Purpose
Terms And Format
Focus

Traditional View
Biblical View

Introduction
Mandate
Rejection
Threat
Need

Identifiable Patterns of Response
Toward a Lukan Thelogy of Crisis

TABLE 1 - Major Crises In Order Of Textual Appearance
TABLE 2 - Major Crises Presented by Motif with staus quo, critical context, portrayed response, and possible deciding factors

A BRIEF SURVEY OF CRISIS AND DECISION
IN THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

INTRODUCTION

Purpose

Luke's continuing record of "all that Jesus began to do and to teach" (Acts 1:1), is an invaluable historical document detailing, among other things, the responses of the early disciples to crisis and dilemma. The early church faced a multitude of critical decisions, ^{[endnote 1]} and Luke faithfully recorded many of the attendant details and results. Some of the crises Luke records are personal while others are corporate. ^{[endnote 2]}

This paper assumes ^{[endnote 3]} that Luke's narrative serves a normative and paradigmatic use for the Church-at-large; therefore, it will be profitable to consider the patterns of response to crises which the early disciples modeled that we may better face our own dilemmas and crises. Thus, what follows is an examination of several representative crises found in Acts in order to: a) identify patterns of response to crisis, and b) articulate a possible Lukan theology regarding crisis and decision-making.

Terms and Format

The sheer quantity of decisions (explicitly and implicitly) portrayed in Luke's narrative militate against a comprehensive treatment of the subject within the scope of this survey. This discussion will be limited to those decisions which are in response to crisis. Thus, we now must define the critical framework shaping this discussion.

In medicine, crisis refers to that critical moment which determines the course of an illness or condition — symptoms will either improve or worsen. ^{[endnote 4]} In literature, crisis refers to a decisive moment, the outcome of which affects the course of the narrative. Pittman describes a crisis as a condition where a choice hangs in the balance between at least two possible courses of action. ^{[endnote 5]} Crisis may also describe that condition leading to one of at least two possible outcomes, of which one may be desirable and the other undesirable. Crisis, then, implies a dilemma (though there may certainly be more than two perceived outcomes), and this implies conflicting or at least divergent outcomes.

Yet the crises under consideration here are more than mere options for change. As noted above, crisis may be seen as resulting from conflict. (A decision between behaviors or conditions divergent from the status quo may be seen as being in conflict with the status quo.) Options alone, however, do not create crises. For a potential outcome to catalyze a crisis, the option must first be perceived and it must also entail sufficient motivation to be considered an option for change. (Without an attendant motive toward change, an option presents no conflict to the current status quo). The crisis may stem from the simple (versus complex) dilemma between maintaining status quo and adopting change; however, as more options for change (or outcomes) are perceived and as the motivation to change increases, the complexity and difficulty of the crisis also increases. A crisis, therefore, represents more than dilemma. Because of conflicting potential outcomes and conflicting motivations, crisis entails more than a simple choice between options. So, for our purposes, crisis shall be defined as a situation where existing behaviors or conditions are confronted by at least one other conflicting outcome presenting a motive for change.

Focus

This paper will consider those passags where critical decisions are explicitly described and where conflict between the status quo and at least one optional course of action (with motive either implied or described) may be discerned. In the passages selected for discussion, the status quo (the conditions or behavior confronted by potential change), the critical context (the conditions which engendered the crisis), the portrayed response, and possible deciding factors relevant to that response will be considered.

Because there are many critical decisions in Acts, and because many of those decisions exhibit common characteristics, this paper will deal with texts representative of certain kinds of crises found in Acts: ^{[endnote 6]}Mandate, Rejection, Need, and Threat. These categories are not exhaustive, not adequate to describe all crises, and not necessarily objective; but the categories are supported from the biblical contexts and will help deal with the selected texts efficiently.

A BRIEF Survey of Views Regarding Crisis and Decision

Traditional View

In conversation with colleagues and associates and in the context of liturgical discourse, this author has often encountered the idea of "The Center of God's Will." ^{[endnote 7]} The proponents of this concept assert that when making crisis decisions (especially important ones), one must first consult God to discern His perfect will; otherwise one may choose a course of action which lies outside of God's "perfect plan" and, thus, live in error. This viewpoint makes a slight provision for missing the mark by only a little bit and still being in God's "permissive" will instead of His "perfect" will. ^{[endnote 8]} "It's okay to be in His permissive will," they would say. "It's just not ideal."

