Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T01:46:55.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Law in Luke–Acts*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

Jacob Jervell
Jacob Jervell
Affiliation:
University of Oslo, Norway
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1872 F. Overbeck wrote an essay on Justin Martyr and Luke's Acts of the Apostles, stating that the author of Acts was unprincipled when dealing with the law.1 On the one hand, Luke offers justification by faith without the law (i:8f.); on the other, the Jewish Christians are obliged to keep the law unabridged, while gentile Christians have modified freedom from the law. Like Justin, the author of Acts tolerates Jewish Christian adherence to the law, whereas he pretends to regard it as compulsory. Actually Luke merely toys with the problem; the question is of no concern to him.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 64 , Issue 1 , January 1971 , pp. 21 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Overbeck, F., Ueber das Verhältniss Justins des Märtyrers zur Apostelgeschichte, Zeitschr. wiss. Theol. 15 (1872), 321ffGoogle Scholar.

2 Cf. Wette, W. M. L. De, Kurze Erklärung der Apostelgeschichte, 4Google Scholar. Aufl. bearbeitet und stark erweitert von Lie. theol. F. Overbeck (Lpz., 1870), XXXff.: The Judaistic element in Acts is not the attempt of the author to put himself in the position of an earlier Jewish Christianity, but is part of the gentile Christianity Acts represents. This Christianity of Acts is, however, influenced by Judaism.

3 Haenchen, E., Die Apostelgeschichte, 14. Aufl. (1965), 2ff. and 183Google Scholar; see also Lake, K.— Jackson, A. F., The Beginnings of Christianity, V, 217Google Scholar.

4 Conzelmann, H., The Theology of St. Luke (1961), 145ff., 212fGoogle Scholar. Cf. Haenchen, E., op. cit., 90Google Scholar; Barth, G. in Bornkamm, G.— Barth, G.— Held, H. J., Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (Phila., 1963), 63Google Scholar.

5 Harnack, A. v., Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament, III, Die Apostelgeschichte (1908), 208ffGoogle Scholar.

6 Barth, G., op. cit., 125–59.Google Scholar

7 Dahl, N. A., Die Passionsgeschichte bei Matthäus, New Test. Studies 2 (1955), 248CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Dahl, N. A., The Johannine Church and History, in Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation: Essays in honor of O. A. Piper (N.Y., 1962), 130ffGoogle Scholar.

9 The rabbinic notion of a ”new law” is neither that of a completely new code to substitute for the Mosaic torah, nor simply a new interpretation of the law, but above all an addition of new halakoths, which God himself formulates in heaven and which are not yet revealed to Israel, an idea to which most of the rabbis strongly objected. The evidence will be given in a forthcoming essay: Revealed and Hidden Torah.

10 Vielhaues, Ph., On the ”Pauliism of Acts,” in Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays presented in honor of P. Schubert (Nashville, 1966), 33–50Google Scholar.

11 Cf. my article, Ein Interpolator Interpretiert, in Studien zu den Testamenten der zwölf Patriarchen, hg. Eltester, von W., Beih. z. Z.N.W. 36 (1969)Google Scholar.

12 LXX Ex. 13:9; IV Ki. 2:3; I Chr. 16:40; 2 Chr. 17:9; 25:4; 31:3; 34:14; 35:26; I Esr. 1:33; 8:7ff.; 9:48; etc. A similar expression in Barn. 2:6 but καινός νόμος του κυρίον…Ίησού

13 Mace. 6:I (cf. v. 6); 7:2; 3 Macc. 1:23; 4 Mace. 9:1; 16:16; Jos. Ant. 13:54.

14 2 Mace. 11:25 (προγόνων); 4 Mace. 18:5; Jos., Bell. 7.424; cf. also Philo, , de praem. 106Google Scholar; de spec. leg. 11.148; de somn. II. 78; vit. mos. 1.31; II.193; etc.

15 LXX Job 34:18; Psal. 25:4; 70:4; 744; 118:51; 4 Macc. 5:17, 20, 27; 8:14; , Jos., Bell. 2.317Google Scholar; 7.34; Ant 11.49.

16 As far as I can see, there are no exact parallels in Hellenistic-Jewish literature with regard to wording.

17 John 7:23; i Cor. 9:8; Hebr. 10:28.

18 The name ”Moses” used in connection with the law mostly refers to single commandments: Mark 1:44; 10:3-4, 7:10, Matth. 8:4; 19:7, but 22:24. Cf. also John 5:45f.; 7:22; 2 Cor. 3:15; Hebr. 7:14.

19 Dahl, N. A., The Story of Abraham in Luke-Acts, in Studies in Luke-Acts (above n.), 139Google Scholar; cf. also Conzelmann, H., op. cit., 166fGoogle Scholar.

20 The opposite view: Conzelmann, H., op. cit., 92Google Scholar. Ace. to Holtz, Tr., Un-tersuchungen über die aestamentlichen Zitate e Lukas, TV 104 (Berlin, 1968), 171, Luke is not familiar with the nomistic trends in Judaism. See, however, Holtz's treatment of Acts 7, logff.: the fundamental component of Stephen's speech is Jewish and ”christlich undenkbar.”Google Scholar

21 On the figure of Paul in Acts: Vielhauer, Ph., op. cit., 33–50Google Scholar; Jervell, J., Paulus — der Lehrer Israels, NovTest 2 (1968), 164–90Google Scholar.

22 Rom. 2:29; Phil. 3:3; Col. 2:11.

23 The idea is not to devaluate circumcision as if it were of no significance and value, but to stress the misbehavior of the Jews: they act as if they were not cir cumcised.

