I have a skeptical friend who has issues with the reliability of the Scriptures.  We were discussing the book of Acts and the spread of Christianity after the resurrection of Jesus.  My friend mentioned that the author of Acts does not identify himself in the text.  My friend wondered how we can have confidence that the author of Acts even witnessed the events first hand if we don't even know who the author was.  I mentioned modern scholars believe it was Luke who wrote Acts, and he did witness the events.  My friend wanted to know why modern scholars believe it was Luke and what historical information they are using to determine this.  How do we know Luke wrote the book of Acts?

Sincerely,
Citing Sources

Dear Citing Sources,

We can’t know for sure that Luke wrote the book of Acts, but we can be completely confident that the author was fully and accurately aware of the events he describes… and we can even be pretty confident that it was Luke.  Acts is the second of two letters written to “Theophilus” (Acts 1:1); the first is the book of Luke (Lk 1:3).  Both Luke and Acts are immensely detailed accounts of the history of Christ’s life and the early church.  Both were published early on in the history of Christendom, during a time when the first generation of christians were still alive.  The early church embraced these two letters.  They never would have done this if the letters weren’t accurate because people in the churches could still testify from firsthand knowledge.  If the writer was lying or fabricating information – the church would have known it!

There are two main reasons that it is pretty confidently believed that Luke wrote them.  The first reason is that Luke is given credit for these books in the oldest surviving list of the New Testament (this list is called “the Muratorian Canon”).  As far as we know, Luke has always been given credit for writing these two books, and there is no evidence that gives us reason to doubt early church historians.  Secondly, many of the words used in Luke and Acts are technical words that wouldn’t be used by the average person – but would be used by a highly educated doctor (Luke was a doctor – Col. 4:14).  For example, in the gospel of Luke when Jesus talks about a camel going through the eye of a needle… the book of Luke is the only account to use the word for a surgeon’s needle.  This highly technical and detailed writing points toward a highly educated writer.  When you begin to narrow down the list of people who knew Paul and traveled with him… Luke is the only one that fits this pattern for the author of Acts.

I was talking to a Jehovah’s Witness about the eating blood policy.  I told him about the Old Testament laws being replaced by the New Testament laws, but he said that since Acts 15:29, the passage that say to abstain from blood is in the New Testament, we as christians should avoid eating anything that has blood because eating blood is a sin and, therefore, make sure the meat has no blood.  He tripped me up with that, so I didn't know what to say.  Is this true what he said about modern day christians should obey Acts 15:29 regarding blood?

Sincerely,
Bad Blood

Dear Bad Blood,

Although there is some controversy over the subject, drinking blood is a sin.  The Jews knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that drinking blood was a sin (Gen 9:4).  A Jewish law is not the same as a christian law though, so we must find a New Testament teaching on the subject.  In Acts 15:19-20, a letter is sent by the apostles to all the Gentile christians telling them to abstain from drinking blood or eating meat that had been strangled (thus leaving the blood in the meat).  Drinking blood is put side by side with fornication as something to be avoided at all cost.  The life is in the blood, and, therefore, it should be treated with respect (Lev 17:11).

What does this mean: "Whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth will be loosed in heaven”?

Sincerely,
Loosely Lost

Dear Loosely Lost,

The phrase that you are referring to is found in Matt 16:19 and Matt 18:18.  In both cases, Jesus is speaking to His disciples.  This is one of the few times where the original Greek adds a lot of insight and clarity.  The words ‘will be bound’ and ‘will be loosed’ are both written in a Greek tense called ‘perfect’.  The perfect tense isn’t like any tense that we have in English.  The perfect tense means that something has already happened, but the effects of that action are still in existence.  The literal translation of Matt. 18:18 is: “Whatever you bind on earth will already have been bound in heaven, and the effects are still seen, and whatever you loose on earth will already have been loosed in heaven, and the effects are still seen.”  In short, Jesus was telling His disciples that the things they would teach in the New Testament were already ordained by God and had been waiting to be taught by Jesus and His apostles.

Why does God command the people of Israel not to kill, but then He orders them to kill enemies of Israel… even the women, children, and livestock?  Then Jesus tells His disciples to "turn the other cheek."  I haven't been a christian for very long, but I've always been confused about this.

Sincerely,
Double Standard

Dear Double Standard,

The Hebrew word used for ‘kill’ in the Ten Commandments literally means ‘murder’.  There is a difference between killing someone in self-defense and pre-meditated, intentional murder of another human being.  The Bible has plenty of examples of faithful people going to war (David killed Goliath in battle – 1 Sam 17:49-50).  The Bible is also full of examples of capital punishment for certain crimes (Num 15:35).  Num 35:15-16 makes a distinction between accidentally killing someone and premeditated murder.  A police officer may have to kill someone while serving the community, but that isn’t murder.  There is a difference.

It is wrong for an individual to purposefully seek to harm another unless they are acting as an agent of the government (God has given national governments the authority to use ‘the sword’ of punishment – Rom 13:4) or reacting in self-defense.  God commanded the nation of Israel to kill in times of war, but He condemns vigilante murder.  The teaching of “turn the other cheek” (Matt 5:39) is an individual command that applies to everyday living.  The context has nothing to do with war-time actions.

I was just curious.  What exactly does the Bible mean when it speaks of confessing our sins to one another?  When is it proper to confess to one another the sins we have committed?  When is it improper or excessive (if it can be so)?  When is it that this needs to be done?

Sincerely,
Confessionally Concerned

Dear Confessionally Concerned,

We must confess all of our sins to God (1 John 1:9) and be prepared to get help with our faults from other christians (Jas 5:16). When James talks about confessing sins to each other, he is talking in the context of prayer. His point is that when someone prays for you as you struggle with sin, that prayer will make an immense difference. He is not stating that you have to announce every single sin you have ever committed to each and every christian you meet.

There are definitely times to tell another person about your sin.

1. If you have sinned against them, you must admit it and ask for forgiveness (Lk 17:3-4).
2. If you believe the knowledge of your previous sin will help them (1 Tim 1:15-16).
3. If you are struggling with a sin and need help (Jas 5:16, Eccl 4:9).
4. If it would be deceptive to not reveal the sin (1 Jhn 1:8).

All of those situations constitute an appropriate time to confess your sins to another person. God doesn’t call us to parade our past sins before all we meet, but there is a time to own up to our faults before both man and God.