What do you think?
Rate this book
Conozca su Biblia
Acts: The Gospel of the Spirit
The Gospel of the Spirit
- GenresReligion
310 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 2001
20 people are currently reading
47 people want to read
About the author
Justo L. González
154 books189 followersJusto L. González, author of the highly praised three-volume History of Christian Thought and other major works, attended United Seminary in Cuba, received his MA at Yale, and was the youngest person to be awarded a PhD in historical theology at Yale. He is one of the few first generation Latino theologians to come from a Protestant background. He helped to found the Association for Hispanic Theological Education and the Hispanic Theological Initiative. Dr González is now on the faculty of the Interdenominational Theological Center in Atlanta.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
April 10, 2020
When we read the book of Acts, we can often read it as a heroes tale filled with brave men and women, dazzling feats of power, persuasive speeches, and inspiring action. While the book of Acts does contain all of these elements, to read the book and come away with those as the primary focus is to miss the larger point of the book. Acts is not a book with a human protagonist, but a book with the Holy Spirit as the protagonist. Justo González's commentary on Acts makes this point repeatedly and convincingly. The mighty works of God, not the heroic people are the center of the book of Acts.
This way of reading the book opens up new readings and gives González the freedom to "be very different from traditional readings." Acts is not a book that gives us our church structure or formulas, at least not primarily. Nor is Acts a book filled with perfect humans. Contrary to many readings of Acts, González does not read Peter, Paul, or the rest of the workers as always correct and inspired. Because the Holy Spirit is the main character, we can see cases where the leaders of the church are corrected and challenged repeatedly. We see an example of this failure in chapter 21:17-26 where the elders in Jerusalem should have confronted the zealous Jews. Instead the elders suggest a cowardly, indirect way of resolving the conflict. Reading weakness into the early church leaders results in a challenging way of reading the text. Reading about fallible people pushes at the notions of what a fully inspired scripture means. Instead of seeing in every human action a model for us to follow, the text instead gives us readings of scripture filled with human mistakes and the Spirit overcoming and correcting those mistakes. This way of reading greatly increases our challenge when reading scripture, for now we must call into question the actions of the believers as well as the nonbelievers instead of the nonbelievers only. Yet this way of reading Acts allows for us to see the movement of the Spirit more profoundly and to become aware of a new openness to what the Spirit is doing.
Because of all that, this book will run contrary to many peoples way of reading scripture. Yet González is always serious about engaging with the text in front of him, and his approach doesn't fit neatly into modern American categories. He consistently affirms a supernatural reading of Acts that would make many a Fundamentalist happy, yet his understanding of scripture would make many Evangelicals cringe, though I don't think it should.
Throughout this commentary González shows us his mastery of many different kinds of materials. He is most in his element as a historian, but he also seems to be conversant in the modern Acts scholarship and the nuances of the original Greek text. This results in a commentary that is able to highlight the difficulties of the text, but he does not let these discussions take over the commentary. This results in a commentary which is clear, but also highly informative. One of the strongest elements of this book is the way González writes. This is not a book that is filled with jargon or long complicated sentences. That he is able to write this clearly in a commentary which also has academic rigor is impressive.
González also showcases his skill as a theologian in this commentary. After giving us an exposition of a section, González follows that section up with one or more theological asides which are relevant to the section covered. These topics are as diverse as the book of Acts with topics ranging from the obvious ones like persecution, prayer, and economics of the church to more obscure ones such as mestizo culture, and two way missions. These topics are written with both skill and a pastoral touch. While they lack the depth and power of Willie Jennings Acts commentary, they are often insightful, challenging, and helpful for our understanding of the text.