24 Luke has some trouble when he tries to demonstrate that Peter's visit to Cornelius does not mean any transgression of the law. He is aware of the fact that it is unlawful for a Jew ”to keep company or come unto one of another nation,” 10:28; 11:3. The problem in 10-11 is not the gentile mission as such, as 11:1 shows. The church at Jerusalem does not object to the fact that gentiles received the gospel; this is taken for granted, cf. Luke 24:47ff. and Acts 1:8. But they con tended with Peter because he had kept company and eaten with uncircumcised. Luke solves the problem in that he on the one hand shows that God himself by the means of visions had forced Peter to come to Cornelius; on the other, the gentiles have now (!) become cleansed, 10:15, 28 — 10:8; 15:9. Thus Peter has not transgressed the law, because when Peter entered his house, Cornelius was ”clean,” and a testimony to this is given in the demonstration of Cornelius' “Jewishness,” 10:2, 4, 22.

25 To Luke the temple is not only the proper place for worship, but even for the teaching of the law.

26 Matth. 7:12; 22:24-30; Mark 12..28ff.; Rom. 13:8ff.; Gal. 5:14. It is, however, questionable if Matth. intended to raise one commandment above others, see 5:17ff.; 23:3; his idea is obviously not that any commandment should be neglected.

27 Even if Rabbinism occasionally recognizes a summary of the law on one or a few central commandments, this has no fundamental significance because in principle each commandment is as important as the rest. Cf. P. BILLERBECK, I, 907ff.,; W. GUTBROD, νόμος in Theol. Wörtb., IV, 1051; Abrahams, J., Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, I (1917), 24ff.Google Scholar; Barth, G., op. cit., 77fGoogle Scholar.

28 Only Luke among the gospel authors quotes Lev. 18:5: τούτο ποίει καί ζήση — and without any critical note, cf. Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:12.

29 The Lazarus story serves as proof for the continuing validity of every dot of the law. The rich man does not obey ”Moses and the prophets,” 16:29, 31; he transgresses the law by his lack of deeds of charity or almsgiving. Lazarus is not only a poor man, but a poor Israelite, v. 22f., just as the rich man is depicted as an Israelite, v. 24ff. So Jesus' teaching on ”God and mammon” is an interpretation of the law, which the pharisees, ”who were lovers of money,” v. 14, are not able to understand.

30 Black, M., An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 3 ed. (1967), 2Google Scholar.

31 Almsgiving is primarily conceived as a duty to Israel as the people of God, Acts 10:2; 24:17. In this connection belongs one of Luke's favorite topics, poverty and riches, which is neglected in scholarly works of ”Redaktionsgeschichte.” There is a connection between the topic of the poor Israel in the gospel preface, 1:51ff. and Luke chaps. 12 and 16.

32 6:1-5, 6-11; 13:10-17 and 14:1-6.

33 Haenchen, E. characterizes v. 16 as a Jewish-Christian reminiscence: Der Weg Jesu (Berlin, 1966), 127fGoogle Scholar. But this alleged reminiscence fits too neatly with all other sayings of Jewish-flavour in Luke-Acts and cannot be dismissed as an insignificant fragment.

34 Cf. John 7:22f.

35 The statement ”the law and the prophets until John” obviously does not mean that the law and the prophets were but an ”epoch” — see v. 17! The verse signifies that only since John is the kingdom preached.

36 Cf. Haenchen, E., op. cit., 539Google Scholar on the problems connected with this verse.

37 See Harnack, A. v., op. cit., 212Google Scholar.

38 The Story of Abraham, in Luke-Acts, 19ffGoogle Scholar.

39 See my article Israel, Das gespaltene und Heidenvölker, die, Studia Theologica 19 (1965), 77ffGoogle Scholar.

40 Cf. Acts 24:14; 3:18, 24; 10:43 — Luke 18:31; 24:25, 27, 4S, further Luke 13:28; 11:49f.? Acts 7:52. Luke stresses a) all things which are written, and b) all the prophets as witnesses to Jesus.

41 Esp. Acts 3:25f.

42 Cf. J. JERVELL, Das gespaltene Israel, 68-96, and Paulus — der Lehrer Israels, 164ff.

43 On the significance of the mass conversions see my article Das gespaltene Israel, 71ff.

43 Overbeck's notion may more properly be attributed to Paul's attitude towards Jewish-Christians, Cor. 9:19ff.

45 On the exegesis of Acts 13:47 se Das gespaltene Israel, 88f.

46 Dahl, N. A.. ”A people for his name” (Acts 15:14), New TestSt IV (1957), 319–27Google Scholar.

47 Cf. Harnack, A. V., op. cit., 215Google Scholar.

48 On this passage, Das gespaltene Israel, 791f.

49 Cf. Waitz, H., Das problem des sogenannten Aposteldekrets, Zitschr. f. Kirchengesch. 55 (1936) 277Google Scholar.

50 Gen. 17:9; Ex. 16:33f.; 34:7; Deut. 33:9; Sir. 1:25.

51 According to Harnack, , op. cit., 213Google Scholar, Luke sees in the law a saving effect, that is, what concerns Christian Jews.

52 See above, note 4.

53 On the following cf. Paulus — der Lehrer Israels, 187ff.

54 The idea is obviously not that it is in principle impossible to keep the law, which would make all other Lukan statements inconceivable, but that we, that is, Jews and Christian Jews, have so far not kept the law, something which the history of Israel demonstrates, Acts 7:53.

55 See my analysis in Paulus — der Lehrer Israels, 1758.

56 Haenack, A. v., op. cit., 214Google Scholar: Luke's way of dealing with the problem of the law reflects a historical situation in which Jewish Christians play a prominent part.