This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
1Curtis Vaughan, Acts: A Study Guide Commentary(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 15.
2See, Michael Green, Evangelism in the Early Church(London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1970; reprint, Guildford,Surrey: Inter Publishing Service, 1995), 32-42.
Jesus Christ established the mission of the church
through His command in Acts 1:8. This command to “testify
to what they had seen, heard, and known of Him . . . is the
principal task of every Christian.”1 To face the enormity
of the task and the obstacles within the culture, Jesus
promised power through the Holy Spirit sufficient for the
fulfillment of the mission.2 As it was for the early
church, so it is for the contemporary church.
The Rise of Postmodernism
Postmodernism represents one of the greatest
obstacles to the mission of the contemporary church. Huston
Smith describes postmodernism as a view of the world in
which reality cannot be accessed.3 The influence of the
postmodern perspective is prevalent in the culture today.
2
4C. Norman Kraus, An Intrusive Gospel?: ChristianWitness in a Postmodern World (Downers Grove: InterVarsity,1998), 17-19.
5Jean-François Lyotard, The Inhuman: Reflections onTime, trans. Geoffrey Bennington and Rachel Bowlby(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991), 65-69.
6Thomas C. Oden, After Modernity . . . What? (GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1990), 45-48.
7Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno, Dialectic ofEnlightenment, trans. John Cumming (New York: Continuum,1999), 6-9. In fact, according to Horkheimer and Adorno,“that which does not reduce to numbers . . . becomesillusion.”
8Craig Van Gelder, “Scholia: Postmodernism as anEmerging Worldview,” Calvin Theological Journal 26 (1991):413.
9Jürgen Habermas, The Philosophical Discourse ofModernity: Twelve Lectures, trans. Frederick Lawrence(Cambridge: MIT Press, 1987), 83-84. He proposes thatmodernism promoted reason as “unifying power of religion.”
One can find postmodern thought coursing through the media,
academia, and ecclesia.
Postmodernism is a shift from the Enlightenment
ideal of modernism.4 Modernism describes the pursuit to
establish “all-inclusive” explanations for life.5 The
autonomous individual is the highest reality and value.6
Knowledge is attainable and certain through the objective
and precise tool of the scientific method.7 Modernism
promotes the progress of humanity and society through
technological advancements.8 In short, Habermas suggests
that modernism preeminently promotes “subjective freedom.”9
3
10Ibid.
11Ibid., 83-105; Mark Taylor, Altarity (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1987), 238-41. See also,Cornel West, “Nietzsche’s Prefiguration of PostmodernAmerican Philosophy,” in Why Nietzsche Now?, ed. D. T.O’Hara (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1985),241-69.
12Brian D. Ingraffia, Postmodern Theory and BiblicalTheology: Vanquishing God’s Shadow (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1995).
13Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil: Preludeto a Philosophy of the Future, trans. Walter Kaufmann (NewYork: Random House, 1966; reprint, 1989), 101. He writesthat the essential fabrication permeating culture is thatthere should be “obedience . . . in a single direction” thatleads to “unfreedom of the spirit.”
He writes: “This was realized in society as the space
secured by civil law for the rational pursuit of one’s own
interests; . . . in the private sphere, as ethical autonomy
and self-realization; finally, in the public sphere related
to this private realm, as the formative process that takes
place by means of the appropriation of a culture that has
become reflective.”10
Beginning with Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900),11
the incipient form of postmodernism found fertile soil in
which to flourish by attacking the Enlightenment.12 To
understand postmodernism, therefore, it is important to
understand the Nietzschean project that has led to its
growth. Nietzsche’s critique of modernism promotes a denial
of the “myopic view” of truth, morality, and language.13
4
14Friedrich Nietzsche, Will to Power, trans. WalterKaufmann and R. J. Hollingdale (New York: Vintage, 1968),481.
15Friedrich Nietzsche, “On Truth and Lie in anExtra-Moral Sense,” in The Portable Nietzsche, ed. andtrans. Walter Kaufmann (New York: Penguin Books, 1954), 46-47.
16John T. Wilcox, Truth and Value in Nietzsche: AStudy of His Metaethics and Epistemology (Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press, 1974), 11. For Nietzsche,moral value depends solely upon the individual’s taste.
Nietzsche dismissed the notion of a single meaning for the
world. The world has “countless meanings.”14 In his
project, Nietzsche sought to dismantle the “pervasive lie”
that Plato, Christianity, and the Enlightenment had
perpetrated for centuries.
First, Nietzsche attacked the “mendacious
fabrication” of truth and morality. He declared that truth
is “a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced,
transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and
which after long use seem firm, canonical, and
obligatory.”15 Wilcox suggests that for Nietzsche “values
are not objective” but are relative. Moral values are
“created rather than discovered.”16
As a counterattack against the prevailing views of
truth and morality, Nietzsche called for the rise of the
übermensch. The übermensch is a “free spirit” who has
broken free of the constraints of the external moral law.
5
17Leslie Paul Thiele, Friedrich Nietzsche and thePolitics of the Soul: A Study of Heroic Individualism(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), 12.
18Walter Kaufmann, Nietzsche: Philosopher,Psychologist, Antichrist, 4th ed. (Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1974), 103-107. See, Nietzsche, BeyondGood and Evil, 21; idem., Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book forEveryone and No One, trans. R. J. Hollingdale (New York:Penguin Books, 1961), 136. Nietzsche condemned Plato forinverting reality through the creation of an imaginary, truerealm. Christianity continued this falsity of the imaginaryrealm (Beyond Good and Evil, 14-23). The metaphysicians ofmodernity embraced the similar notion of a metaphysicalrealm beyond this world (Zarathustra, 136). The notion ofan imaginary realm was the origination of the false ideal ofuniversal morality. This is the “mendacious fabrication”that Nietzsche sought to reverse.
19Friedrich Nietzsche, “The Twilight of Idols or,How One Philosophizes with a Hammer,” in The PortableNietzsche, ed. and trans. Walter Kaufman (New York: PenguinBooks, 1954), 484-85.
20Kaufmann, Nietzsche, 109.
21Friedrich Nietzsche, “The Genealogy of Morals: AnAttack,” in The Birth of Tragedy and The Genealogy ofMorals, trans. F. Golffing (New York: Doubleday, 1956), 208.
This person is not chained to the standards of the world.
Rather, he “bears his own standards of morality and reason
and attempts to vanquish the hitherto reigning traditions
and values.”17 Nietzsche argued that Kant’s belief in an a
priori universal moral law must be corrected or
“revalued.”18 Indeed, this “revaluation” was paramount to
his philosophy.19 In his thought traditional morality was a
“dying tree” that cannot be saved.20 Indeed, for Nietzsche,
the concept of “right and wrong” was nonsensical.21
6
22Wilcox, 27-28. See, Nietzsche, Beyond Good andEvil, 135-36.
23Nietzsche, Zarathustra, 213, in which the prophetsays, “All my progress has been attempting and a questioning–– and truly one has to learn how to answer suchquestioning! That however –– is to my taste: not goodtaste, not bad taste, but my taste, which I no longerconceal and of which I am no longer ashamed.”
24Arthur C. Danto, Connections to the World: TheBasic Concepts of Philosophy (New York: Harper and Row,1989), 52.
25Nietzsche, “On Truth and Falsity in an Extra-MoralSense,” in Early Greek Philosophy and Other Essays, trans.M. A. Mügge, vol. 2, The Complete Works of FriedrichNietzsche, ed. Oscar Levy (New York: Russell and Russell,1964), 181-82.
26Irena Makarushka, “Nietzsche’s Critique ofModernity: The Emergence of Hermeneutical Consciousness,”Semeia 51 (1990): 196. Makarushka suggests that Nietzschepresents “an eternal unfolding in history of theinexhaustible surplus of meaning.”
Nietzsche believed in a multiplicity of moralities. None of
these moralities can be “absolutized” as solely
justifiable.22 Values are based upon preference rather than
reason or rationality.23
Nietzsche also attacked “mendacious fabrications”
in the concepts of language. Nietzsche proposed that
reality was a function of grammar -- a linguistic construct
of the social context.24 Language itself is the creator of
truth.25 Language is a system of interpretation which opens
a beautiful vista of “eternal unfolding” for meaning.26 It
is the tool which creates the interpretation of reality.
7
27Thiele, 103.
28Nietzsche, Will to Power, 267. He writes thatindividuals “set up a word at the point at which ourignorance begins” and the word is “the horizon of ourknowledge, but not ‘truths.’”
29Allan Megill, Prophets of Extremity: Nietzsche,Heidegger, Foucault, Derrida (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1985), 96-97.
30Charles E. Winquist, Desiring Theology (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1995), 31.
“Correctness” of interpretation is not the most important
goal of language,27 because language creates its own truth.28
Through the interpretive “will to power,” a new language is
introduced, and a new reality which corresponds to the
language comes into being.29 Truth is fiction
“imaginatively produced” by the “arbitrariness of the
elements of language.”30 Nietzsche’s project rejects the
idea that language is a fixed representation of a fixed
reality.
Nietzsche’s “yes-saying” and “no-saying” produced a
clear path for the exaltation of the postmodern mind.
Rather than absolute truth, the postmodern mind reflects the
arbitrariness of truth according to social context. Rather
than universal morality, the postmodern mind embraces
perspectival morality. Rather than language as
representative of reality, the postmodern mind finds
language as the creator of reality.
8
31Definitions are given throughout the dissertation.
32See, Stanley Grenz, “The Gospel and the PostmodernContext,” in A Primer on Postmodernism, 161-74; Gene EdwardVeith, Jr., “Conclusion: ‘When Foundations Are Destroyed,’”in Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to ContemporaryThought and Culture (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1994), 225-34.
33See, Jimmy Long, Generating Hope: A Strategy forReaching the Postmodern Generation (Downers Grove, IL:InterVarsity Press, 1997).
34See, Carson, The Gagging of God, chap. 2, passim.
35See, Tom Beaudoin, Virtual Faith: The IrreverentSpiritual Quest of Generation X (San Francisco: Jossey-BassPublishers, 1998).
Need for Present Study31
Many books, essays, and articles seek to help the
church to engage the adherents of postmodernism with the
gospel of Christ. These works may be categorized into four
basic groups: descriptive, responsive, corrective, and
postmodern. The descriptive group details the current
situation of the postmodern condition, offering an
appropriate Christian response in the concluding chapter or
a few paragraphs at the close of each chapter.32 The
responsive category focuses upon a Christian response to the
postmodern condition, detailing the postmodern tenets in the
introduction.33 The corrective category seeks to examine
and negate the destructive tendencies of postmodernism.34
The postmodern category embraces much of the tenets of
postmodern thought as an appropriate Christian response.35
9
36Charles J. Conniry Jr., “Apostolic Christianity ina Postmodern World: A Theological Analysis,” (Ph.D. diss.,Fuller Theological Seminary, 1997).
37Arne H. Fjeldstad, “Communicating Christ on theInformation Superhighway,” (D.Min. diss., Fuller TheologicalSeminary, 1997).
38The suggestion here is that the works havesomething other than evangelism as their theses, or thatthey offer philosophical approaches to postmodernism.
This proposed dissertation falls into the
responsive category. More specifically, this dissertation
proposes a very specific evangelistic response to the
challenges of the postmodern condition from an exegetical
analysis of the first-century church as reported in the New
Testament.
While some works attempt to demonstrate a biblical
response to the postmodern world, they fail to address
specifically the issue of evangelism in the ministry of the
church to the postmodern person.36 Other works provide a
sound evangelistic approach to the postmodern condition, but
they fail to offer an in-depth exegetical analysis of
Scripture.37 These dissertations offer responses to the
postmodern condition, but they lack either the depth of
consideration in terms of evangelism or the depth of
exegetical analyses.38
Gosnell’s dissertation deals with postmodernism and
evangelism. His approach, however, is mostly analytical.
10
39Ricky D. Gosnell, “Abstract,” in “The PostmodernPardigm: Challenges to the Evangelistic Ministry of theChurch,” (Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist TheologicalSeminary, 1993).
40David J. Bosch, Transforming Mission (Maryknoll,NY: Orbis Books, 1993).
He analyzes the rise of postmodernism, postmodernism in
contemporary culture, and strategies for evangelistic
ministry to postmodern people.39 He focuses upon the
contemporary strategies of evangelism in relation to the
postmodern condition. Following David Bosch,40 Gosnell
provides insight for the church in evangelism. While
providing sound, biblical direction, Gosnell does not focus
his attention primarily upon an exegetical analysis of the
evangelistic approach of the apostolic church in the first
century.
The dissertation seeks to offer an in-depth
consideration of evangelism and exegetical analyses. Where
Gosnell offers insight into the postmodern condition and
proposes evangelistic response, this dissertation presents
more exegetical analyses as the paradigm for such responses.
Gosnell’s approach focuses the first half of the
dissertation on the historical development and contemporary
condition of postmodernism. This dissertation, however,
focuses upon an exegetical analysis of the evangelistic
approach of the first-century church in the New Testament.
11
41Malcolm McDow and Alvin L. Reid, Firefall: How GodHas Shaped History Through Revivals (Nashville: Broadman andHolman, 1997), 96.
42Everett Harrison, The Apostolic Church (GrandRapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1985), ix-xii. Harrisondivides the New Testament into “Gospel History” (the fourGospels) and “Apostolic History” (the remainder of the NewTestament). This dissertation follows a similar division,but focuses upon Acts and the Pauline epistles.
The strength of this dissertation is its analyses of the
evangelistic ministry of the apostolic church as
foundational for the evangelization of postmodern people.
An Apostolic Approach
The premise of this dissertation is that the New
Testament approaches to evangelism are sufficient and
effective for evangelism in a postmodern context. Similar
to the conditions in the contemporary society, the apostolic
church evangelized cultures fundamentally opposed to the
proposition of the gospel. In the midst of competing
worldviews and rampant pluralism, the apostolic church
“saturated” the contours of the ancient world with the
gospel.41
The term apostolic will reflect the period
beginning with Pentecost and ending at the close of the
first century.42 An apostolic approach may be defined as
the adoption of the examples, directions, and procedures of
the apostolic church for the contemporary church setting.
12
43Robert A. Guelich, “Translator’s Preface,” inApostolic and Post-Apostolic Times by Leonhard Goppelt(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1970), x.
The record of the apostolic church found in the New
Testament provides the basis for the work of the
contemporary church. Robert Guelich correctly states that
the apostolic church serves as the “norm for all Church
history.”43
This writer has chosen this topic due to the need
for a coherent and biblical approach for the evangelization
of postmodern people. Within the plethora of material
dealing with evangelism in general, a specific approach for
the evangelization of postmodern people rarely is found.
Furthermore, within the several books and articles dealing
with the evangelization of the postmodern person in
particular, a coherent, biblical paradigm often is missing.
As a response to this condition, this writer seeks to offer
an approach for the evangelization of postmodern people
following a coherent, biblical model. This model is found
in the evangelistic strategy of the apostolic church
detailed in the Book of Acts and the Pauline epistles.
Postmodernism makes basic presuppositions that
present difficulties for the evangelistic ministry of the
church. In order for the contemporary church to evangelize
the postmodern person, she must answer these difficulties.
13
44Millard J. Erickson, Postmodernizing the Faith:Evangelical Responses to the Challenge of Postmodernism(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 18-19.
45David Wells, No Place for Truth: Or WhateverHappened to Evangelical Theology? (Grand Rapids: William B.Eerdmans, 1993), 104.
46These terms will be defined in the followingchapter. The definitions will be presented primarily fromthe viewpoint of postmodern adherents. Although thereremains a varying degree of specificity among the theoristsof postmodernism concerning the definitions of these terms,the general descriptions present sufficient groundwork foranalysis.
Erickson suggests that postmodernism presupposes that
knowledge is not objective, that authoritative systems of
explanation are invalid, and that knowledge is a creation of
community.44 The apostolic church faced similar challenges
for evangelism in “a cauldron of conflicting religious
claims within which the Christian faith would have remained
tiny but for one fact: the first Christians knew that their
faith was absolutely true.”45 Through the pattern of the
apostolic church, the contemporary church finds an approach
to address the four basic challenges of postmodernism: 1)
1Jean-François Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: AReport on Knowledge, vol. 10, Theory and History ofLiterature, trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi(Minnaopolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984), xxiv.
2Jean-François Lyotard, The Inhuman: Reflections onTime, trans. Geoff Bennington and Rachel Bowlby (Stanford:Stanford University Press, 1991), 65-69.
14
CHAPTER ONE
THE POSTMODERN PERSON AND EVANGELISM
Prevailing Postmodern Themes
Jean-François Lyotard, professor of philosophy at
the University of Paris in Vincennes and a leading voice in
toward metanarratives.”1 A metanarrative is one “grand
theory” which explains the meaning of life. For Lyotard, to
be postmodern is to reject all things modern; that is, all
pursuits to establish one, over-arching, prevalent theme for
life.2
This rejection of metanarratives provides a
fountainhead for the prevailing postmodern themes: anti-
foundationalism, communal truth, deconstruction, and
pluralism. Each of these themes presents a particular
challenge for evangelizing the postmodern person.
Eric J. Thomas, Ph. D.Senior Pastor
First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, Virginia
15
3Philip D. Kenneson, “There’s No Such Thing asObjective Truth and It’s a Good Thing Too,” in ChristianApologetics in the Postmodern World, ed. Timothy R. Phillipsand Dennis L. Okholm (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1995),157.
4Dirk-Martin Grube, “Realism, Foundationalism, andConstructivism: A Philosopher’s Bermuda Triangle,” NeueZeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religions-philosophie 40 (1998): 108. Richard Rorty, Objectivity,Relativism, and Truth: Philosophical Papers, Volume 1(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 2. Rortysuggests the need for the abandonment of any claims to“representation.”
5Alister E. McGrath, “The Christian Church’sResponse to Pluralism,” Journal of the EvangelicalTheological Society 35 (December 1992): 498; Millard J.Erickson, The Evangelical Left: EncounteringPostconservative Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 1997), 54.
6Steven Connor, Postmodernist Culture: AnIntroduction to Theories of the Contemporary, 2d ed.(Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1997), 66.
Dismissal of the Foundations
The postmodern project dismisses the foundations of
knowledge.3 Postmodernism rejects “realism” which states
that “there exists a mind-independent world” which “can be
accessed.”4 Postmodernism also rejects foundationalism,
which states that knowledge is justified through “certain
indubitable” beliefs.5 Postmodernism states “that there are
no objective, transhistorical truths, or bottom lines which
might serve to stabilize the interpretation of the
particular historical purposes of groups and individuals.”6
Even the pursuit of such foundations is not beneficial.
Eric J. Thomas, Ph. D.Senior Pastor
First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, Virginia
16
7Richard Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979), 178.
8Stanley Fish, There Is No Such Thing as Free Speechand It’s a Good Thing, Too (Oxford: Oxford University Press,1994), 218.
9Grube, 118.
10R. Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism, Truth, 128-29. As will be shown, Rorty contends that the pursuit of truthis an illusion and should not be the endeavor. He opts forconversation with others as the model for meaning.
“The question is not whether human knowledge in fact has
‘foundations,’ but whether it makes sense to suggest that it
does –– whether the idea of epistemic or moral authority
having a ‘ground’ in nature is a coherent one.”7
Since metanarratives are no longer viable,
evangelism faces the problem of anti-foundationalism.
Stanley Fish proposes this description of anti-
foundationalism:
In a heterogeneous world, a world in which persons aresituated –– occupying particular places with particularpurposes pursued in relation to particular goals,visions, and hopes as they follow from holding (or beingheld by) particular beliefs –– no one will be in asituation that is universal or general (that is, nosituation at all), and therefore no one’s perspective (aword that gives the game away) can lay claim toprivilege.8
In this way postmodernism abandons the correspondence theory
of truth which suggests that “a true statement is one which
corresponds to reality.”9 Indeed, Rorty contends that this
kind of pursuit of truth should be dismissed altogether.10
Eric J. Thomas, Ph. D.Senior Pastor
First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, Virginia
17
11Stephen Louthan, “On Religion –– A Discussion withRichard Rorty, Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff,”Christian Scholar’s Review 26 (1996): 183.
12David Tracy, Plurality and Ambiguity:Hermeneutics, Religion, Hope (San Francisco: Harper and Row,1987), 27.
13Robert E. Webber, Ancient-Future Faith: RethinkingEvangelicalism for a Postmodern World (Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 1999.
14R. Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism, Truth, 38.
Alvin Plantinga proposes that Rorty’s postmodernism suggests
that “there really isn’t any such thing as truth.”11
Communal Truth
David Tracy clearly sets forth the postmodern ideal
when he suggests that “human knowledge is finite, communal,
and perspectival.”12 The postmodern comes to truth through
the definition of personal experience in the community
context. Each community creates its own narrative that
defines its beliefs, history, and precepts. Truth is found
within the social construct of each community narrative, and
“all these narratives are of equal value” according to the
postmodern ideal. “No one narrative can claim
universality.”13
According to Rorty, the community informs and
controls the definition of truth.14 Truth and self are
ultimately the constructions of the social context.
Eric J. Thomas, Ph. D.Senior Pastor
First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, Virginia
18
15Ibid., 165.
16Jimmy Long, Generating Hope: A Strategy forReaching the Postmodern Generation (Downers Grove:InterVarsity, 1997), 70. Communal truth is a predominanttheme in postmodernism. The notion of truth as the productof community will be a theme throughout this examination.
17Ibid., 69-70.
18R. Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism, Truth, 38.
Community is the starting point for truth and self, and a
community built for conversation maintains the social
context as the only source for guidance.15
Jimmy Long states that truth comes through the lens
of the community.16 That which is true is that which
everyone in the social context of community believes to be
true. The universality of truth is found only within the
context of community. If one ventures to another social
context, then the universality of truth changes.17
In postmodernism multiple truths exist, and the
individual is left with only preferences. Absolute truth is
the by-product of a communal, totalitarian, oppressive force
seeking control and power.18 Michel Foucault, a leading
postmodern philosopher who was trained at the Sorbonne and
lectured at College de France, states that “objective
knowledge” is the product of a social construct establishing
its own truth. This construction is made to affirm the
community’s way of life and to oppress others who differ.
Eric J. Thomas, Ph. D.Senior Pastor
First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, Virginia
19
19Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birthof the Prison, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York: VintageBooks, 1977), 25-31.
20Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition, 60. “Thelittle narrative [petit récit] remains the quintessentialform of imaginative invention.”
21Millard J. Erickson, Postmodernizing the Faith:Evangelical Responses to the Challenge of Postmodernism(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 19.
22Stanley J. Grenz, “Star Trek and the NextGeneration: Postmodernism and the Future of EvangelicalTheology,” in The Challenge of Postmodernism: An EvangelicalEngagement, ed. David S. Dockery (Grand Rapids: Baker Books,1995), 95.
23Todd Hahn and David Verhaagen, Reckless Hope:Understanding and Reaching Baby Busters (Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 1996), 37-41.
In the final analysis, Foucault concludes that the act of
knowing is an “act of violence.”19
The death of the grand narratives gives rise to the
petit narratives.20 These are the narratives within the
context of the community which give the definition to truth
and self. As Millard Erickson reports this development,
“Truth is defined by and for the community, and all
knowledge occurs within some community.”21 Truth is
established through “the ground rules that facilitate the
well-being of the community in which one participates.”22
Postmodernism declares that the individual is
“centerless and ever-changing.”23 As the social context
changes, beliefs and values of the individual also change.
Eric J. Thomas, Ph. D.Senior Pastor
First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, Virginia
20
24Tracy, Plurality and Ambiguity, 19-20, 110-14;Stanley Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism (Grand Rapids:William B. Eerdmans, 1996), 156-58; Long, Generating Hope,70. Long states, “The autonomous self of the Enlightenmenthas been replaced by tribalism or community.”
25Lyotard, Postmodern Condition, 63.
26R. Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism, Truth, 165.
27Henry Knight III, A Future for Truth: EvangelicalTheology in a Postmodern World (Nashville: Abingdon Press,1997), 53. Knight’s evaluation indicates as well the commonview of postmodernism that the autonomous individual of theEnlightenment should be rejected. The community providesthe appropriate context and clues to self-identity. Withoutthe community, one cannot come to this self-identity.
Self-identity comes through the individual’s contact within
the social construct of community.24 In postmodernism, the
community defines truth and dispenses personhood. The
individual who does not match the norms of the community
becomes “rehumanized” to match the prevailing norms of the
community.25
Community, therefore, is vital for the postmodern
perspective. It is the “only source of guidance” in
determining the beliefs and values for life.26 As Henry
Knight, assistant professor of evangelism at Saint Paul
School of Theology in Kansas City, Missouri, states,
“Instead of the individual being prior to the community, the
community is prior to the individual; participation in the
community with its network of practices and relationships is
what constitutes the personhood of the individual.”27
Eric J. Thomas, Ph. D.Senior Pastor
First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, Virginia
21
28Albrecht Wellmer, The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics, and Postmodernism, trans.David Midgley (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1991), 43-48.
29William Klein, Craig Blomberg, and Robert HubbardJr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Dallas: Word,1993), 440-41.
30Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology, corrected ed.,trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (Baltimore: Johns HopkinsUniversity Press, 1997), 10-18. The gospel from anevangelical perspective provides the fixed meaning for life.
Postmodernism reacts against community to some
degree, in that it views the community as oppressive to the
minority group of dissidents within the social construct.
On the other hand, postmodernism embraces community as the
fundamental agent for the belonging of the individual. The
individual is dependent upon the community as the place
where self and truth begin, but no single community
possesses a system of belief which is perfectly consistent
or coherent.28 Although community may be oppressive,
paradoxically it is only context for solace in a fragmented
world.
Deconstruction of Meaning
Deconstruction is the postmodern project which
identifies “ideological inconsistencies or ambiguities in a
text that prevent interpreters from claiming that it has a
fixed meaning.”29 Deconstruction seeks to dismantle the
metanarrative of modernity, including the gospel.30
Eric J. Thomas, Ph. D.Senior Pastor
First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, Virginia
22
31Charlene Spretnak, States of Grace: The Recoveryof Meaning in a Postmodern Age (San Francisco:HarperCollins, 1991), 4.
32Jacques Derrida, Speech and Phenomena, trans.David Allison (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press,1972), 23-28.
33Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Postmodern Times: AChristian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture(Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1994), 51.
34Ferdinand de Saussure, “Course in GeneralLinguistics,” in Deconstruction in Context: Literature andPhilosophy, ed. Mark C. Taylor (Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1986), 148-54.
Charlene Spretnak suggests that deconstruction is
the appropriate and necessary action for the responsible
individual. The responsible individual must “deconstruct”
objectified meaning in order to overcome the totalitarianism
of the cultural constructs.31 Without such dismantling, the
oppressive force of the metanarrative continues to
marginalize and subject humanity to violence through its
singular control of reality.32
Literary criticism has provided the framework for
postmodernism to flourish.33 From the postmodern outlook,
language is a cultural construction, and meaning is a social
construct. Signifiers may point to a particular object (the
signified), but that object is also a signifier of something
else.34 The result of these layers of signifiers is a mass
of meaning that must be taken apart, layer by layer.
Eric J. Thomas, Ph. D.Senior Pastor
First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, Virginia
23
35Alister McGrath, “The Challenge of Pluralism forthe Contemporary Christian Church,” Journal of theEvangelical Theological Society 35 (September 1992): 364.
36Jean Baudrillard, The Illusion of the End, trans.Chris Turner (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994),107.
the “arbitrariness of the linguistic sign” so that the
“signifier” becomes the focus of “orientation and value.”
Language is arbitrary and capricious, incapable of
disclosing meaning.35 The answer to this network of
artificial signs is deconstruction.
Baudrillard describes this project of postmodernism
as a “metamorphosis of the macro-structures into innumerable
particles which bear within them all the stigmata of the
networks and circuits –– each one forming its own micro-
network and micro-circuit.”36 Deconstruction dismisses the
intent of the author as irrelevant to interpretation. All
interpretations, therefore, “are equally valid or equally
meaningless (depending upon your point of view).”37
Deconstruction does not provide comfortable
solutions, but rather it embraces fragmentation.
Postmodernism seeks deconstruction without reconstruction.38
Eric J. Thomas, Ph. D.Senior Pastor
First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, Virginia
24
39Edgar V. McKnight, “A Defense of a Postmodern Useof the Bible,” in A Confessing Theology for PostmodernTimes, ed. Michael S. Horton (Wheaton: Crossway Books,2000), 86.
40Peter Berger, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of aSociological Theory of Religion (Garden City, NY: Doubleday,1967), 22.
41D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God: ChristianityConfronts Pluralism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 19.
Edgar McKnight suggests that the deconstructionist observes
the “scene of textuality” from a distance and “refines all
writing into ‘free floating’ texts.”39 In essence, the
world itself becomes a decentered montage of free-flowing
thought without any “sacred canopy.”40
Pluralism
The result of deconstruction is pluralism in
postmodern thought. “[Philosophical pluralism is the
belief] that any notion that a particular ideological or
religious claim is intrinsically superior to another is
necessarily wrong. The only absolute creed is the creed of
pluralism. No religion has the right to pronounce itself
right or true, and the others false, or even (in the
majority view) relatively inferior.”41 In the words of
Richard Rorty, pluralism consists of “lots of cultural
options but no privileged central discipline or practice,”
leaving the individuals “unable to worship anything.”
Eric J. Thomas, Ph. D.Senior Pastor
First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, Virginia
25
42Richard Rorty, Essays on Heidegger and Others:Philosophical Papers, Volume 2 (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1991), 132. Hereafter cited as Essays.
43Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a PluralistSociety (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1989), 1.
44Fredric Jameson, Postmodernism, or, The CulturalLogic of Late Capitalism (Durham, NC: Duke University Press,1991; reprint, 1999), 342-43.
45Ibid., 349.
Society should not embrace one, singular object of worship
due to the plurality of options and disciplines. Rorty’s
pragmatic postmodernism encourages the individual to
“rejoice in a lot of different things.”42 Lesslie Newbigin
indicates that this brand of pluralism celebrates plurality
“as things to be approved and cherished.”43
For the postmodern this celebration and exaltation
of plurality leads to the acceptability of all truth-claims
as equally valid. Fredric Jameson notes that the historical
uniqueness of postmodernism is the “sheer heteronomy and
emergence of random and unrelated subsystems of all kinds”
which are unified in a theory of differentiation.44 Within
this unified theory, “no functional conception of a ruling
group, let alone, class, can be conceived.”45
Postmodernism replaces “master narratives” with
“heteronomous, random petit narratives.” None of these
local stories gain privilege over other local stories.
Eric J. Thomas, Ph. D.Senior Pastor
First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, Virginia
26
46Richard Rorty, Truth and Progress: PhilosophicalPapers, Volume 3 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1998), 1.
47Clark Pinnock, Tracking the Maze: Finding Our WayThrough Modern Theology from an Evangelical Perspective (SanFrancisco: Harper, 1990), 2. He indicates that theologicalpluralism seeks to rewrite the “grammar” of the gospel.
48Alister McGrath, Evangelicalism and the Future ofChristianity (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1995), 160-63.
49C. E. Autrey, You Can Win Souls (Nashville:Broadman Press, 1961), 2.
Rorty proposes that “there are many ways to talk about what
is going on, and that none of them gets closer to the way
things are in themselves than any other.”46
Preeminent Challenges for Evangelism
The prevailing themes of postmodernism present
specific challenges for the evangelization of postmodern
people.47 Yet, as McGrath notes, the future of Christianity
depends upon evangelism.48 C. E. Autrey defines evangelism
as “urging the lost to accept Christ as Saviour [sic].”49
Evangelism is the communication of the gospel to the
unconverted so that they might repent of their sin, trust
Jesus as their Savior, and surrender to Him as Lord in
service through the local community of faith. The
evangelization of postmodern people encounters three
preeminent challenges: the gospel as metanarrative,
epistemology, and hermeneutics.
Eric J. Thomas, Ph. D.Senior Pastor
First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, Virginia
27
50J. Richard Middleton and Brian J. Walsh, Truth IsStranger Than It Used to Be: Biblical Faith in a PostmodernAge (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 83.
51Robert Webber, Ancient-Future Faith, 93.
52Ibid.
53Herschel Hobbs, New Testament Evangelism(Nashville: Broadman, 1960), 82.
54Middleton and Walsh, Truth Is Stranger Than ItUsed to Be, 83.
The Gospel as Metanarrative
Evangelism bases its truth-claims on the
metanarrative of Scripture.50 Robert Webber describes the
Christian metanarrative as “a rehearsal of the saving deeds
of God in history” which culminate in Jesus Christ.51 The
Christian metanarrative “is the story of the meaning of
history.”52 Such a totalizing statement about the gospel,
however, is unacceptable in the postmodern milieu.
The Pentecost sermon is metanarrative (Acts 2).
Here are the humanity of Jesus, God’s approval, Jesus’power, man’s wickedness, God’s redemptive purpose,Jesus’ death and resurrection, and God’s judgment uponsin and death. Add to these God’s promise of Jesus’ultimate victory at [H]is second advent (Acts 2:34-35),the lordship of Christ, and [H]is saviourhood (Acts2:36). . . . This body of truth became the gospel of theearly Christians and God honored it.53
God’s saving activity fulfilled in Jesus is the
metanarrative that tells the “true story of the world.”54
The gospel is the Christian metanarrative.
Eric J. Thomas, Ph. D.Senior Pastor
First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, Virginia
28
55Erickson, Postmodernizing the Faith, 151-52, 154.
56William J. Larkin, Culture and BiblicalHermeneutics: Interpreting and Applying the AuthoritativeWord in a Relativistic Age (Grand Rapids: Baker Books,1988), 233-37.
57Stanley Grenz, Primer on Postmodernism, 163.
The challenge for evangelism centers on presenting
the gospel as metanarrative without altering the expression
and content of the Christian faith to make the gospel
palatable to the postmodern deconstructionist.55 Evangelism
is the proclamation that Jesus Christ is the ontological and
epistemological basis for salvation and life. In postmodern
thought, the very essence of the gospel demands
deconstruction.56
The Challenge of Epistemology
With the dismantling of all metanarratives,
including the gospel, postmodernism presents the challenge
of epistemology in the evangelistic effort. Evangelization
of postmodern people depends upon the communication of the
gospel which propositionally corresponds to reality. As
Stanley Grenz suggests, the postmodern rejection of the
“reigning epistemological principle -- the correspondence
theory of truth . . . undermines Christian claims that our
doctrinal formulations state objective truth.”57
Eric J. Thomas, Ph. D.Senior Pastor
First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, Virginia
29
58Francis Schaeffer, “He Is There and He Is notSilent –– Part III: Man’s Epistemological Problem,”Bibliotheca Sacra 128 (October 1971): 300-315, especially,300.
59Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, 140.
60Merold Westphal, “Levinas and the Immediacy ofFace,” Faith and Philosophy 10 (October 1993): 491-92.
61Rorty, Truth and Progress, 95.
62See, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, trans. D. F. Pears and B. F. McGuiness(London: Routlege, 1961), §6.52-§6.522.
63Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, 159.
Epistemology is the study of the “process of
knowing.”58 Rorty states that epistemology is a discipline
seeking to discover “the nature, origin, and limits of human
knowledge.”59 The rejection of foundations and project of
deconstruction in postmodernism, however, create a problem
in epistemology. When no ultimate origin for the foundation
of meaning exists, the question arises, “How can I know?”60
For Rorty, the answer to this question is to “get
beyond” epistemology.61 Rorty suggests that the
epistemological quest results in the ineffable, by which the
“recontextualization of signs” unceasingly alters meaning.62
A systematic theory of meaning in postmodernism, therefore,
does not exist. The “supposed” foundations of knowledge are
merely the “product of the choice of perceptual metaphors”
rather than a presentation of corresponding reality.63
Eric J. Thomas, Ph. D.Senior Pastor
First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, Virginia
30
64Martin Heidegger, Introduction to Metaphysics,trans. Ralph Manheim (New Haven: Yale University Press,1959), 185.
65Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, 209-212. Rorty takes this challenge up in chapter 5, entitled,“From Epistemology to Hermeneutics.”
66Millard J. Erickson, Evangelical Interpretation:Perspectives on Hermeneutical Issues (Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 1993), 51-52. The gospel witness seeks to open theavenue for the acquisition of truth by the postmodern.
Rorty approvingly cites Heidegger’s idea that objectivity in
epistemology emerges from the description of things “before
us” which is personal perception rather than the
representation of reality.64 Rorty, therefore, proposes to
replace epistemology with the justification of meaning
through the social context.65
The abandonment of epistemology presents a problem
for the evangelization of postmodern people. Evangelism
consists of a “biblical doctrine of epistemology.”66 The
Holy Spirit leads the individual to the acquisition of truth
and meaning (John 16:8-13). With the removal of
epistemology, the work of the Holy Spirit and the gospel
becomes simply another metaphor of perception rather than a
true description of reality in postmodernism.
The Challenge of Hermeneutics
Although originally a theological discipline,
hermeneutics has broadened to include a variety of study.
Eric J. Thomas, Ph. D.Senior Pastor
First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, Virginia
31
67Klein, et al., Biblical Interpretation, 4.
68Bernard Ramm, “Biblical Interpretation,” inHermeneutics by Bernard Ramm et al. (Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 1971), 8-11.
69Mark C. Taylor, Deconstructing Theology (Chico,CA: Scholar’s Press, 1982), 90.
70Roland Barthes, The Rustle of Language, trans.Richard Howard (New York: Hill and Wang, 1986), 54.
71Carl A. Raschke, “The Deconstruction of God,” inDeconstruction and Theology, eds. Thomas A. Altizer, et al.(New York: Crossroad, 1982), 3.
72Stephen Moore, Poststructuralism and the NewTestament: Derrida and Foucault at the Foot of the Cross(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 7-8.
Hermeneutics is a set of principles which is utilized “to
understand what something means, to comprehend what a
message -- written, oral, or visual -- is endeavoring to
communicate.”67 Currently, hermeneutics exists as a
philosophical as well as theological discipline.68
Deconstruction presents a philosophical and
theological movement in hermeneutics. Mark Taylor’s “death
of God”69 and Roland Barthes’ “countertheological refusal of
God”70 represent theological and philosophical proposals.
While Carl Rashke suggests that “deconstruction is the death
of God put in writing,”71 Stephen Moore contends that
Derrida and his brand of deconstruction exists in a “muted
dialogue with theology,” and he suggests that deconstruction
is not “utterly inimical to theological concerns.”72
Eric J. Thomas, Ph. D.Senior Pastor
First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, Virginia
32
73Jacques Derrida, Limited Inc (Evanston, IL:Northwestern University Press, 1988), 61-62.
74Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in ThisText? The Bible, The Reader, and the Morality of LiteraryKnowledge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 38.
Whether viewed from a negative or neutral view, postmodern
hermeneutics speaks to the theological endeavor of
evangelism.
Through deconstruction postmodernism dismisses the
author in the hermeneutical process. Derrida suggests that
the intent of the author does not lead to the ultimate
meaning, because “the possibility of its being repeated
another time –– breaches, divides, expropriates the ‘ideal’
plenitude or self-presence of intention.” This
“iterability” produces alternate meanings even while the
author speaks or writes with a particular meaning in mind.
The author’s intention is “contaminated” by the possibility
that what he says is “(already, always, also) other than”
the author’s intent.73
The dismissal of the foundations and the
disappearance of the author in postmodernism moves
“interpretation” from a truth claim emerging from a text to
a reference “to what the reader makes of the text.”74
Therefore, Rorty confidently suggests that hermeneutics is
the appropriate remedy for the absence of epistemology.
Eric J. Thomas, Ph. D.Senior Pastor
First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, Virginia
33
75Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, 315.
76Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text, 49.
77Derrida, Of Grammatology, 73.
78Ibid., 6-7.
79Moore, Poststructuralism, 50, 56. Moore’sanalysis is instructive. Moore seeks to “capsize thehierarchical opposition that established the parameters ofthe dialogue between Jesus and the Samaritan woman.” Hewants to demonstrate that the woman of Sychar is the “moreenlightened partner in the dialogue.” He traces the imageryof water in John’s Gospel, ultimately demonstrating that“Jesus’ physical thirst [19:28], therefore, is the necessaryprecondition for the proleptic yielding up of that which isintended to satiate the spiritual thirst of the believer,namely, the Holy Spirit.” Moore contends that “thehierarchical opposition established at the well is invertedat the cross, the ostensibly superior, pleromatic term(living water, Spirit) being shown to depend for itseffective existence on the inferior, insufficient term(literal well water), contrary to everything that the Gospelhas led us to expect.”
Rorty posits that hermeneutics is “hope that the cultural
space left by the demise of epistemology will not be
filled.”75
Postmodern hermeneutics does not begin with meaning
prior to interpretation. Even authorial intent does not
provide a prior meaning. Rather, postmodernism suggests
that “what one finds in a text depends on what aims,
categories, and perspectives one brings to it.”76 According
to Derrida, the “signified always already is in the position
of the signifier.”77 No “transcendental signified” exists.78
Meaning, therefore, becomes the creation of the reader.79
Eric J. Thomas, Ph. D.Senior Pastor
First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, Virginia
34
80Hahn and Verhaagen, Reckless Hope, 39.
81Robert W. Yarbrough, “Variation on a Theme:History’s Nth Great Hermeneutical Crisis,” Journal of theEvangelical Theological Society 39 (Sept 1996): 447.
82Rorty, Philosophy and Mirror of Nature, 392-94.
83Ibid., 226-29.
Todd Hahn and David Verhaagen have studied the
influence of postmodernism in the Christian culture. They
have found that the influence of postmodern hermeneutics has
hampered the evangelistic effort of the church.
The impact of relativism has wormed its way into thechurch. Take a look at our Bible studies. Manyinterpretations of the same passage are allowed andaccepted as equally valid. Everyone’s opinion isconsidered equally viable. Respecting the ideas ofothers has been given precedence over a search for theactual intention of the author. In fact the unrealizedassumption is that one’s sincere ideas are synonymouswith truth.80
Postmodern hermeneutics leads to a indefinite number of
equally valid interpretations of a particular text. As
Robert Yarborough correctly concludes, “A contemporary
commitment to hermeneutical pluralism, if not anarchy, is
demanded by postmodern experience, with a primary casualty
being God’s Scriptural witness to [H]is unified, redemptive
and knowable presence in the world.”81
Rorty trades epistemology for “conversation.”82
Conversation unfolds sentences, bringing about a relative,
conceptual truth in the context of a particular community.83
Eric J. Thomas, Ph. D.Senior Pastor
First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, Virginia
35
84Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism, Truth, 17.
85P. T. O’Brien, Gospel and Mission in the Writingsof Paul: An Exegetical and Theological Analysis (GrandRapids: Baker, 1995), 70-75.
86Albert Mohler Jr., “Evangelical Tradition,” in TheChallenge of Postmodernism: An Evangelical Engagement, ed.David S. Dockery (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995), 84.
87Walter Truett Anderson, Reality Isn’t What It Usedto Be: Theatrical Politics, Ready-to-Wear Religion, GlobalMyths, Primitive Chic, and Other Wonders of the PostmodernWorld (San Francisco: Harper, 1990), 51.
The outcome of this conversation is the positive goal of
“unforced agreement with tolerant disagreement.”84
Such conversation, although commendable in its
desire for “unforced agreement” and “tolerant disagreement,”
begins with the premise of a truth that is relative to the
community in which one exists, and this premise is untenable
in evangelism. Evangelism proclaims that the gospel is
absolute truth for all of humanity.85
Possible Opportunities for Evangelism
The postmodern condition also presents possible
opportunities for the evangelistic task. Albert Mohler Jr.
indicates that “postmodernism may well represent a new
evangelistic moment.”86 The following postmodern confession
elucidates the situation for evangelism: “I have no beliefs.
I belong to no community, tradition, or anything like that.
I’m lost in this vast, vast world. I belong nowhere.”87
Eric J. Thomas, Ph. D.Senior Pastor
First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, Virginia
36
88Ibid., 181-83.
89Jacques Derrida, “Différance,” in Deconstructionin Context: Literature and Philosophy, ed. Mark C. Taylor(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986), 419-20.
90Linda Hutcheon, The Politics of Postmodernism(London: Routledge, 1989), 24.
91Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in MoralTheory, 2nd ed. (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press,1984), 211-216.
This interview demonstrates that the yearning of the
individual caught in the morass of a deconstructed life may
provide opportunities for evangelism.
Search for a Better Story
Postmodern people are in search of better stories
for personal existence.88 They desire connections with
stories that will bring fulfillment to their lives. Derrida
concedes this postmodern yearning when he pronounces the
possibility of “nostalgia” over what is lost in his project
of différance. Derrida calls for “laughter and dance”
instead of nostalgia, because the “quest for the proper word
and the unique name” continues.89 It is this quest that
provides opportunity for the gospel in the evangelization of
postmodern people.
The only legitimate story in postmodern thought is
the localized narrative.90 The local story, according to
Alasdair MacIntyre, provides one interpretation of life.91
Eric J. Thomas, Ph. D.Senior Pastor
First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, Virginia
37
92This has been shown by Stephen Best and DouglasKellner, Postmodern Theory: Critical Interrogations (NewYork: Guilford, 1991), 171-79.
93Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism, 170.
Postmodern people see their local stories as only one of
innumerable, equally true stories.
The buffet of localized narratives rests upon the
table of the postmodern metanarrative.92 The postmodern
individual faces the choices of a smorgasbord of narratives
to provide significance and meaning to life. This
represents the Derridean “laughter and dance.” The quest
for the ultimate signifier and the most beneficial story
remains ever before the postmodern individual. Postmodern
people are searching for the story that will satisfy the
appetite of their souls.
Although postmodernism rejects the gospel as
metanarrative, it must respect it as a local narrative. It
has no place of privilege at the postmodern table, but it
continues to be served. What then is the advantage? Grenz
offers this description of opportunity: “At the heart of
being a Christian is a personal encounter with God in
Christ. . . . It is in this context of making sense out of
life by means of recounting the story of a transformative
religious experience that doctrinal propositions find their
importance.”93 Postmodern people search for such a story.
Eric J. Thomas, Ph. D.Senior Pastor
First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, Virginia
38
94Leighton Ford, The Power of Story (ColoradoSprings, CO: NavPress, 1994), 10.
95Baudrillard, Illusion of the End, 106-107.
96Long, Generating Hope, 136-38.
The postmodern quest for a better story offers an
opportunity to share the gospel. Through the telling of the
gospel, the power of God takes hold of people, leading them
toward salvation (Rom 1:16). The evangelistic witness
presents postmodern people with a choice of a better story
for their lives. When they encounter the gospel of Jesus
Christ, they determine whether the story of Christ provides
a better story for their personal experience. As Leighton
Ford indicates, they choose “either to reject the Story of
God or to merge [their] story with His Story.”94
Search for Connection
The outcome of postmodernism is a “decentered
self.” The postmodern individual is “free-falling” amidst
the chaotic waters of plurality.95 The concept of truth
that is non-representational and communal has created a
society of individuals who are disconnected and fragmented.
The postmodern person searches for connections which will
offer stability in life.96 Berger’s description of the
postmodern people in the flux of disorientation represents
the search for a community that provides meaning in life.
Eric J. Thomas, Ph. D.Senior Pastor
First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, Virginia
39
97Berger, The Sacred Canopy, 22. “Anomy” is theloss of any secure sense of meaningful order to the world.
98Grenz, Primer on Postmodernism, 169.
99R. Daniel Shaw, “In Search of Post-modernSalvation,” Evangelical Review of Theology 22 (1998): 57-59.
In the postmodern world, “reality and identity are
malignantly transformed into meaningless figures of horror.
To be in a society is to be ‘sane’ precisely in the sense of
being shielded from the ultimate ‘insanity’ of anomic
terror. Anomy is unbearable to the point where the
individual may seek death in preference to it.”97
Grenz insightfully indicates that postmodern people
are suspicious of verbal presentations of the gospel, but
they are attracted to a community of believers in which the
gospel is incarnated among the relationships. This
community is characterized by “wholesome, authentic, and
healing relationships.”98 R. Daniel Shaw also connects the
postmodern desire for community with the evangelistic
mission of the church. The community of believers may offer
a place of connection between the postmodern reality of this
world and God’s reality found in the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The community of faith connects with postmodern people at
the point of need.99 The postmodern search for connection
provides a possible opportunity for the evangelization of
postmodern people.
Eric J. Thomas, Ph. D.Senior Pastor
First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, Virginia
40
100Zygmunt Bauman, “What Prospects of Morality inTimes of Uncertainty?” Theory, Culture, and Society 15(February 1998): 11-18.
101Michel Foucault, Power/Knowledge: SelectedInterviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977, ed. Colin Gordon(New York: Pantheon Books, 1980), 55-58.
102Richard Lints, The Fabric of Theology (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 216.
103Tom Beaudoin, Virtual Faith: The IrreverentSpiritual Quest of Generation X (San Francisco: Jossey-BassPublishers, 1998), 96-97. Beaudoin takes suffering as apossible avenue for connection with the gospel message, butalso warns against trivialization of suffering.
Search for a Better Life
The postmodern project is a search for a better
life. Zygmunt Bauman suggests that postmodern people seek
life freed from the oppressive forces of modernity.100 The
entire project of postmodernism seeks to divest individuals
from the nightmare of the world in which they live and which
the Enlightenment principles created. This nightmare
includes the horrors of victimization, totalization,
oppression, and injustice.101 These descriptions indicate
that postmodern people want a better life.
The postmodern generation notes the inadequacies of
the world.102 Tom Beaudoin suggests that the postmodern
generation is “suffering” under the threat of nuclear
holocaust, AIDS, and the national debt. Their “suffering”
leads them to a “spiritual crisis of meaning.”103
Eric J. Thomas, Ph. D.Senior Pastor
First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, Virginia
41
104Ibid., 120.
105Lyotard, The Inhuman, 126-27.
106Charles Winquist, Desiring Theology (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1995), 142-43, 149-50.
107Beaudoin, 120.
108F. S. Fiorenza, “The Crisis of Hermeneutics andChristian Theology,” in Theology at the End of Modernity,ed. S. G. Davaney (Philadelphia: Trinity Press, 1991), 135.
Ultimately, they seek liberty from the multitude of
diversities which overwhelm them.104
The postmodern inability to access the absolute is
the “pleasure of pain,” according to Lyotard.105 The painful
pleasure of fragmented life, however, is not enough to
satisfy the quest of the postmodern person. This fragmented
life that they experience in their “hermeneutics of
suspicion” creates a need to discover “becomings of self” in
the midst of deconstruction. Winquist suggests that this
reconstruction is found ultimately through a “meaningful
community” of love.106
The possible opportunity for evangelism is found in
this quest for a better life in a community of love.
Suffering is the common language of all generations.107
According to Fiorenza, “Suffering brings us to the bedrock
of human existence.”108 The reality of suffering presents
common ground for the witness and the postmodern person.
Eric J. Thomas, Ph. D.Senior Pastor
First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, Virginia
42
109Long, Generating Hope, 75.
110Jürgen Moltmann, The Church in the Power of theSpirit (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1977), 360.