The supporters of this view have been unable to provide exegetical support for their theology. While some are obviously comforted in the belief that all the really hard and important decisions have already been made for us, the overwhelming weight of Biblical evidence in Acts does not support this position.

Biblical View

Professor Charles Smith of Grace Theological Seminary has noted that most confusion regarding decision-making and the discernment of God's will is sourced in a misunderstanding of how God works through history, revealing himself to individuals as He chooses. Smith's point is, "You are not a Moses! Nor are you a Joshua, an Abraham, Ezekiel, Daniel, Matthew, John or Paul! You are not to expect the kind of revelation they received." ^{[endnote 9]}

Echoing John Calvin's assertion that God's "will is not to be sought anywhere else than in His Word," ^{[endnote 10]} Francis Shaeffer held that

We cannot bind men morally except with that which the Scripture clearly commands (beyond that we can only give advice), similarly, anything the New Testament does not command in regard to church form is a freedom to be exercised under the leadership of the Holy Spirit for that particular time and place (emphases his). ^{[endnote 1!]}

He added a footnote declaring that "the opposite cannot be held, namely that only that which is commanded is allowed." ^{[endnote 12]}

TEXTS FOR CONSIDERATION

Introduction

What follows is a brief discussion of representative texts relative to crisis and response. As noted earlier, this discussion will be aided by considering relevant passages in light of the four motifs mentioned earlier. The rationale behind each category will be presented, followed by a discussion of one representative passage. Please note that while each crisis will be discussed under a specific rubric, this does not imply that elements of other motifs are absent from that passage. This survey gives an overview of the crises in Acts and does not attempt to explain them in full.

Mandate

A survey of the material reveals that nearly every crises portrayed in Acts is fundamentally a response to Divine mandate, especially when viewed in the light of Acts 1:8, "you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." Mandate generates a crisis either by a) challenging or b) requiring the continuance of the existing conditions.

An intriguing passage representing this type of crisis presents itself in Acts 19:21-21:15. Shortly after the Ephesians responded so overwhelmingly to Paul's ministry, Paul "decided to go to Jerusalem" (Acts 19:21). At this point Luke offers no other reason than Paul's straightforward decision.

Despite his decision though, Paul subsequently endures a riot in Ephesus, encourages the disciples there before leaving, finally sets out for Macedonia (Acts 21:1), heads to Greece, and, en-route to Asia, further decides "to go back through Macedonia" (Acts 21:3). He stops by Philippi for the Feast of Unleavened Bread and then spends a week at Troas. Paul's motivation to return to Jerusalem is not shown as his immediate, driving concern; Paul is evidently not in a hurry to fulfill his decision. On the other hand, Paul expresses at Ephesus an urge to travel to Jerusalem which is growing more powerful than a simple desire. He declares to the elders at Ephesus that he is "compelled by the Spirit" (Acts 20:22) to go to Jerusalem (Acts 20:22). Note that Luke records that the Spirit is motivating Paul to go and doesn't record how it is motivating him. The text does indicate, however, that Paul himself does not know much more than that he must simply go (Acts 20:22).

Here Paul begins to encounter emotional responses to his resolve to travel to Jerusalem, especially since he told the Ephesian elders they would not see his face again. Luke implies their departure was difficult with his phrase: "After we had torn ourselves away from them" (Acts 20:37).

When Paul arrived at Tyre in Syria, he found disciples awaiting him. These disciples strongly urged Paul "in the Spirit" not to continue to Jerusalem, but Paul pressed ahead. ^{[endnote 13]} Despite mounting opposition, Paul's inner resolve reveals itself as founded on a motive stronger than simple desire. Luke appears to portray Paul as a man being increasingly driven to his destination.

