Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
| PentecostalTheology.com
3
The Phenomena of Miracles and Divine Infliction in Luke-Acts:
Their
Theological Significance
Raymond
M. Gen*
Much has been written
concerning
the role of the divine in Luke- Acts. The role of God, Jesus, the
Holy Spirit,
and their emissaries is central to the Lukan
concept
of salvation
history.
Both the
gospel
and the Acts
begin,
continue,
and end with
activity
of the divine. The inter- action of the divine with
humanity
is the
very
basis of salvation history.
It is the
story
of how the
wholly
transcendent
.d.ivinity
breaks through
the
separation
caused
by
sin and re-establishes
community with humankind. This is the
good
news from God. The
emphasis
in the study
of the role of the divine in
Heilsgeschichte
has been centered traditionally upon
what is
thought
to be
“good”
for
humanity.
The divine act of revelation has been
thought
of as being beneficial to every single
human
being.
It is God who
reveals, redeems, saves, heals, empowers,
and
enlightens humanity.
When one thinks about miracles or divine
activity
in Luke’s
gospel, one
usually
thinks of the miraculous
healings,
deliverances from demonic
oppression,
the
bringing
back from the
dead,
and the other assorted
supernatural
activities of Jesus. When one considers divine activity
in the Acts of the
Apostles-what
comes to mind? It is still miraculous
healings,
deliverances from demonic
oppression,
and the bringing
back from the dead. These
activities, however,
are no
longer performed by
Jesus
himself,
but
by
Luke’s
heroes,
Peter and Paul. Luke is careful to show
parallels
between the lives and
ministries
of Peter and Paul and the life and
ministry
of Jesus.
Acts 1:1 informs the..reader that the words and deeds of Jesus are being
continued
through
the
early
church: “In
my
former
book, Theophilus,
I wrote about all that Jesus
began (4pea-ro)
to do and to teach.” The deeds and words of the
early church,
as described in
Acts, are
clearly
to be the continuation of the Jesus’ deeds and words.
Hence, according
to
Luke,
the ministries of Peter and later of Paul are the continuation of Jesus’ own
ministry.
And the
study
of the miraculous in the Acts of the
Apostles
must be explored in light of the miraculous in the
gospel according
to Luke and vice versa.
The
study
of miracle stories is, in fact, a study of the
interpretation
of the
theology
of the
gospel
writer or miracle recorder. The miracles associated with
Jesus, Peter,
and Paul are
only
known
through
the recorded stories of a
particular evangelist.
Thus the
question
which immediately
arises
is,
“What was Luke’s intent in
recording
these
‘
.
‘
. .
‘
*Raymond
M. Gen holds the M.Div. degree from Fuller
Theological
Semi- nary.
He is currently
pursuing
a Ph.D at UCLA.
1
4
miracle stories?” Most scholars
agree
that the Lukan
purpose
of miracles was to legitimate
(miracles
as proofs) or to
point (miracles
as signs)
to the
greater
work of
God,
that
is,
what God was
doing
“behind the scene.”l If one were to combine these two conclusions then one could
posit
that the
ministry
of Jesus was
legitimated by
miracles and these miracles
pointed
to the
greater
work of
Jesus, which was the salvation of
humanity. Similarly,
the miracles recorded in Acts
legiti- mated and
pointed
to the work of the
early
church which is the extended
ministry
of the ascended Jesus.
The
following pages
contain tables of the miracles recorded in the gospel according
to Luke and the Acts of the
Apostles.
The criterion used for the selection of miracles to be
surveyed
is that the miracle must have some
physical
manifestation. Thus a dream,
vision, guid- ance,
or
message
from a divine
being
or its
representative
will not be included. A
summary
of conclusions derived from the
survey
of mira- cles follows each table.
.
Table 1
Miraculous Events in the
Gospel According
to Luke
.
Luke
Miraculous Event-
1:19-22, 62-65
Zechariah Is Muted
1:26-38 The
Virgin
Birth
4:33-37 The
Healing
of the Demoniac 4:38-39 Peter’s Mother-in-law Healed 4:40-41 1 The Sick Healed at Evening 5:1-11 1 Miraculous Catch of Fish
5:12-16
Cleansing
of the
Leper
. 5:17-26
Healing
of the
Paralytic
5:6-11 1
Healing
of the Withered Hand 6:17-19 Multitudes Headed
by
the Sea 7:1-10 The Centurion’s Servant Healed 7:11-17 The Widow of Nain’s Son is Raised 7:18-23 The
Baptist’s Questions
are Answered 8:22-25 The
Stilling
of the Storm
8:26-39 The Gerasene Demoniac
8:40-56 Jarius’
Daughter
& Bleeding Woman 9:10-17 Five Thousand are Fed
9:37-43
Boy
Possessed
by
a Spirit
‘ 11:14-15, 17-23 On Collusion
with Satan
13:10-17
Crippled
Woman on the Sabbath 14:1-6 Man with
Dropsy
Healed
17:11-19
Cleansing of Ten Lepers
18:35-43 Blind Bartimaeus
‘
.
.
lA survey of scholarship concerning the Lukan purpose of miracles in the and in Acts can be found in an earlier work
gospel
entitled, “Divine Infliction in Luke-Acts: A Prolegomenon,” obtainable from the author.
2
5
_
22:50-51 1 24:1-12 24:10-11 1 24:13-35 24:36-43 24:44-53
Restoration of Servant’s Ear The Resurrection
Jesus
Appears
to Women Jesus
Appears
on Emmaus Road Jesus
Appears
to the
Disciples The Ascension
._
‘
.
A Summary of Miracles in The
Gospel According
to Luke Twenty-nine
miracles are counted in the Lukan
gospel
tradition. Twelve of these
twenty-nine
miracles are found within the
triple
tradi- tion.2 Four miracles are attributed to the
Q source.3 Two more miracles are counted
among
the
quadruple
tradition.4 One miracle is shared with Mark’s
gospel,
but not with Matthew’s.5 One more miracle is shared with the
gospel according
to
John,
but with no other
synoptic gospel.6 This leaves nine miracles which are
particular
to the
gospel
of Luke and which
display
Luke’s
special interests
in the
poor, women,
and outcasts.
Of the
twenty-nine
miracles recorded in
Luke, Jesus performs twenty-two. According
to the Lukan account, Jesus
performs
sixteen miracles of
healing.
Three more
people
are delivered from demonic powers.
and there are three miracles of nature. Of the
remaining
seven miracles not
performed by
Jesus,
one is the record of the resurrection and three more are miraculous
appearances
of Jesus after the resurrec- tion. Another miracle concerns the
virgin
birth of Jesus. Luke alone provides
the account of the ascension of Jesus in the
gospels.
This leaves one miracle in Luke’s
gospel
that does not conform to the
any of the above
categories.
The final miracle out of the
twenty-nine
does not concern Jesus directly.
The miracle concerns the birth of Jesus’
cousin,
John the Baptist.
The
Baptist’s father, Zechariah,
was struck dumb at the pronouncement
of John’s birth. The
angel
Gabriel who is represented as an
emissary
of God
(“who
stand in the
presence
of God” Luke
1:19) mutes Zechariah “because
you
did not believe
my
words”
(1:20).
This divinely
caused
muting
of Zechariah is the first occurrence of the Lukan
phenomenon
of divine infliction. This
phenomenon
can be found
again
in the Acts of the
Apostles
and will discussed after a survey
of the miracles in the Acts.
.
‘
.
2See 4:38-39; 4:40-41; 5:12-16; 5:17-26; 6:6-11; 6:17-19; 8:22-25; 8:26-39; 8 :40- 56 ; 9:10-17; 9:37-43; 11:14-15, 17-23; and 18 :35-43.
‘
_
3See 1:26-38; 7:1-10; 7:18-23; and 24 :10-11.
4See 9:10-17 and 24:1-12.
5See 4:33-37. .
6See 24:36-43.
‘
‘
3
6
Table 2
Miraculous Events in the Acts of the
Apostles
.
Acts Miraculous Event
. 1:2-12 The Ascension
2:43
Many Signs
and Wonders
3:1-10 Peter Heals the
Crippled Beggar
5:1-14 Ananias and
Sapphira
5:15-16 Peter’s Shadow Heals
Many
5:17-42 An
Angel Opens
Prison Doors
6:8
Stephen
Performs
Signs
and Wonders 8:4-8
Philip
Performs Wonders in Samaria 8:39-40
Philip Transported by
the
Spirit
9:1-22 Saul’s Conversion/Call: Blinded and Healed 9:32-35 Peter Heals Aeneas
9:36-43 Dorcas Raised From the Dead
by Peter 12:3-10 An
Angel
Frees Peter
12:19-24 An
Angel
Strikes Herod
13 :6-12
Elymas
the
Magician
is Blinded
14:3 Paul and Barnabas at Iconium
14:8-18 Paul Heals a Crippled Man at Lystra 16:16-18 Paul Heals Woman with
Soothsaying 19:10-12 Paul Performs Miracles at Ephesus
Spirit
(handkerchiefs)
20.7-12
Eutycus
Raised From the Dead
by Paul 23:11 1 The Lord
Appears
to Paul
28:1-6 A
Viper
Attacks Paul
28:7-10 Paul Heals Publius’ Father and Others
A Summary of Miracles in Acts
The Acts of the
Apostles
contains
twenty-three
miracle stories and numerous summaries of miraculous activities. There are three summary
statements which assert that miracles abounded in the
early church at the hands of the
apostles, Stephen,
and Paul and Barnabas (2:43; 6:88;
14:3
respectively).
The other
summary
statements indicate that the
phenomena
of
signs
and wonders abounded in the nascent church
generally.
Five miracles are attributed
directly
to the
apostle Peter. Seven miracles are attributed to Paul, or to Paul and a compan- ion. The
Hellenist, Philip, performs
two miracles. Seven miracles occur
independent
of human
agency.
There is a
great variety
of miracles in the Acts of the
Apostle.
As noted
before, many
of the miracles of Peter and Paul
parallel
the miracles of Jesus. Jesus heals two
crippled people (Luke 5:17-26; 13:10-13).
Peter
(Acts 3:1-10)
and Paul
(Acts 14:8-18)
both heal crippled people
as well. Jesus raises the widow of Nain’s son from the dead
(7:11-17),
Peter raises Dorcas from the dead
(9:36-43),
and Paul raises
Eutycus (20.7-12).
All three can
perform
miraculous
healings
4
7
without
physical
contact with the one who is afflicted. Jesus heals the centurion’s servant who was
dying, by merely uttering
a declaration of healing (7:1-10); People
are
healed
when Peter’s shadow
passes
over them
(5:15-16);
and Paul heals
many
with handkerchiefs and
aprons which have been
merely
touched
by
him
(19:11-12).
Altogether,
there are six miracles of
healing
in
Acts,
three are
per- formed
by
Peter and three
by
Paul. Paul, like Jesus, exorcises a demon. The Acts of the
Apostles
also
presents
miracles which have no
parallel in the
gospels. Among
these is the
transportation
of
Philip
from one geographical
location to another
(Acts 8:39).
Paul is bitten
by
a viper but lives
(Acts
28:3-6. Both Peter and Paul are released from
prison miraculously (Acts 12:6-11; 16:25-34).
The Acts of the
Apostles demonstrates both a continuity of the miracles of Jesus but also a dis- continuity
in that new miracles are
performed
which have no
precedent in the
gospels.
The era of the
early
Christian church is recorded
to have new
ways
in which divine
activity may
be demonstrated.