111Paul Lakeland, Postmodernity: Christian Identityin a Fragmented Age (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 42-43.
112Erickson, Postmodernizing the Faith, 152.
This misery is precisely how “God is preparing people in the
world to respond to the gospel.”109 The reality of suffering
makes the gospel accessible to a postmodern person.
An Apostolic Approach to the PostmodernChallenge
Jürgen Moltmann wrote: “The apostolic church is the
missionary church.”110 As noted in the introduction, an
“apostolic approach” refers to the examples, directions, and
procedures of the New Testament (NT) church recorded
especially in Acts and the Pauline epistles. An apostolic
approach utilizes the work and ministry of the apostolic
church as the paradigm for the evangelization of postmodern
people today.
The evangelical community offers various biblical
paradigms related to the postmodern challenge.111 Millard
Erickson evaluates the primary approaches to postmodernism
within evangelical circles. He identifies four approaches.
The first approach endeavors to “alter the
expression and even the content of the Christian faith.”112
Eric J. Thomas, Ph. D.Senior Pastor
First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, Virginia
43
113Long, Generating Hope, 19-22. Long modifies thefive models of H. Richard Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture (NewYork: Harper and Row, 1956).
114Leonard Sweet, Post-Modern Pilgrims: First CenturyPassion for the 21st Century World (Nashville: Broadman andHolman, 2000), 143-47.
115Erickson, Postmodernizing the Faith, 123-25, 152. See also, Middleton and Walsh, Truth Is Stranger Than ItUsed to Be, 172-85.
116Erickson, Postmodernizing the Faith, 152.
The church must in some way adjust the gospel to the
postmodern objections to truth as objective, referential,
and corresponding to reality. The gospel as metanarrative
must also be adjusted in expression according to this
approach. Jimmy Long describes this approach as the
“assimilating church,” which adopts “some of culture’s
characteristics” in order to become relevant to that
culture.113 Leonard Sweet espouses this approach to some
extent when he suggests that the church embrace postmodern
hermeneutics.114 Erickson charges Middleton and Walsh with
this approach “by the way in which they recast the method of
utilizing Scripture.”115
The second approach seeks to alter the “method and
means” of gospel witness. Erickson suggests that movement
to a narrative presentation of the gospel serves as one
example of this approach.116 Todd Hahn and David Verhaagen
indicate that this type of alteration is good and necessary.
Eric J. Thomas, Ph. D.Senior Pastor
First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, Virginia
44
117Hahn and Verhaagen, Reckless Hope, 58-59.
118Sweet, Post-Modern Pilgrims, 141-42.
119Erickson, Postmodernizing the Faith, 152-53.
120Long, Generating Hope, 26-27. Long highlightscorrectly the need to remain radically biblical but notnecessarily traditional. This means that the paradigm ofScripture informs the evangelistic witness, but thetradition of the church is not necessarily synonymous withthe Scriptural paradigm.
121David Wells, No Place for Truth: Or WhateverHappened to Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1993), 102-104.
The narrative method speaks “to the specific and unique
needs of this generation.”117 The proponents of an
alteration of method or means seek to communicate and relate
intimately to postmodern people.118
The third approach consists of no adjustment,
either in expression or method.119 Long identifies this
approach with the “unchanging church” which ignores culture.
These proponents seek to maintain their traditions by
“rising above culture.” For Long, this approach is
indicative of churches which elevate traditionalism above
biblicism.120 The “kerygmatic” proponents of this approach,
however, contend that adjustment in expression or method is
not necessary. They suggest that the power of the gospel,
illumined by the Holy Spirit, is capable of reaching
postmodern people.121
Eric J. Thomas, Ph. D.Senior Pastor
First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, Virginia
45
122Long, Generating Hope, 27-31; Hahn and Verhaagen,Reckless Hope, 51-53.
123Erickson, Postmodernizing the Faith, 153-54.
124Veith, Postmodern Times, 83.
125David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity(Cambridge: Basil Blackwell, 1989), 113-14, 117.
The fourth approach involves dismantling the
premises of postmodernism.122 Proponents of this approach
contend that postmodern people can be reached through a
demonstration of the “impossibility of living” in the
postmodern way.123 Veith represents this approach when he
evaluates postmodernism as “passive, cynical, and
insecure.”124 The church which engages the deficiencies of
postmodernism demonstrates to postmodern people the “end-
result” of a postmodern life. It stresses the
contradictions of postmodernism so that the postmodern will
see eventually the impossibility of living a meaningful
postmodern life.125
An apostolic approach offers several advantages to
the current proposals. The first advantage of an apostolic
approach is fidelity to Scripture as the principal guide in
faith and practice. An apostolic approach offers a paradigm
for evangelism in light of an exegetical analysis of the NT
church. Evangelization flows out of the commendation of
Scripture rather than out of an accommodation to culture.
Eric J. Thomas, Ph. D.Senior Pastor
First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, Virginia
46
126Alister McGrath, “The Christian Church’s Responseto Pluralism,” Journal of the Evangelical TheologicalSociety 35 (December 1992): 500.
127Michael Green, Evangelism in the Early Church(London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1970; reprint, Guildford,Surrey: Eagle, 1995), x-xi.
128Grant Osborne, “Preaching the Gospels: Methodologyand Contextualization,” Journal of the EvangelicalTheological Society 27 (March 1984): 33.
In other words, the methodology begins with Scripture rather
than with postmodernism.126 Scripture is the guiding
principle of faith and practice.
The second advantage of an apostolic approach is
effectiveness.127 An apostolic approach seeks to implement
the principles of the apostolic church, which effectively
evangelized a relativistic, pluralistic culture. The
apostolic church “sought ‘redemptive analogies’ in its
presentation of the gospel. . . . Yet at the same time the
Church refused to compromise the content of her message.”128
In the same manner, the contemporary church must apply the
principles of the apostolic church to communicate the gospel
without compromising the content of the message.
The third advantage is the community-emphasis in an
apostolic approach. From its inception, the apostolic
church maintained and emphasized community (Acts 2:41-47).
The postmodern culture desires community, and the church can
provide the specific answer to this yearning for connection.
Eric J. Thomas, Ph. D.Senior Pastor
First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, Virginia
47
129Stanley Grenz, Created for Community: ConnectingChristian Belief with Christian Living (Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 1996; reprint, 1998), 207.
As Grenz points out, the church is the “pioneer community”
of individuals who “live out in the present the glorious
community for which God created us.”129 An apostolic
approach presents the evangelistic ministry of the NT church
as the starting-point for the evangelization of postmodern
people.
The following chapter deals with the role of the
Holy Spirit in the evangelistic approach of the apostolic
church. The coming of the Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2)
finds deeper significance through an examination of the
promise of Joel’s prophecy (Joel 2:28-32) and the promise of
Christ concerning the Spirit of truth in John’s Gospel.
This writer will seek to show the implications of Pentecost
and the Spirit’s work in the evangelization of the ancient
world and in the evangelization of the postmodern world.
Eric J. Thomas, Ph. D.Senior Pastor
First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, Virginia
1“But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirithas come upon you and you will be My witnesses in Jerusalemand all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth” (Acts1:8). The Greek text comes from, The Greek New Testament,eds. K. Aland, M. Black, et al., 3rd ed. (Stuttgart: UnitedBible Societies, 1983). All translations are the author’sunless otherwise noted.
2See previous chapter, footnote 6.
48
CHAPTER TWO
PENTECOST, THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND EVANGELISM
Christ provides the specific instructions
concerning the role of the church in the world. Jesus
The biblical record of the apostolic church reveals
the worldview by which it evangelized the ancient world.
This worldview stands in contrast to the postmodern mind-set
in several ways. First, with its premise of anti-
foundationalism, postmodernism rejects any “interpretation
of the particular historical purposes of groups and
individuals” through “objective, transhistorical truths.”2
The apostolic church in Acts believed that God purposed
49
3J. C. O’Neill, The Theology of Acts in ItsHistorical Setting, 2d ed. (London: SPCK, 1970), 177-78.
4Adolf Schlatter, The Theology of the Apostles: TheDevelopment of New Testament Theology, trans. A. J.Köstenberger (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 28-31, 361.
everything in history to culminate in the Christ-event.
This divine purpose continues through the work of the Spirit
in the church. According to J. C. O’Neill, “the success of
Christianity, despite all the set-backs it encountered, was
used to support its claim to be the only true religion.”3
Schlatter further suggests that the apostolic church
possessed the conviction that Christ directed the community
“from within and from without,” so that He is the supreme
interpretation of history and the future.4 In other words,
an apostolic approach promotes the conviction that the
Christian way is true because it corresponds to the external
reality of God’s redemptive activity in history.
Second, postmodernism’s exaltation of “communal
truth” dismisses any proposal of absolute, universal truth.
Accordingly, any claim to truth is the creation of the
social group and context. The apostolic church, however,
construed truth as the external product of God’s mind
communicated to humanity by God’s Spirit. Insightfully,
John Frame proposes that “communal truth” demands omniscient
justification in the social context, so that all potential
50
5John Frame, “Christianity and ContemporaryEpistemology,” Westminster Journal of Theology 52 (Spring1990): 136.
6Everett F. Harrison, The Apostolic Church (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 113.
objections to any particular truth-claim may be refuted.
If, however, God were a member of this social group, then
His omniscience would provide the necessary justification
for “objective knowledge.”5 With the coming of the Spirit
at Pentecost, the Spirit of truth provides the necessary
justification of “objective knowledge” and universal truth
in an apostolic approach (John 16:13).
Third, postmodernism’s “precommitment” to
deconstruction dismisses the possibility of certainty in
meaning. The apostolic church, however, found meaning in
the Spirit’s illumination of Christ’s doctrine through the
apostles and Scripture.6 The apostolic church believed that
the Spirit indwells and instructs believers within the
community, so that they discover the intention of the God of
revelation.
Finally, with its preeminence of pluralism,
postmodernism disdains any proposal of an ultimate “master
narrative.” The apostolic church, however, believed that
the gospel is the “master narrative” which presents the only
true pathway to life. Peter’s statement to the Sanhedrin in
51
7“And there is no salvation in another, for there isno other name under heaven which has been given in humanityby which we must be saved.”
8C. E. Autrey, Evangelism in the Acts (Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1964), 78.
9Gordon Kaufmann, “Religious Diversity, HistoricalConsciousness, and Christian Theology,” Journal of Religion68 (October 1988): 9.
10Ibid.
11Schubert M. Ogden, “Problems in the Case for aPluralistic Theology of Religions,” Journal of Religion 68
Acts 4:12 depicts this conviction in the apostolic church.
In answer to the Sanhedrin, Peter declares: kai; oujk e[stin ejn
dedomevnon ejn ajnqrwvpoi~ ejn w|/ dei` swqh`nai hJma`~.7 As C. E. Autrey
indicates, this statement declares that Christianity cannot
“peacefully coexist” with a plurality of religious options,
for “Christ and not man was the Messiah.”8
This conviction stands in contrast to the
postmodern proposal. Unlike Gordon Kaufmann, an apostolic
approach does not suggest that the Christian faith is only
one among many worldviews imaginatively constructed in the
“search for orientation in life.”9 Neither does the
community construe the communication of the gospel as the
articulation of “one particular perspective on life among
others.”10 An apostolic approach presents the gospel as the
only “universal salvific truth.”11
52
(October 1988): 498.
12James D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit: A Study ofthe Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and theFirst Christians as Reflected in the New Testament (London:SCM Press, 1975; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997),135.
13Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 135.
As the apostolic church set out to evangelize the
world, these biblical convictions became prominent. The
following discussion will seek to indicate how God
alleviates the barrier of competing worldviews and opens the
door for evangelization of postmodern people.
Pentecost and the Spirit of Truth, Acts 2:1-13
Pentecost is the starting-point for a discussion of
an apostolic approach to evangelize postmodern people.
Pentecost is an historical and theological hinge for the
role of the Spirit and evangelism.12 The fulfillment of
Joel’s prophecy (Joel 2:28-32) and Christ’s promise of the
the historical significance and theological implications of
the Spirit in the evangelization of postmodern people.13
Fulfillment of the Visionary Gift, Joel 2:28-32
The coming of the Spirit at Pentecost presents the
53
14Merrill Unger, “The Significance of Pentecost,”Bibliotheca Sacra 122 (April 1965): 175.
15See the discussion on the relationship betweenduvnami~ and ejxousiva below on pages 84-87.
16Joel 3:1-5 in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia,eds. A. Alt, O. Eissfeldt, et al. (Stuttgart: DeutscheBibelgesellschaft, 1966-1977). Hereafter cited, BHS.
17John Calvin, A Commentary on the Prophet Joel,trans. J. Owen (London: Banner of Truth, 1958), 81.
18“And it shall come to pass after so I will pourout My Spirit upon all flesh” (Joel 2:28, 3:1 BHS).
historical hinge for the inauguration of a new age.14
Peter’s sermon at Pentecost acknowledges the coming of the
Spirit as the inauguration of Joel’s prophecy (Acts 2:16-21;
Joel 2:28-32) in which the Spirit provides the duvnami~
promised by Christ for evangelization.15
The prophecy of Joel demonstrates the power of the
“visionary gift” through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
This “visionary gift” is the abiding presence of God with
His people through His Spirit. Calvin surmises that the
prophecy of Joel 2:28-3216 promises “something greater than
what the fathers under the Law experienced,” for God “did
not pour out His Spirit so abundantly and so largely under
the Law, as after the manifestation of Christ.”17
Through Joel, God said, rc;B;AlK;Al[' yjiWrAta, JwPov]a, keAyrej}a' hy:h;w.18
This prophecy depicts a future when God will establish His
54
19Duane A. Garrett, Hosea, Joel, New AmericanCommentary (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1997), 368-69.
20H. W. Wolff, Joel and Amos: A Commentary on theBooks of the Prophets Joel and Amos, trans. W. Janzen, S. D.McBride Jr., and C. A. Muenchow, Hermeneia (Philadelphia:Fortress, 1977), 66.
21Leslie C. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah,Jonah, and Micah, New International Commentary on the OldTestament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 99.
22C. F. Keil, Minor Prophets: Two Volumes in One,trans. James Martin, vol. 10, Commentary on the OldTestament in Ten Volumes, by C. F. Keil and Franz Delitzsch(reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 1:211.
presence through the outpouring of His Spirit.19 Peter
affirms the prophecy’s fulfillment at Pentecost (Acts 2:16).
When God pours out His Spirit (jWr), He pours Himself upon
whom He chooses to accomplish the work He desires,20 so that
the intention of God is “the personal experience of every
member of the religious community.”21
Joel indicates the essence of the “visionary gift”
through three terms: abn (to prophesy), .lj (to dream), and
har (to see). Keil suggests that abn is the general
designation of the prophetic gift, and that visions and
dreams are two forms of prophetic revelation.22 When God
pours out His Spirit, He will reveal Himself and His word to
His people, and they will proclaim it to the world.
At Pentecost, all of Christ’s followers receive the
55
23H. W. Wolff, Joel and Amos, 66.
24Boyd Hunt, Redeemed! Eschatological Redemption inthe Kingdom of God (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1993),14, 30.
25David. S. Dockery, “The Theology of Acts,”Criswell Theological Review 5 (1990): 47.
26William M. Schniedewind, The Word of God inTransition: From Prophet to Exegete in the Second TemplePeriod, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament,Supplement 197 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995),55-57.
27Abraham Heschel, The Prophets, 2 vols. (New York:Harper and Row, 1962; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,2000), 2:216.
“visionary gift” and become a “nation of prophets.”23 It is
an historical turning-point in God’s redemptive purposes.24
The Spirit fills (ejplhvsqhsan) the followers of Christ to
“make them missionaries and proclaimers of the good news.”25
The Old Testament (OT) prophets present one
paradigm for the “visionary gift.” One aspect of this
paradigm is that God clothes the prophet with His Spirit.
Schniedewind suggests that God clothes the prophet with His
Spirit, so that the person receives and delivers His word
with the people to whom he is sent.26 Having received this
“visionary gift” of God through revelation, the prophet
discloses to humanity “what otherwise would remain
concealed.”27 Von Rad suggests that the prophet “completely
submerges his own ego” and speaks “as if he were his master
56
28Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, vol. 2,The Theology of Israel’s Prophetic Tradition, trans. D. M.G. Stalker (New York: Harper and Row, 1965), 37.
29Terence Fretheim, The Suffering of God: An OldTestament Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 166.
30Thomas C. Oden, The Word of Life: SystematicTheology, Volume Two (Peabody, MA: Prince Press, 1998), 286.
31David Allan Hubbard, Joel and Amos (Downers Grove:InterVarsity, 1989), 69.
32For rc;B;AlK; as a reference only to Israel, see T. J.Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah (Chicago: Moody, 1990), 71-72. For arguments that rc;B;AlK; includes Gentiles, see, WalterKaiser Jr., “The Promise of God and the Outpouring of theHoly Spirit: Joel 2:28-32 and Acts 2:16-21,” in The Livingand Active Word of God: Essays in Honor of Samuel Schultz,eds. Morris Inch and Ronald Youngblood (Winona Lake:Eisenbrauns, 1983), 119.
himself speaking.”28 Thus, the outpouring of the Spirit
empowers the prophet to engage culture as a living, speaking
embodiment of God’s word.
Fretheim suggests that Christ is the “culmination”
of the “visionary gift.”29 Jesus fully reveals divine
truth, proclaims the way of forgiveness, and calls for
decision as prophet.30 His ministry as prophet extends to
His followers. Thus, Pentecost marks the continuation of
the “visionary gift” by which God’s people fulfill the
function of prophet with Christ.
Pentecost signifies a new relationship between God
and humanity.31 Although Joel most likely envisions rc;B;AlK;
solely as Israel,32 Pentecost (Acts 2) and the outpouring of
57
33I. H. Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles, TyndaleNew Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980;reprint, 1999), 193. Marshall proposes that this phrase,“everyone who believes in Him,” probably intends a widermeaning than Israel.
34Wolff, Joel and Amos, 67.
35W. T. Connor, The Work of the Holy Spirit: ATreatment of the Biblical Doctrine of the Divine Spirit(Nashville: Broadman, 1940), 60.
36Robert Coleman, The Master Plan of Discipleship(Grand Rapids: Fleming H. Revell, 1987), 124.
the Spirit upon the Gentiles (Acts 10:43-45) recasts rc;B;AlK;
to include pavnta to;n pisteuvonta eij~ aujtovn (Acts 10:43).33
Everyone who believes in Jesus will receive forgiveness of
sin and “will stand in a relationship of immediacy to God”
through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.34
Pentecost’s events in Acts 2 provide a framework
for the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy. Indeed, “the whole
historical context in which it [Pentecost] takes place shows
that it was the outgrowth and development of God’s past
dealings with Israel.”35
Pentecost was the culminating act in an agelong processof redemptive activity, the final step in the descent ofthe divine into human. Jesus as an external Presencenow became enthroned Sovereign in the hearts of Hispeople. A new era of the Kingdom had begun in Spirit-endued witnesses. The Gospel had become life and powerwithin them. At last they were ready to go forth aslaborers in the harvest of the Lord.36
The followers of Christ continue His ministry in the
58
37C. E. Autrey, The Theology of Evangelism(Nashville: Broadman Press, 1966), 36-37.
38John 14:15-17, 25-26; 15:26-27; 16:7-11, 12-15.
39Calvin Mercer, “Jesus the Apostle: ‘Sending’ andthe Theology of John,” Journal of the EvangelicalTheological Society 35 (December 1992): 462.
world.37 They reveal God’s truth, proclaim His redemptive
work, and call the world to accept His salvation.
Likewise, Pentecost elucidates contemporary
application for apostolic evangelism with postmodern people.
An apostolic approach depends upon the duvnami~ promised by
Christ (Acts 1:8), inaugurated at Pentecost (Acts 2), and
continued today through the presence of the Spirit.
Christ’s followers continue in the postmodern milieu as a
“nation of prophets” possessed by God’s Spirit to accomplish
His redemptive mission in the postmodern world.
Selected Paraclete Passages in John’s Gospel
An examination of the Paraclete passages in John’s
Gospel provides a theological foundation for engaging
individuals in the postmodern milieu.38 These passages
demonstrate that Christ’s redemptive mission “is continued
through the Paraclete and the disciples.”39
Much of the literature on these passages focuses
59
40“Eschatological comforter,” [J. G. Davies, “ThePrimary Meaning of paravklhto",” Journal of TheologicalStudies 4 (1953): 35–38]; the spirit of messianicproclamation [C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St.John, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 461–63];“sponsor” or “supporter” [K. Grayston, “The Meaning ofPARAKLETOS,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 13(1981): 67–82]. Brown suggests that transliteration is bestsince the term is so packed with significance [Raymond E.Brown, “The Paraclete in the Fourth Gospel,” New TestamentStudies 13 (1967): 118–19].
41C. K. Barrett, Gospel According to St. John, 463.
42G. Quell, s.v. “ajlhvqeia,” in Theological Dictionaryof the New Testament, 10 vols., ed. G. Kittel, trans. anded. G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967; reprint,1978), 1:232-33. Hereafter cited, TDNT.
43Ibid., 1:234-35.
upon the various interpretations of the term, paravklhto~.40
Jesus identifies the Paraclete as to; pneu`ma th`~ ajlhqeiva~ (John
14:17; 15:26; 16:13). The phrase indicates “the Spirit who
communicates truth.”41
The concept of truth, hJ ajlhvqeia, needs further
examination. John’s use of ajlhvqeia is closely akin to the
Hebrew term tm,a. In a general sense, tm,a denotes that which
is solid, valid, or trustworthy.42 When used in connection
with God’s revelation, however, tm,a denotes that which
corresponds to fact or that which is not false.43 When the
OT prophets spoke, they communicated God’s truth to others.
In this communication, they spoke the word of God as tm,a
(Jer 23:29). Quell, therefore, suggests that one who
60
44Quell, s. v. “ajlhvqeia,” TDNT, 1:235.
45C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the FourthGospel (Cambridge: University Press, 1953), 177. Dodd makesthis contention in light of John’s specific use of the termin his Gospel.
46Dennis R. Lindsay, “What Is Truth? jAlhvqeia in theGospel of John,” Restoration Quarterly 35 (1993): 129-45.
47Ibid., 142.
48C. K. Barrett, Gospel According to St. John, 167.
49“The way and the truth and the life.”
communicates tm,a shares “the incontestable fact of truth,
and exercises truth, just as truth is the foundation in
God’s own acts and words.”44 Dodd concurs that ajlhvqeia often
denotes the “eternal reality as revealed to men.”45
Therefore, truth is the divine reality disclosed by God to
humanity.46 The Spirit is the “mediator of divine
revelation.”47 This stands in direct contrast to the
postmodern premise that truth is inaccessible. The Holy
Spirit reveals truth, which corresponds to fact and eternal
reality.
Barrett indicates that John employs ajlhvqeia as “the
Christian revelation brought by and revealed in Jesus.”48
Indeed, in the context of chapter 14, ajlhvqeia in verse 17
calls to mind the self-appellation of Jesus in verse 6: ejgwv
eijmi hJ oJdo;~ kai; hJ ajlhvqeia kai; hJ zwhv (John 14:6).49 The Spirit of
truth unveils, not merely a concept of truth, but the person
61
50D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 500.
51Kelly Monroe, “Finding God at Harvard: Reachingthe Post-Christian University,” in Telling the Truth:Evangelizing Postmoderns, ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 2000), 298.
52Emil Brunner, Truth as Encounter (Philadelphia:Westminster, 1964), 154.
53B. H. Jackayya, “ALHQEIA in the JohannineCorpus,” Concordia Theological Monthly 41 (March 1970): 171-75.
54“But the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom theFather will send in My name, that one will teach you all
who is truth.50 As Kelly Monroe suggests, truth in
reference to divine revelation is “neither an abstract
concept nor a social construct,” but truth is Christ.51
This follows the proposal of Emil Brunner, who writes:
“Truth has come into being through Jesus Christ. This is
the very core of the biblical message. Truth is something
that happens, that God does. Jesus Christ not only reveals,
[but also] He at once fulfills and realizes the will of
God.”52 The Spirit makes divine reality accessible --
ultimately in the person of Jesus Christ.53
Furthermore, the Spirit of truth unveils the
significance of Christ’s teachings to His followers. In
uJma`~ pavnta a} ei\pon uJmi`n.54 The consideration of didavxei pavnta
62
things and call to your mind all things which I have said toyou” (John 14:26).
55Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 351-52.
56D. A. Carson, Gospel According to John, 505.
57Ibid., 541-42.
presents a difficulty in interpretation. Some commentators,
such as Dunn, conclude that the didavxei pavnta of 14:26
includes “new revelation,” albeit controlled by the original
revelation of Christ.55 The Holy Spirit directs the minds
of the followers of Christ to the doctrine taught by Jesus.
D. A. Carson, however, indicates that the Spirit of truth
speaks directly to the disciples. Accordingly, the
Paraclete’s work is to help the disciples grasp the
significance of Christ’s teaching following the
resurrection.56 Carson, however, does allow for the
implication of illumination by the Spirit at work in
believers today.57
Stuhlmacher indicates, on the other hand, that “das
Johannesevangelium erklärt ausdrücklich, das Jesuszeugnis
der nachösterlichen Gemeinde sei vom Geist-Parakleten
bevollmächtigt und getragen (Joh 16,7ff.). Bei der
biblischen martyria handlet es sich also durchgängig um ein
Wortzeugnis in der Kraft des den Menschen zur Erkenntnis und
63
58Peter Stuhlmacher, Vom Verstehen des NeuenTestaments: Eine Hermeneutik (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck andRuprecht, 1986), 53. “The Gospel of John emphaticallydeclares that the testimony of Jesus of the post-Eastercommunity was empowered and born by the Spirit-Paraclete(John 16:7ff.). With the biblical martyria it is generallya question of a word-testimony which equips humanity for theknowledge and proclamation of God in the power of the HolySpirit.”
59Ibid., 222. Through the Spirit believers ofChrist “today hear the voice of God and His Christ.”
60Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed.(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 890.
zur Verkündigung Gottes befähigenden hl. Geistes.”58
Stuhlmacher maintains the uniqueness of the inspiration of
Scripture through the Holy Spirit. The Spirit, also,
illumines the deposit of divine revelation to believers.
Through this ministry, the Spirit equips believers to
proclaim the gospel to others. Through the Spirit the
believers of Christ “bis heute die Stimme Gottes und seines
Christus vernimmt” through Scripture.59 Erickson also
indicates that the ministry of the Spirit of truth helps
“believers today to understand Scripture.”60 The role of
the Paraclete as the Spirit of truth is to teach and to
remind disciples of the revelation of God through the life
and ministry of Jesus Christ so that they might share the
gospel of Christ with the conviction that it is absolute
truth.
The Paraclete aids followers of Christ for the
64
61Todd Hahn and David Verhaagen, Reckless Hope:Understanding and Reaching Baby Busters (Grand Rapids:Baker, 1996), 39.
62“Whenever the Paraclete whom I send to you fromthe Father may come, the Spirit of truth who comes from theFather, that one will testify concerning Me; and youtestify, because you are with Me from the beginning” (John15:26-27).
“witness to ascertainable facts” and “the making known and
confessing convictions.”63 The role of the Spirit is to
make known the facts concerning Jesus Christ. Allison A.
Trites indicates that the witness-motif presents an
historical apologetic concerning the miracles and
65
64Allison A. Trites, The New Testament Concept ofWitness (Cambridge: University Press, 1979), 78-90, 138.
65This subject will be examined in chapter five.
66Rudolph Bultmann, The Gospel of John, trans.George R. Beasley-Murray (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971), 553-54.
67Fritz Rienecker, Linguistic Key to the Greek NewTestament, ed. and trans. Cleon Rogers Jr. (Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1976; reprint, 1980), 253. This could be thesecond person indicative, but the context appears to suggestthe imperative.
resurrection of Jesus for a lost world.64 Indeed, the
apostolic approach for the evangelization of the ancient
world centers upon the concept of witness.65 Jesus sends
the Spirit of truth to empower His followers as witnesses
through His own activity of witness. The Spirit empowers
witnesses sufficiently in the postmodern world.
Jesus states that the witness of the Spirit
conjoins with the witness of His followers in John 15:27.
Bultmann suggests that “the Spirit is the power of the
proclamation in the community.”66 John uses different
tenses of marturevw in verses 26 and 27. When he describes
the testimony of the Spirit of truth, John uses the future
tense, marturhvsei. This represents the future work of the
Spirit of truth, which is to bear witness concerning Jesus.
In verse 27, John uses the imperative, marturei`te, which
denotes a command and mandate.67 The followers of Christ
have the mandate to join with the mission of the Spirit of
66
68Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 684.
69Herman A. Hoyt, “The Frantic Future and theChristian Directive: Acts 1:8,” Grace Journal 10 (Winter1969): 38. The concept of a “credible witness” isspecifically pertinent to the postmodern person who isimmersed in skepticism about absolute “truth-claims.”
70John Frame, “The Spirit and the Scriptures,” inHermeneutics, Authority, and Canon, eds. D. A. Carson andJohn D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 231.
71W. T. Connor, Work of the Holy Spirit, 89-90.
truth and bear witness concerning Jesus Christ.68 The
Spirit clothes the followers of Christ and their testimony
for effective evangelization. Hoyt further suggests that
the Spirit provides the duvnami~ for “credible witness.”69
John further describes the Spirit’s work in 16:13.
He highlights the work of the Spirit in the illumination of
Christ’s followers. The role of the Spirit, according to
John Frame, is to meet the need in believers “for inward
change, a need to reconcile ourselves to what God has
already revealed.”70
The Spirit bears witness of Christ to the world,
which is hostile toward Jesus and the gospel. The Holy
Spirit is on mission “to bear witness to Christ and to make
Christ real to men.”71 This is the work of the Spirit in
16:7-11. The key term in these verses is ejlevgcw. Büchsel
suggests that ejlevgcw usually means “to show someone his sin
67
72F. Büchsel, s.v. “ejlevgcw,” TDNT, 2:474.
73Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 564–65; George R.Beasley-Murray, John, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas:Word, 1987), 280-81.
74I. De la Potterie, La Vérité dans Saint Jean, 2vols. (Rome: PBI, 1977), 2:404: “to demonstrate the error orthe wrongs of somebody.”
75H. Sasse, s.v. “kovsmo~,” TDNT, 3:894.
76Walter Bauer, Das Johannesevangelium (Tübingen:Mohr, 1933), 149: “the three o{ti-sentences concern, in whatway the Spirit condemns regarding the named entity the worldto its humiliation.”
and to summon him to repentance.”72 Bultmann posits a legal
setting in which the Spirit stands as the prosecuting
attorney.73 De la Potterie indicates that ejlevgcw in this
passage is “démontrer l’erreur ou les torts de quelqu’un.”74
Kovsmo~ is the object of the Spirit’s work of ejlevgcw.
In distinctively Johannine language, the kovsmo~ consists of
those who are apart from Christ and opposed to Him. The
kovsmo~ is the aim of the redemptive mission of God through
the Spirit.75 John indicates that the Paraclete works in
the world to lead lost humanity to repentance.
The o}ti clauses provide further indication of the
Spirit’s work (John 16:9-11). Bauer indicates that “die
drei o{ti-Sätze 9-11 gehen an, inwiefern der Geist bezüglich
der genannten Dinge die Welt zu ihrer Beschämung
überführt.”76 In this sense, ejlevgcw takes the o{ti clauses as
68
77Carson, “The Function of the Paraclete in John16:7–11,” 548.
78Beasley-Murray, John, 281.
79Thomas C. Oden, Life in the Spirit, 91.
explicative, by which the Spirit demonstrates how the world
is wrong about sin, righteousness, and judgment.
Carson seeks to maintain the parallelism of the
three o{ti clauses and concludes that the Spirit speaks to
the world’s sin, pseudo-righteousness, and wrong estimation
of Jesus and their spiritual reality.77 Through witness,
the Spirit reveals the truth of sin, demonstrates the
pathway to righteousness, and warns of impending judgment.
The proclamation of the followers of Jesus is the instrument
which the Spirit of truth uses to accomplish His work in the
world.78 Through the witness of Christ’s followers, the
Paraclete penetrates the evangelistic obstacles to bring
individuals to the awareness of their need for repentance
and salvation through Christ.79
The promise of the “visionary gift” and the promise
of the Paraclete become a reality at Pentecost. God pours
out His Spirit upon believers in fulfillment of the OT
prophecy and Christ’s promise. Believers, then and now,
live in personal intimacy with the Father and continue the
69
80Walt Russell, “The Holy Spirit’s Ministry in theFourth Gospel,” Grace Theological Journal 8 (Fall 1987):237.
81David Wells, God the Evangelist: How the SpiritWorks to Bring Men and Women to Faith (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1987; reprint, Carlisle, Cumbria: PaternosterPress, 1997), 46.
The Holy Spirit: The Bridge for the ObjectiveTruth of the Gospel
The evangelization of postmodern people occurs in a
chaotic kovsmo~ in which postmodernism is hostile to the
gospel as objective truth. Bearing witness to Jesus in the
postmodern world presents the challenge of epistemology.
The ministry of the Spirit, however, provides a bridge
between the gospel metanarrative and postmodern incredulity.
David Wells correctly argues that the evangelistic witness
is effective “because of the mighty power of the Holy
Spirit, who alone is able to turn rebellious sinners into
obedient followers of Christ.”81
Epistemology: A Postmodern Dilemma
The postmodern premise suggests that one may not
know truth because language is not a clear nor reliable
representation of truth.82 By implication, postmodernism
70
83Julian N. Hartt, “Theological Investments inStory: Some Comments on Recent Developments and SomeProposals,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 52(1984): 121.
84Kelsey’s approach extends Frei’s proposal. SeeHans Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative (New Haven:Yale University Press, 1974).
proposes that the gospel is an illusionary foundation, since
no foundations for knowledge or certainty exist. This
presents a dilemma in the evangelistic work of the church.
Julian Hartt rightly assesses this postmodern dilemma: “If
the ontological truth-claims of the New Testament are false,
then the Christian religious life, understood and pursued as
the knowledge and service of God in Jesus Christ, is founded
on an illusion.”83
With epistemology jettisoned in postmodernism, the
evangelistic ministry of the church submerges into a
quagmire of postmodern skepticism and doubt in relation to
the gospel. The postliberal and revisionist approaches to
postmodernism increase this skepticism.
For example, the postliberal approach begins with
the “self” and moves to Scripture. David Kelsey’s
discussion of Scripture presents a postliberal approach.84
Kelsey sees the authority of a text in its pragmatic and
productive uses within the context of a particular
71
85David H. Kelsey, The Uses of Scripture in RecentTheology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 150.
86Ibid., 89.
87David Tracy, Blessed Rage for Order: The NewPluralism in Theology (New York: Seabury Press, 1975;reprint, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 43-45.
88Ibid., 175.
community.85 For Kelsey, texts are authoritative on the
basis of “how they are used in the Christian community.”86
Along these lines, however, Kelsey’s postliberal approach
devolves into an extreme pragmatic theory of truth, whereby
something is true because it works. Evangelization of
postmodern people, then, depends primarily upon the
demonstration of the gospel’s pragmatic effects as a sign of
its veracity rather than upon the work of the Spirit of
truth.
David Tracy proposes a revisionist model which
begins with self and moves to questions about God and
Scripture. The revisionist approach couples “Christian
texts” with “common human experience and language” as the
two principle sources of theology.87 Tracy offers a
theology which provides a “proper understanding of our
common experience and its fundamental continuity with the
God proclaimed in the Christian scriptures.”88 For Tracy
the gospel may be true if it is “existentially meaningful,”
72
89Ibid., 71.
90W. F. Lofthouse, “The Holy Spirit in Acts and theFourth Gospel,” Expository Times 52 (1940-41): 336.
91Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 890.
92“All authority has been given to Me in heaven andupon the earth.”
93W. Foerster, s.v. “ejxousiva,” TDNT, 2:566.
internally coherent, and verifiable through experiential
analysis.89 Truth is determined by the self-enlightenment
which a text provides. In this light, evangelization of
postmodern people depends upon the gospel’s ability to lead
the individual to self-understanding.
An apostolic approach, however, presents a
different solution to the dilemma of epistemology. The
“conception of the Spirit” in the evangelistic ministry of
an apostolic approach answers the postmodern skepticism.90
The Spirit illumines the hearts and minds of
believers through the Scripture to the truth of God found in
Jesus Christ,91 so that each believer receives the “Spirit
of Christian proclamation.” This outpouring inheres
authority (ejxousiva) and power (duvnami~) for the evangelization
of postmodern people. Although postmodernism rejects this
type of authority, Jesus declares in Matt 28:18, jEdovqh moi
pa`sa ejxousiva ejn oujranw/ kai; ejpi; th`~ gh`~,92 so that ejxousiva represents
the power of ultimate arbitration ejn oujranw/ kai; ejpi; th`~ gh`~.93
95“Therefore as you go make disciples of allnations.”
96W. Grundmann, s.v. “duvnami~,” TDNT, 2:284-85.
Pannenberg notes that “as the Spirit bears witness in
believers to Jesus as the truth of God, they themselves are
ecstatically raptured and are outside themselves in Jesus,
while conversely Jesus is in them to bind them in fellowship
with one another, and along with Jesus the Father also takes
up [H]is dwelling in believers.”94 Just as Jesus possesses
ejxousiva, He invests His ejxousiva through the Spirit to His
followers. This continual presence of Christ in believers
produces the authority for evangelism in a postmodern world.
It is this ejxousiva of Christ which produces the right and
responsibility of His followers to poreuqevnte~ ou\n maqhteuvsate
pavnta ta; e[qnh (Matt 28:19a).95
Bearing witness in the epistemological dilemma of
postmodernism highlights the significance of duvnami~.
Indeed, the basic meaning of duvnami~ centers on one’s ability
to perform a task.96 In the context of evangelism, duvnami~
is the enabling power of God in the witness of Christ’s
followers. According to Christ’s promise (Acts 1:8), this
power comes upon Christ’s followers through the Holy Spirit.
74
97Ibid., 311.
98This language represents Paul’s experience on theDamascus road (Acts 9). The layers of rabbinicinterpretation were deconstructed or unraveled in a decisiveencounter with Jesus Christ, the truth. Upon thisencounter, Paul’s epistemological skepticism of Jesus Christas Messiah and Lord was diffused. The power of the gospelled him to repentance and salvation.
The Spirit “dispenses and mediates” the power which enabled
Christ to fulfill His mission and which equips His followers
to “stand in the place of Jesus and continue His work.”97
The Spirit of truth joins Christ’s followers in the
witnessing encounter to bear witness together that Jesus
Christ is the way, truth, and life.
The Spirit further infuses the witnessing encounter
with duvnami~ to lead postmodern people to truth. The
conversion of Saul provides exemplifies the evangelization
in the midst of epistemological uncertainty (Acts 9).
Although Saul rejected the “truth-claims” of the gospel
(Acts 6-7), the power of the Spirit of truth deconstructs
his epistemological skepticism (Rom 1:16-17).98 In the same
manner, the Spirit of truth deconstructs the epistemological
dilemma of postmodern people.
Borrowing cautiously from Tracy’s revisionist
approach, the Spirit of truth establishes the gospel of
Christ as “meaningful” to the postmodern person through the
conviction (ejlevgcw) of sin, righteousness, and judgment.
75
99David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity(Cambridge: Basil Blackwell, 1989), 44–45.
The Spirit of truth establishes the “meaning” of the gospel
through the empowered, internally coherent proclamation of
Christ’s witnesses. The Spirit of truth establishes the
“truth” of the gospel experientially and existentially in
postmodern people. The Spirit of truth answers the
postmodern dilemma of epistemology through His witness to
truth and the conviction of truth for the postmodern kovsmo~
of the truth. In this light, the evangelization of
postmodern people depends primarily upon the proclamation of
the gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit to lead
postmodern people to truth who is Jesus Christ.
Beyond Babel: Epistemology and eJtevrai~ glwvssai~
The evangelization of postmodern people presents
the problem of language in a world of pluralities. The
global scope of evangelization for the apostolic and
contemporary church creates the difficulties of language and
culture. David Harvey describes postmodernism as a
rejection of any “meta-language” which can overcome the
plurality of “power-discourses” or “language-games.”99 The
events of Pentecost point to the “meta-language” of God
through the Spirit which overcomes the problem of languages.
Dunn suggests that “the glossolalia of Pentecost
76
100Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 174.
101“They began to speak with other tongues” (Acts2:4), and “Each one was hearing them speaking in his ownlanguage” (Acts 2:6).
102See, Malcolm McDow and Alvin L. Reid, Firefall:How God Has Shaped History Through Revivals (Nashville:Broadman and Holman, 1997), 86.
103Jacques Derrida, “Des Tours de Babel,” Semeia 54(1991): 3-34, especially 7-8, 31-32.
104Ibid., 7.
105Ibid., 8.
fulfils [sic] Joel’s expectation of the outpouring of the
Spirit in prophecy.”100 In verse 4 Luke states that the
disciples h[rxanto lalei`n eJtevrai~ glwvssai~, and in verse 6 Luke
states that h[kouon ei|~ e{kasto~ th/ ijdiva/ dialevktw/ lalouvntwn auJtwn.101
The difference between glwvssai~ and dialevktw/ is the difference
between that which is spoken and that which is heard.102
This writer contends that the Spirit of God communicates
through the words of Christ’s followers so that the hearer
understands the message which is communicated.
Derrida presents the story of Babel as a foundation
for deconstruction.103 He states that God “deconstructs” the
universal language so that translation is impossible.104 The
result is the “multiplicity of idioms” found in a confusion
of tongues.105 Derrida posits that God deconstructs meaning.
Despite Derrida’s pursuit of confusion and trace through
108William Neil, The Acts of the Apostles, NewCentury Bible Commentary (London: Marshall, Morgan, andScott, 1973; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 74.
109Thomas C. Oden, Life in the Spirit, 64.
110Dockery, “The Theology of Acts,” 46.
111C. Bartholomew, “Babel and Derrida: Postmodernism,Language, and Biblical Interpretation,” Tyndale Bulletin 49(November 1998): 317.
deconstruction,106 Umberto Eco suggests that the confusion of
languages at Babel provides the hope that confusion might
end.107
Luke’s list of nations (Acts 2:9-11) covers the
entirety of the known world in the apostolic period.108
Amidst these pluralities, the “truth-claims” of the gospel
story encountered the obstacles of language and meaning.
Yet, eJtevrai~ glwvssai~ at Pentecost shows that “the Spirit of
God speaks all languages.”109 The reality of eJtevrai~ glwvssai~
establishes confidence in communicating the gospel cross-
culturally, for God speaks through His followers to hearers
of all races, languages, and cultures (Acts 2:6-8).110 Thus,
the Spirit reverses the consequences of Babel in Genesis
11:4-9.111 Pentecost marks the call of grace to “all
humanity by making all human languages congruent with God’s
78
112Thomas C. Oden, Life in the Spirit, 64.
113William Neil, The Acts of the Apostles, 72.
114For a discussion of the veracity of the speechesin Acts and the arguments against it, see, Hans Conzelmann,A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, trans. JamesLimburg, A. T. Kraabel, and Donald Juel (Philadelphia:Fortress, 1987), xliv. This writer contends that Luke’srecord of the speeches in Acts reflect the content of thesermons delivered, yet the sermons are not verbatim reports.
115H. N. Ridderbos, The Speeches of Peter in the Actsof the Apostles (London: Tyndale, 1962), 11.
address.”112 Neil indicates that the occasion of eJtevrai~
glwvssai~ reverses the curse of Babel so that “now men from
all nations could be brought into one fellowship by the
power of the Spirit.”113
The Spirit of truth serves as the epistemological
bridge for evangelism with postmodern people. Regardless
the cultural, ethnic, or socially informed situation of
postmodern people, the Spirit of truth fills the witness of
Christ’s followers so that the hearers experience conviction
and comprehension.
Evangelistic Approach at Pentecost, Acts 2:14-41
Peter’s sermon at Pentecost represents an apostolic
approach for evangelism.114 An examination of Peter’s sermon
provides a framework for the proclamation of the gospel in a
postmodern world. Ridderbos insightfully suggests that this
sermon is illustrative of “apostolic preaching.”115
79
116On the paradigmatic nature of the speech, seeMarion L. Soards, The Speeches in Acts: Their Content,Context, and Concerns (Louisville: Westminster, 1994), 9-11.
117C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and ItsDevelopment (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1936), 7-8. Dodddistinguishes khvrugma from didavskein. The latter is moralinstruction for believers.
118Ibid., 17-24.
119These five elements are: 1) the dawn of themessianic age (Acts 2:16-21); 2) the life, death, andresurrection of Christ (Acts 2:22-32); 3) Jesus is theexalted Lord sitting at the right hand of God as the head ofthe “new Israel” (Acts 2:33-36); 4) the Spirit is the signof Christ’s exaltation (Acts 2:33); 5) a call forrepentance, the offer of forgiveness, and the gift of theSpirit (Acts 2:38-39). The sixth element speaks to theconsummation of the messianic age (Acts 3:21).
120John B. Polhill, Acts, New American Commentary(Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 107.
Accordingly, Peter’s sermon is paradigmatic of other
speeches in Acts as well as for evangelism in postmodern
times.116
C. H. Dodd indicates that the apostolic khvrugma is
the public proclamation of the gospel to unbelievers.117
Dodd proposes that the apostolic khvrugma includes six basic
elements present in Luke’s presentation of the speeches.118
Of these six elements, Peter’s sermon at Pentecost includes
five.119 Within this examination, one notes the OT
foundations of the messianic age, the life, death, and
exaltation of Jesus, and a call to repentance.120
An apostolic approach for the evangelization of
80
121C. H. Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 8.
122E. Earle Ellis, Prophecy and Hermeneutic in EarlyChristianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 151-52.
123Ibid., 160-61.
124J. W. Bowker, “Speeches in Acts: A Study of Proemand Yellammendu Form,” New Testament Studies 14 (1967-1968):96-109; Richard Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in theApostolic Period (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 100-103.
125E. Ellis, Prophecy and Hermeneutic, 201-204.
126Ibid., 203-204.
postmodern people requires the proclamation of the gospel.
Peter’s sermon provides a pattern for this public
proclamation. The apostolic khvrugma is not optional in
evangelism, for it is the essence of gospel proclamation.121
Most commentators agree that Peter utilizes either
a midrash or pesher model. Generally, the midrash is
“interpretive renderings of the Hebrew text.”122 The pesher
adds an “eschatological exegesis” by which the OT prophecies
find fulfillment in the current time of the commentary.123
Bowker and Longenecker point to Peter’s sermon as a midrash
of Joel’s prophecy.124 Ellis suggests that the
eschatological focus drawn from Joel 2 reveals Peter’s use
of pesher.125 Following Ellis’ suggestion, an apostolic
method begins with the contemporary event, brings together
an OT text and “christological kerygma,” and applies the
interpretation to the evangelization of the hearers.126
81
127M. Soards, The Speeches in Acts, 32.
128C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures: TheSubstructure of New Testament Theology (London: Nisbet,1952), 127. Dodd writes that OT scripture “is thesubstructure of all Christian theology and contains alreadyits chief regulative ideas.” This pertains to a Jewishaudience. For the evangelization of Gentiles, see chapterfive, “Apostolic Witness in Postmodern Time, Acts 1:8.”
129F. F. Bruce, “The Significance of the Speeches forInterpreting Acts,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 33
Peter’s explication of the phenomena of Pentecost
to the crowd presents the message of salvation.127 Four
elements within Peter’s sermon provide insight for an
apostolic approach: the allure of the Spirit’s activity, the
OT foundation, the “christological kerygma,” and the witness
of Christ’s followers. The following section will focus
upon these elements as instructive for the evangelization of
postmodern people. The propositions from OT Scripture
presents a central feature in the definition of the Spirit’s
activity, the interpretation of the “christological
kerygma,” and in the validation of the followers of Jesus.
Propositions from Old Testament Scripture
Peter’s evangelistic approach interprets the
experience of his hearers with the OT Scripture.128 Joel
2:28-32 provide the interpretive framework for the
miraculous events of Pentecost and serve as a spring-board
for the systematic presentation of the gospel.129
82
(Fall 1990): 21.
130John B. Polhill, Acts, 114.
131M. Dahood, Psalm I: 1-50, The Anchor Bible (GardenCity, NJ: Doubleday, 1966), 1:91, suggests that this phraseindicates eternal life.
132Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “David, Being Therefore aProphet (Acts 2:30),” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972):332-339; see also, Walter C. Kaiser Jr., “The Promise toDavid in Psalm 16 and Its Application in Acts 2:25–33 and13:32–37,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 23(1980): 228.
133W. Kaiser Jr., “Promise to David,” 229.
Psalm 16:8-11 provides the foundation for the
resurrection. A key element in Peter’s interpretation is
the identification of dysij; or “favored one” (Ps 16:10).
Kaiser suggests that David is the representative and
recipient of “God’s ancient but ever-renewed promise.”130
The term dysij; points to the object of God’s favor and
covenant commitment. God’s promise of a future for His dysij;
is the “path of life.”131
Fitzmeyer indicates that David’s prophetic ability
led him to see the future of God’s dysij;.132 Peter utilizes
David’s prophecy that God’s “ultimate hasid would triumph
over death. For David, this was all one word: God’s ancient
but ever-new promise.”133 Through the OT foundation, Peter
declares that Christ’s resurrection fulfills the promise of
the eternal kingdom to David. An analysis of this
83
134See, W. R. G. Loader, “Christ at the Right Hand:Psalm CX.i in the N.T.,” New Testament Studies 24 (1977–78):199–217.
135See Mark 12:35-37 in which Jesus attributes thepsalm to David.
“christological kerygma” will follow in the next section.
Psalm 110:1 provides the foundation for the
exaltation of Jesus. Peter declares that the unusual
phenomenon at Pentecost is the outpouring of the Spirit from
the exalted Jesus Christ. Psalm 110:1 serves as Peter’s OT
support for the exaltation of Jesus as well as the blessings
of the exalted Christ upon His followers.134 The oracle from
Yahweh to ynIdoa, however, is certain in its portrayal of ynIdoa as
distinct from both David and Yahweh.135
In this way, OT Scripture serves as the foundation
of knowledge to interpret the experience of the hearers. To
this foundation, Peter joins the “christological kerygma”
and the personal testimony of the disciples. OT Scripture
provides the foundation of knowledge for the “truth-claims”
of the cross and the resurrection.
The Cross and the Resurrection: An Objective, Historical Reality
Alvin Reid suggests, “The objective message of the
cross and Jesus’ resurrection permeated the witness of the
84
136Alvin Reid, Introduction to Evangelism (Nashville:Broadman and Holman, 1998), 48.
137Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: AnInquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity, 2d ed.(London: SCM Press, 1990), 16-21; Henry J. Cadbury, TheMaking of Luke-Acts (New York: MacMillan, 1927), 280; HansConzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke, trans. GeoffreyBuswell (New York: Harper and Row, 1960), 200-201.
138I. H. Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970), 171.
139Ibid., 169-73. For contrary view, see Dunn, Unityand Diversity, 17-18.
early church.”136 Peter’s sermon affirms that statement.
The “christological kerygma” in Peter’s sermon focuses upon
the death (Acts 2:22-23), resurrection (Acts 2:24-28; Ps
16:8-11), and exaltation of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:29-36; Ps
110:1). Dunn, following Conzelmann and Cadbury, however,
contends that the kerygma of Acts does not contain a
“theology of the death of Jesus.” He argues that the
sermons in Acts do not interpret the historical fact of
Jesus’ death but focus on His resurrection and exaltation.137
I. H. Marshall also acknowledges that Luke provides “scanty”
material on the death of Jesus and its significance.138
Marshall, however, finds vicarious atonement in Philip’s
evangelistic encounter with the Ethiopian (Acts 8:26-39) and
in the formula, “hanging on a tree” (Acts 5:30; 10:39;
13:29).139 Conner argues that Peter applies the Servant
motif to Jesus (Acts 3:13, 26; 4:27, 30), “who redeems [H]is
85
140Leon Morris, The Cross in the New Testament (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 111.
141It is possible that the participle modifies bothboulh`/ and prognwvsei, since both are in the dative.
142K. L. Schmidt, s.v. “oJrivzw,” TDNT, 452-56.
143Fritz Rienecker, Linguistic Key to the Greek NewTestament, trans. Cleon Rogers Jr. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1976; reprint, 1980), 266.
144H. J. Holtzmann, Die Apostelgeschichte, 3d ed.,Hand-Commentar zum Neuen Testament 1/2 (Tübingen: J. C. B.Mohr, 1901), 34. “So here human freedom and divinenecessity presented to themselves the source: this thesimplest and probably also oldest form, to reconcile
people by suffering and death.”140
Peter’s sermon at Pentecost presents the cross as
the essential ingredient in the purpose of God for the
that oJrivzw promotes the idea of God’s determination and
appointment.142 Peter’s use of oJrivzw suggests that God set a
pathway for the completion of His purpose (boulhv).143
Peter indicates that God purposed for Jesus to be
crucified. Even though God’s predetermined counsel includes
the death of Jesus, Peter unapologetically proclaims the
human responsibility. Holtzmann states that “so reichten
sich hier menschliche Freiheit und göttliche Notwendigkeit
die Hand: Dies die einfachste und wohl auch älteste Form,
sich mit dem paradoxen Schicksal des Messias auszusöhnen.”144
86
themselves to the paradoxical destiny of the Messiah.”
145John B. Polhill, Acts, 112.
146Ibid. “Lawless hands” is idiomatic for Gentiles.
147Neil, Acts of the Apostles, 76.
148I. H. Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles, 74-76.
149Leon Morris, Cross in the New Testament, 124-25.
150Alister McGrath, The Mystery of the Cross (GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1988), 29.
The issue for Holtzmann is the paradox between divine
purpose and human responsibility. Polhill suggests that
“Peter carefully balanced the elements of God’s divine
purposes and the human responsibility for the crucifixion of
Jesus.”145 Peter also declares that the Jewish crowd of
hearers and the Gentiles share the guilt of killing Jesus.146
The cross, however, “was not a disaster but an act
of God’s grace for man’s salvation.”147 Peter proclaims the
triumph of God over death through Christ (Acts 2:24).148
Morris insightfully states that the message of the cross in
the Pentecost sermon “is not put forward from any idea that
it was good teaching, or good strategy, or that it could
meet a damaging criticism. It is put forward because it is
held to be true.”149 For Peter and the apostolic church, the
cross is an objective, historical reality which God purposed
for the salvation of humanity (Acts 2:39).150
87
151W. T. Conner, The Cross in the New Testament(Nashville: Broadman, 1954), 48.
152Leon Morris, Cross in the New Testament, 130.
153A. Oepke, s.v. “ajnivsthmi,” TDNT, 1:370-72.
154Curtis Vaughan, Acts: A Study Guide Commentary(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 27.
Peter also presents the resurrection of Jesus as an
objective, historical reality. The apostolic church
connects the significance of the cross with the
resurrection.151 This significance is that the cross is “the
means to the end, and that end is victory.”152 God provides
victory over death through Christ’s resurrection. The
gospel promises victory through the inauguration of the new
age at Christ’s exaltation and His bestowal of the Spirit to
His followers (Acts 2:33).153
An apostolic approach follows Peter’s example. The
OT Scripture provides the hearers foundations for belief.
The eyewitness testimonies of the disciples about the
resurrection also provide a foundation for belief. Finally,
Peter presents the proof of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:33).
This represents the “crowning proof that Christ had been
raised from the dead and enthroned in heaven as exalted
Messiah.”154
David Wells connects this proclamation also to the
witness of the Spirit of truth. The witness of the Spirit
88
155David Wells, God the Evangelist, 45. Peter’sstatement in Acts 2:36 is a climactic statement, by whichPeter and the apostolic church give to Jesus the highesttitle, signifying Yahweh Himself.
joins Peter’s evangelistic proclamation to draw the hearers
toward salvation.
The sermon Peter preached at Pentecost was one in whichJesus was the focus and the Holy Spirit’s ministry ofconviction was apparent. He convicted listeners of sin(‘you . . . put [H]im to death’; Acts 2:23),righteousness (‘But God raised [H]im from the dead’;[H]e is ‘exalted to the right hand of God’; 2:24, 33),and judgment (‘The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at [M]yright hand until I make your enemies a footstool foryour feet’; 2:34-35). Those who heard were ‘cut to theheart’ (2:37); on that day, three thousand believed.155
Thus, Peter joins the testimony of the Spirit to evangelize
the Jerusalem crowd at Pentecost.
Following these proofs, Peter concludes his
evangelistic sermon with a call for the audience to repent.
He declares that the foundations for faith have been laid at
the feet of his hearers so that they should know (ginwskevtw)
that God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36).
The truth of God’s salvation is the impetus for the creation
of the community of faith (Acts 2:41-47).
An apostolic approach for the evangelization of
postmodern people proclaims the cross and the resurrection
as the “truth-claims” of the gospel to postmodern people.
The contemporary church follows the example of the apostolic
church, proclaiming the death and resurrection as objective,
89
156Robert Webber, Ancient-Future Faith: RethinkingEvangelicalism for a Postmodern World (Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 1999), 150.
157Ibid.
historical facts which are essential in evangelism.
Robert Webber suggests that evangelism in a
postmodern world “must recover the emphasis that Christ’s
death is a victory over the powers of evil.”156 This is the
message which Peter proclaims in his sermon at Pentecost,
and it is the content of the proclamation of the gospel in
the postmodern world. The proclamation of Christus Victor
“makes connection with churched and unchurched people.”157
In the evangelization of postmodern people, the gospel of
the cross and the empty tomb declares that God has gained a
victory that is unattainable without Him.
The contemporary church must proclaim the
“christological kerygma.” Scripture, personal witness, and
the Spirit of truth provide the foundations for belief.
Proclaiming the cross and resurrection as objective,
historical realities, the Spirit of truth verifies the truth
of the gospel and convicts postmodern people.
Objective or Communal? The Postmodern Question of Truth
The “truth-claims” of the cross and the
resurrection are essential for the evangelization of
159On the production of meaning and truth by thecommunity, see Stanley Fish, Is There a Text in This Class?(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980), 14.
160Hans Hübner, “The Holy Spirit in Holy Scripture,”Ecumenical Review 41 (July 1989): 328–29; Stanley Grenz,Theology for the Community of God (Nashville: Broadman andHolman, 1994), 482-85.
postmodern people; yet for the postmodern mind, the question
of truth and the acquisition of truth must be considered.
According Richard Rorty and other postmodern theorists,
truth is a function of community.158 The community creates
truth that is most beneficial for the continuance of that
community.159 This truth remains in tact until an individual
or a group of individuals within the community develop
enough skill in the “language games” to change or alter the
truth. Truth then changes according to the context of the
community and the language games within the community.
The outpouring of the Spirit of truth at Pentecost
teaches, however, that community is a function of truth.
The Christian community in apostolic times and in the
postmodern world is built upon the truth of the gospel and
the power of the Spirit of truth applying the truth to the
hearts of the hearers. The Holy Spirit creates community
through the truth of the gospel.160 The Holy Spirit, who
91
161William Neil, Acts of the Apostles, 79; Dunn,Jesus and the Spirit, 260-62; G. W. H. Lampe, The Seal ofthe Spirit (London: Longmans, 1951), 3-7.
162Arthur Darby Nock, Conversion: The Old and New inReligion from Alexander the Great to Augustine of Hippo(London: Oxford University Press, 1933), 7.
163Rienecker, Linguistic Key, 267. Luke’sdescription, katenuvghsan th;n kardivan, indicates a “painfulemotion which penetrates the heart as if stinging.”
comes to indwell individuals upon their conversion,
validates the common bond of salvation for every member of
the Christian community.161 The Holy Spirit creates an
epistemological bridge to conversion and an experiential
unity within the community.
The Spirit of Truth, Conversion, and Community
Arthur Darby Nock provides a helpful definition of
conversion as a “reorientation of the soul” which involves a
“turning which implies a consciousness that a great change
is involved, that the old was wrong and the new is right.”162
In Peter’s Pentecost sermon, the people respond to the
gospel with a cry of dismay over their condition (Acts
2:37).163
Peter calls for repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38).
In the context of this call for decision, repentance
connects the hearer to conversion. Stagg confirms this
connection when he declares that metanoevw represents the NT
92
164Frank Stagg, New Testament Theology (Nashville:Broadman, 1962), 118-19.
165J. Behm, s. v. “metanoevw ktl,” TDNT, 4:1003-1004.
167G. Bertram, s. v. “ejpistrevfw ktl,” TDNT, 7:727-28.
168David Wells, God the Evangelist, 95.
idea of conversion. He writes, “The call to ‘repentance,’
then, was a call . . . to conversion.”164 Repentance and
conversion mean to change one’s mind and turn toward
something or someone else. Indeed, Behm indicates that
conversion is “the basic requirement” in the apostolic
kerygma, and metanoevw is “the heart of the apostolic
mission.”165 Peter clearly presents the connection between
metanoevw and ejpistrevfw in Acts 3:19.166 Repentance is to
change one’s mind concerning the old way of life, and
conversion is to change one’s direction toward God.167
The work of repentance and conversion comes to the
postmodern person through the work of the Spirit of truth in
the evangelistic engagement. The Spirit of truth leads the
postmodern person to the acquisition of the truth of the
gospel. Wells suggests that evangelism involves
“explanation and persuasion relative to Christ” and the
truth of the cross. “Biblical conversion is conversion that
is brought about by truth.”168
93
169William Barclay, The Promise of the Spirit(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 58.
170George R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the NewTestament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 102-103. Thephrase, eij~ a[fesin tw`n aJmartiw`n uJmw`n (Acts 2:38), should beconnected to metanoevw in conjunction with baptivzw. As Bruce(Book of Acts, 70) writes: “It would indeed be a mistake tolink the words ‘for the forgiveness of sins’ with thecommand ‘be baptized’ to the exclusion of the prior commandto repent. It is against the whole genius of biblicalreligion to suppose that the outward rite could have anyvalue except insofar as it was accompanied by the work ofgrace within.”
171Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, 103.
172“For in one Spirit we all were baptized into onebody” (1 Cor 12:13a).
Baptism connects the hearer to community. Barclay
writes that baptism joins the “confession of faith” with
“entry into the fellowship of the church.”169 Beasley-Murray
shows that the confession of faith identifies the believer
to the Lord for the purpose or with the result of
salvation.170 The corollary identification in baptism is
incorporation as a member of the community of believers.
The believer in baptism numbers “himself with the people who
invoke the Name of Jesus” and is incorporated “into the
community of those who inherit the Kingdom.”171
The concept of incorporation indicates the nature
of involvement and participation in Christ’s body. Paul
Here, Paul emphasizes the relationship between “Spirit-
94
173G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the NewTestament, 169-71. The preposition ejn may signify thedative, locative, or instrumental case. If one sees thelocative case in this verse, then pneuvmati is the realm inwhich believers are baptized. If one sees the instrumentalof agency, then pneuvmati is the “agent of baptism tomembership in the Body” (167).
174Ibid., 169. His arguments include: 1) the work ofChrist by His Spirit in baptism for consecration of thebeliever in 1 Cor 6:11; 2) evidence from Acts in which theprimitive church saw the fulfillment of messianic baptism inthe outpouring of the Spirit and in the “administration ofbaptism to those responsive to the gospel” and 3) theconnection between Gal 3:27 and this verse which link“baptism to Christ with baptism to the Church.”
175Ibid., 170.
baptism” and incorporation into the “body of Christ.”
Beasley-Murray takes the phrase, ejn eJni; pneuvmati, to depict
agency, so that the Spirit is the “agent of baptism to
membership in the Body.”173 Beasley-Murray contends that
this verse points directly to “Christian baptism in
water.”174 This conclusion presents dangerous implications.
The apparent danger of this view, in this writer’s opinion,
is the unlikely identification that water-baptism is Spirit-
baptism. Beasley-Murray sees this danger and writes that
“there is nothing automatic about this association of
baptism and the Spirit” but “the relation of the believer
with the Spirit is to be construed in strict analogy with
his relation to the Risen Christ.”175 Beasley-Murray,
therefore, contends that the reference in this verse is to
95
176Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians,New International Commentary on the New Testament (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 604-606.
177Ibid., 605.
178See Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NewInternational Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1996), 359-79.
179Ibid., 604 n. 24.
180Ibid., 604.
water-baptism, but it does not refer to water-baptism as a
salvific act of the Spirit through water-baptism.
Fee provides a lengthy discussion on this verse.
He suggests that Paul is not referring to water-baptism in
any way in this text.176 His argument, which looks upon ejn
eJni; pneuvmati as locative, places the emphasis upon conversion
when the believer is “immersed in the Spirit.”177
Although Fee’s emphasis on conversion is admirable,
one must ask if his diligent denial is justified. Paul
understands the symbolism of water-baptism (Rom 6:3-11).178
As Fee concedes, however, “the point of reference for the
metaphor would be their own baptism (immersion) in water.”179
Fee himself indicates the association between baptism and
the reception of the Spirit, which is the “crucial
ingredient” of conversion.180 It is therefore reasonable
that Paul refers to conversion, calling to his readers’
minds their water-baptism, when he writes ejn eJni; pneuvmati hJmei`~
96
181F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, New CenturyBible Commentary (London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott,1971), 121.
182Beverly Roberts Gaventa, From Darkness to Light:Aspects of Conversion in the New Testament (Philadelphia:Fortress Press, 1986), 98.
pavnte~ eij~ e{n sw`ma ejbaptivsqhmen.
The significance of this discussion is that Spirit-
baptism incorporates believers into the “body of Christ.”
Water-baptism is the visible demonstration of this
incorporation. Bruce suggests that “faith-union with Christ
brought [H]is people into membership of the Spirit-baptized
community, procuring for them the benefits of the once-for-
all outpouring of the Spirit at the dawn of the new age,
while baptism in water was retained as the outward and
visible sign of their incorporation into Christ.”181
The call to conversion and community through
repentance and baptism provides a transition from Peter’s
Pentecost sermon to apostolic community life (Acts 2:41-47).
Gaventa points out that Acts 2:38 “provides a transition to
the ensuing narrative of the expansion of the Jerusalem
[Christian] community.”182 Those who submit to baptism as an
expression of repentance receive the seal of the Spirit.
Conversion which is wrought by the Spirit leads to community
of the Spirit in the fellowship of the saints. Thus, the
apostle Paul elucidates the preeminent community ethic in
97
183“One body and one Spirit, just as also you havebeen called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, onefaith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who [is]above all and through all and in all” (Eph 4:4-6).
his epistle to the Ephesians: e}n sw`ma kai; e}n pneu`ma, kaqw;~ kai;
the Holy Spirit, and evangelism, the following foundations
hopefully are established. First, Pentecost is the
historical and theological hinge for the evangelization of
postmodern people. God inaugurates a new age in which the
church joins the Spirit to evangelize the postmodern world.
Second, the Spirit is the epistemological bridge for the
objective truth of the gospel in a postmodern context. The
Spirit unites ejlevgcw with the evangelism of the church.
Third, Peter’s sermon at Pentecost reveals an example of
apostolic khvrugma for postmodern people by which the Spirit
speaks through the believer to the hearer. The objective
reality of the cross and resurrection is the center of
evangelistic preaching to postmodern people. The Spirit
establishes the conviction of postmodern people that the
“truth-claims” of the apostolic khvrugma are in fact true.
The Spirit leads postmodern people to conversion through
repentance and community through baptism.
1Paul Minear, Images of the Church in the NewTestament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 268-69. Heproposes ninety-six “analogies” of the church in the NT. This examination is not as exhaustive as Minear’s and
98
CHAPTER THREE
THE FUNCTION OF COMMUNITY IN AN APOSTOLIC APPROACH
An apostolic approach for the evangelization of
postmodern people has a community focus. Postmodernism has
inaugurated the demise of the “autonomous individual” and
given way for the exaltation of community. This creates a
specific advantage for the contemporary church following an
apostolic approach for evangelism in the postmodern milieu.
The influence of community in the postmodern world, however,
engenders the notion of truth as a social construct. An
apostolic approach depends upon the Spirit as the
epistemological bridge toward the access of truth. What,
then, is the role of community?
Images of an Apostolic Community
An examination of the biblical images of an
apostolic community serves as a starting point for an
analysis of the role of community in an apostolic approach.1
99
organizes specifically around a trinitarian motif.
2Boyd Hunt, Redeemed! Eschatological Redemption andthe Kingdom of God (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1993),182.
3Acts 5:11; 8:1, 3; 9:31; 11:22, 26; 12:1, 5; 13:1;14:23, 27; 15:3, 4, 22, 41; 16:5; 18:22; 20:17, 28. jEkklhsivais assumed as the referent in Acts 2:47.
4Eduard Lohse, Die Entstehung des Neuen Testaments(Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1972), 192. The translation is:“yet even more it [ejkklhsiva] presents itself in the gatheringof the Christian church as the holy people of God.” Lohsefurther writes that the local church can representcompletely (vollständig) the Church of Jesus Christ.
5Stanley Grenz and John Franke, BeyondFoundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context
These images, drawn from Acts and Paul’s epistles, reveal an
apostolic view of the Christian community. Although this is
not an exhaustive examination, the premise of this author is
that the images of an apostolic community present an
evangelistic focus for the apostolic church.
The most common term for the Christian community in
the NT is ejkklhsiva.2 This is the primary term in Acts.3
Lohse understands ejkklhsiva to mean the “immer handelt es sich
in der Versammlung der christlichen Gemeinde um Gottes
heileges Volk,”4 and the following images reinforce this
concept.
Stanley Grenz and John Franke propose that the
Trinity provides a fundamental framework for the Christian
answer to God’s identity in a postmodern context.5
100
(Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 187.
6Ibid.
7P. Minear, Images of the Church in the NewTestament, 223.
8Edmund P. Clowney, “Interpreting the BiblicalModels of the Church: A Hermeneutical Deepening ofEcclesiology,” in Biblical Interpretation and the Church:Text and Context, ed. D. A. Carson (Exeter: PaternosterPress, 1984), 76.
9Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth: Textsand Archaeology (Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1983), 167; idem.,Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
Therefore, as these authors seek to “shape theology in a
postmodern context,” they suggest that the Christian
community “finds its basis in being and action” within the
framework of the Trinity.6 Paul Minear also indicates that
the biblical images of the church point “to a realm in which
God and Jesus Christ and the Spirit are at work.”7 Clowney
furthermore proposes that these images “continually relate
the church to the triune God.”8 With this concept in mind,
the trinitarian metaphors for the Christian community
provide the basis for “being and action” in apostolic
approach.
Christ’s Body
The “body of Christ” represents one of the major
metaphors for the apostolic community. Paul describes the
unity of the body amidst the diversity of the membership.9
101
1997), 288. Each member of the community relates to othermembers as an organic whole called the “body of Christ.”
10Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to theCorinthians, New International Commentary on the NewTestament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 606. Thetranslation is “whether Jews or Greeks or slaves or freepersons, and we all have been made to drink one Spirit” (1Cor 12:13).
11Jean Baudrillard, The Transparency of Evil: Essayson Extreme Phenomena, trans. James Benedict (New York:Verso, 1993), 4-6.
12Ibid., 5.
13Ibid., 6.
The Spirit “eliminates the old distinctions,” ei[te jIoudai`oi ei[te
12:13).10 The elimination of these symbols of alienation
presents an answer to the postmodern quest.
Baudrillard suggests that the postmodern desire for
“relationality” emerges from the “fractal stage” of
values,11 which is the “haphazard proliferation and
dispersal of value” so that there is “no law of value.”12
Good is no longer the opposite of evil, nothing can nowbe plotted on a graph or analysed in terms of abscissasand ordinates. Just as each particle follows its owntrajectory, each value or fragment of value shines for amoment in the heavens of simulation, then disappearsinto the void along a crooked path that only rarelyhappens to intersect with other such paths. This is thepattern of the fractal -- and hence the current patternof our culture.13
This postmodern pattern produces a desire for “otherness,”
102
14Ibid., 172-73.
15See the previous examination of Nietzsche,“Introduction,” 3-6.
16Georg Strecker, Theology of the New Testament,trans. M. Eugene Boring (New York: Walter de Bruyter, 2000),184.
17Robert Jenson, The Triune Identity: God Accordingto the Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), 120.
18S. Grenz and J. Franke, Beyond Foundationalism,201.
which for Baudrillard is “getting beyond alienation.”14
Here, Baudrillard’s solution is to pursue “radical
otherness” in which alienation becomes “definitively other.”
In this way, the individual loses “any trace of my own.”
Baudrillard’s solution heralds back to Nietzsche’s
exaltation of the “free spirit.”15
This “relationality” within an apostolic community
theologically reflects the “relationality” within the
Trinity.16 Jenson suggests that trinitarian doctrine begins
with the premise that “God’s relations to us are internal to
[H]im.”17 Therefore, as Grenz and Franke suggest, the
apostolic community provides “the foretaste of the new
humanity” who “represent God in the midst of the fallenness
of the present through relationships that reflect God’s own
loving character.”18 As Baudrillard concludes, the “Object”
is the answer to alienation, even though he equates “radical
103
19Baudrillard, Transparency of Evil, 173-74.
20Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community inCorinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 259.
21James D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit: A Study ofthe Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and theFirst Christians as Reflected in the New Testament (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 264.
22F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, New CenturyBible Commentary (London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott,1971), 122-23.
otherness” of the individual, which is beyond “the Other.”19
From an apostolic approach, this “Object” is community with
God through Christ. The image of the “body of Christ,”
therefore, presents an apostolic answer to the postmodern
quest for an escape from alienation.
The “relationality” of the “body of Christ”
proceeds to a specific application of purpose; namely, to be
used by God (1 Cor 12:18).20 Dunn suggests that “there is
no such thing as passive membership.”21 Active membership
involves the fulfillment of specific functions within
Christ’s body (1 Cor 12:27-28). Each member of the sw`ma
Cristou` has a function to fulfill for the edification of the
whole.22 The contention of this writer is that each
member’s function corresponds to the leadership and
priorities of Christ Jesus who is the head of His body.
The concept of hJ kefalh; tou` swvmato~ th`~ ejkklhsiva~ (Col
104
23“[Christ] is the image of the invisible God andthe first-born of all creation.”
24“And He is before all things and in Him all thingsare held together.”
25Everett Ferguson, The Church of Christ: A BiblicalEcclesiology for Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 96.
26Ernest Best, One Body in Christ: A Study in theRelationship of the Church to Christ in the Epistles of theApostle Paul (London: SPCK, 1955), 120.
27“By Him all things were created” (1:16), and“through Him to reconcile all things to Himself” (1:20).
1:18) promotes the conviction that the leadership of the hJ
kefalh; tou` swvmato~ is the priority of the apostolic community.
Paul declares that Christ ejstin eijkw;n tou` qeou` tou` ajoravtou,
this way, the apostle describes the centrality and supremacy
of Christ in the cosmic world as the source and origin of
all things.25
Paul’s description of Christ as hJ kefalh; tou` swvmato~
also points to the relationship between the head and the
body. The community of faith “draws its life from [H]im to
whom it is united.”26 The apostolic community exists as
Christ’s body through Christ’s reconciling work. As ejn aujtw/
ejktivsqh ta; pavnta (Col 1:16), so also di j aujtou` ajpokatallavxai ta;
pavnta eij~ aujtovn (Col 1:20).27 Alienation between God and His
105
28F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, toPhilemon, and to the Ephesians, New International Commentaryon the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 74-75.
29P. Minear, Images of the Church, 213.
30F. F. Bruce, “Colossian Problems: Part 4, Christas Conqueror and Reconciler,” Bibliotheca Sacra 141 (October1984): 300-301.
31Eduard Schweizer, The Church as the Body of Christ(Richmond: John Knox, 1964), 78. Robert H. Gundry, Sôma inBiblical Theology with Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology,Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 29(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 228. Gundryproposes that this metaphor points to “an ecclesiastical
creation becomes reconciliation through Christ.28
The connection between the reconciling work of
Christ and the evangelistic emphasis of Christ’s body is
further amplified through Paul’s description in verses 21
through 29. Paul Minear writes:
The forgiveness that had become effective within theChristian community was seen as the beginning of aprocess that would continue until it had achieved itsgoal not only within the church but also throughoutcreation. (Vs. 20-23) Those who to this end shared theredemptive sufferings of the Messiah were carrying out aministry for the body, thus making God’s word more fullyknown. (Vs. 24-28)29
Paul’s concern is for God’s reconciling work through Christ
to permeate the world through the apostolic mission.30
Thus, Eduard Schweizer states that “the church is understood
as the body of Christ because of its obedience to its Head.
The church manifests itself in the mission to the
nations.”31
106
Body consisting of believers, in which [H]e [Jesus Christ]dwells on earth through [H]is Spirit.”
32E. Lohse, Die Entstehung des Neuen Testaments,192.
The image of Christ’s body reveals that the
apostolic community is the presence of Christ on mission.
In an apostolic approach for the evangelization of
postmodern people, the image of Christ’s body presents the
priority of evangelism, for Christ’s body naturally follows
the leadership of the Head, who is Christ Jesus. Christ’s
purpose of reconciliation answers the postmodern quest for
escape from alienation. As an extension of Christ’s
ministry, the church today recognizes its mission of
evangelism in the postmodern setting. The function of an
apostolic community is to evangelize the world as an
extension of Christ’s ministry.
God’s People
A second image for the apostolic community is the
“people of God.” The apostolic community represents the
gathering of the followers of Christ as God’s holy people,
set apart by the Spirit to accomplish the purposes of God in
Jesus Christ.32 As such, “Christians were heirs to the
Jewish conception of the people of God as ‘brothers and
107
33David A. deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship, andPurity: Unlocking New Testament Culture (Downers Grove:InterVarsity, 2000), 200.
34Jacques Derrida, De L’hospitalité (Paris: Calmann-Lévy, 1997), 29; quoted in Richard Kearney, “Others andAliens: Between Good and Evil,” in Evil After Postmodernism:Histories, Narratives, and Ethics, ed. Jennifer L. Geddes(New York: Routledge, 2001), 105. All references toDerrida’s De L’hospitalité are translated and cited byKearney.
35Ibid.
36Richard Kearney, “Others and Aliens: Between Goodand Evil,” in Evil After Postmodernism: Histories,Narratives, and Ethics, ed. Jennifer L. Geddes (New York:Routledge, 2001), 105.
sisters.’”33 This language reveals the “relationality”
within the community of faith between God and His people and
between individual members of the community.
Once again, as with the “body of Christ,” the
postmodern quest for “relationality” finds fulfillment in
this trinitarian image of the apostolic community.
Derrida’s concept of hospitality helps elucidate this
postmodern quest. Derrida calls for absolute hospitality.34
He proposes hospitality which gives place (donne lieu)
“without demanding that he give his name or enter into some
reciprocal pact.”35 Through this process of “absolute
hospitality,” Kearney suggests that the host must “allow
some way for the absolute other to enter our home, family,
nation, state.”36 The role of “absolute hospitality”
108
37Ibid., 112.
38Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NewInternational Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1996), 504 n. 41.
39“Then you are of the seed of Abraham, heirsaccording to promise.”
40“If then children [of God], also heirs; heirsindeed of God, and joint-heirs of Christ.”
41D. Moo, Epistle to Romans, 505.
42James D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians,Black’s New Testament Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,1993), 208.
presents an answer to the postmodern quest for identity and
legitimation.37 An apostolic conception of the “people of
God” provides an answer to Derrida’s call for absolute
hospitality.
Paul uses uiJoi; qeou and kat j ejpaggelivan klhronovmoi to
describe the “people of God.”38 Paul declares that those in
3:29).39 He suggests elsewhere, eij de; tevkna, kai; klhronovmoi:
klhronovmoi me;n qeou`, sugklhronovmoi de; Cristou` (Rom 8:17).40 The
picture of klhronovmoi is one of inheritance. Those who are ejn
Cristw/ inherit the promises of God because they are
sugklhronovmoi Cristou`.41 As Christ is tw/ spevrmativ of Abraham
(Gal 3:16), uJmei`~ Cristou` have become grafted into the
promises of God to Abraham through Jesus Christ.42
An apostolic community in a postmodern world is a
109
43Jürgen Moltmann, The Church in the Power of theSpirit: A Contribution to Messianic Ecclesiology, trans.Margaret Kohl (London: SCM Press, 1977; reprint,Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1993), 76.
44David M. Hay, “Pistis as ‘Ground for Faith’ inHellenized Judaism and Paul,” Journal of Biblical Literature108 (1989): 461-76.
45Ibid., 471.
community of faith. “Relationality” in the apostolic
community comes dia; th`~ pivstew~ ejn Cristw/ jIhsou` (Gal 3:26).
Derrida’s call for “absolute hospitality” is a call for the
alien-other to be provided an avenue into community. This
avenue for community is found dia; th`~ pivstew~ ejn Cristw/ jIhsou`.
Pivsti~ is not only the avenue into the family of God, but it
is also the avenue to a community that hopes in the work of
Christ in the present mission and future eschaton.43
David Hay suggests that ancient Greek, Jewish, and
Christian writers use pivsti~ to denote the “pledge” or
“evidence” to base a belief.44 Hay, therefore, concludes
that in Gal 3:23 and 25, pivsti~ “means ‘the objective ground
of faith.’ Jesus is the decisive evidence or pledge given
humankind by God which makes faith possible.”45 The
incredulity of postmodern people confronts the pivsti~ tou`
Cristou`. Lohse writes, “Der Glaube erkennt das Evangelium
in den Sinn als wahr an, dass es als Heilsbotschaft und
Zuspruch der Bettung fortan das ganze Leben der Glaubenden
110
46E. Lohse, “Emuna und Pistis,” Zeischrift für dieneutestamentliche Wissenschaft 68 (1977): 153. “Faithconsiders the gospel as true in the sense that it, as themessage of salvation and encouragement, determines hereafterthe entire life of faithfulness.”
47T. David Gordon, “The Problem at Galatia,”Interpretation 41 (1987): 40.
48See Beverly Robert Gaventa, “The Eschatology ofLuke-Acts Revisited,” Encounter 43 (1982): 27-42.
bestimmt.”46 The foundation of pivsti~ tou` Cristou` produces a
transformation in the orientation of a postmodern person.
In this way, evangelism in an apostolic approach connects
postmodern people with the revelation of the gospel so that
they make individual decisions based upon “the objective
ground of faith” in Jesus Christ as God’s pledge to them.
The apostolic community as the “people of God”
finds “relationality” in Christ as the klhronovmoi apart from
the rite of circumcision or Judaism (Gal 3:26-29).47 The
promise of the Spirit pa`sin toi`~ eij~ makravn (Acts 2:39; 11:15-
18) bears resemblance to Paul’s argument.48 The “people of
God” comprises all genders, social standing, and ethnicity.
The evangelistic emphasis of this apostolic image
of the Christian community of faith centers upon the avenue
through which postmodern people may become God’s people.
The “people of God” refers to the apostolic community whose
111
49Thomas C. Oden, Life in the Spirit: SystematicTheology, Volume Three (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998),296.
50Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2d ed.(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 1049.
51Stanley Grenz, Created for Community: ConnectingChristian Belief with Christian Living, 2d ed. (GrandRapids: Baker Books, 1998), 209.
52“But the Most High does not live in a buildingmade by human hands.” See similarly, Acts 17:24.
“proclamation would address all nations, all cultures.”49
All people of every cultural, racial, and social background
may enter into the apostolic community through faith in
Christ, answering Derrida’s call for “absolute hospitality”
and the postmodern quest for “relationality.”
The Spirit’s Temple
The image of the temple of the Holy Spirit presents
the third trinitarian metaphor of the apostolic community.50
Stanley Grenz insightfully indicates that the OT conception
of the temple is “God’s earthly dwelling place.” After the
coming of the Spirit, however, “the focus of the Spirit’s
presence is no longer a special building, but a special
people” whom He possesses.51
Stephen alludes to this image when he declares, ajll j
oujc u{yisto~ ejn ceiropohvtoi~ katoikei` (Acts 7:48).52 De Silva
suggests that the first six chapters of Acts describes “the
112
53D. A. deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship, andPurity, 292-93.
54Carey Newman, “Images of the Church in Paul,” inThe People of God: Essays on the Believers’ Church, eds.Paul A. Basden and David S. Dockery (Nashville: Broadman andHolman, 1991; reprint, 1999), 153.
55P. T. O’Brien, “The Church as a Heavenly andEschatological Entity,” in The Church in the Bible and theWorld: An International Study, ed. D. A. Carson (GrandRapids: Baker, 1987), 100.
56“Do not become mismated with unbelievers” (v. 14). . . “for we are the temple of the living God” (v. 16). The hJmei`~ in verse 16 refers to individual believers and tothe community. See Joseph A. Fitzmeyer, Essays on theSemitic Background of the New Testament (London: Chapman,1971), 214.
57See Ralph P. Martin, 2 Corinthians, Word BiblicalCommentary (Waco: Word, 1986), 201. He suggests that pistov~is a technical “designation of the follower of Jesus.” Seealso, R. Bultmann, s. v. “pistov~,” in Theological Dictionaryof the New Testament, 10 vols., ed. G. Kittel, trans. anded. G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967; reprint,1978), 6:215. Hereafter cited, TDNT.
presence and activity of God’s Holy Spirit in the midst of
the community.”53 The church as the “temple of the Spirit”
portrays “the place of presence for the risen Lord.”54
This image presents “relationality” as distinctive
from postmodern pluralsim. Paul uses this image as a
warning “against compromise with heathen society” (2 Cor
6:14-18).55 Paul writes, mh; givnesqe eJterozugou`nte~ ajpivstoi~ (v.
(v. 15) refers to the community of faith,57 and ajpivstoi~
113
58Margaret Thrall, “The Problem of 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1in Some Recent Discussion,” New Testament Studies 24 (1977-78): 143.
59“Agreement by the temple of God with idols.”
60Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community inCorinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 405.
61See, Paul Lakeland, Postmodernity: ChristianIdentity in a Fragmented Age (Minneapolis: Augsburg FortressPress, 1997), 86.
62Ibid.
refers to pagan worshipers in Corinth.58 Thus, there can be
no sugkatavqesi~ naw/ qeou` meta; eijdwvlwn (v. 16).59 Paul warns
against “becoming spiritually linked” with pagan worship.60
Thus, an apostolic community relates to the
postmodern world in a distinctive fashion. The church,
which relates to the postmodern world, must not “become
spiritually linked” with the philosophies of postmodernity
which defile the distinctiveness of the community. The
postmodern quest for pluralism calls for “agreement” between
the “temple of the Spirit” and other religious narratives.
Lakeland, who writes for a postmodern theology, declares
that such a theology will “reflect the open-ended,
pluralistic, pragmatic, and tentative nature of the
postmodern world.”61 Lakeland suggests that the church in
the postmodern setting must “embrace the spirit of the
age.”62 To accomplish this task, Lakeland relegates the
114
63Ibid., 102.
64Ibid., 108.
65Ronald Y. K. Fung, “Some Pauline Pictures of theChurch,” Evangelical Quarterly 53 (1981): 107.
mission of the church to “pluralistic discourse” which seeks
“consensus.”63 The necessity of consensus leads Lakeland to
conclude that “Christ will not be in the foreground of
Christian mission in the postmodern world,” but He “will be
the distinctive element ‘behind’” the mission.64 Is this
not the fulfillment of Paul’s warning in 2 Corinthians 6?
According to Fung, the trinitarian images of the
apostolic community point to the “relationality” between the
church and God in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit.65
This writer suggests a modification of Fung’s conclusion.
The self-conception of the apostolic community includes the
relation to the world as well; therefore, the conclusion
would be that the images reflect the “relationality” between
the church and God in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit
to the world.
The application of this self-conception to the
contemporary scene compels the Christian community to
conceive this single reality in a postmodern world. The
church lives in connection with God’s redemptive actions in
Christ as the mission of the church among postmodern people.
115
66Moltmann, Church in the Power of the Spirit, 75.
67Ibid.
68Markus Barth, The Broken Wall: A Study of theEpistle to the Ephesians (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1959),131.
69Richard Lints, “The Vinyl Narratives: TheMetanarrative of Postmodernity and the Recovery of aChurchly Theology,” in A Confessing Theology for PostmodernTimes, ed. Michael Horton (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books,2000), 102.
70Robert Webber, Ancient-Future Faith: RethinkingEvangelicalism for a Postmodern World (Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 1999), 79.
Through this work of God in the apostolic community, the
church seeks to continue Christ’s priority and mission of
“self-giving liberation of men for their true future.”66
Moltmann further declares, “Then, as the community of the
cross it consists of the fellowship of the kingdom . . . it
spreads the feast without end.”67
An apostolic community in a postmodern world is
“not a casual collection of some individuals with more or
less common religious convictions,”68 but it is the
“mediated presence of God in the world.”69 As Webber puts
it, “The goal of the church is to be a divine standard, a
sign of God’s incarnational presence and activity in
history. In a postmodern world the most effective witness
to a world of disconnected people is the church that forms
community and embodies the reality of the new society.”70
116
71Charles Kraft, Christianity and Culture(Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1979), 53.
72N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People ofGod, vol. 1, Christian Origins and the Question of God(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 124.
73J. Richard Middleton and Brian J. Walsh, Truth IsStranger Than It Used to Be: Biblical Faith in a PostmodernAge (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1995), 11.
Transformation of Worldviews
An apostolic approach focuses on the transformation
of worldviews from postmodern to Christian through the
apostolic community. A worldview, according to Charles
Kraft, presents “ the central systematization of conceptions
of reality . . . from which stems their value system.”71
Wright further suggests that worldviews are “the lens
through which the world is seen, the blueprint for how one
should live in it, and above all the sense of identity and
place which enables human beings to be what they are.”72
Middleton and Walsh propose that worldviews “give
faith answers to a set of ultimate and grounding questions.”
Postmodern people seek the nature of reality, the purpose
for life, the reason and cause for evil in the world, and
the path to wholeness.73
At the conclusion of Peter’s sermon at Pentecost,
he calls to the hearers: swvqhte ajpo; th`~ genea`~ th`~ skolia`~ tauvth~
117
74“Be delivered from this crooked race.”
75Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the NewTestament and Other Early Christian Literature, eds. W. F.Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, 2d ed., eds. F. W. Gingrich and F.W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957;reprint, 1979), s. v. “ajpov,” 86. Hereafter cited, BAGD. Itdenotes a separation from a sphere of origin.
76Brad J. Kallenberg, “Conversion Converted: APostmodern Formulation of the Doctrine of Conversion,”Evangelical Quarterly (1995): 358.
which the apostolic church transforms worldviews. This
writer contends that th/ didach/ tw`n ajpostovlwn is divine
revelation which defines the way life should be. It is the
definition of the “true life” inscribed by the Spirit of
truth.81 Postmodern people reject such a “totalizing”
statement as an oppressive metanarrative, yet the intent of
119
82William Neil, The Acts of the Apostles, NewCentury Bible Commentary (London: Marshall, Morgan, andScott, 1973; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 80-81.
83K. Rengstorf, s.v. “didachv,” TDNT, 2:164-65.
84M. James Sawyer, “Evangelicals and the Canon ofthe New Testament,” Grace Theological Journal 11 (Spring1990): 40.
85Richard N. Longenecker, “Taking Up the CrossDaily: Discipleship in Luke-Acts,” in Patterns ofDiscipleship in the New Testament, ed. Richard N.Longenecker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 59.
the apostolic approach is to deconstruct postmodern
incredulity of the gospel and to re-construct a worldview in
concert with the doctrine of Christ through the Holy Spirit.
An examination of th/ didach/ tw`n ajpostovlwn demonstrates
its connection with the doctrine of Christ. William Neil
proposes that th/ didach/ tw`n ajpostovlwn refers to the “words and
works of Jesus as later incorporated in the Gospels.”82
Rengstorf concludes that th/ didach/ tw`n ajpostovlwn refers to the
proclamation of Christ’s didachv by those whom He has sent
into the world.83 The premise of this section is that the
doctrine of Christ is the apostles’ doctrine. James Sawyer
suggests that the apostles’ teaching serves as the mediation
between Christ and the church.84 Therefore, “the church is
only faithful to its calling as it perseveres in the
teaching and tradition of the apostles, who constitute the
human link with Jesus.”85
120
86F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, rev. ed., NewInternational Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1988), 73.
87F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments, rev.ed. (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1984), 97-98.
88“As you go, therefore, make disciples of all thenations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of theSon and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to fulfill as muchas I have commanded to you” (Matt 28:19-20a).
The historical distance, however, between the
postmodern world and th/ didach/ tw`n ajpostovlwn presents a problem
of truth and authority for postmodern people. Scripture
bridges the historical distance, and the Spirit works
through Scripture to resolve the issues of truth and
authority. Bruce concludes that “New Testament scriptures
form the written deposit of the apostolic teaching.”86
Certainly, the earliest documents of the NT are letters from
apostles which apply Christ’s teaching. The Gospels
comprise the “written transcripts of the Gospel” so that th/
aujtou;~ threi`n pavnta o{sa ejneteilavmhn uJmi`n.88 The activity of
didavskonte~ aujtou;~ threi`n pavnta o{sa ejneteilavmhn uJmi`n corresponds to
the transformation of a life, so that what an individual
121
89Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew, New AmericanCommentary (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 433.
90Thomas C. Oden, Life in the Spirit, 300.
91James A. Brooks and Carlton L. Winberry, Syntax ofNew Testament Greek (Lanham, MD: University Press ofAmerica, 1979), 127; Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to theRomans, 755. Moo suggests that the voice of the verb couldbe passive, middle-reflexive, or “most likely . . . a simple(‘intransitive’) active significance -- ‘do not conform.’”
92Adolf Schlatter, Romans: The Righteousness of God,trans. Siegfried Schatzmann (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,1995), 229. The intent of this phrase, according toSchlatter, is that the world “assumes and specificallydemands” that individuals “conduct themselves just as itdoes.”
93Bo Reicke, “Positive and Negative Aspects of theWorld in the New Testament,” Westminster Theological Journal
does conforms to what Christ commands. As Blomberg writes,
“Teaching obedience to all of Jesus’ commands forms the
heart of disciple making. Evangelism must be holistic.”89
In order for postmodern people to follow Christ, they must
be transformed so that their worldview matches Scripture.90
An apostolic approach promotes this transformation.
Paul describes this transformation in Rom 12:2.
Paul joins mh; to the present imperative, suschmativzesqe, to
form an imperative of prohibition.91 The locative, tw/ aijw`ni
touvtw/, reveals the worldview of “this age” or “the thought
encourages the believers to stop conforming themselves to
the worldview of tw/ aijw`ni touvtw/.93
122
49 (Fall 1987): 363.
94James L. Boyer, “A Classification of Imperatives:A Statistical Study,” Grace Theological Journal 8 (Spring1987): 49.
95See Brooks and Winberry, Syntax of New TestamentGreek, 44-45.
96“So that we might serve in the newness of theSpirit and not in the oldness of the letter.”
97Peter Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: ACommentary, trans. Scott J. Hafemann (Louisville:Westminster / John Knox Press, 1994), 189. J. Behm, s.v.“nou`~,” TDNT, 4:958-59. Behm indicates that nou`~ presentsthe foundation of reason and will that influences how onelives.
The passive imperative, metamorfou`sqe, indicates the
responsibility for action.94 The instrument of
transformation is th/ ajnakainwvsei tou` noo;~,95 by which ajnakainwvsei
indicates “a continuing renewal” (see 2 Cor 4:16; Col 3:10).
This writer, following Moo, suggests that ajnakainwvsei “picks
up kainovthti pneuvmato~ (‘newness of Spirit’) from 7:6.” The
work of the Spirit provides the avenue w{ste douleuvein hJma`~ ejn
kainovthti pneuvmato~ kai; ouj palaiovthti gravmmato~ (Rom 7:6).96 This is
the renewal of the mind by which the Spirit illuminates
Scripture, which is the written deposit of th/ didach/ tw`n
ajpostovlwn. That which is renewed is noo;~, a noun which
points specifically to the worldview of an individual.97
In an apostolic approach for the evangelization of
postmodern people, th/ didach/ tw`n ajpostovlwn provides the avenue
123
98Herman A. Hoyt, “A Genuine Christian Non-Conformity: Romans 12:2,” Grace Journal 8 (Winter 1967): 7.
99D. Moo, Epistle to the Romans, 756-757.
100Udo Schnelle, “Transformation und Partizipation inpaulinischer Theologie,” New Testament Studies 47 (January2001): 68.
101Ibid., 69-70. “. . . as the realm in whichpersonally responsible changes will be fulfilled and lived. The baptized are determined through Christ in all lifeexpressions, and in its community the new existence gainsvisible shape.”
through which the community of faith leads postmodern people
to a transformation of their worldview.98 Moo cogently
summarizes the transformation of worldview when he writes:
“Christians are to adjust their way of thinking about
everything in accordance with the ‘newness’ of their life in
the Spirit (cf. 7:6).99
Schnelle suggests that ei\nai ejn Cristw/ designates the
“newness of life” as a “neuen Seins und Lebens.”100 This new
existence and life of believers ejn Cristw/ appear “als der
Raum, in dem sich seinshafte Veränderungen vollziehen und
gelebt werden. Die Getauften sind in allen Lebensäußerungen
durch Christus bestimmt, und in ihrer Gemeinschaft gewinnt
das neue Sein sichtbar Gestalt.”101 The apostles’ doctrine,
therefore, is the call to conform to the will of God
revealed through Jesus Christ “in allen Lebensäußerungen
durch Christus.”
124
102D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God: ChristianityConfronts Pluralism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 57.
An apostolic approach for the evangelization of
postmodern people requires the transformation of worldviews.
The connection between the community and the transformation
of worldviews is found in devotion to the apostles’
doctrine. Postmodernism, however, exalts the process of
hermeneutics. The following excursus examines the
relationship between hermeneutics and the postmodern
resistance to the transformation of worldview through
Scripture.
Excursus: Hermeneutics and the Postmodern Challenge
Hermeneutics plays an important role in the premise
of postmodernism. Postmodern theorists propose that truth
is a product of the community. D. A. Carson suggests that
postmodernism “depends not a little on what are perceived to
be the fundamental limitations on the power of
interpretation.”102 Stanley Fish, Richard Rorty, and Jacques
Derrida represent three leading voices in postmodern
hermeneutics.
Stanley Fish’s “reader-response” approach to
hermeneutics presents a leading voice in postmodern theory
125
103Stanley Fish, Is There a Text in This Class?: TheAuthority of Interpretive Communities (Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press, 1980), 1-17.
104Ibid., 158.
105Ibid., 13.
106Ibid., 16.
107Ibid., 86.
108Ibid., 326-27. He proposes that in his model “thereader was freed from the tyranny of the text and given thecentral role in the production of meaning” (Ibid., 7).
109William Ray, Literary Meaning: From Phenomenologyto Deconstruction (New York: Basil Blackwell, 1984), 162.
of interpretation.103 According to Fish, the meaning of a
text is the reader’s response to the text.104 The text is an
“entity independent of interpretation” and “is replaced by
the texts that emerge” from interpretation within the social
setting.105 Fish further indicates that all “interpretation
is the source of texts, facts, authors, and intentions.”106
By this endeavor, Fish dismisses foundationalism because it
prohibits the reader from “the most remarkable of his
abilities, the ability to give the world meaning rather than
to extract a meaning that is already there.”107
According to Fish’s hermeneutical program, one
comes to the text to create rather than discover meaning.108
Fish views a text as “an empty, separate domain, awaiting
the collective intention that will fill it.”109 For Fish,
126
110S. Fish, Is There a Text in This Class?, 335-37.
111Jonathan Culler, The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics,Literature, Deconstruction (Ithaca, NY: Cornell UniversityPress, 1981), 125.
112D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God, 126.
113Richard Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979), 390-94.
114Crispin Wright, Truth and Objectivity (Cambridge:Harvard University Press, 1992), 91-93. Wright indicatesthat the “representation of facts” incorporates the “correct. . . perspective on the truth predicate” (Ibid., 83). Wright’s contention is that truth is the “output” of thecognitive function of an individual correctly handling the“input” of information. Differences of opinion between twoor more individuals concerning the same information is theresult of a priori “differences of opinion.”
the only parameter in interpretation is the “point of view”
in the interpretive community.110 As Culler sees Fish’s
proposal, the “notion of ‘what the text says’ itself depends
upon common procedures of reading.”111 Thus, the different
interpretive strategies of exegetical communities make the
text speak differently. The readers in their interpretive
community is determinative in the creation of meaning.112
Richard Rorty proposes another leading approach in
postmodern interpretation which focuses on conversation as
hermeneutics.113 The assumption of Rorty’s position consists
in his concept of the acquisition of truth. He rejects
Crispin Wright’s “representationalist” portrayal of the
cognitive discourse114 which, according to Rorty, views
127
115Richard Rorty, Truth and Progress: PhilosophicalPapers, Volume 3 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1998), 32.
116Ibid., 3-4. Rorty writes: “Truth is not a goal ofinquiry. If ‘truth’ is the name of such a goal then,indeed, there is no truth. For the absoluteness of truthmakes it unserviceable as such a goal.”
117Ibid., 5.
118Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, 389.
“human beings as machines constructed (by God or Evolution)
to, among other things, get things right.” Rorty’s approach
is “to get rid of that self-image and to replace it with a
picture of machines that continually adjust to each other’s
behavior, and to their environment, by developing novel
kinds of behavior.”115 Rorty’s assumption is that the
acquisition of truth is not the goal of discourse.116
Rather, the continual adjustment toward others and the
social context is the goal of discourse.117
This “continual adjustment” provides the framework
for conversation as “the ultimate context within which
knowledge is to be understood.”118 For Rorty, hermeneutics
is the conversation between people who come to the end of
their “edifying discourse” with understanding, but who do
not seek truth as the goal of the dialogue. Because no
vocabulary or text “is closer to reality than another” nor
128
119Richard Rorty, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 73.
120Richard Rorty, Consequences of Pragmatism(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982), xlii.
121Douglas Groothuis, Truth Decay: DefendingChristianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000), 198.
123Rorty, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity, 97. Rorty suggests that individuals are not judged by anyexternal reality or final vocabularies, but only bythemselves.
124Ibid.
“in touch with a power not herself,”119 hermeneutics involves
merely “obedience to our own conventions.”120
Rorty seeks to “abandon the courtroom of truth for
the carnival of redescription.”121 “Redescription” is the
process by which one makes something “to look good or bad,”
depending upon the goal and context of “language game.”122
The ultimate arbiter in hermeneutics is the individual.123
Texts and vocabularies are interpreted through conversation
and “re-description.” The end-game of hermeneutics for
Rorty is to “make something that never had been dreamed of
before.”124 This hermeneutical process results in a
pragmatic, “whatever works best” interpretation.
In this way, according to Rorty, “hermeneutics is
129
125Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, 365-66.
126Rorty, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity, 43.
127Roger Lundin, Clarence Walhout, and AnthonyThiselton, The Promise of Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1999), 41.
128Jacques Derrida, “Différance,” in Deconstructionin Context: Literature and Philosophy, ed. Mark C. Taylor(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986), 396-420.
129Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in ThisText?: The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of LiteraryKnowledge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 39.
always parasitic” upon epistemology informed “by the culture
of the day.”125 Interpretation is an internal, unconscious
need to create “a self” for oneself through a re-description
of the “blind impress” of chance upon one’s life.126 The
goal of hermeneutics is to appropriate various options for
epistemology, re-describe the context in life, and create “a
self” for oneself. Roger Lundin suggests that Rorty’s
hermeneutics presents the reader as the “parasite” who seeks
“to bring the dead text to life by internalizing it.”127
Jacques Derrida’s concept of différance provides
another view of the hermeneutical process in postmodern
thought.128 Derrida’s concept of différance is the fulcrum
of his deconstruction project. Vanhoozer suggests that
“Derrida is an unbeliever in the reliability, decidability,
131Jacques Derrida, Speech and Phenomenon: And OtherEssays on Husserl’s Theory of Signs, trans. David B. Allisonand Newton Garver (Evanston, IL: Northwestern UniversityPress, 1973), 16. Derrida seeks to deconstruct Husserl’sexaltation of “voice,” or phone, as the avenue to connectwith the ideal object apart from the contaminating forces ofexternal context.
132Ibid., 64.
133J. Derrida, Of Grammatology, 70. The concept of“trace” is the relationship between the signifier ofsomething in the present and “something other than itself”in the past (retention). It is the relationship between thesignifier in the present and a future element (protention).
“neologism” which Derrida uses to describe the instability,
undecidability, and partiality of language. He suggests
that this hermeneutical process is “strategic” because “no
transcendent truth . . . can govern theologically the
totality of the field.” It is adventurous because it does
not move toward a “a telos or theme of domination.”130
Derrida conceptualizes self-consciousness as a
product of signs and the interminable play of language.131
The consciousness can only express meaning through a
reference to the past (retention) and the future
(protention) -- “memory and expectation.”132 This expression
comes from the movement of trace, which is the “arch-
phenomenon of memory.”133 Retention is the movement of the
trace within the consciousness that “produces the
131
134J. Derrida, Speech and Phenomenon, 82.
135Ibid., 67.
136Ibid., 44.
137Jacques Derrida, Limited Inc (Evanston, IL:Northwestern University Press, 1988), 149.
138Jacques Derrida, Positions, trans. Alan Bass(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), 19.
139Jacques Derrida, Writing and Difference, trans.Alan Bass (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), 280.
140J. Derrida, Positions, 26.
subject.”134 Protention is the movement of the trace which
introduces the “movement of différance,” so that the sign of
the present introduces reference to another sign not in the
present.135 The signifier possesses meaning only in
relationship with other signifiers.136 Différance “‘is’ in
itself nothing outside of different denominations.”137
Derrida’s hermeneutic rejects the possibility of a
transcendental “concept signified in and of itself.”138
Derrida suggests that “the central signified, the original
or transcendental signified, is never absolutely present
outside a system of differences. The absence of the
transcendental signified extends the domain and the play of
signification infinitely.”139 This absence produces
“differences and traces of traces.”140
The result of Derrida’s hermeneutic is a text with
132
141J. Derrida, Writing and Difference, 25.
142Jacques Derrida, Dissemination, trans. BarbaraJohnson (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), 221;idem. Positions, 43. Such terms include pharmakon (neitherremedy nor poison), supplément (neither accident noressence), and hymen (neither consummation nor virginity).
143Morny Joy, “Derrida and Ricoeur: A Case ofMistaken Identity (and Difference),” Journal of Religion 68(October 1988): 514.
144Jacques Derrida, Margins of Philosophy, trans.Alan Bass (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), 67.
145Jacques Derrida, “Foi et savoir -- Les deuxsources de la ‘religion’ aux limites de la simple raison,”in La religion, eds. Jacques Derrida and Gianni Vattimo(Paris: Seuil, 1996), 65-66. He rejects the “religion of
“infinite implications.”141 Derrida’s use of terms with
“double, contradictory, undecidable value” presents his
hermeneutic of différance.142 As Joy notes, Derrida’s use of
these terms “insures that neither any past nor future
possibilities of meaning can be exhausted” and dismantles
“univocity by exploiting plurivocity” in texts.143 For
Derrida, there can be no final, ultimate meaning of a
particular text.
According to Derrida, the movement of différance
overturns “all theologies.”144 Because no transcendental
signified exists, he rejects “la religion du vivant” as a
tautology which creates “impératif absolu, loi sainte, loi
du salut: sauver le vivant comme l’intact, l’indemne, le
sauf (heilig).”145 Derrida verifies his critique against all
133
the living” which creates “absolute command, holy law, lawof salvation: to save the living as the whole, the protectedagainst harm, the set apart (holy).”
146See chapter 2, “Beyond Babel: Epistemology andeJtevrai~ glwvssai~,” for more on Derrida’s use of Babel.
147Geoffrey Bennington and Jacques Derrida, JacquesDerrida (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), 105.
148Craig Bartholomew, “Babel and Derrida:Postmodernism, Language and Biblical Interpretation,”Tyndale Bulletin 49 (November 1998): 324.
149Brian Ingraffia, Postmodern Theory and BiblicalTheology: Vanquishing God’s Shadow (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1995), 223.
theologies in his study of Babel.146 Derrida views the use
of the proper name as the promotion of “logocentrism” --
that there is a stable connection between the world and
language.147 The result of Derrida’s interpretation of
Babel, where Babel (confusion) is the proper name for God,
is that logocentrism itself is confusion and that
“determinate textual interpretation is impossible.”148
Ingraffia presents Derrida’s hermeneutic in a theological
fashion when he writes: “Instead of the Logos calling
humanity into being, humanity calls God into being.”149
Derrida, therefore, promotes a hermeneutic which dismisses
meaning as indeterminable. Instead, meaning moves through
the arbitration of différance in the reading and writing of
the individual.
Unlike the postmodern hermeneutics of Fish, Rorty,
134
150N. T. Wright, “How Can the Bible BeAuthoritative?,” Vox Evangelica 21 (1991): 16; quoted in B.Walsh, “Reimaging Biblical Authority,” 211.
151Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text?, 22.
152Thomas Long, Preaching and the Literary Forms ofthe Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), 29. Thomas Longwrites that “encounters with Scripture itself have built upin the community of faith the expectation of Scripture’sspecial character, rather than the other way around.”
153Lundin, Walhout, Thiselton, Promise ofHermeneutics, 99. Alvin Plantinga, Warrant: The CurrentDebate (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 213. Plantinga proposes “warranted beliefs” which are based upon“design plan” and “proper function.” He writes: “A thing(organism, organ, system, artifact) is functioning properlywhen it functions in accord with its design plan, and thedesign plan of a thing is a specification of the way inwhich a thing functions when it is functioning properly.”
or Derrida, an apostolic approach to hermeneutics seeks to
transform the postmodern worldview to match the apostolic
worldview. Scripture interprets the postmodern person’s
life so that he or she may be free “to be fully human.”150
Derrida, Rorty, and Fish pursue a hermeneutic which
rejects the pretension that exegesis can lead to a “correct
view of things.”151 Yet, encounters with Scripture impinge
certain expectations and demands upon the interpreter.152
Clarence Walhout, following Alvin Plantinga, proposes that
“our hermeneutics needs to be grounded in our warranted
beliefs.”153 In an apostolic approach, these “warranted
beliefs” emerge from the text of Scripture (the design plan)
as it is interpreted in the “cognitive environment” of the
135
154Alvin Plantinga, Warrant and Proper Funtion (NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1993), 82. Plantinga writesthat “the design plan does not cover my cognitive facultiesin isolation from yours or yours from mine.”
155Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism, 81.
156Ibid.; James Barr, The Scope and Authority of theBible (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980), 126-27.
157K. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text?,168.
apostolic community.154
Grenz and Franke similarly propose the concept of
“interpretive framework,” which is “that set of categories,
beliefs, and values . . . which forms one’s perception of
reality and life.”155 The Spirit forms a “communal
interpretive framework” through the biblical text that leads
individuals to view “all reality in light of an unabashedly
Christian and specifically biblical interpretive
framework.”156
Postmodern hermeneutics presents the primacy of the
social context and the interminable play of language as the
arbiter or arbitration of meaning in the hermeneutical
process.157 Rather than dismissing or veiling authorial
intention, this writer suggests that the Spirit illumines
the reader of Scripture so that the meaning of the author’s
intention is accessible.
Following Wolterstorff’s suggestion of “double
136
158Nicholas Wolterstorff, Divine Discourse:Philosophical Reflections on the Claim That God Speaks(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 38-54.
159S. Grenz and J. Franke, Beyond Foundationalism,73-75. Grenz and Franke, however, critique Wolterstorff’sproposal in terms of authorial intention, which they claimis a “modern tendency to elevate some other reality [theauthor] above the Bible as text.”
160K. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text?,409-415, 421.
161Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism, 66.
162Clark Pinnock, “The Role of the Spirit inInterpretation,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological
agency discourse,” this writer proposes that the Spirit
speaks to the reader through the “appropriated discourse” of
the biblical authors.158 Grenz and Franke propose that the
Spirit appropriates Scripture “in its internal meaning
(i.e., to appropriate what the author said).”159 Vanhoozer
proposes the same concept when he suggests that the Spirit
does not “change” meaning but “charges” it with relevance
“by relating the original content to new contexts.”160
Illumination actualizes th/ didach/ tw`n ajpostovlwn in the
postmodern setting. In the words of Grenz and Franke, “the
Spirit speaks to succeeding generations of Christians
through the text.”161 Pinnock warns against the postmodern
hermeneutics by which the reader transforms the text and
commends illumination by which the Spirit transforms the
reader through Scripture.162 Grenz and Franke warn that
137
Society 26 (December 1993): 494-95.
163Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism, 67.
164Daniel P. Fuller, “The Holy Spirit’s Role inBiblical Interpretation,” in Scripture, Tradition, andInterpretation, eds. W. W. Gasque and W. S. LaSor (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 191-92. He draws this conclusionfrom the meaning of three key terms: devcomai, ginwvskw, andajnakrivnw. The first verb, devcomai, suggests to Fuller thatthe “natural man does not welcome the things of the Spiritof God.” The second verb, ginwvskw, indicates that theyuciko;~ a[nqrwpo~ does not embrace ta; tou~ pneuvmato~ tou` qeou` “asthey really are.” The third verb, ajnakrivnw, reveals that theyuciko;~ a[nqrwpo~ cannot evaluate spiritual things.
165M. Erickson, Christian Theology, 274.
illumination leads to subjectivism when biblical authority
is reduced “to our subjective reception of the divine
address.”163
The concept illumination is found in 1 Cor 2:14.
In consideration of this passage, Fuller asserts that
unbelievers may understand spiritual things, but cannot
welcome the spiritual without the work of the Spirit.164
Erickson, however, suggests that “without the help of the
Holy Spirit, they [yuciko;~ a[nqrwpo~] are unable to understand
them [ta; tou~ pneuvmato~ tou` qeou`].”165 Unlike Fuller, Erickson
indicates that only the believer can understand the
objective meaning of Scripture through the work of the
Spirit in illumination. Erickson indicates that the Spirit
of truth elucidates the truth for the apostles and through
138
166Ibid., 274.
167E. Clowney, “The Biblical Theology of the Church,”in The Church in the Bible and the World: An InternationalStudy, ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 72.
168Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text?, 410.
169Ibid., 410.
170Ibid., 421.
the apostles’ doctrine.166 In this way, the Spirit guides
the community of faith into all truth through illumination.
As Clowney writes, “The Spirit who communicated through the
apostles and prophets the deposit of sound doctrine (1 Tim
6:20, 21; 2 Tim 1:13) also works to illumine our
understanding of the truth.”167
Following Vanhoozer, this writer proposes that the
text of Scripture has the “mission of meaning.”168
Illumination is the “perlocutionary effect” of th/ didach/ tw`n
ajpostovlwn by the Spirit.169 The Spirit of truth persuades and
convinces the reader of the truth-claims of the Scripture.
As Vanhoozer writes, “The Spirit’s leading readers into all
truth is a matter of nurturing a Pentecostal conversation
about the correct interpretation of the Word’s past meaning
and present significance.”170 Illumination does not present
the Spirit as a rival author who leads individuals to
deconstruct th/ didach/ tw`n ajpostovlwn, as with Derrida, or who
leads communities to rewrite th/ didach/ ajpostovlwn, as with
139
171Bernard Ramm, The Witness of the Spirit: An Essayon the Contemporary Relevance of the Internal Witness of theHoly Spirit (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 125.
172K. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text?,429.
173Max Turner, “The ‘Spirit of Prophecy’ as the Powerof Israel’s Restoration and Witness,” in Witness to theGospel: The Theology of Acts, eds. I. Howard Marshall andDavid Peterson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 346.
Rorty or Fish. The Spirit works in concert with Scripture
to persuade the reader and produce a transformation.171 As
meaning is “accomplished” in Jesus Christ (John 14:6), the
Spirit illumines the believer “so that [the Word] can
achieve its intended effect: meaning applied.”172
The Spirit’s illumination of Scripture presents the
contemporary avenue for the transformation of worldviews in
the postmodern context. Illumination in an apostolic
hermeneutic is the application of th/ didach/ tw`n ajpostovlwn to
believers through the Holy Spirit. The contemporary
community of faith depends upon the work of the Spirit to
lead postmodern people to know and apply what God’s desire.
As with the apostolic community in Acts 2:42, this
“charismatic teaching” of the Spirit explains the “evident
‘enthusiasm’ and the sense of God’s transforming presence in
the congregation.”173
The Significance of Koinwniva
140
174I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles,Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1980; reprint, 1999), 83.
175Hans Conzelmann, A Commentary on the Acts of theApostles, trans. James Limburg, A. T. Kraabel, and D. H.Juel, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 23.
176John Elliott, “Temple versus Household in Luke-Acts: A Contrast in Social Institutions,” in The SocialWorld of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation, ed. JeromeNeyrey (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 236.
177“The breaking of bread” and “prayers.”
The paradigm shift from postmodern thought to a
Christian worldview continues through koinwniva (Acts 2:42).
Marshall indicates that koinwniva refers to “the holding of a
common meal or to a common religious experience.”174
Conzelmann indicates that koinwniva is further defined by the
sharing of property as well as the common life of the
community (see Acts 4:32).175 This writer proposes that
koinwniva promotes a life of reciprocity in an intimate
community of familial ties and friendship in Christ Jesus.176
In other words, koinwniva represents the ethos of the
apostolic community. This ethos includes the activities of
The grammatical construction of verse 42 places th/
didach/ tw`n ajpostovlwn, koinwniva/, th/ klavsei tou` a[rtou, and tai`"
proseucai`" as four distinct activities. The general
consideration of koinwniva as participation in a “common
141
178John B. Polhill, Acts, New American Commentary(Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 119; Rudolf Pesch, DieApostelgeschichte, Teilband I: Apg. 1-12, EvangelisheKatholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, 5 (Zürich:Benziger Verlag, 1986), 70-71.
179R. Michiels, “The ‘Model of Church’ in the FirstChristian Community of Jerusalem: Ideal and Reality,”Louvain Studies 10 (1985): 309-310.
180Walter Schmithals, The Theology of the FirstChristians, trans. O. C. Dean Jr. (Louisville: WestminsterJohn Knox, 1997), 188.
181Jerome H. Neyrey, “Ceremonies in Luke-Acts: TheCase of Meals and Table Fellowship,” in The Social World ofLuke-Acts: Models for Interpretation, ed. Jerome H. Neyrey(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 363.
religious experience” suggests that th/ klavsei tou` a[rtou and tai`"
proseucai`" are elements in koinwniva.178
Table fellowship presents an avenue for the
transformation of worldview in the postmodern setting. In
an apostolic community, the table fellowship allows
believers to remember the foundation of their community as
the “body of Christ.”179 The celebration of the common meal
actualizes the “fellowship of the individual church members
in the unity of the body of Christ” for the church.180
Neyrey indicates that the ceremonial meal serves as
a process to “bolster the boundaries defining a group or
institution, even as they confirm established roles and
statuses within the group.”181 The klavsi~ tou` a[rtou is an idiom
for Jewish ceremony opening a meal in which the host offers
142
182Brad Blue, “The Influence of Jewish Worship onLuke’s Presentation of the Early Church,” in Witness to theGospel: The Theology of Acts, eds. I. Howard Marshall andDavid Peterson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 488-89.
183F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, 73; H. Conzelmann,Commentary on the Acts, 23.
184Hans Conzelmann, The History of PrimitiveChristianity, trans. John E. Steely (Nashville: Abingdon,1973), 53.
185J. Neyrey, “Ceremonies in Luke-Acts,” 375.
a prayer of blessing and then distributes the provisions
from God.182 Bruce indicates that this “regular observance”
is the precursor to the Eucharist, in which the klavsi~ tou`
a[rtou is a ceremonial celebration of Christ’s “brokenness in
death” for humanity.183 The klavsi~ tou` a[rtou finds meaning in
the “exposition of Christ’s saving deed.”184 In turn, the
meal strengthens the identity of the community as well as
the participant’s role in the community.185 Through the
common meal, the community celebrates the work of Christ.
This aspect of koinwniva establishes the nature of
Christ’s death as God’s provision of life, promotes the
nature of the future with Christ’s imminent return, provides
the nature of the blessings received as part of the
community, commends the nature of ethics within the
community, and commissions individuals for the continuity
143
186Ibid., 376-77. This conclusion is drawn fromChrist’s farewell meal with His followers as the starting-point of the ceremonial meal of Acts 2:42.
187Michael Green, Evangelism Through the Local Church(Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1992), 299-300.
188H. Greeven, s. v. “eu[comai,” TDNT, 2:807-808.
189Daniel K. Falk, “Jewish Prayer Literature and theJerusalem Church in Acts,” in The Book of Acts in ItsPalestinian Setting, ed. Richard Bauckham, vol. 4, The Bookof Acts in Its First Century Setting (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1995), 300.
190W. Neil, Acts of the Apostles, 81.
and expansion of the community.186 Michael Green suggests
that “much about the Christian faith is ‘spiritual’ and hard
to get a grip on. But eating is the most basic human
activity.”187 The image of klavsi~ tou` a[rtou helps the
postmodern person visualize the nature of salvation, daily
nurture, and future glory in Christ Jesus.
Furthermore, apostolic fellowship includes proseuchv,
which denotes the regular petitioning to God for aid.188
Falk suggests that Luke records the adoption of Jewish
prayer practices including the appointed prayer times.189
The connection, however, between koinwniva and klavsi~ tou` a[rtou
suggests that the devotion to prayer moves beyond the
practices of Temple worship.190 Indeed, the tight connection
of the fellowship suggests that the apostolic community
shares prayer together around the celebration of the common
144
191J. Polhill, Acts, 120.
192Allison A. Trites, “The Prayer Motif in Luke-Acts,” in Perspectives in Luke-Acts, ed. C. H. Talbert(Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1977), 179.
193D. A. deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship, andPurity, 129.
194Ibid., 130-31.
195Ibid., 132.
meal.191 An apostolic approach sees this aspect of koinwniva
as an “integral part of the Christian movement” and is
related “to the growth of the church.”192
DeSilva provides an interesting analysis on the
place of prayer in the apostolic community. His model is
“God as benefactor.” For the apostolic community, DeSilva
suggests that God goes “far beyond the high-water mark of
generosity” through the bestowal of reconciliation to His
enemies.193 Furthermore, as the “personal patron to
Christians,” God hears and acts upon the specific petitions
from “local communities of faith” who enjoy the “privilege
of access to God for such timely and specific help.”194
Prayer, therefore, is “the means by which believers can
personally seek God’s favor, and request specific
benefactions, for themselves or on behalf of one another.”195
The role of th/ klavsei tou` a[rtou and tai`" proseucai`" in
apostolic fellowship presents a valuable picture for the
145
196Sally Morgenthaler, Worship Evangelism: InvitingUnbelievers into the Presence of God (Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1995), 123.
197Ibid., 123.
198Bruce Thede, “How One Church Reached Out to BabyBusters,” Worship Leader (July-August 1994): 14.
199S. Morgenthaler, Worship Evangelism, 120.
transformation of worldview in postmodern people. Sally
Morgenthaler calls for the increased “vertical and
horizontal interaction” in community.196 This interaction
“provides pathways of contact with a holy and loving God”
and “avenues of nurturing, uplifting relationships with
those who are called in God’s name.”197 Bruce Thede suggests
that the evangelization of postmodern people depends upon
more participation and interaction in the community.198
Morgenthaler indicates that postmodern people are searching
for an “escape from the perpetual dehumanizing anonymity” of
everyday life.199 The common meal and the place of prayer in
apostolic fellowship provides such an escape.
For instance, Elmer Towns examines the role of
“small-group prayer” during worship. In this approach, the
worship leader calls for the congregation to gather in small
groups during the worship in order to pray for the needs of
one another. Towns writes that this place of prayer
146
200Elmer Towns, An Inside Look at Ten of Today’s MostInnovative Churches (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1990), 66-67.
201Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: TheSocial World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale UniversityPress, 1983), 84.
202John H. Elliott, “Temple versus Household in Luke-Acts: A Contrast in Social Institutions,” in The SocialWorld of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation, ed. Jerome H.Neyrey (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 226.
203John Koenig, New Testament Hospitality:Partnership with Strangers as Promise and Mission(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 118-23.
connects people to the love of God and community for them.200
Meeks states that “in order to persist, a social
organization must have boundaries, must maintain structural
stability as well as flexibility, and must create a unique
culture.”201 Through the apostles’ doctrine and koinwniva, the
apostolic church transforms worldviews, establishing the
boundaries, structural stability, and unique culture of an
apostolic community. It is the connection within the
community that provides impetus for transformation.
Furthermore, the distinctive nature of the
apostolic community promotes evangelism. Elliott suggests
that the community represents “the basic social organization
through which the gospel advances from Palestine to Rome.”202
Through the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, the apostolic
community establishes solidarity for the church’s missionary
enterprise.203
147
204Zygmunt Bauman, “What Prospects of Morality inTimes of Uncertainty?” Theory, Culture, and Society 15(February 1998): 11-12.
205Thom S. Rainer, Bridger Generation (Nashville:Broadman and Holman, 1997), 63.
206David Wells, God in the Wasteland (Grand Rapids:William B. Eerdmans, 1994), 29-30.
belonging,204 which can be found in a community following the
pattern of ethics in an apostolic approach.205 The apostolic
ethics of the community provide a warm environment for the
evangelization of postmodern people. This writer seeks to
demonstrate the necessity of a commendable community for the
evangelization of postmodern people.206
The apostles’ doctrine and koinwniva transform
worldviews so that the community becomes “the contemporary
embodiment of the paradigmatic biblical narrative.”207
Witness occurs through the “way of life” of the community.
Nicholas Lash proposes that martyrdom is the “performance or
enactment of the biblical text: in its ‘active
reinterpretation.’”208 In order to overcome the postmodern
scepticism of truth, an apostolic approach seeks to
148
209Ibid.
210Wayne A. Meeks, The Origins of Christian Morality:The First Two Centuries (New Haven: Yale University Press,1993), 5. The contention of this writer is that the Spiritforms community, and the morals or ethics that proceed fromthe community proceed from the demands of the Spirit uponthe community as revealed through Scripture.
211Brian J. Capper, “The Palestinian Cultural Contextof Earliest Christian Community of Goods,” in The Book ofActs in Its Palestinian Setting, ed. Richard Bauckham, vol.4, The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting (Grand
demonstrate the truth of the gospel through the performative
interpretation of Scripture in the way-of-life of the
apostolic community. In other words, the Christian
worldview is “lived-out” through the community of faith, and
this presents the “transformative power of Christian
‘martyrdom.’”209 Meeks suggests that “making morals means
making community.”210 The premise of this section, however,
is that ethics proceed from the demands of the Spirit and
the One to whom He bears witness. The Spirit establishes
community, and the community adheres to His demands.
The Ethics of Community: Acts 2:44-47 and theImportance of ajllhvlwn in Pauline Paraenesis
The description of the apostolic community in Acts
presents the ideal paradigm for the ethic of community.
Capper and Schmithals indicate that Luke records the
summaries to present the Christian community as an ideal
community (Acts 2:44-47; 4:32-35).211 These summary
149
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 324; W. Schmithals, Theology of theFirst Christians, 334-35.
212Alan Brehm, “The Significance of the Summaries forInterpreting Acts,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 33(Fall 1990): 33.
213Ibid., 35. Luke presents the nature of this unityin the summaries with ejpi; to; aujto/ and a{panta koina; (2:44); kardivakai; yuch; miva and a{panta koina;(4:32).
214T. B. Maston, Biblical Ethics: A Guide to theEthical Message of the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation(Cleveland: Word, 1967; reprint, Macon, GA: MercerUniversity Press, 1982), 246-53.
narratives present a paradigm for all Christian
communities.212 The koinwniva produces the ejpi; to; aujto; so that
the community shares with one another in tangible
expressions of love; such as the sale and distribution of
personal property to those in need. Unity of the apostolic
community leads them to help a[n ti~ creivan ei\cen (Acts 4:35).213
T. B. Maston indicates that there are three aspects
to the apostolic ethic in Acts: ethic of the Spirit, ethic
of fellowship, and ethic of inclusion.214 The ethic of the
Spirit centers on the decision-making within the community
of faith recorded specifically in Acts 5:1-11 and 15:1-29.
The fellowship ethic focuses upon the “the concept of
sharing.” The ethic of inclusion involves the inclusion of
Gentiles in the community (Acts 11:1-18). This apostolic
ethic presents a paradigm for the contemporary church.
Although the community of goods in Acts 2 and 4 appear as an
150
215Gordon Fee, Paul, the Spirit, and the People ofGod (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 115, 106.
216See also the ethic of humility in Rom 12:10. Paulwrites, th`/ filadelfiva/ eij~ ajllhvlou~ filovstorgoi, th`/ timh`/ ajllhvlou~prohgouvmenoi. The translation is: “Loving dearly one anotherwith brotherly love, outstretching one another with honor.” Here, prohgouvmenoi indicates the desire to be the best atgiving honor to one another. BAGD, s. v. “prohgevomai,” 706.
217“Nothing according to ambition and not accordingto vanity, but with humility considering the others betterthan himself.”
218Eckhard J. Schnabel, “How Paul Developed HisEthics,” in Understanding Paul’s Ethics: Twentieth CenturyApproaches, ed. Brian Rosner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995),
occasional concern for the apostolic community, the
collection for the poor by Paul and the paranaetic sections
of Paul’s epistles extend and amplify the ethic for the
Christian community.
Paul describes the apostolic ethic in his
exhortation or paraenetic sections of his letters. His use
of ajllhvlwn (and ajllhvlou~) demonstrates this ethic. Following
the pattern of Christ, an apostolic ethic focuses on love.215
Phil 2:1-4 specifically reveal the principle of
love in the apostolic ethic of the community.216 In verse 3,
Paul presents the ethic: mhde;n kat j ejriqeivan mhde; kata; kenodoxivan
Schnabel indicates that this “modest self-assessment” calls
for each member of the community to seek the “advantage of
his fellow believers” above personal benefit.218 This is the
151
291-92.
219“Who existing in the form of God.” Thistranslation follows Gordon Fee, Paul’s Letter to thePhilippians, 202-204. Fee considers morfh; to be “that whichtruly characterizes a given reality” (204). The use ofuJpavrcwn points to real existence (202). See also, James D.G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiryinto the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980), 114-20. He views thispassage merely a depiction of Christ’s humanity.
220“He emptied himself receiving the form of a slave”and “being found in outward appearance as a man.”
221G. Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, 203.
222Otfried Hofius, Der Christushymnus Philipper 2,6-11: Untersuchungen zu Gestalt und Aussage einesurchristlichen Psalms (Tübingen: Mohr, 1991), 63. Thetranslation is: “voluntarily became poor and chose anexistence in powerlessness and dishonor.”
223Ibid. “[He] became a man (v. 7c.d) and inobedience toward the will of God went the way of
principle of love as sacrificial service for one another.
Christ is the pattern for the ethic of love (Phil
2:5-11). Beginning with the conception of Christ’s
preexistence (o{~ ejn morfh/ qeou` uJpavrcwn),219 the logic of the hymn
moves to the One who eJauto;n ejkevnwsen morfh;n douvlou labwvn and
schvmati euJreqei~ wJ~ a[nqrwpo~ (Phil 2:7).220 This logic presents
“prior existence as God.”221 Christ “freiwillig arm wurde
und ein Dasein in Machtlosigkeit und Entehrung wählte.”222
Christ “ein Mensch wurde (V. 7c.d) und im Gehorsam gegen den
Willen Gottes den Weg der Erniedrigung ging: den Weg an das
Kreuz (V. 8).”223 The apostolic ethic of sacrificial service
152
humiliation: the way by the cross (v. 8).”
224Ralph Martin, A Hymn of Christ: Philippians 2:5-11in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of EarlyChristian Worship (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997), 289-91. Martin argues against such an ethical interpretation ofthis hymn, proposing instead that the purpose of the hymn inthe midst of Paul’s ethical instruction is to call thecommunity to live worthy of Christ’s kenosis, death, andexaltation. His conclusion, however, does not militateagainst the ethic of community toward one another. Indeed,his conclusion only strengthens the portrait of this ethic.
225L. W. Hurtado, “Jesus as Lordly Example inPhilippians 2:5-11,” in From Jesus to Paul: Studies inHonour of Francis Wright Beare, ed. P. Richardson and J. C.Hurd Jr. (Waterloo: Wilfried Laurier University Press,1983), 125.
226Rudolf Schnackenburg, Der Brief an die Epheser,Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 10(Neukirchener-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982), 215. “‘Toone another,’ underscores the commitment to the community.”
for others finds ultimate fulfillment in Christ.224
Obedience to Christ’s command to love one another
sacrificially, as well as following His example, gains
attentive ears as the apostolic community considers the
lordship of Christ.225
In Eph 4:32, Paul once again utilizes ajllhvlou~ to
depict the ethic of the apostolic community. As
Schnackenberg concisely indicates, “‘zueinander,’
unterstreicht die Verpflichtung zur Gemeinschaft.”226
Relationally, this commitment to the community involves
153
227BAGD, s. v. “crhstovth~,” 886. The term indicatesgoodness or generosity toward others.
228H. Köster, s. v. “splavgcnon ktl.,” TDNT, 7:548-49,555-57. The term points to a deep feeling of compassion.
229Markus Barth, Ephesians: Introduction,Translation, and Commentary on Chapters 4-6, Anchor Bible34a (New York: Doubleday, 1974), 523-24. The term indicatesthe activity of forgiveness toward others.
230R. Schnackenburg, Der Brief an die Epheser, 215. “From goodness (crhstovth~) grows a merciful attitude(eu[splagcnoi) and from that the will to forgiveness.”
231“As God in Christ forgave you.” The aorist use ofcarivzomai refers to God’s forgiveness, and the present tensecarizovmenoi refers to the saint’s forgiveness.
232M. Barth, Ephesians 4-6, 525.
crhstovth~,227 eu[splagcno~,228 and carizovmeno~.229 Each of these
virtues proceeds eij~ ajllhvlou~ in an apostolic community.
uJmi`n.231 God’s forgiveness in Christ becomes the pattern by
which believers forgive one another. Barth rightly suggests
that “those who are forgiven” are “witnesses to God’s grace”
by the exemplary manner of their communal relationships.232
Col 3:12-13 present additional virtues:
tapeinofrosuvnh (humility), prau>vth" (gentleness), and makroqumiva
154
233Fritz Rienecker, Linguistic Key to the Greek NewTestament, ed. and trans. Cleon Rogers Jr. (Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1976; reprint, 1980), 580-81.
234“Bearing with one another and forgiving oneanother.” The term, ajnecovmenoi, is an admonition to thecommunity to extend love to one another willingly. H.Schlier, s. v. “ajnevcw ktl.,” TDNT, 1:359.
235F. F. Bruce, Colossians, Philemon, and Ephesians,155 n. 134. Here the present participles are utilized inthe sense of a command.
236“Just as the Lord forgave you, in the same manneralso you.”
237“Love, which is the bond of completeness.”
238Paul exhorts the community to ajgapa`n ajllhvlou~ in Rom13:8 and 1 Thess 3:12, 4:9, 18.
(patience).233 Paul then writes, ajnecovmenoi ajllhvlwn kai;
carizovmenoi eJautoi~ (Col 3:13).234 Such a construction is
“characteristic of extended ethical injunctions in the
NT.”235 The apostolic ethic calls for “mutual tolerance” as
well as mutual forgiveness. Once again, the key to
apostolic ethic is found in Christ: kaqw;~ kai; oJ kuvrio~ ejcarivsato
uJmi`n, ou{tw~ kai; uJmei`~ (Col 3:13).236
As ajgavph is the suvndesmo~ th`~ teleiovthto~ (Col 3:14),237
the apostolic ethic finds tangible expression. Paul’s use
of ajgaphv with ajllhvlwn indicates the reciprocity of love.238
This love produces spiritual strengthening of one another.
This edification involves the pursuit of ta; th`~ oijkodomh`~ th`~
155
239“The things for the building up of one another.”
240“To admonish one another.” J. Brehm, s. v. “noevwktl.,” TDNT, 4:1019-1022.
241Abraham J. Malherbe, The Letters to theThessalonians, Anchor Bible 32b (New York: Doubleday, 2000),278. Paul’s exhortation, “comfort one another,” focusesupon the eternal association of all who are in Christ, eventhose who have already died. It further points to thecomfort of Christ’s return.
242“Bear the burdens of one another.” Hans D. Betz,Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches inGalatia, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 299.
243“Bearing with one another in love.”
244James D. G. Dunn, Galatians, 321.
eij~ ajllhvlou~ (Rom 14:19).239 It includes the responsibility
ajllhvlou~ nouqetei`n (Rom 15:14).240 Here, nouqetevw denotes the
activity of a community’s influence upon the mind and will
of others in order to set them upon the right path.
Spiritual strengthening in the community also involves
“reciprocal comfort,” as Paul suggests when he writes,
parakalei`te ajllhvlou~ (1 Thess 4:18, 5:11).241
Spiritual edification involves the ethical
imperative, ajllhvlwn ta; bavrh bastavzete (Gal 6:2).242 As a
community ajnecovmenoi ajllhvlwn ejn ajgavph/ (Eph 4:2),243 the nature of
Christ’s love calls for “helping out those fellow members
whose load is too heavy for them to bear alone.”244 Helping
others overcome the temptation to sin is part of the ethic.
Fung indicates that ta; bavrh euphemistically points to a
156
245Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians,New International Commentary on the New Testament (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 284.
246“You receive one another, just as Christ receivedyou.”
247David Alan Black, Paul, Apostle of Weakness:Astheneia and Its Cognates in the Pauline Literature (NewYork: Peter Lang, 1984), 198-206. Moo does not draw such atight distinction between Jewish and Gentile Christians asthe identification of the “strong” and the “weak,” but herightly indicates that the “dividing line between these twogroups was basically the issue of the continuingapplicability of the Jewish law.”
248D. Moo, Epistle to the Romans, 873-75.
believer’s lapse into sin.245 In this way, the apostolic
community joins together to offer spiritual strength to one
another.
Other tangible expressions of the principle of love
in apostolic ethics include proslambavnesqe ajllhvlou~, kaqw;~ kai; oJ
Cristo/~ proselavbeto uJma`~ (Rom 15:7).246 The exhortation informs
the relationship between the dunatoi; and the ajduvnatoi in Rome.
Black suggests that the ajduvnatoi are Jewish Christians whose
dietary rituals caused them to condemn those who did not
follow their ceremonial laws. The dunatoi; are the Gentile
Christians who condemned the ajduvnatoi for their legalism.247
Paul’s exhortation is for mutual acceptance within the
apostolic community. As Christ received them, they should
receive one another in community.248
The apostolic approach for the evangelization of
157
249Leonard Sweet, Post-Modern Pilgrims: First CenturyPassion for the 21st Century World (Nashville: Broadman andHolman, 2000), 113.
250Kenneth Gergen, The Saturated Self: Dilemmas ofIdentity in Contemporary Life (New York: Basic Books, 1991),5-7.
251L. Sweet, Post-Modern Pilgrims, 115.
postmodern people depends upon a community which follows the
principle of Christ’s love for one another as exemplified by
Christ Himself. Thus, the principle of apostolic ethics is
love and the pattern is Christ.
The Postmodern Need for Intimacy
The postmodern need for intimacy presents a
connecting link between the gospel and postmodernism. In
the postmodern world, individuals possess a hunger for
community and connection. An apostolic approach seeks to
bring ideal community to the hearts of postmodern people.
Indeed, as Leonard Sweet suggests, “relationship issues
stand at the heart of postmodern culture.”249 Kenneth Gergen
notes that postmodernism leads individuals into “a state of
continuous reconstruction.”250 In the flux of interminable
meaning, postmodern people seek “a self-identity within a
connectional framework of neighborliness, civic virtue, and
spiritual values.”251
Middleton and Walsh indicate that postmodern people
158
252Middleton and Walsh, Truth Is Stranger Than ItUsed to Be, 145-46.
253Peter Berger, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of aSociological Theory of Religion (Garden City, NY: Doubleday,1967), 22.
254Stanley Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 169.
255Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth, 38;idem., Essays on Heidegger and Others, 163.
256Rorty, Consequences of Pragmatism, 166.
exist in a state of “radical” homelessness.252 The
deconstruction of metanarrative is also the deconstruction
of reality. As such, postmodern people are “submerged in a
world of disorder, senselessness, and madness.”253 They
exist in a state of exile, searching for intimacy in a world
of violence and isolation.
Postmodern people, in turn, yearn for community
that embodies “wholesome, authentic, and healing
relationships.”254 Rorty’s espousal of a communal view of
understanding promotes the community as the creator of
identity, meaning, and value for the individual.255 Rorty
suggests that in a world with contingencies rather than
truth “loyalty to other human beings clinging together
against the dark” is a more appropriate pursuit than the
pursuit of truth or the goal of “getting things right.”256
Being informed by the “epistemic undecidability” of
159
257Charles E. Winquist, Desiring Theology (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1995), 143.
258Ibid., 146.
259Ibid., 146-47.
260Ibid., 148-50.
postmodernism, Winquist suggests that “we can no longer
develop an ethic in itself.”257 By this, Winquist embraces a
postmodern skepticism toward any claim to a universal,
absolute ethic. In response to this “epistemic
undecidability,” Winquist proposes “paraethics.” He
describes “paraethics” as a “belief that life is less
beautiful when people are oppressed and disenfranchised.”258
“Paraethics” seeks to “deterritorialize” texts, so that no
text has a privileged place.259 With “perspectives that are
never absolute,” Winquist proposes that the “becoming of
paraethics” is love. This love, however, is “contingent on
place and time” and subject to the “finite experience” of
relative context.260 The context of the individual,
therefore, informs and directs the becoming of “paraethics.”
In the view of this writer, an apostolic approach
presents a more constructive avenue of ethics. Being
informed by the apostolic community of the NT, an apostolic
approach seeks to embody the principle of love in Christ.
Rather than allowing the world of contingencies to dictate
263Ibid., 133. “It itself, however, is ‘invisible,’unseeable, possesses no structured institution and nospecific form of organization.”
264Ibid., 129. “The postmodern creates us as“hoboes” in a land of values, ethically unsatisfied, morallyhomeless and always on the search for the other, the new.”
and direct the ethics in which one engages,261 apostolic
ethics allows the paradigm of Christ unveiled by the Spirit
of truth to dictate and direct moral principles and
obligations. An apostolic approach, therefore, speaks with
“decidability” to the postmodern need for intimacy.
Helmut Anselm describes the necessity of an ethical
response to the postmodern generation.262 Anselm indicates
that the postmodern generation is an ethical community which
needs a stable, concrete way of life. Postmodern ethics is
“virtuell” -- “Sie selbst aber ist ‘invisibilis,’
unsichtbar, besistzt keine strukturierenden Institutionen
und keine eigenen Organisationsformen.”263 Citing Bauman’s
negative view of the postmodern “way-of-life,” Anselm
suggests: “die Postmoderne macht uns zu ‘Landstreichen’ im
Land der Werte, ethische unbefriedigt, moralisch heimatlos
und immer auf der Suche nach dem Anderen, dem Neuen.”264
This evaluation necessitates that the church is to provide a
161
265Ibid., 135. “One cannot however mediate to theyouth through speeches, but only through specific action,not through theories, but through practice.”
266Stanley Hauerwas, A Community of Character: Towarda Constructive Christian Social Ethic (Notre Dame:University of Notre Dame Press, 1981), 92.
stable, concrete “way-of-life.” This concrete ethic is
built upon the principle of love and the pattern of Christ.
Anselm calls for a movement in the church from “virtuelle
Ethik-Community” dominated by speeches and theories. He
suggests that “kann man den Jugendlichen nicht durch Reden
vermitteln, sondern nur durch eigenes Tun, nicht durch
Theoretisieren, sondern durch Praktizieren.”265
The practice of an apostolic approach follows the
principle of love and the pattern of Jesus Christ modeled by
the apostolic church in Acts and in Paul’s use of ajllhvlwn.
The ethic of community focuses upon the ethic of Christ,
which is not a theory, but an active engagement of others.
The Commendable Community and Evangelism, Acts 2:47, 5:13
A community following an apostolic approach to
ethics provides a commendable community for people in a
postmodern setting. Stanley Hauerwas posits that all human
relationships are “splintered and tribal existence” in
comparison to a church which reflects an apostolic ethic.266
An apostolic community of love in Christ satisfies the
162
267The apostolic community had “favor with all thepeople.” Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: ACommentary, trans. R. McL. Wilson, et al. (Oxford: BasilBlackwell, 1971), 193; W. Neil, Acts of the Apostles, 82. Neil suggests that the “splendid quality of their commonlife” produced a favorable view.
268W. Neil, Acts of the Apostles, 82.
269George G. Hunter III, How to Reach Secular People(Nashville: Abingdon, 1992), 137-40.
270“The people praised them.”
postmodern yearning for intimate connection. This writer
proposes that the commendable community of an apostolic
approach to ethics energizes the evangelistic ministry in
the postmodern world.
The ethic of the apostolic community produces cavrin
pro;~ o{lon to;n laovn (Acts 2:47).267 “As a result of this, the
young community grew day by day, as more and more Jews
accepted Jesus as the Messiah and were thus saved.”268
Indeed, a commendable community which embraces the ethic of
the apostolic community enhances the evangelistic
effectiveness in a postmodern world.269 An apostolic
approach calls for the community of faith to demonstrate the
271H. Conzelmann, Commentary on the Acts, 39. Conzelmann suggests that it is “mere clumsiness” by theauthor.
272“But no one of the rest had courage to unite withthem.”
273D. R. Schwartz, “Non-Joining Sympathizers (Acts5,13-14),” Biblica 64 (1983): 550-55.
274F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, 109.
275C. C. Torrey, “The ‘Rest’ in Acts v. 13,”Expository Times 46 (1934-1935): 428-29. He takes kolla`sqaias “to seize.” The religious leaders did not dare arrestthe members of the apostolic community because of theirfavor and high-esteem by oJ laov~.
276I. H. Marshall, Acts of the Apostles, 115. Hesuggests that loipw`n is a technical idiom for unbelieversand the meaning of kolla`sqai means “to come near.”
The setting of this verse appears “anti-evangelistic.”271
The judgment of Ananias and Sapphira creates an atmosphere
in which tw`n de; loipw`n oujdei;~ eJtovlma kolla`sqai aujtoi`~ (Acts 5:13a).272
D. R. Schwartz proposes that the tension between the
admiration of the people and their fear kept prospective
converts from union with the apostolic community through the
contribution of personal property.273 Bruce also indicates
that these deaths dissuaded all but the totally committed
from joining the community.274 C. C. Torrey, however,
considers loipw`n to refer to the Jewish religious leaders
and kalla`sqai to the arrest of the Christians.275 This writer
follows Marshall who proposes the intent of the verse is:
“unbelieving Jews kept away from the Christians.”276
164
277Polhill, Acts, 164.
278I. H. Marshall, Acts of the Apostles, 115.
279Curtis Vaughan, Acts: A Study Bible Commentary(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 38.
280R. Daniel Shaw, “In Search of Post-modernSalvation,” Evangelical Review of Theology 22 (1998): 57.
The fear of “half-hearted” allegiance to the
apostolic community provides a corrective to the social
ministry in which it engaged. The provision for a[n ti~ kreivan
ei\cen most likely attracted a large following in Jerusalem.
The incident with Ananias and Sapphira, however, caused
those who were looking for physical needs to evaluate their
true commitment to Christ. Unless they were willing to
submit to the Spirit’s power, they kept their distance.277
Nevertheless, even those who feared participation
in the apostolic community “could not help praising them as
they were impressed by what they did.”278 In fact, the ethic
of the commendable community, especially when joined with
the powerful demonstrations of God’s presence and power, led
to the growth of the community (Acts 5:14). Vaughan
proposes that the purity of the community and the obvious
presence of the Lord promotes the growth of the church.279
R. Daniel Shaw suggests that the church in the
postmodern world must utilize specific ministry to those who
are in need as she evangelizes of postmodern individuals.280
165
281Allison A. Trites, “Church Growth in the Book ofActs,” Bibliotheca Sacra 145 (April 1988): 172.
282Hauerwas, A Community of Character, 52-55, 95-97.
283Dennis Hollinger, “The Church as Apologetic: ASociology of Knowledge Perspective,” in ChristianApologetics in the Postmodern World, eds. Timothy R.Phillips and Dennis L. Okholm (Downers Grove: InterVarsity,1995), 182-93. He proposes that the “plausibilitystructure” for the gospel is a “holy, loving, just,forgiving, life-giving community” which reflects theprinciple of love and the pattern of Christ (Ibid., 190). “Plausibility structure” is a “social structure whichmanifests the worldview of a people” (Ibid., 186).
An apostolic approach seeks such an holistic approach. An
apostolic community responds to the practical as well as
spiritual needs of its members (Acts 4:32, 34-35; 6:1-6).
Evangelism and social action join together as a powerful
witness to the postmodern world. Trites writes: “Such an
unselfish, caring fellowship was undeniably attractive to
the pagan world, and it still is.”281
This is not to say that a commendable community
“makes true” the gospel. Hauerwas appears to present such a
conclusion when he suggests that “the truthfulness” of a
story “is known by the kind of community [it] should
form.”282 Dennis Hollinger rightly proposes that the church,
as “a visible, corporate expression” of the gospel, serves
as a witness in the postmodern world.283 Unlike Hauerwas,
this writer proposes that the truthfulness of the gospel is
inherent in its nature as divine revelation and witness.
166
284Ibid., 187.
285William C. Placher, Unapologetic Theology: AChristian Voice in a Pluralistic Conversation (Louisville:Westminster John Knox, 1989), 167.
286For a contrary view, see, James W. Sire, “On Beinga Fool for Christ and an Idiot for Nobody: Logocentricityand Postmodernity,” in Christian Apologetics in thePostmodern World, eds. Timothy R. Phillips and Dennis L.Okholm (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1995), 101-27.
The Spirit of truth bridges the truth of the gospel to
postmodern people. Yet, in evangelism, the community’s
actions join with the Spirit’s witness to Christ. Berger
proposes that the “reality of the gospel is mediated”
through the faith-community modeling the apostolic ethic.284
As such, an apostolic approach presents a model for life
within community which postmodern people seek.285
An apostolic approach for the evangelization of
postmodern people exalts the principle of love for one
another and follows the pattern of Christ in the community.
In this way, the community of faith “incarnates” intimacy,
and the postmodern desire for intimacy finds fulfillment in
the commendable community, which shows love and practical
concern for a[n ti~ creivan ei\cen.
Kevin Graham Ford calls for a commendable community
in the evangelization of postmodern people. He suggests
that the “intellectual dimension” of the gospel is vital for
discipleship (th/ didach/ tw`n ajpostovlwn), but not evangelism.286
167
287Kevin Graham Ford, Jesus for a New Generation:Putting the Gospel in the Language of Xers (Downers Grove:InterVarsity, 1995), 136-37.
288Hauerwas, A Community of Character, 52.
289C. E. Autrey, Evangelism in the Acts (GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1964), 43.
291I. Howard Marshall, “Palestinian and HellenisticChristianity,” New Testament Studies 19 (1972-1973): 271-87.
Although this writer does not concur completely with Ford’s
conclusions about apologetics in the evangelization of
postmodern people, his emphasis on community is insightful.
The commendable community in which the church is a “safe and
nurturing haven of relational stability” presents the most
effective tool for the evangelization of postmodern
people.287
Obstacles to Community: Deception and Division
When deceit and division mark the community of
faith, these obstacles encumber the “truthful telling” of
the gospel.288 The apostolic ethic, which exegetes the love
of God through Christ to others, becomes the target of
Satan’s attack against the faith-community.289 The deception
of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11)290 and the division
between the Hellenists and the Hebrews (Acts 6:1-6)
demonstrate an approach to overcome these obstacles.291
168
292Trites, “Church Growth in the Book of Acts,” 172.
293Brian Capper, “The Interpretation of Acts 5.4,”Journal for the Study of the New Testament 19 (1983): 117-31. Capper shows that the candidates for membership in theEssene community went through a probation period in whichall personal property was given, but ownership was nottransferred. To deceive the community demonstrated a lackof trust in the community.
294B. Capper, “Palestinian Cultural Context ofEarliest Christian Community of Goods,” 337-38.
295F. F. Bruce, Acts of the Apostles, 105 n. 15.
296B. Capper, “Palestinian Cultural Context ofEarliest Christian Community of Goods,” 338-39.
Accordingly, this writer will seek to demonstrate how the
apostolic church responded to these threats.292
The setting of the deception and judgment of
Ananias and Sapphira informs the approach involved in the
resolution of the problem in the community. Capper provides
an extensive analysis of the community of goods in its
Palestinian context. He concludes that the violation of the
couple finds a parallel in the Essene community.293 In
drawing this comparison, Capper connects membership in the
community with the transfer of personal property.294 Bruce,
however, rightly indicates that such a conclusion outweighs
the evidence.295 Furthermore, the demand of the surrender of
personal property to join the community finds no parallel in
the NT. Indeed, Peter’s questions in verse 4 demonstrate
the voluntary nature of the community of goods.296
169
297F. F. Bruce, Acts of the Apostles, 102.
298M. Erickson, Christian Theology, 472.
299Brian Rosner, “The Progress of the Word,” inWitness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts, eds. I. H.Marshall and David Peterson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998),224.
300Robert Wall, “Israel and the Gentile Mission inActs and Paul: A Canonical Approach,” in Witness to theGospel: The Theology of Acts, eds. I. H. Marshall and DavidPeterson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 444.
Nevertheless, Ananias and Sapphira sought to deceive, which
interrupts the “victorious progress of the people of God.”297
The work of oJ satana`~ against the apostolic community is the
manifestation of his opposition to God and the work of
Christ. The methodology of oJ satana`~ is the temptation to
sin.298 In an attempt to garner a reputation for generosity,
Ananias and Sapphira seek yeuvsasqai (Acts 5:3). Yet, the
object of this deception is to; pneu`ma and tw/ qew/, not merely
ajnqrwvpoi~. The judgment is swift and final (Acts 5:5, 10).
As the community of the Spirit, the church must
maintain purity in order to maintain effective witness. The
Spirit is the agent of confirmation, power, leadership, and
judgment “by which God launches the good news.”299 The
“execution of Ananias is a prolepsis that the proclaimed
word carries the prospect of divine retribution for any who
deny its truth.”300 Thankfully, the finality and extent of
this judgment does not represent the normative standard.
170
301David P. Seccombe, Possessions and the Poor inLuke-Acts, Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt(Linz: Verlag F. Plochl, 1982), 199-201.
302Max Turner, “The ‘Spirit of Prophecy’ as the Powerof Israel’s Restoration and Witness,” in Witness to theGospel: The Theology of Acts, eds. I. H. Marshall and DavidPeterson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 341.
303F. F. Bruce, Acts of the Apostles, 104.
304“Putting away deceit” and “speak truth each onewith his neighbor” because “we are members of one another.”
305James D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the NewTestament: An Inquiry into the Character of EarliestChristianity, 2d ed. (London: SCM Press, 1990), 178.
306M. Erickson, Christian Theology, 1057-58. Thisincludes the necessity of discipline (1 Cor 5:11-13).
The narrative, however, demonstrates the powerful presence
of God in the midst of His people and “zealous to defend”
the holiness of the community, which is normative.301 This
judgment serves as a blessing for the apostolic community
through the Spirit’s monitor of holiness.302 This narrative
highlights the judgment upon those who defile the “temple”
with impurity (1 Cor 3:16-17).303 Furthermore, the ethic of
community means ajpoqevmenoi to; yeu`do~ and lalei`te ajlhvqeian e{kasto~
meta; tou` plhsivon aujtou` because ejsme;n ajllhvlwn mevlh (Eph 4:25).304
An apostolic approach depends upon the Spirit “for
its spiritual sustenance and sense of direction,” including
judgment upon sin.305 Furthermore, an apostolic approach
requires accountability within the community of faith.306
171
307John Milbank, Theology and Social Theory: BeyondSecular Reason (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990), 5.
308“Grumbling of the Hellenists originated againstthe Hebrews.” Most commentators identify Hellenists as Jewswho spoke Greek while the Hebrews spoke primarily theSemitic language. Notable exceptions are: H. J. Cadbury,“The Hellenists,” in The Beginnings of Christianity. Part 1:The Acts of the Apostles, vol. 4, eds. F. J. Foakes Jackonand Kirsopp Lake (London: MacMillan, 1933), 59-74; OscarCullmann, “The Significance of the Qumran Texts for Researchinto the Beginnings of Christianity,” Journal of BiblicalLiterature 74 (1955): 213-26. Cadbury suggests thatHellenists are Gentiles, and Cullmann proposes thatHellenists are Qumran sectarians.
309Joseph Fitzmeyer, “Jewish Christianity in Acts inLight of the Qumran Scrolls,” in Studies in Luke-Acts, eds.Leander Keck and J. Louis Martyn (Nashville: Abingdon,1966), 238.
Diversity is a norm within the apostolic community.
The biblical images of the community reveal this diversity
of membership. The diversity, however, is “socialized” by
the unity of the Spirit and the ethics of an apostolic
community, specifically in connection with ajllhvlwn. John
Milbank writes that “peace no longer depends upon the
reduction to the self-identical, but is the sociality of
harmonic difference.”307 An apostolic approach, following
the example of Acts 6:1-6, provides this “harmonic peace.”
This conflict demonstrates the social, cultural, and
linguistic differences within the growing faith-community.309
172
310I. H. Marshall, “Palestinian and HellenisticChristianity: Some Critical Comments,” New Testament Studies19 (1972-1973): 271-87.
311J. Julius Scott Jr., “Parties in the Church ofJerusalem as Seen in the Book of Acts,” Journal of theEvangelical Theological Society 18 (1975): 221.
312Haenchen, Acts of the Apostles, 266. See also, N.Walter, “Apostelgeschichte 6.1 und die Anfäng der Urgemeindein Jerusalem,” New Testament Studies 29 (1983): 370-93. Walter proposes the two-community structure.
This diversity, although present, should not be
overemphasized since Greek culture had already influenced
much of the Palestinian world.310
Although the subject-matter for the goggusmo;~
focuses on the distribution of food to the needy, this
probably represents one of many factors contributing to the
conflict.311 This writer, however, does not concur with the
reconstruction of many commentators on this passage.
Haenchen, for example, seeks to demonstrate the emergence of
two distinct congregations within the apostolic community.
He builds his case from the conclusion that only Hellenists
Haenchen’s suggestion is that these two groups are so
distinct that the Jewish leaders persecuted one and not the
other. Luke, therefore, creates the conflict within the
apostolic community between the Hellenists and Hebrews to
make room for this persecution.312
173
313“The Twelve” and “seven.” Conzelman, Acts of theApostles, 44.
314B. Capper, “Palestinian Cultural Context ofEarliest Christian Community of Goods,” 354-55.
315F. F. Bruce, Acts of the Apostles, 121.
316Haenchen, Acts of the Apostles, 265.
Conzelmann, as well, suggests the creation of a
two-level structure within the apostolic community: the
community around oiJ dwvdeka and the Hellenist community around
eJptav.313 Capper also indicates that the apostolic community
solves the conflict between these two distinct groups with a
further division. The apostolic community nominates and
elects eJptav to lead the “separately developing community of
hellenistic believers” rather than to unify the Hellenists
and Hebrews.314
The apostolic ethic of community, however, requires
a more synchronic analysis of this text. Unlike the
reconstructive efforts represented here, this writer seeks
to discern the natural appeal of the text. As Bruce notes,
the eJptav certainly are leaders among the Hellenists in the
apostolic community,315 but their selection by the community
does not necessarily point to the further fracture of the
community. In fact, Haenchen initially proposes that “this
story seems entirely plausible.”316 He then builds a case to
“unravel the tangle” which he perceives beyond the text.
174
317Martin Hengel, “Early Christianity as a Jewish-Messianic, Universalistic Movement,” in Conflicts andChallenges in Early Christianity, ed. D. A. Hagner(Harrisburg, PA: Trinity International Press, 1999), 29.
318Polhill, Acts, 179.
319“Examine from among you seven men who arefavorably confirmed.”
320“Before the whole assembly.” I. H. Marshall, Actsof the Apostles, 127. The Greek names of the seven menleads to the assumption that they were Hellenists.
The plausibility of this narrative rests upon a view of
Luke’s historical reliability. Hengel summarizes the
viewpoint of this writer when he suggests that the
historical details within Luke’s writing “do not fit in with
the popular picture of Luke as a kind of pious, ahistorical
novelist.”317 Accordingly, as Luke reports it, “there is no
reason to picture a breach or separation in the total
Christian community -- only the sort of ‘distancing’ created
by natural linguistic and cultural differences.”318
The problem for the apostolic community focuses
upon the “distance” between two groups within the community.
The Twelve offer “total participation” within the community;
6:3).319 With the approval ejnwvpion panto;~ tou` plhvqou~, the
community elects seven Hellenists to bridge the distance
between those who were voicing their concern and the whole
of the community within the Jerusalem church (Acts 6:5).320
175
321W. Neil, Acts of the Apostles, 104.
322The present, passive participle, marturoumevnou~,refers to a favorable report concerning these men. Furthermore they should be “full of the Spirit and wisdom.”
323F. F. Bruce, Acts of the Apostles, 121.
324Jean-François Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: AReport on Knowledge, vol. 10, Theory and History ofLiterature, trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi(Minnaopolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984), 82.
325Albert Borgman, Crossing the Postmodern Divide(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 116-18.
Even if the choice of seven Hellenists is a movement to
placate the Hellenists,321 the primary requirement for these
men is marturoumevnou~, plhvrei~ pneuvmato~ kai; sofiva~.322 Bruce
indicates that these are “ideal requirements” for
appointments in church leadership.323 As such, these men
provide the leadership necessary to maintain the unity of
the Spirit within the community of faith through the
leadership of the Spirit who guides them into all wisdom.
Postmodern people seek to distance themselves from
the “distance of others.” They despise the relegation of
“others” to the place of inferiority. Postmodernism rejects
outright this “totalization.” As Lyotard pronounces, “Let
us wage a war on totality.”324 Albert Borgman suggests that
the postmodern person desires to hear and to respond to the
“voice of alterity,” which is the cry of the “other.”325 The
apostolic community responds to the voice of alterity.
176
326Thomas D. Lea, The New Testament: Its Backgroundand Message (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1996), 295.
327“The word of God grew and increased.”
328Trites, “Prayer-Motif in Luke-Acts,” 180.
An apostolic approach deals with divisions in the church
according to the pattern of Acts 6:1-6. The “voice of
alterity” gains a hearing, and the leadership respond with
decisive action to respond to the specific needs.326
The result of this immediate response is that oJ lovgo~
tou` qeou` hJuvxanen kai; eplhquvneto (Acts 6:7).327 “The Christian
community had evidently been guided in the disposition of
its own affairs so that its witness to ‘those outside’
remained vibrant and attractive.”328 The same is true for
the contemporary church in a postmodern world.
This lengthy analysis of the role of community in
the evangelization of postmodern people focuses on the
biblical conception of the community of faith: unity and
mission; inclusion dia; th`~ pivstew~ ejn Cristw/ jIhsou`; and
uniqueness and purity. As a “divine standard” of God to the
world, an apostolic community serves as an avenue for the
transformation from a postmodern to a Christian worldview
through th/ didach/ tw`n ajpostovlwn and koinwniva. The community also
functions as a living witness to the love of God following
the pattern of Jesus Christ through the apostolic ethic.
177
329Moltmann, Church in the Power of the Spirit, 153-54.
This ethic uniquely answers the postmodern desire for
intimacy. As such, the apostolic ethic of community
provides a powerful tool for the evangelization of
postmodern people. Finally, the obstacles to an apostolic
community, which includes deception and division, find
resolution through the leadership of the Spirit in a
postmodern world.
The role of the community in the evangelization of
postmodern people does not present the absolutism of the
community, which is the postmodern plea. Instead, the role
of community exalts the absolutism of Christ. As Moltmann
cogently states: “The visible church is, as Christ’s church,
the ministry of reconciliation exercised upon the world.
Thus the church is to be seen, not as absolute, but in its
relationship to the divine reconciler.”329
1David Tracy, “Christianity in the Wider Context:Demands and Transformations,” in Worldviews and Warrants:Plurality and Authority in Theology, eds. William Schweikerand P. M. Anderson (New York: University Press of America,1987), 2.
2D. A. Carson, Gagging of God, 13. Carson givesplurality the nomenclature of “empirical pluralism.”
3Alister E. McGrath, “The Challenge of Pluralism forthe Contemporary Christian Church,” Journal of theEvangelical Theological Society 35 (September 1992): 363.
177
CHAPTER FOUR
POSTMODERN PLURALITIES, PLURALISM, AND AN APOSTOLIC APPROACH
Evangelization in the Midst of Pluralities
The postmodern ethos seeks pluralism in the face of
pluralities. This dissertation distinguishes between
plurality and pluralism. David Tracy suggests that
“plurality is a fact. Pluralism is one of the many
evaluations of that fact.”1 Plurality is “the sheer
diversity of race, value systems, heritage, language,
culture, and religion in many Western and some other
nations.”2 Pluralism, however, is the response to plurality
which approves, cherishes, and embraces the multiple, and
sometimes contradictory, differences.3 As such, pluralism
178
4Lieven Boeve, “Christus Postmodernus: An Attempt atApophatic Christology,” in The Myriad Christ: Plurality andthe Quest for Unity in Contemporary Christology, eds. T.Merrigan and J. Haers (Leuven: Leuven University Press,2000), 577-78.
5D. Tracy, “Christianity in the Wider Context,” 2.
6Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 1.
7Paul Lakeland, Postmodernity: Christian Identity ina Fragmented Age (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press,1997), 102-103.
declares that all truth-claims, and religions, are equal.
Therefore, “Jesus Christ must then be regarded as a
religious genius like Buddha or Mohammed -- human beings at
the origin of a world religion, praiseworthy but nothing
more.”4 Pluralism seeks the “deferral of all strong claims
to unity or even truth”5 so that “there is no officially
approved pattern of belief or conduct.”6
This writer proposes that evangelism in the midst
of postmodern pluralities follows the pattern of evangelism
in apostolic times. Paul Lakeland, however, suggests that
the postmodern identification of the “community of
redemption” as a “place of relative, revisable, pragmatic,
provisional ‘ways of seeing what-is’” demands an approach
different from the first-century church.7 Lakeland’s
approach does not seek persuasion toward the gospel, but a
179
8Ibid., 102.
9Ibid., 104-105.
10Ibid., 109-111.
11Ibid., 111.
12Ibid., 112-13. Lakeland writes: “What isdistinctive about Christianity remains within Christianityand in no way challenges or represents itself as superior toother religious traditions, namely, the belief that inChrist God has spoken in a way that human beings can receivethe word.”
13Ibid., 113.
conversation with pluralities which leads to a consensus.8
Lakeland further indicates that the Christian community
“cannot realistically understand itself as the only avenue
of the divine into human history.”9 Lakeland, therefore,
rejects the necessity of Christ for salvation.10 For
Lakeland, Nietzsche’s Zarathustra defines salvation as
“being faithful to the earth.”11 Thus, he concludes that
other religious traditions are equally valuable for the
salvation of the postmodern world.12
Such an approach for evangelization, however,
deconstructs the gospel so that it is no longer biblical,
apostolic, or Christian. Although Lakeland’s approach calls
for postmodern people to “choose one” among the alternative
versions of reality, no one version is better than
another.13 The evangelization of the apostolic church in
180
14Harry Eberts Jr., “Plurality and Ethnicity inEarly Christian Mission,” Sociology of Religion 58 (1997):317. According to Eberts, the apostolic church faced thecultural, social, and religious differences within thetarget-groups for evangelism: Galilean, Hebrew, Hellenist,and pagan Greek culture.
15Robert M. Grant, Gods and the One God(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986), 19-28.
16Anthony Blasi, “Sociology of Early Christianity --By Way of Introduction,” Sociology of Religion 58 (1997):299-303.
pluralities presents a better approach for the contemporary
church.
Pluralities in Apostolic and Postmodern Times
The nature of plurality in pre-modern and
postmodern times presents similarities as well as
differences, but the fact of plurality in apostolic age is
certain. An examination of New Testament (NT) literature
provides a mosaic of the religious and cultural pluralities
in the pre-modern world of the apostolic church.14 Robert
Grant’s summary of the gods in the book of Acts certainly
points to this fact.15 Anthony Blasi of Tennessee State
University describes the sociology of early Christianity
within the framework of the Roman Empire. He suggests that
the context of the apostolic church’s evangelization was a
“culturally pluralist environment.”16
Several examples from Acts and the Pauline epistles
181
17“For there is no difference of both Jew and Greek,for the same Lord [is] rich toward all who are calling uponHim.”
18These terms are translated: dou`lo~ (slave), ejleuvqero~(free), a[rsen (male), and qh`lu (female) in Galatians 3:28;peritomh; (circumcision), ajkrobustiva (uncircumcision), bavrbaro~(barbarian), and Skuvqh~ (Scythian) in Colossians 3:11.
19Tessa Rajak, “The Location of Cultures in SecondTemple Palestine,” in The Book of Acts in Its PalestinianSetting, ed. Richard Bauckham, vol. 4, The Book of Acts inIts First Century Setting (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 3.
provide ample evidence of the plurality which confronted the
apostolic church in the evangelization of the ancient world.
The apostle Paul writes: ouj gavr ejstin diastolh; jIoudaivou te kai;
aujtovn (Rom 10:12).17 jIoudaivou and {Ellhno~ represent plurality,
as does dou`lo~, ejleuvqero~, a[rsen, and qh`lu in Gal 3:28. In Col
3:11 Paul adds peritomh; and ajkrobustiva, bavrbaro~ and Skuvqh~ to
the list of pluralities.18 Rajak indicates that these
listings represent ethnic, linguistic, religious, or social
differences.19
More specifically, however, the apostolic church
faces the challenges of religious plurality. Paul’s
evangelism in Athens illustrates this plurality (Acts 17).
Athens possessed “a blend of superstitious idolatry and
enlightened philosophy” in its cultural and religious
182
20I. H. Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles, TyndaleNew Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980;reprint, 1999), 281.
21C. K. Barrett, “Paul’s Speech on the Areopagus,”in New Testament Christianity for Africa and the World:Essays in Honour of Harry Sawyer, eds. Mark Glasswell and E.W. Fashole-Luke (London: SPCK, 1974), 71.
22Bertil Gärtner, The Areopagus Speech and NaturalRevelation, trans. C. H. King (Uppsala: C. W. K. Gleerup,1955), 144-69.
23Hans Conzelmann, A Commentary on the Acts of theApostles, trans. James Limburg, A. T. Kraabel, and D. H.Juel, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 138-39.
life.20 The city is an example of the religious and
philosophical plurality that pervaded the ancient world.
Barrett, drawing from kateivdwlon (Acts 17:16), states that
Athens “was overrun with idols.”21 Furthermore, Bertil
Gärtner’s complex analysis of the Areopagus speech seeks to
demonstrate Paul’s use of Stoic and Jewish concepts as an
apostolic approach to evangelize those gathered at Athens.22
Conzelmann indicates that Paul’s speech brings “the
representatives of the universal Greek culture into play”
and engages the audience as “typical Athenians.”23 This
apostolic approach will be discussed below.
As Marshall suggests, “[t]he world of the New
Testament was a world in which different cultures or ways of
life were in contact with one another, leading to
183
24I. Howard Marshall, “Culture and the NewTestament,” in Gospel and Culture: The Papers of aConsultation on the Gospel and Culture, Convened by theLausanne Committee’s Theology and Education Group, eds. JohnStott and Robert T. Coote (Pasadena, CA: William CareyLibrary, 1979), 27.
25E. Luther Copeland, “Christian Theology and WorldReligions,” Review and Expositor 94 (1997): 423.
26Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in MoralTheory, 2d ed. (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press,1984), 109.
27Charles Jencks, What Is Postmodernism?, 3d ed.(New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1989), 44.
assimilation between them as well as to sharp collision.”24
In the same manner, the contemporary church faces this
collision of pluralities. The pluralities in postmodern
times is comparable to the “encounter of the early church
with the religious variety of the Greco-Roman world,
including Greek philosophy.”25
Alasdair MacIntyre argues that the “contemporary
vision of the world” is a “multiplicity of visions deriving
from that irreducible plurality of values.”26 When
considering the “global village” that has emerged during the
postmodern era, one can recognize the veracity of
MacIntyre’s statement. Charles Jencks proposes that the
“meteroic” rise of the information age has increased the
accessibility to various cultural beliefs.27 Following
Jencks, Grenz declares that the information age has “brought
184
28Stanley Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 18.
29Richard Rorty, Essays on Heidegger and Others:Philosophical Papers, Volume 2 (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1991), 132.
30Todd Hahn and David Verhaagen, Reckless Hope:Understanding and Reaching Baby Busters (Grand Rapids:Baker, 1996), 38.
the world together in a manner never before possible,” so
that “the global village imbues its citizens with a vivid
awareness of the cultural diversity of our planet.”28
The postmodern religious pursuits reflect the
heterogeneity and plurality of the generation. Richard
Rorty indicates that today’s postmodern ethos is filled with
“lots of picture galleries, book displays, movies, concerts,
ethnographic museums, museums of science and technology”
which represent the plurality of cultural options available
for worship.29 With the demise of the Enlightenment ideal,
“empiricism was rejected as the only way of knowing and
replaced with myriad options. There became multiple paths
to knowledge and understanding, none more important or real
than another. As a result, spiritual ideas were acceptable,
but no system of belief was allowed to be more ‘true’ than
another.”30
As with Athens of the first-century, today’s
185
31Rorty, Essays on Heidegger and Others, 132-33.
32See especially, Bertil Gärtner, The AreopagusSpeech and Natural Revelation, 46-50.
33George P. Landow, Hypertext: The Convergance ofContemporary Critical Theory and Technology (Baltimore, MD:John Hopkins University Press, 1992), 74-75.
34Fredric Jameson, Postmodernism, or, The CulturalLogic of Late Capitalism (Durham, NC: Duke University Press,1991; reprint, 1999), 391-99.
postmodern scene is filled with idols.31 One difference
between the pre-modern and postmodern, however, is the vast
landscape of the latter in terms of information access and
dissemination. The philosophers of Athens were primarily
the elite thinkers with specialized training and knowledge.
The plurality of Athens, while specialized, represented the
plurality of the Greco-Roman culture.32 The age of the
postmodern is the age of the computer and the “information
super-highway.” The postmodern philosopher consists of
anyone who has the temerity to “run a search” on the “net”
and consider the information gleaned as both legitimate and
valuable.33 The plurality of the postmodern is neither
specialized nor representative. The “truth statements” or
religious beliefs of the person in the “chat room” are as
legitimate and valuable as the “truth statements” or
religious beliefs of leading academic theorists in the field
of philosophy.34 This status of plurality presents
186
35Michael Green, Evangelism in the Early Church(London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1970), xvii.
36Martin Hengel, Between Jesus and Paul, trans. JohnBowden (London: SCM Press, 1983), 4-11.
opportunity and challenge for the evangelization of
postmodern people. This subject will be discussed in the
later section dealing with Paul’s speech in Athens, for
Paul’s address provides a paradigm for the faithful and
effective evangelization of pre-modern or postmodern
pluralities.
Michael Green presents the challenge of an
apostolic approach in the face of pluralities: “We sometimes
think that relativism and pluralism are peculiar to our
time. We feel it politically correct to adopt them. Not so
the early Christians. They lived in a world more relativist
and far more pluralist than our own. And yet they would not
make any compromise on this issue. What was needed was not
more religion, but a new life -- and Jesus could provide
it.”35 The apostolic church provides insight for the
project of evangelization.
Judaic, Hellenistic, or Christian? A Question of Pluralities
As has already been noted in chapter 3, the
apostolic church struggled with pluralities from within as
well as without.36 The issue in this section, however,
187
37Peter G. Bolt, “Mission and Witness,” in Witnessto the Gospel: The Theology of Acts, eds. I. Howard Marshalland David Peterson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 203.
38Craig Blomberg, “The Christian and the Law ofMoses,” in Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts, eds.I. Howard Marshall and David Peterson (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1998), 404.
39F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, rev. ed., TheNew International Commentary on the New Testament (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 201.
focuses upon the Christian identity for the apostolic
community when facing the plurality of Judaic and
Hellenistic cultures. The increasing differences between
the Hebrews and Hellenists find resolution in Acts 6, but
the diversity among Judaic and Hellenistic influences
continues for the apostolic community.
For example, Cornelius’ conversion marks a
distinctive collision of pluralities for the apostolic
community in the evangelization of the world. Bolt suggests
that the three-fold repetition of the event marks the
significance of the content.37 Through the drama of a
vision (Acts 10:9-16), Peter recognizes that the culturally
specific dietary laws “no longer applied for Gentile or Jew
in Christ.”38 As Bruce suggests, the gospel’s reach “has
been steadily broadened,” but this story illustrates that
the time had come for the barrier between Jews and Gentiles
“to be crossed authoritatively by an apostle.”39
188
40Blomberg, “The Christian and the Law of Moses,”404.
41“Pious and one who fears God.” This descriptionindicates that Cornelius was an “adherent to the synagoguebut not a proselyte to the Jewish faith.” William Neil, TheActs of the Apostles, New Century Bible Commentary (London:Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1973; reprint, Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1987), 137.
42Jacob Jervell, “The Church of Jews andGodfearers,” in Luke-Acts and the Jewish People: EightCritical Perspectives, ed. J. B. Tyson (Minneapolis:Augsburg, 1988), 11-20.
God’s threefold command to eat the unclean animals ofthe heavenly vision (10:9-16) leads to stunningconclusions: Peter deduces that no person is unclean (v.28), that God accepts people of every nation who fear[H]im and do right (vv. 34-35), and that therefore thegospel should be preached to Cornelius (vv. 36-43). Goddramatically confirms Peter’s deductions by sending[H]is Spirit on the centurion and his companions beforehe finishes preaching (v. 44).40
The collision of plurality exists between the
Jewish cultural expressions of the Mosaic law, the
Hellenistic cultural expressions in conflict with the Mosaic
law, and the Christian response of the apostolic community.
This statement does not contradict the case of Cornelius as
eujsebh;~ kai; fobouvmeno~ tou` qeou` (Acts 10:2).41 Although Cornelius
sympathizes with the Jewish cultural expressions and
worship, other Gentile converts do not. Jervell incorrectly
suggests that the qualifications of eujsebh;~ kai; fobouvmeno~ tou`
qeou` represent the paradigm for all Gentile converts.42
Sheeley mistakenly views fobouvmeno~ tou` qeou` as a qualification
189
43Steven M. Sheeley, Narrative Asides in Luke-Acts,Journal for the Study of the New Testament, SupplementSeries 72 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 126.
44J. T. Sanders, The Jews in Luke-Acts(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 256.
45“Men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who coming into Antiochshared also with the Hellenists, preaching the good news ofthe Lord Jesus.”
46See chapter 5, “Obstacles for PersonalEvangelism.”
for the reception of salvation.43 Luke’s use of fobouvmeno~ tou`
qeou`, however, emphasizes his Gentile identity, in order to
highlight the gospel’s proclamation to the Gentiles.44 This
writer contends that Luke purposes to explicate the
distinction between the Jew and Gentile. The narrative does
not indicate that eujsebh;~ kai; fobouvmeno~ tou` qeou` are qualities
that one must have prior to salvation. The emphasis of
Luke’s narrative in chapter 10 points to the movement of the
gospel outside the realm of Jewish traditions.
The Antiochene mission also represents a
continuation of the broadening scope of the apostolic
approach to the Gentiles. Luke records the beginnings of
this work as a[ndre~ Kuvprioi kai; Kurhnai`oi, oi{tine~ ejlqovnte~ eij~
jIhsou`n (Acts 11:20).45 The persecution of Stephen46 leads to
the dispersion of the apostolic community beyond Jerusalem,
so that oiJ me;n oujn diasparenvnte~ dih`lqon eujaggelizovmenoi to;n lovgon
190
47“Therefore those who were scattered wentthroughout proclaiming the good news of the word.”
48F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, 225.
49Justin Taylor, Commentaire Historique (Act. 9,1-18,22), vol. 5, Les Actes des Deux Apotres, Etudes Bibliques23 (Paris: Librairie LeCoffre, 1994), 59. “This is thefirst step which marks the beginning of the pagan-Christianchurch.” By “pagano-chretienne,” this writer believes thatTaylor is referring to the non-Jewish element rather thanthe outright influence of paganism into the Christiancommunity.
50Heinz-Werner Neudorfer, “The Speech of Stephen,”in Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts, eds. I.Howard Marshall and David Peterson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1998), 290.
51Taylor, Commentaire Historique (Act. 9,1-18,22),65. The mission of the men of Cyprus and Cyrene is“independent of the church of Jerusalem.” Furthermore, hesuggests that “there is no reason to place them in relation
(Acts 8:4).47 This narrative (Acts 11), however, introduces
an entirely new situation. Rather than the occasional
evangelization of non-Jews, Luke reports that the a[ndre~
Kuvprioi kai; Kurhnai`oi begin a “momentous step forward.”48
Justin Taylor proposes that “c’est le premier pas qui marque
le debut d’une eglise pagano-chretienne.”49 Indeed Heinz-
Werner Neudorfer suggests that the theology of the
Hellenist-Jewish converts, which focuses on God’s plan of
salvation in history, compelled them to evangelize non-
Jews.50
Justin Taylor suggests that this missionary
enterprise is “independante de l’eglise de Jerusalem.”51
191
with the ‘Seven’ of Jerusalem or their adherents.”
52Richard Bauckham, “James and the JerusalemChurch,” in The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting, ed.Richard Bauckham, vol. 4, The Book of Acts in Its FirstCentury Setting (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 423-34.
53F. F. Bruce, Book of Acts, 225.
54Ramsay MacMullen, Paganism in the Roman Empire(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981), 53. The Latinphrase may be interpreted as “rebirth in eternity.”
Bauckham rejects this proposal and suggests that Jerusalem
remains the center of the evangelistic enterprise.52
Accordingly, the presence of Barnabas in Antioch as the
formal representative of the Jerusalem church augments
Bauckman’s analysis (Acts 11:22).
Luke describes the proclamation as eujaggelizovmenoi to;n
kuvrion jIhsou`n (Acts 11:20). Bruce notes that the use of kuvrion
is significant.53 The evangelists provide a specific answer
to the need of the Gentiles. Ramsay MacMullen indicates
that the religious pursuits of the Gentiles possessed a
lacuna of assurance for renatus in aeternum.54 Bruce notes
that “many were trying to find in various mystery cults a
divine lord who could guarantee salvation and immortality to
his devotees; now the pagans of Antioch were assured that
what they vainly sought in those quarters could be secured
through the Son of God who had lately become man, suffered
192
55F. F. Bruce, Book of Acts, 225.
56Ben Witherington III, “Salvation and Health inChristian Antiquity: The Soteriology of Luke-Acts in ItsFirst Century Setting,” in Witness to the Gospel: TheTheology of Acts, eds. I. Howard Marshall and David Peterson(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 158-59.
57Ibid., 161.
death, and conquered the grave in Palestine.”55
Witherington makes a similar argument for the use
of swthvr in the apostolic evangelization of the Gentiles.56
As the evangelization occurs among the Gentile pluralities,
the apostolic community utilizes swthvr, connected with the
resurrection and exaltation of Jesus Christ. Just as Christ
conquered the grave, so too will His followers experience
the blessings of eternal life.57
In consideration of pluralities, therefore, the
Antioch mission institutes a new chapter in the
evangelization of the ancient world. The leadership in
(Acts 11:24), who verifies the ministry and encourages
further evangelism. This marks the growth of the
evangelistic efforts and the intensification of pluralities
within the apostolic community. Interestingly, the
statement in Acts 11:26, crhmativsai te prwvtw~ ejn jAntioceiva/ tou;~
maqhta;~ Cristianouv~, suggests the view of the apostolic
193
58Lawrence W. Wills, “The Depiction of the Jews inActs,” Journal of Biblical Literature 110 (1991): 645. “Andthe disciples first in Antioch were named Christians.”
59Blomberg, “The Christian and the Law of Moses,”405. The use of e[qnh indicates a group that is unrelated tothe Judaic culture.
60Hans Conzelmann, Gentiles, Jews, Christians:Polemics and Apologetics in the Greco-Roman Era, trans. M.Eugene Boring (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 255.
61Jervell, “The Church of Jews and Godfearers,” 18-19.
62“As many as were appointed for eternal life.”
63Conzelmann, Gentiles, Jews, Christians, 251-52.
community as Christian rather than Judaic or Hellenistic.58
Furthermore, Paul’s speech to the Jewish community
in Acts 13:46 demonstrates the necessity of evangelization
among Gentiles unaffiliated with the Jewish synagogue.59
The “inauguration of the Gentile mission” is a necessary
event in God’s plan.60 Paul views the church as the “Israel
of promise” which God offers to the Jews as well as to the
Gentiles.61 The conversion of the Jews and the Gentiles
provides the fulfillment of the promise to become the people
of God in Christ Jesus. In this way the necessity of
proclamation of the gospel to the Jews and to the Gentiles
creates a new identification as o{soi h\san tetagmevnoi eij~ zwh;n
aijwvnion (Acts 13:48).62 This is not an identity of a new
religion but as the “true Israel.”63
194
64E. Richard, “The Divine Purpose: The Jews and theGentile Mission (Acts 15),” in Society of BiblicalLiterature 1980 Seminar Papers (Chico, CA: Scholars Press,1980), 267-82.
65J. T. Sanders, Jews in Luke-Acts, 126-29.
66Conzelmann, Gentiles, Jews, Christians, 252.
67Believers “from the party of the Pharisees”consider that “it is necessary for them to be circumcisedand ordered to keep the law of Moses.”
68“He made no distinction between us and them,cleansing their hearts by faith.”
The issue of identity finds final form in Acts at
the Jerusalem Council.64 Sanders proposes that a conflict
arises between Paul and Barnabas and those who were
preaching that circumcision accompanies salvation.65 Here,
the collision of pluralities initiates a resolution.
Hellenistic Christians consider the law as superfluous,
subsumed under “saving act in Christ.”66 Luke reports,
however, that some believers, tw`n ajpo; th`~ aiJrevsew~ tw`n Farisaivwn,
consider that dei` peritevmnein aujtou;~ paraggevllein te threi`n to;n novmon
Mwu>sevw~ (Acts 15:5).67
Peter argues (Acts 15:7-11) that Cornelius’
conversion is indicative that to;n novmon Mwu>sevw~ is not
salvific. He declares that oujqe;n dievkrinen metaxu; hJmw`n te kai; aujtw`n
th`/ pivstei kaqarivsa~ ta;~ kardiva~ aujtw`n (Acts 15:9).68 The proof of
salvation apart from to;n novmon Mwu>sevw~ is that God accepted
195
69“Giving the Holy Spirit.”
70See chapter 3, “Images of an Apostolic Community:God’s People.”
71F. F. Bruce, Book of Acts, 336; Bauckham, “Jamesand the Jerusalem Church,” 452. Paul and Barnabas supportPeter’s argument, but play a minor role in the debate.
72Bauckham, “James and the Jerusalem Church,” 452.
73Jacob Jervell, Acts and the People of God: A NewLook at Luke-Acts (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1972),188-93.
74Bauckham, “James and the Jerusalem Church,” 453-58. Bauckham provides an excellent analysis of the speech.
them by dou;~ to; pneu`ma to; a{gion (15:8).69 The avenue into
community is through faith in Christ Jesus.70 As Bruce
indicates, Peter warns that the believers of the Pharisee
party stand in opposition to God’s plan and invite His
judgment.71
Bauckham, however, explains that “this line of
argument cannot, for an assembly of Jewish Christians, be
the finally decisive one: the issue is a matter of halakhah,
which can only be decided from Scripture.”72 The speech of
James provides the biblical argument and the decisive proof
that to;n novmon Mwu>sevw~ is not part of salvation.73 Following
the pesher model for interpretation, James utilizes Amos
9:11-12 with allusions to other OT texts.74
In the first place, the conflated quotation in Acts15:16-18 establishes that Gentiles who join theeschatological people of God are not obliged to be
196
75Ibid., 461.
76Haenchen, Acts of the Apostles, 469. Bruceproposes that the four elements are ethical requirementswhich would guard the Christian moral standards. Thissuggestion, however, dismisses the importance of Lev 17 and18 in the discussion. F. F. Bruce, Book of Acts, 300-301.
77Stephen G. Wilson, Luke and the Law, Society forNew Testament Studies Monograph Series 50 (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1969), 76.
78Brian Rosner, “The Progress of the Word,” inWitness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts, eds. I. HowardMarshall and David Peterson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998),227.
circumcised and obey the Law of Moses. But secondly, anexegetical argument which creates a link between closelyrelated prophecies and Leviticus 17-18 establishes thatthe Law of Moses itself contains just four commandmentswhich do explicitly apply to precisely those Gentiles.75
The four prohibitions included in the apostolic decree
indicate the ceremonial requirements from Leviticus 17-18
upon Gentiles who chose to live in the Jewish community.76
As such, the prohibitions present the requirements which had
always been applied to Jew and Gentile alike.77 Thus, the
apostolic community confirms that conformity to to;n novmon
Mwu>sevw~, especially in terms of circumcision, is not a
requirement for salvation. The Jerusalem council’s
conclusion establishes the “universality and progress of the
word . . . on the basis of the unity of the people of
God.”78
One final note needs attention in the consideration
197
79D. A. Carson, “Pauline Inconsistency: Reflectionson 1 Corinthians 9.19-23 and Galatians 2.11-14,” Churchman100 (1986): 6-45.
80“They did not walk straight concerning the truthof the gospel.”
81R. Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, NewInternational Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1988), 107.
82James D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians,Black’s New Testament Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,1993), 121-24.
83T. W. Manson, Studies in the Gospels and Epistles(London: Manchester University Press, 1962), 180-81. Hesuggests that Peter’s table-fellowship with Gentiles wasused as an indictment against the Jerusalem church by Jewishleaders, and Peter did not want to jeopardize the missionarywork of the Jerusalem church or create a stumbling-block forevangelism among the Jews.
of identity in plurality; namely, Paul’s confrontation with
Peter (Gal 2:14-21).79 The occasion for this confrontation
is oujk ojrqopodou`sin pro;~ th;n ajlhvqeian tou` eujaggelivou (Gal 2:14).80
Peter’s inconsistency focuses upon the “free table-
fellowship” between Jewish and Gentile believers.81
Apparently, the messengers from James came to remind Jewish
Christians that they must follow specific requirements
concerning table-fellowship with Gentiles.82 Upon the
arrival of messengers from James, Peter draws back from the
company of Gentiles.83 Neill suggests that Peter’s conduct
“would make a divided Church inevitable or a united Church
198
84W. Neill, The Letter of Paul to the Galatians(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 41.
85For a complete discussion of this confrontation,see Daniel H. King, “Paul and the Tannaim: A Study inGalatians,” Westminster Theological Journal 45 (1983): 349-61.
86Allison A. Trites, “Church Growth in the Book ofActs” Bibliotheca Sacra 145 (April-June 1988): 171-72.
87“Consequently therefore, you are no longerstrangers and foreigners but you are fellow-citizens of thesaints and [you are] members of the household of God, havingbeen built upon the foundation of the apostles and theprophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone, inwhom all the building which is fitted together grows into aholy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being builttogether into a dwelling of God in the Spirit” (Eph 2:19-22).
88Interestingly, George S. Duncan, The Epistle ofPaul to the Galatians (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1934),178, paraphrases Paul’s admonition, eij zw`men pneuvmati, pneuvmatikai; stoicw`men (Gal 5:25), to bring out the corporate identityof Spirit-life implied by stoicw`men. See also, R. Y. K.Fung, Galatians, 275-76.
uJmei`~ sunoikodomei`sqe eij~ katoikhthvrion tou` qeou` ejn pneuvmati.87 Upon the
bestowal of new life upon a believer and the baptism of the
Spirit upon the believer, the believer becomes the temple of
the Spirit of God (1 Cor 3:16; 2 Cor 6:16). This individual
reality is also the communal experience in Ephesians.88
Paul describes the apostolic community as the corporate
dwelling place of God in the Holy Spirit.
The corporate nature of the apostolic community
emerges from the pluralities of Gentiles and Jews. Paul
portrays the nature of the heterogeneity within the
apostolic community in verse 19 through the phrase, xevnoi kai;
pavroikoi. Stählin suggests that these two descriptive terms
are synonymous in this verse. He further suggests that, in
the time of Paul’s writing, Judaism considered the xevnoi with
distant courtesy at best and hostility at worst. In light
200
89G. Stählin, “xevno~,” TDNT, 5:2-14.
90Ibid., 5:29.
91Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the NewTestament and Other Christian Literature, trans. W. F. Arndtand F. W. Gingrich, 2d ed., eds. F. W. Gingrich and F. W.Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 629. Hereafter cited, BAGD.
92Meyer, s.v. “pavroiko~,” TDNT, 5:850-51.
93Francis Foulkes, The Letter of Paul to theEphesians: An Introduction and Commentary, rev. ed., TyndaleNew Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 93.
of the diaspora community in Ephesus, the Gentiles
understood the term to mean “God-fearers.”89 As such, when
Paul uses the term here, he is speaking of the existing
differentiation between the Jew and the Gentile in synagogue
worship. To say that Gentile Christians are no longer xevnoi
is to say that they “are not just guests of God, but members
of His household.”90
Paul also describes the believers as oujk pavroikoi,
which is “one who lives in a place that is not his home.”91
This idea of an alien or foreigner in Judaism is different
from the “God-fearer” of synagogue worship. The pavroiko~ is
a “resident alien” who lives in Israel without becoming a
Jew.92 Foulkes suggests that these two terms point to
“people who might live alongside them [the people of God] in
the same country, but owning no land and with only the most
superficial rights of citizenship.”93 Gentile believers are
201
94F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, toPhilemon, and to the Ephesians, New International Commentaryon the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 302.
95F. F. Bruce, Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians, 302. Markus Barth, Ephesians: Introduction, Translation, andCommentary on Chapters 1-3, Anchor Bible Commentary, 34(Garden City: Doubleday and Company, 1974), 320 n. 273,states that aJgivwn refers to the Gentile believers beinggrafted into “the men of Israel.”
96Otto Procksch, s.v. “a{gio~,” TDNT, 1:106. GordonD. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in theLetters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 686. Heappears to follow Procksch’s idea.
not “like the God-fearing Gentiles who attended synagogue”
nor “like resident aliens in a Greek city,” but they are
“full members.”94
The contention in this passage is that the Spirit
merges the cultural distinctive of Jews and Gentiles into
the “temple of the Spirit,” so that all members are
sumpoli`tai tw`n aJgivwn. Much debate surrounds aJgivwn. Bruce
indicates that aJgivwn is “the people of God of all ages.”95
Procksch draws upon the analogy of Rom 11:17, which
describes the Gentile believers being grafted into the “holy
stump of the OT people of God” as new branches. He then
identifies this “holy stump” as politeiva tou` jIsrahvl (Eph 2:12),
“except that we are now dealing with an jIsrahvl kata; pneu`ma.”
Procksch, therefore, concludes that the aJgivwn are Jewish
Christians.96
Andrew Lincoln, however, proposes that Procksch’s
202
97Andrew Lincoln, “The Church and Israel inEphesians 2,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49 (October 1987):605-24. See also the discussion of tertium genus in PeterRichardson, Israel in the Apostolic Church (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1969), 203-204.
98F. Foulkes, Ephesians, 93, writes: “Citizenship ofthe people of God was one expressive way of telling thetruth concerning the position in God’s kingdom that Jews andGentiles now equally share.”
99Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians, Word BiblicalCommentary (Dallas: Word, 1990), 151-52.
100Thomas C. Oden, Life in the Spirit, 295.
comparison of verse 12 with verse 19 fails to comprehend the
“new status” which “transcends the old categories.” Looking
to verses 15 and 16 as the prominent guide for understanding
verse 19, Lincoln indicates that, just as Christ creates one
new man from the two, aJgivwn refers to a community which is
neither Jew nor Gentile, but a new race of all believers.97
Paul extends the metaphor so that the community is
also a family,98 in which all members are oijkei`oi tou` qeou`.
Specifically, according to Lincoln, the Gentiles, who were
once far off (Eph 2:13), now are in the “bosom” of God’s
family.99 In this way, “each member of the household is
functioning optimally in behalf of the whole, not self-
assertively in behalf of individual interest.”100
Beginning with verse 20, the apostle Paul
introduces the imagery of the building and temple for the
apostolic community. He describes the foundation of the
203
101K. Rengstorff, s.v. “ajpovstolo~,” TDNT, 1:441,indicates that tw`n ajpostovlwn kai; profhtw`n refer to the NT and OTwitnesses for God. D. Hill, New Testament Prophecy (London:Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1979), 139, suggests that theuse of the single definite article presents apostles andprophets as the same group of people.
102Markus Barth, A Broken Wall: A Study of theEpistle to the Ephesians (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1965),132-33.
103F. F. Bruce, Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians, 304.
104Markus Barth, Ephesians 1-3, 315-16.
105W. Schmithals, The Office of the Apostle in theEarly Church (Nashville: Abingdon, 1969), 43 n. 91.
oijkei`oi tou` qeou`. Paul explicitly refers to those who proclaim
the revelation of God through Christ.101 Both the prophets
and the apostles lay the foundation upon which the “walls of
the Church bear witness to the community.”102 The apostles
and prophets “constitute the foundation ministries in the
church” and perhaps “the first stones to be laid in the new
building.”103
Markus Barth suggests that ejpi; tw/ qemelivw/ may refer to
gifted individuals “witnessing explicitly to Jesus
Christ.”104 Schmithals indicates that the phrase represents
the “deposit of doctrine.”105 The foundation of the “temple
of the Spirit,” however, does not represent the individuals
themselves. In 1 Cor 3:11, Paul declares that the only
foundation upon which the “temple of the Spirit” may
sufficiently be built is Jesus Christ. It seems, therefore,
204
106“For all are sons of God through faith in ChristJesus.”
107G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1961), 66.
108S. Hanson, The Unity of the Church in the NewTestament: Colossians and Ephesians (Uppsala: Almquist andWiksells, 1946), 131.
109R. J. McKelvey, “Christ the Cornerstone,” NewTestament Studies 8 (1962): 352-59.
that the qemevlio~ tw`n ajpostovlwn kai; profhtw`n refers specifically
to the proclamation of those who received God’s gospel
through Christ to those who, in turn, received Christ Jesus.
Indeed, this interpretation meets Paul’s statement, Pavnte~
Here, Paul declares that o[nto~ ajkrogwniaivou aujtou` Cristou`
jIhsou`. Debate swirls around the location and meaning of
ajkrogwniaivou, whether it is part of the foundation or at the
top of the building. G. W. H. Lampe indicates that
ajkrogwniaivou is the “top-most angle or point of a pyramid.”107
Hanson concludes that Jesus “is the top stone of the
pinnacle of the building.”108 R. J. McKelvey, on the other
hand, rejects this proposal and contends that ajkrogwniaivou
refers to the foundation stone of the building.109 Jeremias,
however, moves beyond the location of the stone to denote
the significance of the image when he writes that verse 20
describes the church as the spiritual temple, the apostles
205
110J. Jeremias, s. v. “ajkrogwniai`o~,” TDNT, 1:791-93.
111F. Foulkes, Ephesians, 95.
112F. F. Bruce, Epistles to Colossians, Philemon,Ephesians, 306 n. 154.
113“Through Him both have access by one Spirit to theFather” (Eph 2:18).
and prophets as the foundation, and Jesus Christ as the
“final stone” who completes the temple.110 Foulkes also
suggests that this phrase “denotes primarily the honour
[sic] of [H]is position in the building, but then also the
way in which each stone is fitted into [H]im, and finds its
true place and usefulness only in relation to [H]im.”111
Thus, Bruce indicates that “keystone” is the “better
rendering of ajkrogwniai`o~.”112
Paul expands ajkrogwniai`o~ (2:21-22) when he describes
the relationship between Christ, believers, and the church.
Through the use of ejn w|/, Paul reveals once again the
centrality of Jesus Christ in the redemptive plan of God.
Through Jesus Christ, the wall of separation between God and
humanity falls down (Eph 2:1-13). Furthermore, in Christ
the wall of separation which divides individuals from one
another falls down (Eph 2:14-18), so that di j aujtou` e[comen th;n
prosagwgh;n oiJ ajmfovteroi ejn eJni; pneuvmati pro;~ to;n patevra.113 This is
Christ’s project of reconciliation.
In verse 16 Paul writes, kai; ajpokatallavxh/ tou;~
206
114“And that He might reconcile both completely toGod in one body through the cross, killing the enmity by it”(Eph 2:16).
115John B. Polhill, Paul and His Letters (Nashville:Broadman and Holman, 1999), 366.
116The better manuscript evidence, such as theuncials Sinaiticus (a*), Vaticanus (B), Bezae (D),Boernerianus (G), Athos (Y), miniscules, ByzantineLectionary, and church fathers (Clement, Origen, Basil,Pseudo-Justin, Chrysostom, and Theodoret) calls for thecurrent reading. Other manuscripts, such as the uncialsSinaiticus (aa), Alexandrius (A), Ephraemi (C), miniscules,and church fathers (Origen, Chrysostom, Euthalius, andTheophylact) provide the article, so that the text reads,pa`sa hJ oijkodomhv. Understanding that the shorter and moredifficult reading is many times more favorable, the formerreading carries the most weight as original.
aujtw/.114 The terminology of reconciliation is the language
of human relationships.115 The result of His death on the
cross is the death of the th;n e[cqran caused by sin. In the
same manner, the enmity between Jew and Gentile has also
been killed through the cross of Christ. Because Jesus has
offered peace both to Jew and Gentile, they share the same
access to the Father through Jesus Christ.
Having abolished the wall of separation between Jew
and Gentile, Jesus Christ joins the whole building together.
The use of pa`sa oijkodomh; without the article calls for the
interpretation, “every building.”116 T. K. Abbott concludes
that this construction argues for the description of every
207
117T. K. Abbott, A Critical and Exegetical Commentaryon the Epistle to the Ephesians and to the Colossians,International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. and T.Clark, 1897), 74.
118C. F. D. Moule, Idiom Book of New Testament Greek,94-95
119Gordon Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 686 n. 92.
121Rudolf Schnackenburg, Der Brief an die Epheser,Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 10(Neukirchener-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982), 125.
local church.117 Moule suggests that the phrase points to a
Hebraism depicting the entire, rather than localized,
community of believers.118 Fee opts for the idea that the
anarthrous construction describes “all that has gone into
the building” while Christ joins the building together.119
The participle, sunarmologoumevnh, depicts the union
of membership into a unified whole. Christ, as the
ajkrogwniai`o~, is the bond to join each individual together.120
As Christ joins the community together, He also provides for
its growth, which is the continual growth of the individuals
into a unified whole (Eph 4:16).
Schnackenburg concludes that the Spirit is the key
to this text.121 Through a succession of images, the apostle
moves his readers through a series of metaphors until they
come to the final image of the community of believers, which
is the “temple of the Spirit.” These images move from
208
122Gordon Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 689.
123A. T. Lincoln, Ephesians, 158.
124Gordon Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 689 n. 105. Fee contends that Paul’s ecclesiology “finds expression atthe local level, even in this circular letter.”
remote relationships to intimate relationships. Those who
were far off are now brought near. Those who were strangers
and foreigners are now fellow citizens and fellow members of
God’s household. God’s household is a community of
believers, who, through the metaphor of a building, exist as
the “present place of God’s habitation.”122
Although Lincoln posits that this passage refers to
the universal church,123 Fee suggests that the imagery
describes more than “a nebulous entity.”124 The apostolic
community involves personal commitments in relationship.