When Paul and his companions arrived at the house of Philip the Evangelist in Caesarea, Agabus prophesied that the Jews in Jerusalem would bind Paul up and deliver him to the Gentiles. At this point, the pressure mounts for Paul to discontinue his quest. Luke reports that those present wept and plead with Paul not to go to Jerusalem, but "he would not be dissuaded" (Acts 21:12). Of course, one can observe in the following chapters that Paul was indeed delivered to the Gentiles and eventually sent to Rome as a prisoner.

So, In spite of a strong desire to travel to Rome, Paul nevertheless interrupted his journey in order to return to Jerusalem for a reason he could not fathom and by a motivation he could not (or would not ) articulate. Romans 15 records Paul's intent to travel to Rome en-route to Spain, intentions which he apparently postponed when he suddenly decided to return to Jerusalem halfway between Jerusalem and Rome (Acts 21:21)! By Paul's own admission he had no idea why he was returning (Acts 20:22,23). However, the closer he traveled to Jerusalem, the firmer his conviction becomes and the more quickly the narrative pace picks up. Luke describes Paul's resolve to travel to Jerusalem three times (Acts 20:21; Acts 21:45, Acts 21:13-14), and two of those three occasions were accompanied by a majority dissent (Acts 21:4-5, 21:13-14). Yet by the time Paul's traveling companions begin to attempt to dissuade him, Paul had settled the question of God's purpose in his own mind and would not be persuaded otherwise. Agabus' prophecy does not negate the possibility of a Divine mandate for Paul to travel to Jerusalem. Luke does not provide an interpretation for the prophecy, only that a prophecy was delivered which indeed came to pass.(Acts 21:11).

In short, Paul chose a course of action while in Ephesus, and he pusued that course until he reached Jerusalem. Along the way he must have faced increasingly intense crises as fellow disciples discouraged him from his chosen course. Nevertheless, Paul would not be dissuaded. The single most important factor in Paul's decision to complete the journey is his apparent response to Divine mandate (Acts 20:22).

Rejection

Rejection is often responsible for crises in Acts, especially when the gospel or the minister of the gospel is being rejected. Rejection inevitably demands that the individual being rejected decide whether to attempt reconciliation or to allow rejection to continue. As one traces the response of Paul to rejection throughout Acts, it becomes apparent that Paul reacts more quickly to the crisis of rejection when the people are rejecting him. This becomes especially apparent when plots are created and direct actions undertaken to kill him.

When the gospel is being rejected, Luke shows Paul displaying more tenacity; Acts 14:1-7 illustrates this. Luke places us in Iconium at the beginning of the passage — and we are in Iconium precisely because Paul and his companions have been rejected from Pisidian Antioch. As the passage begins, Luke reports that "Paul and Barnabas spoke so effectively that a great number of Jews and Gentiles believed" (Acts 14:1). Unfortunately, the Jews who refused to believe (i.e., those who rejected the gospel) began dividing the Gentiles against the brethren. While this establishes a minor crisis, the crisis is not grave enough for Paul and Barnabas to consider a new course of action. If anything, Luke records that they intensified their efforts, and that they "spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord" and performing miracles (Acts 14:3).

The crisis mounted when the antagonistic Jews succeeded in dividing the city and generated a plot to "mistreat" and stone the disciples. At this point, the crisis demanded a response; as soon as Paul's companions learn of the plot, Luke declares "they fled" to other cities where they "continued to preach the good news" (Acts 14:5-6).

In this instance, and in several like it ^{[endnote 14]} , Paul resisted the crisis until he was in personal danger. The deciding factors for the ensuing hasty departures are, in the final analysis, rejection of the Word and rejection of the minister himself.

Need

Need also generate crises, especially when there are conflicting needs and conflicting ways to meet the needs. The needs involved may include physical, spiritual, emotional, or social needs. Luke provides many pericopes where need precipitates crises.

If one posits that the Great Commission (as reflected in Acts 1:8) is God's mandate that we work to resolve man's deepest need (separation from God), then perhaps all of the crises encountered in Acts reflect the conflicting outcomes of working to resolve that need while simultaneously encountering other needs demanding resolution.

Acts 6:1-6 portrays exactly that situation. While coping with the ongoing persecution from the Jewish quarter, specifically the Sanhedrin, the strength and size of the nascent Christian community continued growing (Acts 6:1). The apostles were certainly kept busy, working to fulfill the mandates of Christ "day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news" (Acts 5:42). In the midst of this work, we find that the physical needs of a specific sector of the community (the widows of the Grecian brethren) were not being met. Specifically, they "were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food" (Acts 6:1).

The disciples must certainly have faced a crisis in this context. For those who walked with Christ, talked with Him and dined with him, there must have been an overwhelming sense of mission — to make Him known! Yet here they are suddenly confronted with disgruntled members of the Body representing a minority which could ill afford to be neglected. The motivation to resolve their needs would have been profoundly strong, since care for the widows was integral not only to the faith of the Jews, but also to the Christians. ^{[endnote 15]} Yet while the apostles evidenced great concern for the widows, their priorities lay in doing what they best were prepared to do, that is, meeting spiritual needs via ministry of the word of God. The conflict here is between the resolution of basic needs; at stake also is the command of Christ to be witnesses (Acts 1:8) and the mandate to care for widows (cf. above).

The apostles' response was a pragmatic and successful attempt to satisfy to both needs. The apostles "gathered all the disciples together" (Acts 6:2) and reported their decision based on expediency: "It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables" (Acts 6:3) (emphasis mine).

This situation also illustrates that a crisis does not necessarily present either/or options. In reference to the earlier definition of crisis: the apostles were confronted with "a situation where existing behaviors or conditions (the Grecian widows were being overlooked) are confronted by at least one other conflicting outcome (care for the widows) presenting a motive for change (sourced in apparent need as well as in previously received mandates)."

Threat

The use of the term threat does not refer to personal threat or injury which one might receive due to personal rejection or aggression. (This kind of crisis would be dealt with under the rejection motif.) For instance, an object of threat might be dogma, practice, or a current state of being. The crisis arises when an accepted condition is threatened by potential change. The range of responses might vary from defense to compromise, or outright acceptance of the potential change.

One passage portraying an interesting blend of responses is Acts 15:36-41, where Paul and Barnabas disagree over the inclusion of John Mark on what would be their second missionary journey. The crisis arose when Barnabas proposed taking John Mark (Acts 15:37) while Paul adamantly refused.

At first glance this crisis appears to belong under the Rejection motif, for Paul seems to be rejecting John Mark, and Barnabas and Paul seem to eventually reject each other. However, it is this author's contention that the basic issue at stake for Paul is not personal rejection but the protection of the mission and message of which Paul was an apostle.

John Mark, who is cousin to Barnabas, first joined Paul and Barnabas in Jerusalem. The two had just been appointed to bear a gift to Jerusalem from the church in Antioch. After dispatching their duties they returned to Antioch accompanied by John Mark (Acts 12:25), though the precise reason he began traveling with Paul and Barnabas is not given. By the time they all arrive on the island of Cyprus, though, John Mark is described as their helper (Acts 13:6).

John Mark first began traveling with his cousin Barnabas and with Paul. Note that they had not yet been set apart by the Holy Spirit for mission (Acts 13:2). Additionally, the two had not traveled extensively together except for when Barnabas found Saul in Tarsus and took him to Antioch to teach the new disciples there (Acts 11:26) and also when the church in Antioch subsequently sent them back to Jerusalem to deliver a gift (Acts 11:30). Also note that both missions were straightforward and were conducted among a Jewish community.

John Mark returned to Jerusalem early in the journey from Antioch — it didn't take long for him to change his mind and reexamine his purpose in traveling with Paul and Barnabas. Paul makes two important points in his explanation regarding why John Mark should not go on this journey: a) it is not wise, and b) John Mark deserted them.

Paul had several short-term traveling companions. Priscilla and Aquilla accompanied him only from Philippi to Ephesus. Silas traveled with Paul from Jerusalem to Antioch where the church sent him back to Jerusalem; and Luke himself, as indicated by the "we" sections, did not personally travel with Paul during every step of the missionary journeys. Paul probably wasn't reacting against the temporary nature of John Mark's dedication. Paul's reference to "desertion" here is especially important to note. Not only did John Mark physically desert Paul and Barnabas in Pamphylia, but in Paul's mind he deserted the mission.^{[endnote 16]} Perga and Pamphylia are not Jewish strongholds — the land is Gentile, and Paul was likely to be ministering to Gentiles. Indeed, only a few verses after Luke records Mark's desertion, Paul addresses the Jews and declares that since they rejected the word of God "and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles" (Acts 13:46).

Consider Paul's response in light of both a) the preceding Jerusalem Council mandating an egalitarian acceptance of Gentile brethren, and b) Paul's decision to visit the churches where they had already traveled. If John Mark had first experienced any difficulty in mission with Paul to the Gentiles it would have likely been evident. His desertion of the mission would have made it manifest in a powerfully tangible way. Consider the possible reaction of a new Gentile convert if a family member abandoned the ministry because of theological reasons — that the Gospel was not for the Gentiles! For Paul, it would have been unwise to compromise the integrity of the message of God's grace to the Gentiles by endorsing the ministry of a young man who had shown himself to be a dissenter to that grace. It was too great a risk, and so Paul acted to protect the message and the ministry from what he considered a possible threat. Paul's concern for the integrity of the message and the mission also asserts itself when he had Timothy circumcised to avoid offending Jewish sensibilities. It is equally possible that Paul refused to take John Mark to avoid offending the sensibilities of Gentile Christians that might have been deeply hurt by John Mark's previous desertion.

Yet Barnabas also acted in defense . . . in defense of John Mark. It may very well have been Barnabas' contention that John Mark be given a second chance to prove himself (especially in light of the recent council in Jerusalem). Note that even after Paul and Barnabas parted ways, Barnabas and John Mark did not strike out for Gentile territory, but toward Barnabas' home-region: Cyprus (Acts 15:39).

This crisis was resolved on two fronts. On one hand, Paul could not be persuaded otherwise; he rejected the alternative and continued with his plans. Barnabas, however, could not embrace Paul's position and so he accommodated John Mark's needs and traveled elsewhere. Again, Paul's primary interest was the preservation of the work and the message. Barnabas' primary interest in this case was the person of John Mark.

CONCLUSION

Patterns of Response

There are easily identifiable patterns of response given the passages just discussed as well as in the other passages related to the motifs proposed. There are only a few points in Acts where God directly intervenes and communicates His intent in the course of history. On those occasions where God does not remain silent, He communicates His intent distinctly and clearly to those concerned. ^{[endnote 17]} On those occasions where there is no clear direction from the Lord from Scripture, from the teaching of Christ, or in revealed communication, the disciples relied on wisdom and expediency as their measure for the necessary course of action. ^{[endnote 18]} J. I. Packer described this kind of wisdom as "the power to see, and the inclination to choose, the best and highest goal, together with the surest means of attaining it."^{[endnote 19]} There are also many occasions where the chosen course of action was defined by circumstance and proscribed by inevitability. For instance, in the many occasions where Paul found it necessary to depart a region quickly, there is little or no apparent thought given regarding when to leave (the situation inevitably demanded he leave immediately), and Luke does not show Paul stopping to consult a "divine compass" to determine the next place to minister (circumstance and need defined that), Paul simply ministered where he was. ^{[endnote 20]}

Toward a Lukan Theology of Crisis

How one interprets Luke's portrayal of crisis will depend upon how one reads Luke's purpose in writing Acts and his theological filter for the selection and framing of the material in his narrative. This author approaches the task with the following assumptions: a) Luke wrote Luke-Acts as a unit, b) the combined work of Luke-Acts reveal a unified literary approach, theme, and purpose, and that c) Luke achieved his goals with the completion of his second volume.

Given these premises, note the opening and closing items in Luke's account. Acts opens by detailing the disciples' question about the expected establishment of God's Kingdom. Christ responded with the mandate to witness and the promise of power to do so unto the ends of the earth (Acts 1:6-8). Then as Luke closes, he portrays Paul at the "ends of the earth" in Rome "boldly and without hindrance (preaching) the kingdom of God and (teaching) about the Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 28:31). Luke's purposes are fulfilled by showing how God's purposes were fulfilled (note, the account of the "things that have been fulfilled among us" in Luke 1:1). For Luke, all that falls between is his charting of the progress of the gospel from its inception with a small band of disciples in Jerusalem to its fulfillment as a world-wide kingdom of God with its tendrils reaching even to the heart of Rome, the seat of the natural government.

