DOES ACTS CONTRADICT PAUL’S TESTIMONIES ABOUT HIS VISITS TO JERUSALEM?

Occasionally while some study the chronology of Paul’s life and ministry they become confused about his early visits to Jerusalem and Luke’s reporting of these same visits in Acts. Regrettably, the discussions provided by some scholars on this topic create more confusion than is justified. This blog does not address Paul’s visits that occurred late in his ministry, it is highly unlikely that all of Paul’s visits to Jerusalem are referred to in his epistles or in Acts. Nevertheless, the historicity of the scriptures is an important issue, and we should be very careful of those who suggest that historical errors are contained within them. Recently I listened to a lecture by Bart Ehrman in which he stated that because of the complexities involving the historical veracity of the New Testament then no one should place a lot of confidence in the historical accuracy of the book of Acts. Consequently, I have put together a brief chronology of Paul’s visits to Jerusalem before the Jerusalem Council convened with the hope of clarifying the specific issue as to whether Paul and Luke contradict one another with respect to Paul’s early ministry movements and his visits to Jerusalem. The issue is not as complex as some make it out to be, and it occurs simply because Luke and Paul use slightly different vocabulary when discussing Paul’s earliest visits to Jerusalem.

Paul describes his first visit with the leaders of the church in Jerusalem in Galatians 1.18-24. This meeting is recorded in Acts 9.26-30. It appears that Luke’s term “many days,” should be understood to have been approximately 3 years (Acts 9.23 & Gal. 1.18). Luke’s statement that Barnabas brought Paul to the “apostles” (Acts 9.27) should not be understood to mean that Paul was brought before all 13 apostles (by the number 13 I am including James the half brother of Jesus and Matthias), but only that Paul meet with a few apostles that represented the entire group, specifically Peter and James the half brother of Jesus (note that Paul referred to James as an apostle in Gal. 1.18-19). This could be justifiably understood as meeting with “the apostles” because Paul met with more than one of the Jerusalem apostles, and also because in the Jewish mindset a part of something was often considered as sufficient for the whole. The lack of precision is less than desirable for our modern way of calculating, but this type of thinking was a Semitic inclination just the same. Paul stated that after his first meeting with Peter and James he left and went to the regions of Syria and Cilicia (Gal 1.21). Luke confirmed Paul’s destination after leaving Jerusalem, but rather than focusing on the “regions” that Paul went to, instead he mentioned the specific city to which the apostles sent him, which was Tarsus—Paul’s hometown (Acts 9.30). Tarsus is located in the southeastern region of Cilicia. The purpose of Paul’s first meeting was to introduce Paul to a few of the church’s leaders in Jerusalem with Barnabas being the intermediary. Luke made it clear that during Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem most believers were extremely untrusting of him (Acts 9.26). Given the suspicious nature of Paul’s dramatic conversion it would make sense that the leaders of the church in Jerusalem would not allow all the apostles to be exposed to Paul in case his “confession” of faith was just an elaborate charade for the purpose of ferreting out the leaders of the young church in Jerusalem. Consequently, Paul only met with Peter and James. I would guess that during this brief first visit to Jerusalem (15 days Gal. 1.18.) that Paul asked a lot of specific questions to Peter and James concerning the things Jesus actually taught since Paul apparently had not heard Jesus for himself.  Paul boldly spoke in the name of Jesus while in Jerusalem (Acts 9.28), which should be understood to mean that he preached the gospel and spoke of Jesus as the promised Messiah. However, Paul was adamant (Galatians 1.15-17) that he did not need to be taught the gospel from those who were apostle before him since he had personally met Jesus and received the gospel directly from him (cf. 1 Cor. 15.8-10). The church in Jerusalem became somewhat familiar with him as a result of this visit. However, while the church in Jerusalem had learned about Paul’s conversion to Christ and his boldness for the Lord, other churches scattered throughout the greater region of Judea still could not identify him by sight (Gal. 2.22). Being that Paul was only in Jerusalem for a little more than 2 weeks, it is understandable why Paul was fairly unknown in the greater region of Judea during the period immediately following his conversion.