Unity is not a nebulous concoction of contemporary
ecumenicism for the universal church. Rather, unity comes
through the intimate bond which the Spirit establishes
between individuals within the community. As the same
Spirit dwells within each individual, Paul calls those
individuals to express the unity of the Spirit in a personal
and intimate manner. This intimate expression comes through
a “gathered community ‘filled with the Spirit’ and thus
‘teaching and admonishing one another’ in the various kinds
209
125Gordon Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 689.
126Hanson, Unity of the Church, 130.
127Markus Barth, Ephesians 1-3, 321. Barth furtherwrites: “No one, not even the church and her most piousmembers, can possess God for [H]imself alone.”
128Gordon Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 263. Fee interprets this phrase to mean that the body of theindividual is the “present habitation of God’s Spirit.”
129“But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ,this one is not of Him” (Rom 8:9b). Peter Stuhlmacher,Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary, trans. Scott J.Hafemann (Louisville: Westminster / John Knox Press, 1994),118. He suggests that Paul’s description is similar to theEssene text (1QS 11:9-18), in which the God of righteousness“on the basis of free grace, forgives the sinner histransgressions, fills him with the Holy Spirit, and enableshim to praise as well as to walk in perfection.”
of songs, including those of the Spirit.”125
Hanson correctly adduces that the building
terminology in Paul’s epistles “is not an individualistic
concept, but one of fellowship.”126 Barth oversteps the
evidence, however, when he proposes that this image
“excludes the notion that God’s presence might be primarily
located in the souls of individual believers.”127 The
related passage in 1 Cor 6:19 certainly speaks to the
individual believers as the nao;~ tou` ejn uJmi`n aJgiou` pneuvmato~.128
Rom 8:9-12 also reveals that the Spirit resides in
individual believers, for Paul writes, eij dev ti~ pneu`ma Cristou`
oujk e[cei, ou|to~ oujk e[stin aujtou`.129 Barth’s language suggests a
theological contention that one may not possess the Spirit
210
130Barth, Ephesians 1-3, 323, suggests that althoughindividual growth is concomitant to the growth of thecommunity, Paul decisively has in mind here the growth ofthe entire community.
132John R. W. Stott, The Message of Ephesians: God’sNew Society (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1979), 110.
133See discussion in chapter 1, “PrevailingPostmodern Themes: Pluralism”
apart from the church. Paul, however, indicates that one
may not possess the Spirit apart from Christ, who is the
ajkrogwniai`o~. As the ajkrogwniai`o~, Jesus Christ fits together
the individual members of the building of God so that the
community grows eij~ nao;n a{gion ejn kurivw/.130 The function of this
“holy temple” is “to be a dwelling for God.”131 Stott
suggests that eij~ katoikhthvrion tou` qeou` ejn pneuvmati is an image of
God’s “new society, His redeemed people scattered throughout
the inhabited world. They are His home on earth.”132
In this way, the apostolic church envisions the
unity amidst diversity. The apostolic community, facing the
multiplicity of plurality, finds unity through the power of
the Spirit, uniting their hearts and lives with the common
mission of evangelism.
Evangelization in the Midst of Pluralism133
Pluralism also presents a problem for the
211
134Alister McGrath, “The Challenge of Pluralism forthe Contemporary Christian Church” Journal of theEvangelical Theological Society 35 (September 1992): 361-73.
135Alister McGrath, Evangelicalism and the Future ofChristianity (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1995), 159-62.
136D. A. Carson, Gagging of God, 19.
137Alasdaire MacIntyre, After Virtue, 2d ed. (NotreDame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984), 30-31.
evangelization of the postmodern person.134 Alister McGrath
suggests that pluralism is a common issue for the
contemporary and the New Testament church. The New
Testament church was not content with “conversation” or
“dialogue” with the pluralities, but they preached the
gospel. McGrath concludes that the future of Christianity
depends upon evangelism.135
The Imperial Ethic of Pluralism
Cherished pluralism is the only acceptable absolute
in postmodernism and is the ethic which dominates.136
Insightfully, Alasdair MacIntyre indicates that the
postmodern culture has embraced “psychological
effectiveness” as the replacement to truth.137 He further
writes that the pursuit of meaning “cannot be simply or
unconditionally identified with any particular moral
attitude or point of view . . . just because of the fact
212
138Ibid., 31.
139William Lane Craig, “Politically IncorrectSalvation,” in Christian Apologetics in the PostmodernWorld, eds. Timothy R. Phillips and Dennis L. Okholm, 75-97(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1995), 76-77.
140Gordon Kaufman, “Evidentialism: A Theologian’sResponse,” Faith and Philosophy 6 (1989): 40.
141Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind (NewYork: Simon and Schuster, 1987), 26.
142W. L. Craig, “Politically Incorrect Salvation,”77.
that its judgments are in the end criterionless.”138 The
result of “criterionless” judgment is the exaltation of
plurality.139 The postmodern setting, therefore, gives rise
to the “profound human meaning and importance” of the
plurality of religious traditions.140 As such, Allan Bloom
suggests that “relativism is necessary to openness; and this
is the virtue, the only virtue. . . . Openness -- and the
relativism that makes it the only plausible stance in the
face of various claims to truth . . . is the great insight
of our times.”141
Craig proposes that the “postmodernist is not
merely saying that we cannot know with certainty which
religious worldview is true and we therefore must be open-
minded; rather he maintains that none of the religious
worldviews is objectively true, and therefore none can be
excluded in deference to the allegedly one true religion.”142
213
143F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, 333-36.
144Paul’s address, o{ ou\n ajgnoou`nte~ eujsebei`te, tou`to ejgw;kataggevllw uJmi`n (17:23), gives insight for the contemporarychurch in proclaiming the gospel to postmodern people with apenchant for pluralism. See Cornelius Van Til, The God ofHope (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1978), 7.
145Heinz Külling, “Zur Bedeutung des AGNOSTOS THEOS.Eine Exegese zu Apostelgeschichte 17, 22.23,” TheologischeZeitschrift 36 (1980): 67. The translation is: “This eventis, so to speak, the anticipation of the momentous reality
In light of this preeminent ethic of pluralism in religious
thought, how can the contemporary church evangelize
effectively and faithfully the postmodern person?
The Areopagitica, Acts 17:16-34
In light of this imperial ethic of pluralism,
Paul’s Areopagitica (Acts 17:16-34) serves as an example for
an apostolic approach for evangelism. There is a
relationship between deisidaimonestevrou~ (Acts 17:22)143 and the
pluralism prevalent in postmodern thinking. Paul’s witness
in the midst of the pluralism among the philosophers in
Athens sets an example for the evangelism in the postmodern
world.144
Külling suggests that “dieses Ereignis ist
sozusagen die Vorwegnahme der weltgeschichtlich bedeutsamen
Tatsache, dass durch diese Botschaft menschliche Weisheit in
ihren höchsten Errungenschaften herausgefordert sein
wird.”145 Through the evangelistic message of Paul, the
214
of world history, that through this message human wisdom inits highest attainment will be defied.”
146Hans Conzelmann, “The Address of Paul on theAreopagus,” in Studies in Luke-Acts, eds. L. E. Keck and J.L. Martyn (London: SPCK, 1966), 220.
147Conzelmann, “Paul’s Address,” 220.
148Ibid. Conzelmann suggests that Luke takes thecommon inscription on Athenian altars, “to unknown gods,”
gospel engaged the pluralism of the ancient world.
Following the example of Paul, the Areopagitica
speech presents a paradigm for the evangelization of
postmodern people. First, Paul begins with a statement of
recognition. The deisidaimonestevrou~, according to Conzelmann,
means “devout” rather than “superstitious.”146 Rather than
attacking the various idols in place before him, Paul begins
with an acknowledgment of religious pursuit among his
hearers. Although this is not necessarily complimentary, it
clearly is not condemnatory.147
The nature of postmodern pluralism certainly
presupposes the same deisidaimonestevrou~ of postmodern people.
Paul’s example for the contemporary church is to recognize
and acknowledge the spiritual hunger and search of the
postmodern people.
Second, Paul finds a place for common ground in his
evangelistic presentation. The altar ajgnwvstw/ qew/ offers Paul
a starting-point for the gospel.148 Although they did not
215
and then “changes it into the singular and then uses this asa point of departure for Christian ideas.”
149“This one I proclaim to you.”
150Hahn and Verhaagen, Reckless Hope, 120-21.
151Joseph A. Fitzmeyer, The Acts of the Apostles,Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 603.
152Michel Quesnel, “Paul prédicateur dans les Actesdes Apôtres,” New Testament Studies 47 (October 2001): 475. “Paul, who addressed himself to Greek pagans, does not citeevidently Jewish Scripture; he prefers to it the Greekpoets, recognized as capable of opening to mortals the gates
know the identity of this deity, tou`to ejgw; kataggevllw uJmi`n
(17:23).149 The postmodern setting also presents an
opportunity for the church to find common ground for
evangelization. The popular postmodern culture is filled
with spiritual images and symbols which offer a starting-
point for the gospel. Hahn and Verhaagen describe this
situation through the music and television of postmodern
culture. The music of contemporary secular artists provides
common ground for the gospel with postmodern people.150
Third, the apostle describes the identity of the
ajgnwvsto~ qeov~ in verses 24 through 29. He seeks to bring his
audience “to a proper understanding of the living God.”151
As Quesnel suggests, Paul “qui s’adresse á des grecs païens,
ne cite évidemment pas l’Ecriture juive; il lui préfère les
poètes grecs, reconnus comme capables d’ouvrir aux mortels
les portes du contact avec le sacré (v. 28).”152
216
of contact with the sacred (v. 28).”
153J. A. Fitzmeyer, Acts of the Apostles, 612.
In an apostolic approach to postmodern people, the
contemporary church must lead the postmodern listeners to a
proper understanding of the living God. This demands the
use of specific phrases and terms which will not fit neatly
with the pluralism of postmodernism. Yet, this approach
begins with a common ground and moves toward the specific
statements of God’s reality and ultimate sovereignty.
Finally, the apostle presents the necessary
response to God through Jesus Christ (17:30-31). The
resurrection of Jesus Christ is the proof and verification
of the power and victory of God.153 The judgment of the
world is also included in this approach. The clarity of the
gospel demands a faithful presentation of the judgment that
awaits all humanity. The pluralism of postmodern people
will cringe at this presentation of an absolute truth-claim.
The results, however, depend upon the Spirit of truth
leading the hearer toward the conviction that yields
repentance (John 16:8-11).
Following the pattern of the apostolic community,
the contemporary church may deal effectively with the
pluralities and the pluralism of the postmodern world. The
final analysis of an apostolic approach for the
217
evangelization of postmodern people seeks to remain faithful
to the absolute truth of the gospel, and yet also seeks to
find avenues through which the Spirit of truth may move more
readily to the hearts of the postmodern people.
1H. Strathmann, s. v. “mavrtu~ ktl.,” TDNT, 4:492-514.
2Allison A. Trites, The New Testament Concept ofWitness (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 132.
217
CHAPTER FIVE
PERSONAL EVANGELISM AND POSTMODERN PEOPLE
An Apostolic Witness in Postmodern Times,Acts 1:8
As a conclusion, this writer seeks to bring
specific application for personal evangelism in a postmodern
world following an apostolic approach. The first issue to
consider is the form and function of mavrtu~ with postmodern
people (Acts 1:8). According to Strathman, mavrtu~ is one
who proclaims the facts and the truths of the gospel.1
Trites indicates that mavrtu~ in Acts “presents the claims of
Christ against a background of hostility, contention, and
persecution,”2 which finds similarity to postmodernism.
An apostolic approach, therefore, calls for
personal testimony concerning the facts of Christ and the
truth of the gospel. As already noted, the Spirit of truth
conjoins the witness of the follower of Christ to present
epistemological foundations of faith to postmodern people.
218
3“You will be My witnesses.” The future tensecarries the force of a command in this context.
4Jacob Jervell, The Theology of the Acts of theApostles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 9.
5Michael Green, Evangelism in the Early Church(London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1970), 137-38.
6Jervell, Theology of the Acts of the Apostles, 9.
7See chapter 2, “Evangelistic Approach at Pentecost,Acts 2:14-41.
The mandate of Christ is e[sesqe mou mavrture~ (Acts 1:8).3 The
believer in a postmodern milieu has the duty to share the
gospel with individuals through personal witness. The
manner of this evangelistic witness, however, finds various
formulations. This writer proposes that the power of
personal witness moves along the lines of narrative.
The speeches in Acts present one aspect of this
witness.4 These speeches serve as guidelines for a
contemporary approach in personal evangelism. As noted in
chapter one, the postmodern people search for a better story
to provide meaning for their existence. These speeches in
Acts present a variety of style and form.5 This writer
proposes that this variety reflects the different audiences
to whom the apostolic church evangelized with the gospel.6
For instance, when dealing with Jewish sympathizers, the
apostolic witnesses interpret Scripture as the basis for
Israel’s historical place in God’s plan of redemption.7
219
8F. F. Bruce, “The Significance of the Speeches forInterpreting Acts,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 33(Fall 1990): 21.
9Ibid.
10Ibid., 22.
11Jervell, Theology of the Acts of the Apostles, 67-68.
12Ibid., 88-89.
Jesus is the culmination and fulfillment of God’s saving
purpose.8 In Acts 5:29-32, “the apostles affirm more
briefly that God has exalted the rejected and crucified
Jesus, and through [H]im is now offering Israel an
opportunity to repent and receive [H]is forgiveness.”9
Peter’s evangelistic speech to Cornelius represents
the variety of approach to eujsebh;~ kai; fobouvmeno~ tou` qeou`.
Bruce suggests that the apostolic witness proclaims the
fulfillment of prophecy, the facts of Christ’s crucifixion
and resurrection, the eyewitness reports, and the “assurance
of forgiveness to all who believe in Jesus.”10 Paul’s
sermon at Antioch Pisidia represents another witness to
eujsebh;~ kai; fobouvmeno~ tou` qeou`. Paul presents a survey of God’s
mighty acts of redemption in Israel’s history (Acts 13:17-
25).11 Jesus, according to Paul’s witness, is the summit of
14I. H. Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles, TyndaleNew Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980;reprint, 1999), 238-39.
15M. Green, Evangelism in the Early Church, 137-38.
16F. F. Bruce, “The Significance of the Speeches,”24.
Paul’s speeches to a Gentile audience, however, do
not include an extensive look at Old Testament Scripture.13
In Lystra, as well as in the court of the Areopagus, Paul
forms his witness around the qeo;n zw`nta. Rather than a
description of God’s activity in the history of Israel, Paul
presents the world of nature to point to the “existence,
power, and goodness of the Creator.” According to Marshall,
this presentation leads Paul to the gospel witness, although
Luke does not record this testimony.14
Michael Green proposes that the varieties in the
evangelism of the apostolic church reflect the needs of the
audience. Following an apostolic approach, evangelism is
the proclamation of the gospel “in terms that makes sense”
to the audience.15 As Bruce cogently writes, Luke’s record
of speeches to Jews demonstrates “how to present the gospel
to Jews and God-fearing Gentiles; and when he reproduces the
preaching at Lystra and Athens, this, he implies, is how it
should be presented to pagans.”16
221
17Eduard Schweizer, “Concerning the Speeches inActs,” in Studies in Luke-Acts, eds. L. E. Keck and J. L.Martyn (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966), 208-16.
18Alvin Reid, Introduction to Evangelism (Nashville:Broadman and Holman, 1998), 226-27.
19Ibid., 235.
20Ibid., 236.
21E. Schweizer, “Concerning the Speeches in Acts,”214. This is in contrast to a “christological” kerygma.
Schweizer offers the following elements essential
in the apostolic approach to witness: 1) an appeal to
Scripture, 2) the “christological kerygma,” 3) proclamation
of salvation, and 4) the call to repentance.17 In an
application of the apostolic approach for the evangelization
of postmodern people, this writer proposes similar elements.
Alvin Reid offers a similar proposal in his evangelistic
approach. Reid draws a comparison between the Jews and
nominal Christians who have “some knowledge and background
in the faith.”18 Reference to Scripture makes sense to
postmodern people who have connections to the church.
Gentiles, however, represent the “radically unchurched” in
Reid’s model. Reid suggests that “we need ‘sensory
apologetics’ to reach a postmodern culture.”19 In this
approach, the witness tells the “story of how God relates to
man.”20 Similarly, Schweizer contends that the apostolic
witness to Gentiles promotes the “theological” kerygma.21
222
22Dieter Zander, “The Gospel for Generation X,”Leadership 16 (Spring 1995): 36-42.
23James W. Sire, “On Being a Fool for Christ and anIdiot for Nobody,” in Christian Apologetics in thePostmodern World, ed. Timothy Phillips and Dennis Okholm(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1995), 120-24.
24Walter Ong, Orality and Literacy: TheTechnologizing of the Word (London: Routledge, 1982), 142-43, 171-72.
The personal witness shares the story of Christ’s work in
the individual’s life. Indeed, Dieter Zander suggests that
this is the most authoritative connection to the postmodern
generation. Evangelism that is effective to postmodern
people communicates the personal story of salvation and
forgiveness.22
The metanarrative of the gospel finds connection
with the postmodern person through the personal testimony of
the believer.23 The postmodern culture communicates
knowledge through the fluidity of the spoken word. The
reception of this knowledge depends upon the oral devices,
such as rhythmic balance, formulaic patterns, proverbs,
mnemonic aids, and other tools to provide associative
remembrance in the minds of the hearers. The narrator moves
to the point of action in the story rather than following a
linear plot. In the telling of the story, the hearers
become active participants in the creation of the narrative.
The culture communicates truth by story.24
223
25E. Y. Mullins, Christian Religion in Its DoctrinalExpression (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1917; reprint,1964), 62.
26Richard A. Jensen, Thinking in Story: Preaching ina Post-literate Age (Lima, OH: CSS Publishing Company,1993), 62.
27Robert Stephen Reid, “Postmodernism and theFunction of the New Homiletic in Post-ChristendomCongregations” Homiletic 20 (1995): 7.
28Ibid.
In his description of conversion, E. Y. Mullins
describes personal evangelism: “Christ is presented to the
soul. A new sense of sin is awakened through the power of
the Holy Spirit within. At length the will is surrendered
to God in Christ.”25 The communication of the gospel of
Christ to the soul of the postmodern person comes most
readily through the personal story of the witness.
As Jensen states, “Stories work by indirection.
Working indirectly they have a chance to break through the
cultural filters that work in the heads of those who
listen.”26 Through the use of story, the witness creates an
“affective experience for the audience of a sermon.”27
Listeners are provided room to overhear this kind of“message,” to bridge the distance and choose toparticipate because they identify with the experiencecreated and the impetus to act evoked by the speaker’sown encounter with “meaning.” The goal of this kind ofpreaching is to create an experience of the word of Godin listeners within a range of possible responses ratherthan trying to control the specific response.28
224
29Millard J. Erickson, Postmodernizing the Faith:Evangelical Responses to the Challenge of Postmodernism(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 155.
30James I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty ofGod (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1961), 41.
Erickson suggests that “we may need to modify the
way in which we do the leading or present the message. This
may mean that a more narrative presentation, not in the
hermeneutical or heuristic but in the communicational sense
of narrative, will have to be the beginning of the
conversation.”29 This provides the foundation for witness.
The role of the Spirit, the ethic of a commendable
community, and the personal witness join to provide an
effective evangelistic presentation to postmodern people.
J. I. Packer summarizes the role of personal
evangelism.
Evangelism is just preaching the gospel, the evangel. It is a work of communication in which Christians makethemselves mouthpieces for God’s message of mercy tosinners. Anyone who faithfully delivers that message,under whatever circumstances . . . is evangelizing.Since the divine message finds its climax in a plea fromthe Creator to a rebel world to turn and put faith inChrist, the delivering of it involves the summoning ofone’s hearers to conversion. If you are not, in thissense, seeking to bring about conversions, you are notevangelizing; this we have seen already. But the way totell whether in fact you are evangelizing . . . is toask whether you are faithfully making known the gospelmessage.30
Personal evangelism in an apostolic approach presents the
story of the gospel through the lens of personal experience.
225
31Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, The NewInternational Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids:William B. Eerdmans, 1996), 891-98.
32“To have made full the gospel of Christ.”
33Mark Saucy, “Miracles and Jesus’ Proclamation ofthe Kingdom of God,” Bibliotheca Sacra 153 (July 1996): 286.
34Merrill Unger, The Baptism and Gifts of the HolySpirit (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974), 138-40.
The Power for Personal Evangelism,Rom 15:17-21
The various obstacles for personal evangelism in a
postmodern world necessitate the empowerment of the witness.
Without the power of the Spirit in an apostolic approach,
personal evangelism may be just another story among stories.
The apostle Paul provides insight into the power in an
apostolic approach to personal evangelism (Rom 15:17-21).31
In this passage, the apostle demonstrates the role of the
Spirit which empowers him peplhrwkevnai to; eujaggevlion tou` Cristou`
(Rom 15:19).32 This empowerment comes through shmeivwn kai;
teravtwn. Mark Saucy suggests that “the church is empowered
to preach by the Spirit (Acts 1:8), and it works miracles
through the Spirit.”33 Unger indicates that such miraculous
signs of God’s presence in the apostolic community have
ceased.34 Yet, the presence of the miraculous demonstration
of God’s presence in the apostolic community regularly
accompanies the evangelistic ministry of the church in Acts.
226
35See John Wimber, Power Evangelism (San Francisco:HarperCollins, 1985).
36Allison A. Trites, “The Prayer Motif inLuke-Acts,” in Perspectives in Luke-Acts, ed. C. H. Talbert(Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1977), 168–86.
37H. Wayne House, “The Christian Life According toColossians,” Bibliotheca Sacra 151 (October 1994): 454.
38Kendall Easley, “The Pauline Usage of Pneumati asa Reference to the Spirit of God,” Journal of theEvangelical Theological Society 27 (September 1984): 307-308.
This writer proposes that the manifestation of the Spirit’s
work in the church continues to play an important role.
This is not to embrace wholeheartedly the “power evangelism”
of John Wimber,35 but it is to acknowledge in a postmodern
setting the necessity of the Spirit’s therapeutic work of
power through an apostolic approach for evangelism.
In connection with the source of power, the place
of prayer highlights a significant avenue for empowerment in
personal evangelism (Col 4:2-6).36 Prayer plays a major
role in Paul’s evangelistic ministry. In the contemporary
church, prayer should accompany the evangelistic enterprise
with postmodern people, “so that the mystery of the
indwelling Christ may be proclaimed (4:2-4).”37
In Eph 6:18, Paul calls the apostolic community to
pray ejn pneuvmati. Through prayer, individual witnesses
experience the overflow of God’s power for evangelism.38
227
39F. F. Bruce, “The Holy Spirit in the Acts of theApostles” Interpretation 27 (1973): 166-83; C. Anderson,“Rethinking ‘Be Filled with the Spirit.’ Ephesians 5:18 andthe Purpose of Ephesians” Evangelical Journal 7 (1989):57–67.
40G. Mussies, The Morphology of Koine Greek (Leiden:E. J. Brill, 1971), 272-73.
41H. E. Dana and J. R. Mantey. A Manual Grammar ofthe Greek New Testament (New York: MacMillan, 1950), 105.
42Gordon Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The HolySpirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,1994), 721-24.
43Andreas Köstenberger, “What Does It Mean to beFilled with the Spirit? A Biblical Investigation,” Journalof the Evangelical Theological Society 40 (June 1997): 233.
Furthermore, Paul’s exhortation for the life controlled by
the Spirit presents a prerequisite for empowerment in
personal evangelism (Eph 5:18).39 Mussies concludes that
the present tense of the imperative, plhrou`sqe, calls for a
consistent, continual manner of life.40 Dana and Mantey
suggest that ejn pneuvmati is instrumental, so that the meaning
is “by means of the Spirit.”41
Fee notes that this reference points to the
community experience, as well as the individualistic
experience.42 As such, the phrase points to the apostolic
ethic within the community. Köstenberger notes that the
Spirit permeates the life of the witness, manifested in
wisdom (Eph 5:17-18), “grateful worship” (5:19-20), and
relationships following the principle of love (5:21-6:9).43
228
44Autrey, Evangelism in the Acts, 71.
45See Ramsay MacMullen, Paganism in the Roman Empire(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981), 62-73. PaulVeyne, “The Roman Empire,” in A History of Private Life:From Pagan Rome to Byzantium, ed. Paul Veyne, trans. A.Goldhammer (Cambridge: Harvard University Press), 207-33. “The paganism of the Greeks and Romans . . . was, if I mayput it this way, more an à la carte religion than a religionwith a fixed menu” (208).
46Todd Hahn and David Verhaagen, GenXers After God:Helping a Generation Pursue Jesus (Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 1998), 14.
Obstacles for Personal Evangelism
The postmodern world presents obstacles of paganism
and persecution for personal evangelism. A “stubbornly
entrenched paganism” is one obstacle to apostolic witness.44
Simon in Samaria (Acts 8:9), Elymas in Paphos (Acts 13:6-8),
and the Hellenistic paganism (Acts 14:8-18; 16:16-19; 17:5-
9, 16-34) depict the paganism that pervaded the cultural
landscape of the first-century. This paganism presented an
obstacle to the evangelistic efforts of the apostolic
church.45 The contemporary church faces this same obstacle.
Postmodern people have a “healthy spiritual appetite” that
drives them “to seek our mystical experiences, developing
their own unique religious faith.”46 The dismissal of
foundations, the relativism of truth, and the pluralism that
define postmodernism create fertile ground for the
development of unique religious, syncretistic beliefs.
229
47These religious circles may even be contradictory.
48“[They] believed Philip as he preached the goodnews concerning the kingdom of God and of the name of JesusChrist.” In Acts 13:6-8, Elymas the sorcerer was struckblind by God which led to the conversion of Sergius Paulus.
49F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, rev. ed., NewInternational Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1988), 165.
50See Edwin Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 57-63. Although it isbeyond the reach of this dissertation, later traditionassigns to Simon Magus the origination of the Gnostic heresydenounced by Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and Hippolytus.
51Robert Wall, “Israel and the Gentile Mission inActs and Paul: A Canonical Approach,” in Witness to theGospel: The Theology of Acts, eds. I. H. Marshall and DavidPeterson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 444.
Based upon various mystical experiences and philosophies
from a multitude of religious circles, postmodern people
embrace a contemporary form of paganism.47
Luke reports that many Samaritans ejpivsteusan tw/ Filivppw/
(Acts 8:12).48 The healing and exorcisms (Acts 8:7) serve
as “visible ‘signs’ confirming the message that he
proclaimed.”49 Luke presents Simon of Samaria as a pagan
counterpart to Philip and the apostolic ministry (Acts 8:9-
11).50 Simon receives baptism along with other converts,
but then he considers the acquisition of miraculous power “a
matter of greed rather than grace (8:14-23),” offering money
to Peter for the power of the Spirit.51
230
52Simone Weil, Waiting for God, trans. Emma Craufurd(New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1951), 185. Weil offersthis conclusion based upon spiritual pursuits of individualssince she includes those who have embraced a native religionas well as those who have not embraced any formal religion.
53J. Richard Middleton and Brian J. Walsh, Truth IsStranger Than It Used to Be: Biblical Faith in a PostmodernAge (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1995), 191.
54M. Green, Evangelism in the Early Church, 132. “The dunamis shown by the Christians appealed to a magicianlike Simon Magus or Elymas.”
This encounter of Phillip and Peter with Simon
reveals the nature of personal evangelization before the
obstacle of paganism in a postmodern milieu. First, the
personal witness must proclaim the gospel. Unlike Simone
Weil, the apostolic approach seeks to evangelize individuals
who adhere to any spiritual pursuit other than Christ Jesus.
Weil considers that such evangelization discounts the
spiritual pursuits of individuals and the possibility that
the cross affects the same benefit of salvation to these
pursuits which are “not too unsuitable for pronouncing the
name of the Lord.”52 For an apostolic approach, however,
the proclamation of the gospel confronts the postmodern
“carnivalesque world of multiple constructions of reality”
and demonstrates the “ongoing drama of God’s redemption of
the world” through Jesus Christ.53 The presentation of the
gospel in the power of the Spirit produces the foundations
for faith in Jesus in the face of postmodern paganism.54
231
55William Neil, The Acts of the Apostles, NewCentury Bible Commentary (London: Marshall, Morgan, andScott, 1973; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 163.
56“To turn from these vain things toward the livingGod.”
Secondly, an apostolic approach corrects any
syncretistic tendency in the evangelization of postmodern
people. Peter corrects Simon’s misconception of the Holy
Spirit (Acts 8:20-24). In Lystra Paul and Barnabas
eujaggelizovmenoi h\san (Acts 14:7). After healing a lame man,
the people seek to worship the missionaries as oiJ qeoi;
oJmoiwqevnte~ ajnqrwvpoi~ (Acts 14:11). As Neil suggests, “This
fascinating glimpse of the superstitious pagan background of
the Empire suggests the magnitude of the problem facing
early Christian missionaries.”55 The apostolic approach
confers no affiliation with the paganism of the people, but
calls for them ajpo; touvtwn tw`n mataivwn ejpistrevfein ejpi; qeo;n zw`nta
(Acts 14:15).56 An apostolic approach diligently presents
the good news of Jesus Christ as the unique and supreme
avenue for salvation. In an apostolic approach, personal
evangelism refuses to accommodate the gospel to the
spiritual “postmodern theater pieces,” which mesh to form a
complex of spiritual claims embraced by individuals.
Rather, the apostolic approach presents the gospel as the
only true story of God’s salvation to humanity.
232
57“We have the divine necessity to obey God ratherthan men.” See, C. H. Cosgrove, “The Divine DEI in Luke-Acts: Investigations into the Lukan Understanding of God’sProvidence,” Novum Testamentum 26 (1984): 186-90.
58Brian Rapske, “Opposition to the Plan of God andPersecution,” in Witness to the Gospel: The Theology ofActs, eds. I. H. Marshall and David Peterson (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1998), 236.
59Ernst Bammel, “Jewish Activity Against Christiansin Palestine According to Acts,” in The Book of Acts in ItsPalestinian Setting, ed. Richard Bauckham, vol. 4, The Bookof Acts in Its First Century Setting (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1995), 358-59.
Persecution also presents an obstacle to personal
evangelism in an apostolic approach. An examination of the
persecutions in Acts reveals that the gospel encounters
specific opposition from the Jewish community. The
apostolic approach in the face of persecution may be
summarized by Peter’s words in Acts 5:30: peiqarcei`n dei` qew/
ma`llon h[ ajnqrwvpoi~.57 In the face of persecution, the apostolic
church continues to evangelize. Yet, the “Christian witness
does not prevail . . . because of human tenacity but by
divine empowerment.”58
Jewish persecution in Jerusalem occurs in response
to the growth of the Christian witness in Jerusalem. The
animosity of the Jewish leaders focuses upon the apostolic
witness that they were responsible for Christ’s passion.59
Opposition to Stephen, which leads to his death, begins with
a debate with the sunagwgh`~ th`~ legomevnh~ Libertivnwn (Acts 6:9).
233
60F. F. Bruce, Men and Movements in the PrimitiveChurch: Studies in Early Non-Pauline Christianity (London:Paternoster Press, 1979), 54-55.
61“[They] went everywhere preaching the good news ofthe word.” M. Green, Evangelism in the Early Church, 131-32. Green suggests that “Stephen did more for his Master inhis death than he did in his life” because of the appeal hiscourage and faith presented to the ancient world.
62B. Rapske, “Opposition to the Plan of God andPersecution,” 249.
63Ibid., 250.
Stephen’s defense speech considers the history of
God’s people apart from any temple.60 The evangelistic
importance of Stephen’s speech culminates in his martyrdom
(Acts 7:54-60). Upon Stephen’s death, the persecution
scatters the apostolic community (Acts 8:1-3). Encouraged
by the boldness and faith of Stephen in martyrdom, the
apostolic community dih`lqon eujaggelizovmenoi to;n lovgon (Acts 8:4).61
Later, when Paul and Barnabas proclaim the gospel
in Iconium, the Jews stir up opposition (Acts 14:1-7). As
Rapske notes: “Relying upon the Lord, they speak fearlessly
(Acts 14:3) concerning God’s grace and their message is
confirmed by miraculous signs and wonders.”62 This boldness
exemplifies an apostolic approach throughout Luke’s account.
This boldness depends upon the empowerment of the Spirit to
“fulfil [sic] the divine plan” and to “to carry on through
the negative effects of opposition and persecution.”63
234
64D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God: ChristianityConfronts Pluralism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 28-36.
65Peter Lampe and Ulrich Luz, “Post-PaulineChristianity and Pagan Society,” in Christian Beginnings:Word and Community from Jesus to Post-Apostolic Times, ed.Jürgen Becker, 242-80 (Louisville: Westminster / John Knox,1993), 261.
66B. Rapske, “Opposition to the Plan of God andPersecution,” 256. Furthermore, “Through such tokens asearthquakes, miraculous releases from prison and visions,the Lord gives both [H]is people, and [H]is plan which theypursue, an unqualified, ‘Yes’.”
67Norman Geisler, “Some Philosophical Perspectiveson Missionary Dialogue,” in Theology and Mission, ed. DavidJ. Hesselgrave (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1978), 228-45.
In a postmodern world, persecution finds its main
expression in the intellectual realm. The pluralism of
postmodernism disdains the absolutism of the gospel.
Persecution comes in the arena of public discourse.64 The
“claim to absoluteness and exclusivity of Christianity”
presents one reason for animosity toward an apostolic
witness to Jesus Christ.65 This “totalizing metanarrative”
remains untenable in a postmodern setting for personal
evangelism. An apostolic approach, however, depends upon
the “unstoppable character of Christian witness” through the
direct influence and empowerment of the Spirit of truth.66
Finding Common Ground, 1 Cor 9:19-23
Personal evangelism to postmodern people demands a
biblical principle of accommodation (1 Cor 9:19-23).67
235
68Leith Anderson, “Practice of Ministry in 21st-Century Churches” Bibliotheca Sacra 151 (October 1994): 388.
69James D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the NewTestament: An Inquiry into the Character of EarliestChristianity, 2d ed. (London: SCM Press, 1990), 25.
70Ben Witherington, III, Conflict and Community inCorinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2Corinthians (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1995), 213.
Leith Anderson suggests that “Paul should be seen as a
skilled ethnologist who understood cultures while
communicating truth.”68 Paul’s example of combining
ethnology and exegesis serves as an apostolic approach in
evangelizing postmodern people. Dunn suggests that “Paul
allowed circumstances and situations to determine the
statement of his kerygma to a considerable degree.”69
This accommodation, however, has limits. As Ben
Witherington states, “[Paul’s] accommodating behavior has
clear limits. He does not say that he became an idolator
[sic] to idolators [sic] or an adulterer to adulterers. But
in matters that he did not see as ethically or theologically
essential or implied by the gospel, Paul believed in
flexibility.”70 This concept of accommodation promotes the
discovery of “common ground” between the postmodern culture
and the gospel. Finding common ground, within limits,
provides a bridge for personal evangelism. Such
accommodation promotes a flexibility, but not compromise.
236
71John Frame, “In Defense of Something Close toBiblicism: Reflections on Sola Scriptura and History inTheological Method,” Westminster Theological Journal 59(Fall 1997): 286.
72George Hunter III, How to Reach Secular People(Nashville: Abingdon, 1992), 95.
74Robert Webber, Ancient-Future Faith: RethinkingEvangelicalism for a Postmodern World (Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 1999), 150.
John Frame contends that there are “some areas in which
Christians may and should be like those to whom they preach,
so their witness may be more effective.”71 Simply stated, a
personal witness who is “open to beginning where people are,
will thus discover that the unchaining of his or her own
imagination is indispensable to reaching secular people.”72
As noted earlier, such common ground may be found
in the postmodern search for a better story, for connection,
and for a better life.73 One aspect of a better story is
the postmodern desire to discover a story that overcomes the
powers of evil in the world. Webber suggests that
evangelism in a postmodern world proclaims that “Christ’s
death is a victory over the powers of evil.”74 The common
ground of connection promotes the commendable community of
the church following the ethics of the apostolic community.
The church is the place of connection in a postmodern world.
237
75George Hunsberger and Craig Van Gelder, Church:Between Gospel and Culture, The Emerging Mission in NorthAmerica (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 32.
76Harry Lee Poe, Christian Witness in a PostmodernWorld (Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), 74.
77Jervell, Theology of the Acts of the Apostles, 46.
Craig Van Gelder suggests that effective evangelization of
postmodern people demands “building communities of faith and
addressing fragmentation and brokenness.”75 Finally,
evangelism to postmodern people finds common ground with
them as they seek a better life. As Harry Lee Poe writes,
“We have nothing to offer the postmodern world in terms of
organizations, programs, institutions, and structures. What
we have to offer is a concrete basis for peace in a
fragmented world. We have a Savior to offer . . . a Savior
who will put their house in order.”76
Application of an Apostolic Approach
An apostolic approach proceeds from the power of
witness through the outpouring of the Spirit of truth. The
Spirit of truth provides the epistemological bridge for the
postmodern skepticism. The Spirit establishes community,
which, in turn, creates a place of nurture, growth, and
warmth in the evangelistic endeavor. The Spirit of truth
further produces connection and continuity with Christ
through the inspiration and illumination of Scripture.77
238
78R. Daniel Shaw, “In Search of Post-ModernSalvation,” Evangelical Review of Theology 22 (1998): 59.
The ethic of community extends intimacy to postmodern people
and provides a living testament to the veracity of the
gospel proclaimed. The apostolic approach provides specific
approaches to pluralities and pluralism in the postmodern
world, especially in Paul’s speech at the Areopagus.
Finally, the personal evangelism in a postmodern milieu
requires the witness of personal story, the spirit-filled
life which overcomes the obstacles of persecution and
paganism, and the pursuit of common ground with postmodern
people. The contemporary church seeks to build bridges to a
postmodern world through the evangelistic proclamation of
the gospel.
The search for salvation and forgiveness continues
in a postmodern world. Shaw summarizes the situation when
he writes: “The shift to a new culture type [postmodern]
does not change the human condition, merely the way it is
manifest in daily living. It is in relationship . . . with
Christ that we realize salvation.”78
The presentation of this approach possesses both
weaknesses and strengths in the mind of this writer. One
possible weakness of this presentation is the danger of the
oversimplification of the postmodern thought and situation.
239
79M. Erickson, Postmodernizing the Faith, 100.
80Ibid., 153.
The reality of postmodernism is complex, with a multitude of
various versions and concerns. This writer has chosen to
paint broad strokes in his description of postmodernism. In
such a description, the danger by which specific patterns of
postmodernism are chosen to fit the argument of the thesis.
Although this writer has attempted to minimize this danger,
it presents one weakness of the approach.
Secondly, the presentation of this approach may
present the weakness of insufficient engagement with the
complexities of postmodernism. As Erickson suggests,
ministry to postmodern people requires that the contemporary
church adopt some of the characteristics of postmodernism.79
This writer, however, has sought to present the “self-
authenticating character of the biblical message . . .
combined with a strong belief in the convicting,
illuminating power of the Holy Spirit.”80 As such, there
may exist at points a failure to address specific postmodern
issues in an effort to maintain an overall connection with
the approach for evangelization depicted in Acts and the
Pauline epistles.
Thirdly, this analysis does not consider completely
the current status of technology in the postmodern world.
240
81Leonard Sweet, Post-Modern Pilgrims: First CenturyPassion for the 21st Century World (Nashville: Broadman andHolman, 2000), 53-83.
82George W. Peters, A Theology of Church Growth(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 17-18.
As Leonard Sweet points out, the contemporary church must
minister to the “virtual world” of postmodern people,
utilizing the technological opportunities in a postmodern
world.81 The relationship between technology and an
apostolic approach may be fertile field for further study.
Certainly, other weaknesses of this approach occur. These
three, however, present the major limitations that this
dissertation presents in the mind of this writer.
The strengths of this presentation of an apostolic
approach center upon the strict correlation between
contemporary ministry and the biblical pattern. George
Peters indicates that the record of the apostolic community
is the primary source for world evangelism and church
growth. This record includes: 1) the Spirit as the divine
Agent; 2) the apostles as the divine representatives; 3)
witness as the major means; 4) Jesus Christ as the content;
and 5) the world as the object.82 The approach of this
dissertation follows a similar analysis and promotes a
strong connection with the biblical paradigm for evangelism.
As such, the Bible represents the authority for praxis.
241
83Douglas K. Blount, “Apologetics and the Ordinancesof the Church,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 43 (Spring2001): 72.
84M. Erickson, Postmodernizing the Faith, 152.
85Dieter Zander, “The Gospel for Generation X,”Leadership: A Practical Journal for Church Leaders 16(Spring 1995): 39-40.
Furthermore, as Douglas Blount states, “If contemporary
Christians are to find a paradigm suitable to the
commitments of that ancient faith which they have come to
embrace . . . it will be by resituating [sic] themselves
within the spiritual tradition initiated by their ancient
Christian forebears.”83
Secondly, this presentation finds strength in the
community ethic. This provides a connection between
postmodernism and the gospel. The community is the visible,
vital expression of the gospel at work in the world. In
this way, the message of the gospel remains unchanged, but
the community itself provides a flexible, relevant appeal to
postmodern people.84 Dieter Zander notes that the
authenticity of the gospel manifested in the lives of
Christ’s followers attracts postmodern people to the
gospel.85 It is the contention of this writer that there is
no greater community in the world to which postmodern people
may connect than the apostolic community in the twenty-first
century.
242
86Jervell, Theology of the Acts of the Apostles, 42.
Conclusion
In the final analysis, this presentation of an
apostolic approach for the evangelization of postmodern
people concludes as does the record of Acts in chapter 28.
An apostolic approach results in “a people divided over the
Christian message, some believing, others unbelieving.”86
The mission, however, remains the same: “[They] went
everywhere preaching the good news of the word” (Acts 8:4).
243
BIBLIOGRAPHY
General Reference
Aland, K., M. Black, et al., eds. The Greek New Testament.3rd ed. Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1983.
Alt, A., O. Eisfeldt, et al., eds. Biblia HebraicaStuttgartensia. Stuttgart: DeutscheBibelgesellschaft, 1966-1977.
Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testamentand Other Early Christian Literature. Translated byWilliam F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich. 2d ed.eds. F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.Reprint, 1979.
Brooks, James A., and Carlton L. Winberry. Syntax of NewTestament Greek. Lanham, MD: University Press ofAmerica, 1979.
Dana, H. E., and J. R. Mantey. A Manual Grammar of the GreekNew Testament. New York: MacMillan, 1950.
Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. TheologicalDictionary of the New Testament. Vols. 1-9.Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1964-1974. Reprint, 1978.
Lampe, G. W. H. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1961.
Moule, C. F. D. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek. 2d ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959.Reprint, 1994.
Moulton, J. H. Prolegomena. Vol. 1, A Grammar of NewTestament Greek. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1906.
Mussies, G. The Morphology of Koine Greek. Leiden: E. J.Brill, 1971.
Rienecker, Fritz. Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament.Translated by Cleon Rogers. Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1976. Reprint, 1980.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
244
Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in theLight of Historical Research. Nashville: Broadman,1934.
Thrall, Margaret E. Greek Participles in the New Testament.Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1962.
Trench, R. C. Synonyms of the New Testament. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1953.
Turner, Nigel. Syntax. Vol. 3, A Grammar of New TestamentGreek. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1963.
Commentaries
Abbott, T. K. Epistle to the Ephesians and to theColossians. International Critical Commentary.Edinburg: T. and T. Clark, 1985.
Allen, Leslie. The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah.New International Commentary on the Old Testament.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976.
Barrett, C. K. A Commentary on the Second Epistle to theCorinthians. New York: Harper and Row, 1973.
________. The Gospel According to St. John. 2nd ed.Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978.
Bauer, Walter. Das Johannesevangelium. Tübingen: Mohr, 1933.
Beasley-Murray, George R. John. Word Biblical Commentary.Dallas: Word, 1987.
Best, Ernst. A Commentary on the First and Second Epistlesto the Thessalonians. New York: Harper and Row,1972.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
245
________. The Letter of Paul to the Romans. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1967.
Betz, Hans Dieter. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letterto the Churches in Galatia. Hermenia. Philadelphia:Fortress Press, 1979.
Blomberg, Craig. Matthew. New American Commentary.Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992.
Bruce, F. F. 1 and 2 Corinthians. New Century BibleCommentary. London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott,1971.
________. 1 and 2 Thessalonians. Word Biblical Commentary.Waco, TX: Word Publishers, 1982.
________. The Book of the Acts. Rev. ed. New InternationalCommentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1988.
________. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, andto the Ephesians. New International Commentary onthe New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.
Bultmann, Rudolph. The Gospel of John. Translated by GeorgeR. Beasley-Murray. Oxford: Blackwell, 1971.
Calvin, John. A Commentary on the Prophet Joel. Translatedby J. Owen. London: Banner of Truth, 1958.
Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1991.
Conzelmann, Hans. A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles.Translated by James Limburg, A. T. Kraabel, and D.H. Juel. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,1987.
________. A Commentary on the First Epistle to theCorinthians. Translated by James W. Leitch.Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975.
Dahood, M. Psalm I: 1-50. Anchor Bible. Garden City, NJ:Doubleday, 1966.
De la Potterie, I. La Vérité dans Saint Jean. 2 vols. Rome:PBI, 1977.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
246
Dibelius, Martin. An die Kolosser, Epheser, und Philemon. 3ded. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament. Tübingen: J. C.B. Mohr, 1953.
________. Studies in the Acts of the Apostles. Translated byMary Ling. London: SCM Press, 1956.
Dibelius, Martin, and Hans Conzelmann. The PastoralEpistles. Translated by Phillip Buttolph and AdelaYarbro. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1962.
Dodd, C. H. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel.Cambridge: University Press, 1953.
Duncan, George S. The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians.London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1934.
Dunn, James D. G. The Epistle to the Galatians. Black’s NewTestament Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,1993.
Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NewInternational Commentary on the New Testament.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.
________. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians. NewInternational Commentary on the New Testament.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
Finley, T. J. Joel, Amos, Obadiah. Chicago: Moody, 1990.
Fitzmeyer, Joseph A. The Acts of the Apostles. Anchor BibleCommentary. New York: Doubleday, 1998.
Foulkes, Francis. The Letter of Paul to the Ephesians. Rev.ed. Tyndale New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1989.
Fung, Ronald Y. The Epistle to the Galatians. NewInternational Commentary on the New Testament.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.
Garrett, Duane. Hosea, Joel. New American Commentary.Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1997.
George, Timothy. Galatians. New American Commentary.Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1994.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
247
Grosheide, F. W. Commentary on the First Epistle to theCorinthians. New International Commentary on theNew Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953.
Haenchen, Ernst. The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary.Translated by R. McL. Wilson, et al. Philadelphia:Westminster Press, 1971.
Hanson, A. T. The Pastoral Epistles. New Century BibleCommentary. London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott,1982. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.
Hawthorne, Gerald F. Philippians. Word Biblical Commentary.Waco, TX: Word, 1987.
Hendrickson, William. I-II Timothy, Titus. New TestamentCommentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1957.
Holtzmann, H. J. Die Apostelgeschichte. 3d ed. Hand-Commentar zum Neuen Testament 1/2. Tübingen: J. C.B. Mohr, 1901.
Hubbard, David. Joel and Amos. Tyndale Old TestamentCommentary. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1989.
Hughes, Philip E. Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians.New International Commentary on the New Testament.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962.
Keil, C. F. Minor Prophets: Two Volumes in One. Translatedby James Martin. Vol. 10, Commentary on the OldTestament in Ten Volumes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1971.
Kelly, J. N. D. A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles.Reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981.
Lea, Thomas D., and Hayne P. Griffin, Jr. 1, 2 Timothy,Titus. New American Commentary. Nashville:Broadman, 1992.
Liefeld, Walter. Ephesians. IVP New Testament Commentary.Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997.
Lock, Walter. The Pastoral Epistles. International CriticalCommentary. New York: Charles Scribner and Sons,1924.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
248
Lohmeyer, Ernst. Der Briefe an die Philipper, und dieKolosser, und an Philemon. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck,1953.
Lohse, Edward. Colossians and Philemon: A Commentary on theEpistles to the Colossians and to Philemon.Translated by William R. Poehlmann and Robert J.Karris. Edited by Helmut Koester. Philadelphia:Fortress Press, 1971.
________. Galatians. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, TX:Word, 1990.
Lührmann, D. Galatians. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.
Malherbe, Abraham. The Letters to the Thessalonians. AnchorBible 32b. New York: Doubleday, 2000.
Martin, Alfred. First Corinthians. Neptune, NJ: LoizeauxBrothers, 1989.
Marshall, I. Howard. The Acts of the Apostles. Tyndale NewTestament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.Reprint, 1999.
Martin, D. Michael. 1, 2 Thessalonians. New AmericanCommentary. Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1995.
Martin, Ralph. 2 Corinthians. Word Biblical Commentary.Waco, TX: Word, 1986.
________. Colossians and Philemon. New Century BibleCommentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973.
________. Philippians. New Century Bible Commentary. London:Oliphants, 1976.
Melick, Richard R., Jr. Philippians, Colossians, Philemon.New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman andHolman, 1991.
Moo, Douglas. The Epistle to the Romans. New InternationalCommentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1996.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
249
Morgan, G. Campbell. The Acts of the Apostles. New York:Fleming H. Revell, 1924.
Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1988.
________. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1971.
Mounce, Robert H. Romans. New American Commentary.Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1995.
Mullins, E. Y. Studies in Colossians. Nashville: The SundaySchool Board of the Southern Baptist Convention,1935.
Neal, William. The Acts of the Apostles. New Century BibleCommentary. London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott,1973. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.
Neill, W. The Letter of Paul to the Galatians. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1967.
Nygren, Anders. Commentary on Romans. Translated by C. C.Rasmussen. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1949.
O’Brien, P. T. Colossians, Philemon. Word BiblicalCommentary. Waco, TX: Word, 1982.
Pesch, Rudolf. Die Apostelgeschichte, Teilband I: Apg. 1-12,Evangelishe Katholischer Kommentar zum NeuenTestament. Zürich: Benziger Verlag, 1986.
Polhill, John B. Acts. New American Commentary. Nashville:Broadman, 1992.
Schlatter, Adolf. Romans: The Righteousness of God.Translated by Siegfried Schatzmann. Peabody, MA:Hendrickson, 1995.
Schnackenburg, Rudolf. Der Brief an die Epheser.Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum NeuenTestament 10. Neukirchener-Vluyn: NeukirchenerVerlag, 1982.
Silva, Moisés. Philippians. The Wycliffe ExegeticalCommentary. Chicago: Moody Press, 1988.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
250
Stott, John R. W. The Message of Ephesians: God’s NewSociety. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1979.
Stuhlmacher, Peter. Der Brief an Philemon. Zürich: Benziger,1975.
________. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary.Translated by Scott J. Hafemann. Louisville:Westminster / John Knox Press, 1994.
Tasker, R. V. G. The Second Epistle of Paul to theCorinthians: An Introduction and Commentary.Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1958.
Taylor, Justin. Commentaire Historique (Act. 9,1-18,22).Vol. 5, Les Actes des Deux Apôtres, ÉtudesBibliques 23. Paris: Librairie LeCoffre, 1994.
Vaughan, Curtis. Acts: A Study Guide Commentary. GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1974.
________. Colossians: A Study Guide Commentary. GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1973.
________. The Letter to the Ephesians. Nashville: ConventionPress, 1963.
Walaskay, Paul. Acts. Philadelphia: Westminster John KnoxPress, 1999.
Wanamaker, Charles A. A Commentary on 1 and 2 Thessalonians.New International Greek Text Commentary. GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1990.
Wolff, H. W. Joel and Amos: A Commentary on the Books of theProphets Joel and Amos. Translated by W. Janzen, S.D. McBride Jr., and C. A. Muenchow. Hermeneia.Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977.
Wright, N. T. Colossians and Philemon. Tyndale New TestamentCommentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.
Witherington, Ben, III. Conflict and Community in Corinth: ASocio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
251
Studies in Acts
Books
Bauckham, Richard, ed. The Book of Acts in Its PalestinianSetting. Vol. 4, The Book of Acts in Its FirstCentury Setting. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
Brox, Norbert. Zeuge und Märtyrer: Untersuchungen zurfrühchristlichen Zeugnis-Terminologie. Munich:Kösel, 1961.
Bruce, F. F. Men and Movements in the Primitive Church:Studies in Early Non-Pauline Christianity. London:Paternoster Press, 1979.
Cadbury, Henry J. The Making of Luke-Acts. New York:MacMillan, 1927.
Conzelman, Hans. The Theology of Saint Luke. Translated byGeoffrey Buswell. London: Faber and Faber, 1960.
Dibelius, Martin. Studies in the Acts of the Apostles.Translated by Mary Ling. London: SCM Press, 1956.
Gärtner, Bertil. The Areopagus Speech and NaturalRevelation. Translated by C. H. King. Uppsala: C.W. K. Gleerup, 1955.
Gasque, William W. A History of the Criticism of the Acts ofthe Apostles. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.
Gill, David W. J., and Conrad Gempf, eds. The Book of Actsin Its Graeco-Roman Setting. Vol. 2, The Book ofActs in Its First Century Setting. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1994.
Harrison, Everett F. The Apostolic Church. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1985.
________. Interpreting Acts: The Expanding Church. GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1986.
Hengel, Martin. Acts and the History of EarliestChristianity. Translated by John Bowden.Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
252
Jervell, Jacob. Acts and the People of God: A New Look atLuke-Acts. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1972.
________. The Theology of the Acts of the Apostles.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Keck, Leander E., and J. Louis Martin, eds. Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert.Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1966.
Longenecker, Richard. Biblical Exegesis in the ApostolicPeriod. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.
Marshall, I. Howard. Luke: Historian and Theologian. Exeter:Paternoster Press, 1984.
Marshall, I. Howard and David Peterson, eds. Witness to theGospel: The Theology of Acts. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1998.
Neyrey, Jerome H., ed. The Social World of Luke-Acts: Modelsfor Interpretation. Peabody, MA: HendricksonPublishers, 1991.
O’Neill, J. C. The Theology of Acts in Its HistoricalSetting. 2d ed. London: SPCK, 1970.
Rapske, Brian, and Bruce Winter, eds. The Book of Acts andPaul in Roman Custody. Vol. 3, The Book of Acts inIts First-Century Setting. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1994.
Ridderbos, Herman N. The Speeches of Peter in the Acts ofthe Apostles. London: Tyndale, 1962.
Sanders, J. T. The Jews in Luke-Acts. Philadelphia: FortressPress, 1987.
Seccombe, David P. Possessions and the Poor in Luke-Acts.Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt.Linz: Verlag F. Plochl, 1982.
Sheeley, Steven M. Narrative Asides in Luke-Acts. Journalfor the Study of the New Testament SupplementSeries 72. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,1992.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
253
Soards, Marion L. The Speeches in Acts: Their Content,Context, and Concerns. Louisville: Westminster /John Knox Press, 1994.
Stagg, Frank. The Book of Acts: The Early Struggle for anUnhindered Gospel. Nashville: Broadman, 1955.
Wilson, Stephen G. Luke and the Law. Society for NewTestament Studies Monograph Series 50. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1969.
Witherington, Ben, III, ed. History, Literature, and Societyin the Book of Acts. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1996.
Essays / Articles
Bammel, Ernst. “Jewish Activity Against Christians inPalestine According to Acts.” In The Book of Actsin Its Palestinian Setting, ed. Richard Bauckham,357-64. Vol. 4, The Book of Acts in Its FirstCentury Setting. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
Bauckham, Richard. “James and the Jerusalem Church.” In TheBook of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting, ed.Richard Bauckham, 415-80. Vol. 4, The Book of Actsin Its First Century Setting. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1995.
Bowker, J. W. “Speeches in Acts: A Study in Proem andYelammedenu Form.” New Testament Studies 14(October 1967): 96-111.
Brehm, Alan. “The Significance of the Summaries forInterpreting Acts.” Southwestern Journal ofTheology 33 (Fall 1990): 29-40.
Bruce, F. F. “The Holy Spirit in the Acts of the Apostles.”Interpretation 27 (1973): 166-183.
________. “The Significance of the Speeches for InterpretingActs.” Southwestern Journal of Theology 33 (Fall1990): 20-28.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
254
Cadbury, H. J. “The Hellenists.” In The Beginnings ofChristianity. Part 1: The Acts of the Apostles.Vol. 4, eds. F. J. Foakes Jackon and Kirsopp Lake,59-74. London: MacMillan, 1933.
Capper, Brian. “The Interpretation of Acts 5.4.” Journal forthe Study of the New Testament 19 (1983): 117-31.
________. “The Palestinian Cultural Context of EarliestChristian Community of Goods.” In The Witness tothe Gospel: The Theology of Acts, eds. I. H.Marshall and David Peterson, 323-64. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1998.
Cheung, Alex T. M. “A Narrative Analysis of Acts 14:27-15:35: Literary Shaping in Luke’s Account of theJerusalem Council.” Westminster Theological Journal55 (Spring 1993): 137-154.
Conzelmann, Hans. “The Address of Paul on the Areopagus.” InStudies in Luke-Acts, eds. Leander Keck and J.Louis Martyn, 217-30. Nashville: Abingdon, 1966.
Copeland, E. Luther. “Church Growth in Acts.” Missiology 4(January l976): 13–26.
Cory, N. Clayton. “Hellenistic Philosophies and thePreaching of the Resurrection (Acts 17:18, 32).”Novum Testamentum 39 (1997): 21-39.
Cosgrove, C. H. “The Divine DEI in Luke-Acts: Investigationsinto the Lukan Understanding of God’s Providence.”Novum Testamentum 26 (1984): 168-90.
Culpepper, R. Alan. “Paul’s Mission to the Gentile World:Acts 13-19.” Review and Expositor 71 (1974): 487-510.
Dibelius, Martin. “The Conversion of Cornelius.” In Studiesin the Acts of the Apostles, ed. H. Greeven, 109-122. London: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1956.
________. “The Speeches in Acts and Ancient Historiography.”In Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, ed. H.Greeven, 138-85. London: Charles Scribner’s Sons,1956.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
255
Dockery, David S. “The Theology of Acts.” CriswellTheological Review 5 (1990): 43-55.
Drumwright, Huber L., Jr., “The Holy Spirit in the Book ofActs.” Southwestern Journal of Theology 17 (Fall1974): 3–17.
Elliott, John. “Temple versus Household in Luke-Acts: AContrast in Social Institutions.” In The SocialWorld of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation, ed.Jerome Neyrey, 211-40. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,1991.
Falk, Daniel K. “Jewish Prayer Literature and the JerusalemChurch in Acts.” In The Book of Acts in ItsPalestinian Setting, ed. Richard Bauckham, 267-301.Vol. 4, The Book of Acts in Its First CenturySetting. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
Fitzmeyer, Joseph A. “David, Being Therefore a Prophet (Acts2:30).” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972): 332-39.
________. “Jewish Christianity in Acts in Light of theQumran Scrolls.” In Studies in Luke-Acts, eds.Leander Keck and J. Louis Martyn, 233-57.Nashville: Abingdon, 1966.
Gaventa, Beverly R. “The Eschatology of Luke-ActsRevisited.” Encounter 43 (1982): 27-42.
Haenchen, Ernst. “The Book of Acts as Source Material forthe History of Early Christianity.” In Studies inLuke-Acts, eds. Leander E. Keck and J. LouisMartin, 258-78. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1966.
Hengel, Martin. “Early Christianity as a Jewish-Messianic,Universalistic Movement.” In Conflicts andChallenges in Early Christianity, ed. D. A. Hagner,1-41. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity International Press,1999.
Hoyt, Herman A. “The Frantic Future and the ChristianDirective: Acts 1:8.” Grace Journal 10 (Winter1969): 36-41.
Jackson, F. J. Foakes. “Stephen’s Speech in Acts.” Journalof Biblical Literature 49 (1930): 283-286.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
256
Kaiser, Walter C. Jr. “The Promise of God and the Outpouringof the Holy Spirit: Joel 2:28-32 and Acts 2:16-21.”In The Living and Active Word of God: Essays inHonor of Samuel Schultz, eds. Morris Inch andRonald Youngblood, 109-122. Winona Lake:Eisenbrauns, 1983.
Kaufmann, Gordon. “Evidentialism: A Theologian’s Response.”Faith and Philosophy 6 (1989): 35-46.
________. “Religious Diversity, Historical Consciousness,and Christian Theology.” Journal of Religion 68(October 1988): 1-13.
Külling, Heinz. “Zur Bedeutung des AGNOSTOS THEOS. EineExegese zu Apostelgeschichte 17, 22.23,”Theologische Zeitschrift 36 (1980): 65-83.
Lofthouse, W. F. “The Holy Spirit in Acts and the FourthGospel.” Expository Times 52 (1940-1941): 334-36.
Moule, C. F. D. “Once More, Who Were the Hellenists?,”Expository Times 70 (1958-1959): 100-102.
Neudorfer, Heinz-Werner. “The Speech of Stephen.” In Witnessto the Gospel: The Theology of Acts, eds. I. HowardMarshall and David Peterson, 275-94. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1998.
Ogden, Schubert M. “Problems in the Case for a PluralisticTheology of Religions.” Journal of Religion 68(October 1988): 493-507.
Quesnel, Michel. “Paul prédicateur dans les Actes desApôtres.” New Testament Studies 47 (October 2001):469-81.
Richard, E. “The Divine Purpose: The Jews and the GentileMission (Acts 15).” In Society of BiblicalLiterature 1980 Seminar Papers, 267-82. Chico, CA:Scholars Press, 1980.
Rosner, Brian. “The Progress of the Word.” In Witness to theGospel: The Theology of Acts, eds. I. HowardMarshall and David Peterson, 215-33. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1998.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
257
Sanders, J. T. “Who Is a Jew and Who Is a Gentile in theBook of Acts?” New Testament Studies 37 (1991):434-455.
Schwartz, D. R. “Non-Joining Sympathizers (Acts 5,13-14),”Biblica 64 (1983): 550-55.
Schwartz, Joshua. “Peter and Ben Stada in Lydda.” In TheBook of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting, ed.Richard Bauckham, 391-414. Vol. 4, The Book of Actsin Its First Century Setting. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1995.
Scheidweiler, F. “Zu Apg. 5.4.” Zeitschrift für dieneutestamentliche Wissenschaft 49 (1958): 133-37.
Schweizer, Eduard. “Concerning the Speeches in Acts.” InStudies in Luke-Acts, eds. L. E. Keck and J. L.Martyn, 208-16. Nashville: Abingdon, 1966.
Scott, J. Julius Jr. “The Cornelius Incident in Light of ItsJewish Setting.” Journal of the EvangelicalTheological Society 34 (December 1991): 475-484.
________. “Parties in the Church of Jerusalem as Seen in theBook of Acts.” Journal of the EvangelicalTheological Society 18 (1975): 217-227.
________. “Stephen’s Defense and the World Mission of thePeople of God.” Journal of the EvangelicalTheological Society 21 (June 1978): 131-41.
Seccombe, David P. “The New People of God.” In Witness tothe Gospel: The Theology of Acts, eds. I. H.Marshall and David Peterson, 349-72. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1998.
Tannehill, Robert C. “The Functions of Peter’s MissionSpeeches in the Narrative of Acts.” New TestamentStudies 37 (1991): 400-414.
Tolbert, Malcolm. “Contemporary Issues in the Book of Acts.”Review and Expositor 71 (1974): 521-531.
Torrey, C. C. “The ‘Rest’ in Acts v. 13.” Expository Times46 (1934-1935): 428-29.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
258
Treier, Daniel J. “The Fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32: AMultiple-Lens Approach.” Journal of the EvangelicalTheological Society 40 (March 1997): 13-26.
Trites, Allison A. “Church Growth in the Book of Acts.”Bibliotheca Sacra 145 (April-June 1988): 162-173.
________. “The Importance of Legal Scenes and Language inthe Book of Acts.” Novum Testamentum 16 (1974):278-84.
________. “The Prayer Motif in Luke-Acts.” In Perspectivesin Luke-Acts, ed. C. H. Talbert, 168-186. Macon,GA: Mercer University Press, 1977.
Turner, M. M. B. “The Significance of Receiving the Spiritin Luke-Acts: A Survey of Modern Scholarship.”Trinity Journal 2 (1981): 131-158.
________. “The ‘Spirit of Prophecy’ as the Power of Israel’sRestoration and Witness.” In Witness to the Gospel:The Theology of Acts, eds. I. Howard Marshall andDavid Peterson, 327-48. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1998.
Tyson, Joseph B. “The Gentile Mission and the Authority ofScripture in Acts.” New Testament Studies 33(1987): 619-631.
Unger, Merrill. “The Significance of Pentecost.” BibliothecaSacra 122 (April 1965): 169-77.
Wall, Robert W. “Israel and the Gentile Mission in Acts andPaul: A Canonical Approach.” In Witness to theGospel: The Theology of Acts, eds. I. HowardMarshall and David Peterson, 437-57. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1998.
________. “Peter, ‘Son’ of Jonah: The Conversion ofCornelius in the Context of Canon.” Journal for theStudy of the New Testament 29 (1987): 78-91.
Walter, N. “Apostelgeschichte 6.1 und die Anfäng derUrgemeinde in Jerusalem.” New Testament Studies 29(1983): 370-93.
Wills, Lawrence. “The Depiction of the Jews in Acts.”Journal of Biblical Literature 110 (1991): 631-54.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
259
Witherington Ben III. “Salvation and Health in ChristianAntiquity: The Soteriology of Luke-Acts in ItsFirst Century Setting.” In Witness to the Gospel:The Theology of Acts, eds. I. Howard Marshall andDavid Peterson, 145-66. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1998.
Zweck, Dean. “The Exordium of the Areopagus Speech, Acts17.22, 23.” New Testament Studies 35 (1989): 94-103.
Evangelism
Books
Abraham, William J. The Logic of Evangelism. Grand Rapids:William B. Eerdmans, 1989.
Armstrong, Richard S. The Pastor as Evangelist.Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984.
Autrey, C. E. Evangelism in the Acts. Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1964.
________. The Theology of Evangelism. Nashville: Broadman,1966.
________. You Can Win Souls. Nashville: Broadman, 1961.
Barna, George. Evangelism That Works: How to Reach ChangingGenerations with the Unchanging Gospel. Ventura,CA: Regal Books, 1995.
Beaudoin, Tom. Virtual Faith: The Irreverent Spiritual Questof Generation X. San Francisco: Jossey-BassPublishers, 1998.
Bosch, David J. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts inTheology. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1993.
Brown, Stanley C. Evangelism in the Early Church. GrandRapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1963.
Carrier, Hervé. Evangelizing the Culture of Modernity. Faithand Culture Series. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1993.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
260
Celek, Tim and Dieter Zander. Inside the Soul of a NewGeneration: Insights and Strategies for ReachingBusters. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.
Chafin, Kenneth. The Reluctant Witness. Nashville: Broadman,1974.
Coleman, Robert, ed. Evangelism on the Cutting Edge. OldTappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1986.
________. The Master Plan of Evangelism. Grand Rapids:Fleming H. Revell, 1963.
Dayton, Donald W. and Robert K. Johnston. The Variety ofAmerican Evangelism. Knoxville: The University ofTennessee Press, 1991.
Dayton, Edward R. and David A. Fraser. Planning Strategiesfor World Evangelization. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids:William B. Eerdmans, 1990.
Ford, Kevin Graham. Jesus for a New Generation: Putting theGospel in the Language of Xers. Downers Grove:InterVarsity, 1995.
Ford, Leighton. The Power of Story. Colorado Springs, CO:NavPress, 1994.
Green, Michael. Evangelism in the Early Church. London:Hodder and Stoughton, 1970.
________. Evangelism Through the Local Church: AComprehensive Guide to All Aspects of Evangelism.London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1990. Reprint,Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1992.
Hahn, Todd and David Verhaagen. GenXers After God: Helping aGeneration Pursue Jesus. Grand Rapids: Baker Books,1998.
________. Reckless Hope: Understanding and Reaching BabyBusters. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996.
Heck, Joel, ed. The Art of Sharing Your Faith. Grand Rapids:Fleming H. Revell, 1991.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
Hiebert, Paul. The Missiological Implications ofEpistemological Shifts: Affirming Truth in a Modern/ Postmodern World. Philadelphia: Trinity PressInternational, 1998.
Hunsberger George, and Craig Van Gelder. Church: BetweenGospel and Culture, The Emerging Mission in NorthAmerica. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
Hunter, George III. How to Reach Secular People. Nashville:Abingdon Press, 1992.
Knitter, Paul F. One Earth, Many Religions: MultifaithDialogue and Global Responsibility. Maryknoll:Orbis, 1995.
Kolb, Robert. Speaking the Gospel Today: A Theology forEvangelism. St. Louis: Concordia, 1984.
Kraft, Marguerite G. Understanding Spiritual Power: AForgotten Dimension of Cross-Cultural Mission andMinistry. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1995.
Kraus, C. Norman. An Intrusive Gospel? Christian Mission inthe Postmodern World. Downers Grove: InterVarsity,1999.
Larsen, David L. The Evangelism Mandate: Recovering theCentrality of Gospel Preaching. Wheaton, IL:Crossway Books, 1992.
Long, Jimmy. Generating Hope: A Strategy for Reaching thePostmodern Generation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity,1997.
Marty, Martin E. and Frederick E. Greenspahn, eds. Pushingthe Faith: Proselytism and Civility in aPluralistic World. New York: Crossroad, 1988.
McDow, Malcolm, and Alvin Reid. Firefall: How God Has ShapedHistory Through Revivals. Nashville: Broadman andHolman, 1997.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
262
Miles, Delos. Evangelism and Social Involvement. Nashville:Broadman, 1986.
Morgenthaler, Sally. Worship Evangelism: InvitingUnbelievers into the Presence of God. Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1995.
Newbigin, Lesslie. Foolishness to the Greeks: The Gospel andWestern Culture. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans,1986.
________. The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. Grand Rapids:William B. Eerdmans, 1990.
Nida, Eugene A. The Communication of the Christian Faith.Rev. ed. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1990.
Packer, J. I. Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. DownersGrove: InterVarsity, 1961.
Peters, George W. A Theology of Church Growth. Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1981.
Piper, John. Let the Nations Be Glad: The Supremacy of Godin Missions. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993.
Poe, Harry Lee. Christian Witness in a Postmodern World.Nashville: Abingdon, 2001.
Thompson, W. Oscar. Concentric Circles of Concern.Nashville: Broadman, 1981.
Towns, Elmer. An Inside Look at Ten of Today’s MostInnovative Churches. Ventura, CA: Regal Books,1990.
Walker, Alan. A Ringing Call to Mission. Nashville:Abingdon, 1966.
________. The Whole Gospel for the Whole World. Nashville:Abingdon, 1957.
Wells, David F. God the Evangelist: How the Holy SpiritWorks to Bring Men and Women to Faith. GrandRapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1987.
Wimber, John. Power Evangelism. San Francisco:HarperCollins, 1985.
Essays / Articles
Anderson, Leith. “Theological Issues of 21st-CenturyMinistry.” Bibliotheca Sacra 151 (April 1994): 131-139.
Geisler, Norman. “Some Philosophical Perspectives onMissionary Dialogue.” In Theology and Mission, ed.David J. Hesselgrave, 228-45. Grand Rapids: Baker,1978.
Gosnell, Rick. “Proclamation and the Postmodernist.” In TheChallenge of Postmodernism: An EvangelicalEngagement, ed. David S. Dockery, 374-391. GrandRapids: Baker Books, 1995.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
Hesselgrave, David J. “Fitting Third-World Believers withChristian World View Glasses.” Journal of theEvangelical Theological Society 30 (June 1987):215-222.
Hybels, Bill. “Speaking to the Secular Mind.” Leadership(Summer 1988): 28-34.
Johnson, Philip. “Postmodernity, New Age, and the ChristianMission: Mars Hill Revisited.” Lutheran TheologicalJournal 31 (December 1997): 115-124.
Loscalzo, Craig A. “Apologizing for God: ApologeticPreaching to a Postmodern World.” Review andExpositor 93 (Summer 1996): 405-418.
Monroe, Kelly. “Finding God at Harvard: Reaching the Post-Christian University.” In Telling the Truth:Evangelizing Postmoderns, ed. D. A. Carson, 295-306. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.
Pyne, Robert A. “The Role of the Holy Spirit in Conversion.”Bibliotheca Sacra 150 (April 1993): 203-218.
Radmacher, Earl D. “Contemporary Evangelism Potpourri-PartII.” Bibliotheca Sacra 123 (April 1966): 158-167.
Roebben, Bert. “Do We Still Have Faith in Young People? AWest-European Answer to the Evangelization of YoungPeople in a Postmodern World.” Religious Education90 (Summer-Fall 1995): 327-345.
Thede, Bruce. “How One Church Reached Out to Baby Busters.”Worship Leader (July-August 1994): 14-37.
Troeger, Thomas H. “A Poetics of the Pulpit for Post-ModernTimes.” In Intersections: Post-Critical Studies inPreaching, ed. Richard L. Eslinger, 42-64. GrandRapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1994.
Van Engen, Charles. “Mission Theology in the Light ofPostmodern Critique.” International Review ofMission 86 (October 1997): 437-461.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
265
White, James Emory. “Evangelism in a Postmodern World.” InThe Challenge of Postmodernism: An EvangelicalEngagement, ed. David S. Dockery, 359-373. GrandRapids: Baker Books, 1995.
Winter, Ralph. “The Highest Priority: Cross-culturalEvangelism.” In Let the Earth Hear His Voice, ed.J. D. Douglas, 213-225. Minneapolis: World WidePublications, 1975.
Zander, Dieter. “The Gospel for Generation X.” Leadership 16(Spring 1995): 36-42.
Dissertations
Conniry, Charles J. Jr. “Apostolic Christianity in aPostmodern World: A Theological Analysis.” Ph. D.diss. Fuller Theological Seminary, 1997.
Fjeldstad, Arne H. “Communicating Christ on the InformationSuperhighway.” D. Minn. diss. Fuller TheologicalSeminary, 1997.
Gosnell, Ricky D. “The Postmodern Paradigm: Challenges tothe Evangelistic Ministry of the Church.” Ph. D.diss. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1993.
Biblical Studies
Books
Bailey, Raymond. Paul the Preacher. Nashville: Broadman,1991.
Banks, Robert. Paul’s Idea of Community: The Early HouseChurches in Their Historical Setting. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1980.
Barclay, William. The Promise of the Spirit. Philadelphia:Westminster, 1960.
Barr, James. The Scope and Authority of the Bible.Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
266
Barth, Markus. The Broken Wall: A Study of the Epistle tothe Ephesians. Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1959.
Basden, Paul A., and David S. Dockery, eds. The People ofGod: Essays on the Believers’ Church. Nasvhille:Broadman and Holman, 1998.
Beasley-Murray, George R. Baptism in the New Testament.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962.
Beker, J. Christian. Heirs of Paul: Their Legacy in the NewTestament and the Church Today. Minneapolis:Augsburg Fortress Press, 1991. Reprint, GrandRapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1996.
________. Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life andThought. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980.
Berger, Klaus. Theologiegeschichte des Urchristentums:Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Tübingen: FranckeVerlag, 1994.
Berkouwer, G. C. The Church. Translated by James E. Davison.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976.
Best, Ernst. One Body in Christ: A Study in the Relationshipof the Church to Christ in the Epistles of theApostle Paul. London: SPCK, 1955.
Black, David Alan. Paul, Apostle of Weakness: Astheneia andIts Cognates in the Pauline Literature. New York:Peter Lang, 1984.
Bloesch, Donald. Essentials of Evangelical Theology, VolumeOne: God, Authority, and Salvation. New York:HarperCollins, 1978. Reprint, Peabody, MA: PrincePress, 1998.
________. Essentials of Evangelical Theology, Volume Two:Life, Ministry, and Hope. New York: HarperCollins,1978. Reprint, Peabody, MA: Prince Press, 1998.
________. Holy Scripture: Revelation, Inspiration, andInterpretation. Vol. 2, Christian Foundations.Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994.
________. A Theology of Word and Spirit: Authority andMethod in Theology. Vol. 1, Christian Foundations.Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
267
Boers, Hendrikus. The Justification of the Gentiles: Paul’sLetters to the Galatians and Romans. Peabody, MA:Hendrickson, 1994.
Bornkamm, Günther. The New Testament: A Guide to ItsWritings. Translated by R. H. Fuller. Philadelphia:Fortress Press, 1973.
Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to the New Testament. TheAnchor Bible Reference Library. New York:Doubleday, 1997.
Bruce, F. F. The Books and the Parchments. rev. ed. OldTappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1984.
________. Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1977.
Brunner, Emil. Truth as Encounter. Philadelphia:Westminster, 1964.
Bultmann, Rudolf. Theology of the New Testament. Vol. 1.Translated by Kendrick Grobel. New York: CharlesScribner’s Sons, 1951.
________. Theology of the New Testament. Vol. 2. Translatedby Kendrick Grobel. New York: Charles Scribner’sSons, 1955.
Cancik, Hubert, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Peter Schafer,eds. Geschichte, Tradition, Reflexion: Festschriftfür Martin Hengel zum 70 Gerbertstag. Tübingen: J.C. B. Mohr, 1996.
Carson, D. A. The Gagging of God: Christianity ConfrontsPluralism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.
________, ed. Biblical Interpretation and the Church: Textand Context. Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1984.
________, ed. The Church in the Bible and the World: AnInternational Study. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987.
Conner, W. T. Christian Doctrine. Nashville: Broadman, 1937.
________. The Cross in the New Testament. Nashville:Broadman, 1954.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
268
________. The Work of the Holy Spirit: A Treatment of theBiblical Doctrine of the Divine Spirit. Nashville:Broadman, 1940.
Conzelmann, Hans. Gentiles, Jews, Christians: Polemics andApologetics in the Greco-Roman Era. Translated byM. Eugene Boring. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.
________. The History of Primitive Christianity. Translatedby John E. Steely. Nashville: Abingdon, 1973.
________. An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament.Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM Press, 1969.
________. The Theology of Saint Luke. Translated by GeoffreyBuswell. London: Faber and Faber, 1960.
Corley, Bruce, Steve Lemke and Grant Lovejoy. BiblicalHermeneutics: A Comprehensive Introduction toInterpreting Scripture. Nashville: Broadman andHolman, 1996.
Cullmann, Oscar. The Earliest Christian Confessions.Translated by J. K. S. Reid. London: LutterworthPress, 1949.
Dahl, Nils Alstrup. Studies in Paul: Theology for the EarlyChristian Mission. Minneapolis: Augsburg Press,1977.
________. Das Volk Gottes: Eine Untersuchung zumKirchenbewisstsein des Urchristentums. Darmstadt:Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1963.
Davies, W. D. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some RabbinicElements in Pauline Theology. 4th ed. Philadelphia:Fortress Press, 1980.
DeSilva, David A. Honor, Patronage, Kinship, and Purity:Unlocking New Testament Culture. Downers Grove:InterVarsity, 2000.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
269
Dockery, David S. Christian Scripture: An EvangelicalPerspective on Inspiration, Authority, andInterpretation. Nashville: Broadman and Holman,1995.
Dodd, C. H. According to the Scriptures: The Substructure ofNew Testament Theology. London: Nisbet, 1952.
________. The Apostolic Preaching and Its Development.London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1936.
Dunn, James D. G. Christology in the Making: A New TestamentInquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of theIncarnation. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980.
________. Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious andCharismatic Experience of Jesus and the FirstChristians as Reflected in the New Testament. GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1975.
________. The Living Word. London: SCM Press, 1987.
________. Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: AnInquiry into the Character of EarliestChristianity. 2d ed. London: SCM Press, 1990.
Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament: A Historical Introductionto the Early Christian Writings. New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 1997.
Ellis, E. Earle. Paul and His Recent Interpreters. GrandRapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1961.
________. Pauline Theology: Ministry and Society. GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1989. Reprint, Lanham, MD:University Press of America, 1997.
________. Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 2d ed. GrandRapids: Baker, 1998.
________. Evangelical Interpretation: Perspectives onHermeneutical Issues. Grand Rapids: Baker Books,1993.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
________. Evangelical Mind and Heart: Perspectives onTheological and Practical Issues. Grand Rapids:Baker Books, 1993.
Fee, Gordon. God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit inthe Letters of Paul. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,1994.
________. Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God. Peabody,MA: Hendrickson, 1996.
Ferguson, Everett. The Church of Christ: A BiblicalEcclesiology for Today. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1996.
Fitzmeyer, Joseph A. Essays on the Semitic Background of theNew Testament. London: Chapman, 1971.
Frei, Hans. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative. New Haven:Yale University Press, 1974.
Fretheim, Terence. The Suffering of God: An Old TestamentPerspective. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.
Funk, Robert W. Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God. NewYork: Harper and Row, 1966.
Gaventa, Beverly R. From Darkness to Light: Aspects ofConversion in the New Testament. Philadelphia:Fortress Press, 1986.
Geertz, Clifford. Interpretation of Cultures. New York:Basic Books, 1973.
Giles, Kevin. What on Earth Is the Church? An Exploration ofNew Testament Theology. Downers Grove:InterVarsity, 1995.
Goppelt, Leonhard. Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times. GrandRapids: Baker, 1970.
Grant, Robert M. Gods and the One God. Philadelphia:Westminster Press, 1986.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
271
Green, Joel and Mark Baker. Recovering the Scandal of theCross: Atonement in New Testament and ContemporaryContexts. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000.
Grenz, Stanley. Created for Community: Connecting ChristianBelief with Christian Living. 2d ed. Grand Rapids:Baker Books, 1998.
________. Theology for the Community of God. Nashville:Broadman and Holman, 1994.
Grenz, Stanley, and John Franke. Beyond Foundationalism:Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context.Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001.
Gundry, Robert H. Sôma in Biblical Theology with Emphasis onPauline Anthropology. Society for New TestamentStudies Monograph Series 29. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1976.
Hanson, S. The Unity of the Church in the New Testament.Uppsala: Almquist and Wiksells, 1946.
Harnack, Adolf von. The Mission and Expansion ofChristianity in the First Three Centuries.Translated by James Moffatt. 2 vols. London:Williams and Norgate, 1908. Reprint, New York:Harper and Row, 1962.
Hauerwas, Stanley. A Community of Character: Toward aConstructive Christian Social Ethic. Notre Dame:University of Notre Dame Press, 1981.
Hawthorne, Gerald F., Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid,eds. Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. DownersGrove: InterVarsity, 1993.
Hengel, Martin. Between Jesus and Paul. Translated by JohnBowden. London: SCM Press, 1983.
Heschel, Abraham. The Prophets. 2 vols. New York: Harper andRow, 1962. Reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000.
Hill, D. New Testament Prophecy. London: Marshall, Morgan,and Scott, 1979.
Hirsch, E. D. Validity in Interpretation. New Haven, CT:Yale University Press, 1967.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
272
Hofius, Otfried. Der Christushymnus Philipper 2,6-11:Untersuchungen zu Gestalt und Aussage einesurchristlichen Psalms. Tübingen: Mohr, 1991.
Horton, Michael, ed. A Confessing Theology for PostmodernTimes. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2000.
Howard, George. Paul: Crisis in Galatia. Society for NewTestament Monograph Series 35. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1979.
Hunt, Boyd. Redeemed! Eschatological Redemption and theKingdom of God. Nashville: Broadman and Holman,1993.
Jensen, Richard A. Thinking in Story: Preaching in a Post-literate Age. Lima, OH: CSS Publishing Company,1993.
Jenson, Robert. The Triune Identity: God According to theGospel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982.
Kaiser, Walter C. Toward Rediscovering the Old Testament.Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987.
Kee, Howard Clark. Who Are the People of God?: EarlyChristian Models of Community. New Haven: YaleUniversity Press, 1995.
Kelsey, David H. The Uses of Scripture in Recent Theology.Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975.
Klein, William, Craig Blomberg, and Robert Hubbard Jr.Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Dallas:Word, 1993.
Koenig, John. New Testament Hospitality: Partnership withStrangers as Promise and Mission. Philadelphia:Fortress, 1985.
Kugel, James and Rowan Greer, eds. Early BiblicalInterpretation. Philadelphia: Westminster Press,1986.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
273
Lampe, G. W. H. The Seal of the Spirit. London: Longmans,1951.
Larkin, William J. Culture and Biblical Hermeneutics. GrandRapids: Baker Books, 1988.
Lea, Thomas D. The New Testament: Its Background andMessage. Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1996.
Lints, Richard. The Fabric of Theology. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1993.
Litfin, Duane. St. Paul’s Theology of Proclamation: 1Corinthians 1-4 and Graeco-Roman Rhetoric.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Lohse, Eduard. Die Entstehung des Neuen Testaments.Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1972.
Long, Thomas. Preaching and the Literary Forms of the Bible.Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989.
Longenecker, Richard N. Biblical Exegesis in the ApostolicPeriod. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.
________. New Testament Social Ethics for Today. GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1984.
________, ed. Patterns of Discipleship in the New Testament.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
Lundin, Roger, Clarence Walhout, and Anthony Thiselton. ThePromise of Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1999.
MacGorman, J. W. The Gifts of the Spirit: An Exposition of 1Corinthians 12-14. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1974.
Manson, T. W. Studies in the Gospels and Epistles. London:Manchester University Press, 1962.
Marshall, I. H. Biblical Inspiration. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1982.
________. Luke: Historian and Theologian. Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1970.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
274
Martin, Ralph. The Family and the Fellowship: New TestamentImages of the Church. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.
________. A Hymn of Christ: Philippians 2:5-11 in RecentInterpretation and in the Setting of EarlyChristian Worship. Downers Grove: InterVarsity,1997.
Maston, T. B. Biblical Ethics: A Guide to the EthicalMessage of the Scriptures from Genesis toRevelation. Cleveland: Word, 1967. Reprint, Macon,GA: Mercer University Press, 1982.
McClendon, James Wm. Jr., and James M. Smith. Convictions:Defusing Religious Relativsm. rev. ed. ValleyForge: Trinity Press International, 1994.
McGrath, Alister. Evangelicalism and the Future ofChristianity. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1995.
________. The Mystery of the Cross. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1988.
McKelvey, Richard. The New Temple: The Church in the NewTestament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969.
Meeks, Wayne. The First Urban Christians. New Haven: YaleUniversity Press, 1983.
Metzger, Bruce M., ed. Historical and Literary Studies:Pagan, Jewish, and Christian. Leiden: Brill, 1980.
Migliore, Daniel L. Faith Seeking Understanding: AnIntroduction to Christian Theology. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1991.
Minear, Paul. Images of the Church in the New Testament.Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960.
Milbank, John. Theology and Social Theory: Beyond SecularReason. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990.
Moltmann, Jürgen. The Church in the Power of the Spirit: AContribution to Messianic Ecclesiology. Translatedby Margaret Kohl. London: SCM Press, 1977. Reprint,Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1993.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
275
Moore, Stephen. Poststructuralism and the New Testament:Derrida and Foucault at the Foot of the Cross.Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994.
Morris, Leon. The Cross in the New Testament. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1965.
Mullins, E. Y. The Christian Religion in Its DoctrinalExpression. Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1917.Reprint, 1964.
Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. Paul: A Critical Life. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1997.
________. St. Paul’s Corinth: Texts and Archaeology.Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1983.
Newbigin, Lesslie. The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1989.
Niebuhr, H. Richard. Christ and Culture. New York: Harper,1951.
Nock, Arthur Darby. Conversion: The Old and New in Religionfrom Alexander the Great to Augustine of Hippo.London: Oxford University Press, 1933.
O’Brien, P. T. Gospel and Mission in the Writings of Paul:An Exegetical and Theological Analysis. GrandRapids: Baker Books, 1995.
Oden, Thomas C. Life in the Spirit: Systematic Theology,Volume Three. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998.
________. The Word of Life: Systematic Theology, Volume Two.Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998.
Osborne, Grant. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A ComprehensiveIntroduction to Biblical Interpretation. DownersGrove: InterVarsity, 1991.
Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Systematic Theology: Volume 3.Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1998.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
276
Peterson, Brian K. Eloquence and the Proclamation of theGospel in Corinth. Society of Biblical LiteratureDissertation Series, 163. Chico, CA: ScholarsPress, 1998.
Pinnock, Clark. Tracking the Maze: Finding Our Way ThroughModern Theology from an Evangelical Perspective.San Francisco: Harper, 1990.
Piper, John. The Justification of God: An Exegetical andTheological Study of Romans 9:1–23. Grand Rapids:Baker, 1992.
Plantinga, Alvin. Warrant and Proper Function. New York:Oxford University Press, 1993.
________. Warrant: The Current Debate. New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 1993.
Pogoloff, Stephen M. Logos and Sophia: The RhetoricalSituation of 1 Corinthians. Society for BiblicalLiterature Dissertation Series, 134. Atlanta:Scholars Press, 1992.
Polhill, John B. Paul and His Letters. Nashville: Broadmanand Holman, 1999.
Ramm, Bernard. Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1971.
________. The Witness of the Spirit: An Essay on theContemporary Relevance of the Internal Witness ofthe Holy Spirit. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959.
Ramsay, William M. St. Paul the Traveller and the RomanCitizen. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1949.
Richardson, Peter. Israel in the Apostolic Church.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.
Ridderbos, Herman. Paul and Jesus. Translated by David H.Freeman. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and ReformedPublishing Company, 1957.
________. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Translated byJohn R. de Witt. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans,1975.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
277
________. Studies in Scripture and Its Authority. St.Catherines, Ontario: Paideia, 1978.
Riesner, Rainer. Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, MissionStrategy, Theology. Translated by Doug Stott. GrandRapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1998.
Ropes, James H. The Singular Problem of the Epistle to theGalatians. Harvard Theological Studies, 14.Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929.
Rosner, Brian S., ed. Understanding Paul’s Ethics:Twentieth-Century Approaches. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1995.
Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison ofPatterns of Religion. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,1977.
________. Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People.Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.
Sanders, J. T. The Jews in Luke-Acts. Philadelphia: FortressPress, 1987.
Schlatter, Adolf. The Church in the New Testament Period.Translated by Paul P. Levertoff. London: SPCK,1955.
________. The Theology of the Apostles: The Development ofNew Testament Theology. Translated by A. J.Köstenberger. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998.
Schmithals, Walter. The Office of the Apostle in the EarlyChurch. Translated by John Steely. Nashville:Abingdon, 1969.
________. Paul and the Gnostics. Translated by John E.Steely. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1972.
________. The Theology of the First Christians. Translatedby O. C. Dean, Jr. Louisville: Westminster JohnKnox Press, 1997.
Schneiders, S. M. The Revelatory Text: Interpreting the NewTestament as Sacred Scripture. San Francisco:Harper, 1991.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
278
Schniedewind, William M. The Word of God in Transition: FromProphet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period.Journal for the Study of the Old TestamentSupplement 197. Sheffield: Sheffield AcademicPress, 1995.
Schweizer, Eduard. The Church as the Body of Christ.Richmond: John Knox, 1964.
Sheeley, Steven M. Narrative Asides in Luke-Acts. Journalfor the Study of the New Testament, SupplementSeries 72. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,1992.
Shurden, Walter B. The Doctrine of the Priesthood ofBelievers. Nashville: Convention Press, 1987.
Simmons, William A. A Theology of Inclusion in Jesus andPaul: The God of Outcasts and Sinners. Lewiston,NY: Mellen Biblical Press, 1996.
Smith, Abraham. Comfort One Another: Reconstructing theRhetoric and Audience of 1 Thessalonians. LiteraryCurrents in Biblical Interpretation. Louisville:Westminster / John Knox, 1995.
Snyder, Howard A. The Community of the King. Downers Grove:InterVarsity, 1977.
Stagg, Frank. New Testament Theology. Nashville: Broadman,1962.
Stendahl, Krister. Paul Among Jews and Gentiles and OtherEssays. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976.
Strecker, Georg. Theology of the New Testament. Translatedby M. Eugene Boring. New York: Walter de Bruyter,2000.
Stuhlmacher, Peter. Vom Verstehen des Neuen Testaments: EineHermeneutik. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht,1986.
Theissen, Gerd. Psychological Aspects of Pauline Theology.Translated by John P. Galvin. Philadelphia:Fortress Press, 1987.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
279
________. Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity.Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress,1978.
Thiselton, Anthony. New Horizons in Hermeneutics. GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1992.
Tracy, David. Blessed Rage for Order: The New Pluralism inTheology. New York: Seabury Press, 1975. Reprint,Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.
________. Plurality and Ambiguity: Hermeneutics, Religion,Hope. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1987.
Trites, Allison A. The New Testament Concept of Witness.Cambridge: University Press, 1979.
Unger, Merrill. The Baptism and Gifts of the Holy Spirit.Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.
Van Til, Cornelius. The God of Hope. Phillipsburg, NJ:Presbyterian and Reformed, 1978.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Is There a Meaning in This Text? TheBible, the Reader, and the Morality of LiteraryKnowledge. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.
Von Rad, Gerhard. The Theology of Israel’s PropheticTradition. Vol. 2, Old Testament Theology.Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. New York: Harperand Row, 1965.
Webber, Robert E. The Church in the World. Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1986.
Weil, Simone. Waiting for God. Translated by Emma Craufurd.New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1951.
Weima, Jeffrey A. D. Neglected Endings: The Significance ofthe Pauline Letter Closings. Journal for the Studyof the New Testament Supplement Series, 101.Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994.
Westerholm, Stephen. Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith:Paul and His Recent Interpreters. Grand Rapids:William B. Eerdmans, 1988.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
280
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. Divine Discourse: PhilosophicalReflections on the Claim That God Speaks.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Wright, N. T. The New Testament and the People of God. Vol.1, Christian Origins and the Question of God.Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.
Yamauchi, Edwin. Pre-Christian Gnosticism. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1973.
Essays / Articles
Alexander, Loveday. “Paul and the Hellenistic Schools: TheEvidence of Galen.” In Paul in his HellenisticContext, ed. Troels Engberg-Pederson, 60-83.Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1995.
Allan, J. A. “The ‘In Christ’ Formula in Ephesians.” NewTestament Studies 5 (1958-1959): 54-62.
Anderson, C. “Rethinking ‘Be Filled with the Spirit.’Ephesians 5:18 and the Purpose of Ephesians.”Evangelical Journal 7 (1989): 57-67.
Barclay, John M. G. “Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter:Galatians as a Test Case.” Journal for the Study ofthe New Testament 31 (1988): 73–93.
Barnett, Paul W. “Wives and Women’s Ministry (1 Timothy2:11–15).” Evangelical Quarterly 61 (1989): 225–37.
Barrett, C. K. “Paul’s Speech on the Areopagus.” In NewTestament Christianity for Africa and the World:Essays in Honour of Harry Sawyer, eds. MarkGlasswell and E. W. Fasholé-Luke, 69-77. London:SPCK, 1974.
Bartholomew, Craig G. “Babel and Derrida: Postmodernism,Language, and Biblical Interpretation.” TyndaleBulletin 49 (November 1998): 305-328.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
281
Beasley-Murray, George R. “Romans 1:3f: An Early Confessionof Faith in the Lordship of Jesus.” TyndaleBulletin 31 (1980): 147-154.
Beker, J. Christian. “Paul the Theologian: Major Motifs inPauline Theology.” Interpretation 43 (1989):352–65.
Black, David Alan. “Paul and Christian Unity: A FormalAnalysis of Philippians 2:1-4.” Journal of theEvangelical Theological Society 28 (September1985): 299-308.
Blasi, Anthony. “Sociology of Early Christianity -- By Wayof Introduction.” Sociology of Religion 58 (1997):299-303.
Bloesch, Donald. “The Sword of the Spirit: The Meaning ofInspiration.” Themelios (May 1980): 1-18.
Blomberg, Craig. “The Christian and the Law of Moses.” InWitness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts, eds.I. Howard Marshall and David Peterson, 397-416.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Blount, Douglas K. “Apologetics and the Ordinances of theChurch,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 43(Spring 2001): 68-83.
Blue, Brad. “The Influence of Jewish Worship on Luke’sPresentation of the Early Church.” In Witness tothe Gospel: The Theology of Acts, eds. I. HowardMarshall and David Peterson, 473-97. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1998.
Boeve, Lieven. “Christus Postmodernus: An Attempt atApophatic Christology.” In The Myriad Christ:Plurality and the Quest for Unity in ContemporaryChristology, eds. T. Merrigan and J. Haers, 577-93.Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000.
Bolt, Peter G. “Mission and Witness.” In Witness to theGospel: The Theology of Acts, eds. I. HowardMarshall and David Peterson, 191-214. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1998.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
282
Boring, M. Eugene. “The Language of Universal Salvation inPaul.” Journal of Biblical Literature 105 (June1986): 269-292.
Boyer, James L. “A Classification of Imperatives: AStatistical Study.” Grace Theological Journal 8(Spring 1987): 35-54.
Bregman, L. “Baptism as Death and Birth: A PsychologicalInterpretation of Its Imagery.” Journal of RitualStudies 1:27-42.
Brown, Raymond E. “Diverse Views of the Spirit in the NewTestament.” Worship 57 (1983): 216-229.
________. “The Paraclete in the Fourth Gospel.” NewTestament Studies 13 (1966-1967): 113-32.
Bruce, F. F. “Colossian Problems: Part 4, Christ asConqueror and Reconciler,” Bibliotheca Sacra 141(October 1984): 291-302.
Carson, D. A. “Pauline Inconsistency: Reflections on 1Corinthians 9.19-23 and Galatians 2.11-14.”Churchman 100 (1986): 6-45.
Clark, David K. “Narrative Theology and Apologetics.”Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36(December 1993): 499-515.
Clowney, Edmund P. “Interpreting the Biblical Models of theChurch: A Hermeneutical Deepening of Ecclesiology.”In Biblical Interpretation and the Church: Text andContext, ed. D. A. Carson, 64-109. Exeter:Paternoster Press, 1984.
________. “The Biblical Theology of the Church.” In TheChurch in the Bible and the World: An InternationalStudy, ed. D. A. Carson, 13-87. Grand Rapids:Baker, 1987.
Conzelmann, Hans. “The Address of Paul on the Areopagus.” InStudies in Luke-Acts, eds. L. E. Keck and J. L.Martyn, 217-32. London: SPCK, 1968. Reprint, 1976.
________. “Paulus und die Weisheit.” New Testament Studies12 (1966): 231-244.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
283
Copeland, E. Luther. “Christian Theology and WorldReligions.” Review and Expositor 94 (1997): 423-35.
Dahl, Nils Alstrup. “The Particularity of the PaulineEpistles as a Problem in the Ancient Church.” InNeotestamentica et Patristica: Freundesgabe OscarCullmann, 261-271. Novum Testamentum Supplement, 6.Leiden: Brill, 1965.
Davies, J. G. “The Primary Meaning of paravklhto~.” Journal ofTheological Studies 4 (1953): 35-38.
De Silva, David A. “Paul’s Sermon in Antioch of Pisidia.”Bibliotheca Sacra 151 (January-March 1994): 32-49.
Easley, Kendall. “The Pauline Usage of Pneumati as aReference to the Spirit of God.” Journal of theEvangelical Theological Society 27 (September1984): 299-313.
Eberts, Harry Jr. “Plurality and Ethnicity in EarlyChristian Mission.” Sociology of Religion 58(1997): 305-21.
Ellis, E. Earle. “Paul and His Co-workers.” New TestamentStudies 17 (1971): 437-452.
________. “‘Spiritual’ Gifts in the Pauline Community.” NewTestament Studies 20 (1974): 128-144.
Evans, Craig A. “‘Preacher’ and ‘Preaching’: Some LexicalObservations.” Journal of the EvangelicalTheological Society 24 (December 1981): 315-22.
Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schüssler. “The Ethics of BiblicalInterpretation: Decentering Biblical Scholarship.”Journal of Biblical Literature 107 (1988): 3-17.
Fiorenza, F. S. “The Crisis of Hermeneutics and ChristianTheology.” In Theology at the End of Modernity, ed.S. G. Davaney, 128-36. Philadelphia: Trinity Press,1991.
Frame, John. “Christianity and Contemporary Epistemology.”Westminster Journal of Theology 52 (Spring 1990):131-51.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
284
________. “In Defense of Something Close to Biblicism:Reflections on Sola Scriptura and History inTheological Method.” Westminster TheologicalJournal 59 (Fall 1997): 269-91.
________. “The Spirit and the Scriptures.” In Hermeneutics,Authority, and Canon, eds. D. A. Carson and John D.Woodbridge, 217-35. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986.
Fuller, Daniel P. “The Holy Spirit’s Role in BiblicalInterpretation.” In Scripture, Tradition, andInterpretation, eds. W. Ward Gasque and WilliamSanford LaSor, 187-201. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1978.
Fung, Ronald Y. K. “Some Pauline Pictures of the Church.”Evangelical Quarterly 53 (1981): 83-107.
Gasque, W. Ward. “Images of Paul in the History of BiblicalInterpretation.” Crux 16 (1980): 1-12.
Gordon, T. David. “The Problem at Galatia.” Interpretation41 (1987): 32-43.
Grayston, K. “The Meaning of PARAKLETOS.” Journal for theStudy of the New Testament 13 (1981): 67-82.
Grube, Dirk-Martin. “Realism, Foundationalism, andConstructivism: A Philosopher’s Bermuda Triangle,”Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie undReligions-philosophie 40 (1998): 101-118.
Harrison, Everett F. “Some Patterns of the New TestamentDidache.” Bibliotheca Sacra 119 (April 1962): 118-128.
Hartt, Julian N. “Theological Investments in Story: SomeComments on Recent Developments and SomeProposals.” Journal of the American Academy ofReligion 52 (1984): 116-29.
Hay, David M. “Pistis as ‘Ground for Faith’ in HellenizedJudaism and Paul.” Journal of Biblical Literature108 (1989): 461-76.
