LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
2.3 The Purpose of Studying the Early Church in Acts
2.3.2 Both for Jews and Gentiles
The second key purpose in Acts is that it sho'v\s how the Gospel was meant for Jews as well as for the Gentiles. To make this point clear DuPont said.
Part of the demonstration lies in Luke's claim that what took place in the Early Church was in accordance with prophecy. Luke's purpose was to show not only that the rise of the Church and the
spread of salvation to the Gentiles fulfilled the prophecies in the Old Testament and the promises of Jesus (see Luke 24:47; Acts 1:4, 20; 2:16-21; 3:24; 10:43; 13:40, 47; 15:15-18; 28:25-28) (DuPont 1974: 343 - 344).
This point makes it clear that the Gospel. from its beginning. was never meant for only one group of people. DuPont shows us that Luke indicated this by referring his readers to the prophecies of both Old Testament and New Testament. Jesus crowned the prophecies by giving the promise in this regard in the book of Acts. when he said to his disciples, then designated ..the apostles",
But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you.
and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem. and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8).
Jesus' promise was inclusive of all people of the earth both Jews and Gentiles. Had he only mentioned Jerusalem and Judea it could possibly have been only exclusive for the Jews. But the moment He mentioned Samaria and the ends of the earth, He included everyone. Therefore it would be right to conclude that Acts was written to show us that the Gospel is for all people of all cultures everyvvhere at any given time. It is therefore right to study and apply the message of Doctor Luke ll'om the book of Acts in the context of multiculturalism. It goes without saying that the present Church of the 21 st century can draw important lessons from the book of Acts especially when we consider our racially segregated past where we did not have the chance to live or practice Christianity in a multicultural setting.
2.3.3 Political Apologetic
Commenting about this Marshall insightfully says.
... The primary purpose of Acts was to provide some kind of political apologetic for Christianity. It has sometimes been argued that the aim of Acts was to show that Christians were innocent of the political charges that were brought against them. and that in fact the Roman officials who examined such cases were agreed that the Christians had not in any way offended against the laws of the Roman Empire. It has even been suggested that Acts was written to supply the evidence needed for Paul's defense when he appeared before the Emperor ero (MarshaIl1998: 21).
Varathan agrees with Marshall that the book of Acts' primary purpose was to prove that Christians were innocent of the political charges that v.;ere brought against them. He drives this point home by explaining Paul" s defense in Rome and before two of the governors. Felix and Festus. In his own 'vvords Varathan says.
Acts 24 records that Paul was accused of being a trouble-maker by Tertullus. Paul then defended himself before Felix the Roman governor. against the accusation. that he was no troublemaker as remarked. but a peace-loving citizen. He confessed that he believed in the way of salvation. which they referred to as a sect;
that he followed a system of serving the God of his ancestors. and believed in the Jewish law and everything written in the books of prophecy: and that he believed in the resurrection of both the righteous and the ungodly. Because of this he always tried to maintain a clear conscience before God and men. He defended that it was not him that started a riot. but those men who saw him in the temple when he went to offer the sacrifices and pay his vows.
And again in Acts 25: 7-8: Paul defended himself before Festus of the same accusations against him. Paul denied the charges: . I am not guilty. I have not opposed the Je'v\'ish laws or desecrated the temple or rebelled against the Roman gO\'ernment (Varathan 2003: 139).
Varathan used some interesting words to explain this point when he said: "Paul argues against the accusations and says that he was not a troublemaker as the governor was led to believe. but a peace-loving citizen." Varathan adds that Paul "confessed that he believed in the way of salvation. which they (the Roman government) referred to as a sect'". He continues to make this important statement. hence. Paul always tried to
"maintain a clear conscience before God and man."' In the same manner one does not want to be just politically correct and thereby maintain a clear conscience before man. but also wants to keep a clear conscience before God in order to please Him who sent us to spread His gospel of truth to the whole world. In other words. the Church should not seek 'political COITectness' in order to be line with the politics of the time. Sometimes the Church will have to flow against the main stream and speak against the tune of politics.
However. where man or the politics of the time are in God's will. the Church should also not be silent but commend the government of the day.
2.3.4 An Account of Christian Beginning in order to Strengthen Faith
If Luke's purpose in writing was to strengthen Theophilus \-"ho was already a believer in Jesus, by presenting him with the orderly account of the beginnings of Christianity. how much more the Church needs this account today. This account of early Christianity, which strengthened Theophilus in the first century. a period of the apostles which was so close to Jesus' ministry. it must obviously be e\'en more useful and desperately needed by the Church today especially if one considers that we are now twenty-one centuries down the line. There are now even greater possibilities that one has moved away from the Christian beginnings. It is always good to reflect back. on the beginning of things and its purposes in order not to lose track. hence the study of the early Church in the book of Acts, for today's church.
