2-3 A reader coming to the book of Acts from the reading of the Gospel of Luke, as Theophilus (Acts 1:1).would have done (Luke 1:3), would find many profound elements of continuity between the two narratives (Acts 1:2-3; 6:8; 7:59-60); but one element of continuity for which the Gospel would not have prepared him was the prominent place still being occupied by Saint John the Baptist, the Forerunner (ho prodromos) , here in the narrative of Acts.
Paul has apparently noticed something in the behavior of these “disciples” that indicated to him that no supernatural work of regeneration (being “born again”) had yet occurred in them. Perhaps he noticed none of the so-called “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal 5:22-23): love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness and self-control. What and whom one believed in was certainly paramount, but how one lived was the outward proof that faith was real. Whatever the reason, he asked them a key question (v. 2) and gets a disquieting answer. His question was not “have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?” (King James Version) but “did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” (all later English translations). This was the normal Christian experience, even in Paul’s day, in spite of the sensational displays of speaking in tongues that occurred in Jerusalem, Samaria and Caesarea.
Their answer “we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit” sounds like an ignorance of the trinitarian nature of God. But while this is remotely possible, it is unlikely in view of John the Baptist’s own message about the baptism with the Holy Spirit (Matt 3:11; Luke 3:16). For this reason, although the above translation of their reply is literally and technically correct, the sense intended is doubtless better reflected in the old ASV (not the NASV!) wording: “we did not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit was given”.
Paul cannot imagine a true Christian baptism except “into the name (εἰς τὸ ὄνομα) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Mat 28:19). For this reason he asked them “then what baptism did you receive?” -- literally “into what (name) were you baptized”, referring to the Christian formula’s wording “into the name...” of the triune God. The Greek word for “name” is neuter gender, so that “into what (name)”, not “into whom”, is the correct way to refer to the name of the triune God in Mat 28:19. Note too that Matthew and Paul do not consider it three names but one.
Luke’s account is so brief, that one would like to know more about the content of belief of these disciples of John the Baptist. John himself certainly had saving faith in Jesus, and on at least one occasion referred to him as “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29, 36). But how much had these men understood of John’s words, if they heard them at all from his own lips? All we know is that they were baptized “in(to) John’s baptism”, which Paul correctly describes to them as merely showing repentance (i.e., determination to change one’s manner of living and thinking), not necessarily trust in the dying and rising Savior. Once they consented to Paul’s words, they were baptized as Christians and — with Paul laying his hands on them — visibly received the Holy Spirit, “speaking in foreign tongues and prophesying”. Certainly, most people in that day who believed and received the Spirit did not show these sensational signs. But they were necessary under the circumstances to confirm to Paul that this time the faith was real.
It is an interesting question, but one that makes proponents of infant baptism uncomfortable, whether Paul would have baptized these twelve men had they said that they had been baptized into the “name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”, but still had given no evidence knowing the gospel or of having been born again. I do not mention this in order to be critical of other Christian traditions: I merely wish to make the point that for Paul it was not previous liturgical experience that was important, but the reality of faith and a new life that evidences the inner power of the Spirit whose name and effect is Holy.
8-10 Because Luke is often vague in referring to the passage of time, we should take him quite seriously when he is precise. “Three months” of sabbath meetings is a long time in which Paul could explain the gospel of Jesus the Messiah to the Jewish community in Ephesus. Luke says his subject was “the kingdom of God”. No archeological remains of a Jewish synagogue at Ephesus have yet been identified. But a Jewish menorah carved into the marble facade of the Library of Celsus (to see a photo click here) there proves an influential Jewish presence in the city.
In order to know what Luke means by these words one has to look up their occurrence in his gospel (Luke 4:43; 6:20; 7:28; 8:1,10; 9:2, 11, 27, 60, 62; 10:9, 11; 11:20; 13:18, 20, 28-29; 14:15; 16:16; 17:20-21; 18:16-17, 24-25, 29; 19:11; 21:31; 22:16, 18; 23:51), as well as elsewhere in the Acts (Acts 1:3; 8:12; 14:22; 19:8; 28:23, 31). When Jesus (in Luke’s gospel, as in the others) taught about the “kingdom of God”, he clearly had in mind himself as God’s messianic King, the true “son of David”. So when Paul spoke to Jewish(!) hearers about this subject, he undoubtedly used the same approach. The “kingdom of God” was therefore much more than just God the Father’s rule over the entire creation spiritually and demanding social justice (a message often heard from liberal pulpits): it was rather God breaking into history with the incarnation of His Son, the true Messiah and King.
