By RajeshG on
Forum category
Bible, Theology & Philosophy
Topic tags
hermeneutics
Acts
NT interpretation
0

In my more than 36 years as a believer, I have encountered several serious problems with viewpoints about the book of Acts that other believers have held that I believe show that they have not handled the book properly. I have had many intense discussions with people about them and have sought in various ways to address these problems, including through preaching, teaching, and writing articles about them.

Many of these problems concern viewpoints about what the apostles did or did not preach when they evangelized people. Most recently, the problem concerned to what extent authentic demonic activity extends into the book of Acts.

Without exception, all of these problematic handlings of the book of Acts have had at least one thing in common---faulty claims made from comparing and contrasting what is actually recorded in the various accounts in the book. How such differences in the accounts should be correctly handled is certainly an important hermeneutical matter for a right understanding of NT interpretation.

0
0

Discussion

Sun, 10/04/26

In his book, "Missionary Methods: St. Paul's or Our's?", Roland Allen asserts the following concerning Paul's preaching at Athens:

There is no setting forth of the Gospel. . . . It is important to notice how carefully St Luke calls attention to the meagre results of the preaching in Athens. It is almost certain that the emphasis which St Paul puts upon 'the Cross' in his preaching at Corinth marks, and is meant to mark, a difference between his preaching at Athens and his preaching at Corinth. . . . The charge made against St Paul at Thessalonica was that he was preaching the Kingdom of Christ, 'that there is another King, one Jesus'. But of this there is not a hint in the speeches [at Lystra and at Athens].

In the light of these facts, it is, I think, impossible to maintain that the speeches at Lystra and Athens represent St Paul's Gospel. (66-67)

By drawing wrong conclusions from his faulty comparisons of the records in certain passages in Acts to other passages in Acts and the Epistles, Allen, in effect, wrongly asserts that Paul did not preach the gospel in Athens.

He claims that Paul did not preach about the Cross at Athens and did not speak about Jesus as the King because those truths are not mentioned in Luke's summary of Paul's preaching in Athens.

I have repeatedly observed similarly faulty handling of many accounts in Acts through people's arguing that what is not mentioned by Luke in various accounts shows that testimony to certain facts or truths was in fact not given in the messages in those accounts. Asserting that Luke's not mentioning something in a given account in Acts shows that testimony to that thing was not given in that account is faulty hermeneutics.

0
0