A Commentary on Acts

In the series Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Eckhard J. Schnabel, distinguished professor of New Testament Studies at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, wrote a commentary on Acts. 
In this series each contributor treats the literary context and structure of the passage in the original Greek and provides an original translation based on the literary structure. In the explanation that follows Greek word are place between brackets. A quite unique feature of this series is that is both useful for pastors and students who know Greek and those who do not have a workable knowledge of it.

The explanation of a passage of followed by theology in application. In this section attention is paid for the relevance of the passage for today. In this way we find in this commentary the classic conviction that application of Scripture is a part of the explanation because the Scripture is not just a voice from the past, but the voice of the living God. Inspiration has not just to do with the origin of Scripture, namely that the words written down by the writers of the books of the Bible are the words of the Holy Spirit, inspiration is also a remaining quality of the Bible.

Schnabel has a high view of the historical reliability of Acts. With regard to the date of Paul’s letter to the Galatians, he prefers an early dating before the Apostle Convent. Doing that it is easier to understand the connection between what Paul narrates in Gala-tians and Luke in Acts.

Schnabel shows the origin and extension movement of the followers of Jesus or the Christian Church is in Acts portrayed as the fulfillment of the Old Testament of the prophecies of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the restoration of Israel connected with it. Gentiles are incorporated in the community without having to conform to the Mosaic legislation.

I agree with Schnabel that the best way to understand the regulations of the Apostle Convent in terms of the regulations in Lev 17-18 for Gentiles who live in Israel as resident aliens. Under the new dispensation these rules must be followed for Gentiles who belong to the Church so that Jews and Gentiles can peacefully live together in the Christian Church. Schabel underlines that Acts teaches us God through Jesus as the exalted Messiah grants to presence of the Holy Spirit.

The second volume written by Luke has as content the acts of the exalted Messiah through the Spirit outpoured by Him. Apostles and evangelists are the means used by Christ and His Spirit. In the first part of Acts Peter stands in the centre and in the second part – even more than Peter in the first – Paul.

Only once (Acts 14:4) Paul - together with Barnabbas - is called an apostle by Luke. To explain this phenomenon Schnabel points to the fact Luke is the only evangelist who traces the designation of the Twelve as ‘apostles’ to Jesus Himself (Luke 6:13).He evidently wanted to be consistent and use as much as possible that term for the Twelve only.

Luke surely has known that Paul had to insist on his right to be called an apostle, yet he did not use the second volume of his work to bolster Paul’s apostolic credentials. Paul and Barnabbas are called apostles in Acts14:4 because that have been send out by the risen Lord, the church of Jerusalem and the church of Antioch.

In find the commentary of Schnabel both a reliable, very readable and useful commentary also for pastors and students who do not know Greek. Besides the points I already highlighted I want to direct your attention to the fact that the commentary of Schnabel helps us to realize – perhaps better than before – that the Holy Spirit is the Originator of the Christian church and He is the transforming power of the new community of believers.

That men are becoming believers and transformed to the image of Christ is finally God’s work or the work of the Lord Jesus Christ through His Spirit. Luke shows us that nothing can hinder the progress of the gospel. The history of the church is the heart of the history of the word. Although the cano­nical period is closed, the same remains true until the end of history, when finally already predestinated to life are brought to faith in Jesus Christ.

Eckhard J. Schnabel, Acts, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), hardcover 1161 pp., price $59,99. (ISBN 978-0-310-24367-0)

The Gospel According to Mark

In the Pillar New Testament Commentary James R. Edwards, pro-fessor of theology at Whitworth College in Spokane, Washington, wrote a volume on the gospel according to Mark. He notes that the weight of evidence rest firmly in the favor of the ecclesiastical tradition that John Mark was his author.

The tradition is not unanimous about its date. According to Irenaeus and the testimony of the Anti-Marcionite Prologue it was written after the death of Peter. However, Clemens of Alexandria and Origin report that it was written in Rome during Peter’s lifetime. Edwards thinks we must date Mark’s gospel between the fire of Rome in 64 and the fall of Jerusalem in 70. I myself think that an earlier date already in the end of the fifties remains a vital option.

In accordance with the great majority of New Testament scholars Edwards thinks that the longer ending of the gospel of Mark is secondary. He typifies it as an early Christian resur­rec­tion mosaic based on several gospel traditions about the resurrection.  It testi-fies that the gospel of Jesus Christ was handled down by commu-nities of faith.

I admit the differences in style and language between the longer ending of Mark with the main part of his gospel. I prefer the suggestion of – among others – made by David Alan Black that the longer ending is a Markan supplement.

In this supplement in which he used less the words he actually heard out the mouth of Peter than in this ending. We must not forget that the great majority of manuscripts has this ending. The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are the exception. We must not to easily conclude that we must always prefer the testimony of these manuscripts.

With regard the ways in which Mark narrates the gospel which bears his name, Edwards points to the sandwich technique. We have some ten examples of this technique in Mark. Each sandwich unit consists of an A-B-A’-sequence. The B-component functions as the theological key to the flanking halves. A clear example is the woman with hemorrhage who interrupts Jesus en route to Jairus’ house. Only after recording the woman’s healing Mark resumes with the healing of Jairus’ daughter. This particular sandwich is about faith.

The gospel according to Mark is the gospel of Jesus Christ as the divine and suffering Son of God. In his sufferings Jesus fulfills the prophecy of the Servant song of Isaiah 53. When Jesus is declared by his Father that he is his beloved son, the word ‘beloved’ is an allusion to Isaiah 42:1. There we read that God has a delight in his Servant. Edwards point to the fact that in Mark’s gospel the person of Jesus receives much more attention than his teaching. The focus is on what Christ did.

The gospel according to Mark gives us not only a portrait of Jesus but also of his disciples. Discipleship is a major theme of the second gospel. To Jesus as the Jesus suffering Son of God belongs suffe-ring discipleship. A great example of faith a discipleship is the centurion at the cross. Witnessing Jesus suffering and death he confesses him as Son of God.

The faith response of the inner circle of the Eleven (Judas excluded) disciples is halting and incomplete, but nevertheless real true. By repeatedly hearing and receiving their faith and its fruits grows slowly. Hearing to Jesus all our life is what we have to do when we want to be his disciples. 
Remarkable is the patience of Jesus with his disciples who again and again show lack of insight, but Jesus continues to teach them especially by what he does. The climax is his death on the cross followed by his resurrection. In 2012 a reprint of the useful com-mentary of James Edwards on Mark was published

James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark, The Pillar New Testament Commentary, Eerdmans Publshing Co., Grand Rapids/Cambridge 2002 (reprint 2012); ISBN 978-0-85111-778-23; hardcover 552 pp., price $52,--

A Commentary on Luke

Already a couple of years ago Zondervan Publishing Co. launched the series Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. The strength of this series is that both the academic scholar and the pastor who has no or limited knowledge of Greek can use it with profit. And what true is for the pastor who no knowledge of Greek is also true for the layman. First you find the literary context of a passage. Then the main idea of the passage is given. This is followed by a translation and graphical layout.

Immediately following we find the structure and exegetical outline. Then the explanation of the text comes. First we have the trans-lation of the text and then the original Greek. In the explanation original Greek words are always between parentheses. That is the reason that this commentary is so useful both for the scholar and the person who does not know Greek. 
After the explanation we have what is called ‘theology in appli-cation’. This is in accordance with the classic Christian idea of Bible commentary that explanation of the Scripture can never be without application because the Scriptures are the Word of God for all ages.

The commentary on the gospel of Luke in the Zondervan Exege-tical Commentary on the New Testament has been done by David E. Garland, dean and professor of Christian Scriptures at George W. Truett Seminary, Baylor University. The explanation of the text of the gospel is preceded by an introduction and followed by a brief sketch of the theology of Luke.

Garland maintains the traditional view that the gospel and Acts were written by Luke who was the companion of Paul during a part of his travels. Following Martin Hengel he points that to the very early attestation of the titles of the gospels. Usually Luke is seen as a proselyte. Garland makes clear that there is not compelling evidence for this view. He could also have been a Hellenistic Jewish Christian; a view that Garland prefers.

Although Luke himself was not an eyewitness, all what he wrote was based on what Luke heard out of the mouth of eyewitnesses. It seem that a circle of women disciples were a source important of information for Luke. This explains the prominent place women figure have in his gospel.

Garland rightly takes the position that Luke and Acts must be taken together when discussing their genre. He thinks that Aune might be right when he asserted that Luke wrote a singular literary work in two books; book meaning also papyrus roll. This explains the striking proportionality of Luke and Acts. I agree with Garland that Luke-Acts belongs to the broad spectrum of Hellenistic histo-riography.

I would add that Luke was also consciously influenced by the histo-riography of the Old Testament. With the writers of Old Testament history he knows that the one living God fulfills his plan in history. Garland prefers to date Luke-Acts somewhere between 75-90, although he knows that arguments are slight. I think that a good case can be made for an earlier date.

Luke presents the scriptural story and its themes as culminating in the Lord Jesus Christ. The gentiles addressed by Luke-Acts are assured that their acceptance of Jesus and inclusion in the people of God was a part of God’s plan revealed in the Old Testament.
I would even more strongly that Garland does, formulate that the formation of the church in the New Testament dispensation that consist both of Jews and gentiles , is the fulfillment of the promises of the restoration of Israel. 
At the same time I would point to the fact that this does not mean for Luke that Jews has no longer a special place in God’s purposes. Acts end with the preaching of the gospel; a preaching that goes out not only to gentile but also to Jews.

Following Witherington Garland notes that both Luke and Acts bear some striking resemblance to the Greek kata genos style of arranging one’s history, whereby the work proceeds along geo-graphical as well as chronological lines.

Garland emphasizes that Luke wrote both as a theologian, historian and pastor. He wrote both his gospel and Acts to confront men with the ever present person of Jesus and his word. Jesus is presented as the only Savior. Necessary for salvation are repentance and faith.

David E. Garland, Luke, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan 2011; ISBN 978-0-310-24359-5; hardcover 1039 pp., price $59,99

The Canon of the New Testament

Kruger can be seen as a real expert on the history of the formation of the canon of the New Testament. He combines his great academic insight with a deep love for the Bible as the Word of God. This combination of academic quality and piety is a model for every biblical scholar. In 2013 a second book written by him was published on this subject. Quite a lot of New Testament scholars see the canon of the New Testament as a ecclesiastical product of the fourth century.

This view is not in accordance with the classical view on the canon. In his last book Kruger tackles the five most prevalent objections to the classic, Christian understanding of the emerging, self-authenticating collection of authoritative counterparts to the Old Testament. These five objections are: 1. We must make a sharp distinction between Scripture and canon; 2. There was nothing in earliest Christianity that might have led to a canon; 3. Early Christianity was averse of written documents; 4.The New Testament authors were unaware of their authority; 5. The New Testament books were first regarded as Scripture at the end of the second century.

Kruger distinguishes three models for the canon of the New Testament: the exclusive, functional and ontological model. Each model has its merits, but the one model does not exclude the other. The exclusive model thinks that only from the fourth century we can speak of the canon of the New Testament. It is true that in the fourth century there came a universal consensus about the exact boundary of the canon, although we must stress that this consensus was just recognized. It was not the result of a somewhat arbitrary ecclesiastical decision.

Nevertheless, already form the second century there are quite a lot of data that point to the use of books of the New Testament as Scripture having the same authority as the Old Testament books. This is the functional model of canon. This model is based on the use of books as Scripture. Very important are here the witness of Irenaeus and the Muratorian fragment. The last list confirms the scriptural status of at least 21 and perhaps 22 books of the New Testament. Revelation, Hebrews, James and 1 and 2 Peter are not mentioned. Whether 3 John is included is not sure.

Kruger says that the functional model has many positive elements and provides a welcome balance to the exclusive definition of the New Testament canon. He states that also the functional model has its weaknesses. Some books that were not included in the final canon of the New Testament had at least almost the status of Scripture. Especially the Pastor of Hermas can be mentioned in this context.

A much more important weakness of the functional model – a weakness that it shares with the exclusive model – is that it fails to address the ontological status of the New Testament books. The books that finally found their way in the canon of the New Testament have an intrinsic quality not found in others. They are written by the apostles or their direct companions. That was the reason already in the Muratorian frag­ment the Pastor of Hermas was not regarded as Scripture, because it was written quite recently.

Although 1 Clements was written roughly in the same period as the last books of the New Testament, it was never regarded as Scripture, because its author clearly made a distinction between his own authority and the authority of the apostles. Kruger points to the importance to have a clear sight on the intrinsic quality of the New Testament books. In regard with the question of the canon he speaks of the ontological model. This model is quite often completely neglected, although it is finally the most important model.

For early Christianity the decisive criterion was the apostolic nature of a document. Pseudonymity was for them a definite reason not to recognize a document a Scripture. Kruger challenges ably the view that the early Christians were averse of written documents. Already from its very beginnings Christianity had a canon, namely the canon of the Old Testament.

The statement of Papias that an eyewitness must be preferred above a written testimony, he means that a direct testimony must be preferred above an indirect testimony. The gospels are eyewitness accounts in written form and have for the new generations the same value and status as the original oral eyewitness accounts.

Kruger denies that the apostles did not realize their own authority. The data point in a complete opposite direction. The apostles realized that their authority stood on the same level as the authority of the Old Testament prophets. Then we must not forget that all writers of the Old Testament were seen as prophets. The apostles knew that their authority was in a certain sense an extension of the authority of Jesus Christ.

It is no coincidence that beginnings of the written down of the New Testament documents corresponds with the rise of Christianity as a missionary movement in the fifties and sixties of the New Testament. The need of written eyewitness accounts, of what Jesus had said and had done, was more and more felt. Especially Paul wrote letters to congregations founded by his missionary work. The letters quite often written because of problems in the congregations were a form on extended personal and apostolic presence.

I would add that letters in Antiquity used to have a semi-public status. The writes knew that his letter was preserved, shared with others and used in other context. This means that although having a somewhat occasional nature the apostles knew already from the beginning that what they put down to writing had form that moment an apostolic authority.

Kruger rightly states the formation of the canon represented the working of forces that were already present in primitive Christianity and made some form of canon virtually inevitable. Following David Meade Kruger says that the apocalyptic nature of Christianity provided a strong inner reason for extension of Scripture. We see in all forms of apocalypticism in the period of the Second Temple that written documents were produced.

The fact, that written documents in the form of the book of the Old Testament were essential for Christianity from its very beginning, means that among early Christians there were literate people. This must have been especially true for spiritual leaders. In the second place we must realize that orality and textuality cannot be seen as opposites.

In the Ancient world an illiterate person could be intimately familiar with a written text. Texts were written to be performed orally. This is certainly true not only of the New Testament letters but of all New Testament documents. Kruger has done us a great service by giving us many arguments that ontological model of the canon – a model that is connected with apostolic authority and divine inspiration belongs to the very essence of the Christian religion.

Michael J. Kruger, The Question of Canon: Challenging the status quo in the New Testament Debate, Apollos, Nottingham 2013; ISBN 978-1-78359-1-004-9; pb. 256 pp., prijs £14,99.

The Spirit and Christ in the New Testament & Christian Theology

The Spirit and Christ in the New Testament & Christian Theology is written as a Festschrift to honor the 65^th birthday of Max Turner, now professor emeritus of the London School of Theology. The outstanding New Testament scholarship of Turner has focused on Pneuma­to­logy and Christology. The Festschrift gathers articles on the Spirit and Christ by notable scholars including I. Howard Marshall, Donald Carson and Richard Bauckham. 
It is impossible to review all the twenty contributions. I restrict myself to the articles that I found particularly interesting, although this certainly has a subjective element. So do not think that the other articles are not worth to be read.

The opening article is written by James D.G. Dunn and is titled ‘The Lord, the Giver of Life’. Starting with the Old Testament Dunn notes that the Hebrew word רוּחַ means both ‘wind’ and ‘spirit’. The same is true for the Greek word πνευμα. Dunn rightly states that both in the Old and New Testament each function of the Spirit of God is an expression of the life-giving Spirit. The Spirit of life is both the Spirit of prophecy and the soteriological Spirit. The Spirit falling upon a man and giving him special power for a particular purpose is not really different from the indwelling Spirit who renews a person permanently.