We see an example of both his exegetical work as well as his theological reflection in his commentary on Acts 4:32-35. This is a famous passage about the early life of the church, one that has inspired many while also brought about much skepticism among commentators as to whether this happened and is normative. Most interpretations do not think this is normative for today (at least from the way our churches are structured and live). González lists out three main ways that modern commentators come to this conclusion: "1) arguing that what we have here is an ideal image of the early church as depicted by Luke, but one which never existed; 2) Claiming that what is described here was a failed attempt, which lasted for a few weeks or months; 3) exaggerating what the text says, ignoring the verbal tenses in imperfect, and therefore implying that the economic difficulties that the church had to face later were the result of their having 'burnt their assets'." He then goes on to rebut these claims by pointing out the nature of kononia and the historical evidence for this happening until at least the second century. This community is not an ideal, Greek community, but one where the last days have begun. The Greek ideal was one for the philosophers only, not this mixed multitude of men and women, educated and uneducated. This sharing of goods is also for a specific purpose, to be a sign and foretaste of the coming order. The sharing of goods is the work of the Spirit to showcase a future where there will be no needy among you. We are able to live in the last days by the power of the Spirit, and without the Spirit we cannot as the early disciples do. This is further shown by the type of sharing seen by the early church. Having all in common does not result in an early form of monasticism where everyone is going out and selling what they have. Instead, the picture we are given is one of a community that responds to needs by selling what they have in excess. This interpretation speaks against the interpretations which would dismiss this community as an ideal while also coming down strongly against those who would use the two passages in Acts to form their own ideal way of living. We are not to follow the methods of the apostles but the way of the Spirit
As I was reading Justo González's commentary I could see similarities between this commentary and Willie Jennings commentary. Which isn't surprising since I found out about this commentary from Willie Jennings suggested reading. Both commentaries interpret Acts as a commentary of the the Holy Spirit and both are not afraid to challenge traditional readings of the text. Both commentaries see the human characters as flawed and imperfect, both include theological reflections alongside their commentary, and both are written from the margins by a Hispanic theologian and an African American theologian respectively. These similarities lead to some of the strengths of both commentaries, and I'm glad that Willie Jennings was influenced by Justo González's commentary and that I read this commentary on Willie Jenning's recommendation. By reading Willie Jennings commentary first, Justo González's commentary was not able to be as highly regarded by me as it might have been. Willie Jennings insights are sharper, his writing is more poetic, and he is more relentless in showing that the Spirit is doing something new. Both commentaries are attempting to do slightly different things even though there is some overlap. This makes reading them both beneficial. Reading the two together helps cement the centrality of the Spirit even more in my understanding of Acts.
The context in which any work of theology or biblical exposition is done matters. Context-less theology doesn't exist. Paul's epistles were written to specific churches and specific people. All of our early creeds were done in reaction to a specific false teaching. The Reformations understanding of justification sprung out of the corrupt medieval papacy and their teachings on works and indulgences. Kierkegaard wrote against the last vestiges of Christendom in Denmark, and any theology we write today will be done in our context. This means that we are never able to fully escape our own context and arrive at a universal theology, though that is not to say that some formulations of the truth are not universal. This is a necessary understanding if we are to protect our own understanding against idolatry and assuming that the assumptions of our day and time are the best ones for interpreting scripture. Every age has certain advantages and disadvantages when it comes to living a life in accordance with the gospel and seeing faithfully what scripture has. We aren't any smarter or holier than people in different cultures nor will our errors be less than theirs. But by looking at scripture through different cultural lenses, we can better be alerted to our own cultural biases which blind us to the Truth. This applies to our study of the past, but it also applies to different cultures in our present age.
Our age presents us with unique opportunities to learn from different contexts in ways past generations would not be able to. We English speakers have access to tremendous amounts of translated works from the past as well as contemporary works by those in different contexts. We have an opportunity to listen to what the Spirit is doing in other cultures through our engagement with our brothers and sisters across time and space. While reading cannot substitute for living lives in different contexts, that is a reality most of us cannot experience. We are bound to our particular location and cannot experience worship in Bolivia or Kerala through anything but books, pictures, and stories. By taking up those opportunities in front of us we have the chance to see how the world worships and see what the Holy Spirit is doing around the world.