House, H. Wayne. “The Christian Life According toColossians,” Bibliotheca Sacra 151 (October 1994):440-54.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
285
Howell, Don Jr. “The Center of Pauline Theology.”Bibliotheca Sacra 151 (January 1994): 50-70.
Hoyt, Herman A. “A Genuine Christian Non-Conformity: Romans12:2,” Grace Journal 8 (Winter 1967): 3-9.
Hübner, Hans. “Pauli Theologiae Proprium,” New TestamentStudies 26 (1980): 445–73.
Hurtado, L. W. “Jesus as Lordly Example in Philippians 2:5-11.” In From Jesus to Paul: Studies in Honour ofFrancis Wright Beare, eds. P. Richardson and J. C.Hurd Jr., 113-26. Waterloo: Wilfried LaurierUniversity Press, 1983.
Ingraffia, Brian. “Deconstructing the Tower of Babel:Ontotheology and the Postmodern Bible.” In RenewingBiblical Interpretation, eds. C. Bartholomew, C.Greene, and K. Möller, 284-306. Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 2000.
Jackayya, B. H. “ALHQEIA in the Johannine Corpus.”Concordia Theological Monthly 41 (March 1970): 171-75.
Jervell, Jacob. “The Church of Jews and Godfearers.” InLuke-Acts and the Jewish People: Eight CriticalPerspectives, ed. J. B. Tyson, 11-20, 383-404.Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988.
Judge, Edwin A. “The Early Christians as a ScholasticCommunity,” Journal of Religious History 1 (1960):4-19.
Keck, Leander E. “Images of Paul in the New Testament.”Interpretation 43 (1989): 341–51.
King, Daniel H. “Paul and the Tannaim: A Study inGalatians.” Westminster Theological Journal 45(1983): 349-61.
Klooster, Fred H. “The Role of the Holy Spirit in theHermeneutic Process: The Relationship of theSpirit’s Illumination to Biblical Interpretation.”In Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible, eds.Earl D. Radmacher and Robert D. Preus, 451-472.Grand Rapdids: Zondervan, 1984.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
286
Köstenberger, Andreas. “What Does It Mean to Be Filled withthe Spirit? A Biblical Investigation.” Journal ofthe Evangelical Theological Society 40 (June 1997):229-40.
Kroeger, Catherine. “The Apostle Paul and the Greco-RomanCults of Women.” Journal of the EvangelicalTheological Society 30 (March 1987): 25-38.
Külling, Heinz. “Zur Bedeutung des AGNOSTOS THEOS. EineExegese zu Apostelgeschichte 17, 22.23.”Theologische Zeitschrift 36 (1980): 65-83.
Lampe, Peter, and Ulrich Luz, “Post-Pauline Christianity andPagan Society.” In Christian Beginnings: Word andCommunity from Jesus to Post-Apostolic Times, ed.Jürgen Becker, 242-80. Louisville: Westminster /John Knox, 1993.
Lash, Nicholas. “What Might Martyrdom Mean?” Ex Auditu 1(1985): 14-24.
Lincoln, Andrew. “The Church and Israel in Ephesians 2.”Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49 (October 1987): 605-24.
Lindbeck, George. “Scripture, Consensus, and Community.”This World 23 (1988): 11-19.
Lindsay, Dennis R. “What Is Truth? jAlhvqeia in the Gospel ofJohn,” Restoration Quarterly 35 (1993): 129-45.
Lints, Richard. “The Vinyl Narratives: The Metanarrative ofPostmodernity and the Recovery of a ChurchlyTheology.” In A Confessing Theology for PostmodernTimes, ed. Michael Horton, 91-110. Wheaton, IL:Crossway Books, 2000.
Loader, W. R. G. “Christ at the Right Hand: Psalm CX.i inthe N. T.” New Testament Studies 24 (1977-1978):199-217.
Lohse, Eduard. “Emuna und Pistis.” Zeischrift für dieneutestamentliche Wissenschaft 68 (1977): 147-63.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
287
Louthan, Stephen. “On Religion –– A Discussion with RichardRorty, Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff.”Christian Scholar’s Review 26 (1996): 178-89.
Luter, A. Boyd, Jr. “Discipleship and the Church.”Bibliotheca Sacra 137 (July-September 1980): 267-273.
Manson, T. W. “St. Paul in Greece: The Letters to theThessalonians.” Bulletin of the John RylandsLibrary 35 (1952): 428-447.
Marshall, I. Howard. “Culture and the New Testament.” InGospel and Culture: The Papers of a Consultation onthe Gospel and Culture, Convened by the LausanneCommittee’s Theology and Education Group, eds. JohnStott and Robert T. Coote, 21-48. Pasadena, CA:William Carey Library, 1979.
________. “Palestinian and Hellenistic Christianity: SomeCritical Comments.” New Testament Studies 19 (1972-1973): 271-287.
Martyn, J. Louis. “A Law-Observant Mission to Gentiles: TheBackground of Galatians.” Scottish Journal ofTheology 38 (1985): 307–24.
McGrath, Alister. “The Challenge of Pluralism for theContemporary Church.” Journal of the EvangelicalTheological Society 35 (September 1992): 361-73.
________. “The Christian Church’s Response to Pluralism.”Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 35(December 1992): 487-501.
________. “Doctrine and Ethics.” Journal of the EvangelicalTheological Society 34 (June 1991): 145-56.
McKelvey, R. J. “Christ the Cornerstone.” New TestamentStudies 8 (1962): 352-59.
Mercer, Calvin. “Jesus the Apostle: ‘Sending’ and theTheology of John.” Journal of the EvangelicalTheological Society 35 (December 1992): 457-62.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
288
Metzger, Bruce M. “Methodology in the Study of the MysteryReligions and Early Christianity.” In Historicaland Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish, and Christian,ed. Bruce M. Metzger, 1-24. Leiden: Brill, 1980.
Mickelsen, Alvera. “There Is Neither Male nor Female inChrist.” In Women in Ministry: Four Views, eds. B.Clouse and R. Clouse, 177-207. Downers Grove:InterVarsity, 1989.
Moody, Dale. “Baptism in Theology and Practice.” In ThePeople of God: Essays on the Believers’ Church,eds. Paul A. Basden and David S. Dockery, 41-50.Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1998.
Moxnes, Halvor. “The Quest for Honor and Unity of theCommunity in Romans 12 and in the Orations of DioChrysostom.” In Paul in His Hellenistic Context,ed. Troels Engberg-Pedersen, 203-30. Minneapolis:Augsburg Fortress Press, 1995.
Newman, Carey C. “Images of the Church in Acts.” In ThePeople of God: Essays on the Believers’ Church,eds. Paul A. Basden and David S. Dockery, 135-147.Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1998.
O’Brien, P. T. “The Church as a Heavenly and EschatologicalEntity.” In The Church in the Bible and the World:An International Study, ed. D. A. Carson, 88-119.Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1987.
Osborne, Grant. “Preaching the Gospels: Methodology andContextualization.” Journal of the EvangelicalTheological Society 27 (March 1984): 27-42.
Ortland, Raymond. ““A Biblical Philosophy of Ministry --Part I: Priorities for the Local Church.”Bibliotheca Sacra 138 (January 1981): 3-12.
Packer, J. I. “Infallible Scripture and the Role ofHermeneutics.” In Scripture and Truth, eds. D. A.Carson and John D. Woodbridge, 325-56. GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1983. Reprint, Grand Rapids:Baker, 1992.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
289
Pinnock, Clark H. “The Role of the Spirit inInterpretation.” Journal of the EvangelicalTheological Society 36 (December 1993): 491-497.
Plevnik, Joseph. “The Center of Pauline Theology.” CatholicBiblical Quarterly 51 (1989): 461–76.
Quesnel, Michel. “Paul prédicateur dans les Actes desApôtres.” New Testament Studies 47 (October 2001):469-81.
Rajak, Tessa. “The Location of Cultures in Second TemplePalestine.” In The Book of Acts in Its PalestinianSetting, ed. Richard Bauckham, 1-14. Vol. 4, TheBook of Acts in Its First Century Setting. GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
Reicke, Bo. “Positive and Negative Aspects of the World inthe New Testament.” Westminster Theological Journal49 (Fall 1987): 351-69.
Russell, Walt. “The Holy Spirit’s Ministry in the FourthGospel.” Grace Theological Journal 8 (Fall 1987):227-39.
Saucy, Mark. “Miracles and Jesus’ Proclamation of theKingdom of God.” Bibliotheca Sacra 153 (July 1996):281-307.
Sawyer, M. James. “Evangelicals and the Canon of the NewTestament.” Grace Theological Journal 11 (Spring1990): 29-52.
Schaeffer, Francis. “He Is There and He Is Not Silent --Part III: Man’s Epistemological Problem.”Bibliotheca Sacra 128 (October 1971): 300-15.
Schnabel, Eckhard J. “How Paul Developed His Ethics.” InUnderstanding Paul’s Ethics: Twentieth CenturyApproaches, ed. Brian Rosner, 267-300. GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
290
Schnackenburg, Rudolph. “Christus, Geist, und Gemeinde (Eph4:1-16).” In Christ and Spirit in the NewTestament, eds. B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley, 279-296. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973.
Schnelle, Udo. “Transformation und Partizipation inpaulinischer Theologie.” New Testament Studies 47(January 2001): 58-75.
Schrage, Wolfgang. “The Formal Ethical Interpretation ofPauline Paraenesis.” In Understanding Paul’sEthics: Twentieth Century Approaches, ed. BrianRosner, 301-335. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
Sloan, Robert B. “Images of the Church in Paul.” In ThePeople of God: Essays on the Believers’ Church,eds. Paul A. Basden and David S. Dockery, 148-167.Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1998.
Stanley, D. M. “Become Imitators of Me: The PaulineConception of Apostolic Tradition.” Biblica 40(1958): 859-77.
Stein, Robert. “An Early Recension of the GospelTraditions?” Journal of the Evangelical TheologicalSociety 30 (June 1987): 167-83.
Stuhlmacher, Peter. “Der Abfassungszweck des Römerbriefes.”Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft77 (1986): 180–93.
Saucy, Mark. “Miracles and Jesus’ Proclamation of theKingdom of God.” Bibliotheca Sacra 153 (July 1996):281-307.
Thatcher, Tom. “The Plot of Galatians 3:1-18.” Journal ofthe Evangelical Theological Society 40 (September1997): 401-410.
________. “The Relational Matrix of the Pastoral Epistles.”Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38(March 1995) 41-45.
Theissen, Gerd. “Legitimation und Lebensunterhalt. EinBeitrag zur Soziologie urchristlicher Missionare.”New Testament Studies 21 (1975): 192-221.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
291
Thrall, Margaret E. “The Problem of 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1 in SomeRecent Discussion.” New Testament Studies 24 (1977-78): 132-48.
Thurston, R. W. “The Relationship Between the ThessalonianEpistles.” Expository Times 85 (1973): 51-57.
Tracy, David. “Christianity in the Wider Context: Demandsand Transformations.” In Worldviews and Warrants:Plurality and Authority in Theology, eds. WilliamSchweiker and P. M. Anderson, 1-16. New York:University Press of America, 1987.
Turner, Max. “The ‘Spirit of Prophecy’ as the Power ofIsrael’s Restoration and Witness.” In Witness tothe Gospel: The Theology of Acts, eds. I. HowardMarshall and David Peterson, 327-48. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1998.
Vanhoye, A. “Pivsti~ Cristou`: fede in Cristo o affidabilita diCristo?” Biblica 80 (1999): 1-21.
Warren, Timothy S. “A Paradigm for Preaching.” BibliothecaSacra 148 (October–December 1991): 463–86.
Westerholm, Stephen. “Letter and Spirit: The Foundation ofPauline Ethics.” New Testament Studies 30 (1984):229-248.
Winger, Michael. “Unreal Conditions in the Letters of Paul.”Journal of Biblical Literature 105 (1986): 110-12.
Winter, Bruce W. “On Introducing Gods to Athens: AnAlternative Reading of Acts 17:18-20.” TyndaleBulletin 47 (1996): 71-90.
Wright, N. T. “The Paul of History and the Apostle ofFaith.” Tyndale Bulletin 29 (1978): 61–88.
Wuest, Kenneth. “The Holy Spirit in Greek Exposition.”Bibliotheca Sacra 118 (July 1961): 216-27.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
292
Yarbrough, Robert W. “Variation on a Theme: History’s NthGreat Hermeneutical Crisis.” Journal of theEvangelical Theological Society 39 (September1996): 443-455.
Zeller, D. “Theologie der Mission bei Paulus.” In Mission imNeuen Testament, ed. K. Kertelge, 164-89. Freiburg:Herder and Herder, 1982.
Zemeck, George J. “Awesome Analogies: Kathos Constructs inthe NT.” Journal of the Evangelical TheologicalSociety 38 (September 1995): 337-348.
Postmodern Studies
Primary Sources
Bakhtin, Mikhail. The Dialogic Imagination. Edited byMichael Holquist. Translated by Cary Emerson andMichael Holquist. Austin: University of TexasPress, 1981.
Barthes, Roland. The Rustle of Language. Translated byRichard Howard. New York: Hill and Wang, 1986.
Baudrillard, Jean. Forget Foucault. Translated NicolaDufresne. New York: Semiotext(e), 1987.
________. The Illusion of the End. Translated by ChrisTurner. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994.
________. In the Shadow of the Silent Majorities...or theEnd of the Social and Other Essays. Translated byPaul Foss, Paul Patton, and Philip Bleitchman. NewYork: Semiotext(e), 1983.
________. The Mirror of Production. Translated by MarkPoster. St. Louis: Telos Press, 1975.
________. The Transparency of Evil: Essays on ExtremePhenomena. Translated by James Benedict. New York:Verso, 1993.
________. Simulacra and Simulation. Translated by SheilaFaria Glaser. Ann Arbor, MI: University of MichiganPress, 1994.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
293
Bauman, Zygmunt. Intimations of Postmodernity. London:Routledge, 1992.
________. Life in Fragments: Essays in PostmodernMoralities. Oxford: Blackwell, 1995.
________. Modernity and the Holocaust. London: Routledge,1989.
________. “What Prospects of Morality in Times ofUncertainty?” Theory, Culture, and Society 15(February 1998): 11-18.
Bertens, Johannes Willem. The Idea of the Postmodern: AHistory. London: Routledge, 1994.
Culler, Jonathan. On Deconstruction: Theory and CriticismAfter Structuralism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UniversityPress, 1982.
________. The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature,Deconstruction. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UniversityPress, 1981.
________. Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics,and the Study of Literature. Ithaca, NY: CornellUniversity Press, 1975.
Derrida, Jacques. De L’hospitalité. Paris: Calmann-Lévy,1997.
________. “Des Tours de Babel.” Semeia 54 (1992): 3-34.
________. Dissemination. Translated by Barbara Johnson.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981.
________. “Foi et savoir -- Les deux sources de la‘religion’ aux limites de la simple raison.” In LaReligion, eds. Jacques Derrida and Gianni Vattimo,9-86. Paris: Seuil, 1996.
________. Limited Inc. Evanston, IL: Northwestern UniversityPress, 1988.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
294
________. Margins of Philosophy. Translated by Alan Bass.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982.
________. Of Grammatology. rev. ed. Translated by GayatriChakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: Johns HopkinsUniversity Press, 1997.
________. Of Spirit: Heidegger and the Question. Translatedby Geoffrey Bennington and Rachel Bowlby. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1989.
________. Positions. Translated by Alan Bass. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1981.
________. Speech and Phenomenon: And Other Essays onHusserl’s Theory of Signs. Translated by David B.Allison and Newton Garver. Evanston, IL:Northwestern University Press, 1973.
________. “To Forgive the Unforgivable and theImprescriptible.” In Questioning God, eds. JohnCaputo, Mark Dooley, and J. Scanlon, 21-51.Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2001.
________. Writing and Difference. Translated by Alan Bass.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978.
Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory. Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press, 1983.
Eco, Umberto. Postscript to “The Name of the Rose.” NewYork: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1984.
________. Serendipities. Translated by W. Weaver. San Diego:Harcourt Brace, 1998.
Ferre, Frederick. Knowing and Value: Toward a ConstructivePostmodern Epistemology. Albany: State Universityof New York Press, 1998.
________. Shaping the Future: Resources for the Post-ModernWorld. New York: Harper and Row, 1976.
Fish, Stanley. Is There a Text in This Class? Cambridge:Harvard University Press, 1980.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
295
________. There Is No Such Thing as Free Speech and It’s aGood Thing, Too. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1994.
Foucault, Michel. Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourseon Language. Translated by A. M. Sheridan Smith.London: Tavistock Press, 1972.
________. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison.Translated by Alan Sheridan. New York: VintageBooks, 1977.
________. The Foucault Reader. Edited by Paul Rabinow. NewYork: Pantheon Books, 1984.
________. Language, Counter-Memory, and Practice: SelectedEssays and Interviews. Translated by Donald F.Bouchard and Sherry Simon. Ithaca, NY: CornellUniversity Press, 1977.
________. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the HumanSciences. New York: Pantheon Books, 1971.
________. Power / Knowledge: Selected Interviews and OtherWritings 1972-1977. Edited by Colin Gordon.Translated by Colin Gordon, Leo Marshall, JohnMepham, and Kate Soper. New York: Pantheon, 1980.
Habermas, Jürgen. Communication and the Evolution ofSociety. Translated by Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press, 1979.
________. The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: TwelveLectures. Translated by Frederick G. Lawrence.Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1987.
Hassan, Ihab. The Dismemberment of Orpheus: Toward aPostmodern Literature. New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 1971.
________. The Right Promethean Fire: Imagination: Scienceand Cultural Change. Urban, IL: University ofIllinois Press, 1987.
________. The Postmodern Turn: Essays in Postmodern Theoryand Culture. Columbus: Ohio State University Press,1987.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
296
Jameson, Fredric. The Cultural Turn: Selected Writings onthe Postmodern, 1983-1998. New York: Verso, 1997.
________. Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of LateCapitalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press,1991. Reprint, 1999.
________. The Seeds of Time. New York: Columbia UniversityPress, 1994.
Jencks, Charles. The Language of Post-Modern Architecture.4th ed. London: Academy Editions, 1984.
________, ed. The Post-Modern Reader. New York: St. Martin’sPress, 1992.
________, ed. What Is Post-Modernism? 3d ed. New York: St.Martin’s Press, 1989.
Levinas, Emmanuel. Alterity and Transcendence. Translated byMichael B. Smith. New York: Columbia UniversityPress, 1999.
________. Existence and Existents. Translated by AlphonsoLingis. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1978.
Lyotard, Jean-François. The Inhuman: Reflections on Time.Translated by Geoffrey Bennington and RachelBowlby. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press,1991.
________. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge.Translated by Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi.Vol 10. Theory and History of Literature.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984.
________. The Postmodern Explained: Correspondence, 1982-1985. Translated by Morgan Thomas. Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 1992.
________. Postmodern Fables. Translated by Georges Van DenAbbeele. Minneapolis: University of MinnesotaPress, 1999.
MacIntyre, Alasdair. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory.2d ed. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press,1984.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
297
Neville, Robert C. The Highroad Around Modernism. Albany,NY: State University of New York Press, 1992.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to aPhilosophy of the Future. Translated by WalterKaufmann. New York: Random House, 1966. Reprint,1989.
________. The Birth of Tragedy and The Genealogy of Morals.Translated by F. Golffing. New York: Doubleday,1956.
________. Early Greek Philosophy and Other Essays.Translated by M. A. Müdge. Vol. 2. The CompleteWorks of Friedrich Nietzsche, ed. Oscar Levy. NewYork: Russell and Russell, 1964.
________. The Portable Nietzsche. Translated by WalterKaufmann. New York: Penguin Books, 1954.
________. Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for Everyone and NoOne. Translated by R. J. Hollingdale. New York:Penguin Books, 1961.
________. Will to Power. Translated by Walter Kaufmann andR. J. Hollingdale. New York: Vintage, 1968.
Norris, Christopher. Deconstruction: Theory and Practice.New York: Methuen, 1982.
________. What’s Wrong with Postmodernism: Critical Theoryand the Ends of Philosophy. Baltimore: JohnsHopkins University Press, 1990.
Rorty, Richard. Essays on Heidegger and Others:Philosophical Papers. Vol. 2. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1991.
________. Consequences of Pragmatism. Minneapolis, MN:University of Minnesota Press, 1982.
________. Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
298
________. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979.
________. Truth and Progress: Philosophical Papers. Vol. 3.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Taylor, Mark C. Altarity. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1987.
________. Deconstructing Theology. New York: Crossroad,1982.
________. Disfiguring: Art, Architecture, Religion. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1992.
________. Erring: A Postmodern A/theology. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1984.
________, ed. Deconstruction in Context: Literature andPhilosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1986.
Ulmer, Gregory. Applied Gramatology: Post(e)-Pedagogy fromJacques Derrida to Joseph Beuys. Baltimore: JohnHopkins University Press, 1985.
Vattimo, Gianni. The End of Modernity: Nihilism andHermeneutics in Post-Modern Culture. London:Polity, 1988.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations, 3d ed.Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. New York:Macmillan, 1958.
Wyschogrod, Edith. Saints and Postmodernism: RevisioningMoral Philosophy. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1990.
Young, Robert, ed. Untying the Text: A Post-StructuralistReader. London: Routledge, 1981.
Secondary Sources: Books
Adam, Andrew K. What Is Postmodern Biblical Criticism?Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1995.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
299
Allen, Diogenes. Christian Belief in a Postmodern World: TheFull Wealth of Conviction. Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox Press, 1989.
________. Quest: The Search for Meaning Through Christ. NewYork: Walker and Company, 1990.
Anderson, Walter Truett. Reality Isn’t What It Used to Be:Theatrical Politics, Ready-to-Wear Religion, GlobalMyths, Primitive Chic, and Other Wonders of thePostmodern World. San Francisco: Harper and Row,1990.
________. Winning the Value War. Minneapolis: Bethany House,1994.
________, ed. The Truth About the Truth: De-Confusing andRe-Constructing the Postmodern World. New York:Putnam Publishing Group, 1995.
Benne, Robert. The Paradoxical Vision. Minneapolis: AugsburgFortress, 1995.
Bennington, Geoffrey, and Jacques Derrida. Jacques Derrida.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993.
Berger, Peter. The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a SociologicalTheory of Religion. Garden City, NY: Doubleday,1967.
Bernstein, Richard J. Beyond Objectivism and Relativism:Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis. Oxford: BasilBlackwell, 1983.
Berry, Philippa, and Andrew Wernick, eds. Shadow of Spirit:Postmodernism and Religion. New York: Routledge,1992.
Best, Steven, and Douglas Kellner. Postmodern Theory:Critical Interrogations. New York: The GuilfordPress, 1991.
Bloom, Allan. The Closing of the American Mind. New York:Simon and Schuster, 1987.
Borgmann, Albert. Crossing the Postmodern Divide. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1992.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
300
Braaten, Carl E., and Robert W. Jenson. Either, Or: TheGospel or Neopaganism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1995.
Brockelman, Paul. The Inside Story: A Narrative Approach toReligious Understanding and Truth. Albany: StateUniversity of NY Press, 1993.
Brueggemann, Walter. Texts Under Negotiation: The Bible andPostmodern Imagination. Minneapolis: AugsburgFortress Press, 1993.
Burnham, Frederick, ed. Postmodern Theology: Christian Faithin a Pluralist World. San Francisco: Harper andRow, 1989.
Cheney, Lynne V. Telling the Truth: Why Our Culture and OurCountry Have Stopped Making Sense and What We canDo. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995.
Connor, Steven. Postmodernist Culture: An Introduction toTheories of the Contemporary. 2d ed. Oxford:Blackwell, 1997.
Cox, Harvey. Religion in the Secular City: Toward aPostmodern Theology. New York: Simon and Schuster,1984.
Cox, Kristoffer K. GenX and God: A GenX Perspective. NewYork: Tekna Books, 1998.
Cupitt, Don. Creation Out of Nothing. London: SCMP, 1990.
Danto, Arthur C. Connections to the World: The BasicConcepts of Philosophy. New York: Harper and Row,1989.
Dockery, David S., ed. The Challenge of Postmodernism: AnEvangelical Engagement. Grand Rapids: Baker Books,1995.
Erickson, Millard J. Postmodernizing the Faith: EvangelicalResponses to the Challenge of Postmodernism. GrandRapids: Baker Books, 1998.
Fowler, James W. Faithful Change: The Personal and PublicChallenges of Postmodern Life. Nashville: AbingdonPress, 1996.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
301
Geddes, Jennifer L., ed. Evil After Postmodernism:Histories, Narratives, and Ethics. New York:Routledge, 2001.
Gergen, Kenneth. The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity inContemporary Life. New York: Basic Books, 1991.
Gill, Jerry H. Faith in Dialogue: A Christian Apologetic.Waco, TX: Word Publishing Company, 1985.
________. Mediated Transcendence: A Postmodern Reflection.Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1989.
________. On Knowing God: New Directions for the Future ofTheology. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1981.
Grenz, Stanley. A Primer on Postmodernism. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1996.
Griffin, David Ray. God and Religion in the PostmodernWorld: Essays in Postmodern Theology. Albany: StateUniversity of New York Press, 1989.
________. Primordial Truth and Postmodern Theology. Albany,NY: State University of New York Press, 1989.
________, ed. Spirituality and Society: Postmodern Visions.Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988.
________, ed. Reenchantment of Science: PostmodernProposals. Albany: State University of New YorkPress, 1988.
________, William A. Beardslee, and Joe Holland. Varietiesof Postmodern Theology. Albany: State University ofNew York Press, 1989.
Groothuis, Douglas. Truth Decay: Defending ChristianityAgainst the Challenge of Postmodernism. DownersGrove: InterVarsity, 2000.
Habermas, Jürgen. The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity:Twelve Lectures. Translated by Frederick Lawrence.Cambridge: MIT Press, 1987.
Harvey, David. The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiryinto the Origins of Cultural Change. New York:Basil Blackwell, 1989.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
302
Heidegger, Martin. Introduction to Metaphysics. Translatedby Ralph Manheim. New Haven: Yale University Press,1959.
Holstein, James A. and Jaber F. Gubrium. Self We Live By:Narrative Identity in a Postmodern World. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1999.
Horkheimer, Max, and Theodor W. Adorno. Dialectic ofEnlightenment. Translated by John Cumming. NewYork: Continuum, 1999.
Hunsberger, George and Craig Van Gelder, eds. Church:Between Gospel and Culture, The Emerging Mission inNorth America. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
Hutcheon, Linda. The Politics of Postmodernism. London:Routledge, 1989.
Ingraffia, Brian D. Postmodern Theory and Biblical Theology:Vanquishing God’s Shadow. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1995.
Jasper, David, ed. Postmodernism, Literature, and the Futureof Theology. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
303
Lundin, Roger. The Culture of Interpretation: ChristianFaith and the Postmodern World. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1993.
Madison, Gary Brent. The Hermeneutics of Postmodernity:Figures and Themes. Bloomington: Indiana UniversityPress, 1990.
McCallum, Dennis, ed. The Death of Truth. Minneapolis, MN:Bethany House Publishers, 1996.
McKnight, Edgar V. Postmodern Use of the Bible: TheEmergence of Reader-Oriented Criticism. Nashville:Abingdon Press, 1988.
McRobbie, Angela. Postmodernism and Popular Culture. London:Routledge, 1994.
Megill, Allan. Prophets of Extremity: Nietzsche, Heidegger,Foucault, Derrida. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1985.
Middleton, J. Richard, and Brian J. Walsh. Truth Is StrangerThan It Used to Be: Biblical Faith in a PostmodernAge. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1995.
Newbigin, Lesslie. The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1990.
Oden, Thomas C. After Modernity ... What? Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1990.
Ong, Walter. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of theWord. London: Routledge, 1982.
Pefanis, Julian. Heterology and the Postmodern: Bataille,Baudrillard and Lyotard. Durham, NC: DukeUniversity Press, 1991.
Peters, Ted. God –– The World’s Future: Systematic Theologyfor a Postmodern Era. Minneapolis: AugsburgFortress Press, 1994.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
304
Phillips, Timothy R., and Dennis L. Okholm, eds. ChristianApologetics in the Postmodern World. Downers Grove,IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995.
Placher, Williams C. Unapologetic Theology: A ChristianVoice in a Pluralistic Conversation. Louisville,KY: Westminster / John Knox Press, 1989.
Rosenau, Pauline M. The Post-Modern and the Post-Industrial:A Critical Analysis. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1991.
Roxburgh, Alan J. Reaching a New Generation: Strategies forTomorrow’s Church. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsityPress, 1993.
Scharleman, Robert P. Theology at the End of the Century: ADialogue on the Postmodern with Thomas J. J.Altizer, Mark C. Taylor, Charles E. Winquist, andRobert P. Scharlemann. Charlottesville: UniversityPress of Virginia, 1990.
Smith, Huston. Beyond the Post-modern Mind. Wheaton, IL:Quest Books, 1982.
Southgate, Beverly. History, What and Why? Ancient, Modern,and Postmodern Perspectives. London: Routledge,1996.
Spretnak, Charlene. States of Grace: The Recovery of Meaningin a Postmodern Age. San Francisco: HarperCollins,1991.
Sweet, Leonard. Post-Modern Pilgrims: First Century Passionfor the 21st Century World. Nashville: Broadman andHolman, 2000.
________. SoulTsunami: Sink or Swim in New MillenniumCulture. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999.
Thiele, Leslie Paul. Friedrich Nietzsche and the Politics ofthe Soul: A Study of Heroic Individualism.Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990.
Thiselton, Anthony C. Interpreting God and the PostmodernSelf: On Meaning, Manipulation, and Promise. GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
305
Tilley, Terrence W. Postmodern Theologies: The Challenge ofReligious Diversity. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books,1995.
Turner, James. Without God, Without Creed. Baltimore: JohnsHopkins University Press, 1985.
Veith, Gene Edward, Jr. Postmodern Times: A Christian Guideto Contemporary Thought and Culture. Wheaton, IL:Crossway Books, 1994.
Walsh, David. After Ideology: Recovering the SpiritualFoundations of Freedom. San Francisco:HarperCollins, 1990.
Webber, Robert. Ancient-Future Faith: RethinkingEvangelicalism for a Postmodern World. GrandRapids: Baker, 1999.
Wellmer, Albrecht. The Persistence of Modernity: Essays onAesthetics, Ethics, and Postmodernism. Translatedby David Midgley. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991.
Wells, David R. God in the Wasteland. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1994.
________. No Place for Truth. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.
Westphal, Merold, ed. Postmodern Philosophy and ChristianThought. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press,1999.
Wilcox, John T. Truth and Value in Nietzsche: A Study of HisMetaethics and Epistemology. Ann Arbor: Universityof Michigan Press, 1974.
Winquist, Charles E. Desiring Theology: Religion andPostmodernism. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1995.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.Translated by D. F. Pears and B. F. McGuiness.London: Routlege, 1961.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
306
Wright, Crispin. Truth and Objectivity. Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press, 1992.
Wright, N. T. The Millennium Myth: Hope for a PostmodernWorld. Louisville: Westminster / John Knox Press,1999.
Secondary Sources: Articles / Essays
Aeschliman, Gordon. “Generation X: Will the Church Be inTheir Future?” Prism (May 1994): 12-16.
Allen, Diogenes. “The End of the Modern World: A NewOpenness for Faith.” The Princeton SeminaryBulletin 11 (1990): 11-31.
Allen, Ronald. “As the Worldviews Turn: Six Key Issues forPreaching in a Postmodern Ethos.” Encounter 57(Winter 1996): 23-35.
Amaladoss, Michael. “Mission in a Post-Modern World: A Callto be Counter-Cultural.” Mission Studies 13 (1996):68-79.
Anderson, Leith. “The Church at History’s Hinge.”Bibliotheca Sacra (Jan-Mar 1994): 3-10.
________. “The Practice of Ministry in 21st-CenturyChurches.” Bibliotheca Sacra 151 (October 1994):387-92.
Bartholomew, Craig. “Babel and Derrida: Postmodernism,Language and Biblical Interpretation.” TyndaleBulletin 49 (November 1998): 305-28.
Beck-Gernsheim, Elisabath. “On the Way to a Post-FamilialFamily: From a Community of Need to ElectiveAffinities.” Theory, Culture, and Society 15(October 1998): 53-70.
Bell, Vikki. “Performativity and Belonging: AnIntroduction.” Theory, Culture, and Society 16(April 1999): 1-10.
Bennahmias, Richard. “Postmodernité, Pragmatism et ThéologieChrétienne Évangélique.” Revue D’Histoire et dePhilosophie Religieuses 78 (1998): 57-77.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
307
Bevir, Mark. “The Errors of Linguistic Contextualization.”History and Theory 31 (October 1992): 276-298.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Loïc Wacquant. “On the Cunning ofImperialist Reason.” Theory, Culture, and Society16 (February 1999): 41-58.
Bria, Ion. “Postmodernism: An Emerging Mission Issue.”International Review of Mission 86 (October 1997):417-424.
Buckley, Don W. “The Southern Baptist Mind in the PostmodernEra.” Faith and Mission 13 (Spring 1996): 60-65.
Caputo, J. D. “The Good News About Alterity: Derrida andTheology.” Faith and Philosophy 10 (October 1993):453-465.
Cetina, Karin Knorr. “Sociality with Objects: SocialRelations in Postsocial Knowledge Societies.”Theory, Culture, and Society 14 (November 1997): 1-30.
Chantraine, Georges. “Beyond Modernity and Postmodernity:The Thought of Henri de Lubac.” Communio 17 (1990):207-219.
Connor, Frederick. “Man the (Un)Maker: An Exploration ofModernism and Postmodernism in Their CulturalRelations.” Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal65 (1982): 251-279.
Craig, William Lane. “Politically Incorrect Salvation.” InChristian Apologetics in the Postmodern World, eds.Timothy R. Phillips and Dennis L. Okholm, 75-97.Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1995.
Evans, Mary. “‘Falling in Love with Love Is Falling for MakeBelieve’: Ideologies of Romance in Post-Enlightenment Culture.” Theory, Culture, andSociety 15 (October 1998): 265-276.
Flynn, T. R. “Partially Desacralized Spaces: The ReligiousAvailability of Foucault’s Thought.” Faith andPhilosophy 10 (October 1993): 466-475.
Gatlin, Todd. “Postmodernism Defined at Last.” Utne Reader(July-August 1989): 52-61.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
308
________. “The Postmodern Predicament.” The Wilson Quarterly13 (Summer 1989): 67-76.
Greenberg, Irving. “From Modernity to Post-Modernity:Community and the Revitalization of TraditionalReligion.” Religious Education 73 (1978): 449-469.
Grenz, Stanley. “Star Trek and the Next Generation:Postmodernism and the Future of EvangelicalTheology.” In The Challenge of Postmodernism: AnEvangelical Engagement, ed. David S. Dockery, 84-97. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995.
________. “Twentieth Century Theology: The Quest for Balancein a Transitional Age.” Perspectives (June 1993):10-13.
Guarino, Thomas. “Postmodernity and Five FundamentalTheological Issues.” Theological Studies 57(December 1996): 654-689.
Hollinger, Dennis. “The Church as Apologetic: A Sociology ofKnowledge Perspective.” In Christian Apologetics inthe Postmodern World, eds. Timothy R. Phillips andDennis L. Okholm, 182-93. Downers Grove:InterVarsity, 1995.
Johnson, Philip A. “Postmodernity, New Age, and theChristian Mission: Mars Hill Revisited.” LutheranTheological Journal 31 (December 1997): 115-124.
Joy, Morny. “Derrida and Ricoeur: A Case of MistakenIdentity (and Difference).” Journal of Religion 68(October 1988): 508-26.
Kallenberg, Brad J. “Conversion Converted: A PostmodernFormulation of the Doctrine of Conversion.”Evangelical Quarterly 67 (October 1995): 335-364.
Kaufman, Gordon. “Evidentialism: A Theologian’s Response.”Faith and Philosophy 6 (1989): 35-46.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
309
Kearney, Richard. “Others and Aliens: Between Good andEvil.” In Evil After Postmodernism: Histories,Narratives, and Ethics, ed. Jennifer L. Geddes,101-113. New York: Routledge, 2001.
Kee, James M. “‘Postmodern’ Thinking and the Status of theReligions.” Religion and Literature 22 (Summer-Autumn 1990), 35-51.
Kellner, Douglas. “Zygmunt Bauman’s Postmodern Turn.”Theory, Culture, and Society 15 (February 1998):73-85.
Kenneson, Philip D. “There’s No Such Thing as ObjectiveTruth and It’s a Good Thing Too.” In ChristianApologetics in a Postmodern World, ed. Timothy R.Phillips and Dennis L. Ockholm, 142-63. DownersGrove: InterVarsity, 1995.
Little, Bruce A. “Christian Education, Worldviews, andPostmodernity’s Challenge.” Journal of theEvangelical Society 40 (Summer 1997): 433-444.
Long, Burke O. “Ambitions of Dissent: Biblical Theology in aPostmodern Future.” Journal of Religion 76 (April1996): 276-289.
Lorenz, Chris. “Historical Knowledge and Historical Reality:A Plea for ‘Internal Realism’.” History and Theory33 (October 1994): 297-327.
Makarushka, Irena. “Nietzsche’s Critique of Modernity: TheEmergence of Hermeneutical Consciousness.” Semeia51 (1990): 191-212.
McGrath, Alister E. “The Challenge of Pluralism for theContemporary Church.” Journal of the EvangelicalTheological Society 35 (September 1992): 358-374.
________. “The Christian Church’s Response to Pluralism.”Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 35(December 1992): 487-501.
________. “Doctrine and Ethics.” Journal of the EvangelicalTheological Society 34 (June 1991): 145-56.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
310
McKnight, Edgar V. “A Defense of a Postmodern Use of theBible.” In A Confessing Theology for PostmodernTimes, ed. Michael Horton, 83-97. Wheaton: CrosswayBooks, 2000.
McQuilkin, Robertson, and Bradford Mullen. “The Impact ofPostmodern Thinking on Evangelical Hermeneutics.”Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40(March 1997): 69-82.
Mohler, Albert Jr. “Evangelical Tradition.” In The Challengeof Postmodernism: An Evangelical Engagement, ed.David S. Dockery, 78-94. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995.
Noys, Benjamin. “Communicative Unreason: Bataille andHabermas.” Theory, Culture, and Society 14(February 1997): 59-76.
O’Neill, John. “Two Body Criticism: A Genealogy of thePostmodern Anti-Aesthetic.” History and Theory 33(February 1994): 61-78.
Palmer, Richard E. “Postmodern Hermeneutics and the Act ofReading.” Notre Dame English Journal 15 (Summer1983): 55-84.
Raschke, Carl. “The Deconstruction of God.” InDeconstruction and Theology, ed. Thomas A. Altizer,et al., 1-19. New York: Crossroad, 1982.
Reid, Robert Stephen. “Postmodernism and the Function of theNew Homiletic in Post-Christendom Congregations”Homiletic 20 (1995): 1-16.
Shaw, R. Daniel. “In Search of Post-modern Salvation.”Evangelical Review of Theology 22 (1998): 48-60.
Smith, Dennis. “Zygmunt Bauman: How to Be a SuccessfulOutsider.” Theory, Culture, and Society 15(February 1998): 39-46.
Sire, James W. “On Being a Fool for Christ and an Idiot forNobody: Logocentricity and Postmodernity.” InChristian Apologetics in the Postmodern World, eds.Timothy R. Phillips and Dennis L. Okholm, 101-27.Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1995.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
311
Stiver, Dan. “Much Ado About Athens and Jerusalem: TheImplications of Postmodernism for Faith.” Reviewand Expositor 91 (1994): 83-102.
Van Engen, Charles. “Mission Theology in the Light ofPostmodern Critique.” International Review ofMission 86 (October 1997): 437-461.
Van Gelder, Craig. “Scholia: Postmodernism as an EmergingWorldview.” Calvin Theological Journal 26 (1991):412-17.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. “Mapping Evangelical Theology in a Post-Modern World.” Evangelical Review of Theology 22(January 1998): 5-27.
West, Cornel. “Nietzsche’s Prefiguration of PostmodernAmerican Philosophy.” In Why Nietzsche Now?, ed. D.T. O’Hara, 241-69. Bloomington, IN: IndianaUniversity Press, 1985.
Westphal, Merold. “Levinas and the Immediacy of Face.” Faithand Philosophy 10 (October 1993): 478-94.
New Testament Background and the Early Church
Books
Angus, S. The Religious Quests of the Graeco-Roman World.London: John Murray Publishing, 1929.
Aune, David E. The New Testament in Its LiteraryEnvironment. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987.
Armstrong, A. H., ed. The Cambridge History of Later Greekand Early Medieval Philosophy. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1968.
Barrett, C. K. The New Testament Background: Writings fromAncient Greece and the Roman Empire That IlluminateChristian Origins. Rev. ed. San Francisco:HarperCollins, 1987.
Bauckham, Richard. The Gospels for All Christians:Rethinking the Gospel Audiences. Grand Rapids:William B. Eerdmans, 1998.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
312
Borgen, Peder. Early Christianity and Hellenistic Judaism.Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1996.
Brown, Peter. Authority and the Sacred: Aspects of theChristianisation of the Roman World. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Brox, Norbert. A History of the Early Church. Translated byJohn Bowden. London: SCM Press, 1994.
Bultmann, Rudolf. Primitive Christianity in Its ContemporarySetting. Translated by R. H. Fuller. New York:Meridian Books, 1957.
Chadwick, Henry. The Early Church. Baltimore: Penguin Books,1967.
Chevallier, Raymond. Roman Roads. Translated by N. H. Field.Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976.
Conzelmann, Hans. History of Primitive Christianity.Translated by John E. Steely. Nashville: AbingdonPress, 1973.
Crowe, Jerome. From Jerusalem to Antioch: The Gospel AcrossCultures. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1997.
Cullmann, Oscar. The State in the New Testament. London: SCMPress, 1957.
Davies, J. G. Daily Life in the Early Church. London:Lutterworth Press, 1952.
Deissmann, Adolf. Light from the Ancient East: The NewTestament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Textsof the Graeco-Roman World. Translated by Lionel R.M. Strachan. New York: George H. Doran Company,1927. Reprint, Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers,1995.
Dodd, C. H. The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments.New York: Willett, Clark, and Company, 1937.
Donfried, Karl P. and Peter Richardson, eds. Judaism andChristianity in Rome in the First Century. GrandRapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1998.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
313
Doran, Robert. Birth of a Worldview: Early Christianity inIts Jewish and Pagan Context. Boulder, CO: WestviewPress, 1995.
Droge, Arthur J. Homer or Moses? Early ChristianInterpretation of the History of Culture. Tübingen:Mohr, 1989.
Elliger, Winfried. Paulus in Griechenland: Philippi,Thessaloniki, Athen, Korinth. Stuttgart:Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1978.
Elwell, Walter A. and Robert W. Yarbrough, eds. Readingsfrom the First-Century World: Primary Sources forNew Testament Study. Grand Rapids: Baker Books,1998.
Engberg-Pedersen, Troels, ed. Paul in His HellenisticContext. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995.
Feldman, Louis H. Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World:Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander toJustinian. Princeton: Princeton University Press,1993.
Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. 2d ed.Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1993.
Ferguson, Everett, Michael McHugh, and Frederick Norris,eds. Encyclopedia of Early Christianity. 2d ed. NewYork: Garland Publishing, 1997.
Fox, Robin Lane. Pagans and Christians. New York: Knopf,1987.
Frend, W. H. C. The Archaeology of Early Christianity: ASurvey. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1996.
________. The Early Church. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,1982.
________. The Rise of Christianity. Philadelphia: FortressPress, 1984.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
314
Freyne, Sean. Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian:323 BCE to 135 CE. University of Notre Dame Centerfor the Study of Judaism and Christianity inAntiquity, 5. South Bend, IN: University of NotreDame Press, 1980.
Fustel de Colanges, N. D. The Ancient City. Garden City, NY:Doubleday, 1976.
Gagé, Jean. Les Classes sociales dans l’empire romain.Bibliothèque historique. Paris: Payot, 1964.
Gamble, Harry Y. Books and Readers in the Early Church. NewHaven: Yale University Press, 1995.
Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York:Basic Books, 1973.
Hatch, Edwin. The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages uponthe Christian Church. 5th ed. London: Williams andNorgate, 1895. Reprint, Peabody: HendricksonPublishers, 1995.
Hills, Julian V., ed. Common Life in the Early Church:Essays Honoring Graydon F. Snyder. Harrisburg, PA:Trinity Press International, 1998.
Hinson, E. Glenn. The Early Church: Origins to the Dawn ofthe Middle Ages. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996.
Horsley, Richard A., ed. Paul and Empire: Religion and Powerin Roman Imperial Society. Harrisburg, PA: TrinityPress International, 1997.
Kelly, Joseph F. The Concise Dictionary of EarlyChristianity. Collegeville, MN: The LiturgicalPress, 1992.
________. The World of the Early Christians. Collegeville,MN: Liturgical Press, 1997.
Kollmann, Bernd. Jesus und die Christen als Wundertater:Studien zu Magie, Medizin, und Schamanismus inAntike und Christentum. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck andRuprecht, 1996.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
315
MacMullen, Ramsay. Paganism in the Roman Empire. New Haven:Yale University Press, 1981.
Malherbe, Abraham J., Frederick Norris, and James W.Thompson, eds. The Early Church in its Context:Essays in Honor of Everett Ferguson. New York:Brill, 1998.
Malherbe, Abraham J. Social Aspects of Early Christianity.Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.
Malina, Bruce J. Christian Origins and CulturalAnthropology: Practical Models for BiblicalInterpretation. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1986.
Martin, Luther, ed. Hellenistic Religions: An Introduction.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.
Metzger, Bruce M., ed. Historical and Literary Studies:Pagan, Jewish and Christian. Leiden: Brill, 1980.
Murphy-O’Connor, J. St. Paul’s Corinth: Texts andArchaeology. Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier,1983.
Nock, Arthur Darby. Conversion: The Old and the New inReligion from Alexander the Great to Augustine ofHippo. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.
________. Early Gentile Christianity and Its HellenisticBackground. New York: Harper and Row, 1964.
Pearson, Birger A. The Emergence of the Christian Religion:Essays on Early Christianity. Harrisburg, PA:Trinity Press International, 1997.
Ramsay, William M. The Cities of St. Paul: Their Influenceon His Life and Thought. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1960.
Reitzenstein, Richard. Hellenistic Mystery-Religions: TheirBasic Ideas and Significance. 3d ed. Translated byJohn E. Steely. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1978.
Safrai, Samuel and Menahem Stern, eds. The Jewish People inthe First Century. 2 vols. Compendia RerumIudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum. Philadelphia:Fortress Press, 1974.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
316
Segal, Alan. Rebecca’s Children: Judaism and Christianity inthe Roman World. Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress, 1986.
Seltzer, Robert, ed. Religions of Antiquity. New York:Macmillan, 1989.
Sherwin-White, A. N. Roman Law and Roman Society in the NewTestament. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1963.
Theissen, Gerd. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity:Essays on Corinth. Translated by John H. Schütz.Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982.
________. Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity.Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: FortressPress, 1978.
Trocme, Etienne. The Childhood of Christianity. Translatedby John Bowden. London: SCM Press, 1997.
Veyne, Paul, ed. A History of Private Life: From Pagan Rometo Byzantium. Translated by Arthur Goldhammer.Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987.
Wetlin, E. G. Athens and Jerusalem: An Interpretive Essay onChristianity and Classical Culture. Atlanta:Scholars Press, 1987.
Wilkin, Robert. The Christians as the Pagans Saw Them. NewHaven: Yale University Press, 1987.
Wilson, Stephen. Related Strangers: Jews and Christians, 70-170 C.E. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press,1996.
Winter, Bruce. Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians asBenefactors and Citizens. Vol. 1, First-CenturyChristians in the Greco-Roman World. Grand Rapids:William B. Eerdmans, 1994.
Witherington, Ben, III. Women in the Earliest Churches.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
317
Essays / Articles
Achtemeier, Paul. “Omne verbum sonat: The New Testament andthe Oral Environment of Late Western Antiquity.”Journal of Biblical Literature 109 (1990): 62-70.
Baugh, S. M. “The Apostle Among the Amazons.” WestminsterTheological Journal 56 (Spring 1994): 153-171.
Black, C. Clifton. “Rhetorical Questions: The New Testament,Classical Rhetoric, and Current Interpretation.”Dialog 29 (1990): 62-70.
Clark, D. L. “Imitation: Theory and Practice in RomanRhetoric.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 37 (1951):11-22.
Cosigny, Scott. “Rhetoric and Its Situation.” Philosophy andRhetoric 7 (1974): 175-185.
Cullmann, Oscar. “The Significance of the Qumran Texts forResearch into the Beginnings of Christianity.”Journal of Biblical Literature 74 (1955): 213-26.
Harding, Mark. “Church and Gentile Cults at Corinth.” GraceTheological Journal 10 (Fall 1989): 203-223.
Harrison, Everett F. “The Attitude of the Primitive Churchtoward Judaism.” Bibliotheca Sacra 113 (April1956): 130-140.
Hay, David M. “What Is Proof? Historical Verification inPhilo, Josephus, and Quintilian.” Society ofBiblical Literature 1979 Seminar Papers, 87-100.Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979.
Judge, Edwin A. “The Early Christians as a ScholasticCommunity.” Journal of Religious History 1 (1960-1961): 4-15, 125-137.
________. “St. Paul and Classical Society.” Jahrbuch fürAntike und Christentum 15 (1972): 14-32.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA
318
King, Donald B. “The Appeal to Religion in Greek Rhetoric.”Classical Journal 50 (1955): 363-371, 376.
Kroeger, Catherine. “The Apostle Paul and the Greco-RomanCults of Women.” Journal of the EvangelicalTheological Society 30 (March 1987): 25-38.
Marshall, I. Howard. “Palestinian and HellenisticChristianity: Some Critical Comments.” NewTestament Studies 19 (1972–73): 271–287.
McKeon, Robert. “Literary Criticism and the Concept ofImitation in Antiquity.” Modern Philology 34(1936): 1-35.
Metzger, Bruce M. “Methodology in the Study of the MysteryReligions and Early Christianity.” In Historicaland Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish and Christian,ed. Bruce M. Metzger, 1-24. Leiden: Brill, 1980.
Rajak, Tessa. “The Location of Cultures in Second TemplePalestine: The Evidence of Josephus.” In The Bookof Acts in Its Palestinian Setting, ed. RichardBauckham, 1-12. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
Reid, Marty L. “A Consideration of the Function of Rom 1:8-15 in Light of Greco-Roman Rhetoric.” Journal ofthe Evangelical Theological Society 38 (June 1995):181-191.
Theissen, Gerd. “Die Starken und Schwachen in Korinth:Soziologische Analyse eines theologischenStreites.” Evangelische Theologie 35:155-172.
Unger, Merrill F. “Historical Research and the Church atThessalonica.” Bibliotheca Sacra 119 (January1962): 33-44.
Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA