Basic Information : Synopsis : Expectations : Thoughts : Evaluation : Book Group : New Words : Book References : Good Quotes : Table of Contents : References
Basic Information:
Author: N.T. Wright
Edition: epub on Libby from the Los Angeles Public Library
Publisher: Zondervan Academic
ISBN: 9780310167990 (ISBN10: 031016799X)
Start Date: Jan 9, 2025
Read Date: Jan 24, 2025
176 pages
Genre: Christianity,
Language Warning: None
Rated Overall: 4 out of 5
Religion: Christianity
Religious Quality: 4 out of 5
Christianity-Teaching Quality: 4 out of 5
Synopsis:
The author takes us through the book of Acts at a pace of mostly four chapters at a time. This is not a detailed commentary, but one which he is looking at Acts from a higher level, identifying themes rather than the minutia The themes he explores include:
- launching of God’s new creation in the person of his son.
- Resurrection is what hold together the gospel message
- ‘grace’ is not just for God’s free love in the gospel, but God’s generous outreach to all
- The gospel is for God to come and dwell with us.
- Tying heaven and earth together. The temple is the place of joining where the physical structure is replaced by God’s people.
- When the gospel is presented, it turns the table on the accuser and shows how believers are presenting messages from God
- Acts is the continuing story of Jesus doing his work in the world.
- Unity of believers points to all humans are created in God’s image and are loved.
Note: He uses the term Judean instead of Jewish.
Recommendation: Sherri
When: Jan 9, 2025
Date Became Aware of Book: November 2025
Why do I want to read this book: Sherri recommended the book and we are studying Acts in our House Church
What do I think I will get out of it? Background from a good theologian
Thoughts:
In my small group Bible study, we have been studying Acts. My wife coming across this book has been timely as it is giving me a bigger vision of what Luke is trying to convey.
Each chapter starts with an Introduction and ends with a Conclusion section. In between, he breaks up his thinking into sections.
Main points in the book:
Everything in this book hinges on Jesus’ resurrection
launching of God’s new creation in the person of his son.
Tying heaven and earth together. He uses the temple as a place where this happens. But we are now that temple.
Living under a culture where there are clashes between organized religion, pervading government and believers presence
People who were outside of the boundaries of religious acceptability being made holy by God.
‘grace’ is a shorthand not just for God’s free love in the gospel, but for God’s generous outreach to the pagans.
When the gospel is presented, it turns the table on the accuser and shows how believers are presenting messages from God
the point of the biblical story is for God to come and dwell with us.
Acts is the continuing story of Jesus doing his work in the world.
Unity of believers, which implicitly points to that all humans are created in God’s image and are loved.
Preface
This book offers a kind of bird’s-eye view of the Acts of the Apostles. Wright explains that for the most part, he will not be going verse by verse, but taking much of Acts in four chapter chunks, except for the start of Acts and Paul’s speech in Athens in Acts 17.
This book started as a series of lectures at Wycliffe Hall in Oxford. Then developed further in lectures in Houston and at the Lanier Library.
He uses the term Judean instead of Jew or Jewish. This can be a bit offsetting until you get used to it. He says this is more of an ancient way of referring to the Jewish people.
Chapter 1: Acts 1:1–11: to the ends of the earth!
Introduction
This book offers a brief, though not shallow, introduction to the Acts of the Apostles. Wright views this book as an interface between the gospel message to the Judeans and the Greco-Roman world. It covers 30 years of the early church and how it forms. It also is a selective history and not all encompassing.
The risen Jesus and the kingdom of God
the crucial thing here, which determines how Luke wants us to read the whole book, is that he now speaks of all that Jesus began to do and to teach. In other words, the ‘doing’ and ‘teaching’ didn’t stop. We are still in this era where Jesus is doing and teaching us. Am I alert to what He is teaching me? What He wants to do through me?
I had not noticed that in vs, before Jesus’ ascension, that the Holy Spirit spoke to the apostles.
V3 Everything in this book hinges on Jesus’ resurrection, not simply as an odd dramatic miracle that God did for Jesus, but as the launching of God’s new creation in the person of his son. And this is the main thrust of Wright’s book. This was the start of something new God was doing-tying heaven and earth together.
proofs-Wright thinks that the resurrection was being challenged even as Luke writes this account.
Anyway, the teaching of the risen lord in the short period before the ascension was focused on ‘the kingdom of God’. Since that had been the central theme of Jesus’ public career, it might come as a surprise that it isn’t referred to very often in Acts. We have two references here, in verses 3 and 6; two references right at the end of the book, in 28:23 and 31; and just four other references in the whole of the rest of the book, each time functioning as a shorthand for ‘what the apostles were generally talking about.
Wright says that the KOG was already a shorthand for what the Psalms and Isaiah 52 had to say. Acts and onward is the implementation of the KOG. “Inheritance is not as Christians might suppose, ‘heaven’. The inheritance is God’s promise to Abraham, amplified in his promises to David, concerning the whole world. I wonder if Wright is only partially correct on this. We are living during this time with a down payment on the full inheritance.
Kingdom and witness
The disciples were expecting that now that Jesus had shown himself to be the Messiah, that he would fulfill their desires of a kingdom of Israel being supreme. Most Christians today think in terms of “no, but” this will happen. Wright thinks in terms of “Yes, but”. The “but” is that the KOG has come, but not how you expect it to. The mission of the Church is not about preparing for Jesus to become king. It is implementing the fact that he has become king, even if that new kingship doesn’t look like the sort of thing people had been expecting. Wright looks at Daniel 7 and Psalm 2 as enlightening. This was not to be a new Maccabee movement.
Is the national dream of Israel what Jesus had in mind? No. That is also a question for America today. Rather it is the disciples calling to proclaim Jesus’ sovereign rule, not a nation’s.
Something else which Wright will continue to hit on is that salvation in the New Testament isn’t about our going to be with God, it’s about God coming to be with us.
The son of man coming in his glory
Explores where heaven is. Wright says that it is neither a physical place which a spaceship can reach nor a place which only our souls will go, such as what Plato hypothesized. Wright says that heaven and earth are the twin halves of God’s good creation. Not sure about the halves part, but maybe two parts? He says that heaven is God’s space while earth is ours. He says that heaven and earth are intertwined in the person of Jesus. The ascension isn’t about Jesus going away and leaving us to our own devices. It’s about Jesus now at the father’s right hand – in other words, holding the place of authority and power in the whole cosmos. See Psalm 8
After vs 11, Acts 1 gives way to reordering the community. They are a fellowship in prayer. He notes that we do not hear about Matthias again. Acts is very selective. It isn’t providing a complete and rounded ‘early church history’, with all the varied detail we might want.
Conclusion
There are the five things Wright wants us to know as we go through Acts:
- First, what biblical reference-points would first-century Judeans think of when faced with Jesus’ ascension? They might be considering Elijah.
- … second, we need to consider – as we shall be doing in later chapters – what it means to say that Jesus is already ruling the world. Is this a true fact or one which remains hidden or one which is about to be? Wright thinks it falls into “this is true”. The rulers of this world stamp their will on their subjects by bullying and violence. Jesus wins the victory through the power of self-giving love. It is just that The results are mostly not instantaneous. That’s not how self-giving love works. But they will quickly be remarkable.
- Third, what would people in Luke’s non-Judean world think of when faced with a story of someone ascending to heaven? This belief is foundational to Christianity. Without, the whole thing falls apart.
- Fourth, a contemporary sideswipe. Those in my (Anglican) tradition, and in some others, will know that the Church recently decided to keep a feast called ‘Christ the King’ on the last Sunday before Advent, in late November. The placement in the church calendar is awkward and deemphasises that it is through the ascension do we see that Christ is the King.
- fifth, a vital point which resonates forwards into the rest of the book: Jesus, in his human body, is now equally at home on earth and in heaven, so that in him the project of creation itself is fulfilled. Wright will continually talk about the fact that there is a physical place where heaven and earth come together – well, that is the very definition of a temple. … Acts 1 and 2 constitute Jesus and his people as the true Temple. Wright then notes that most of the pressure points and controversies in Acts are precisely about temples
Chapter 2: Acts 2 – 4: the new Temple
Introduction
Wright says that Luke is not interested in spiritual development in his book. More talking about how the church developed. He indicates that us moderns in trying to twist Acts into our thinking miss what Luke is trying to tell us.
God fulfilling his promise to dwell with his people
The great overarching story of Scripture (to repeat a point already made) is not about how humans get to go upstairs and live with God. It is about God’s intention to come and live with us and even, as we shall see, in us. Reiterating his points above, but maybe in a more comprehensive way. Wright then goes on to say Pentecost is God’s homecoming. It is both personal to each human and fulfillment of His covenant with Israel.
With this we have to take a deep breath, and learn to think in the way people in the ancient world regularly thought. Regular humans, not philosophers, looked at temples as places where the gods communicated with man. Pentecost now made it so that God communicates directly with each human. In Genesis 1 creation itself is a temple: a heaven-and-earth structure with an image at its heart.
Pentecost is when the Judeans celebrated the giving of the Law. To the Christian it should be when we celebrate the coming of the Holy Spirit to all.
Pentecost as the great turning point
Most of the controversies which are noted in Acts deal with temple issues in one way or another-heathen and Judean.
Pentecost is reversing Babel. Of course, there is a radical difference between Babel and Pentecost: at Babel, the many languages made communication impossible, whereas, at Pentecost, they enabled it. But the similarity – and with it, the strong hint at a world put right at last – remains striking. Wright says that Pentecost is not about spiritual maturity, but about the dominion Jesus has over all things.
Peter’s speech in Acts 2:14–46
Peter’s speech is aimed at three levels:
- First, this is the long-awaited fulfilment of Israel’s hopes: it is what we can summarise as the ‘new covenant’.
- Second, this has happened through the scripture-fulfilling resurrection and exaltation of the crucified Jesus, Israel’s Messiah.
- Third, it is therefore time for Israel to repent.
the early church hadn’t got that far yet![worrying about individual disciples spiritual growth-they only started] They were still being knocked off their feet by the one-off events that had just taken place.
The call to repentance is in line with Deut 30-both individual and community
Vs 42-47 brings into focus the new temple.
Acts 3 and 4: Jesus as the fulfilment of Scripture
The arc of the Acts story is that Jesus’ disciples now are the ones carrying out the mission of Jesus. The Gospel story, remember, was about what Jesus had begun to do and to teach. Wright notes that Peter’s talk does not say explicitly all which is to know about Jesus, rather there are undertones of it.
The temple is the site of this and a reminder that it is now through people the place where heaven and earth meet. The resurrection is preached much to the dismay of the Sadducees, but differently than how the Pharisees saw the resurrection.
This may be one reason why Jesus’ own unexpected resurrection caused Paul at least to conclude that Jesus was representing God’s people in person.
Herod plus Pilate plus the Judean leaders together represent the world’s rulers. It was the greatest empire, and the finest religion, the world had ever known that together put Jesus on the cross. That is where they start. No wonder there is consternation coming from the Temple.
When a line of Scripture is quoted, look for the larger context.
Wright recommends that the prayer at the start of Acts 4 be something all Christians become very familiar with.
in all genuine kingdom-work there will be moments when you find yourself confronted with one kind of challenge or another. At that point, I strongly recommend that you go back to Psalm 2 and Acts 4, and cling on for dear life to the great conclusion:
Conclusion
Chapter 3: Acts 5 – 8: mission and martyrdom
Introduction
Things went well for believers in the first four chapters. Now in these chapters, tougher questions are being faced. What exactly is the relationship between ‘obeying God’ and living under human authority? That may also be the question we are faced with during the next four years. … With questions like these, we today are inclined to go for an either/or.
Obeying God, not human beings
Wright goes through incidents in the Old Testament where people are identified as doing things which are disagreeable with God and paying the price. That is the story in Acts 5 where Ananias and Sapphira are struck down. They are about treating the things of God as though they are just ordinary. This is a key thing. A warning to us, to me, that the things of God are holy.
He points out this is the danger of being a temple of God where heaven and earth collide. We are called to be holy. They are confrontations with the mystery of holiness.
The rest of Acts 3 has Peter and John’s shadow healing people and them being brought before the Sanhedrim. This gives them the opportunity to bring their message to leaders. Leaders tell them not to spread this message and Peter says they are to obey God, not men. This brings the central point to this section.
zeal=some translations have it as filled with righteous indignation. But Luke seems to indicate more of a jealousy.
Talks about the politics of Shammeri-a conservative interpretation, more like the Maccabees-than Hillel/Gamaliel who had a more liberal bent. Wright indicates this is not so much about what the Torah says, but What mattered was figuring out what obedience to torah meant in terms of resisting the rule of the pagans.