And once God had breached history in this way, there could be no neutrality towards Jesus, especially by His own people Israel. Because three months is ample time to make up one’s mind, the stubborn opposition of “some” of the hearers and their vociferous antagonism was enough to suggest to Paul that he adjourn his sessions to another location than the synagogue. The IVP Acts Comm. rightly observes:
“The Jews' reaction--becoming obstinate (literally, ‘being hardened’ or ‘hardening themselves’; compare Ex 8:15; 9:35; Ps 95:8; Acts 7:51) and refusing to believe …… shows the negative effects of rejecting the gospel over a period of time. We cannot remain neutral; we are either softened toward or hardened against an oft-repeated message.”The city of Ephesus in Paul's day was both highly intellectual and highly superstitious, a combination that sometimes goes well together even today! For photos of the ruins of some of the buildings see this link. The “hall of Tyrannus” was a lecture hall for philosophy classes, named after one of the notable philosophers of Ephesus. It is symbolic of Paul’s courageous confrontation of both the Jewish objection (“Jews require a miraculous sign” [1 Cor 1:22]) and the pagan Greek one (“Greeks demand wisdom [i.e., philosophy]” [1 Cor 1:22]) that he taught first in the synagogue and then in a philosophy lecture hall! We should all be so confrontational and bold!
“The Western text has an interesting time reference, "from the fifth to the tenth hour" [i.e., from 11 AM to 4 PM] (Acts 19:9). The Mediterranean "siesta" occurred from the fifth hour (11:00 a.m.) onward, and we know from Acts 20:34 that Paul worked at his trade while in Ephesus. This gives us a picture of a tireless apostle and an eager audience. Each is willing to give up the normal time of rest in order to speak and hear of the kingdom” (IVP Acts Comm.).Working himself to exhaustion for two years, Paul (sometimes through his converts, e.g., Epaphras [Col. 1:7]) spread the gospel through the entire Roman province of Asia (Col. 2:1; 4:13). This means the churches in Ephesus, Colosse, Hierapolis, Philadelphia, Thyatira, and Laodicea, among others.
“From his Corinthian correspondence we learn that Paul, while at Ephesus, had his difficulties, which arose chiefly from conditions at Corinth. But Luke does not mention them or refer to any further difficulties at Ephesus beyond his general reference to Jewish opposition (v. 9) and the Demetrius incident (vv. 23-41). Instead, he rounds off his summary of Paul’s Ephesian ministry by speaking of “extraordinary miracles” taking place directly through Paul” (NIV Comm.).Paul wrote at this time to the believers in Corinth: “For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power” (1Corinthians 4:20 NIV). By “talk” he didn’t mean bold preaching, but the empty boasting that he heard was going on in the Corinthian assembly. The “power” that was the sure sign of the kingdom was not, to be sure, limited to the kind of miracles we now read about occurring in Ephesus, but apostolic miracles were certainly part of what he would have put in this category.
The kind of miracles Luke describes here we are already familiar with in his account of the ministry of Simon Peter in Jerusalem: there even Peter’s shadow falling on a sick person conferred healing (Acts 5:15); here even articles of Paul’s clothing had the same effect. Luke knew very well that the success of the gospel did not depend upon a constant display of apostolic miracles. In his Acts narrative they occur only selectively and in strategic moments. Ephesus was a center of philosophy and learning; so Paul lectured in the lecture hall. It was also a city where there was a fascination with magic and the occult powers; so God worked miracles through him, even when he was unaware of the fact! In every way, Luke is telling us, the power of the gospel through Paul is showing itself superior to the power of the anti-gospel. It is like Moses and the pitifully inept Egyptian “magicians” of Exod 5-12, especially illustrated by the incident involving the seven sons of Sceva (v. 13-17), who attempted to co-opt Paul’s “technique” (magic formula!) for personal gain, or perhaps even to show “we non-believers can do the same things you can!” the attempt backfired in a remarkable way, so as to lead to even greater success of the gospel.
Furthermore, the power of God through Paul did not lead believers to a fascination or preoccupation with magic and miracles. Instead they burned their magic manuals! They broke with the occult in all its forms. The fact that the total sale price of the books of all those confessing and repenting is given (v. 19) suggests that they donated the proceeds to the church. We don’t know how that fund was used, but doubtless it was used for works of charity toward the poor and needy in the community.
Verses 21-22 are closely connected to verses 23-41. The former record Paul’s conclusion “in the [Holy] Spirit” that God wanted him to travel through northern and southern Greece, then on to Jerusalem, and finally to Rome itself. In other words, having given much thought and prayer to the matter, and seeing that his years in Ephesus had accomplished what God wanted to accomplish through him there, he was soberly reflecting on how to “finish his course” as a faithful missionary of the gospel. He then sent off Timothy and Erastus as “advance men” into northern Greece (Macedonia).
Verses 23-41 then give us the incident that sparked his actual departure from Ephesus: a riot instigated by one Demetrius and fueled by economic factors. Paul’s evangelization was having a negative effect on the proceeds to the city by “tourism”: the visit for worship to the temple of the goddess “Artemis” (whose Roman/Latin name was “Diana”). For a photo of a statue of this Artemis of the Ephesians, click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment