"It is our thesis that the idea of salvation supplies the key to the theology of Luke. Not salvation-history but salvation itself is the theme which occupied the mind of Luke in both parts of his work." "Our claim is not that salvation is a feature unique to Lucan theology in comparison with the rest of the New Testament, but that it is the central motif in Lucan theology."
I. Howard Marshall, Luke Historian and Theologian (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988), 92, 93.
“An ironic theme in Acts, which plays a major role in its plot structuring, is that persecuting attempts to suppress God’s word lead to the spread of that work. This theme is a major instance of the Lukan motif of reversal-God reverses or overrules human attempts to control history and if that the persecution associated with Saul occasions the spread of Christianity, eventually to Antioch, where the converted Paul is summoned (coming full circle) to minister to Christians. Acts structures this theme in three steps: Acts 8:1, 3-5; 11:19-20, and 11:25–26.”
William S. Kurz, Reading Luke-Acts: Dynamics of Biblical Narrative (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 144.
William Kurz has noted concerning Luke 1:1-4 that,
“The prologue singles out at least four differing individuals or groups: (1) "Many have tried to compile a narrative"; (2) "events fulfilled among us"; (3) "it seemed good to me also"l; (4) "to write to you." Among these four are a first-person narrator who presents himself as a histor (3), a second-person narratee named Theophilus (4), an earlier group of writers of similar Christian narratives (1), and a group of Christians in whose midst the recounted events took place (2). The histor narrator distinguishes himself from other narrative writers (1), but includes himself in the Christian community among which the events took place (2).”
William S. Kurz, Reading Luke-Acts: Dynamics of Biblical Narrative (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 41.
This is a bit late, but I just learned that Kenneth O. Gangel went to be with the Lord last Thursday, June 18 at the age of 74. Dr. Gangel was a prolific writer and although I did not know him personally, I have benefited from his writings particularly in the area of Christian education and leadership. You can see a more extensive write up of Dr. Gangel here.
For those who have facility with Greek, Daniel Doleys has now posted his syntactical diagram of 1 Peter 2 and 1 Peter 3:1-12, here and here respectively.
Glen Scrivner has a good reminder concerning the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23). In part Glen writes, "I wanted the fruit not the Spirit. I wanted the fruit apart from the Spirit. Yet the fruit is fruit of the Spirit. It grows organically from a relationship with Him. Henceforward I prayed for the Spirit Himself." You can read the entire post here.
“The fact that Luke and Acts are addressed to Christian readers puts even more restrictions on contemporary free play of interpretation than their traditional character alone would require. All narratives have gaps in what is explicitly recounted, the filling of which is a major aspect of their interpretation. The gaps in Luke and Acts that are meant to be filled are gaps that would occur to Christian readers, and they are meant to be filled from a Christian perspective. The points of view of the text, both in its original setting and in its later context as part of the Christian Bible, are grounded in and express Christian faith. The most empathetic reading of the text would therefore ordinarily proceed from Christian faith and experience. Readers from many backgrounds and faiths can execute historical-critical methods to glean historical answers from the text or engage in literary analysis of the text, but reading Luke-Acts as biblical requires a biblical perspective and strong imaginative empathy for the Christian faith. Some obvious examples where faith facilitates filling biblical gaps in Luke concern Jesus' identity and accounts of providence or the miraculous, including Jesus' resurrection and relationship to God as his Father.”
William S. Kurz, Reading Luke-Acts: Dynamics of Biblical Narrative (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 15.
Alan Bandy has a nice post on the doctrine called the age of accountability which is related to when children become spiritually accountable to God. Read it here.
One of the challenges of taking the Jerusalem Council as a historical event is Paul’s apparent silence concerning it in his epistles, even when such a reference might be appropriate (e.g., his discussion of food sacrificed to idols; cf. 1 Cor 8:1––11:1; Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25) and even though Luke states the Paul was present at the Council and even carried its results to the church at Antioch. There are generally two broad approaches concerning this problem.
1. Some interpreters conclude that the Jerusalem Council was a Lukan creation and never actually happened. This view is generally unacceptable for conservative interpreters.
2. Other interpreters affirm the general historicity of the Jerusalem Council. In this position there are at least three variations. (1) The Jerusalem Council did occur, but contrary to Luke’s assertion, Paul was not there. Therefore, Paul does not refer to the decision of the Council either because he is unaware of it or that he does not feel bound by it since he was not present during the proceedings. (2) The Jerusalem Council was attended by Paul as Luke records, but he chooses to ignore the Council’s decision in his correspondence with Corinth and perhaps elsewhere. Perhaps Paul changed his mind or he might have viewed the Council’s decision as ad hoc or limited to churches in Syria. (3) The Jerusalem Council was attended by Paul as Luke records, and Paul follows the Council’s decision. This last view is the view of Alex T. Cheung, Idol Food in Corinth: Jewish Background and Pauline Legacy, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 176 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999). Cheung writes:
“As I have shown earlier, the most likely scenario is that, in his first visit to Corinth, Paul prohibited-perhaps without any qualification-the consumption of idol food. He thus acted in accordance with the decree, whether he appealed to it or not. However, after Paul had left Corinth, some from the leadership of the church, perhaps because of their enlightened view of Christian freedom, but more likely due to social pressure, began to eat idol food. Paul attempted to correct them in his previous letter but was rebutted with clever arguments which were constructed with distortions of his earlier teachings and which seized on the potential impracticality of Paul’s unguarded language. This led to Paul’s response in 1 Cor. 8:1–11.1, which is both strongly combative and highly nuanced. To quote the decree there would not have served Paul’s purpose.
“To sum up, I have shown that the arguments advanced against the historical accuracy of Luke’s account of the Jerusalem council are not insurmountable. On the contrary, they readily fall apart if we are allowed to make one major assumption—that the decree is consistent with Paul’s missionary preaching, that Paul indeed prohibited eating idol food. As we shall see, this assumption also allows us to make sense of a plethora of early Christian writings touching on Paul’s stance in the matter of idol food” (p. 194).
I am very sympathetic to Chueng’s conclusions and his position on Paul’s perspective concerning idol food has been echoed by David Garland’s excellent 1 Corinthians commentary in the Baker Exegetical series.