Acts | Knowable Word

Examples of Wrestling through the Prescriptive/Descriptive Debate

March 1, 2024 By Peter Krol

Last week, I brought up the debate that inevitably arises in a discussion of a narrative text: Is this passage prescribing something we should imitate (or avoid), or is it simply describing what the characters did in their setting? I proposed that we can often eliminate the need for such a debate if we focus on applying the passage’s main point. Commonly, the passage’s main point is clear enough to direct us in how to change; we don’t even need to decide whether a given detail or behavior in the text ought to be imitated or not.

Let me give two examples where the main point eliminates the debate (by rendering it irrelevant), and one example where it doesn’t.

Acts 15:36-16:5

In Acts 15:36-41, Paul and Barnabas have a sharp disagreement over whether to take John Mark with them on their second missionary journey. They cannot agree, so they split up and part ways. I’ve heard people use this passage to argue that parting ways is an unhealthy way to deal with conflict. And I’ve heard other people use this passage as an example of when parting ways is inevitable and perhaps even healthier than remaining together in constant strife.

So which is it? And it begs the question: Is this text even meant to prescribe a certain way of dealing with conflict (through either good or bad example), or is it simply describing what happened in the lives of those three men?

Notice that the narrative of this split comes immediately after the resolution of a major debate in the early church (whether Gentile converts to Christianity need to follow the law of Moses) and the delivery of the council’s verdict (Acts 15:1-35). And the very next scene (Acts 16:1-5) shows Paul circumcising a new protege on account of local Jewish sensibilities and the knowledge of Timothy’s Greek lineage on his father’s side (Acts 16:3). The narrator connects Timothy’s circumcision quite closely with the delivery of the Jerusalem council’s decision in that region (Acts 16:4).

That literary flow and context is a major factor leading me to conclude that the main point of Acts 15:36-16:5 is that the growth of Christ’s kingdom cannot be stopped, even when leaders must make trade offs in partners (Acts 15:36-41) and practices (Acts 16:1-5). In other words, partners and practices can change, but the grace of Jesus Christ remains the same.

So is the Paul/Barnabas split prescriptive or descriptive? In light of the main point, it’s both. And neither. The point of the text is not to provide direction on whether you ought to leave your church or split up a partnership (perhaps by demonstrating what sort of circumstances would warrant a split). The point of the text is to provide larger assurance that many things will change (and should change!) in service of the unchanging gospel of Jesus Christ.

So maybe you should leave your situation and maybe you shouldn’t. But maybe an even more important question this text wants you to ask is whether you (and not your environment) should change. Or your methods should change. Or your expectations or objectives. We don’t need to answer the prescriptive/descriptive question in order to apply this text in personal and profound ways.

Jonah 3

The prophet Jonah, fresh off his three-night stay inside a 5-star seaside resort, finally makes his way to Nineveh to preach what God commanded him to preach. His message is direct and to the point: “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” (Jonah 3:4). Is that the sort of message God’s preachers ought to be preaching to the church’s enemies?

Maybe. And maybe not. But perhaps that’s not the question this text pushes us to ask.

Jonah 3 tells the story of a salvation too strange for satire. It could not be more extreme. Jonah gets spit up by the fish. He walks only a third of the way into the bad guys’ HQ, preaching a single sentence of judgment (with neither an offer of mercy nor a demand for repentance). The response is immediate and ridiculously unlikely: All people repent. Word gets ahead of Jonah to the palace. The king immediately halts all civil operations and declares a national mourning. Even the livestock must wear itchy clothes and join the public prayer meetings.

The plot builds to the climax of verse 9: “Who knows? Maybe, just maybe God will relent.”

As the plot conflict finally resolves, God sees what the Ninevites have done, and he does, in fact, relent. He doesn’t do what he said he would do.

The main idea is that God saves the wrong kind of people. It has nothing to do with the merits of the people, the message itself, or the preacher who delivered it. It has everything to do with the God who loads his gun with mercy and keeps it on a hair-trigger setting.

So is Jonah’s preaching style and message prescriptive or descriptive? It really doesn’t matter, because the point is not to instruct God’s people in how to preach to their enemies. The point is to paint a dramatic and outrageous picture of God’s proclivity to show mercy. When we apply that main point, we might draw implications for preaching or evangelism. But it is not crucial that we figure out how to do (or avoid) what Jonah did.

Acts 2

And now for a closing example where the main point does not sideline the prescriptive/descriptive question. Should churches speak in tongues like the apostles on the Day of Pentecost, or not? Is the text prescribing such behavior, or is it simply describing a unique thing that happened that day?

In Acts 2:1-4, the proclamation of God’s works in different languages provides a sign that the Holy Spirit has come upon the disciples. The body of the chapter is organized by the answers to two questions:

What does this mean? – Acts 2:5-13
- Peter’s answer – Acts 2:14-36
What shall we do? – Acts 2:37
- Peter’s answer – Acts 2:38-40

Then a narrative conclusion exhibits the new creation community launched that day (Acts 2:41-47).

This structure emphasizes the Q&A that makes up the body of the chapter, where Peter explains what all the stuff happening in the narrative frame means. And the main point of that explanation is that the arrival of God’s Spirit is proof that Jesus is the King who has made salvation possible.

