[1] In The Unknown Paul (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1984) 122–37.Google Scholar The essay originally appeared as, ‘Die Mitte der Schrift: Zum lukanischen Verständnis des Alten Testaments’, in Die Mitte der Schrift, ed. by Luz, U. and Weder, H. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983).Google Scholar

[2] Ibid., p. 122.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Cf. ibid., p. 136.

[5] Ibid., p. 126.

[6] Ibid., p. 122.

[7] Ibid., p. 133.

[8] Cf., e.g., Wilson, S. G., Luke and the Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[9] Luke 24. 44–49 is not included, since in this paper it is necessary to concentrate on Acts. It should be noted, however, that the interpretation of scripture plays a major role in this passage.

[10] Some interpreters do not agree that Luke has the Gentile mission in mind at this point. Cf., e.g., Schmeichel, Waldemar, ‘Christian Prophecy in Lukan Thought: Luke 4:16–30 as a Point of Departure’ in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, 1976, ed. by McRae, George (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976) 293–304.Google Scholar Schmeichel regards the passage as programmatic and as a means of identifying Jesus as a prophet, whose fate is rejection. To see the passage as an anticipation of the Gentile mission would, he says, be to read Acts back into the gospel.

[11] Cf. ‘The Jewish Public in Luke-Acts’, NTS 30 (1984) 574–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[12] Haenchen, Ernst, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary, trans. by Noble, Bernard and Shinn, Gerald (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1971) 314.Google Scholar

[13] The other two are in Acts 18. 6 and 28. 28. The former of these does not include a justify cation of the Gentile mission. The latter does, and it will be treated below.

[14] But cf. Jervell, , ‘The Divided People of God’, in Luke and the People of God: A New Look at Luke-Acts (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1972) 41–74.Google Scholar

[15] Cf. Dibelius, Martin, ‘The Conversion of Cornelius’, in Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, ed. by Greeven, Heinrich (New York: Scribner's, 1956) 109–22.Google Scholar

[16] Cf. Haacker, K., ‘Dibelius and Cornelius: Ein Beispiel formgeschichtlicher Überlieferungskritik’, Biblische Zeitschrift 24 (1980) 234–51.Google Scholar Cf. also the commentary by Schneider, Gerhard, Die Apostelgeschichte (Freiburg: Herder, 1980)Google Scholar, in loc. Cf. also Wilckens, Ulrich, Die Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte (Neukirchen kreis Moers: Neukirchener Verlag, 1961).Google Scholar

[17] Haenchen, however, thinks that only unclean animals are included on the sheet. He says that Peter's reaction does not make sense if clean animals are present, i.e., he would not have objected to killing and eating permitted animals. Cf. Haenchen, op. cit., 362.

[18] Cf. ibid., pp. 343–63.

[19] Ibid., p. 362.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Cf. Sevenster, J. N., The Roots of Pagan Anti-Semitism in the Ancient World (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[22] Cf. Strack, H. L. and Billerbeck, P., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud and Midrasch (Munich: Beck, 1922) IV, 1, 374–8.Google Scholar

[23] Bruce, F. F. saw this connection clearly and assumed that Peter did also: ‘Actually, the terms of his vision on the housetop at Joppa taught him to call no food common or unclean if God pronounced it clean; but he was quick to grasp the analogy between ceremonial food-laws and the regulations affecting intercourse with non-Jews’ (The Book of Acts [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981] 222).Google Scholar

[24] Ernst Haenchen calls attention to the revolutionary character of Peter's words in Acts 10. 34 f. He points out that these verses challenge the entire basis of Israel as God's elect people. Haenchen, Cf., ‘Judentum and Christentum in der Apostelgeschichte’, ZNTW 54 (1963) 155–87, esp. p. 168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[25] Cf. the excellent discussion of the apostolic decree in Wilson, S. G., op. cit., 68–102.Google Scholar

[26] It might be suggested that Luke includes the dietary regulations among those Jewish observances of little importance. Cf., for example, his use of the term ἕθος in Luke 1. 9; 2. 42; Acts 6. 14; 15. 1; 16. 21; 21. 21; 26. 3; 28. 17. But he does not use the term ἕεθος in connection with these particular regulations. Moreover, Wilson, S. G. has, in my judgment, shown that, for Luke, the word ἕθος does not imply something significantly different from νόμσςGoogle Scholar. Cf. his discussion of legal termnology in Luke-Acts, , op. cit., 1–11.Google Scholar

[27] Jervell, called attention to the connection between scripture and spirit; indeed, he emphasized the contention that, according to Luke, they were inseparable. Cf. his article, ‘Das Volk des Geistes’, in God's Christ and His People: Studies in Honour of Nils Alstrup Dahl, ed. by Jervell, and Meeks, Wayne A. (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1977) 87–106.Google Scholar My own view is probably closer to that of Ulrich Luck, in ‘Kerygma, Tradition and Geschichte Jesu bei Lukas’, ZTK 57 (1960) 51–66. Luck refers to the spirit as the ‘gate of the OT’, and the OT as the living witness of the spirit. If, however, one is to raise the question of authority in this connection, it seems clear that the spirit is not only the authentic interpreter of scripture but that it also has a higher authority.Google Scholar