Paul described his second meeting with the leaders of the church in Jerusalem in Galatians 2.1-10. It appears that the main reason for this visit to Jerusalem was because of the prophecy/vision concerning a coming famine (Gal 2.2; Acts 11.28).  This visit is also recorded in Acts 11.27-30. Paul took the opportunity while in Jerusalem to meet with the “pillars” (i.e., leaders) of the church there for the purpose of explaining his ministry and calling, which was to be the apostle to the Gentiles.  Since Paul mentions the issue of circumcision in Gal 2.1-10 it is likely that this topic was discussed, but no official or public decision was made by the leadership of the church in Jerusalem at that time. Nevertheless, the apostles who met with Paul clearly affirmed his ministry and his understanding of the gospel.  This meeting was not the meeting recording in Acts 15, and we know this because in Gal 2.10 the apostles encouraged Paul to be mindful of the poor, which is not even mentioned in the general epistle to churches recorded in Acts 15.23-29.  The encouragement in the universal letter to all the churches recorded in Acts 15 concerned fornication/idol worship and Jewish sensitivities to animals that had been sacrificed to idols (Acts 15.29); notice, there is no mention about caring for the poor.  The apostles and elders of the Jerusalem Council were essentially calling all Gentiles believers to separate themselves from everything that had anything to do with pagan worship, which would be a natural result of coming to faith in Jesus Christ as one’s Savior and Lord.  Essentially the leaders of the church in Jerusalem were calling gentile believers to make a public decision and stand for Christ.  There is no indication of such a concern during Paul’s second visit with the leaders at the church in Jerusalem, which Paul detailed in Galatians 2.1-10.

From Acts 15.1-29 we learn of Paul’s third meeting with the leaders of the church in Jerusalem. This meeting is not recorded in Paul’s epistle to the Galatians. If this meeting had occurred before Paul wrote his epistle to the Galatians then he would have been obliged to announce their decision in his letter to the Galatians, as he in fact did with the church in Antioch and elsewhere (Acts 15.30; 16.4). However, we find no reference to the decision made at the Jerusalem Council anywhere in Paul’s letter to the Galatians. The purpose of the Jerusalem Council was to address the false gospel (Acts 15.1; i.e., a faith plus works gospel) that had arisen within the church by a sect of the Pharisees (Acts 15.5) who claimed to follow Jesus as the Messiah, but had actually contaminated the gospel by requiring obedience to the Mosaic Law (i.e., circumcision). They were not true believers (which is a major that point made by Paul throughout his epistle to the Galatians with respect to anyone who held to such a soteriology). The decision of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 was an official universal decree made by the leaders of the church at Jerusalem through the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Acts 15.28) concerning what was the authentic gospel as received directly from the Lord Jesus Christ (Luke 24.44-48), which is salvation by God’s grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone (Acts 15.7-11).  The Jerusalem Council did not attempt to change the gospel message, but instead chose to remain faithful to the authentic gospel that the apostles had personally received from the risen Lord.

One important note: the Council’s decision was a universal proclamation of the true gospel for both Jews and Gentiles concerning how one is saved. However, the Council’s decision should not be understood to mean that Jews should no longer continue the practice of circumcision. It only meant that circumcision was not a “requirement” for salvation (moreover, circumcision was never intended to secure salvation). However, if Jewish parents wished to continue to identify their sons as Jews who would participate in the promises made to Abraham, then they could and should have their sons circumcised. Circumcision was always a sign for Jews of their ethnicity and participation in the Abrahamic Covenant. If circumcision no longer had any meaning or purpose whatsoever, then Paul would not have had Timothy circumcised (Acts 16.3). The sign of circumcision predates the Mosaic Law, and was the way the decedents of Abraham to identify themselves before God as ethnic sons of Abraham who were looking toward the fulfillment of God’s promises to Abraham concerning the land (Covenant Theology notwithstanding, but this would be a debate for a different class). Some might ask “what about women, how would they make the same identification”? The way women could continue to be identified as participating in Abrahamic Covenant as Abraham’s descendants would be to marry Jewish men. Jewish women continue to participate in the Jewish community by marrying Jewish men, and thus perpetuate the Jewish race (some may disagree, but this again would be a different discussion for another course).  The one caveat, of course, would be that believing Jewish women should marry Jewish men who are also believers (1 Cor 7.39, 9.5; 2 Cor 6.14-18). Anyway, I hope this clarifies any confusion concerning Paul’s meetings with the apostles and elders of the church in Jerusalem early in his ministry as documented by Luke in Acts and Paul in his epistles.  The primary take away from this blog is that there are no significant discrepancies between Luke’s history on the birth and growth of the early church and Paul’s personal descriptions about his early ministry movements to and from Jerusalem.