So, is the disciples’ speaking in tongues prescriptive or descriptive? This time, I can’t say that the question is beside the point. One person could argue that speaking in tongues is prescribed as a way of proving to people today that Jesus is the King who has made salvation possible. Another person could argue that speaking in tongues is no longer necessary; that unique event provided the proof that Jesus is the King who has made salvation possible. But both of those perspectives are trying their best to faithfully apply the main point.

Please note: I am not saying (and I wasn’t saying in the previous examples) that the main point answers the prescriptive/descriptive question. In the first two examples, I was saying only that the author’s main point makes the question irrelevant and unnecessary. In this third example, the main point actually makes the prescriptive/descriptive question highly relevant.

Much more work needs to be done in context, correlation, systematic and biblical theology to answer the question of speaking in tongues in Acts 2. But the main point confirms that the question itself is well worth asking.

Conclusion

Much of the time, it is not necessary for us to figure out whether particular behaviors in a text are prescriptive or descriptive. The text’s main point reveals an agenda to produce change in some other area, and we should focus on that area instead of our prescriptive/descriptive question. In these situations, when someone asks whether a narrative detail is prescriptive or descriptive, we can sidestep the question by asking instead: What’s the author’s main point?

But in a few cases, a text’s main point confirms the crucial importance of the prescriptive/descriptive question, and our time seeking to answer the question is well spent.

The Treasure: Introducing Children to the Faith

September 15, 2023 By Peter Krol

Marty Machowski has developed quite a body of educational and devotional works for children. I’m quite a fan of The Gospel Story for Kids curriculum, which my church uses, along with The Gospel Story Bible, which covers a wide variety of Bible stories beautifully.

So I was eager to see his new work taking children through the books of Luke and Acts: The Treasure: Ancient Story Ever New of Jesus and His Church. I’m grateful to New Growth Press for providing a review copy in exchange for an honest review.

What It Is

The Treasure is largely a devotional work, but not in the sense of providing a lesson plan or list of discussion questions. It’s more of a storybook Bible with devotional entries providing something to reflect on in light of Scripture readings.

Interspersed throughout are 12 chapters of an original story. A pair of young siblings growing up on a Greek isle discover some old journals reflecting on the teachings of Luke and Acts.

The physical book holds the same high production quality I’ve come to expect from New Growth Press’s children’s works. It’s larger size is on par with The Gospel Story Bible and The Radical Book for Kids. The thick semi-glossy paper gives the book quite a bit of heft, making it delightful to hold and read aloud. The cover and binding are strong and sturdy.

What It Does Well

This book provides a clear and accessible introduction to the Christian faith through the lens of Luke and Acts. For that reason, it’s not exhaustive or doctrinally thorough. But it does what a storybook Bible does best: It tells the “ancient story ever new.”

The devotions in these pages walk straight through Luke and Acts, covering topics as they arise in the text. Each devotion has a Scripture reading, followed by a one-page reflection on something from the passage, always connecting it to the story of Christ and to his children today.

For example, in one entry, we’re told to read Luke 5:17-26 (Jesus healing a paralytic after forgiving his sins). Then Machowski’s comments talk about how someone could prove their physical strength by lifting a 300-pound barbell in front of their friends. Then he describes how Jesus did something even more amazing by healing the lame man to prove his ability to forgive sins.

The main divisions of The Treasure follow the literary divisions of Luke and Acts. So the contours of the Scripture drive the ebbs and flows of Machowski’s reflections.

The original story about the Greek children was my favorite part of the book, as Machowski tells a charming tale of their search for hidden treasure. Though the story’s climax comes across a little contrived—the character development to that point did not quite support it—the story remains engaging to the end.

What Could Be Better

I chose to review this book because I’m always interested in children’s resources that claim to help children study the Bible. From the back cover: “In The Treasure, Marty Machowski weaves a Bible study of the books of Luke and Acts with a fictional story.” And I’ve really loved Machowski’s prior devotional works. I was eager to see what he did here with Luke and Acts.

And I want to reiterate what I wrote above: This book provides a clear and accessible introduction to the Christian faith through the lens of Luke and Acts.

But with that said, I must be honest that Machowski does not quite succeed at the promise of providing a Bible study of Luke and Acts. I would describe the book as a series of devotional, theological reflections on some things inspired by the text of Luke and Acts. It does not actually provide a Bible study of Luke and Acts.

For example, the entry on Acts 15:36-16:5 reflects on the nature of conflict and how nobody is perfect. But it fails to explain the role played by the separation of Paul and Barnabas in Luke’s narrative agenda.

For another example, the entry on Luke 3:1-20 spends nearly as much time discussing John’s account of the Baptist’s ministry as the account at hand in Luke. This pattern is common: Machowski quickly bounces from Luke or Acts out to numerous cross-references that speak further on the theological topic under consideration. All to the detriment of providing and understanding of Luke’s own message.

Conclusion

I am delighted to have and to have read The Treasure. As a child’s introduction to Christianity through the lens of Luke and Acts, it succeeds marvelously. But as a child’s Bible study of Luke and Acts, it is less than could be hoped for. I’m happy to recommend it as a primer on the story and doctrines of Jesus Christ. But if you’re looking for a way to strengthen your children’s grasp of the books of Luke and Acts, you may need to supplement what you find here.

You can find it Amazon, Westminster, or New Growth.

Disclaimer: As you go searching for treasure, you should know that external links are affiliate links. You will provide some small treasure to this blog when you click them. We are grateful for your support.

Sample Sermon on Acts 27

September 17, 2021 By Peter Krol

A few weeks ago, I described the process by which I came to a richer understanding of the structure and main point of Paul’s shipwreck narrative in Acts 27, thanks to the help of my colleague Tom Hallman. Well, Tom just preached his sermon on that text this past Sunday, and I think he knocked it out of the park. Some of you might be interested in seeing how he did it.

Here is a link to the audio of the sermon. (We don’t record video for sermons.) Sadly, the sermon’s introduction was lost, so the recording begins with the reading of the first portion of the text. But the sermon is still worth your time, if you’re so inclined to see how this opaque text can be taught compellingly using the essential tools of OIA study.

As you listen, you’ll want to make sure to have a map handy so you can visualize the narrated events. Here is a free one for your convenience.

Photo credit: Sweet Publishing / FreeBibleimages.org, Creative Commons

What Should We Make of Paul’s Shipwreck Narrative?

September 3, 2021 By Peter Krol

When our church’s team of preachers decided to preach through Acts, I knew chapter 27 would be a doozy (notice how I cleverly ignored this chapter in my interpretive overview of Acts). I have always been confused by this chapter and its role within the book, and though I’m sure compelling sermons have been preached on this text, I have yet to hear one of them. I’m used to hearing otherwise fantastic preachers punt on this chapter, in the name of practicality, to talk about “weathering the storms of our spiritual lives.” So the extraordinarily detailed travelogue of Acts 27 is reduced to a parable and a few minor observations (typically surrounding verses 23-25) seeking to inspire us toward deeper trust in Christ—a wonderful thing to be inspired toward, of course!

Therefore, since I’m in charge of managing our sermon schedule, I made sure to assign Acts 27 to someone else. Pro tip: When you don’t know what to do with a text, require a friend or colleague to deal with it instead. This resulted in one of the most exciting “aha!” moments in my Bible study this year.

A Key Structural Observation

The ~~sucker~~ fortunate fellow to receive the assignment was a good man and marvelous student of the word named Tom Hallman. Tom eagerly set himself to observe the text inside and out, to give him the raw materials for a series of interpretive questions. Our practice is that our team of preachers gives feedback on every sermon before it is preached. We collaborate in two phases: the study of the passage and the delivery of the sermon. So in that first phase, Tom regularly laid before us the fruit of his study for comment and evaluation.

And Tom made a key structural observation that shed tremendous light on the passage for me. In following the narrative’s plot, Tom observed that the main conflict centers on the centurion’s failure to listen to Paul’s counsel in Acts 27:11. This led Tom to recognize a few arcs within the plot:

Acts 27:9-20: Paul speaks, and the centurion pays more attention to others. The result is that all hope of being saved is abandoned.
Acts 27:21-44: Paul speaks, and the Romans start listening to him. The result is that all are brought safely to land.

These observations of the primary narrative tension and its accompanying resolution gave us hope that we could sift through the flood of details to discern the author’s main point in this chapter.

Further Dialogue

As we discussed it further and kept staring at the text to observe it more closely, we eventually realized that there were not two arcs but three. Paul actually makes three sizable speeches (Acts 27:10, 21-26, 33-34). He also speaks in Acts 27:31, but that briefer statement does not have the same appearance of introducing a new scene. It is a response to what’s happening in the moment (Acts 27:30).

So we’ve actually got three main speeches from Paul. Do we correspondingly have a clear resolution with each one, to make three complete arcs? This question drove us back into the text.

And sure enough, there it was. So plain and obvious we couldn’t believe we had missed it or ever believed this passage to be opaque to us.

Acts 27:9-20: Paul speaks, and the centurion pays more attention to others. The result is that all hope of being saved is abandoned.
Acts 27:21-32: Paul speaks, and no-one immediately rejects him. But eventually the soldiers heed him. (The centurion and soldiers both hear Paul’s words in Acts 27:31, but only the soldiers are mentioned as acting on them in Acts 27:32.) There is no immediate “salvation,” but only a sense of “let’s wait and see; we hope this works.”
Acts 27:33-44: Paul speaks, and all are encouraged and choose to eat (Acts 27:36). The result is that the centurion has heard enough, and he now wishes to save Paul (Acts 27:43). “And so it was that all were brought safely to land” (Acts 27:44).

These three arcs showed us that the primary tension revolves around whether the Roman centurion (prominent enough to be named in the text—Acts 27:1,3) will listen to Paul or not. And in particular: Will he listen to Paul with respect to salvation? This salvation goes in two directions: Paul wants to save the centurion—along with everyone else on the ship; the centurion, in the end, wishes to save Paul.

In the first arc, Julius will not listen to Paul, and all hope is lost. In the second arc, the soldiers listen to Paul, and it is as though the centurion is watching and deliberating before rendering judgment on this most unusual prisoner. In the third arc, the centurion fully listens to Paul and doesn’t want him to die.

Conclusions About the Text

I’m not weirded out by this chapter any more. It fits cleanly within the book’s main idea that the world’s salvation cannot be stopped. It also masterfully advances Luke’s primary agenda to petition for Paul’s exoneration before Caesar. “Julius was uncertain at first, and unwilling to listen to Paul. But he has been convinced that this Paul is who he says he is, and he refuses to let anyone execute him. Caesar: Why wouldn’t you do the same?”

And not only that, but Acts 27 also serves Luke’s secondary purpose to lead all of Abraham’s children to salvation through the Savior, who is Christ the Lord. “Julius was uncertain at first, and unwilling to listen to Paul. But many have been convinced that this Jesus, whom Paul preaches, is who he says he is. Don’t just stand there watching others listen and find rescue. Noble reader: Why wouldn’t you do the same?”

Conclusions About Our Study Methods

If Luke can have two simultaneous purposes in mind, so can I. While I wanted to help you observe and interpret Acts 27 along with me, I also wanted you to see how I got there. And the events that took place this past week in my dialogues with Tom highlight a few conclusions. First, Bible study needs to be a community project. Second, structure conveys meaning. And third, the most important tool for observing the structure of a narrative episode is plot structure.

Acts: The World’s Salvation Cannot be Stopped

February 26, 2021 By Peter Krol

Luke’s first volume to the Roman official Theophilus was all about how the world’s salvation, hoped for by generations of Israelites, had arrived in Jesus. Luke’s second volume continues the narrative, describing the many things Jesus continued to do and teach (Acts 1:1). This book especially highlights the many things that should have brought an end to the Jesus movement, were it not from God (Acts 5:38-39), not the least of which is the list of charges being brought by the Jewish leadership against the Apostle Paul (Acts 24:5-6).

Image by PublicDomainPictures from Pixabay

Literary Markers

Many have observed the structure of Acts to be based largely on geography, with Acts 1:8 delineating the sections: “…you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

So the book roughly gets divided accordingly (here is an example):

Jerusalem – Acts 1:1-8:3
Judea and Samaria – Acts 8:4-12:25
Ends of the earth – Acts 13-28
- Paul’s first missionary journey – Acts 13:1-15:35
- Pauls’ second missionary journey – Acts 15:36-18:22
- Paul’s third missionary journey – Acts 18:23-21:17
- Paul’s voyage to Rome – Acts 21:18-28:31

This geographical breakdown makes a lot of sense, and can certainly be helpful for visualizing the narrative. My chief concern with it is that it doesn’t follow closely on the literary markers. To give one clear example: The end of Paul’s second “journey” (Acts 18:22) and beginning of his third (Acts 18:23) has no literary fanfare whatsoever. No closure. No sense of climax and resolution. Nothing to signal the end of one unit of thought and the beginning of another. It’s as though Luke didn’t intend a break there, or a new section to begin at Acts 18:23.

I’ve been helped by the observation numerous other commentators (John Stott, William Taylor, etc.) have made, that the chief literary markers in the book of Acts are the narrative statements summarizing the Christian movement’s growth. There are seven such statements scattered through the book (Acts 2:47, 6:7, 9:31, 12:24, 16:5, 19:20, 28:30-31), and every one is accompanied by a tangible sense of narrative resolution, giving us good reason to see them as marking Luke’s main units of thought. (Here are two posts to help you identify units of thought in biblical literature.) Acts 5:14 appears at first to be another example of a narrative summary of growth, but it clearly falls within a narrative episode and isn’t accompanied by a clear narrative resolution.

These seven markers, summaries at the end of their units, divide the book into seven sections. (Daniel Wallace does a great job highlighting the value of both ways of structuring Acts—geographical divisions and narrative summary divisions—in this analysis.)

Walkthrough

Each of the book’s seven sections highlights a particular obstacle or state of affairs that threatens the fledgling Jesus movement. And the dramatic tension and climax of each section shows the movement overcoming the obstacle in such a way as to precipitate even further growth. This movement simply cannot be stopped.

The first section (Acts 1:1-2:47) highlights the absence of Jesus. Though he departs and ascends to heaven, he leaves them with the promises of a kingdom and his Spirit (Acts 1:3-5). They know they’ll need to refill their “twelveness” in order to live out their identity as a new kingdom, a new Israel (Acts 1:15-26). They then receive the Spirit and begin to proclaim the kingdom (Acts 2). Despite the absence of Jesus, God adds to their number daily (Acts 2:47).

The second section (Acts 3:1-6:7) highlights the pressure of pain, both internal and external. The external pain of persecution (Acts 3:1-4:31) yields to the internal pain of deceit and treachery (Acts 4:32-5:11). More external pain from persecution (Acts 5:12-42) leads into further internal pain of having to manage affairs within such a rapidly growing community (Acts 6:1-7). Despite the pain, both external and internal, the Word of God increases, and even priests obey the faith (Acts 6:7).

The third section (Acts 6:8-9:31) highlights the inconsistency of results. How might Luke speak into our preoccupation with ministry results in our day? Sometimes you face unjust martyrdom at the hands of stiff-necked religious resistance (Acts 6:8-8:3). And sometimes you’ll find unpredictable acclaim with true religious seekers (Acts 8:4-40). And yet other times, you’ll witness the most unlikely of conversions that show off the riches of grace and the perfection of Christ’s patience (Acts 9:1-31). Yet despite the inconsistency of results, peace and edification are available to those who fear the Lord and receive the Spirit’s comfort (Acts 9:31).

The fourth section (Acts 9:32-12:24) highlights the ubiquity of prejudice. Even the most effective Christ-imitating leaders (Acts 9:32-43) must root out their own prejudices (Acts 10:1-48) and help others do the same (Acts 11:1-18). Those who do, in fact, root it out experience uncanny unity and remarkable reputation (Acts 11:19-30). Those who do not join the fellowship of worms (Acts 12:1-24). Despite the ubiquity of prejudice, the word of God still increases and multiplies (Acts 12:24).

The fifth section (Acts 12:25-16:5) highlights the weakness of leadership. The Spirit of God appoints and commissions those whom he wills to further his mission (Acts 12:25-13:4). They proclaim the word, not as innovators, but as simply building on those who came before (Acts 13:5-52, compare with Peter’s sermon in Acts 2). They learn boldness, but are continuously beat down through much tribulation (Acts 14:1-28). They don’t have all the answers, but often disagree and have to work with others to solve thorny issues (Acts 15:1-35). And sometimes they can’t even work out their problems and must separate (Acts 15:36-16:5). Yet it’s uncanny: Despite the extensive and visible weakness of our leaders, the churches are strengthened in faith and increase in numbers daily (Acts 16:5).

The sixth section (Acts 16:6-19:20) highlights the opposition of the world (perhaps the rise of cancel culture?). We’ve already seen opposition in this book (especially in sections two and five), but here it takes center stage. Though God is preparing people who want the help of the gospel (Acts 16:6-10), many more will still feel threatened by it, whether on account of the cost (Acts 16:16-24), the embarrassment (Acts 16:35-40), the jealousy (Acts 17:1-15), the perceived lack of intellectual sophistication (Acts 17:16-34), the violation of sacred tradition (Acts 18:1-17), the stubbornness of unbelief (Acts 19:8-10), or the seduction of counterfeits (Acts 19:11-20). Yet despite the world’s onslaught of opposition, there remain many who receive the word, which prevails mightily (Acts 19:20).

The seventh section (Acts 19:21-28:31) is the lengthiest, perhaps because Luke really homes in on Paul’s innocence and defense in these chapters. This section highlights the utter failure of politics and politicians, including religious politicians. Paul resolves to go to Rome (Acts 19:21), though he knows not yet what it will cost him. The Ephesian town clerks fail to prevent a riot or vindicate Paul’s innocence in the matter (Acts 19:23-41). Paul makes preparations for leaders to lead in his absence (Acts 20:17-38). His friends along the way to Jerusalem cannot understand his mission or calling to Rome (Acts 21:1-16). The plan of the Jerusalem elders backfires (Acts 21:17-36). Paul makes five defenses—before the Jerusalem crowd (Acts 22), the Sanhedrin (Acts 23), Governor Felix (Acts 24), Governor Festus (Acts 25), and King Herod Agrippa (Acts 26). Though Paul is clearly innocent of the charges (Acts 24:5-6), and the leaders repeatedly declare him to be so, not one of them has the courage, will, or cunning to actually release him. Yet despite the ineptitude and failure of politics and politicians, the kingdom of God continues to be preached with all boldness and without hindrance (Acts 28:31).

Conclusion

The book of Acts is a masterpiece. Luke’s probable goal of exonerating Paul does not preclude an alternative purpose of winning readers to Christ. If this was on Paul’s mind, even while having to defend himself legally (Acts 26:29), why couldn’t it also be on Luke’s? At the same time, this book serves as a tremendous encouragement to all who have cast their lot with this Jesus movement. The challenges of today are not all that different from the challenges our brothers and sisters of old had to face. And if the world’s salvation delivered through the gospel of Christ’s kingdom could not be stopped then…

Interpretive Outline

The world’s salvation (available in the kingdom of Jesus) cannot be stopped by:

The absence of Jesus – Acts 1:1-2:47
The pressure of pain, whether external or internal – Acts 3:1-6:7
The inconsistency of results – Acts 6:8-9:31
The ubiquity of prejudice – Acts 9:32-12:24
The weakness of leadership – Acts 12:25-16:5
The opposition of the world – Acts 16:6-19:20
The failure of politics and politicians – Acts 19:21-28:31

This post is part of a series of interpretive overviews of the books of the Bible.

Acts 4 and 5: Similar Narratives with Distinct Emphases

January 15, 2021 By Peter Krol

“If your observation is poor, your interpretation won’t be any better.” Acts 4 and Acts 5 provide a good case study to illustrate this mantra of mine.