At this point we must take seriously what Luke himself tells us about his purpose in the prologue to his v;ork. He specifically addresses himself to ·Theophilus·. who. according to the most plausible understanding of Luke I: 1-4. was a Christian. and who can be regarded as typical of Luke's readers. Luke's explicit purpose was to confirm his faith by providing him with an orderly account of the things. which he had learned in the course of his Christian instruction. A skeptic might have tried to persuade Theophilus that his faith was based on nothing more than 'cunningly devised myths'; Luke's reply was to present him with an account of the beginnings of Christianity based on what had been handed down 'by those who ft'om the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word' (Lk.l: 2). If the gospel gave the facts about the ministry of Jesus. Acts demonstrated ho\>, the preaching of Jesus as the Christ corroborated and confirmed the facts recorded in the gospel: when the good news was preached, the Spirit made the word effective and brought the readers into the experience of salvation. On this view of things. the book of Acts was intended as an account of Christian beuinnincTs in order tob b strengthen faith and give assurance that its foundation is firm.
Obviously. the book written \\'ith this aim has an evangelistic purpose. but the scope of Luke - Acts stretches beyond material that is purely evangelistic (Marshall 1998: 21).
2.3.5 Showing how the Church, Composed of Jews and Gentiles, Survived and grew.
This point becomes the main purpose of the book of Acts in this context because this is where the great commission given by Jesus in Matthew 28: 19-20 comes to fulfillment and also because this is where the focus of this research is. The issue of multiculturalism as the Jews and Gentiles start to mix and worship together becomes pertinent here. Without the Gentiles the Early Church cannot be classitied as the true Church of Jesus Christ the Messiah. Commenting about this point Marshall says.
Although the gospel records the commission given by Jesus that his disciples should take the gospel to all nations, at first the Church was composed of Jews and carried out its evangelism among the Jews. Contrary to a widespread popular belief: Luke makes no mention of Gentiles being present on the day of Pentecost other than Jewish proselytes (2: 10). But within a few years the Church found itself preaching the gospel to Samaritans.
uncircumcised God-fearers and tinally to pagan Gentiles. This progression is seen as divinely \"illed and prophesied: it was a turn of events that come about apart from any conscious planning by the Church. The Church had to come to terms with this fact (Marshall 1998: 29).
To add to this point Brown, in his book called Rerollllio/1 in the Church. said that.
When He (Jesus) said in Matthew 16: 18. '1 \\'ill build my church.
and the gates of Hades (hell) will not overcome it.' He was not speaking to His Jewish disciples about a new religious body and a new religion. To the contrary. the Greek word .eklesia' translated 'church' in our English Bibles. simply meant 'congregation, assembly of believers'. The Jewish translators of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible made more than two hundred years before Christ) used this word to render the Hebrew words Qahal and Edah. both meaning ··congregation. community.
assembly". And since Jesus/Jeshua spoke to his disciples in either Hebrew or Aramaic He would have made reference to building His qahal/edah or qehala '/kenishta - standard words for already - known concepts,
What was new in the declaration of Jesus - radically new - was that this community would be His community
C'l
will build my congregation"), consisting of redeemed Jews and Gentiles. all with equal access to God. with all equal rights. all cleansed in Messiah's blood, all empowered by the Spirit. all sent to change the world, What a congregation! 0 wonder the gates of hell cannot prevailagainst it (Brown 2002: 177 - 178).
It has been God's will from the beginning for the Gentiles to be part of His flock and His blessings. Together the believing Jews and believing Gentiles make up the true Church of God. They together are the people of God. They together retlect the complete body of Christ, the Messiah.
2.4 The Value of the Early Church in Acts
There are some permanent values for the Church today in the twenty first century, 111
learning about the early Church in the book of the Acts of the Holy Spirit. These are things that were of value then and are still of importance for the church of today. if only we take them into consideration and apply them. Without knowledge of these recognized values. the study of the early church will be a useless effort. After looking at the purposes of the book of the Acts of the Apostles we shall now briefly look at the values of the early church.
In his commentary of the book of Acts. Marshall gi\'es five values for studying the early Church in the book of Acts.
2.4.1 A Pastoral Concern
In writing the story of the Early Church. Luke is seen as a writer with a pastoral concern.
He writes in order to help and succour the Church. He demonstrates once and for all that Church history is not a cold academic discipline but can be the means of encouraging the people of God. For example. instances showing how people should look after each other in the church. There is also a \vonderful demonstration of community life style in the early church.
2.4.2 The Essential Task of the Church is Mission
Luke. the author, the physician and the evangelist makes it clear that. in his view. the essential task of the Church is mission. We hear him saying remarkably little about the inner life of the Church and he concentrated most of his attention on this aspect or the church's task. For Luke. the mission of the church is evangelism. the proclamation of the
good news ofJesus and a challenge for repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
2.4.3 No Racial Discrimination
In his writing about the life story of the Early Church. Luke demonstrates that in the eyes of God there can be no racial discrimination within the church. The Church is called to witness to people. and salvation is offered to all people of different colours and cultures on the same terms.
2.4.4 The Place of the Spirit.
Luke stressed the place of the Spirit in guiding and empowering the Church for its mission, in the early and current church. Mission is no mere human achievement, but the Holy Spirit working through those who are \\'illing to take the gospel of Christ beyond their comfort zones. The Holy Spirit distributes the gifts as He wills to those in the church for the fulfillment of his purposes as He directs. The gifts of the Holy Spirit are given for the purpose of mission and not for the private identification of the church or its individual members to attract attention.
2.4.5 The Church as Raised up and Directed by God
In all the values for today's Church mentioned above. Luke sees the Church as raised up and directed by God so that it will achieve His intended purposes. In this sense Luke can be said to believe in a theologia gloriae. He belie\'es in the ultimate triumph of the gospel. At the same time, however. he is well aware that the triumph of the gospel is achieved only through suffering and martyrdom. in this sense he most emphatically believes in a theologia crucis (Marshall 1998: 49-50).
2.5 Cultural Interactions and Challenges
Paul Varathan said that "One of the first signs of cultural tensions in a bi-cultural society in the early church is recorded in Acts chapter 6: the widows of the Hellenists were 'left our in the daily ministering of food: the apostles come together to solve the problem (Varathan2003: 91)."
Thus far we read nothing to suggest any cultural interactions and challenges in the early church. The first we read of such a case is in chapter six. It is interesting to note that cultural tensions are not racial tensions. although racial tensions may lead to cultural tension. In this particular case of the early Church in Acts chapter six, we see that the two groups involved are Jews. the Hebraic Jews and Hellenists Jews. Each of these groups was raised in a different cultural background. The Hebraic are those Jews that spent all their time in their land \,vhereas the Hellenists are the Jews who spent a considerable time away from their homeland in exile and some extent have "adopted the Greek customs and culture (Unger 1957: 467):' Because of this the two groups had developed two different cultures although they are of the same race. It would be safe.
therefore to assume that the Hellenists complained of their widows being overlooked in the daily distribution of food just because the distribution was done in a way that did not meet their cultural needs and expectations. It would seem wrong to interpret the Hellenists' complaint simplistically that their widows were 'overlooked' or refused their due portion of food. When one considers how the congregation cared for each other in the Early Church. it is difficult to believe this line of argument. which would obviously be evil before God and man. This complaint would need to be understood and interpreted from a Hellenists' cultural point of\'ie\\-. Seeing that the leadership of the early church at that stage was entirely composed of Hebraic Jew"S only. it could be that the way they looked atter their widows was different from the way the Hellenists used to look atter their widows in exile. With this understanding, the Apostles, who themselves were Hebraic Jews since they never went to the Diaspora. were following the Hebraic cultural way in the daily distribution of food - a way that did not satisfy the Hellenists.
Luke indicates how the problem within the Early Church came to a head partly as the result of its increasing members. The one thing we must remember when reading this chapter of Acts. is that this situation is taking place before the Gentiles started coming to the Early Church. This happened between the Jews themselves. that is, the Hebrews or Hebraic Jews and the Hellenists or the Grecian Jews. In his book. titled "Palestinian and Hellenist Christianity". Mai'Sha 11 says,
The terms Hebrews and Hellenists (9:29. 10:20) are ob\iously to
be defined as contrasts. After much discussion there is a growing consensus that the Hebrews were Jews who spoke a Semitic lanauaae but also knew some Greek. [t can be safelv assumed thatb b • nearly every Jew knew at least a little Greek. since it was the lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean world. The Semitic language. which they spoke. was most probably Aramaic rather than Hebrew itself by contrast. the Hellenist were Jews who spoke Greek and knew little or no Aramaic. These groups would tend to worship as Jews in their own languages. and this practice would carry over when they become Christians. The former group would be principally of Palestinian origin while the latter would be principally Jews of Dispersion who had come to settle in Jerusalem. The latter group was more open to syncretistic influence than the former. but it should be emphasized that they had a strong sense of their Jewishness: Hellenist Jews were strongly attached to the temple. The complaint which the Hellenist made concerned the lack of attention of their widows in the provision made by the Church for the poor (Marshall 1973: 125 -
126).
Varathan agrees with what Marshall says coming out very clearly in support of the idea that the problem in Acts chapter six was one of culture and not the place of origin or race.
These two latter issues could have contributed to the \\<'hole problem but cultural differences and lack of understanding of each other seem to be the root cause of the issue.
What exactly was the identity of these two groups? Ithas usually been supposed that they were distinguished from each other by a mixture of geographical and language. That is the Hellenistai (Hellenists) came from the diaspora. and had come back and settled in Palestine and spoke the Greek language. This is an inadequate explanation. however.
Since Paul called himself Hebraios (a Hebrew of Hebrews). in spite of the fact that he came from Tarsus and spoke Greek. the distinction. therefore must go beyond origin and language to culture. In this case the I-1ellenistai not only spoke Greek but also thought and believed like Greeks, while the Hebraioi not only spoke Aramaic but also they were deeply immersed in Hebrew culture. There had always. of course. been rivalry between these two groups in Jewish culture: the tragedy is that it was and is still perpetuated within the new community of Jesus. v"ho by his death had abolished such distinctions of race. colour. language and culture (Varathan 2003: 91).
This problem however led the early Church to deal with more than just the surface of