Doc.

Monte Shanks Copyright © 2014

 

Read Full Post »

WHEN WAS THE BOOK OF ACTS WRITTEN?

The Composition Date for the Book of Acts

The book of Acts is essential to understanding the birth and early growth of the first-century church, and for the most part it is straightforward and not hard to understand.  However, some historians and scholars disagree about its historical accuracy and when it was written, and as you research Acts you will be confronted with some of these disagreements.  A major disagreement concerns the year that Luke finish writing and publicize the book of Acts. This blog argues that the early date of Acts is the most defensible and reasonable conclusion with respect to when it was written. There are two compelling reasons why Acts should be viewed as having been written before the outbreak of the Neronian persecutions (ca. early AD 65 or early AD 66). First, Luke ended his history of the early church with a description of Paul’s condition, writing that, “For two whole years he lived in his own rented place and welcomed everyone who came to him. He continued to preach the kingdom of God and to teach about the Lord Jesus Christ with perfect boldness and freedom” (Acts 28.30-31). To be sure, as Luke wrote Act if he was aware of Paul’s fate and the Empire’s attempt to eradicate Christianity, then ending the book with such a cheery description would have been unthinkable, if for no other reason that such an ending would make Luke appear completely incompetent since most of his readers would have either already known about Paul’s fate, or would eventually learn what truly happened to him. Some argue, however, that Paul’s inevitable fate was not important to Luke, and that Luke’s purpose was more “theological” than “historical.”  This is not a well-defended position simply because the book contains far more historical data than explanations concerning theological subjects. Moreover, the book is titled “Acts of the Apostles” instead of “The Beliefs of the Apostles,” and its title is “Acts” precisely because it overwhelmingly focuses upon the activities, accomplishments, and deeds of the early church and its leaders.  Of course it also contains theological content, but this is unavoidable since the focus and purpose of the church is theological in nature.  Nevertheless, if Luke was primarily concerned with the church’s theology, then more content within Acts would look more like what is found in Acts 15 (i.e., the Jerusalem Council), but it does not. Luke’s primary purpose in Acts is clearly more descriptive than prescriptive, in other words he focused predominantly on explaining and documenting the church’s birth and subsequent growth from a small sect within Judaism, to its inclusions of Gentiles, and to its ultimate arrival to the heart of the Empire.

A second reason for concluding that Acts was composed before the outbreak of the Neronian persecutions is that Luke placed a high value upon persecution and martyrdom accounts and included them within his history of the early church whenever he could. This is obvious from his inclusion of the martyrdoms of both Stephen, the first Christian martyr, and apostle James the brother of John and a son of Zebedee; as well as various riot accounts found throughout the book.  If Luke had known about the martyrdoms of both Paul and Peter, arguably the two most important leaders of the first-century church, then he would have assuredly provided accounts documenting their deaths, or at least references to them in his history of the church (not to mention the martyrdom of Jesus’ brother James, ca. AD 62). But instead of references to the deaths of these significant leaders, Luke provided travel records throughout Acts (e.g., Acts 27.1-28.10), some of which are rather uneventful.  Additionally, not only does the book show no hint of the fates of these important leaders, but as Carson and Moo observed, the exact opposite is true, Luke seems to portray a rather positive outlook for the church’s leaders, as well as a healthy relationship between the church and the Roman Empire (CM, Introduction to the New Testament, 298-300).  Again, such an outlook would have been completely inconceivable if Acts was written any time after the beginning of Neronian persecutions. In fact, once Nero condemned Christianity as subversive and began targeting its leaders for execution, then Christianity became an illegal religion its eyes of the Empire. Moreover, Nero’s ruling against Christianity became the legal basis for all of the Empire’s future persecutions of church over the next couple of centuries. Consequently, if Luke wrote Acts sometime after the cessation of the Neronian persecutions, then his book would not have improved the image of the church, but would have actually endangered individual churches and other Christians by documenting where they could be found and who were some of its remaining leaders. We should credit Luke with having more intelligence than to have written such a potentially dangerous book if he was aware of the Empire’s lethal hostility towards the church.  The Empire had claimed the lives of some of his closest friends, what could he have possibly gained by composing a work that would have only endangered others?

Think about it this way, if 3 years ago someone wrote a book about the rise of Isis and its condition, then the book would have concluded with some ambiguity with respect to its future.  However, if one wrote a book on Isis 10 years from now, it would be inconceivable to not explain or at least reference its collapse.  Of course, Isis’ ultimate defeat would not have to be the book’s main purpose, but to completely ignore its demise as an organized geo-political military force would be a rather glaring omission, one that would make any author appear completely out of touch.  Nevertheless, some scholars still make speculative conjectures promoting a late composition for the book of Acts; however, the more reasonable conclusion is that Luke completed it near the end Paul’s first imprisonment or soon after his release, sometime in the early to mid AD 60s, probably no earlier than AD 62.  Additionally, such a date also has obviously significant ramifications for estimating the date for Luke’s composition of his Gospel.  Many secular scholars who have a biased against the supernatural and prophetic natural of Luke’s Gospel must date the composition of Acts later since they also date the Gospel of Luke considerably later. Since Acts was composed after Luke’s Gospel, then in their view the book of Acts must also be dated much later as well.  Nevertheless, such conjectures and speculations are not well defended given the available historical evidence.

Doc.

Copyright © Monte Shanks, 2010

 

Read Full Post »

HOW CHURCHES BECOME WOLF SANCTUARIES

Wolves are a beloved figure these days. For some they symbolize freedom, strength, and the beauty of America’s untamed past. That’s because few of us have ever been attacked by wolves. Rene Anderson killed a charging wolf while Elk hunting in Idaho in 2011, and in 2010 Candice Berner was killed by wolves while jogging in a remote area of Alaska. The truth is that wolves in the wild are dangerous and unsympathetic towards their prey. If they can track and catch you, then you’re on the menu. In the ancient world wolves could be found virtually everywhere. They were a constant threat to livestock as well as the isolated traveler. The deadliest of all was the rabid crazed wolf. You may survive their attack, but if infected by them, then nevertheless you were as good as dead.

The apostle Paul once warned about wolves, but he wasn’t concerned about the 4-legged kind, instead he warned about the 2-legged variety. He put it this way:

“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be on the alert,” (Acts 20:28-31a).

The wolves Paul was concerned about have several common characteristics with wolves found in the wild. First, they too are “savage,” and they attack with one goal, to ravage and destroy their prey. Secondly, whenever they attack they intend to spare nothing. Thirdly, they generally come in groups. And having formed a pack they begin to reproduce after their own kind. Like true believers, they also begin making disciples of themselves. However, there are also some unsettling differences. First, Paul said it is a certainty that wolves would come. Wolf attacks in our modern era are extremely rare, in fact since 1900 there have only been 10 recorded fatalities in North America due to wolf attacks. Nevertheless, Paul didn’t say that we may occasionally see a wolf, but that “I know that after my departure savage wolves will come.” He said it is a certainty that wolves will coma and attack the church. Whether we choose to believe it or not, wolves will come. However, what is most startling is where he said they would come from—stating in no uncertain terms that they would come from within the community of believers! And even more tragically, they would come from among the church’s own leadership. Somehow these people will join our fellowships and instead of becoming sheep they will remain wolves.

How can this be you may ask. Did you know that wolf pups and German Shepherds pups are almost indistinguishable? It is only as they mature that their true nature becomes obvious and their differences are noticeable. As puppies they look as cute as domesticated dogs; nevertheless, they are still wolves, and sooner or later little wolves become big wolves. Somehow Paul knew that wolves would eventually join our churches. Maybe it is because we are so hopeful and want to believe the best about everyone, and in our optimism we tolerate “wolf pups,” but inevitably these wolves grow up and devastate our fellowships. But unlike natural wolves, these wolves don’t destroy their prey through their bite, they destroy entire flocks by attacking something more important—the truth. Paul stated that once in leadership these false teachers begin teaching “perversions” among the church body. The focus of their attack is not on individual sheep per se, but on the flock’s strength, which is its unity around the truth. Their strategy is to pervert the truth in such a way that people begin to doubt it, don’t understand it, and stop obeying it. Maybe they will promote distorted theology, maybe they will sanction perverted behavior—all “in the name of love,” or maybe they will degrade the scriptures while promoting “wisdom” that is found in other religions and human philosophies. Regardless of what they promote, it will be perversions of the truth just the same. The ultimate goal is the defamation of the Lord Jesus Christ and his gospel, and the end result will be that the flock will cease to exist. Although the sheep will survive, tragically they will be scattered, isolated, and separated from a healthy flock. It is the DNA of these wolves to destroy “flocks.” Flocks are their prey since they are incapable of destroying sheep that belong to the True Shepherd (Jn 10.27-30). Consequently, they seek to destroy the next best thing, which is the unity derived from the truth that binds the flock together.

Having told us of the danger that will certainly come, Paul gave steps for protecting the flock. The first is that the elders and pastors must be on guard for themselves. It is essential that pastors police themselves so that they are not deceived into promoting things that pervert the faith that has once and for all been delivered to the saints. Only as the elders and pastors ensure their own fidelity to the Lord and sound doctrine are they able to take the second step, which is to protect the “entire” flock. That’s right, no more unsupervised clicks within our congregations, and no leadership clicks that insulate us from the very sheep that the Lord has called us to protect. Pastors and elders are tasked with leading “all the flock” to reject the perversions promoted by wolves. By abdicating our responsibility of guarding all of the small groups scattered throughout our congregations we are potentially exposing them to wolves. Unattended sheep are always at risk.

Next, we are to remain vigilant against the presence of wolves. Twice in these few verses Paul ordered pastors to be constantly on guard against wolf attacks. And this is where American Evangelicals have pretty much left the gate unguarded. We are good at identifying wolves outside our churches, which is not hard since they are obvious to almost everybody. We do a fine job at pointing out the Osteens and Copelands of the world, but we are bad at knowing precisely what people in our own fellowships actually believe. Instead, we assume that if they faithfully attend and give, then they must be “good folk,” and then we promote them into positions of leadership. And by doing so we are unwittingly inviting wolves into positions of influence within our churches. The thing about these wolves is they are intelligent and cunning, and they stealthily maneuver into positions from which they can attack. Regrettably, these wolves will simply lie to get what they want and think little of it. They join our churches to get attention, to gain opportunities, and to obtain the authority that makes them feel important. They are not caring shepherds; there are savage wolves that to us look like sheep, lambs, or innocent puppies.

Regrettably, many of today’s modern churches have become “wolf sanctuaries.” A church becomes a haven for wolves when they are willing to tolerate everything, accept all, and promote unity at all costs. In fact, American churches are quickly becoming places where wolves are more tolerated than faithful shepherds. One of the most ignored and politically incorrect verses in the Bible is 1 Corinthians 11.19, where Paul wrote: “For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.” Paul actually stated that verbal disagreements and theological debates are necessary if for no other reason than to identify those that are authentic followers of Christ from those that are not. Moreover, these discussions also reveal those that can accurately interpret the scriptures from those that cannot. But that is not what happens in churches today. Today’s churches are turning into “safe spaces,” and the only ones that are becoming safer are the wolves. Certainly the true sheep purchased by the blood of Christ are not safer, and neither are the mixed livestock that are congregating with them. Our churches are quickly becoming the tending stalls of slaughterhouses, where all manner of goats, cows, and pigs are awaiting their inevitable fates.

Wolves in the wild instinctively avoid strong and well-armed shepherds because they have a God-given fear of humans. Wolves always avoid powerful adversaries. Their preference is for those that are weak, sick, and isolated. Additionally, it is rare to see wolves during the day. Wolves prefer the night. The same is true of false teachers; they prefer lurking in the shadows, awaiting opportunities to gain an advantage. They hate the light because it exposes them for what they truly are. They know that if they are found out then it is time to move on and find new territory. Let’s be clear, all lost people have the potential to become wolves, but most are not. An antichristian wolf is someone that has heard the truth of the gospel and the scriptures, and has chosen to reject the lordship of Jesus Christ. And having made such a decision they begin seeking opportunities within the church for their own benefit, as well as positions of leadership from which they can pervert the truth of God. Shepherds that the Lord has called to protect his flock should drive these people away. One thing is certain, pretending that wolves do not exist and are not in our churches is no defense against them; instead it’s a sign of naiveté and rejection of biblical truth. Consequently, while sinners are welcome to come to the church, wolves are not. Once a church receives wolves, then the destruction of the flock will inevitably follow, and in the end the Lord’s sheep will be scattered. Shame upon churches that have become wolf sanctuaries, and pity upon the false shepherds that allowed it to happen, when the True Shepherd comes there will be no place for them to hide.

Copyright, © Monte Shanks 2017

Read Full Post »