The Book of Acts (New International Commentary)

4 out of 5 stars.Overall, this commentary is rather well done. Bruce does an excellent job at providing an insightful commentary, and has a very strong command of the history, geography, and culture of Palestine and Rome, and the persons mentioned in the book of Acts. It is especially interesting to see that Bruce seems to be rather Pentecostal in his interpretation of the outpouring of the Spirit passages. However, he avoids popular phrases such as "the baptism of the Holy Spirit" and "initial evidence" and the like. He also shows that he seems rather open to such a modern phenomenon, citing the biography of Sundar Singh, who was a missionary in India claiming to have had a Damascus like experience where he saw Christ. However, some of the commentary seems a little lacking. The last 10-15 chapters of the commentary seem a lot skimpier than the earlier parts. Perhaps because there is not as much controversy with these parts, or who knows, maybe Bruce was under some sort of deadline. This is the main reason I don't rate this commentary 5 stars.

It is especially interesting to see that Bruce seems to be rather Pentecostal in his interpretation of the outpouring of the Spirit passages. Interesting when you said F F Bruce seems Pentecostal. He is from the Open Brethren background, one of the more well-known contemporary Brethren scholar.

Indeed, I am familiar with him being affiliated with the Brethren, but at the same time, his commentary is Pentecostalish in nature.

I am familiar with F F Bruce's work and even heard him preach on one occasion. Some people, of course, are 'pentecostal' about the Acts, but not 'pentecostal' about the contemporary scene.

Some people, of course, are 'pentecostal' about the Acts, but not 'pentecostal' about the contemporary scene.True, but throughout his commmentary he makes mention of contemporary manifestations of the Spirit and such. For example, he quotes the main testimony of folks such as Sundar Singh as a contemporary sighting of the Lord.

Hi JImmyYes, I understood your meaning, and Bruce's reference to Sundar Singh is certainly unusual. His comment on Acts 2 is significant too...The church of Christ still speaks in many tongues, and if her speech is not now of the supernatural order that marked the day of Pentecost, teh message is the same - the mighty works of God'. (p55)This probably gives a better feeling for his convictions as regards any cessationist tendency.

Indeed, I am familiar with him being affiliated with the Brethren, but at the same time, his commentary is Pentecostalish in nature. The mark of a true biblical scholar is the willingness to critically engage in the Word of God and fully submitting to its authority, without blindly toting the party line.That's why F.F. Bruce does not always write like an Open Brethren, nor does Gordon Fee always write like a Pentecostal. (And to me, philologos defies classification *smile*).These labels are often liabilities, I think that's why I once heard John Stackhouse (Regent College) answering a question from the floor concerning his theological affiliation after his lecture, by jokingly saying, "I'm not sure what affiliation I am. I just know my theology is right."By the way, do most Open Brethren hold to cessationism like the Plymouth Brethren?

That's why F.F. Bruce does not always write like an Open Brethren, nor does Gordon Fee always write like a Pentecostal. (And to me, philologos defies classification *smile*).I once had an maths teacher who said no-one should use the word 'unique' until he had tried to teach 'Bailey' Algebra for at least two terms! :-) Sam, when I can find a 'classification' that will have me I will let you know. :-)