This is one of the benefits of reading Justo González's Acts: The Gospel of the Spirit. We are able to listen in on a different context and encounter readings which are different than our own. That does not mean that his readings are always right or that his applications are always for us. There are significant differences between the governments in Latin America and the government in the USA. The socioeconomic conditions are different as well, for our poverty is not as stark as in much of Latin America. But these differences can result in different readings of the text, with a much stronger emphasis on justice and persecution than many in America can relate with. We can listen in to the stories, lived experiences, and idols of our brothers and sisters in Latin America. This different viewpoint should serve as a another nudge to get us to read this book, and it is another point in its favor.
This way of reading the book opens up new readings and gives González the freedom to "be very different from traditional readings." Acts is not a book that gives us our church structure or formulas, at least not primarily. Nor is Acts a book filled with perfect humans. Contrary to many readings of Acts, González does not read Peter, Paul, or the rest of the workers as always correct and inspired. Because the Holy Spirit is the main character, we can see cases where the leaders of the church are corrected and challenged repeatedly. We see an example of this failure in chapter 21:17-26 where the elders in Jerusalem should have confronted the zealous Jews. Instead the elders suggest a cowardly, indirect way of resolving the conflict. Reading weakness into the early church leaders results in a challenging way of reading the text. Reading about fallible people pushes at the notions of what a fully inspired scripture means. Instead of seeing in every human action a model for us to follow, the text instead gives us readings of scripture filled with human mistakes and the Spirit overcoming and correcting those mistakes. This way of reading greatly increases our challenge when reading scripture, for now we must call into question the actions of the believers as well as the nonbelievers instead of the nonbelievers only. Yet this way of reading Acts allows for us to see the movement of the Spirit more profoundly and to become aware of a new openness to what the Spirit is doing.
Because of all that, this book will run contrary to many peoples way of reading scripture. Yet González is always serious about engaging with the text in front of him, and his approach doesn't fit neatly into modern American categories. He consistently affirms a supernatural reading of Acts that would make many a Fundamentalist happy, yet his understanding of scripture would make many Evangelicals cringe, though I don't think it should.
Throughout this commentary González shows us his mastery of many different kinds of materials. He is most in his element as a historian, but he also seems to be conversant in the modern Acts scholarship and the nuances of the original Greek text. This results in a commentary that is able to highlight the difficulties of the text, but he does not let these discussions take over the commentary. This results in a commentary which is clear, but also highly informative. One of the strongest elements of this book is the way González writes. This is not a book that is filled with jargon or long complicated sentences. That he is able to write this clearly in a commentary which also has academic rigor is impressive.
González also showcases his skill as a theologian in this commentary. After giving us an exposition of a section, González follows that section up with one or more theological asides which are relevant to the section covered. These topics are as diverse as the book of Acts with topics ranging from the obvious ones like persecution, prayer, and economics of the church to more obscure ones such as mestizo culture, and two way missions. These topics are written with both skill and a pastoral touch. While they lack the depth and power of Willie Jennings Acts commentary, they are often insightful, challenging, and helpful for our understanding of the text.
