Acts 6:7 says:
that “a large number of priests became obedient to the faith” (Acts 6:7)
If this is viewed as something that emphasizes the purposes of the author, there are at least a couple different ways it could be interpreted:
(1) It could be interpreted as an appeal to those who are predisposed to be supportive of Jewish priests, to show that the early Christians found substantial support in their ranks from the conversion of priests.
(2) It could be interpreted as an appeal to those Christians who do not support the Jewish priesthood, that they should do so.
The first view makes more sense, especially after the destruction of the Temple when the Temple service performed by the priesthood ceased. In any case, the example shows that not all appeals are necessarily regarding the subjects of disputes between Christians. Sometimes appeal is made in some way to non-Christians or for the benefit of those who will preach to non-Christians.
The Gospel of Luke begins and ends at the Temple in Jerusalem. Again:
(1) It could be interpreted as an appeal to those who are predisposed to be supportive of the Temple, to show that the relatives of Jesus and the early Christians themselves were close to the Temple early on.
(2) It could be interpreted as an appeal to those Christians who do not support the Temple, that they should do so.
Again, the first view makes more sense, especially after the destruction of the Temple. The author of Luke-Acts has in mind the persuasion of people who would be supportive of the Temple and the priesthood, a structure that no longer stood (cf. use of Josephus) and an organization that was no longer functional. Such an appeal would be most timely in the period after the destruction of the Temple, when people were trying to make sense of why God allowed it to happen.
Luke 2:22, 2:39 refers to the family of Jesus following "the law." Again, this could be interpreted as:
(1) It could be interpreted as an appeal to those who are predisposed to follow the law, to show continuity with the family of Jesus doing so (later also showing the early Christians doing so).
(2) It could be interpreted as an appeal to those Christians who do not support the law, that they should all do so.
Luke 7:30 says that the Pharisees went wrong when they disobeyed God and refused to be baptized by John, who spoke of Jesus coming in Luke 3:16:
"But the Pharisees and the experts in the Law of Moses refused to obey God and be baptized by John."
Luke 16:16 states:
"The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presses into it."
But still in Acts 21:24, it's purported that those with James are defending Paul, saying "that you yourself are living in obedience to the law." This is a show of continuity, that the Jews who converted, including Paul, still kept the law, even though the Gentiles did not keep the law in the same way, due to "what God had done among the Gentiles" (Acts 21:19).
And in Acts 15:19-20, James is purported to say, "Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles that turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood."
Thus, Luke-Acts reads partly like a defense of the point of view that Gentiles didn't need to follow all parts of the law, against the criticism of Jews and/or perhaps some Jewish Christians, maintaining that this is consistent. This then also reads like an appeal to those predisposed to follow the law.
Once again, with the reference to the circumcision of Jesus:
(1) It could be interpreted as an appeal to those who are predisposed to observe circumcision, to show the continuity with the Christian message about Jesus.
(2) It could be interpreted as an appeal to those Christians who do not support circumcision, that they should all do so.
(3) It could be interpreted as an appeal to Christians who did not believe in the humanity or Jewishness of Jesus, that they should do so.
In line with previous remarks, (1) seems the most likely explanation here.
In Acts 15, it's allowed that Gentiles do not need to be circumcised, indicating against (2).
The birth of Jesus and the birth of John in Luke resemble the biblical narratives of the birth of Ishmael, Isaac, Samson, and Samuel:
Infancy narrative of Luke
The themes of the infancy narrative are tied into the themes of (1), suggesting that they are motivated by an appeal to those predisposed to the law and circumcision to look favorably also on Jesus and the gospel that Luke-Acts presented. This means that it's not necessarily motivated to appeal to those who looked favorably on Jesus (i.e., Christians) to be also in favor of the law and circumcision or to prove that Jesus was human.
that “a large number of priests became obedient to the faith” (Acts 6:7)
If this is viewed as something that emphasizes the purposes of the author, there are at least a couple different ways it could be interpreted:
(1) It could be interpreted as an appeal to those who are predisposed to be supportive of Jewish priests, to show that the early Christians found substantial support in their ranks from the conversion of priests.
(2) It could be interpreted as an appeal to those Christians who do not support the Jewish priesthood, that they should do so.
The first view makes more sense, especially after the destruction of the Temple when the Temple service performed by the priesthood ceased. In any case, the example shows that not all appeals are necessarily regarding the subjects of disputes between Christians. Sometimes appeal is made in some way to non-Christians or for the benefit of those who will preach to non-Christians.
The Gospel of Luke begins and ends at the Temple in Jerusalem. Again:
(1) It could be interpreted as an appeal to those who are predisposed to be supportive of the Temple, to show that the relatives of Jesus and the early Christians themselves were close to the Temple early on.
(2) It could be interpreted as an appeal to those Christians who do not support the Temple, that they should do so.
Again, the first view makes more sense, especially after the destruction of the Temple. The author of Luke-Acts has in mind the persuasion of people who would be supportive of the Temple and the priesthood, a structure that no longer stood (cf. use of Josephus) and an organization that was no longer functional. Such an appeal would be most timely in the period after the destruction of the Temple, when people were trying to make sense of why God allowed it to happen.
Luke 2:22, 2:39 refers to the family of Jesus following "the law." Again, this could be interpreted as:
(1) It could be interpreted as an appeal to those who are predisposed to follow the law, to show continuity with the family of Jesus doing so (later also showing the early Christians doing so).
(2) It could be interpreted as an appeal to those Christians who do not support the law, that they should all do so.
Luke 7:30 says that the Pharisees went wrong when they disobeyed God and refused to be baptized by John, who spoke of Jesus coming in Luke 3:16:
"But the Pharisees and the experts in the Law of Moses refused to obey God and be baptized by John."
Luke 16:16 states:
"The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presses into it."
But still in Acts 21:24, it's purported that those with James are defending Paul, saying "that you yourself are living in obedience to the law." This is a show of continuity, that the Jews who converted, including Paul, still kept the law, even though the Gentiles did not keep the law in the same way, due to "what God had done among the Gentiles" (Acts 21:19).
And in Acts 15:19-20, James is purported to say, "Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles that turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood."
Thus, Luke-Acts reads partly like a defense of the point of view that Gentiles didn't need to follow all parts of the law, against the criticism of Jews and/or perhaps some Jewish Christians, maintaining that this is consistent. This then also reads like an appeal to those predisposed to follow the law.
Once again, with the reference to the circumcision of Jesus:
(1) It could be interpreted as an appeal to those who are predisposed to observe circumcision, to show the continuity with the Christian message about Jesus.
(2) It could be interpreted as an appeal to those Christians who do not support circumcision, that they should all do so.
(3) It could be interpreted as an appeal to Christians who did not believe in the humanity or Jewishness of Jesus, that they should do so.
In line with previous remarks, (1) seems the most likely explanation here.
In Acts 15, it's allowed that Gentiles do not need to be circumcised, indicating against (2).
The birth of Jesus and the birth of John in Luke resemble the biblical narratives of the birth of Ishmael, Isaac, Samson, and Samuel:
Infancy narrative of Luke
The themes of the infancy narrative are tied into the themes of (1), suggesting that they are motivated by an appeal to those predisposed to the law and circumcision to look favorably also on Jesus and the gospel that Luke-Acts presented. This means that it's not necessarily motivated to appeal to those who looked favorably on Jesus (i.e., Christians) to be also in favor of the law and circumcision or to prove that Jesus was human.
Statistics: Posted by Peter Kirby — Sun Feb 09, 2025 12:50 pm