I[Wright] think Luke describes this[Gamaliel’s point] in detail because one of his subtexts all through the book is that this is the sort of conclusion that wise authorities ought to reach.
Punishment rather than as a deterrent to early Christians indicated they were on the right track.
All this is part of learning to live as Temple-people in a conflicted and confused world, as people of new creation within the present ambiguous distorted creation, resisting the simplistic pseudo-holiness of a dualism that dismisses existing structures as hopeless.
Temple and torah in God’s longer purposes
Note in passing the huge innovation in social policy that Luke takes for granted: if you’re going to live as extended family, you’ll have to make careful arrangements for people who would otherwise be destitute. This is the implementation of the Old Testament concern for the widow, orphan and stranger.
While we think of the seven as deacons, Luke does not refer to them as such, but as stewards.
Wright notes that once you get someone going and charged, they may not stay within the confines of what you think they should be doing.
Wright goes through Steven’s speech, pointing out that Stephen is not against the temple, rather he wants the fulfillment of the temple purpose. .
Steven’s vision of Jesus is him standing, providing intercession for His people. Jesus’ way is intercession, rather than cursing, was the way of the new, fulfilled, law and Temple. Praying for your enemy’s good. (It is interesting that they both refer to the ‘spirit’; neither here nor elsewhere in early Christianity do we find people referring to the ‘soul’ in this connection, however common that Platonic idea has become today.)
Beware of the temptation to dualism, to think that the only response to corruption is to get out and go elsewhere.
The gospel reaches Samaria
Wright has a similar conclusion as I have had. Peter and John went to Samaria to figure out what was going on and was this truly God working there. Wright takes it one step further. There would not be a Judean Church and a Samaritan Church, rather all would be The Church.
Even though the Samaritans were impure to the Judean, God had made them pure through their faith. Holiness still mattered-take a look at Ananias and Sapphira.
The story of Simon the Magician is linked to money corrupting. The thrust is that money can corrupt the church, if it is let to.
The conversion of the Samaritans is not a people who were tricked into believing magical things and now believe another magic. Rather, like the history of the modern world – even the modern highly educated Western world – shows that people are still quite easily taken in by tricksters.
The end of the chapter has it that an eunuch was converted, a eunuch which according to Isaiah would never become a Jew. This Gentile man who as a eunuch could never have been acceptable as a proselyte, could never have been welcomed right into the Temple
Conclusion
Chapter 4: Acts 9 – 12: breaking through the Gentile barrier
Introduction
When people speak of
Paul’s ‘conversion’, they often imagine that Saul of Tarsus switched from a religion called ‘Judaism’ to a religion called ‘Christianity’. But that’s clearly wrong. Wright’s point here is not that he converted from being a Jew to a Christian. There was no thing called Christianity at the time. Also it appears that Paul kept the faith he was brought up in and understood that it was fulfilled by Jesus. What happens to your vision of God when he sends his Messiah at last – and he gets crucified? Wright thinks more in terms that Saul had a redefinition of his faith rather than a change.
What really happened to Saul
I generally hate articles which start with “what really happened …”. They tend in my estimation to center a lot on speculation, rarely on facts.
Wright talks about how this would seem to be fanciful to those who picture a complete separation between heaven and earth or to those who think that heaven is a made up place. But to the average person on the street, this account would confirm an overlap between heaven and earth.
How Wright describes Saul’s reaction is that it is both a fulfillment of everything Saul wanted from his faith, but something totally different than he was expecting. Saul had to come to terms with the fact that he had radically misunderstood what Israel’s God was doing, and hence also what, in the last analysis, he was really like.
Ananias offers us a quiet model of dangerous obedience.
Think again of Simeon in Luke 2: a light for the Gentiles, and glory for Israel. This is to be Saul’s mission in life.
There is trouble with Paul’s message right from the get-go. Interesting that Wright notes that Paul is almost as much trouble for believers as a believer as when he persecuted them. With Israel’s Scriptures richly present to his mind, and the risen Jesus burningly alive in his heart, he wasn’t going to mess around or tolerate sloppy thinking or half-baked arguments. … We are not told, though, either by Paul or by Luke, what Saul did back home in Tarsus in the decade between the Jerusalem church sending him there and the time when Barnabas went to fetch him to help in Antioch. Wright thinks he was in anguish over his past, prayed for enlightenment and meditated.
God stops persecution
The growth of the church and its persecution is reviewed through King Agrippa. The result? God’s word grew and multiplied. Very similar to Gen 1:28 of “be fruitful and multiply.”
Acts 12 has King Agrippa shown as the fake Messiah.
Wright wonders why Peter got out of jail and James lost his life? I suspect the early Christians wouldn’t have asked that question; they took random persecution for granted. Presumably they had been praying for James as well, and Herod killed him anyway. Perhaps that’s why, when Peter comes knocking on the door, they don’t believe it’s him. … when Rhoda says she’s heard Peter knocking on the door they think Peter has indeed been killed, like James, and that this is one of those post-mortem visitations.
There is a difference between visions and reality-the first century people knew what was real.
Peter and Cornelius: the Messiah as lord of the whole world
Luke establishes Peter as an important person in spreading God’s word. Also the one who brings the Gentiles in as believers. This shows that Paul is not leading a breakaway movement to have Gentiles take over. This was inspiring rumors and conspiracy thoughts. modern version of the rumours that went round in Paul’s day might be the idea, suggested by some influential scholars, of a ‘Petrine’ church representing something called ‘Judean (or ‘Jewish’) Christianity’ and a ‘Pauline’ one representing something called ‘Gentile Christianity’.
Wright deviates a bit and shows how when starting with your own pet theory can lead you astray from what the Bible wants us to know.
Luke has given us this slow-motion picture of Peter and Cornelius, not least to emphasise the underlying unity of the different branches of the early church.
What you eat and who you eat with are important, not only to early Judeans but today.
This allowing Gentiles in as believers is not a loosening of standards rather a sense that what was unclean is being made clean. It meant, rather, that the gospel itself had done its cleansing, transforming work, so that those Gentiles were unclean no longer.
This is not a story of God recognizing people as admitting the Jews and so they are let in. Rather it is the story of a Gentile, being shown the Way and accepting it and living it. We remind ourselves that ‘forgiveness of sins’, for a Judean of the time, had the larger overtones of God rescuing his people from the prolonged exile. For a Gentile it is being rescued from idolatry.
Now we see a different point: that we must obey God rather than the pressure-groups, not only just authorities.
