Acts: Vision, Prayer, and ‘Jesus Christ’

This is Part 5 of “The Moving Standard: NA29 and the Theology of a Revised Greek New Testament.”

One Book, Three Directions of Meaning

The ECM changes fifty-two readings in Acts. Many concern articles, prepositions, verb forms, or word order. Three passages deserve separate attention because the English effect is visible and the movements are not all in the same direction. Acts 9:12 removes “in a vision” from the received account of Saul. Acts 16:13 returns from the narrator’s supposition to the customary prayer described by the Authorized Version. Acts 20:21 restores the title “Christ.” Together they show why raw counts are inadequate: one omission, one change of construction, and one restored title cannot be weighed as interchangeable units. Each must be compared with the Textus Receptus and Authorized Version, then judged by what it actually says.

Acts 9:12: The Vision Made Less Explicit

The Lord directs Ananias to the house of Judas because Saul is praying. In the received text, the Lord adds that Saul “hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight.” The Greek phrase ἐν ὁράματι expressly names the mode of Saul’s sight. NA28 placed it in brackets; the NA29-basis text omits it. Saul has still seen Ananias enter and lay a hand upon him, but verse 12 no longer says that he saw this in a vision.

The omission does not naturalize the whole event. In verse 10 the Lord speaks to Ananias “in a vision,” and the entire passage records supernatural revelation. Nor does Saul’s blindness permit the reader to treat his seeing as ordinary eyesight. The context still points toward a divinely given sight. Yet context is not a license to erase the words by which the text states the fact. Under the received reading, the mode is expressed; under the new reading, it must be inferred. That difference bears upon Luke’s deliberate parallel: Ananias receives the Lord’s word in a vision, while Saul in a vision sees Ananias coming. The two revelations meet in the house on Straight Street. The omission leaves the providential correspondence intact in substance but removes the verbal link from Saul’s side. NA29 does not abolish visions, deny revelation, or turn Saul’s conversion into a natural event; it weakens the explicit statement of visionary revelation at Acts 9:12 and departs from both the Textus Receptus and Authorized Version.

Acts 16:13: From Our Supposition to Established Prayer

At Philippi, Paul and his companions go outside the city on the sabbath to a riverside. NA28 uses a first-person plural verb: the place is where “we supposed” there was prayer or a place of prayer. The new text uses the passive ἐνομίζετο and returns to the received construction reflected in the Authorized Version:

And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made.

The change is not merely old English against modern English. The subject has changed. NA28 reports the missionaries’ judgment: we supposed. The received and NA29-basis form reports what was customary or recognized there: prayer was wont to be made. The Authorized Version’s rendering is exact and economical. It describes settled practice without forcing the Greek word προσευχή to mean a purpose-built synagogue or formal structure. The women gather, the missionaries sit, and the gospel is preached. Lydia’s heart is opened by the Lord in a known setting of prayer.

This restoration does not create a doctrine of the church or of the sabbath. It changes the historical description and removes an element of uncertainty from the narrator. The party does not merely guess where prayer might occur; they go where prayer was customarily made. Once more, a later critical edition has returned to wording preserved in the received text and Authorized Version.

Acts 20:21: The Restored Title

Paul’s charge to the Ephesian elders summarizes his preaching as “repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” That is the Authorized Version and the Textus Receptus. NA28 ends with Ἰησοῦν, “Jesus.” The NA29-basis text restores Χριστόν: “Jesus Christ.” No orthodox reader doubts that the Jesus named by NA28 is the Christ. The title appears throughout Acts, and the surrounding speech is unmistakably Christian. Yet Paul’s summary in the received text does not leave the identification implicit. The object of saving faith is “our Lord Jesus Christ.” Lord declares his authority, Jesus names the incarnate Saviour, and Christ names the anointed office in which he accomplishes redemption.

The restoration also joins repentance and faith with theological fullness. Repentance is toward God; faith is toward our Lord Jesus Christ. The clauses do not divide salvation between two unrelated objects. They state the turning of the sinner to God through faith in the Lord’s Christ. Removing Χριστόν did not destroy that doctrine, but it shortened the apostolic formula. Restoring it makes the title express again what the Authorized Version has always said.

What Acts Shows About the Standard

These three passages cannot be arranged into a story of uniform progress. Acts 9:12 moves away from the received text; Acts 16:13 and 20:21 move back to it. The method that restores “Jesus Christ” also omits “in a vision,” and agreement at one place does not authorize departure at another. The pattern instead exposes a rolling standard. If NA28 was adequate to correct the church’s received text, then its first-person “we supposed” and shorter “Jesus” carried the authority of the critical edition. NA29 now replaces both. If the newer decisions are improvements, the older edition stood in error at precisely the points where it was invoked as the best available text. Meanwhile, the new omission at Acts 9:12 asks the church to surrender wording it has long received.

The proper relation is the reverse. The Textus Receptus and Authorized Version judge the moving edition. By that standard, Acts 16:13 and 20:21 are welcome restorations, while Acts 9:12 is a real loss. The theological effects differ in weight, but the rule does not: the newest committee does not make words authentic by adopting them or inauthentic by omitting them.

Notes and Further Reading

• INTF, “Online Tools for the ECM”, reporting the fifty-two Acts changes.
• Acts 9 in Scrivener’s received text.
• Acts 16 in Scrivener’s received text.
• <a href="https://www.logosapostolic.org/bibles/textusreceptusking_james/acts/acts20.htm”>Acts 20 in the Textus Receptus and Authorized Version.