Does Acts merely record the early church’s history, or does it provide a blueprint for the church today? When reflecting on this question, it is essential to consider Luke’s intent and theological agenda for penning the book. The book’s first verse refers to the author’s “former account” (1:1 NET), the Gospel of Luke, which describes all that Jesus did and taught his disciples until the ascension. The Book of Acts, therefore, presents itself as an account of what happened after Jesus’s ministry and the history of the early church. This account reads like a story. Hence, many scholars classify it as a historical narrative (Toussaint 1985, 351).
Are we then to read the book as though it merely describes what happened (descriptive)? In other words, how relevant is the Book of Acts for the life of the twenty-first-century church?
It is certainly not irrelevant because biblical narratives contain ample theological truth, even though they are not necessarily written explicitly to teach theology. This principle holds for Acts, where Luke chose specific events and places to communicate theological truths and hence it should be understood as “Theological History.” Consequently, the interpreter must discern between what is historical and what is intended to be a norm for the church. These considerations highlight the interpretive dilemma of the book: to what degree is the Book Acts a blueprint for the church today?
Fee and Stuart (2003, 114) believe that Luke uses the whole of Acts as a model but that the model does not lie in the specifics but in the overall picture of the narrative (meta-narrative), which is the expansion of the gospel empowered by the Holy Spirit and resulting in changed lives and local communities. So, the discerning interpreter must consider how the events function in the total narrative. In this regard, Fee and Stuart assist us by categorizing the events as primary or secondary, where the primary aspect determines the normativity of the principle. In contrast, the secondary factors are circumstantial and thus incidental. What is incidental to the primary intent carries less weight and may only serve to support what is explicitly taught. These considerations are critical to the church that looks to the early Christian experience narrated in Acts as a people in transition and elevates it to a norm to be restored to the modern church (restoration mentality).
So, to what degree the Book of Acts is a blueprint for the church today must be established before we say things like Acts plainly teaches us that… because it is not so plain after all. Part 2 will attempt to answer the question by digging further into authorial intent, rhetorical structure, and exegetical sampling.
To What Degree is the Book of Acts a Blueprint for the Church Today? (Part 2)
Part 1 established the background and foundational platform to answer the question, “to what degree is Acts a blueprint for the church today?” Part 2 will attempt to answer the question by digging further into authorial intent, rhetorical structure, and exegetical sampling.
Toussaint (1985, 350) affirms that the rhetorical structure of Acts appears to be based on Acts 1:8 with an intent to show the expansion of Christianity from Jerusalem (chs. 1–7) to Samaria and Judea (chs. 8–10) and the ends of the earth (chs. 11–28) through the power of the Holy Spirit revealing God’s ultimate plan to include Jews and Gentiles in his kingdom. The plot progresses by shifting focus of the primary characters in Acts—Peter (chs. 1–12) ministering to the Jews, and Paul ministering to the Gentiles (chs. 13–28). Consequently, Luke, in Acts 2, narrates Pentecost in Jerusalem, where Jews became believers in Jesus and were baptized with the Holy Spirit. In Acts 8, we have an extension of Pentecost in Samaria; Samaritans came to believe in Jesus and were baptized with the Holy Spirit. In Acts 10, we have a further extension of Pentecost, this time to the house of Cornelius in Caesarea; there, Gentiles believed in Jesus and were baptized with the Holy Spirit. In Acts chapter 19, we have yet another extension of Pentecost; this time, former disciples of John the Baptist believe in Jesus, and they were baptized with the Holy Spirit.
A straightforward reading of Peter’s sermon at Pentecost delineates repentance, water baptism, and receiving the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38–39). Before we elevate this into a dogma, it is wise to complement it with the other salvation accounts that unfold in Acts. In Acts 8, we read about the conversion of the Samaritans; sure enough, the hypothesis holds. At the preaching of Philip, they believed and were baptized (v. 12). However, “only after” the apostles Peter and John arrived later did they receive the Holy Spirit (v. 7). In Acts 10, in the case of Cornelius and his household, the Holy Spirit came on all of them while Peter was still preaching (v. 44). As a result, they broke out in tongues and started praising God. Only then did Peter order them to be baptized (v. 48). In Acts 19, the disciples of John the Baptist were baptized in the name of Jesus and received the Holy Spirit (vv. 5–6). Through further exegetical sampling, Pentecost served as a benchmark in the conversion-initiation experience when Luke records the conversions (2:38–39). Nevertheless, these can be in reverse order, with the Holy Spirit not given immediately at the point of salvation with or without the laying on of hands, with or without mentioning the gift of tongues, and scarcely ever with a specific mention of repentance. Such diversity means no specific pattern is set forth as the model Christian experience. All four instances are different enough to be cautious when basing doctrinal formulations. Does this mean there are contradictions, so we should apply a hermeneutic of suspicion? God forbid, no! It is just that the reception of the Holy Spirit does not follow a specific pattern, and many events described in Acts are circumstantially and contextually conditioned. Furthermore, it does not appear that Luke intended to standardize things or bring everything into uniformity. The only caution is that before we proclaim some teaching, command, or practice to be normative in historical narratives, we should consider Voorwinde’s (2010) suggestion to apply three hermeneutical principles: (a) we need to consider the principle of non-contradiction. Does the practice or doctrine we are dealing with contradict another teaching or practice in Acts? (b) We must ask whether we are dealing with a command or a description. A command in the Book of Acts is more likely to be normative but not necessarily so; (c) Is the command or practice under consideration in Acts reinforced in other parts of the New Testament?
The Book of Acts is essential for the church today. It presents the modern reader with godly examples of faith, obedience, zeal, and how God led and empowered the early church to extend his kingdom in fulfillment of prophecy (1:8). At the same time, it is part of the biblical canon and, therefore divinely inspired (2 Tim 3:16–17) to teach and transform the lives of its readers, however it would be dangerous to present the Acts narrative as normative and insist that these earlier events or actions are examples to be followed as recorded (historical precedent). Fee and Stuart (2003, 119) conclude that “Unless Scripture explicitly tells us we must do something, what is only narrated or described does not function in a normative (i.e., obligatory) way—unless it can be demonstrated on other grounds that the author intended to function in this way.” A broader reading of Fee and Stuart (2003) appeals for a responsible hermeneutical approach when handling Acts, pointing to the requirement of genre-appropriate hermeneutical due diligence and precision.
Short Bio
Jose was born in Lisbon, Portugal, grew up in Mozambique and South Africa currently living in Johannesburg. He was last employed in the corporate world as a General Manager by Sulzer SA, a Swiss engineering company. Jose holds a master’s in theology (MTh) from the South African Theological Seminary (SATS), where he now serves as an academic. He is an active member of the New Testament Society of Southern Africa (NTSSA). His research interests are in Pauline studies.
Works Cited
Fee, Gordon D., and Stuart D. 2003. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. 3rd ed.
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Toussaint, Stanley D. 1985. “Acts.” In Vol. 2 of The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of Scripture, edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, 349–434. Wheaton: Victor Books.
Voorwinde, S. 2010. “How Normative Is Acts?” Vox Reformata 78:33–56.