The Phenomenon of Divine Infliction
Among
these
unique
manifestations of divine
activity
is the
phenom- enon of divine infliction. Divine infliction has been
generally ignored by scholarship.
The
study
of miracles centered
upon healing, salvation, deliverance,
and the
bringing
back from the dead. There
are, however, four miracles in Acts and one in Luke’s
gospel
which do not
belong and do not fit into these
categories.
Neither are
they paralleled
to
any work of the
earthly
Jesus. These miracles cannot, in
fact,
be
catego- rized as being
“good”
cr “benevolent.”
They
are not even considered to be miracles
by
some because
they
were detrimental to people, and not beneficial. Yet these events must be seen in the
light
of the miraculous within the Lukan
corpus.
These miracles have a
specific purpose
for Luke which shall be discussed later.
The
passages
in Acts and in the
gospel
of Luke which
incorporate
the phenomenon
of divine infliction are as follows: The miraculous
muting of Zechariah
by
the
angel
Gabriel is
unparalleled
elsewhere in the New Testament
(Luke 1:5-25).
The miraculous deaths of
Ananias,
and Sapphira,
his wife,
(Acts 5:1-14)
are an unusual
display
of divine sovereignty
which is
unprecedented
in the
gospels.
A similar death occurs when “an
angel
of the Lord smote”
King
Herod
Agrippa
I and killed him
(12:20-23).
The New Testament transcribes the miracle of the
bringing
back from the dead, but never a
divinely
caused
death, except
in the Acts of the
Apostles.
Another miracle
story
of divine in- fliction is told
concerning
Bar-Jesus.
Elymas (Bar-Jesus)
the
magician is blinded after he
attempted
to thwart the conversion of the Roman official
Sergius
Paulus
(13:4-12).
The final accounts of divine inflic- tion are the accounts of the
blinding
of
Saul during
his conversion/call
5
8
(9:1-21; 22:6-16; 26: 12-1 8).7
The New Testament records the
healing of those who suffer from blindness but is silent
concerning
divine activity
which
directly
causes blindness in a human
being,
with the exception
of the Lukan
writings.
.
,
A Survey of Divine Infliction in Biblical
Scholarship
The
following pages
will
survey
biblical
scholarship’s
treatment of the divine infliction
passages beginning
with the
muting
of Zechariah. Concerning
the miraculous
muting
of
Zechariah,
I. Howard Marshall explains,
“Nor is it
improbable
that Zechariah
may
have suffered a
stroke at the time.”8 Marshall contends that the
ensuing
discussion
concerning
the
historicity
of the miraculous event is not
important.
Marshall is correct when
stating
that “the
meaning
of the
passage
is the
same whether it be literal or
symbolic.”9
What is
important
for
Marshall is the
theology
and
purpose
for this miracle’s
incorporation
into the
gospel
text. Marshall writes, “We must content ourselves with
the cautious conclusion that a narrator,
steeped
in the
OT, has
brought
out the
theological significance
of the birth of John…”.
10
The
theologi-
cal
significance
for Marshall is that an Old Testament
understanding
of .
the births of John the
Baptist
and of Jesus needs to be inferred in the
birth and
infancy
narratives of Luke. Marshall asserts that the birth and
pronouncement
of John the
Baptist
is to be understood in the
light
of
the Abraham and Sarah
story
in Genesis. The miraculous
muting
of
Zechariah serves a dual function for
Marshall;
it is both a
sign
for
Zechariah and a judgment upon him 11 I
Leon Morris
suggests
that this miraculous event is one of
punish-
ment. Morris
argues,
“Zechariah’s refusal to believe must be seen in
the
light
of God’s condescension in
sending
such a
messenger
with
such a message. To
reject
him was serious and it would have its conse-
quences.”12
For
Morris,
the miraculous
muting
of Zechariah is
nothing
less than divine
punishment
or retribution for unbelief. Morris
explains
that Zechariah’s actions is
merely
a faithless “demand for a
sign”
which is
deserving
of divine
punishment.13 Joseph
A.
Fitzmyer
holds
the same conclusion as Morris
concerning
the
punishment
of Zecha-
riah.
Fitzmyer astutely recognizes
that this miracle is similar to the
7The final account of Paul’s
conversion/call (26:12-18) does not recount the blinding
of Paul.
81. Howard Marshall,
Commentary
on Luke, NIGTC Series
William B.
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1978), 50.
” .
9Ibid.
101bid., 51.
l llbid;61.
12Leon Morris, The Gospel According to St. Luke (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), 70.
–
l3Ibid _
6
9
C11vme iniiicnon miracles m Acts.
ritzmyer concludes,
it is a punitive
miracle,
related to the stories in Acts
5:1-10; 13:16-11.”14
G.
Campbell Morgan
holds a different view than Morris. For
Morgan,
this miraculous
muting
was not an act of
punishment
or retribution.
Morgan
contends that since Zechariah asked for a
sign (1:18)
to be
given,
the
sign
which was
given
was the
sign
of the miraculous
muting.
“I do not believe there was
any
element of
punishment
in
it,”
asserts
Morgan.15
Ray
Summers’ conclusion
agrees
with the summations of Marshall.
Like
Morgan
and Marshall, Summer believes that the
muting
of
Zechariah was a
sign
for him. Like Morris and
Marshall,
Summer
holds to the idea that the
muting
of Zechariah was a punishment for , unbelief. Summer concludes, “The
sign
Gabriel
gave
to Zechariah was
an
appropriate
one… he would not be able to
speak
until Gabriel’s
words became a reality! That was real
punishment…”16
Alfred Plummer . also
perceives
this miracle in such a manner. Plummer writes
concerning
Zechariah’s
request
for a sign: “Thus his
wrong request
is
granted
in a way which is at once
judgment
and a blessing; for unbelief
is cured
by punishment.”17
Other scholars who hold to this view of the
miracle as
being
both a
sign
and a
punishment
are Norval Gelden-
huys,18
Lonsdale
Ragg,19
and Josef Ernst.20
In summation, most authors such as Marshall,
Morris, Morgan,
Summers,
et al., hold that the
muting
of Zechariah was a divine
punishment
or a divine
sign
or both. In these
cases,
Luke or the Lukan
editor
merely
records this tradition. Marshall
astutely
adds to the
discussion
by
his
suggestion
to look
beyond
the text in an
attempt
to
derive a purpose or
theology
of the editor of the tradition.
Why
is this
tradition
important
for Luke-Acts? For Marshall the z purpose and
,
‘
A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, vol. 1, The Anchor Bible
Series. l4Joseph
(Garden City: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1981), 328.
15G. Campbell Morgan, The Gospel According to Luke, (Old Tappan: Fleming H.
Revell Company, 1931), 18.
–
16Ray Summers, Commentary on Luke, (Waco: Word Books, Publisher, 1973),
p. 27.
l7Alfred Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, The International Critical
Commentary
Series. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1922), 17.
18Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, (London: Marshall,
Morgan
& Scott, Ltd., 1950), 68.
19Lonsdale Ragg, St Luke, (London: Methuen & Co. Ltd,
1922), 11.
2°Josef Emsi Das Evangeliwn nach Lukas, (Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet
Regensburg, 1960), Ernst calls this miracle a
62-63.
‘
“sign of punishment” (das Strafzeichen). He sees the astutely
function of this event in the “Das Verstummen des
Zacharias ist darum nicht nur Strafe, sondern following description: zugleich Hilfe zum Glauben, denn an
der Wirksamkeit des Wortes, das ihm sein Verstummen ankmdig% kann er die
Wirksamkeit der verheissenden Worte des Engels erkennen.” (63)
>
‘
. , _
7
10
theology standing underpinning
for
they
are also
incomplete.
tion
is the
Paul at his
conversion/call), Agrippa I),
section of the
paper of these
passages.
For Hans
Conzelmann, “miraculous
of this
passage
was to
present
an Old Testament under-
to the birth and
infancy
narratives. This
understanding
the
concept
of
continuity
between the ministries of John the
Baptist
and of Jesus with the ministries and the works of God in the Old Testament. Marshall’s conclusions are
correct, however,
Lukan
purpose
for this miracle will be seen after the
survey
of the
passages concerning
the events of divine inflic-
in the Acts of the
Apostles
is
given.
The divine infliction
passages
in the Acts of the
Apostles
are found in 5:1-14
(Ananias
and
Sapphira),
9:1-22 and 22:6-16
(the blinding
of
12:20-23 death of
King
Herod
and 13:4-12
(the blinding
of
Elymas
the
Magician).
This
will
briefly
treat different scholars’
interpretations
blinding
(the
and
Sapphira
are a ‘
views the
blinding
of Paul
“The
blinding
is
“but indicates the
helplessness Conzelmann sees the miraculous
the deaths of Ananias
punishment.”21
Conzelmann
differently
from the: deaths of Ananias and
Sapphira.
not a punishment,” states
Conzelmann,
of one
formerly
so
powerful.”22
of Paul as a kind of reversal of role. Paul who
formerly
im- prisoned and punished
the
helpless,
has himself now become
helpless because of the intervention of God.
perceives
the death of Herod as a punishment
Conzelmann ment.
or judg-
receives an By
its incorporation into this context the originally independent
additional nuance.
legend
Agrippa’s
death is due not only to his
but to his role of persecutor.23
hubris,
persecuted.
cian,
for
Conzelmann, understanding, magical
arts.
The
judge
and
persecutor
now has become the one who is judged and
The one who sat
upon
the judgment seat
(f3ijJ1.a) is now the one who suffers divine
judgment.
The
blinding
of
Elymas
the
Magi-
an indictment on
magical practices.
In this
the
blinding
of
Elymas
is a judgment upon the use of
is
philosophical fraud,
Again we recognize the Lukan criticism of magic. Its style is not that of criticism of miracles. Luke does not
say that magic is
but that it is destroyed by the power of Jesus.24
Thus,
the divine
judgment upon Elymas
is,
in
fact,
divine
judgment
the
practice
of magical
arts, according
to Conzelmann.
upon
Limburg, 1987), p.37.
22Ibid., 72.
23Ibid, 96.
24ibis,
100.
2lHans Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles, Hermenia Series. Translated by James
A. Thomas Kraabel, and Donald H. Juel, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
8
11
Ernst Haenchen understands the Ananias and
Sapphira
account as divine
judgment. “God,
who the mouth of the is executing
divine
judgment!,’2
speaks
by Apostles,
Haenchen understands a parallel be- tween the Ananias and
Sapphira story
and the sin of Achan
story
in Joshua 7. The
misappropriation
of funds
by
the
people
in both stories provides
an obvious link for Haenchen. As for the
blinding
of Paul at his conversion, Haenchen elucidates it as being a “natural
consequence of his
beholding
the
heavenly light.”26
Haenchen states that to construe this event as
punishment
would be to misunderstand it. Haenchen interprets
the death of Herod as divine retribution: “…whoever stands in God’s
way
must
pay
the
price….”27 Having martyred
James and imprisoned
Peter,
Haenchen understands Herod to have been the persecutor
of the church.
Thus,
in this
story
God removed the
persecu- tor who blocked the
way
of the church. This was done in much the same
way
when God confronted Paul on the Damascus road. In the blinding
of
Elymas,
Haenchen and Conzelmann
agree.
Haenchen observes in this
passage,
“Luke’s
proof
of the
superiority
of Christian- ity
over
magic
lies in his that the former invocation of the Name of Christ is more demonstrating powerful.” 82
F. F. Bruce
interprets
the deaths of Ananias and
Sapphira
in the same way
Haenchen understands it. “The
story
of Ananias is to the book of Acts what the
story
of Achan is to the book of Joshua.”29 Both the story
of Ananias and
Sapphira
and the
story
of
Achan,
for
Bruce,
is a story
of divine
judgment.
Also like
Haenchen,
Bruce
perceives
the blinding
of Paul as a natural
consequence
of the encounter with “excess of
light.”30
Bruce observes no punishment or retribution in the story
of Paul’s blindness. The death of
Herod, however,
indicates divine
judgment.
“The mortal
pain
which seized
him,” says Bruce,
“is interpreted by
Luke as a stroke of divine
judgment.”3
The
blinding
of Elymas according
to
Bruce,
is
likewise, judgment. “By his
opposition to the
truth
he had shown himself to be a child of the devil…Divine judgment
had been
pronounced upon
him…”32 Bruce adds to the discussion in that he notices that the blindness which overtook Paul during
his conversion is then
pronounced upon Elymas by
Paul. Richard Belward Rackham
uniquely
views the Ananias and
Sapphira
.
25Emst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, Translated
by
Basil Blackwell. (Philadelphia :
The Westminster Press, 1971), 238. .
26 Ibid., 323.
27jbid., 392.
281bid., 398.
29F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition. NICNT Series. (Grand William B. Eezdmans
Rapids:
Publishing Company, 1988),102.
301bid., 185.
311bid., 242……
32jbid., 249.
‘
.
..
9
12
deaths as Luke’s introduction of sin into the Eden-like church commu-
nity.
He likens this
story
to the fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.33 For Rackham
punishment
and judgment is the
purpose
of this passage.
He
writes, “…the death
of Ananias was a
signal proof
that though hypocrisy
and
impurity
cannot be
kept
out of the
church, the law of holiness remains
inexorable;
there can be no
compromise
with God’s
righteousness.”34
Rackham seems to treat the
blinding
of Paul as a way that God humbled the once
proud
Paul. Thus Rackham sees no
punishment
here for
Paul,
but
merely
a humbling.35 Concerning the death of
Agrippa
I, “Herod was smitten by the angel of the Lord; and this is the
regular
OT
phrase
for
declaring
that the event was a divine judgment…”36 Regarding
the
blinding
of
Elymas
Rackham
writes, “Blindness is an obvious
‘sign’
for
punishment…”37
David J. Williams contends that Ananias died because of the “shock cause
by
the disclosure of his
deception.”3$
Williams continues his argument
and
helpfully
asserts a suggested theological
explanation
for this
story.
William contends:
…Luke was right to see the supernatural in these events-a miracle of
judgment that, no less than the miracles of healing, was a sign that the
Kingdom
of God had come. For the God of this Kingdom intends to
judge
sin.39
Thus for Williams the Ananias
story
serves a double function.
First,
it serves as a
sign
of the
kingdom
of God and second, it serves as a divine
judgment
for sin. The
blinding
of
Paul,
for
Williams, constitutes a natural
phenomenon
caused
by
the
brightness
of the
light.
He also sees this
passage
as being illustrative of Jesus’ statement of “the blind leading
the
blind,”
for the now blind Paul who was
leading
a group to Damascus is now
being
led to Damascus.4? The death of Herod, for Williams,
is a divine
judgment.
He
states,
“Luke saw this that as an act of divine retribution.”41 Williams believes this affliction to be an historical event which can be
interpreted
as act of retribution. The blinding
of
Elymas
is to be understood as
punishment according
to Williams. “The immediate
purpose
of the miracle was to punish Bar- Jesus for
resisting
the
gospel,”
states Williams. He continues to
say
.
33Richard Belward Rackham, The Acts of the Apostles, Westmenster Commen- tary
Series. (London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1939), 64.
34Ibid.
35Ibid., 131.
36ibid..l82.
37Ibid., 201.
38David John Williams, Acts, Good News Commentary Series. (San Francisco: Harper
& Row, Publishers, 1985), 82.
39Ibid.
40Ibid., 155.
‘
411bid., 206.
10
13
that the short duration of the blindness was due to the fact that
Elymas repented.
The text,
however, says nothing concerning Elymas coming to faith,
only Sergius Publius,
the
proconsul.
The miracle demonstrated the
power
of the
gospel according
to Williams.42
I. Howard Marshall understands the actions of Ananias and
Sapphira as an
agreement
“to
tempt
the
Spirit.”43
Marshall concludes that the death of Ananias was to be regarded as “a divine
punishment upon
his sins.”44 As in the
gospel passage concerning Zechariah,
Marshall attributes the miracle to natural causes but
says
that the
theological significance
of this event is what matters.
Regarding
the
blinding
of Paul,
Marshall contends that this is a result of a human
being seeing God. He
writes,
“The
bright light
is to be understood as divine
glory, and,
since it is
generally
known that no man can see
God,
it is not surprising
that the effect of the
light
was to cause blindness.”45 The death of Herod, for Marshall, is divine retribution. Marshall states that Luke saw the death of Herod as an act of God
upon
someone who claims divine honors.46
Concerning the blinding
of
Elymas,
Paul had “pronounced
the judgment of God
upon
him in the form of an attack of blindness.”47 Marshall thus contends that Luke understood the four instances of divine infliction as
being punitive
in nature with the exception
of the
blinding
of Paul.
‘ Gerhard A. Krodel
rightly
asserts, as does Marshall, that the
impor- tance of the deaths of Ananias and
Sapphira
lies not in the
physical explanation
of the miracle but rather attention needs to be
given
to “the theological meaning
of this
chilling story.”4g
Krodel concludes that the theological
function of this miracle is
judgment.49
Krodel treats the blinding
of Paul without
any
comment as to punishment but
merely
as a by product of the
shining light.50 However, concerning
the death of Herod,
Krodel observes this to be “an act of divine
judgment.”5
The blinding
of
Elymas
the
Magician
is seen
by
Krodel to be a temporary judgment
which leaves room for later
repentance.52
.
_
42Ibid., 214.
43I_ Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles, Tyndale New Testament Com- mentary
Series. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980), 113.
44Ibid., 112.
45Ibid., 169.
212.
47Ibid., 218.
48Gerhard A. Krodel, Acts, Ausburg Commentary of the New Testament Series. (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1986), 119.
49jbid., 121.
5OIbid., 175-176.
51Ibid., 223.
_
52Ibid., 229.
11
14
Johannes Munck
uniquely
contends that the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira
is to be understood as the
“unforgivable”
sin
against
the
Holy Spirit.
Munck cites the Matthew 7:31-32
passage
as evidence.53 There is, however, no
hint in the text to warrant such an
understanding
or interpretation. Munck,
as with
others,
does not observe
any punishment in the
blinding
of Paul. Munck
posits
that this is
merely
what
happens when someone is “overwhelmed
by
the
heavenly reality.”54
The death of Herod
Agrippa
I is
interpreted by
Munck as a divine
punishment. He notes that the death of Herod is juxtaposed to Herod’s
persecution of the church and thus the reader is to connect the two events as
being cause and effect.55 The
temporary blinding
of Elymas is also
uniquely interpreted by
Munck. Munck holds
that,
“Just as
Christians,
filled with the
Holy Spirit,
were able to do
good,
so they also strike the
guilty with
punishment.”56
Munck correlates this miracle with the Ananias and
Sapphira story.
Munck thus sees the
blinding
of
Elymas
to be divine
punishment.
“…This incident stands as an indelible
warning regarding
the heinousness in God’s
sight
of
deception
in
spiritual
and
personal matters,” concludes
Richard
Longenecker concerning
the deaths of Ananias and
Sapphira. Longenecker perceives
this miracle to be one of judgment.57
The
blinding
of Paul, for
Longenecker
was the result of “his
system reacting
to the emotional shock…” Thus, the
blinding
of Paul is to be
interpreted
not as judgment upon
him,
but as a natural consequence
of an encounter with the
supernatural. 58
The death of Agrippa
I for
Longenecker
is attributed to God’s
judgment.59
And the blinding
of
Elymas
is to be
interpreted
as a temporary curse sanction which denounces the
magical
arts.?
French L.
Arrington,
like
Marshall,
understands the
deception
of Ananias and
Sapphira
to be a testing or
tempting by
the
Spirit
of God and
“undoubtedly
their deaths were
sovereign
acts of God.”61 Their deaths are
interpreted by Arrington
as
being judgment brought by
the Holy Spirit,
whom
they attempted
to deceive.
Arrington
observes the blinding
of Paul to be a natural
consequence
of the “brilliant
light.”
He
53Johannes Munck, The Acts of the Apostles, The Anchor Bible Series. (Garden City: Doubleday
& Company Inc., 1967), 41.
81..
? 55Ibid., 114. ,
56Ibid., 119.
57Richard Longenecker, Acts, Volume 9 in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Series. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 314.
58bid., 372.
59Ibid., 413.
420.
6 6Orbid..
1 French L. Arrington, The Acts of the Apostles, (Peabody: Hendrickson Pub- lishers, 1988), 56-57.
12
15
comprehends
no judgment or retribution here.O?
Concerning
the death of
Agrippa,
contends
Amington,
“The
judgment
of God fell on him because ‘he did not
give
God the
glory’.”63
The
blinding
of Elymas is to be construed as
“judgment upon
the
enemy
of the
gospel by smiting him with blindness.”64
J.
Massyngberde
Ford is one of the few
exegetes
who deals with the phenomenon
of divine infliction as an essential whole. Ford
states, “Integral
to the
understanding
of the benevolent miracles are the cursing
miracles in Acts.”65 The six
cursing
miracles to which she refers are: the Ananias and
Sapphira story,
the refutation of Simon Magus (8:20-24),
the death of
Herod,
the
blinding
of
Elymas,
the prevention by the Spirit
to allow Paul,
Timothy
and Silas to continue to minister in Asia Minor
(16:6-10),
and the incident of the seven sons of Sceva
(19:13-20).
Ford is
open
to David M.
Stanley’s66 suggestion
to treat the
blinding
of the
Apostle
Paul as a cursing miracle as well. Thus Ford observes that there are seven
cursing
miracles in Acts. Ford’s thesis as to the
purpose
of these seven “malevolent miracles” is that they
serve as counterparts to what he calls the seven
major
benevolent miracles of Acts.67 Ford concludes that the
counter-balancing
miracles serve as a
“polemic against pagan magical practices. “68
Thus ac- cording
to Ford, in order to prevent the
misunderstanding
of Christian miracles over
against pagan magical
arts,
the
cursing
miracles seek to clarify
the true
meaning
and
purpose
of the miraculous in Acts. The miracles in the book of Acts are not
magical,
but are the acts of the sovereign power
of God.
While Ford holds to seven
cursing
miracles in
Acts,
I count
only four. The difference lies in the fact that Ford includes the Simon Magus story,
the
prevention
of
Paul,
Silas and
Timothy
to minister in Asia
Minor,
and the sons of Sceva
story among
these miracles which I do not
incorporate.
I do not understand these three “miracles” as belonging
to the
phenomenon
of divine infliction because
they
differ from the rest in that Luke does not attribute a miraculous event
directly
‘
62jbid., 96.
–
,
63Ibid., 127.
64Ibid., 134.
65 J. Massyngbcrdc Ford, “The Social and Policitcal Implications of the Miracu- lous in Acts,” in Faces of Renewal: Studies in Honor of Stanley M. Horton, edited Paul
by
Elbert, (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1988), 151.
66David M. Stanley, “Paul’s Conversion in Acts: Why the Three Accounts?”, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 15 (1953), 315-338. –
67Ibid., 138-146. Ford defines the seven major benevolent miracles in Acts to be: 1. The Healing of the Lame Man by Peter (3.1-10); 2. The Healing of Aeneas
3. The
(9 :32- The
35) ; Raising of Dorcas (9:36-43); 4. Peter’s Escape from Prison (12:6-23); 5.
Healing of the Lame Man at
6. The
Silas
Lystra (14:8-20); Escape from Prison of Paul and
(16:16-40); and 7. The Raising of Eutycus (20.7-12). ,
?Ibid.. 154f.
‘
13
16
to -God. While Simon is cursed
by Peter,
no miraculous result was recorded
by
Luke. The
prevention
of Paul and his
company
to enter Bithynia
is not classified as a miracle in
my
estimation because no physical
manifestation was
presented by
Luke. The sons of Sceva
story is not a miracle
performed by
God,
but a supernatural phenomenon at- tributed to demons.
Therefore,
these three events do not
belong among the
phenomena
of divine infliction. Ford, however, contributes to the discussion of “divine affliction” or
“cursing
miracles” in that she sees these events as
serving
the function of
contrasting
them to first
century magical practices.
I shall
pick up
the discussion of purpose below. Ford borrows
support
for her
arguments
from C. K. Barrett who also contends that the Simon
Magus story
and the
Elymas
the
Magician story
are indications that the church is the true institution for the works of the
Holy Spirit.69
The work of the
Holy Spirit
is not to be confused with the works of
magicians.
This work cannot be
bought
nor bartered for.
Again,
Barrett’s conclusion is to be
appreciated
for its treatment of these miraculous events as a phenomenon which needs to be under- stood as a single theme which is recurrent in Acts.
Summary
of the
Survey
of Divine Inflicdon in Biblical
Scholarship According
to the
previous survey,
the five accounts of divine inflic– tion found in Luke-Acts have not been treated as a collective
phe- nomenon. Most have understood the Ananias and
Sapphira story,
the death of Agrippa
I,
and the
blinding
of Elymas as “cursing miracles” or even “malevolent miracles.” These three miraculous events are under- stood
by scholarship
as
being punitive
in nature. Most view the blinding
of Paul not as
punishment
or retribution but as a “natural” consequence
for
beholding
the brilliant
light
or as
consequence
for an encounter with the
supernatural.
Thus most scholars would not
classify the event of the
blinding
of Paul with the accounts of the
divinely caused deaths of
Ananias, Sapphira,
and
Agrippa. Others, however, like Ford and
Stanley,
observe the
blinding
of Paul as
belonging
to the same classification as the miraculous deaths and the
blinding
of Elymas.
The
muting
of Zechariah in Luke’s
gospel
is
interpreted by biblical scholars as
being
either a divine
sign
or a divine
judgment; most observe it to be both.
The
Theological Purpose
of Divine Infliction in Luke-Acts
Marshall’s conclusion that the critical issue for these
passages
lies not in the event itself but in the
interpretation
of the event is
appropri- ate. The issue of the
authenticity
of miracles must take second
place
to the issue of
theological purpose.
Whether or not these recorded events
69C. K. Barrett, “Light on the Holy Spirit from Simon Magus,” Les Actes des Apotres,
edited
by
Jacob Kremer. Bibliotheca
Ephemeridum Theologicarum Loveaniensium, XLVII. (Gembloux : Leuven University Press, 1979), 295.
14
17
had taken
place
in
history
is not as
important
a
topic
as how these events have
helped shape
Luke’s
theology
and Luke’s
purpose
in recording
them. The
physical explanation
of the miraculous
(natural causes versus
supernatural causes)
is subordinate to the issue of Lukan theology.
We have now come to the
question
of Luke’s
purpose
in recording
the divine infliction
passages.
The
interpretive key
for these “malevolent” miracles is found when the “benevolent” miracles are examined
alongside
them. Luke
4:36; 5:9 and Acts 3:10 all record the same reaction
by people
who had witnessed or heard about a beneficent miracle. When Jesus drove out a demon in the town of
Capernaum (Luke 4:31-37)
the reaction of all the people
was one of amazement
(OdJ1f3OS’). Likewise,
when the would be disciples
had witnessed the miraculous catch of fish (Luke
5:1-11),
the reaction was one of
OdJ1f3oS’. The Acts account of the healing
of the crippled beggar by
Peter and John
(Acts 3:1-10)
is
synchronized
with the
OdJ1f30S’ of
the
people
who had witnessed the event. The verb form of the
noun OdJ1f3oS’ is also associated
with the miraculous in Luke- Acts. The verb
8aVJ1d(lJ) (to
amaze or to astonish) is employed
by Luke in the
gospel passages
of 1:21, 63
(the muting
and
healing
of Zechariah);
7:9
(the healing
of the centurion’s
son);
8:25
(the stilling of the
storm);
9:43
(the
deliverance of the demon
possessed boy); 11:14
(the casting
out of a demon who caused
dumbness);
and 24:12 (the post-resurrection appearance
of Jesus to
women).
This verb form is also found in the Acts of the
Apostles.
It is associated with the miracle of the
healing
of the
crippled beggar (3:12).
Similarly,
at the
blinding
of
Elymas
the
magician,
the
proconsul Sergius
Paulus believed because he was astonished
(ÉK1TÀ1]C1u6J1aL) (Acts 13:12).
The
gospel
of Luke
employs
this word
concerning
the reaction of
people
to Jesus’
teachings
in Luke 4:32 and in 9:43. The people
were astonished at the
healing
of the
boy
who was demon possessed.
Thus it may be concluded that one of the results of the miraculous in Luke-Acts is one of amazement or astonishment. Notice that amaze- ment or astonishment is to be associated both with beneficent miracles and the miracle of divine infliction
(the muting
of Zechariah and the blinding
of Elymas).
Another reaction which is characteristic of miracles in Luke-Acts is fear
(øó{3OS’). In the gospel,
this term is found in the Zechariah account (1:65).
It is also discovered in the accounts of the
healing
of the paralytic (5:26);
the
raising
of the widow of Nain’s son
(7:16);
and the deliverance of the Gerasene demoniac
(8:37).
In the Acts
account, the characteristic of fear is found in the miraculous deaths of Ananias and Sapphira (5:5, 11).
It is also uncovered in the
summary
statement of 2:43,
“And fear came
upon every soul;
and
many
wonders and
signs were done
through
the
apostles.”
The verb form
Øo{3E6¡J.aL
is employed by
Luke in
conjunction
with miracles as well. Zechariah was com-
.
15
18
‘
manded not to fear
by
the
angelic
herald
( 1:13).
Other accounts in the gospel
which utilize this word are: the miraculous catch of fish
(5:10); the
stilling
of the storm
(8:25);
the
healing
of the Gerasene demoniac (8:35);
and the account of the
healing
of
bleeding
woman
(8:50).
In the Acts,
the believers were afraid when the
angel
released Peter from prison (5:26).
Thus fear is also a common element both of beneficent miracles and divine infliction miracles
(the
Zechariah account and the Ananias and
Sapphira story).
According
to the Lukan
report,
the result of the miraculous death of King
Herod
Agrippa
I was that “The word of God
grew
and multi- plied” (Acts 12:24).
A similar
expression may
also be found in the story
of the sons of Sceva
(Acts 19:20).70
Thus it can be concluded that both beneficent and
malignant
miracles have the same characteristics and
produce
the same
results, according to Luke. Both can instill the fear of the
Lord,
both can
produce
amaze- ment or astonishment, and both
may
result in the word of God
growing and
multiplying.
We must now look at the ramifications of the five divine infliction
passages together
as a collective
phenomenon.
The end result of the
muting
and
healing
of Zechariah is that the fear of God came
upon
his
neighbors
and that the
proclamation
of the coming
of the Messiah was
spread
about Judea
(1:65-66).
The deaths of Ananias and
Sapphira
concludes with fear
coming upon
“the whole church,
and
upon
all who heard of these
things” (Acts 5:11).
Commentaries and translators both have
traditionally interpreted
a break in the events of Acts
chapter
five between verse eleven and verse twelve.
They
see verse eleven as the end of the Ananias and
Sapphira story
and verses twelve
through
sixteen as a short
summary
of miracu- lous events in the
early
church. It is not
necessary, however,
to see a break at this
juncture.
The final redaction of Luke
juxtaposed
these accounts
together.
If the work of the modem editors are
ignored,
then the Ananias and
Sapphira story (5:1-11) may
be understood to be among
the
“signs
and wonders” of verse twelve as well as the
story
of Peter’s shadow
(5:15-16).
Thus the
summary
statement found in verse fourteen,
“And more than ever believers were added to the
Lord,
multi- tudes both men and women” would be
applicable
to the Ananias and Sapphira story
as well as to the Peter’s shadow
story.
The
summary statement is sandwiched between the two miraculous accounts. Thus the divine infliction miracle of Ananias and
Sapphira
and the benefi- cent miracle of Peter’s shadow which can heal
people
both function similarly, according
to Luke.
They
add believers to the Lord.
The
blinding
and
subsequent healing
of Paul is to be
interpreted
as a miracle of divine infliction
(Acts 9:1-22; 22:6-16).
Notice that after Paul’s
healing,
Paul “in the
synagogues immediately proclaimed
7?See also 6:7 where the word of God grew after the election of the Hellenist deacons.
16
19
Jesus…”
(9:20).
The result of Paul’s
proclamation
was that of amaze- ment
(%(iu7J§pi).
The
blinding
of Paul
culminated,
for
Luke,
in the proclamation
of Jesus. The death of
King
Herod
Agrippa
I resulted in the
growth
and the
multiplication
of God’s word
(12:24).
The
blinding of
Elymas
the
magician
climaxed in the conversion of the
proconsul, Sergius
Paulus
(13:12).
Luke
records,
“Then the
proconsul believed, when he saw what had occurred, for he was astonished at the
teaching of the Lord.”
‘
Conclusion
What was Luke’s
purpose
in recording the divine infliction miracles?
What role do these
intriguingly malignant
miracles
play?
How were
they
understood
by
the
original
readers? The
theory
I posit is that in the mind of the author and
theologian,
these
malignant
miracles func-
tion in the same
capacity
as their beneficent
counterparts.
When God
heals, exorcises demons,
or even
brings
someone back from the
dead,
Luke
notes that this
furthers the
kingdom
of God and attracts new
believers to the
kingdom.
The same can be said of the divine infliction
miracles.
Scholarship
has
rightly
confirmed that the miracles of Christ both
authenticate Jesus’ own
ministry
and at the same time
point
to the work of God which is
greater
than the miracle itself.
Likewise,
the
miracles of Peter and Paul as recorded in the Acts of the
Apostles
function in the same manner, in that
they
authenticate and
point
to the
work of God
through
these heroes. This conclusion must be
applied
to the
phenomenon
of divine infliction as well. These
“malignant”
mira-
cles also authenticate the
message
and the
messenger paralleling
their “beneficent”
counterparts.
These
“cursing”
miracles
point
to the
king-
dom of God
along
with their
“blessing” counterparts.
For Luke
(and
the
subsequent redactors)
there is no difference to be distinguished
between the miracles of divine infliction and the benevo-
lent miracles. Both
phenomena
function to bring
people
to belief. Both
function in the same
way. According
to Luke, the
purpose
of the divine .. infliction miracles is no different from the
purpose
of the beneficent
ones. Luke’s
theological presuppositions
are the same for both. Not only
does God
bring salvation, redemption, healing,
and the
raising
of the
dead, but God also brings death, blindness, and dumbness,
according
to Luke’s
theology.
Both.
persuasions
of miracles educe
people
to God.
.
17