These two chapters of Acts (or, to be specific, Acts 4:5-31 and Acts 5:17-42) appear quite similar on the surface. In both episodes:

Jesus’ apostles draw crowds for doing miraculous signs and wonders (Acts 3:11-12, 5:14-16).
The high priest and his associates imprison Jesus’ apostles for preaching and healing (Acts 4:1-3, 5:17-18).
There is a hearing with testimony from the “offenders” (Acts 4:5-7, 5:27-28).
The apostles are compelled to bear witness to the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus (Acts 4:10-12, 5:30-32).
The priests warn the apostles to speak no longer in this name (Acts 4:18, 5:40).
The apostles contrast obedience to the priests with obedience to God (Acts 4:19-20, 5:29).
The apostles end up more motivated and more courageous to continue their proclamation (Acts 4:31, 5:41-42).

Because of these similarities, teachers and small group leaders may feel stuck when studying Acts. Should we skip over the second episode? Should we repeat the same lesson and applications? How do we prevent the study from feeling like deja vu for participants? What more can we cover the second time ’round that we didn’t address the first time?

When a biblical narrator repeats similar ideas in this way, especially in such quick succession, he may have numerous reasons for doing so. One reason could be simply to establish a matter on the testimony of two witnesses (Deut 19:15). But in almost every case, the narrator also gives clues that he has a different point to make with each episode. We can use the same skills we employ to avoid unhelpful harmonization to grasp Luke’s points in these two chapters of Acts. Let’s hear each episode and observe them doggedly.

Plot Structure to the Rescue in Acts 4

Since we’re dealing with narratives, one of the most useful tools is that of plot structure. Let’s go back over each of the two scenes with the concepts of conflict, climax, and resolution in mind. To keep things somewhat focused, I’ll be looking only at the arrest/hearing scenes and not the healing scenes that provoked them.

In chapter 4, Acts 4:5-6 describe the setting. The conflict (tangible narrative tension) enters in Acts 4:7, when the priests ask, “By what power or by what name did you do this [heal the man lame since birth and proclaim resurrection from the dead]?” The chief conflict here is the conflict between names, which represent both delegated authority and factual power. What is the name that gives you either the ability (power) or the right (authority) to do these things?

Luke masterfully foreshadows this conflict of authoritative names even as he establishes the setting: “…with Annas the high priest and Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of the high-priestly family” (Acts 4:6). Do you see what he did there? Do you see how sneaky he was in getting you to consider all those powerful and authoritative names?

The tension only increases as Peter tackles the question head-on:

“by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth…” (Acts 4:10)
“there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12)

The wannabe Names, however, can’t have any of this. Luke narrates twice their resolve to prohibit proclamation in this unapproved name of Jesus (Acts 4:17, 18). They then release Peter, John, and the formerly lame man, but the narrative hasn’t climaxed yet. The question remains unresolved: Which name will prove to be the true power here?

It is only after the disciples return to their friends (Acts 4:23), pray together to the Sovereign Lord who made heaven, earth, and sea (Acts 4:24), and ask him to embolden them even while continuing his signs and wonders through the name of his holy servant Jesus (Acts 4:29-30)—only then does the conflict finally resolve. At this profession of complete trust in the name of Jesus, the place where they had gathered was shaken, and the Holy Spirit fills hem afresh with a new measure of boldness (Acts 4:31). The shaking and the Spirit are narrative evidences that they’ve been clinging to the right name. That the power of this name to preach the resurrection cannot be stopped by a few pretenders to the Jewish priesthood. What were their names again?

Luke’s emphasis in this first scene, evident through the nature of the narrative conflict and climax, is on the vindication and authority of the name of Jesus over that of the Jewish priests.

Plot Structure in Acts 5

The conflict, climax, and resolution of Acts 5 take us in quite a different direction.

Acts 5:17-18 provide the setting, where a jealous High Priest & Co. (unnamed!) locks up the apostles. And not only Peter and John this time, but, presumably, all of them. Yes, there is implicit conflict in both the jealousy and the arrest itself. But the actual narrative conflict arises in Acts 5:19-20, when an angel shows up to bust his boys out of the slammer. The priests want them in prison; the angel (and, in light of what follows, we can add: God) wants them in the temple. The conflict: Where do you want these guys to be?

The tension increases (hilariously) the next day as the priests send for their prisoners for interrogation, and they can’t find them (Acts 5:21b-25)! Nobody remembers seeing them leave, and the cells remain locked. They were so careful to place these troublemakers just so, but then they went and lost their prisoners!

They hear of the apostles’ presence in the temple (incidentally, isn’t it the priests’ job to be there?), and resolve to bring them back in. But they must do so with much sensitivity and caution, lest they get themselves killed by the crowd (Acts 5:26). Luke strongly suggests that the apostles could have resisted this re-arrest, had they chosen to stay put in the temple, and the temple officers could have done nothing to physically apprehend them. The priests are clearly losing their ability to contain these unruly preachers.

I’ll simplify my analysis by suggesting that the conflict is finally reversed (i.e. reaches its climax) in Acts 5:39, where Gamaliel’s advice is simply to trust God to decide which movements he wants to grow or demolish. The priests take his advice (Acts 5:39b), but not really (Acts 5:40). They still want to have some control over deciding when and where this Christian movement can operate. And their intimidation has the opposite effect to what they intend (Acts 5:41-42).

Conclusion

All you need to do is set aside your familiarity and take a closer look. Observe, observe, observe. Take note, especially in narrative, of the details of conflict, rising action, climax, and resolution. As you do, the distinct emphases of similar episodes will surface themselves.

Then you can teach or lead discussions on Acts 4 and Acts 5 without covering exactly the same ground. First (Acts 4), you talk about the only name that has the authority to forgive and the power to heal. Then (Acts 5), you explore the fact that opposition to this name will want to contain it but never succeed.

But if your observation is poor, your interpretation won’t be any better.

How Structure Communicates Meaning in Acts 2

December 11, 2020 By Peter Krol

I’ve written before about how to observe structure and how structure conveys meaning. In this post, I’d like to give a practical example, in Acts 2.

Resist Familiarity

Familiarity is the greatest enemy of observation. When we presume to already know a text, we tend to stop listening to it. In the case of Acts 2, our familiarity may perhaps blind us with the dramatic theological import of what takes place. The Day of Pentecost. The coming of the Holy Spirit. The new creation, heaven on earth, God dwelling with men. Absolutely, these matters are weighty and earth-shattering, and they deserve intense reflection.

But the student of Scripture who wishes to observe the text and hear God’s voice clearly in it will ask: What is the narrator’s chief message here? And a cursory look reveals only four verses dedicated to describing the phenomenon of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4). Most of the narrative takes us elsewhere. In narrative terms, the coming of the Spirit in Acts 2:1-4 basically provides the setting for the discussion that follows. (I do not intend to minimize the theological importance of what happens in Acts 2:1-4; I’m only observing the literary shape of the text.)

Basic Structure

After the narrative introduction of Acts 2:1-4, the rest of the chapter describes the fallout. And the narrator structures that fallout around two main questions:

Men from “every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5-11) ask: What does this mean (Acts 2:12-13)?
- Peter answers this question at length (Acts 2:14-36).
The foreigners follow up with a second question (Acts 2:37): What shall we do?
- Peter answers this question briefly, at least as far as the narrative is concerned (Acts 2:38-40). At the time, this answer was also lengthy (Acts 2:40).

After this two-part Q&A, there is a narrative conclusion (Acts 2:41-47).

So a broad outline of the chapter would look like this:

A The descending Spirit
B What does this mean?
B’ What shall we do?
A’ The resulting community

A Closer Look

A closer look at these sections shows the first Q&A getting the most space, by far (32 verses). The narrator has done us a service by breaking this section down into subunits for us.

Verses 5-13 list the nations in attendance and lead to the big question itself: What does this mean (Acts 2:12)?

Peter’s speech divides into three units, each marked by a direct address: “Men of Judea” (Acts 2:14), “Men of Israel” (Acts 2:22), and “Brothers” (Acts 2:29). In each of the three sections, following the direct address, Peter makes a clear point and then supports that point with an Old Testament quotation.

Men of Judea – Acts 2:14
- This is what Joel predicted – Acts 2:14-16
  - Quote from Joel 2 – Acts 2:17-21
Men of Israel – Acts 2:22
- The crucified Jesus has been raised – Acts 2:22-24
  - Quote from Psalm 16 – Acts 2:25-28
Brothers – Acts 2:29
- The risen Jesus is on his throne – Acts 2:29-34
  - Quote from Psalm 110 – Acts 2:34-35

The only part of the speech that falls outside the pattern is the last verse, which highlights this sentence as perhaps the most prominent part of the speech. Here is the conclusion Peter’s three points are driving toward:

Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.
Acts 2:36

Because this concluding sentence stands outside the threefold pattern of the rest of the speech, it is given such prominence as to almost be a distinct unit itself. And in light of the entire chapter, we see the author’s main idea right here, at the center of the structure:

A The descending Spirit
B What does this mean?
C God has made this Jesus both Lord and Christ
B’ What shall we do?
A’ The resulting community

Peter’s Argument

Follow Peter’s argument in his first, lengthy speech. You have heard us speaking in your native tongues, right? That means God’s Spirit has been poured out on us, like Joel said. That means the Messiah has poured the Spirit out on us. That means the Messiah was given the Spirit by the Father. That means the Messiah is seated at the Father’s right hand. That means he ascended into heaven. That means he’s not dead, but was raised by God. That is the same JESUS you killed by enlisting pagans who don’t care about the law of Moses. We saw him ourselves and testify to these things. Stop doing what you’re doing (repent) and publicly pledge allegiance to him as Lord and Christ (be baptized).

Conclusion

The structure of this chapter suggests a few things about Luke’s intentions in this narrative:

His intention for Theophilus is not as much to teach about the coming of the Spirit, in itself, but to communicate the meaning of his coming and the response of individuals and communities.
The meaning of the Spirit’s coming is not primarily about the ability of a believing individual to commune directly with God (though that is certainly a result of the Spirit’s coming, unpacked in other passages), but more so about the testimony to Jesus as both Lord and Christ.
The proper response to the Spirit’s coming is not primarily to seek particular ecstatic manifestations of his presence, but to call on Jesus to be saved (Acts 2:21), to repent and be baptized to pledge allegiance to his new kingdom community (Acts 2:38), and to submit every aspect of the Christian community to Jesus’ true lordship (Acts 2:41-47).