The crises of Acts must be seen against this backdrop of promise and fulfillment. For Luke, nothing is nearly so important as communicating the certainty of Christ and what He has done (Luke 1:4, Acts 1:1), thereby establishing God's rulership in the hearts of men. Acts demonstrates that nothing on the face of the earth can stop the progress of God's kingdom. There is no persecutor tenacious enough and no crisis big enough to ultimately hinder the continuing acts of Jesus Christ through His Church.

It is this author's conviction that the controlling idea underlying each crisis in Acts is complete dependency on the sovereignty of God ^{[endnote 21]} . When God spoke, the disciples listened and responded. When He was silent, the disciples relied on the Holy Spirit and pursued His revealed will in Scripture, wisdom, and expedience.^{[endnote 22]} Underlying Luke's portrayal of each crisis is his understanding and assertion that Christ lives and is acting through His Church in a vital and powerful way.

If we could recapture that kind of assurance and certainty, we would certainly worry less about threading our way through crises according to "God's perfect will" and would instead, like the early disciples, spend more of our energy fulfilling the mandate God gave us — to be filled with the power of His Spirit that we might do His work and be His witnesses.

---

ENDNOTES

[1] For an excellent discussion on the decision-making processes of the Apostles, see chapters 11 and 14 in Garry Friesen's Decision Making and the Will of God: A Biblical Alternative to the Traditional View. Portland, Oregon: Multnomah (1980).

[2] See Table One in the Appendix for an overview of the crises considered for this paper. Though a personal crisis may be defined as a crisis faced alone, by an individual, it can be argued that Luke does not portray any truly personal crises, for every decision portrayed in Acts has a resultant effect on the corporate body.

[3] See my conclusion for additional items of assumption.

[4] Pittman, Frank S., III. Turning Points: Treating Families in Transition and Crisis. New York: W. W. Norton and Company. (1987)

[5] Ibid.

[6] See Appendix A, table two for the texts under consideration listed by reference and also by type of crisis.

[7] For an excellent analysis of the traditional view, see Garry Friesen's work, Decision Making and the Will of God. (Pages 15-59)

[8] Lloyd Olgivie affirms this view, especially in his discussion of Acts 15:36-41, except he uses the term "Intentional Will." The Communicator's Commentary: Acts. Waco, Texas: Word Books (1983). (Page 237) Reference the discussion later in this paper relative to that passage.

[9] Though this declaration may be somewhat extreme, and seems to preclude the paradigmatic value of Scripture, Smith's point is well taken that we must first work to conform ourselves to the pattern of God's will revealed in Scripture, and allow God to speak to man as He will, not as we wish. Charles R. Smith Can you Know God's Will for Your Life? Winona Lake, Indiana: BMH Books (1977), page 2.

[10] John Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, Calvin's Commentaries, translated by THL Parker, edited by David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans (1965). (Page 304)

[11] Francis Shaeffer, The Church at the End of the Twentieth Century. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press (1970). (Page 67)

[12] Ibid.

[13] Some pulpiteers and commentators assert that Paul was in disobedience here because the disciples in Tyre urged Paul "through the Spirit" not to continue to Jerusalem (Acts 21:4). However, as Garry Friesen asserts, there is no "direct comment in the book of Acts that shows Paul as traveling in disobedience. Luke seems favorable in his comments with the possible exception of Acts 21:4. It is best to consider the Jerusalem trip as free of disobedience, but full of risk to Paul. The trip itself is the result of Paul's planning" (page 240).

[14] See Appendix, Table two.

[15] From the Old Testament, see Job 22:9, Psalm 68:5, Isaiah 10:2, Jeremiah 49:11, and Malachi 3:5; for the New Testament, see Mark 12:40, Luke 20:47, and James 1:27.

