//Acts is a puzzling book. On the one hand, its miracle stories are so bizarre that they are hard to believe, given the lack of corroborating writings. On the other hand, it is chock full of references to real historical figures for which we do have non-Christian corroboration. Most of this corroboration comes from Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian. Here is a list of people mentioned in Acts that are also written about by Josephus:

Agrippa I (Acts 12:124)

Agrippa II (Acts 25:13-26:32)

Annas (Acts 4:6)

Bernice, wife of Agrippa II (Acts 23:13)

Caiaphas (many references)

Claudius (Acts 11:28, 18:2)

Drusilla, wife of Felix (Acts 24:24)

The Egyptian false prophet (Acts 21:38)

Felix (Acts 23:24-25:14)

Gamiliel (Acts 5:34, 22:3)

Judas the Galilean (Acts 5:37)

Porcius Festus (Acts 24:27-26:32)

There are a few other historical figures in Acts confirmed by archaeological evidence: Erastus, Gallio, and Sergius Paulus. Josephus didn’t mention these. Yet the above list is startling; it’s almost like the book of Acts took its cast of characters from Josephus’ writings.

There is a recent trend among Bible scholars of dating the book of Acts quite late, well into the second century, based upon an apparent dependency on the writings of Josephus. Could these scholars be right?

//The book of Acts tells of many miracles that Paul performed. I’ve noticed a tendency among scholars to distrust these supernatural accounts, based on Paul’s own lack of writing about them. The opinion seems to be that Luke, who wrote the Acts of the Apostles, boldly elaborated on several stories to make them seem miraculous.

But hold on. Not so fast. Paul DOES confirm his own miracle-working ability, or at least he seems to.

Virtually every Bible scholar agrees that the book of 2 Corinthians was written by Paul, and today’s verse is in the context of pointing out Paul’s own qualifications as an apostle. Surely Paul was speaking about himself as he reminded the Corinthians of signs, wonders, and mighty deeds “wrought among them.” This, says Paul, is what validates his apostleship.

Did legends later grow from this vague claim, or was Paul confirming precisely the miracles described in the book of Acts?

//Authorship of John’s Gospel has traditionally been understood to be quite late … in the tenth decade of the first century. However, a number of Bible scholars—usually, the more conservative believers—date John’s Gospel quite early. Perhaps in the seventh decade.

There is good reason for the controversy. The author seems to know an awful lot about Judea and Jerusalem, and his knowledge dates to before the war of 70 AD. Today’s verse is a good example. The pool of Bethesda, particularly with its five colonnades, would not likely be known to an eye-witness of Jerusalem after the destruction of the war. There was no such architecture surviving the war! Note also the present tense of the verse: there is in Jerusalem a pool…

How can this be explained if most scholars date John to the tenth decade? Answer: the book grew over time. Current scholarship tends to recognize this Gospel as having been written over a period of perhaps 30-40 years, from roughly 60-100 AD.

//John’s Gospel is recognized as the gospel with the highest Christology–that is, the gospel which describes Jesus in the most divine terms. John bluntly equates Jesus with God, and though scholars have uncovered hints in the other three gospels in that direction, none is so forthright as John’s Gospel.

Oddly, at the same time, John also speaks of Jesus in quite human terms, and even distances Jesus from God! Today’s verse provides a good example. Even after the resurrection, Jesus does not claim Godship, but rather states that he is returning to God. This hardly fits with the idea that the author was intent on portraying Jesus as God.

So, while few Bible readers need help finding the verses in John that equate Jesus with God, it might be interesting here to list a few which seem to contradict that idea.

John 7:12: Among the crowds there was widespread whispering about him. Some said, “He is a good man.” Others replied, “No, he deceives the people.” It seems odd that the two predominant opinions about Jesus was that he was either a good man or a deceiver. If Jesus taught that he was God (as all of the signs in John seem to imply) then the two opinions should be that he is either God or a deceiver.

John 14:28: “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. Jesus’ self-depreciation hardly seems consistent with the idea that he shares Godship with the Father.

John 17:7-8: Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. Thus Jesus gets his words from the Father. Why would this be necessary if he shared in the Godhead?

//Everybody knows Jesus was born under a star, right? The magi, following a star, go looking for Jesus and at first go to the wicked king Herod’s palace. Herod tells them to report back to him when they find him, because he wishes to kill any potential rival king. Bible scholars recognize the allusion to Number 24:17, and Balaam’s prophecy:

There shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth.

Balaam was a gentile, like the Magi, who, again like the Magi, does not cooperate with a wicked ruler who wants to destroy God’s people. It’s this connection to Balaam that fascinates me. Balaam developed a reputation as a bad guy, who helped lead Israel into idolatry, but he seems to have been respected in some circles while despised in others. In Matthew’s story, the allusion to Balaam is as a respected prophet.

See my book about Revelation for the other side of the story about Balaam.

//Wine is an important symbol in the Bible, well understood by its original readers and writers. It is a symbol of the messianic age, when there would be wine aplenty. It is impossible that the symbolism of Jesus’ parable could have been misunderstood by his audience. This promise of abundant wine can be interpreted metaphorically as well as literally, as wine represents the Spirit in the messianic age.

It’s interesting to note, however, that when Matthew repeats this parable, he adds a little something to the end. Both are preserved together, Matthew notes. Why this redaction? Why is it important to emphasize that the wineskin is preserved alongside the wine?

Probably, it has to do with Matthew’s respect for the Law. For example, it is Matthew who reports that not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law, until all is fulfilled. So Matthew makes sure we understand that the wine cannot survive without the wineskin; the Spirit cannot survive without the Law.

Yet there is a difference. This is not the old law, and this is not an old wineskin. The Jewish expectation was that when the Messiah arrived, he would bring a new law. (Check out my books along this topic here if interested). Thus, Matthew tells of Jesus standing on a mountain, like Moses on Sinai, dictating a new law (Matthew 5-7).  It’s during this sermon on the mount that Jesus says not one jot or tittle will disappear from the law until all is fulfilled. The key word here is fulfilled, as the verse before makes clear:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.–Matthew 5:17

The point is, in Matthew’s theology, Jesus did fulfill the law, and then he presented a new law. You might say that in the new age we do not flit around willy-nilly at the whim of the Spirit (or, perhaps, how we believe the Spirit to be leading us)—we must still remain grounded in Law. The new law.

//In a forum a while back, a member proposed today’s verse as encouragement for Christians to take up the call to apologetics … that is, to defend their faith.

I disagree, and in fact, I think that it instructs us to do the opposite. Reading the passage in context, the instruction begins back in verse 3:8:

Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble.

So it is a call to sympathy, love, compassion, and humility. The author compares good (as defined by 3:8) to evil (presumably, arrogance and lack of sympathy, love, and compassion) and says “be prepared to explain why you act the way you do, where you get your hope for a better world.”

I do not believe this has anything whatsoever to do with modern apologetics, which seems to focus on proving the truth of the Bible. It is merely about convincing others, by actions and words, that the way of Jesus brings hope for a better world.