Acts: The Question of Historical Precedent

*from "How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth," Fee & Stuart

Court cases: --precedent
--the decision that is made in a particular case determines how things will be decided in the future.

Advertisement: “Pleading for the restoration of NT Christianity” Is this what Luke is there for?

Luke, with the Holy Spirit, intended something—
“What was it?”
If we can get a good idea of Luke’s basic intent, it will help us understand the individual passages.

Exegesis of Acts: what’s the right focus?

---Historical details? What do we know about the early Christian church?
---Apologetic value? Showing how the Bible is true because of Luke’s accuracy as an historian.
---Inspiration of early church? We see models that inspire us.

Background:
Acts as History:
Hellenistic historiography-
1. encourage, entertain and
2. inform, moralize or offer an apologetic—showing divine activity

We are interested in…
--What happened, but also
--Why did Luke write what he did, why did he include what he did?
--Did he write to provide a pattern for the church, or was there some other reason?

1. Read it through
2. Note key people and places, natural divisions
3. Why did Luke write the book?

What are the natural divisions?

Section 1--1:1—6:7 The primitive church in Jerusalem

Section 2 6:8—9:31 First expansion—by Hellenists

Section 3 9:32—12:24 First expansion to the Gentiles

Section 4 12:25—16:5 First expansion to the Gentile world

Section 5 16:6—19:20 Further, westward, expansion into the Gentile world

Section 6 19:21—28:30 Events that move Paul and the Gospel to Rome

The Role of the Holy Spirit is essential in all of this…

Luke’s purpose:
1. To show how the Jewish, Jerusalem-based church became a Gentile and worldwide one

2. Was he interested in
--biographies of apostles?
--church organization?
--the expansion of the church throughout the world?
--no description of expansion other than in the direction of Rome

In light of the above, a comprehensive church history is not what Luke had in mind

3. Was Luke interested in standardizing the practice of the churches?
--in conversion-
Spirit and baptism constant;
but laying on of hands, tongues, repentance not standard

--Jerusalem church had a communal life, but Gentile churches apparently did not.

4. The “model” seems to be a church…
--triumphant, joyful
--expanding to Gentiles
--empowered by HS
--where lives are changed



A look at 6:1-7
How does this fit into the book? What purpose does it serve structurally?

1. Hellenists were Greek speaking Jews
2. Hellenists not native to Jerusalem
3. Their widows caused strain on Jerusalem
4. Hellenists had their own synagogue (Stephen and Saul)
5. Church had made large advances in that synagogue
6. “Seven” not called deacons; ministers (Stephen & Philip)

Why does Luke include this story?

6:1-7 One reason is that it sets the scene for expansion outside of Jerusalem.


Hermeneutics of Acts

"Unless Scripture explicitly tells us we must do something, what is only narrated or described does not function in a normative way—unless it can be demonstrated on other grounds that the author intended it to function in this way.” p. 106

Perhaps we can argue that something ought to be a principle if it is always done this way in the New Testament.
If there are different patterns, it would be something that could possibly be repeated, but is not a law.
If it is cultural, it is not a principle. (pp. 111-112)