why? How? Of conversion to Christ in Triunity and his exclusive claims across and running counter to cultural pluralism?
Prayer meetings being least well attended is a pattern that does not always hold among Pentecostals.
It has been said that prayer is the chief exercise of faith.
And dare I ask what Steve Walton makes of the pronouns in Acts 2:1–4? How does he explain the comment from the crowd in Acts 2:7?
All the original tongue speakers were the Galilean apostles who had been specifically chosen by Christ — the sign of an apostle was to transmit the miraculous gifts — it is so clearly spelt out in Acts 8:18–19. If Steve Walton doesn’t get this, I suggest he will be wrong everywhere on the miraculous gifts in Acts.
I seem to remember the argument is laid out here: Chantry, Walter. Signs of the Apostles: Observations on Pentecostalism Old and New. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2014.
The apostles were the original direct representatives of Jesus, so in spreading the message it is not really surprising God especially endowed them. But I am not convinced they were the only ones on whom the Spirit fell at Pentecost as described in Acts, nor that in due course gifts were spread by and to others.
But I think we’ve had that conversation before.
I’ve been wondering about how much Acts and the Gospels are a model for Charismatic practice today. Some say that the way Jesus and the 12 then 72 went about releasing people with healings is what all/most Christians should be doing today. Yet my reading of Acts, although prophecy is widespread, the miraculous is only through the 11 plus Paul and two others. There is none of the Apostles sending out 12 or 72 of those they disciple, in Acts in miraculous authority.
Instead, the practice seems to be more like The Gifts of the Holy Spirit list in the Epistles. These we do see in practice in some measure in our church today.
Apart from occasional revivals, we don’t see such remarkable outpourings of healings as the 12/72 saw. In big bible camps, sometimes a few experience healing. In church settings each week, there are sometimes people healed (I have been, thankfully). But there is much exaggeration …and much yearning to be like the Apostles and 12/72…but I don’t think that is actually seen in the New Testament outside of the Apostles ministry.
The Gifts of the Holy Spirit seem different. Welcome of course, to be eagerly desired (I’m so glad I was healed of a condition that would have left me mainly housebound) and am thrilled on the few occasions I’ve known folk healed outside of a medical intervention expectation. But this isn’t the same, in my view, of the ministry of Jesus and The Apostles. I think that to seek such ministry leads to quiet disappointment and confusion. Or as a vicar friend said to me “much of my ministry is dealing with ‘the gap’ between Gospel ministry and reality experienced.
I would welcome other views born out of experience especially in the UK!
As it happens, I have reached Acts in my bible reading at the moment. It has hit me again how important the filling with the Holy Spirit was in those times. This was more than just a doctrine (when you believe in Jesus you have received the Holy Spirit), it was a tangible, observed, demonstration of divine power. It was seen by compromised believers such as Simon Magus; it was a convincing demonstration of God’s acceptance when the Jews saw Cornelius and those Gentiles receive the Spirit; it was sufficient to persuade the Jewish doubters at the Jerusalem Council (“giving them the Holy Spirit just as He did to us!”); it was evident in those men from Ephesus who had believed but not received the Holy Spirit. But there is also that throwaway comment in Ephesians: ‘having believed you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise’.
I can’t believe that the giving or ‘sealing’ of the Spirit was only tangible and important in the beginning to establish the gospel of the Kingdom and once settled no longer needed to be a powerful demonstration. Surely the gift of the Holy Spirit and His power is for all time and for all who believe?
Yes, especially as Joel 2 has been happening all around us over the last 100 years …
The problem is that many who become believers dont experience anything special. I tend to think many of the signs as recorded in Acts really were only for the start of the church, especially when it came to including the Gentiles. God had to make it very obvious to the Jewish apostles and others.
But that doesnt mean gifts such as tongues, healing or prophecy have ceased. Rather we shouldnt expect them at conversion. That seems to be how many charismatics view their own experience.
I wondered what your own experience has been?
When my wife was in Bible College (around 1960, some years before we met) she had a lecturer called Duncan Campbell. You may have heard of him. He was much used by God in the Hebridean & Highlands revivals. He used to lecture on Acts of the Apostles, but he never got past chapter 2. Every week he would start again in the same place, but within a few minutes he would say “Och, this just reminds me of the time when …” and he would be off with his stories. He may not have been a great academic, but he had experienced Acts himself. He was in great demand for preaching in the churches round Edinburgh, and other Faculty members would vie to go with him on his Sunday preaching. “Och no” he would say “I’ll just tak this wee lassie” and he would take my wife (to be) on his Sunday assignments. She may not have got much academic insight into Acts, but she learned a lot about what God can do in our generation with those who are willing to let him, which was to stand her in good stead in her own missionary work abroad.
It’s great pity a few more academics were not willing to get their hands dirty and find out what God is actually up to, rather than sitting in their booked lined studies pontificating from afar.
Wonderful story. I think you will find the Steve Walton is not the kind of academic you lament.
Of course not – apologies if that seemed implied – perhaps an earlier generation was in mind, maybe my comment was uncalled for.
Ian – it should remind us that whatever else Acts tells us, it is about the power of “Story”. We are “saved by the Blood of the Lamb and by our testimony”, not by our sound doctrine. None of my wife’s current friends know her back story. none of the vicars she has sat under will ever have heard this. How many little old ladies have you preached to who may have met with angels or whatever, but you will never have known it. The NT community was about story telling, we have largely lost that in many of our churches.
My experience is that God does heal with healing gifts today. Not as often as we see in Acts. Not like we read in the Gospels.
I’ve seen maybe 100’s of times where somebody has had a prophetic word and another has then been healed (in 40 years)
But I’ve seen 1000’s of times that are more vague such as “somebody here has a problem with an eye” followed by prayer and no healing.
I’ve seen much exaggeration about healing too.
But, I have been healed a number of times and that’s been life changing for me. I’m thankful to God for those .
In the end I come down to “love and eagerly desire the Spiritual Gifts”
That’s truly good to hear.
Yet the U.K. experience is that kind of outpouring is rare. Both in time and location.
It’s not happening all over the place most of the time. Or through most Christians.
From my experience, occasionally there’s a very gifted person who sometimes sees folk truly healed. My life was restored by God through one such minister. It was and is wonderful. But, a doctor told me that I’m the only person he has known that has been miraculously healed. He’s seen many get better within medical expectations.
I did not fit the bill for being healed. I had no faith for that at all. It was a beautiful gift given through another Christian praying simply for me. (I’ve since found out many prayed for me for years)
Prophetic stuff seems much more widespread. Which is how I read it in Acts too.
Many wonderful insights here!
For me the dynamic of Acts is the Cross and Resurrection Life.
As it as already been pointed out we have today lost the Meaning
Preaching of the Cross; the cross has become a religious symbol signifying little, a piece of burnished furniture.
Resurrection has become an historical fact with a future promise
Rather than a lived everyday reality of a transformed, super abounding, abundant life.
Paul’s entire “Christian” life was a battle to convince the Jews that there was no Life to be had in Judaism’s ritualism’s but in a crucified, resurrected life.
I have just finished reading a very remarkable book
The Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ by T. Austin-Sparks
In chapter 5 [at “the Battle for Sonship heading]
he details how the battle against “isms” is and always is against “Isms”
He quotes an interesting comment of Dean Farrah thus:-
“”In the craft and subtlety of the devil and man, Christianity has ever tended to wither away into Judaism, into Rabbinism, into scholasticism, into ecclesiasticism, into Romanism, into sectarianism, into dead schemes of dogmatic beliefs, into dead routines of elaborate ceremonials, into dead exclusiveness of parties and party narrowness, into dead formulae of church parties, into dead performances of dead works or dead assent to dead phrases…”.
Tom goes on to say;-
“And what is the effect of an “ism”? What do we mean by an “ism”?
Well, that thing has had a fence drawn round it and has in itself become the beginning and the end of everything. And that fence says, “Unless you tow this line, accept this ground, come onto this ground, there’s no fellowship with you. Fellowship is not possible, only if you accept this interpretation or this experience…” or whatever it is that you can put in the place of circumcision; “except ye be circumcised ye cannot be saved…”. Remember that? A thing! It might be right in itself, but it has been crystallized into a finality and the wall and door of exclusivism has been set up so that unless you come onto this ground, you are excluded.
Sooner or later, and usually sooner, men have fastened upon that and made an “ism” of it, crystallized it into a teaching, a manner of practice in Christianity, with its own laws and ways and rights, and that thing has brought arrest to the/an Ai after Jericho.
Everywhere, everywhere that the apostle went, that was either waiting for him or on his trail to discredit, to bring in the arrest of spiritual life and progress. A continuous battle….
It should be a warning to us because, you see, this is the thing that has been the enemy of the fullness of Christ all through the centuries – this sort of thing.
The Lord does something; it’s right, the Lord does it, then before long it is crystallized into a system governed by men and unless you come that way, you’re out. You’re not accepted – no fellowship. You must stand on this ground, this ground, always, or you’re not included at all in the whole compass of things. Do you understand what I mean? Isn’t this true? Oh, how subtle this is!
Go Larger, for a little extra cost @
austinsparks.net/english/books/cross_of_our_lord_jesus_christ_the.html
Shalom.
Alan
Very, very true Thank you.
Alan – Is it not exactly what Jesus means by “beware the leaven of the Pharisees”?
Ian – we should remember that whatever else Acts is about, it is about the power of “Story”. We are “saved by the Blood of the Lamb and by our testimony”, not by our sound doctrine. None of my wife’s current friends know her story of Duncan Campbell. none of the vicars she has sat under will ever have heard it. How many little old ladies you have preached to may have met with angels (I know some who have) or whatever, but you will never have known it. The NT community was about story telling (theology followed story), we have largely lost that in most of our churches.
Frank Booth – saved by (and only by) the Blood of the Lamb sums it up. There are very clearly Spiritual gifts in Acts – their purpose is also very clear – bringing people to a point where they are convicted of their own sins – to a point where they can trust in nothing else but the Blood of the Lamb – and, from this, to actually trusting in Christ, that through Him, by His blood, they are saved.
I have been somewhat anti- charismatic for many years – and while the process by which I came to this view is no longer clear to me, what is very clear is that when I saw churches that advocated Spiritual gifts (such as tongues and special healing here and now), this was never the end that was in view. I’m pretty sure that if in the past I had seen this, or if today I saw the charismata presented in the context of convicting people of their sins as the first stage in the process of bringing them to salvation, I would make an about turn and change my view instantly.
My basic criticism of the article is not against charismata per se – it is that neither of the conversants (neither IP nor SW) present this perspective.
You’re right that it has very little to do with crossing the i’s and dotting the t’s with sound doctrine – it has everything to do with understanding a) I am a sinner – I deserve the cross as the wage for my own sin and b) in the crucifixion Christ picked up the wages of my sin – and by the resurrection I know that my sins are forgiven. That’s the sum total.
Sorry Jock, I profoundly disagree with you. I would like to do so as charitably as possible, but perhaps as a starting point you could accept that not all of us who seek to love and serve Jesus line up with your way of thinking. It may work for you, it certainly don’t work for me.
Some quickies:
Firstly, my quotation which you found wanting was taken from scripture, I assumed folk would recognise that. So, yes, according to the Word of God, we do have to add something to the Blood of the Lamb to make it effective in our lives, (cue further discussion if need be).
Secondly, I take the opposite view to yours over Charismatic Christianity. Both Peter & Saul had Charismatic experiences which forced them to radically re-think their theology. Perhaps you find that too challenging. I find the emphasis in Acts the reverse of yours, in that I see the Holy Spirit gives experiences which challenge and change doctrine. You seem to want to start with a preferred doctrinal framework and reject anything which does not fit into what you choose to believe. Not everything in the Charismatic movement is 100% kosher (excuse the ridiculous idiom) for sure, but don’t throw the Holy Spirit out with the bath water (another terrible mixed metaphor). One of the strongest warnings Jesus gave was about denigrating (blaspheming) the work of the Holy Spirit. For sure, we need to have our eyes wide open, be on our guard, ask for and use God given discernment, not accept everything that moves with a Charismatic label on. All these warnings are in scripture. But to denigrate a genuine move of God because we don’t like some bits is (I would suggest) potentially dangerous. Like Saul & Peter, I did not ask for any the various experiences God has given me (which may or may not fall loosely within the term Charismatic) which would take far too long to begin to mention, leave alone try to justify to someone determined to doubt, and some of which are somewhat personal anyway, but it would be ridiculous to throw away God’s work in my life (even the bits I didn’t understand at the time) because of someone else’s doctrinal prejudices.
Finally, in your final para you say “it has everything to do with understanding”, then trot out your favourite little doctrinal formula. Once again I profoundly disagree. It has nothing to do with understanding (which tends towards gnosticism) and everything to do with faith, which is more about a lifetime obedience to Jesus’ teachings and the daily ongoing work of the Holy Spirit. Your doctrinal formula is OK as far as it goes, but God does not work like that for everyone, me included; different folk come to God in different ways. In any event he does not necessarily use your particular use of terminology and vocabulary to describe what may essentially be the same kind of work of the Spirit in our lives. I was a Christian for many years before I met folk like you (cue another long discussion), some of them lovely folk (some less so), but they gave me a lot of problems.
To sum up, I would describe myself by God’s grace and leading, (rather than any choice of my own) as a Charismatic Anglican, but very probably not really an Evangelical. Another silly statement because all of these terms are so elastic these days they mean different things to different people. I would love to hug you as a brother if we could meet, but I don’t want to be put into the little doctrinal box you want for me. Been there, tried that, doesn’t work; for me at least. Another very long story.
God bless. Frank
Frank – thanks for your response. I was actually agreeing with your quotation (and didn’t find it wanting).
Based on the rest of what you have written – I’d like to know why (in your faith) did Christ have to be crucified? What that was all about? What it says about us?
Jock – apologies, it shows how easily misunderstandings can arise, since I obviously misconstrued your comment. Certainly I totally agree with the centrality and necessity of the Cross of Christ to our faith.
When I was a child it was the love Jesus showed for me on the Cross which drew me to him, only later as an adult did I begin understand more about atonement. It would be untrue to say Jesus was not with me until then, or that his atonement did not apply until I could understand it. He drew me with his love, was active in my life, and in due course, in his own time, gradually helped me to understand more deeply how it worked.
When I met folk for whom the atonement seemed (to me) merely an algabraic equation, I stumbled badly. They seemed to me to say as long as you got your theological algebra right, that was all that mattered, and for some time I lost my love for Jesus, became confused, and almost lost my faith. It took me several years to recover.
The Cross of Christ is paramount, but God applies it to our lives in different ways, we come to faith by different paths, God is bigger than our theology, and he can apply the forgiveness of the Cross to all who love Jesus and try to serve him, regardless of how well we understand the theological mechanics of how it works.
How does the Cross apply to Ezekiel and Elijah, to Anna and Simeon, and countless other Old Testament saints? Regardless of what inklings of revelation they may have had about the future Messiah, they cannot have had an in depth understanding of an atoning death which had not yet occurred, yet which in the grace of God applies to them retrospectively in accordance to their faith and loving service in response to whatever degree of revelation they had been given.
The Cross of Christ is central, but how God applies it to our varied lives is a different matter.
Frank – I am relieved to read this – and, by your sincere confession it is clear to me that you are in the number of the Saviour’s family.
You are (of course) correct that the Cross is applied to the lives of the faithful in different ways, you are (of course) correct there are those who have *not* been brought face to face in an explicit way with the crucifixion and what it is all about – who are nevertheless God’s people (and the OT examples of this that you give are good). I think we get some understanding of what the Old Testament saints believed through the interaction between Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch (in Acts 8). His question was ‘Who is this man?’
I think, though, that you must have seen (it is impossible to be unaware of it) that there is an awful lot of fake Christianity about, whereby my own personal sin, the radical evil within me which necessitated the cross – is completely absent – and I get somewhat alarmed when it seems to be airbrushed out of discussions between theologians – on any matter at all.
Frank – yes – I agree – we do have to do something to make it effective in our lives.
Surely, though, it is a moral impossibility for us *not* to do something to make it effective in our lives – if we really have come to trust in Him (and, consequently, have the Holy Spirit within us as a deposit guaranteeing what is to come).
So – really – it is the blood of Christ (and only the blood of Christ) that saves us.
Jock – bless you, I am sure we are in tune with the things that matter.