[16] I am indebted to Longenecker's analysis here in, The Acts of the Apostles: Introduction, Text and Exposition, in The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Edited by Frank Gaebelein, vol. 9. Grand Rapids: Regency Reference Library, Zondervan (1981). (Page 453-455)

[17] Notice the angel's comments to the disciples in Acts 1:11, the mandate discerned in Scripture regarding Judas' office in Acts 1:20, the disciples' obedience to Christ in Acts 4:20 and Acts 5:32, Peter's resonse to his vision in Acts 10:1-11:19, the commission of Barnabas and Saul in Acts 13:2, Paul's constraint to ministry in Acts 16:7-9, his unusual response to the Corinthian persecution in light of God's assurances in Acts 18:6-11, and Paul being bound by the Spirit to travel to Jerusalem in Acts 20:22.

[18] The Apostles sending Paul to Tarsus after initially provoking the Jew's reaction in Jerusalem in Acts 9:30 was probably a course of action chosen for its expediency and wisdom, the response to the Grecian widow in Acts 6:1-6 was governed by wisdom, the response to the Judaean famine in Acts 11:27-30 was likely expedient and compassionate, the conclusions reached at the Jerusalem Council in chapter 15 were a combined result of wisdom, expediency, and the understood will of the Lord, Paul and Barnabas' resolution of the crisis over Mark in Acts 15:36-41 was based on wisdom and compassion, the Jewish brethren's constraints on Paul when he returned to Jerusalem in chapter 21 were sourced in expediency and a wise concern for consequences, and the churches decision to recommend Apollos to the church in Achaia followed expediency as well (Acts 18:27-28).

[19] J.I. Packer, Knowing God (page 80).

[20] Note that it is after the Jerusalem crowd begins to riot that Paul decides the need for irenic silence is abolished and he speaks in his defense as the circumstance dictates (Acts 21:27-23:11), note his hasty, circumstantial departures: Acts 9:23-25, Acts 9:29-30, Acts 13:49-52, Acts 14:4-7, Acts 14:19-20, Acts 16:16-40, and Acts 17:5-15.

[21] Kistemaker asserts this was Paul's attitude in Acts 20:22, especially when his companions attempted to dissaude him from travelling to Jerusalem when he was compelled to go by the Spirit. (p 751). Kistemaker also asserts that Paul was completely yielded to the prompting and guidance of the Holy Spirit (p. 729).

[22] Olgilvie comments that the "Holy Spirit became the source for wisdom and discernment for . . . decisions after Pentecost, The Communicator's Commentary. (Page 52)

Bauer, F. C. Paul, The Apostle of Jesus Christ, His Life and Works, 2 volumes. Translated into English. London: Williams & Norgate (1873-75).

Calvin, John. The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, Calvin’s Commentaries. Translated by THL Parker, edited by David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans (1965).

Friesen, Garry, and Maxson, J. Robin. Decision Making and the Will of God: A Biblical Alternative to the Traditional View. Portland, Oregon: Multnomah (1980).

Haenchen, Ernst. the Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary. Translated by Basil Blackwell. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press (1971).

Higginson, Richard. Dilemmas: A Christian Approach to Moral Decision Making. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox Press (1988).

Horton, Stanley M. The Book of Acts: A Commentary. Springfield, Missouri: Gospel Publishing House (1981).

Johnson, Luke T. Decision Making in the Church: A Biblical Model. Fortress Press: Philadelphia, 1983.

Kistemaker, Simon J. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House (1990).

Longenecker, Richard N. Acts of the Apostles: Introduction, Text and Exposition, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Frank Gaebelein, vol. 9. Grand Rapids: Regency Reference Library, Zondervan (1981).

Ogilvie, Lloyd J. The Communicator’s Commentary: Acts. Waco, Texas: Word Books (1983).

Packer, J.I. Knowing God. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press (1973).

Pittman, Frank S., III. Turning Points: Treating Families in Transition and Crisis. New York: W. W. Norton and Company. (1987)

Shaeffer, Francis. The Church at the End of the Twentieth Century. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press (1970). (Page 67)

Shaller, Lyle E. The Decision-Makers. Nashville: Abingdon (1974).

Smith, Charles R. Can you Know God’s Will for Your Life? Winona Lake, Indiana: BMH Books (1977).

Talbert, C. H. Literary Patterns, Theological Themes, and the Genre of Luke-Acts. Missoula, Montana: Society of Biblical Literature and Scholars Press (1974).