You never know what new purposes and possibilities are waiting in the wings. But
if you step out of the great river of prayer you may just never see them
Grace and radical newness
Strange things were happening in Antioch. The believers in Jerusalem sent Barnabas there to find out what was going on. It was here the believers first were called little Christs, Messiah-people, Christians. These people were of all races, genders, classes.
A famine was prophesied to hit. The Christians helped alleviate the effects-they did not say this was a plague on all.
Conclusion
Chapter 5: Acts 13 – 16: converts and controversy
Introduction
Acts, as I said before, is not trying to give us a full ‘early church history. … Luke is going to unveil the vocation that shaped Paul’s energetic and dramatic work, the calling through which he in turn gave decisive shape to the life and thinking of the church as it spread across the Roman Empire. Luke’s rendition is not just factual history, but an explanation of what is happening with the Church. Luke is to justify the mission of Paul – not just what he did, and how he did it, but why; and also why, though he was constantly attacked and misunderstood.
Part of what Luke will show is that Paul gets in trouble. But the Roman authorities see that it is not that Paul is doing wrong. Luke insists again and again that it’s the present world that’s out of joint and under judgement, and that the reason Paul gets into trouble is because he’s the one who’s standing straight up, who’s telling the truth. While Wright’s friend thinks of Perlandra by CS Lewis, I think of several GK Chesterton stories about how we look at things wrong and upside down.
Acts also is set to prepare believers to understand the world we are in. He is saying you may well be surrounded by misunderstanding, anger, mockery and perhaps violence. But you need to hold on, trust God and speak out the truth of the gospel.
Wright talks about a “natural theology”-not the kind in fashion in the 18th century. The point is that when the gospel message generates new communities, quite different from the communities in the pagan world and also transcending the community of Judean people organised around the law of Moses, the entire effect is to say to the world as a whole: look, a new way of being human.
Violence against Paul and Barnabas
Wright thinks we have the wrong idea of what Paul was teaching about grace. As in Ephesians 3, ‘grace’ is a shorthand not just for God’s free love in the gospel, but for God’s generous outreach to the pagans. Wright says that grace was a new theology, open to the whole world rather than just a select race. He thinks this is what the Judeans were opposed to and was concerned with making the belief in God impure, unholy.
So is Acts ‘political’? Absolutely. In Paul’s world, the polis, the city, formed a tight social unit. … And the communities of Jesus-followers cut right across those distinctions[race, gender, class]. A new way of being human.
All of the religions were built to appease their gods, to keep the populations in good relationship with their deities. This new belief was going to throw everything off-kilter. This was a serious problem for a society, one which new believers had to face.
This was especially a problem with the Judeans. They already were social misfits, having gained an exemption from worshiping Caesar. Now you had a Judean sect which was converting Gentles to their sect, causing upheaval in their society. This also caused pressure on the Judeans to keep their sect in-line.
With that in mind, you start to understand why Paul and the gang were being driven out of towns in Turkey. The letter to the Galatians belongs in the middle of all this. Christians were using the Judean exemption of not worshiping Caesar even though they were Gentiles.
Judeans and Gentiles
Pretty much a rehash of the place of the Judeans and Gentile believers. There are also the elements that many of the Judeans were unhappy under Roman rule and wanted to rebel.
The controversy in Acts 15
Two things to cover as background:
- First, the controversy in Acts 15, in which Paul and Barnabas make their case against the suspicious group in Jerusalem, has nothing to do with the sixteenth-century stand-off between ‘good works’ and ‘faith’.
- Second, Acts 15 is not designed to serve, nor is it appropriate to make it serve, as a paradigm for ongoing church debates where the cautious conservatives always lose and the innovating radicals always win.
How should we as moderns look at Acts 15? It’s all about the creation of the renewed, enlarged people of God, people of Abraham, people of Israel’s Messiah. The surprise is that Gentile believers are to believe in one God and to be holy-literally no porneia. The followers of Jesus are to be rock solid on creation.
This is where we should learn as 21st century Christians. Creation is a central part of the story and we need to understand and live it.
Paul and the authorities
The problem in Philippi is the opposite of what went on in Turkey. Paul is accused of inflicting Judean customs on non-Judeans, ie, they cast out a demon from a woman who made people money by saying what the future was. Sort of Christianity meets Capitalism.
Once the jailer is converted, Paul reminds the authorities they need to do their jobs. The turnabout of obeying authority, but most importantly obeying God is also turned around that the authorities must do their job. This, too, is part of a kind of natural theology. God has ordered the world in a particular way. If it has been bent out of line, then part of the challenge of the gospel is to seek to put it straight
Conclusion
Chapter 6: Acts 17 – 20: completing the circle
Introduction
He deals with Paul’s Mars Hill speech fully in a succeeding chapter.
Luke is outlining how and why Paul gets in trouble. Also when looked at legally through local and Roman eyes, there is no foul. He raises both theological and political questions as he works with the pagans,
Zeal in Thessalonica
Wright goes into the customs of Rome towards Judean. They allowed them to practice their religion. But Caesar was to be king. Paul is pretty explicit here that Jesus is the king over all. Paul’s general message did not sit well with the Judean. And now they would need to explain how this Jesus person was talked about in their own writings. This would revoke the Judeans’ special exemption from Rome. Paul was saying that at Jesus’ name, even knee, even Caesars would bend.
Corinth: Jesus-followers as the true Shema-keepers
Athens is halfway between Rome and Jerusalem.
Paul’s general pattern:preach to the Judeans' until being thrown out and then go to the Gentiles. Silas and Timothy recognised that Paul was, as we might say, on top form. No riots here because the synagogue leader has become a believer.
The trail of faith is a political one. The proconsul Gallio is Seneca’s brother. The Judeans' are saying that Paul is teaching about God in ways not approved but Rome. Wright things this has to do with Shema prayer. See Deut 6-Hear O Israel. Paul is probably inserting Jesus into this prayer. Hear is Shema in Hebrew. References 1 Co 8.
The Judeans are making four charges according to Wright: 1) kyrios (Lord) which Paul is using is referencing Jesus. 2) his reworking Shema is subverting the religion. 3) The way Paul is teaching is not the sanctioned religion 4) Paul is surplanting Caesar.
In every letter to churches, Paul talks about persecutions, except to Corinth. Of course, when we read Paul’s two letters to Corinth, we see what then happened. The Corinthian Christians quickly became arrogant, puffed up, divided by personality cults, tolerating immorality, allowing nominal membership, taking a casual view of the sacraments, not caring about the poor, chaotic in worship. Soft on resurrection.
Wright asks if this sounds familiar?
How, on the one hand, do you stop non-Christian authorities from persecuting Christians? But how, on the other hand, do you prevent a church which isn’t being persecuted from becoming lazy and arrogant
Turnaround in Ephesus
there were all sorts of things going on in the early church of which we know very little. He refers to Paul’s encounter with Apollos.
In Ephesus genuine conversion was going on. Wright notes when things are wonderful, the devil will instigate trouble. See 2 Co 1:8-9
Riot: civic pride mixed with religious fervour.
Similar to Corinth, Judeans' have a concern that Christians and Judeans' will become conflagrated. In Ephesus this happens. In this case, the civic authorities calm things down. Surely, if all these magistrates do the right thing, then Caesar himself will follow suit when it comes before him.
Notice that when economics comes into play, religion gets the short straw. My words. Not just in Ephesus.
Christ is Bringing together in a single equal family slave and free, Judean and Gentile, female and male
Hurrying to Jerusalem for Pentecost
Why was Paul hurrying to get back to Jerusalem in time for the festival? Wright speculates that he wanted a large crowd to preach to. He also did not want to go back to Ephesus. Acts 20:18-35: Through his(Luke) highlighting of this address, he is explaining Paul’s work to puzzled or potentially hostile readers. Many wandering teachers and philosophers were around during this time, many were charlatans. Luke here emphasisesPaul’s absolute integrity Paul is not trying to get rich or make a quick grab.
Paul looks to the future as in Phil 3. Only one purpose: v24. His message is one of grace and God’s love in it. The gospel of grace humbles all human pride; it humbles the Gentiles – fancy having to abandon their cultural history and worship Israel’s God! – and it humbles the Judean people too. Paul has preached and lived this unflattering, humiliating, but life-giving message.
He knows he will not be back this way again. Gives an Ez 34 style warning.
Conclusion
Paul's preaching is personally costly.
Chapter 7: Acts 17:16–34: the unknown God?
Introduction
Wright will go into Paul’s Athen’s sermon.
Some misconceptions
Not a complete sermon, rather a summary. Paul seems to try to build “points of contact” with his listeners. A shared assumptions on which he could build a gospel presentation.
Some people have argued that this is more of what Luke wanted us to hear rather than what Paul wanted to say. Wright disagrees. He thinks that confines the sermon too much. Also that this was something that Paul was fitting the gospel into the culture. Seems like Paul does not deal with parts of gospel in an either/or way. He does not as a whole deal only with the cross or the resurrection, but both. Also the Areopagus was not a debating society. It was a law-court: the highest court in Athens, composed. The point is that Paul is on trial. The charge is that Paul is bringing a foreign god.
Areopagus means rock or hill of Mars. It is not the Acropolis which is a mile to the east.
The point here, anyway, is that Paul is being put on trial. When, in verse 19, Luke says they ‘took him’ up to the Areopagus, the word epilambano means to ‘seize’ or ‘arrest’. It certainly wasn’t about Paul being invited to give a learned paper at next week’s seminar.
Are we able to know what this new teaching really is that you are talking about?’
The charge of ‘foreign divinities
Quotes Aratus who was 300 years previous. Pagan thinking who Paul seems to say comes close to the truth.
Paul does not seem to be playing nice with the Athenians. He talks about the waste of time for their sacrifices.
Point is that he is not bringing in a foreign god as the God he worships is the God of all. Also the Athenians recognize this with the God he was proclaiming could not be foreign, since he already had a shrine in the city. He is pointing out their ignorance-close to the same thing Socrates got in trouble for.
Many in our world today assume that Christians are committed to believing dangerous nonsense
The speech makes four basic points: the unknown God, the critique of idols,outflanking the philosophers, and putting the world right.
The unknown God
Wright notes that this is a trial rather than sermon. Paul is not finding a point where they could relate, rather showing that they did not have a complete understanding of deities, so he is not bringing in a foreign god.
Where, we might ask, are today’s altars to an unknown God. Wright thinks it is in the big ideas of our time: justice, love, freedom and beauty, spirituality, power, and yes, our old friend Truth itself. We can see this when a Bach piece is played or a great painting is shown.
The critique of idols
To suggest that you might live without reference to the gods was simply weird, not just because everybody did it and it was woven into the fabric of life, but because everybody assumed that keeping the gods happy was vital for personal and civic well-being. People who led others away from the local gods were subject to suspicion when things went bad.
But that is the point-the Athenians are honoring the wrong gods. Their gods were impotent against bad things. Only the true God is, the God Paul honors.
The point about idols is that they are parodies of the truth. Wright says that false gods are at best pointers to the truth.
One of the great myths of modern secularism is that it’s a kind of neutral space, in which we navigate our way by using our unaided reason. … once secularism pushes traditional Christianity upstairs out of sight, other gods quickly come in to take its place.
In our day money and sex and power are false gods. If you do not worship at their altar, you are considered weird. That’s the thing about idols: they demand everything, but in the end they enslave, dehumanise and kill you.
Sin itself is a symptom, not the root cause. Sin is what happens when you worship an idol and let it dictate your behaviour. Idolatry is the real problem. We moderns tend to look at morality; Wright says it is our worship that is the root of the problem.
he made the whole human race from a single ancestor, allotting the nations their places and times. (We should note that if the Church had paid attention to verse 26 then the tragedy of Christians supporting racism would never have happened.
Outflanking the philosophers
Wrights said Paul addresses three positions: Stoics, Epicureans, and Academics. The Academics were rooted in Plato and essentially said that both the Stoics and Epicureans were wrong. They said there were no clear solutions. We see these in today’s world as well, mostly in the form of Epicureans. That is that any divinity which there may have been just is not interested in our world today. Wright notes that there is a tendency to think as Christians we have to choose between the left and right and since the left is wrong and anti-Christian, the right must be correct.
To summarize what Wright thinks we need to realize today is:
- First, despite what many believe, the modernist emphasis on science is to be welcomed but not in its Epicurean mode
- Second, we have to welcome the postmodern critique but work through it and out the other side
- The need to be able to offer an alternative applies especially, third, to the postmodern critique of all metanarratives. Christianity instead of a power-play is more of a love story. Tragically, Christians have often tried to turn the faith into a power-play, the triumph of one brand of faith over supposed enemies. … Our equivalent of Paul’s critique of his philosophical climate must then be to demonstrate in action the truth of the love story which is God’s ongoing relationship with his world
Putting the world right
It isn’t enough to point to the altars to the unknown God, to denounce the idols and to engage with the philosophers. The Christian story of the world needs to be heard. In America, is the Christian story being heard in our politics? Should there even be a “Christian” emphasis in our politics? If well-meaning Christians respond to this with the shrill assertion of a traditional faith, but without seeing how it actually works, that just makes things worse and more polarised.
The point of Christianity according to Wright is not fire insurance so that we go to heaven-seems like this is more of a by product-rather For Paul, as in this speech, the point of the biblical story is for God to come and dwell with us.
in the Bible ‘to judge’ means ‘to put everything right’, to sort it all out.
Christianity was born into a world where its central claim was bound to appear ridiculous
By insisting that everything turns on Jesus’ resurrection, he is flying directly in the face of what the god Apollo had said in the legendary founding of the Court of the Areopagus itself, as described in the tragedy of Orestes, written by the first great fifth-century tragedian,
While Osrestes says that when the blood leaves the ground, there is no resurrection, Paul counters that by showing Jesus died and rose from the dead after three days. This is what the Athenians were mocking. He is offering the Judean and biblical vision of God’s ultimate justice, in order to outflank the Athenian claim that their high court was the last word in justice and mercy.
Luke does not say if there was a verdict.
But what Paul has shown is that the God we know in Jesus, is already at work, not at all a ‘foreign god’, not to be angrily dismissed as a blight on a secular culture or an unwelcome intruder representing an alien culture, but rather ‘not far from each one of us’ (verse 27).
It is at this stage where Paul turns to being apologetical. He is showing the Greeks the relevance of the Judean way of looking at the world.
The Eumenides about Orestes by Aeschylus-looks interesting. I will need to read it. One of the comments Wright makes is what Apollo says (about a particular judgement) that’s too harsh, because, yes, once the dust has drunk a man’s blood, that’s it; there is no resurrection.
Conclusion
See William Golding’s last novel The Double Tongue. He talks about the altar of the Unknown god.
Wright notes that we should not fall into the errors of our age: denying that anything not of God is wrong and embracing everything which appears to be good as God.
Also we need to be true both to the gospel--which is the good news from God, and to understand our current culture.
Our faith is to be explored and learned from and lived.
Chapter 8: Acts 21 – 24: trouble in Jerusalem
Introduction
Excitement and waiting. That is these four chapters. Read fast, then ponder, then ask the big questions.
Paul goes to Jerusalem
In chapter 18, Luke skims through this journey. Here he takes his time. Why?
James does not seem to be as excited about what Paul is sharing and is more concerned with the politics of having Paul in Jerusalem.
Riot happens because people thought Paul brought a Gentile into the temple. The same reader will realise that, no matter how carefully Paul in his own teaching and writing expressed himself, that is how his mission would be perceived.
Excitement of Paul being rescued, preaching and put on trial. Then a conspiracy to kill Paul.
Who is involved?
Wright sets the reason why this part of the world is important. It has to do with Israel being a buffer to enemies on the east and keeping trading routes open to Egypt.
The Judeans were tired of foreign rule. They wanted to throw off the rulers. Then you throw Paul in there with preaching a non-traditional Judaism.
one of the last things he did in Corinth, just a few weeks earlier, was to write a theological symphony in four movements. We call it Romans. Keep this in mind.
What happened to the money Paul collected?
The meaning behind the narrative
What does Luke want us to know, feel? Paul at the end spends two years in prison, doing nothing. It is not what he planned to do. So what is Luke doing? And how do we move from the narrative, through the characters, to the meaning. Wright says that the gospel is imported through Paul;s suffering. It is something to think about.
Luke is showing that Paul is still loyal to the Judean traditions. But it is the tradition, the Law and the Prophets, which bear witness to Jesus. It is the resurrection which validates who Jesus is. This is borne out in his address to the Sanhedrin.
Luke explores, what is the charge against Paul? The point Paul tries to make is that when a Gentle becomes a believer, that person is no longer a Gentile “sinner”. That person’s sin has been covered by blood. That is what Paul was trying to say.
There seems to be rather vague charges, sort of like some of the ones against some of the immigrants today, that Paul was a rabble-rouser, leader of a sect, and violated the Temple. Luke shows that these are trumped up charges.
Wright has a good phrase about Paul was not espousing a new religion, rather a new reality.
If you’re going to believe in resurrection, you have to have some view on who or what humans still are between bodily death and bodily resurrection. Pharisees believe in this state people are either angels or spirits, Sadducees do not believe in resurrection and do not believe in this intermediate time. The Pharisees propose that instead of seeing Jesus bodily, Paul saw a spirit or angel. The Romans only see trouble as Paul continues on.
Conclusion
Jesus' resurrection is not just a special event, it is what makes everything else about the Christian movement relevant.
Chapter 9: Acts 25 – 28: and so to Rome
Introduction
Look at Acts as a whole. At the beginning of Acts it talks about what Jesus continues to do. It is not just the story of Paul. It is the story of the spread of the gospel, not what happens to Paul. Luke does not end it with Paul’s death, rather when Paul goes to Rome and is able to spread his influence.
The lesson, it is not about Paul, it is not about us, but what happens to the gospel and what happens through the gospel.
We see that Paul and the gospel has confronted the rulers of this world and has shown its supremacy.
Also, there is a continued joining of heaven and earth, which is where we started-the temple. temples, anyway, being places where heaven and earth are joined, are thus places of power
Messianic thinking
The Herod family tried to look out for the Judeans, as well as their own interests. Such as they worked on getting the Temple all decorated and a place of wonder. They looked out for the Judean interests. While not part of the Davidian line, they set themselves up as royalty. Those of Luke’s readers who understood how royal and messianic thinking worked in the first-century Judean world would realise the massive irony building up in these chapters. Paul is an emissary of the true Messiah, who is himself (along with his people) the true ‘Temple’. The Messiah’s people are already (from Paul’s point of view) becoming the new community of justice and peace in the world.
Luke seems to suggest that before going to Rome to confront the world order, this was the last time he was going to confront Judean authorities in the face of King Herod. In both cases, Paul’s witness will be not just to a different king, but to a different kind of king
Festus cannot figure out how to tell Caesar what the issue is. So he wants Heord’s help in framing the charges. As elsewhere, you can’t fit Jesus’ resurrection into anyone else’s world view
Paul and the rulers of the world
Beatrice is a well-known 1st century personality. This is a star-studded audience. Paul is doing what Jesus said believers would do, testify before powers. Paul talks about him meeting Jesus. Herod and Festus agree that Paul has not done anything wrong, but he has appealed to Caesar so he must go there.
Luke is telling Paul’s story here not for Paul’s sake, but to show what happens when the gospel is present.
The Judeans of Rome had already been kicked out of Rome several years earlier Due (according to the historian Suetonius) to someone called Chrestus. A good many historians think this is a garbled reference to the gospel of Jesus ‘Christos’ …. They were nervous about the heated tensions in the Middle East. What happens to them if there is a civil war there. And then there were the Christians meeting in small groups in secret. Were they being subversive to Rome?
Paul, a good creational monotheist, believes that God has placed human authorities in power
But the balancing truth is that it’s the church’s task to hold them to account when they fail to do their job. Was Paul, when he appeared before Nero, would he be challenging him? Would he be exacting retribution for all which he had been through? This is where Luke leaves us.
Four great themes
Wright sees four themes in these final four chapters:
- First, and always central, there is the world-changing message of Jesus’ resurrection. This is seen uncomprehending through a pagan’s eyes, Festus. The point, though, is obvious: through Jesus’ resurrection, a new world order has been unveiled, declaring him to be both king of the Judeans and lord of the world. Paul’s mission is summarized in Acts 26:18. Paul’s mission to the Gentiles was aimed, not at creating a Gentile church in parallel to a Judean one, but at incorporating Gentiles into God’s ancient people. The issue with pagans from the Judean standpoint was that they were idolaters in the arms of pagans. Paul’s answer was not a new regime of ‘tolerance’ in which sin and all that stuff didn’t matter any more. Paul’s answer was that the gospel provided the remedy. The Gentiles were to be part of the true people of God, justified by their faith as Abraham was. What is required? Repent of idolatry, turn to the true God and do the works of the people of God. (1 Thes 1:9-10)
- The second theme, growing out of this, is the way Paul was trying to work for large-scale reconciliation. Paul, I suggest, was in his way doing the same thing as King Agrippa was trying to do – but with Jesus in the middle of it. I suspect that Luke knows this very well and is using the scene with Agrippa to make the point. Same objective, different means. Aggripa was political; Paul was to change the people. Luke can help us with that task (of demonstrating actions that Jesus is Lord). We need to think through from scratch the ways in which Paul’s teaching elsewhere about the ‘principalities and powers’ grows out of these challenges in the first century and enables us to address the equivalent challenges in our own day.
- third great theme … The power of darkness does its worst. This is what you can expect if you set off on the gospel journey. Certain similarities with the Odyssey in Paul’s journey. If you’re going to tell the story of the gospel confronting the powers of the world, Daniel 7 is the passage to evoke, bringing with it all those other echoes as well. Luke sees a parallel with Jonah and him going to preach the message. God is in control whether we resist going or want to fulfill the message. Resistance from the powers of this world will rise as we proclaim and act out God’s message. Suffering as Jesus suffered is the way which Jesus has noted will win the world-see what he says about the cross. There’s a sudden rush of ‘salvation’ language in chapter 27 (which doesn’t always appear in modern translations such as my own). This is found in how the men react to the boat about to sink. See the Greek-”take bread for your salvation.” Remember, then: ‘salvation’ for Luke clearly means, as it did for Paul, the Creator God calling his whole creation to order, overcoming and destroying all the powers that corrupt and enslave his beautiful creation. … ultimate ‘salvation’ which is not from the world but of and for the world.
- we have, first, the world-changing message of the resurrection;
- second, the political navigation between earthly power and the people of God;
- third, the battle with the sea-monster, the dark power that opposes God’s rescuing purposes and the people who are carrying them out.
- Fourth and finally, we have the innocence not only of Paul but of the gospel itself. As Jesus was found innocent of Roman guilt, so has Paul been found. But they both suffer death. But Paul reassures the Jewish leaders in Rome he is not there to stir up trouble, and the Jewish leaders do not seem inclined to go after Paul.
Wright comments that he visited Rome and was shown a recently discovered ruin in Corso. There’s a room in a basement under the Doria Pamphilj gallery, now below street level, where the researchers have found wall paintings which indicate that it was seen very early on as a specially holy place. They reckon that’s where Paul was kept in imprisonment. It is moving beyond words to sit there and ponder Paul’s imprisonment.
That is exactly how Paul’s doctrine of justification works. That is we are pronounced innocent because of Jesus and his sacrifice.
On the second theme, Wright has something which corresponds to what I am thinking. He says that As we today face huge questions about faith and policy-different questions in different parts of the world, but all going on together-we need to abandon the sterile eighteenth-century antithesis of being either ‘for’ or ‘against’ our rulers, and find fresh ways to demonstrate in action what it means that Jesus is lord of the whole world. The question is how to do this, particularly when you have Christians who are on opposite sides of policy, how do we come together and work in a common way?
Conclusion
Since we have freedom to share the gospel, unlike Paul, we should take advantage of it.
Suggestions for Further Reading
reading Acts thoughtfully also requires a working knowledge of the history of the first-century church in its social and cultural contexts, on which there is of course a vast range of material, summarised at a popular level in my The New Testament in Its World (NTW) (with Michael F. Bird).
Evaluation:
NT Wright goes through Acts more as a guide than a commentator. Consequently, this is rather short, but packed with points to ponder. He looks at the book in chunks of four chapters at time, mostly. The over all theme is that Jesus continues to do his work through his people.
Some of the points he works through include:
- Resurrection is what hold together the gospel message
- ‘grace’ is not just for God’s free love in the gospel, but God’s generous outreach to all
- The gospel is for God to come and dwell with us.
- The temple is the place of joining where the physical structure is replaced by God’s people.
This is a book well worth reading, particularly if you are starting to look at Acts. It does not lead you through verse by verse, through the minutiae, rather it takes a 10,000’ view of Acts and shows you what Luke wanted us to know. Wright’s writing is one which is easy to read, and non-technical. You will not find too many places where you need to look up a word or worse yet a concept. Rather, you can concentrate on understanding what Luke wrote and what God wants you to understand.
Notes from my book group:
Wright says that this book offers a brief, though not shallow, introduction to Acts. How useful did you find this book in reading through Acts?
The book title is The Challenge of Acts. What challenges did you see applicable to you through this book?
