PURPOSEFUL CONTRASTS IN THE BOOK OF ACTS

For those churches who base all their beliefs and practices on Scripture alone, the Book of Acts is extremely important in describing the activities during first-century Christianity. But there are two provisos that such an approach must take into account. The first is the necessity of considering the many cultural differences between then and now. But the second factor is just as important and often ignored.

In reading an historical account such as Acts it is easy to confuse what is merely descriptive with what is prescriptive or proscriptive. In this regard, it is interesting to note how many times Luke purposely pairs similar accounts that point in opposite directions, perhaps so as to avoid this trap. (Craddock has even noted the same phenomenon in Luke's Gospel.) Let me explain further by considering the following pairs of passages in Acts.

Healing of Jewish cripple leads to praise of God (3:1-10) vs.

Healing of Gentile cripple leads to worship of Paul and Barnabas (14:8-18)

This demonstrates that onlookers generally interpret miraculous acts of God according to their preconceived religious or anti-religious beliefs, and thus miraculous signs will not inevitably be enough to win others to Christ.

Barnabas and others sell land and donate proceeds to the church (4:32-37) vs.

Ananias and Sapphira sell land but secretly keep some of the proceeds (5:1-11)

The first instance by itself might be taken to indicate the norm among Christians; however, Peter's comment during the following story shows that this sort of action was strictly voluntary and not really expected of everyone (see 5:4).

Simon the magician believes (8:9-13) vs.

Elymas the magician doesn't believe (13:6-11)

From Simon's initial action, one might arrive at the supposition that Christianity was especially appealing to those gullible people who were already dabbling in mystical practices. But from Simon's later actions and the example of Elymas, one could just as easily arrive atthe opposite conclusion (i.e. that those involved in magical practices may be extremely hard to reach for Christ).

The Holy Spirit is received before baptism (10:44-48)

Believers are baptized but only receive the Holy Spirit later (13:12-17)

Actually, neither one of these examples provides any sort of guidance for today's church. Each represented a special circumstance in which an apostle needed to be present to authenticate a new people group being added to the church. The norm seen in both Acts and Paul's teachings is that one receives the Holy Spirit at baptism, not before or after.

Paul is blinded by Christ's glory (9:1-9) vs.

Paul blinds Elymas for his disbelief (13:11)

The identical result came from diametrically opposed forces. This is one reason why it is completely improper to judge people who may have some sort of physical or mental handicap as if it were always the result of their sinful actions or those of their parents (as the apostles did in the case of the man who was blind from birth).

James is killed by the authorities (12:2) vs.

Peter is rescued from prison (12:3-19)

If we only had the first example, it might be taken as an indication that God has no power whatsoever over the forces of darkness. If we had only the second example, it would be all too easy to conclude, along with the followers of the Prosperity Gospel, that God will bless us here on earth as long as we follow His will.

Jailers are killed for letting Peter escape (12:18-19) vs.

Jailer is saved after earthquake in jail (16:25-34)

This is a somewhat related pair of contrasts, but this time involving the fallout of God's actions on others who might be only indirectly involved. As to whether God purposely visited disaster on one group of jailers while zeroing in on another for salvation, it is certainly not up to judge His actions or motives.

Herod dies after claiming glory (12:20-23) vs.

Paul denies all glory and worship (14:11-15)

This example is probably not a good one to demonstrate my point since between the two narratives we actually see both sides of the same coin: only God deserves mankind's praise.

Paul follows the Holy Spirit's leading (16:6-9) vs.

Paul seems to ignore the Holy Spirit's advice (20:1-14)

Again, there is no strict contradiction between these two incidences. The best moral to get from this pair is to say that sometimes the Holy Spirit clearly tells us what to do, and that should be obeyed. However, at other times His words come in the form of a warning ahead of time as to the probable practical results from an intended action. The latter should certainly be heeded, but if (as in Paul's) case there are overwhelming spiritual reasons with going ahead with a plan, then one is free to proceed.

Paul refuses to leave town quietly after being mistreated (16:35-40) vs.

Paul leaves in the night to avoid persecution (17:10)

Neither one action nor the other can be taken as a universal rule of thumb for our actions since either one might be appropriate according to the specific circumstances. In the case of Acts 16, it was important that Paul confront the magistrates of the town to ensure that on his departure, the fledgling church members there would not be similarly mistreated.

Jews riot after Paul's preaching in the synagogue (17:1-9) vs.

Synagogue of Beroeans accept Paul's preaching (17:10-15)

We are told that the word of God is like a two-edged sword, and it will result in diametrically opposed reactions from those who hear it. Thus, we are to neither (1) avoid preaching for fear it might result in increased opposition to the cause of Christ nor (2) preach with the full expectation that the results will always be favorable.

Roman authorities worried about accusations made by Jews (17:6-9) vs.

Roman authority ignores Jewish accusations (18:12-17)

The bottom line here is that we can not predict one way or another the response of civil authorities to accusations made against Christians by others.

Believer with incomplete knowledge does not need re-baptism (18:24-26)

Believers with incomplete knowledge do need re-baptism (19:1-7)

This is another example of a contrast that might not be one at all. The reason is that although it does not specifically say that Apollos was baptized after he was enlightened by Priscilla and Aquila, many commentators assume that he obviously would have been.

Almost magical healings using handkerchiefs, etc. (19:11-12) vs.

Attempt at magical exorcism fails (19:13-20)

It would be all too easy from the first example to embrace the later church's preoccupation with the veneration of relics, icons or statues as possessing almost magical healing properties in themselves. But that story needs to read in conjunction with the remainder of the chapter in Acts in which (1) the populace of the city burned all their magic spells and books and (2) the Jewish exorcists attempted, very unsuccessfully, to co-opt the names of Jesus and Paul as mere magic words to be used in the absence of faith.