There is much theology we can develop from Acts 2, but let’s allow the narrator’s own structure and argument to guide our interpretation of the text, showing us where he wants us to focus our interpretive efforts.

Literary Markers in Acts

December 4, 2020 By Peter Krol

I’m beginning to study the book of Acts (following upon my study of Luke over the last year), and I’m struck by a great insight into the book’s structure. This insight was not my own, but was something I read in works by both William Taylor (affiliate link) and Daniel Wallace.

That insight is that the book of Acts has exactly seven narrative summary statements regarding the growth of the church: Acts 2:47, 6:7, 9:31, 12:24, 16:5, 19:20, 28:30-31. And these statements are not simply throwaway transitional statements, but they appear to be concluding statements to mark the main divisions of the book.

Check it out for yourself and consider these statements and the alleged divisions they mark. The material they conclude (for example, 1:1-2:47, 3:1-6:7, 6:8-9:31, etc.) does generally appear to hang together thematically.

I should say that Daniel Wallace is clear that this is only one way the narrator structures the book of Acts. It also could be structured geographically, in expanding circles from Jerusalem and then by Paul’s missionary journeys.

But I must say, this seven-fold structure to Acts helps me to make sense of some strange results of a purely geographical way of outlining the book. For example, the narrative moves seamlessly from the end of Paul’s second journey and into his third (Acts 18:22-23). It just doesn’t seem reasonable to proclaim a major division in the book between those verses. The demarcation is much clearer between Acts 19:20 and Acts 19:21 (that latter verse introduces, for the first time, Paul’s commitment to go to Rome, which carries him through the rest of the book).

Have you noticed this sevenfold structure to Acts? Do you think a different set of literary markers suggests a different structure for the book? Structure is one of the most important tools to help us grasp the overall message and argument of a book, so it’s worth it to observe it closely!

When “Literal” Interpretation is Not as Straightforward as it Seems

October 30, 2019 By Peter Krol

Michael Heiser makes a helpful point in his article on “How to (Mis)Interpret Prophecy”:

“There’s no shortage of advice on how to interpret the Bible. One maxim … advises, “When the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense.” I’ve heard it quoted when it comes to biblical prophecy—encouraging people to interpret literally, at face value. Although that sounds like good advice, some New Testament writers didn’t get the memo.

Heiser then analyzes James’s use of Amos 9 in the Jerusalem council, recorded in Acts 15, where James (and Luke, the narrator) appears to take a non-literal approach to the fulfillment of Amos’s prophecy.

There are textual and translation issues involved as well, which Heiser briefly sorts out. But Heiser does well with this example to show us that “Interpreting biblical prophecy cannot be distilled to a simple maxim, and everything cannot be taken literally. The New Testament shows us otherwise.”

Check it out!

Who Was Theophilus?

August 16, 2019 By Peter Krol

Luke addresses his two-part history of the early Christian movement to a man named Theophilus.

…it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:3-4)
In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach… (Acts 1:1)

Who was this person, and how does knowing help us to understand the purpose of Luke and Acts?

Nonspecific Address

The early church father Origen (ca. 185-254) was the first to suggest that “Theophilus” was not a particular individual, but simply a way of addressing all believers. The name literally means “lover of God,” and therefore could become a pseudonym for all Christians everywhere, almost like composing an open letter today with the address “Dear Christian.”

While this is possible, it seems unlikely, and very few scholars today hold this opinion. If Luke wanted to address believers generally, it would have been very unusual for him to speak to “Theophilus” in typical grammatical forms that signal a communication to an individual (such as second person singular pronouns). He would have been more likely to do something along the lines of what Peter does in his first epistle: “To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion” (1 Pet 1:1). Or he could have signaled his intentions with something more symbolic, such as John’s “to the elect lady and her children” (2 John 1).

Particular Individual

The name “Theophilus” is well attested in the time period in which Luke wrote. It was a common name, over a few centuries, all over the Roman empire. Josephus even mentions a Jewish high priest with the name a few decades before the temple fell. So it’s highly credible to conclude that Luke was writing to a specific person.

But what other clues can we find regarding the identity of this Theophilus?

Most Excellent

The most significant clue is Luke’s use of the phrase “most excellent” when addressing Theophilus the first time (Luke 1:3). This is not a casual California-surfer-dude sort of greeting. It has a ring of formality to it.

The address “most excellent” appears in Scripture only in Luke’s writings, and only in very formal settings.

1. A court appearance, spoken by the prosecuting attorney:

“Since through you we enjoy much peace, and since by your foresight, most excellent Felix, reforms are being made for this nation…” (Acts 24:2)

2. Another court appearance, spoken by the defendant:

“I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I am speaking true and rational words.” (Acts 26:25)

3. And, though translated differently, the same Greek term appears also in a prisoner transfer order written by a Roman centurion to the governing official:

“Claudius Lysias, to his Excellency the governor Felix, greetings.” (Acts 23:26)

For this reason, it seems likely that Theophilus is at least a Roman noble with means of some sort. Our understanding of the title is rather limited, so many scholars are hesitant to conclude any more than this.

Additional Evidence

However, additional evidence from within Luke and Acts may help us to identify Theophilus with greater precision. In additional posts, I will take up more of this evidence.