When focusing on the gospel of John Dunn states that the Spirit was not a part of the experience of the disciples during Jesus’ pre-resurrection ministry. John makes us clear that the giving of the life-creating Spirit was the immediate and direct consequence of Jesus’ passion.

Dunn says that for John there was no difference between the disciples’ reception of the Hoy Spirit on the evening of day of the resurrection of Jesus and their commissioning and empowering for missions and ministry. He sees a real difference between Acts and John here, I would say that John teles­coped the events and that certainly for theological reasons, but that John and Acts do not contradict but supplement each other.

While Dunn stresses the discontinuity in the gospel of John with respect to the Holy Spirit and his work before and after the resurrection of Jesus, Cornelis Bennema speaks in his article about the giving of the Spirit in John 19-20 about an unfolding relationship. I find his approach more satisfying. Regarding the phrase in John 7:39b ‘the Spirit was not yet’ Bennema says that it does not refer to the Spirit’s inactivity, but to the degree that disciples of Jesus could experience the Spirit before the resurrection of Jesus.

I found the view of Bennema convincing that πνευμα in John 19:30 must be seen also as an allusion to the Holy Spirit. The ‘not yet’ of John 7:39b has already been removed in John 19:30, but only in John 20:22 the Spirit was actually given. While most scholars assume that the giving of the Spirit is one event, Bennema argues that the giving of the Spirit must be seen as a process that runs parallel to, and is step with, the process of Jesus’ glorification.

The article of Robert P. Menzies is devoted to the theme of the persecuted prophets in Luke’s two volume work. Persecution is a major theme in this work. Luke makes clear that perse­cu­tion has always been the portion of true prophets. For Luke every follower of Jesus is at least potentially a prophet. Luke consistently presents the Holy Spirit as the source of prophetic inspiration. Although Luke has related to us the outpouring of the Holy Spirit as a unique event, he already calls our attention to the prophetic work of the Spirit in the life of people who lived in the time just before Jesus was born.

Menzies emphasizes the model function of the book of Acts. I agree with him, but would also say that Pentecost is a unique event that marks the transition of the old to the new dispensation. The giving of the Spirit narrated in Acts to the Samaritans, Cornelius and the followers of John the Baptist must be seen as extension of Pentecost. In all this cases we see the transition from the Old Testament to the New Testament dispensation. But certainly the book of Acts is a model for all coming gene­ra­tions of believers in Christ that following him involves in principle suffering. The willingness to suffer for Christ is one of the marks of a true Christian.

Robert W. Wall has titled his contribution on Titus 3:5b-6 ‘Salvation Bath by the Spirit’. Wall sees the Pastoral Epistles as a legitimate and for the church of all ages very important and normative interpretation of the legacy of Paul. I would argue that the arguments against the authorship of Paul himself are not conclusive. In distinction to the other letters these letters are letters of instruction for Paul’s assistants in the apostolic ministry. The distinct theological accents can be explained in this way.

Besides the use of secretaries this is also the explanation for the difference language between the Pastoral Epistles and other letters of Paul. When we reckon with the possibility that Paul wrote at least two (1 Timothy and Titus) of the Pastoral Epistles during his third missionary journey we get a complete other view on Paul’s theology than is usually given. For Wall the question of authorship is only a side-path because he focuses on the content of Titus 3:5b-6 in its canonical setting.

Wall calls attention for the fact that just as in Romans 5:5 the verb εκχεω is used in Titus 3:6. There is certainly a correlation between both passages, but besides that Titus 3:6 alludes to a Pentecost tradition between Acts 2. The verb εκχεω is the main verb of the prophecy of Joel quoted in Acts 2. While in the LXX of Joel 3:1 and in Acts 2:17 the future tense is used, we have in Titus 3:6 the aorist.

Every true believer has received the Holy Spirit. The phrase ‘by Jesus Christ our Savior’ points to close connection of the Spirit and Christ in Pauline theo­logy. The preposition δια points in accordance with the witness of Acts to the fact that the crucified and resurrected Jesus is the agent of the outpouring of the Spirit.

Wall rightly states that we see behind Titus 3:5b-6 a Trinitarian conception of salvation. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit leads to rebirth and renewal. Certainly Titus 3:5b-6 alludes to water baptism. But water baptism is not efficient without the outpouring of the Spirit. It is just a seal and symbol of it. When Wall says that the grammar of Titus focuses the apocalypse of God’ salvation upon the Spirit’s bath of rebirth and renewal rather than the traditional Pauline formulation of justification, I cannot agree.

Not only here in Titus, but also in the letter to the Romans Paul makes clear that we have misunderstood his message, when we separates God’s pardon of sin and our purity form sin. For Romans I point to the relationship between Romans 5 and 6.

The contribution of Veli-Matti Kärkäinen ‘By Washing of Rege-neration and Renewal of Spirit’ is an article in the field of systematic theology that is closely related in content to the exe­getical article of Wall. Veli-Matti Kärkäinen criticizes both the understanding of the Reformers with regard justification and gives an interpretation of Luther that puts him closer to Eastern Orthodoxy. Justification argues Kärkäinen means for Luther also participation.

Because of the many issues involved about the content of this one article a whole book could be written. I just make a few remarks. Certainly Luther was less systematic than his close friend Melanch-thon and then a later Reformer as Calvin. I completely agree that Luther related justification to union with Christ. Kärkäinen does not deny the forsenic element in Luther’s doctrine of justification, but argues that Luther’s main emphasis participation in God through the indwelling of Christ through the Spirit.

I think this is a distortion of the theology of Luther. It is true that for Luther a believer justified by faith also acts just, but here is important that the saved sinner is both righteous and a sinner. That is the reason that Luther stresses again and again that the final consolation of a believer is what he called the alien righteousness of Christ that can only be found outside the believer, although it consolation is given to the believer by the working of the Spirit.

It seems to me that Kärkäinen more reacts to later Protestant theology than to the theology of the first generations Reformers. That is true both for Luther and Calvin. He seems not to have noticed that for Calvin it was very fundamental that God´s grace is what he called twofold (duplex gratia). Justification and sancti-fication are for Calvin inseparably related and are both fruits of the mystical union with Christ created and sustained by the Holy Spirit. It is remar­kable that in book III of his opus magnum The Institutes, the book devoted to the Holy Spirit and his work, Calvin first speaks about sanctification and only later about justification.

Calvin could do that without diminishing in any way the importance he contributed to the doctrine of justification, because as I noticed both justification and sanctification flow simul­ta­neously from the union with Christ. He wanted to stress in this way that the Reformed doctrine of justification is not meant to diminish the importance of sanctification. His second reason was that although every believer is completely justified, we experience and feel (I want to stress these words) during our whole life the significance of complete justification because as believers we fail every day. I think that these accents are extremely important and valuable although they are often neglected not only by believers and theologians who do not have a special bound with Calvin, but also by them who call themselves Reformed or Calvinist.

Coming back to Kärkäinen, Kärkäinen is right that the Reformed doctrine of justification was developed in a certain context. But I would stress that the significance they saw in the distinction between law and gospel is more than just contextual to the discussion of the sixteenth century. It has to do with the fact that the law cannot be fulfilled by man and this insight is one of the cornerstones of the message of Paul.

This makes plain why Paul speaks so antithetically about the law and its works on the one side and grace and faith at the other side, although certainly also other factors, not in the least place ecclesiastical factors, are involved. I would say - and that is in the line both of Luther and Calvin, although the way put it is perhaps more, that we need the Holy Spirit to distinguish in a right way law and gospel. And it is the Holy Spirit who not only renews us, but feels us with joy, sometimes joy unspeakable, about the amazing wonder of being declared righteousness only on account of the merits of Christ.

The Spirit and Christ in the New Testament & Christian Theology, ed. I. Howard Marshall, Volker Rabens and Cornelis Bennema, Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans 2012. Pp. 367. Paperback. $60,-- . ISBN 978-0-8028-6753-7.