Wright points out that Luke says that Jesus began to do and to teach at the beginning of Acts. He also points out that Jesus continues this. How does Wright show this mission continues not only through Acts but to our present day? How alert are you to what Jesus is currently teaching you? And what Jesus wants to do through us?
Wright notes that Everything in this book hinges on Jesus’ resurrection. How does Luke show this?
What are the implications of the New Testament isn’t about our going to be with God, it’s about God coming to be with us?
What does Wright say that heaven is? What is the relationship between heaven and earth?
What does Luke leave out of his account of the early church? Where can you find out more about what happened outside of Acts?
There is a statement that the story of the Bible is God coming to live with us rather than us going to live with God. Explain this statement. Give some examples. How does this looking at the Bible in this way change your thinking?
To the Jew, Pentecost was a celebration of the Law given to God’s people. What do you read into the Acts 2 account of Pentecost? Is this related to the giving of the Law?
How does Wright define the “temple”? Why do the events of Acts threaten how the Jews viewed the temple?
All this is part of learning to live as Temple-people in a conflicted and confused world, as people of new creation within the present ambiguous distorted creation, resisting the simplistic pseudo-holiness of a dualism that dismisses existing structures as hopeless. Unpack this statement. Are there differences in what the early disciples faced and in our world today? Do these differences make a difference in how we relate to our world?
What exactly is the relationship between ‘obeying God’ and living under human authority?
The story of Ananias and Sapphira is about treating the things of God as though they are just ordinary. What are God's things and what are ordinary things? How should you treat one differently than the other?
Wright said that the Jewish people in the time of Acts had to figure out what obedience to torah meant in terms of resisting the rule of the pagans. How do you figure out what is important from Scripture and how it is to be applied to our current times and culture?
Wright has Luke telling a story of those who are corrupt and could never fit into the Jewish religion being made holy-Samaritans, eunuchs, Gentiles. Who in our world today would fit into this? Can God make them holy?
In this book, Paul’s change to being a believer is not cast as a conversion, but as a redefinition of his faith. Why does Wright make this conclusion? How does it affect how you think about your Christianity?
Part of this redefining of Paul’s faith was his misunderstanding of his Judaism. What do you suspect needs to be re-examined about your belief system?
Ananias exhibited dangerous obedience. What made his obedience dangerous? Should obedience to God be dangerous? What do you fear when you feel the leading of God?
Why does Peter get out of jail and while James loses his life? What does this say about how God operates?
What you eat and who you eat with are important from Wright’s study of Acts. Why? Is it still important today?
Luke insists again and again that it’s the present world that’s out of joint and under judgement, and that the reason Paul gets into trouble is because he’s the one who’s standing straight up, who’s telling the truth. How does standing up straight get one in trouble? Where do you see that standing up straight can get in trouble in today’s world? Do you think the authorities would see it the same way as what happened in Paul’s time?
Where does Paul’s preaching come into conflict with the financial motives of the people of his time? Is this true in our society as well that the gospel will conflict with financial well-being?
Wright observes that in every church Paul writes to, persecution is mentioned. That is except for Corinth. Why was there no persecution there? What effect does persecutions or the lack of them have on a local church? Should the church fear persecutions?
Paul may be indicating that when there are no persecutions, the church gets lazy and arrogant. How does a church prevent being either or arrogant from happening?
Where, we might ask, are today’s altars to an unknown God? Do you agree with Wright’s take that it might be justice, love, freedom and beauty, spirituality, power, and … Truth?
How can idols or false gods be pointers to Truth? Paul quotes Aratus. How can we understand our world and those who are in it through non-Christian writers? Does God shed light to us through these writers?
It was considered weird by people in Paul’s time if you did not pay homage to the local gods. What is considered weird today if you do not honor these things?
Wright points out that today we Americans have a tendency to think in terms of a dichotomy-left and right. He also points out that there are times that neither the left nor right have Christian concerns. How can we get out of thinking in those terms? When our Christian writings and teachers do not have a clear direction, where can we turn for guidance?
The Christian story of the world needs to be heard. How can the message of Christ be heard in our world without being mixed in with political messaging?
Paul spent at least two years in prison without doing anything which would be considered meaningful. Why does God allow Paul to be inactive? What do we learn about our lives through Paul not being able to do his mission?
Paul … believes that God has placed human authorities in power. … But the balancing truth is that it’s the church’s task to hold them to account when they fail to do their job. Do you also see this? How should this be done? we need to abandon …. being either ‘for’ or ‘against’ our rulers, and find fresh ways to demonstrate in action what it means that Jesus is lord of the whole world..
How do you want your life to change because you read this book?
Many of these questions are either from or adapted from LitLovers.
Why the title of The Challenge of Acts?
Every book has a world view. Were you able to identify this book’s world view? What was it? How did it affect the story?
Why do you think the author wrote this book?
What would you ask the author if you had a chance?
What “takeaways” did you have from this book?
What central ideas does the author present?
Are they personal, sociological, global, political, economic, spiritual, medical, or scientific
Are these idea’s controversial?
To whom and why?
How did this book affect your view of the world?
Of how God is viewed?
What questions did you ask yourself after reading this book?
Talk about specific passages that struck you as significant—or interesting, profound, amusing, illuminating, disturbing, sad...?
What was memorable?
New Words:
- Dominion by Tom Holland
- Wisdom of Solomon
- Folk Tale by R. S. Thomas
- Perelandra by C. S. Lewis
- The Eumenides by Orestes
- Odyssey by Homer
- The Double Tongue by William Golding
Good Quotes:
- First Line: This book offers a kind of bird’s-eye view of the Acts of the Apostles.
- Last Line: And we pray for grace and strength to live and proclaim it with all boldness, and with no one stopping us.
- the point of the biblical story is for God to come and dwell with us. Chapter 7: Acts 17:16–34: the unknown God?
- Chapter 1: Acts 1:1–11: to the ends of the earth!
- Chapter 2: Acts 2 – 4: the new Temple
- Chapter 3: Acts 5 – 8: mission and martyrdom
- Chapter 4: Acts 9 – 12: breaking through the Gentile barrier
- Chapter 5: Acts 13 – 16: converts and controversy
- Chapter 6: Acts 17 – 20: completing the circle
- Chapter 7: Acts 17:16–34: the unknown God?
- Chapter 8: Acts 21 – 24: trouble in Jerusalem
- Chapter 9: Acts 25 – 28: and so to Rome
References:
No comments:
Post a Comment