But a distinction must be made between the OT as prophecy and the OT as Law. In the latter sense the position taken up in Acts is that the Law of the OT is binding in every detail on Jewish Chri-stians, but not binding at all on GentUe Cliristians. The most remarkable example of this is the picture given in ch. 25 of St. Paul's acceptance of the Law in Jerusalem, and the cir- cumcision of Timothy'. Whether this can be re- conciled with the Apostle's own position is a point for students of the Ejiistles to settle ; the present
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
ACTS (APOCR\TK\L)
29
writer believes that in this respect Acts gives a faithful representation of St. Paul's own view (see the admirable discussion in Harnack, Apostel- gesch., pp. 8 and 211-217). The reason for thinking that the Law was still binding on Jews but not on Gentiles must be sought in a distinction between the Law as source of salvation — it was not this for any one — and the Law as command of God — this it was for the Jew, but not for the Gentile.
As prophecies, the OT books are accepted without question, and there is no trace of the Jewish con- troversy which raised the dispute aa to the correct exegesis of the OT. This controversy can be traced in the Epistle of Barnabas, and found its extreme result in the attitude of Marcion, but in Acts it cannot be found, and apparently this is because the dispute had not yet arisen. (For the best summary of this question see Harnack, Apostel- gesch., p. 8 n.)
i. The Spirit. — It is not quite clear whether Acts rejrards all Christians as inspired by the Holy Spirit, but it is at least certain that it regards this as true of all the leaders, and of all who were fuUy Christians. It would appear possible, however, from such episodes as that of the Christians in Ephesus who had been baptized only in John's baptism, that a kind of imperfect Christianity was recognized ; these Ephesians are described asfrndrp-ds, even before they had been baptized. On the other hand, the inadequacy of their baptism was dis- covered by St. Paul because they had not received the Spirit, so that even from this passage it would seem that Cliristians were regarded normally as inspired by the Holy Spirit. This Holy Spirit is usually referred to as rb irvtvua Tb iL-yiov or rb dyiov irvevna (21 times), or as rb TTvevfia (9 times), or as TTvevfxa dywv (16 times), once as irvevna Kvplov, once as Tb irvev/xa Kvplov, and once as rb irveO/xa 'Itj<tov,
A problem which has as yet scarcely received the attention which it deserves is, whether the Spirit was regarded as one or many (or, in other words, what is the difference between rb irveC/jia and wvfdfj.a). The exact meaning of the very import- ant phrase rb irvev/Mi ''IrjaoO is also obscure. Was it the Spirit which had been in Jesus, with which God had anointed (exP'^''^'') Him ? Or was it the Spirit-Jesus, as He had become after the Resur- rection, in agreement with the PauHne phrase 'The Lord is the Spirit' (2 Co S^") ? In any case it is clear that the gift of the Spirit was regarded as in some sense the work of the exalted Jesus (Ac 2^3 ; cf . Lk 24") but ultimately derived from God.
A further development is found in Acts — that the gift of the Spirit can be ensured either by baptism (see § 5) or, more probably, by the ' lading on of hands' of the Apostles {i-n-ldecns x^i-P^"', cf. giTff. gi- ;|^96)^ though this power, if one may judge from 8^'^-, was not shared by all other Christians.
This developed doctrine of the Spirit is the most marked featm-e of Acts, and the Lucan Gospel is clearly intended to lead up to it. The Christians were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and the Resurrection and Ascension of the Christ are related to this fact, rather than, as seems to be the case in Mark, to the coming of the Messianic kingdom. It is true that in Ac 2 the gift of the Spirit and the consequent glossolaha are explained as a sign that the last days are at hand, but the whole tendency of the Acts is to look on the possession of the Spirit as the characteristic of the Church, rather than of an eschatological kingdom, and the work of Christ is already regarded as the foundation of this inspired Church in the world, rather than as the inauguration of the Kngdom of God instead of the world. In some respects Luke is more archaic than St. Paul, but not in
this. ** Copyright, 1916, by
5. Baptism — There is no doiibt that the writer of Acts regarded baptism as the normal means of entry into the Christian Church. There is also no doubt that he represents an early stage of Christian practice in which baptism was 'in the name of the Lord Jesus' (or 'of Jesus Christ'), not in the triadic formula (Ac 2^5 S^^ 10*» 19=). This agrees with the practice of St. Paul so far as it can be discovered (Ro 6^ Gal 3-'; cf. 1 Co V'^-), with Didache 8 (but not 7), Hermas, Sim. ix. 17. 4, and the Eusebian text (if that refer, as is probable, to baptism) of Mt 281^ (but not with the usual text of this passage, or with the later Christian practice). Difficulty is, however, raised by the question whether the writer (or his sources) makes the gift of the Spirit depend on baptism or on the lajTng on of hands, either invariably or as a general rule. It is, on the whole, most probable that he regards baptism as a necessary preliminary to the gift of the Spirit, but not as the direct means by which the Spirit was given, whereas the 'laying on of hands' was the direct means of imparting this gift ; though, under some exceptional circum- stances, the gift was directly conferred by God without any ministerial interposition.