In Acts 13, Paul begins by describing God’s work in the history of Israel. Starting with their bondage in Egypt, Paul tells of God’s work in the exodus, the wilderness, the distribution of the land, the appointment of Saul and the appointment of David. It is at this point that the sermon climaxes. Paul says, "From the descendants of this man [David], according to promise, God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus." It is at this point that Paul begins to teach about Jesus Christ.
According to Paul, Jesus was proclaimed by John the Baptist. He was not recognized by the rulers in Jerusalem though their condemnation of Him fulfilled words of the prophets. They put Him to death though He was innocent. Though they laid Him in a tomb, God raised Him from the dead. This is the good news Paul is preaching.
Paul’s authority here is Scripture. Paul says that the Jews in Jerusalem fulfilled "all that was written concerning Him." He equates not recognizing Jesus with not recognizing "the utterances of the prophets which are read ever Sabbath." He says that the good news he is preaching is that of the promises made to the fathers. Finally, he quotes from several of the Psalms, Isaiah, and Habakkuk.
In the same way, let us not be afraid to appeal to the authority of Scripture as we week to convince the unbeliever of the truth of the Christian faith and the folly of his unbelief.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hortatorically superb! Many, though, would say, “Yes, Steve, Paul was able to appeal to the Bible (OT) in the case of Antioch Pisidia, just consider who he was talking to! He was in a Synagogue; his audience accepted the authority of the Scriptures already. However, in Athens, Paul began with assumptions appropriate to his Pagan audience. For example, he cited not the Bible but the Greek poets Aratus and Epimenides.”
ReplyDeleteIn other words, as the old saw goes, you can’t suppose the Bible’s authority with unbelievers who don’t accept its authority in advance...you must begin with neutral assumptions. Elsewhere, you’ve done a fine job of proving that this is impossible, destroying the Enlightenment myth of neutrality.
Also, I’ve written a paper on “Paul’s Areopagitica,” which I posted on my blog. Essentially, it’s intended to demonstrate that the popular interpretation is misguided. The idea that Paul was commending the Athenian philosophers for the truth they had as far as it went; Paul was now adding Jesus to their picture. As you know, many scholars have understood Acts 17 as a justification for apologetic methods that rest upon a natural theology. If my thesis is correct, though, the popular view cannot be. Paul was presupposing OT revelation through and through, and his use of the Greek assumptions was confrontational, not complementary.
Yes, I thought you would probably bring this up. But rather than explain it, why don't I just link to your blog. :)
ReplyDeletehttp://kevinfannystevenson.blogspot.com/
You always complicate things!
ReplyDelete