One of the biggest errors Pentecostals make is the way they view the Book of Acts. Traditionally, they see it as the record of the birth and growth of the Church, the body of Christ, that in it is found the doctrine and practice of the Church in its earliest and purest form, and that it is a spiritual storybook containing inspiring examples of what the Church might do if it but possessed the faith of the first century believers. For example, here's what one author says:
"The book of Acts is the story of early-day Christianity ... God has given us in the book of Acts a pattern of Christian testimony, missionary effort, world evangelism and building of Christian churches — a pattern which we would do well to follow. Certainly we can be assured of this: the closer we come to ordering all things according to this holy pattern, the greater blessing will attend our efforts."
There is a big problem with this, though. The Book of Acts presents a changing program, so how can the Church follow a pattern that keeps changing? Clearly progressive revelation must be taken into account!
Acts has appropriately been called "the book between", and regarding the structure of Scripture itself, fits perfectly between the four records of our Lord's earthly ministry and Paul's epistles. Far from being "the story of early-day Christianity," it is from beginning to end the account of the fall of the nation Israel. Acts explains, step by step, how and why the chosen nation had to be set aside and salvation sent to the Gentiles apart from them. For this reason, it is a record of successive crises: Pentecost, the stoning of Stephen, the conversion of Paul, the council at Jerusalem, etc...
I think Dean Howson explains this rather well:
"Perhaps the best way to see at a glance the value and significance of this book of the New Testament, would be to imagine the New Testament without the Acts of the Apostles. What a gulf would then be opened between the Gospels and the Epistles! ... What discrepancies, what oppositions would be found between the earlier books and the later!"
Or, to quote Sir Robert Anderson:
"Suppose again the Epistles were there, but the Acts of the Apostles left out, how startling would appear the heading 'To the Romans,' which would confront us on turning from the study of the Evangelists! How could we account for the transition involved? How could we explain the great thesis of the Epistles, that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile ...? The earlier Scriptures will be searched in vain for teaching such as this. Not the Old Testament merely but even the Gospels themselves are seemingly separated from the Epistles by a gulf. To bridge over the that gulf is the Divine purpose for which the Acts of the Apostles has been given to the Church. The earlier portion of the book is the completion of and sequel to the Gospels; its concluding narrative is introductory to the great revelation of Christianity."
The first large portion of Acts doesn't present Christianity at all. It presents Judaism. Too often it is forgotten that only Jews are dealt with in the first nine chapters of the book. The only difference between the apostles' position in the four Gospels and in early Acts was that that which was prophesied had been brought about. In fact, the kingdom which these apostles had proclaimed "at hand" during our Lord's earthly ministry, was then offered (Acts 3:19-21).
I believe Sir Robert Anderson was correct when he called the Book of Acts "a book which is primarily the record, not as commonly supposed, of the founding of the Christian Church, but of the apostasy of the favored nation" and that "the popular belief that the Jerusalem Church was Christian" is "fallacious," adding: "In fact it was thoroughly and altogether Jewish." Summing it all up, he says:
"In a word, if "To the Jew first" is characteristic of the Acts of the Apostles as a whole, "To the Jew only" is plainly stamped upon every part of these early chapters, described by theologians as the 'Hebraic section' of the book. The fact is clear as light. And if any are prepared to account for it by Jewish prejudice and ignorance, they may at once throw down this volume, for it is here assumed that the apostles of the Lord, speaking and acting in the memorable days of Pentecostal power, were Divinely guided in their work and testimony."
Therefore, if there is anything the Book of Acts makes perfectly clear, it's the fact that a big change has taken place since Pentecost. And rather than presenting a pattern for us to follow, explains why the program at that time has passed away and confirms what Paul says in his epistles — that the fulfillment of prophecy has, for the time being anyway, given way to the unfolding of the mystery of "His own purpose and grace" (Acts 28:17-31; Rom 11:1-36; 2 Tim 1:8-11).
"The book of Acts is the story of early-day Christianity ... God has given us in the book of Acts a pattern of Christian testimony, missionary effort, world evangelism and building of Christian churches — a pattern which we would do well to follow. Certainly we can be assured of this: the closer we come to ordering all things according to this holy pattern, the greater blessing will attend our efforts."
There is a big problem with this, though. The Book of Acts presents a changing program, so how can the Church follow a pattern that keeps changing? Clearly progressive revelation must be taken into account!
Acts has appropriately been called "the book between", and regarding the structure of Scripture itself, fits perfectly between the four records of our Lord's earthly ministry and Paul's epistles. Far from being "the story of early-day Christianity," it is from beginning to end the account of the fall of the nation Israel. Acts explains, step by step, how and why the chosen nation had to be set aside and salvation sent to the Gentiles apart from them. For this reason, it is a record of successive crises: Pentecost, the stoning of Stephen, the conversion of Paul, the council at Jerusalem, etc...
I think Dean Howson explains this rather well:
"Perhaps the best way to see at a glance the value and significance of this book of the New Testament, would be to imagine the New Testament without the Acts of the Apostles. What a gulf would then be opened between the Gospels and the Epistles! ... What discrepancies, what oppositions would be found between the earlier books and the later!"
Or, to quote Sir Robert Anderson:
"Suppose again the Epistles were there, but the Acts of the Apostles left out, how startling would appear the heading 'To the Romans,' which would confront us on turning from the study of the Evangelists! How could we account for the transition involved? How could we explain the great thesis of the Epistles, that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile ...? The earlier Scriptures will be searched in vain for teaching such as this. Not the Old Testament merely but even the Gospels themselves are seemingly separated from the Epistles by a gulf. To bridge over the that gulf is the Divine purpose for which the Acts of the Apostles has been given to the Church. The earlier portion of the book is the completion of and sequel to the Gospels; its concluding narrative is introductory to the great revelation of Christianity."
The first large portion of Acts doesn't present Christianity at all. It presents Judaism. Too often it is forgotten that only Jews are dealt with in the first nine chapters of the book. The only difference between the apostles' position in the four Gospels and in early Acts was that that which was prophesied had been brought about. In fact, the kingdom which these apostles had proclaimed "at hand" during our Lord's earthly ministry, was then offered (Acts 3:19-21).
I believe Sir Robert Anderson was correct when he called the Book of Acts "a book which is primarily the record, not as commonly supposed, of the founding of the Christian Church, but of the apostasy of the favored nation" and that "the popular belief that the Jerusalem Church was Christian" is "fallacious," adding: "In fact it was thoroughly and altogether Jewish." Summing it all up, he says:
"In a word, if "To the Jew first" is characteristic of the Acts of the Apostles as a whole, "To the Jew only" is plainly stamped upon every part of these early chapters, described by theologians as the 'Hebraic section' of the book. The fact is clear as light. And if any are prepared to account for it by Jewish prejudice and ignorance, they may at once throw down this volume, for it is here assumed that the apostles of the Lord, speaking and acting in the memorable days of Pentecostal power, were Divinely guided in their work and testimony."
Therefore, if there is anything the Book of Acts makes perfectly clear, it's the fact that a big change has taken place since Pentecost. And rather than presenting a pattern for us to follow, explains why the program at that time has passed away and confirms what Paul says in his epistles — that the fulfillment of prophecy has, for the time being anyway, given way to the unfolding of the mystery of "His own purpose and grace" (Acts 28:17-31; Rom 11:1-36; 2 Tim 1:8-11).
No comments:
Post a Comment