We see an example of both his exegetical work as well as his theological reflection in his commentary on Acts 4:32-35. This is a famous passage about the early life of the church, one that has inspired many while also brought about much skepticism among commentators as to whether this happened and is normative. Most interpretations do not think this is normative for today (at least from the way our churches are structured and live). González lists out three main ways that modern commentators come to this conclusion: "1) arguing that what we have here is an ideal image of the early church as depicted by Luke, but one which never existed; 2) Claiming that what is described here was a failed attempt, which lasted for a few weeks or months; 3) exaggerating what the text says, ignoring the verbal tenses in imperfect, and therefore implying that the economic difficulties that the church had to face later were the result of their having 'burnt their assets'." He then goes on to rebut these claims by pointing out the nature of kononia and the historical evidence for this happening until at least the second century. This community is not an ideal, Greek community, but one where the last days have begun. The Greek ideal was one for the philosophers only, not this mixed multitude of men and women, educated and uneducated. This sharing of goods is also for a specific purpose, to be a sign and foretaste of the coming order. The sharing of goods is the work of the Spirit to showcase a future where there will be no needy among you. We are able to live in the last days by the power of the Spirit, and without the Spirit we cannot as the early disciples do. This is further shown by the type of sharing seen by the early church. Having all in common does not result in an early form of monasticism where everyone is going out and selling what they have. Instead, the picture we are given is one of a community that responds to needs by selling what they have in excess. This interpretation speaks against the interpretations which would dismiss this community as an ideal while also coming down strongly against those who would use the two passages in Acts to form their own ideal way of living. We are not to follow the methods of the apostles but the way of the Spirit
As I was reading Justo González's commentary I could see similarities between this commentary and Willie Jennings commentary. Which isn't surprising since I found out about this commentary from Willie Jennings suggested reading. Both commentaries interpret Acts as a commentary of the the Holy Spirit and both are not afraid to challenge traditional readings of the text. Both commentaries see the human characters as flawed and imperfect, both include theological reflections alongside their commentary, and both are written from the margins by a Hispanic theologian and an African American theologian respectively. These similarities lead to some of the strengths of both commentaries, and I'm glad that Willie Jennings was influenced by Justo González's commentary and that I read this commentary on Willie Jenning's recommendation. By reading Willie Jennings commentary first, Justo González's commentary was not able to be as highly regarded by me as it might have been. Willie Jennings insights are sharper, his writing is more poetic, and he is more relentless in showing that the Spirit is doing something new. Both commentaries are attempting to do slightly different things even though there is some overlap. This makes reading them both beneficial. Reading the two together helps cement the centrality of the Spirit even more in my understanding of Acts.
The context in which any work of theology or biblical exposition is done matters. Context-less theology doesn't exist. Paul's epistles were written to specific churches and specific people. All of our early creeds were done in reaction to a specific false teaching. The Reformations understanding of justification sprung out of the corrupt medieval papacy and their teachings on works and indulgences. Kierkegaard wrote against the last vestiges of Christendom in Denmark, and any theology we write today will be done in our context. This means that we are never able to fully escape our own context and arrive at a universal theology, though that is not to say that some formulations of the truth are not universal. This is a necessary understanding if we are to protect our own understanding against idolatry and assuming that the assumptions of our day and time are the best ones for interpreting scripture. Every age has certain advantages and disadvantages when it comes to living a life in accordance with the gospel and seeing faithfully what scripture has. We aren't any smarter or holier than people in different cultures nor will our errors be less than theirs. But by looking at scripture through different cultural lenses, we can better be alerted to our own cultural biases which blind us to the Truth. This applies to our study of the past, but it also applies to different cultures in our present age.
Our age presents us with unique opportunities to learn from different contexts in ways past generations would not be able to. We English speakers have access to tremendous amounts of translated works from the past as well as contemporary works by those in different contexts. We have an opportunity to listen to what the Spirit is doing in other cultures through our engagement with our brothers and sisters across time and space. While reading cannot substitute for living lives in different contexts, that is a reality most of us cannot experience. We are bound to our particular location and cannot experience worship in Bolivia or Kerala through anything but books, pictures, and stories. By taking up those opportunities in front of us we have the chance to see how the world worships and see what the Holy Spirit is doing around the world.
This is one of the benefits of reading Justo González's Acts: The Gospel of the Spirit. We are able to listen in on a different context and encounter readings which are different than our own. That does not mean that his readings are always right or that his applications are always for us. There are significant differences between the governments in Latin America and the government in the USA. The socioeconomic conditions are different as well, for our poverty is not as stark as in much of Latin America. But these differences can result in different readings of the text, with a much stronger emphasis on justice and persecution than many in America can relate with. We can listen in to the stories, lived experiences, and idols of our brothers and sisters in Latin America. This different viewpoint should serve as a another nudge to get us to read this book, and it is another point in its favor.
Read
May 17, 2023I enjoyed studying the book of Acts the past 8 months for an Instagram series I did with InterVarsity This commentary was essential for developing the post content!
June 19, 2018
I really enjoyed this commentary as a supplement to my morning devotions in Acts. I especially enjoyed the sections about the church of Antioch and how it became a center for missionary sending. This book will influence my teaching on Acts for years to come!
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews