c:\documents and settings\ethomas\my documents\biblical studies\dissertation\ph. d. diss\title

$: C:\Documents and Settings\ethomas\My Documents\Biblical Studies\Dissertation\Ph. D. diss\Title$
AN APOSTOLIC APPROACH FOR THE EVANGELIZATION

OF POSTMODERN PEOPLE

_________________________

A Dissertation

Presented to

the Faculty of the School of Theology

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Fort Worth, Texas

_________________________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

_________________________

Department of Evangelism

_________________________

by

Eric J. Thomas

May 2002

©Copyright by Eric J. Thomas 2002All Rights Reserved

1Curtis Vaughan, Acts: A Study Guide Commentary(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 15.

2See, Michael Green, Evangelism in the Early Church(London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1970; reprint, Guildford,Surrey: Inter Publishing Service, 1995), 32-42.

3Huston Smith, Beyond the Post-Modern Mind, rev. ed.(Wheaton: Quest Books, 1989), 7.

1

INTRODUCTION

Jesus Christ established the mission of the church

through His command in Acts 1:8. This command to “testify

to what they had seen, heard, and known of Him . . . is the

principal task of every Christian.”1 To face the enormity

of the task and the obstacles within the culture, Jesus

promised power through the Holy Spirit sufficient for the

fulfillment of the mission.2 As it was for the early

church, so it is for the contemporary church.

The Rise of Postmodernism

Postmodernism represents one of the greatest

obstacles to the mission of the contemporary church. Huston

Smith describes postmodernism as a view of the world in

which reality cannot be accessed.3 The influence of the

postmodern perspective is prevalent in the culture today.

2

4C. Norman Kraus, An Intrusive Gospel?: ChristianWitness in a Postmodern World (Downers Grove: InterVarsity,1998), 17-19.

5Jean-François Lyotard, The Inhuman: Reflections onTime, trans. Geoffrey Bennington and Rachel Bowlby(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991), 65-69.

6Thomas C. Oden, After Modernity . . . What? (GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1990), 45-48.

7Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno, Dialectic ofEnlightenment, trans. John Cumming (New York: Continuum,1999), 6-9. In fact, according to Horkheimer and Adorno,“that which does not reduce to numbers . . . becomesillusion.”

8Craig Van Gelder, “Scholia: Postmodernism as anEmerging Worldview,” Calvin Theological Journal 26 (1991):413.

9Jürgen Habermas, The Philosophical Discourse ofModernity: Twelve Lectures, trans. Frederick Lawrence(Cambridge: MIT Press, 1987), 83-84. He proposes thatmodernism promoted reason as “unifying power of religion.”

One can find postmodern thought coursing through the media,

academia, and ecclesia.

Postmodernism is a shift from the Enlightenment

ideal of modernism.4 Modernism describes the pursuit to

establish “all-inclusive” explanations for life.5 The

autonomous individual is the highest reality and value.6

Knowledge is attainable and certain through the objective

and precise tool of the scientific method.7 Modernism

promotes the progress of humanity and society through

technological advancements.8 In short, Habermas suggests

that modernism preeminently promotes “subjective freedom.”9

3

10Ibid.

11Ibid., 83-105; Mark Taylor, Altarity (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1987), 238-41. See also,Cornel West, “Nietzsche’s Prefiguration of PostmodernAmerican Philosophy,” in Why Nietzsche Now?, ed. D. T.O’Hara (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1985),241-69.

12Brian D. Ingraffia, Postmodern Theory and BiblicalTheology: Vanquishing God’s Shadow (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1995).

13Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil: Preludeto a Philosophy of the Future, trans. Walter Kaufmann (NewYork: Random House, 1966; reprint, 1989), 101. He writesthat the essential fabrication permeating culture is thatthere should be “obedience . . . in a single direction” thatleads to “unfreedom of the spirit.”

He writes: “This was realized in society as the space

secured by civil law for the rational pursuit of one’s own

interests; . . . in the private sphere, as ethical autonomy

and self-realization; finally, in the public sphere related

to this private realm, as the formative process that takes

place by means of the appropriation of a culture that has

become reflective.”10

Beginning with Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900),11

the incipient form of postmodernism found fertile soil in

which to flourish by attacking the Enlightenment.12 To

understand postmodernism, therefore, it is important to

understand the Nietzschean project that has led to its

growth. Nietzsche’s critique of modernism promotes a denial

of the “myopic view” of truth, morality, and language.13

4

14Friedrich Nietzsche, Will to Power, trans. WalterKaufmann and R. J. Hollingdale (New York: Vintage, 1968),481.

15Friedrich Nietzsche, “On Truth and Lie in anExtra-Moral Sense,” in The Portable Nietzsche, ed. andtrans. Walter Kaufmann (New York: Penguin Books, 1954), 46-47.

16John T. Wilcox, Truth and Value in Nietzsche: AStudy of His Metaethics and Epistemology (Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press, 1974), 11. For Nietzsche,moral value depends solely upon the individual’s taste.

Nietzsche dismissed the notion of a single meaning for the

world. The world has “countless meanings.”14 In his

project, Nietzsche sought to dismantle the “pervasive lie”

that Plato, Christianity, and the Enlightenment had

perpetrated for centuries.

First, Nietzsche attacked the “mendacious

fabrication” of truth and morality. He declared that truth

is “a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced,

transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and

which after long use seem firm, canonical, and

obligatory.”15 Wilcox suggests that for Nietzsche “values

are not objective” but are relative. Moral values are

“created rather than discovered.”16

As a counterattack against the prevailing views of

truth and morality, Nietzsche called for the rise of the

übermensch. The übermensch is a “free spirit” who has

broken free of the constraints of the external moral law.

5

17Leslie Paul Thiele, Friedrich Nietzsche and thePolitics of the Soul: A Study of Heroic Individualism(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), 12.

18Walter Kaufmann, Nietzsche: Philosopher,Psychologist, Antichrist, 4th ed. (Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1974), 103-107. See, Nietzsche, BeyondGood and Evil, 21; idem., Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book forEveryone and No One, trans. R. J. Hollingdale (New York:Penguin Books, 1961), 136. Nietzsche condemned Plato forinverting reality through the creation of an imaginary, truerealm. Christianity continued this falsity of the imaginaryrealm (Beyond Good and Evil, 14-23). The metaphysicians ofmodernity embraced the similar notion of a metaphysicalrealm beyond this world (Zarathustra, 136). The notion ofan imaginary realm was the origination of the false ideal ofuniversal morality. This is the “mendacious fabrication”that Nietzsche sought to reverse.

19Friedrich Nietzsche, “The Twilight of Idols or,How One Philosophizes with a Hammer,” in The PortableNietzsche, ed. and trans. Walter Kaufman (New York: PenguinBooks, 1954), 484-85.

20Kaufmann, Nietzsche, 109.

21Friedrich Nietzsche, “The Genealogy of Morals: AnAttack,” in The Birth of Tragedy and The Genealogy ofMorals, trans. F. Golffing (New York: Doubleday, 1956), 208.

This person is not chained to the standards of the world.

Rather, he “bears his own standards of morality and reason

and attempts to vanquish the hitherto reigning traditions

and values.”17 Nietzsche argued that Kant’s belief in an a

priori universal moral law must be corrected or

“revalued.”18 Indeed, this “revaluation” was paramount to

his philosophy.19 In his thought traditional morality was a

“dying tree” that cannot be saved.20 Indeed, for Nietzsche,

the concept of “right and wrong” was nonsensical.21

6

22Wilcox, 27-28. See, Nietzsche, Beyond Good andEvil, 135-36.

23Nietzsche, Zarathustra, 213, in which the prophetsays, “All my progress has been attempting and a questioning–– and truly one has to learn how to answer suchquestioning! That however –– is to my taste: not goodtaste, not bad taste, but my taste, which I no longerconceal and of which I am no longer ashamed.”

24Arthur C. Danto, Connections to the World: TheBasic Concepts of Philosophy (New York: Harper and Row,1989), 52.

25Nietzsche, “On Truth and Falsity in an Extra-MoralSense,” in Early Greek Philosophy and Other Essays, trans.M. A. Mügge, vol. 2, The Complete Works of FriedrichNietzsche, ed. Oscar Levy (New York: Russell and Russell,1964), 181-82.

26Irena Makarushka, “Nietzsche’s Critique ofModernity: The Emergence of Hermeneutical Consciousness,”Semeia 51 (1990): 196. Makarushka suggests that Nietzschepresents “an eternal unfolding in history of theinexhaustible surplus of meaning.”

Nietzsche believed in a multiplicity of moralities. None of

these moralities can be “absolutized” as solely

justifiable.22 Values are based upon preference rather than

reason or rationality.23

Nietzsche also attacked “mendacious fabrications”

in the concepts of language. Nietzsche proposed that

reality was a function of grammar -- a linguistic construct

of the social context.24 Language itself is the creator of

truth.25 Language is a system of interpretation which opens

a beautiful vista of “eternal unfolding” for meaning.26 It

is the tool which creates the interpretation of reality.

7

27Thiele, 103.

28Nietzsche, Will to Power, 267. He writes thatindividuals “set up a word at the point at which ourignorance begins” and the word is “the horizon of ourknowledge, but not ‘truths.’”

29Allan Megill, Prophets of Extremity: Nietzsche,Heidegger, Foucault, Derrida (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1985), 96-97.

30Charles E. Winquist, Desiring Theology (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1995), 31.

“Correctness” of interpretation is not the most important

goal of language,27 because language creates its own truth.28

Through the interpretive “will to power,” a new language is

introduced, and a new reality which corresponds to the

language comes into being.29 Truth is fiction

“imaginatively produced” by the “arbitrariness of the

elements of language.”30 Nietzsche’s project rejects the

idea that language is a fixed representation of a fixed

reality.

Nietzsche’s “yes-saying” and “no-saying” produced a

clear path for the exaltation of the postmodern mind.

Rather than absolute truth, the postmodern mind reflects the

arbitrariness of truth according to social context. Rather

than universal morality, the postmodern mind embraces

perspectival morality. Rather than language as

representative of reality, the postmodern mind finds

language as the creator of reality.

8

31Definitions are given throughout the dissertation.

32See, Stanley Grenz, “The Gospel and the PostmodernContext,” in A Primer on Postmodernism, 161-74; Gene EdwardVeith, Jr., “Conclusion: ‘When Foundations Are Destroyed,’”in Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to ContemporaryThought and Culture (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1994), 225-34.

33See, Jimmy Long, Generating Hope: A Strategy forReaching the Postmodern Generation (Downers Grove, IL:InterVarsity Press, 1997).

34See, Carson, The Gagging of God, chap. 2, passim.

35See, Tom Beaudoin, Virtual Faith: The IrreverentSpiritual Quest of Generation X (San Francisco: Jossey-BassPublishers, 1998).

Need for Present Study31

Many books, essays, and articles seek to help the

church to engage the adherents of postmodernism with the

gospel of Christ. These works may be categorized into four

basic groups: descriptive, responsive, corrective, and

postmodern. The descriptive group details the current

situation of the postmodern condition, offering an

appropriate Christian response in the concluding chapter or

a few paragraphs at the close of each chapter.32 The

responsive category focuses upon a Christian response to the

postmodern condition, detailing the postmodern tenets in the

introduction.33 The corrective category seeks to examine

and negate the destructive tendencies of postmodernism.34

The postmodern category embraces much of the tenets of

postmodern thought as an appropriate Christian response.35

9

36Charles J. Conniry Jr., “Apostolic Christianity ina Postmodern World: A Theological Analysis,” (Ph.D. diss.,Fuller Theological Seminary, 1997).

37Arne H. Fjeldstad, “Communicating Christ on theInformation Superhighway,” (D.Min. diss., Fuller TheologicalSeminary, 1997).

38The suggestion here is that the works havesomething other than evangelism as their theses, or thatthey offer philosophical approaches to postmodernism.

This proposed dissertation falls into the

responsive category. More specifically, this dissertation

proposes a very specific evangelistic response to the

challenges of the postmodern condition from an exegetical

analysis of the first-century church as reported in the New

Testament.

While some works attempt to demonstrate a biblical

response to the postmodern world, they fail to address

specifically the issue of evangelism in the ministry of the

church to the postmodern person.36 Other works provide a

sound evangelistic approach to the postmodern condition, but

they fail to offer an in-depth exegetical analysis of

Scripture.37 These dissertations offer responses to the

postmodern condition, but they lack either the depth of

consideration in terms of evangelism or the depth of

exegetical analyses.38

Gosnell’s dissertation deals with postmodernism and

evangelism. His approach, however, is mostly analytical.

10

39Ricky D. Gosnell, “Abstract,” in “The PostmodernPardigm: Challenges to the Evangelistic Ministry of theChurch,” (Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist TheologicalSeminary, 1993).

40David J. Bosch, Transforming Mission (Maryknoll,NY: Orbis Books, 1993).

He analyzes the rise of postmodernism, postmodernism in

contemporary culture, and strategies for evangelistic

ministry to postmodern people.39 He focuses upon the

contemporary strategies of evangelism in relation to the

postmodern condition. Following David Bosch,40 Gosnell

provides insight for the church in evangelism. While

providing sound, biblical direction, Gosnell does not focus

his attention primarily upon an exegetical analysis of the

evangelistic approach of the apostolic church in the first

century.

The dissertation seeks to offer an in-depth

consideration of evangelism and exegetical analyses. Where

Gosnell offers insight into the postmodern condition and

proposes evangelistic response, this dissertation presents

more exegetical analyses as the paradigm for such responses.

Gosnell’s approach focuses the first half of the

dissertation on the historical development and contemporary

condition of postmodernism. This dissertation, however,

focuses upon an exegetical analysis of the evangelistic

approach of the first-century church in the New Testament.

11

41Malcolm McDow and Alvin L. Reid, Firefall: How GodHas Shaped History Through Revivals (Nashville: Broadman andHolman, 1997), 96.

42Everett Harrison, The Apostolic Church (GrandRapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1985), ix-xii. Harrisondivides the New Testament into “Gospel History” (the fourGospels) and “Apostolic History” (the remainder of the NewTestament). This dissertation follows a similar division,but focuses upon Acts and the Pauline epistles.

The strength of this dissertation is its analyses of the

evangelistic ministry of the apostolic church as

foundational for the evangelization of postmodern people.

An Apostolic Approach

The premise of this dissertation is that the New

Testament approaches to evangelism are sufficient and

effective for evangelism in a postmodern context. Similar

to the conditions in the contemporary society, the apostolic

church evangelized cultures fundamentally opposed to the

proposition of the gospel. In the midst of competing

worldviews and rampant pluralism, the apostolic church

“saturated” the contours of the ancient world with the

gospel.41

The term apostolic will reflect the period

beginning with Pentecost and ending at the close of the

first century.42 An apostolic approach may be defined as

the adoption of the examples, directions, and procedures of

the apostolic church for the contemporary church setting.

12

43Robert A. Guelich, “Translator’s Preface,” inApostolic and Post-Apostolic Times by Leonhard Goppelt(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1970), x.

The record of the apostolic church found in the New

Testament provides the basis for the work of the

contemporary church. Robert Guelich correctly states that

the apostolic church serves as the “norm for all Church

history.”43

This writer has chosen this topic due to the need

for a coherent and biblical approach for the evangelization

of postmodern people. Within the plethora of material

dealing with evangelism in general, a specific approach for

the evangelization of postmodern people rarely is found.

Furthermore, within the several books and articles dealing

with the evangelization of the postmodern person in

particular, a coherent, biblical paradigm often is missing.

As a response to this condition, this writer seeks to offer

an approach for the evangelization of postmodern people

following a coherent, biblical model. This model is found

in the evangelistic strategy of the apostolic church

detailed in the Book of Acts and the Pauline epistles.

Postmodernism makes basic presuppositions that

present difficulties for the evangelistic ministry of the

church. In order for the contemporary church to evangelize

the postmodern person, she must answer these difficulties.

13

44Millard J. Erickson, Postmodernizing the Faith:Evangelical Responses to the Challenge of Postmodernism(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 18-19.

45David Wells, No Place for Truth: Or WhateverHappened to Evangelical Theology? (Grand Rapids: William B.Eerdmans, 1993), 104.

46These terms will be defined in the followingchapter. The definitions will be presented primarily fromthe viewpoint of postmodern adherents. Although thereremains a varying degree of specificity among the theoristsof postmodernism concerning the definitions of these terms,the general descriptions present sufficient groundwork foranalysis.

Erickson suggests that postmodernism presupposes that

knowledge is not objective, that authoritative systems of

explanation are invalid, and that knowledge is a creation of

community.44 The apostolic church faced similar challenges

for evangelism in “a cauldron of conflicting religious

claims within which the Christian faith would have remained

tiny but for one fact: the first Christians knew that their

faith was absolutely true.”45 Through the pattern of the

apostolic church, the contemporary church finds an approach

to address the four basic challenges of postmodernism: 1)

anti-foundationalism, 2) communal truth, 3) deconstruction,

and 4) pluralism.46 These four challenges will be examined

in the following chapter.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The Rise of Postmodernism . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Need for Present Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

An Apostolic Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Chapter

1. THE POSTMODERN PERSON AND EVANGELISM . . . . . . 14

Prevailing Postmodern Themes . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Dismissal of Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Communal Truth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Deconstruction of Meaning . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Pluralism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Preeminent Challenges for Evangelism . . . . . . . 26

The Gospel as Metanarrative . . . . . . . . . . 27

The Challenge of Epistemology . . . . . . . . . 28

The Challenge of Hermeneutics . . . . . . . . . 30

Possible Opportunities for Evangelism . . . . . . 35

Search for a Better Story . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Search for Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Search for a Better Life . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Apostolic Approach to the PostmodernChallenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

2. PENTECOST, THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND EVANGELISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

vii

Pentecost and the Spirit of Truth, Acts 2:1-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Fulfillment of the Visionary Gift, Joel 2:28-32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Selected Paraclete Passages in John’s Gospel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Holy Spirit: The Bridge for the Objective Truth of the Gospel . . . . . . . . . 68

Epistemology: A Postmodern Dilemma . . . . . . 69

Beyond Babel: Epistemology and ejtevrai~ glwvssai~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Evangelistic Approach at Pentecost, Acts 2:14-41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Propositions from Old Testament Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

The Cross and the Resurrection: An Objective, Historical Reality . . . . . . 83

Objective or Communal? The Postmodern Question of Truth . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

The Spirit of Truth, Conversion, and Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

3. FUNCTIONS OF COMMUNITY IN AN APOSTOLIC APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Images of an Apostolic Community . . . . . . . . . 98

Christ’s Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

God’s People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

The Spirit’s Temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Transformation of Worldviews,Acts 2:42-43 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

The Significance of the Apostles’ Doctrine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

viii

Excursus: Hermeneutics and the Postmodern Challenge . . . . . . . . . . . 124

The Significance of Koinwniva . . . . . . . . . 139

Apostolic Ethics and Evangelism . . . . . . . . 146

Ethics of Community: Acts 2:44-47 and the Importance of ajllhvlwn in Pauline Paraenesis . . . . . . . . . . 147

The Postmodern Need for Intimacy . . . . . . 156

The Commendable Community and Evangelism, Acts 2:47, 5:13 . . . . . . . 160

Obstacles to Community: Deception and Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

4. POSTMODERN PLURALITIES, PLURALISM, AND AN APOSTOLIC APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Evangelization in the Midst of Pluralities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Pluralities in Postmodern and Apostolic Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

Judaic, Hellenistic, or Christian? A Question of Pluralities . . . . . . . . 186

An Apostolic Approach to Postmodern Pluralities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

Evangelization in the Midst of Pluralism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210

The Imperial Ethic of Pluralism . . . . . . . 210

The Areopagitica, Acts 17:16-34 . . . . . . . 212

5. PERSONAL EVANGELISM AND POSTMODERN PEOPLE . . . 217

Apostolic Witness in Postmodern Times . . . . . 217

Power for Personal Evangelism . . . . . . . . . 225

Obstacles for Personal Evangelism . . . . . . . 228

ix

Finding Common Ground, 1 Cor 9:19-23 . . . . . . 234

Application of an Apostolic Approach . . . . . . 237

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

1Jean-François Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: AReport on Knowledge, vol. 10, Theory and History ofLiterature, trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi(Minnaopolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984), xxiv.

2Jean-François Lyotard, The Inhuman: Reflections onTime, trans. Geoff Bennington and Rachel Bowlby (Stanford:Stanford University Press, 1991), 65-69.

14

CHAPTER ONE

THE POSTMODERN PERSON AND EVANGELISM

Prevailing Postmodern Themes

Jean-François Lyotard, professor of philosophy at

the University of Paris in Vincennes and a leading voice in

postmodern thought, defines postmodernism “as incredulity

toward metanarratives.”1 A metanarrative is one “grand

theory” which explains the meaning of life. For Lyotard, to

be postmodern is to reject all things modern; that is, all

pursuits to establish one, over-arching, prevalent theme for

life.2

This rejection of metanarratives provides a

fountainhead for the prevailing postmodern themes: anti-

foundationalism, communal truth, deconstruction, and

pluralism. Each of these themes presents a particular

challenge for evangelizing the postmodern person.

Eric J. Thomas, Ph. D.Senior Pastor

First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, Virginia

15

3Philip D. Kenneson, “There’s No Such Thing asObjective Truth and It’s a Good Thing Too,” in ChristianApologetics in the Postmodern World, ed. Timothy R. Phillipsand Dennis L. Okholm (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1995),157.

4Dirk-Martin Grube, “Realism, Foundationalism, andConstructivism: A Philosopher’s Bermuda Triangle,” NeueZeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religions-philosophie 40 (1998): 108. Richard Rorty, Objectivity,Relativism, and Truth: Philosophical Papers, Volume 1(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 2. Rortysuggests the need for the abandonment of any claims to“representation.”

5Alister E. McGrath, “The Christian Church’sResponse to Pluralism,” Journal of the EvangelicalTheological Society 35 (December 1992): 498; Millard J.Erickson, The Evangelical Left: EncounteringPostconservative Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 1997), 54.

6Steven Connor, Postmodernist Culture: AnIntroduction to Theories of the Contemporary, 2d ed.(Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1997), 66.

Dismissal of the Foundations

The postmodern project dismisses the foundations of

knowledge.3 Postmodernism rejects “realism” which states

that “there exists a mind-independent world” which “can be

accessed.”4 Postmodernism also rejects foundationalism,

which states that knowledge is justified through “certain

indubitable” beliefs.5 Postmodernism states “that there are

no objective, transhistorical truths, or bottom lines which

might serve to stabilize the interpretation of the

particular historical purposes of groups and individuals.”6

Even the pursuit of such foundations is not beneficial.



16

7Richard Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979), 178.

8Stanley Fish, There Is No Such Thing as Free Speechand It’s a Good Thing, Too (Oxford: Oxford University Press,1994), 218.

9Grube, 118.

10R. Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism, Truth, 128-29. As will be shown, Rorty contends that the pursuit of truthis an illusion and should not be the endeavor. He opts forconversation with others as the model for meaning.

“The question is not whether human knowledge in fact has

‘foundations,’ but whether it makes sense to suggest that it

does –– whether the idea of epistemic or moral authority

having a ‘ground’ in nature is a coherent one.”7

Since metanarratives are no longer viable,

evangelism faces the problem of anti-foundationalism.

Stanley Fish proposes this description of anti-

foundationalism:

In a heterogeneous world, a world in which persons aresituated –– occupying particular places with particularpurposes pursued in relation to particular goals,visions, and hopes as they follow from holding (or beingheld by) particular beliefs –– no one will be in asituation that is universal or general (that is, nosituation at all), and therefore no one’s perspective (aword that gives the game away) can lay claim toprivilege.8

In this way postmodernism abandons the correspondence theory

of truth which suggests that “a true statement is one which

corresponds to reality.”9 Indeed, Rorty contends that this

kind of pursuit of truth should be dismissed altogether.10



17

11Stephen Louthan, “On Religion –– A Discussion withRichard Rorty, Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff,”Christian Scholar’s Review 26 (1996): 183.

12David Tracy, Plurality and Ambiguity:Hermeneutics, Religion, Hope (San Francisco: Harper and Row,1987), 27.

13Robert E. Webber, Ancient-Future Faith: RethinkingEvangelicalism for a Postmodern World (Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 1999.

14R. Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism, Truth, 38.

Alvin Plantinga proposes that Rorty’s postmodernism suggests

that “there really isn’t any such thing as truth.”11

Communal Truth

David Tracy clearly sets forth the postmodern ideal

when he suggests that “human knowledge is finite, communal,

and perspectival.”12 The postmodern comes to truth through

the definition of personal experience in the community

context. Each community creates its own narrative that

defines its beliefs, history, and precepts. Truth is found

within the social construct of each community narrative, and

“all these narratives are of equal value” according to the

postmodern ideal. “No one narrative can claim

universality.”13

According to Rorty, the community informs and

controls the definition of truth.14 Truth and self are

ultimately the constructions of the social context.



18

15Ibid., 165.

16Jimmy Long, Generating Hope: A Strategy forReaching the Postmodern Generation (Downers Grove:InterVarsity, 1997), 70. Communal truth is a predominanttheme in postmodernism. The notion of truth as the productof community will be a theme throughout this examination.

17Ibid., 69-70.


Community is the starting point for truth and self, and a

community built for conversation maintains the social

context as the only source for guidance.15

Jimmy Long states that truth comes through the lens

of the community.16 That which is true is that which

everyone in the social context of community believes to be

true. The universality of truth is found only within the

context of community. If one ventures to another social

context, then the universality of truth changes.17

In postmodernism multiple truths exist, and the

individual is left with only preferences. Absolute truth is

the by-product of a communal, totalitarian, oppressive force

seeking control and power.18 Michel Foucault, a leading

postmodern philosopher who was trained at the Sorbonne and

lectured at College de France, states that “objective

knowledge” is the product of a social construct establishing

its own truth. This construction is made to affirm the

community’s way of life and to oppress others who differ.



19

19Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birthof the Prison, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York: VintageBooks, 1977), 25-31.

20Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition, 60. “Thelittle narrative [petit récit] remains the quintessentialform of imaginative invention.”

21Millard J. Erickson, Postmodernizing the Faith:Evangelical Responses to the Challenge of Postmodernism(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 19.

22Stanley J. Grenz, “Star Trek and the NextGeneration: Postmodernism and the Future of EvangelicalTheology,” in The Challenge of Postmodernism: An EvangelicalEngagement, ed. David S. Dockery (Grand Rapids: Baker Books,1995), 95.

23Todd Hahn and David Verhaagen, Reckless Hope:Understanding and Reaching Baby Busters (Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 1996), 37-41.

In the final analysis, Foucault concludes that the act of

knowing is an “act of violence.”19

The death of the grand narratives gives rise to the

petit narratives.20 These are the narratives within the

context of the community which give the definition to truth

and self. As Millard Erickson reports this development,

“Truth is defined by and for the community, and all

knowledge occurs within some community.”21 Truth is

established through “the ground rules that facilitate the

well-being of the community in which one participates.”22

Postmodernism declares that the individual is

“centerless and ever-changing.”23 As the social context

changes, beliefs and values of the individual also change.



20

24Tracy, Plurality and Ambiguity, 19-20, 110-14;Stanley Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism (Grand Rapids:William B. Eerdmans, 1996), 156-58; Long, Generating Hope,70. Long states, “The autonomous self of the Enlightenmenthas been replaced by tribalism or community.”

25Lyotard, Postmodern Condition, 63.


27Henry Knight III, A Future for Truth: EvangelicalTheology in a Postmodern World (Nashville: Abingdon Press,1997), 53. Knight’s evaluation indicates as well the commonview of postmodernism that the autonomous individual of theEnlightenment should be rejected. The community providesthe appropriate context and clues to self-identity. Withoutthe community, one cannot come to this self-identity.

Self-identity comes through the individual’s contact within

the social construct of community.24 In postmodernism, the

community defines truth and dispenses personhood. The

individual who does not match the norms of the community

becomes “rehumanized” to match the prevailing norms of the

community.25

Community, therefore, is vital for the postmodern

perspective. It is the “only source of guidance” in

determining the beliefs and values for life.26 As Henry

Knight, assistant professor of evangelism at Saint Paul

School of Theology in Kansas City, Missouri, states,

“Instead of the individual being prior to the community, the

community is prior to the individual; participation in the

community with its network of practices and relationships is

what constitutes the personhood of the individual.”27



21

28Albrecht Wellmer, The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics, and Postmodernism, trans.David Midgley (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1991), 43-48.

29William Klein, Craig Blomberg, and Robert HubbardJr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Dallas: Word,1993), 440-41.

30Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology, corrected ed.,trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (Baltimore: Johns HopkinsUniversity Press, 1997), 10-18. The gospel from anevangelical perspective provides the fixed meaning for life.

Postmodernism reacts against community to some

degree, in that it views the community as oppressive to the

minority group of dissidents within the social construct.

On the other hand, postmodernism embraces community as the

fundamental agent for the belonging of the individual. The

individual is dependent upon the community as the place

where self and truth begin, but no single community

possesses a system of belief which is perfectly consistent

or coherent.28 Although community may be oppressive,

paradoxically it is only context for solace in a fragmented

world.

Deconstruction of Meaning

Deconstruction is the postmodern project which

identifies “ideological inconsistencies or ambiguities in a

text that prevent interpreters from claiming that it has a

fixed meaning.”29 Deconstruction seeks to dismantle the

metanarrative of modernity, including the gospel.30



22

31Charlene Spretnak, States of Grace: The Recoveryof Meaning in a Postmodern Age (San Francisco:HarperCollins, 1991), 4.

32Jacques Derrida, Speech and Phenomena, trans.David Allison (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press,1972), 23-28.

33Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Postmodern Times: AChristian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture(Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1994), 51.

34Ferdinand de Saussure, “Course in GeneralLinguistics,” in Deconstruction in Context: Literature andPhilosophy, ed. Mark C. Taylor (Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1986), 148-54.

Charlene Spretnak suggests that deconstruction is

the appropriate and necessary action for the responsible

individual. The responsible individual must “deconstruct”

objectified meaning in order to overcome the totalitarianism

of the cultural constructs.31 Without such dismantling, the

oppressive force of the metanarrative continues to

marginalize and subject humanity to violence through its

singular control of reality.32

Literary criticism has provided the framework for

postmodernism to flourish.33 From the postmodern outlook,

language is a cultural construction, and meaning is a social

construct. Signifiers may point to a particular object (the

signified), but that object is also a signifier of something

else.34 The result of these layers of signifiers is a mass

of meaning that must be taken apart, layer by layer.



23

35Alister McGrath, “The Challenge of Pluralism forthe Contemporary Christian Church,” Journal of theEvangelical Theological Society 35 (September 1992): 364.

36Jean Baudrillard, The Illusion of the End, trans.Chris Turner (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994),107.

37McGrath, “Challenge of Pluralism,” 364.

38Thomas McCarthy, “On Margins of Politics,” Journalof Philosophy 86 (1989): 645-48.

Postmodernism, therefore, is a “precommitment” to

the “arbitrariness of the linguistic sign” so that the

“signifier” becomes the focus of “orientation and value.”

Language is arbitrary and capricious, incapable of

disclosing meaning.35 The answer to this network of

artificial signs is deconstruction.

Baudrillard describes this project of postmodernism

as a “metamorphosis of the macro-structures into innumerable

particles which bear within them all the stigmata of the

networks and circuits –– each one forming its own micro-

network and micro-circuit.”36 Deconstruction dismisses the

intent of the author as irrelevant to interpretation. All

interpretations, therefore, “are equally valid or equally

meaningless (depending upon your point of view).”37

Deconstruction does not provide comfortable

solutions, but rather it embraces fragmentation.

Postmodernism seeks deconstruction without reconstruction.38



24

39Edgar V. McKnight, “A Defense of a Postmodern Useof the Bible,” in A Confessing Theology for PostmodernTimes, ed. Michael S. Horton (Wheaton: Crossway Books,2000), 86.

40Peter Berger, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of aSociological Theory of Religion (Garden City, NY: Doubleday,1967), 22.

41D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God: ChristianityConfronts Pluralism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 19.

Edgar McKnight suggests that the deconstructionist observes

the “scene of textuality” from a distance and “refines all

writing into ‘free floating’ texts.”39 In essence, the

world itself becomes a decentered montage of free-flowing

thought without any “sacred canopy.”40

Pluralism

The result of deconstruction is pluralism in

postmodern thought. “[Philosophical pluralism is the

belief] that any notion that a particular ideological or

religious claim is intrinsically superior to another is

necessarily wrong. The only absolute creed is the creed of

pluralism. No religion has the right to pronounce itself

right or true, and the others false, or even (in the

majority view) relatively inferior.”41 In the words of

Richard Rorty, pluralism consists of “lots of cultural

options but no privileged central discipline or practice,”

leaving the individuals “unable to worship anything.”



25

42Richard Rorty, Essays on Heidegger and Others:Philosophical Papers, Volume 2 (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1991), 132. Hereafter cited as Essays.

43Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a PluralistSociety (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1989), 1.

44Fredric Jameson, Postmodernism, or, The CulturalLogic of Late Capitalism (Durham, NC: Duke University Press,1991; reprint, 1999), 342-43.

45Ibid., 349.

Society should not embrace one, singular object of worship

due to the plurality of options and disciplines. Rorty’s

pragmatic postmodernism encourages the individual to

“rejoice in a lot of different things.”42 Lesslie Newbigin

indicates that this brand of pluralism celebrates plurality

“as things to be approved and cherished.”43

For the postmodern this celebration and exaltation

of plurality leads to the acceptability of all truth-claims

as equally valid. Fredric Jameson notes that the historical

uniqueness of postmodernism is the “sheer heteronomy and

emergence of random and unrelated subsystems of all kinds”

which are unified in a theory of differentiation.44 Within

this unified theory, “no functional conception of a ruling

group, let alone, class, can be conceived.”45

Postmodernism replaces “master narratives” with

“heteronomous, random petit narratives.” None of these

local stories gain privilege over other local stories.



26

46Richard Rorty, Truth and Progress: PhilosophicalPapers, Volume 3 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1998), 1.

47Clark Pinnock, Tracking the Maze: Finding Our WayThrough Modern Theology from an Evangelical Perspective (SanFrancisco: Harper, 1990), 2. He indicates that theologicalpluralism seeks to rewrite the “grammar” of the gospel.

48Alister McGrath, Evangelicalism and the Future ofChristianity (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1995), 160-63.

49C. E. Autrey, You Can Win Souls (Nashville:Broadman Press, 1961), 2.

Rorty proposes that “there are many ways to talk about what

is going on, and that none of them gets closer to the way

things are in themselves than any other.”46

Preeminent Challenges for Evangelism

The prevailing themes of postmodernism present

specific challenges for the evangelization of postmodern

people.47 Yet, as McGrath notes, the future of Christianity

depends upon evangelism.48 C. E. Autrey defines evangelism

as “urging the lost to accept Christ as Saviour [sic].”49

Evangelism is the communication of the gospel to the

unconverted so that they might repent of their sin, trust

Jesus as their Savior, and surrender to Him as Lord in

service through the local community of faith. The

evangelization of postmodern people encounters three

preeminent challenges: the gospel as metanarrative,

epistemology, and hermeneutics.



27

50J. Richard Middleton and Brian J. Walsh, Truth IsStranger Than It Used to Be: Biblical Faith in a PostmodernAge (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 83.

51Robert Webber, Ancient-Future Faith, 93.

52Ibid.

53Herschel Hobbs, New Testament Evangelism(Nashville: Broadman, 1960), 82.

54Middleton and Walsh, Truth Is Stranger Than ItUsed to Be, 83.

The Gospel as Metanarrative

Evangelism bases its truth-claims on the

metanarrative of Scripture.50 Robert Webber describes the

Christian metanarrative as “a rehearsal of the saving deeds

of God in history” which culminate in Jesus Christ.51 The

Christian metanarrative “is the story of the meaning of

history.”52 Such a totalizing statement about the gospel,

however, is unacceptable in the postmodern milieu.

The Pentecost sermon is metanarrative (Acts 2).

Here are the humanity of Jesus, God’s approval, Jesus’power, man’s wickedness, God’s redemptive purpose,Jesus’ death and resurrection, and God’s judgment uponsin and death. Add to these God’s promise of Jesus’ultimate victory at [H]is second advent (Acts 2:34-35),the lordship of Christ, and [H]is saviourhood (Acts2:36). . . . This body of truth became the gospel of theearly Christians and God honored it.53

God’s saving activity fulfilled in Jesus is the

metanarrative that tells the “true story of the world.”54

The gospel is the Christian metanarrative.



28

55Erickson, Postmodernizing the Faith, 151-52, 154.

56William J. Larkin, Culture and BiblicalHermeneutics: Interpreting and Applying the AuthoritativeWord in a Relativistic Age (Grand Rapids: Baker Books,1988), 233-37.

57Stanley Grenz, Primer on Postmodernism, 163.

The challenge for evangelism centers on presenting

the gospel as metanarrative without altering the expression

and content of the Christian faith to make the gospel

palatable to the postmodern deconstructionist.55 Evangelism

is the proclamation that Jesus Christ is the ontological and

epistemological basis for salvation and life. In postmodern

thought, the very essence of the gospel demands

deconstruction.56

The Challenge of Epistemology

With the dismantling of all metanarratives,

including the gospel, postmodernism presents the challenge

of epistemology in the evangelistic effort. Evangelization

of postmodern people depends upon the communication of the

gospel which propositionally corresponds to reality. As

Stanley Grenz suggests, the postmodern rejection of the

“reigning epistemological principle -- the correspondence

theory of truth . . . undermines Christian claims that our

doctrinal formulations state objective truth.”57



29

58Francis Schaeffer, “He Is There and He Is notSilent –– Part III: Man’s Epistemological Problem,”Bibliotheca Sacra 128 (October 1971): 300-315, especially,300.

59Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, 140.

60Merold Westphal, “Levinas and the Immediacy ofFace,” Faith and Philosophy 10 (October 1993): 491-92.

61Rorty, Truth and Progress, 95.

62See, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, trans. D. F. Pears and B. F. McGuiness(London: Routlege, 1961), §6.52-§6.522.


Epistemology is the study of the “process of

knowing.”58 Rorty states that epistemology is a discipline

seeking to discover “the nature, origin, and limits of human

knowledge.”59 The rejection of foundations and project of

deconstruction in postmodernism, however, create a problem

in epistemology. When no ultimate origin for the foundation

of meaning exists, the question arises, “How can I know?”60

For Rorty, the answer to this question is to “get

beyond” epistemology.61 Rorty suggests that the

epistemological quest results in the ineffable, by which the

“recontextualization of signs” unceasingly alters meaning.62

A systematic theory of meaning in postmodernism, therefore,

does not exist. The “supposed” foundations of knowledge are

merely the “product of the choice of perceptual metaphors”

rather than a presentation of corresponding reality.63



30

64Martin Heidegger, Introduction to Metaphysics,trans. Ralph Manheim (New Haven: Yale University Press,1959), 185.

65Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, 209-212. Rorty takes this challenge up in chapter 5, entitled,“From Epistemology to Hermeneutics.”

66Millard J. Erickson, Evangelical Interpretation:Perspectives on Hermeneutical Issues (Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 1993), 51-52. The gospel witness seeks to open theavenue for the acquisition of truth by the postmodern.

Rorty approvingly cites Heidegger’s idea that objectivity in

epistemology emerges from the description of things “before

us” which is personal perception rather than the

representation of reality.64 Rorty, therefore, proposes to

replace epistemology with the justification of meaning

through the social context.65

The abandonment of epistemology presents a problem

for the evangelization of postmodern people. Evangelism

consists of a “biblical doctrine of epistemology.”66 The

Holy Spirit leads the individual to the acquisition of truth

and meaning (John 16:8-13). With the removal of

epistemology, the work of the Holy Spirit and the gospel

becomes simply another metaphor of perception rather than a

true description of reality in postmodernism.

The Challenge of Hermeneutics

Although originally a theological discipline,

hermeneutics has broadened to include a variety of study.



31

67Klein, et al., Biblical Interpretation, 4.

68Bernard Ramm, “Biblical Interpretation,” inHermeneutics by Bernard Ramm et al. (Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 1971), 8-11.

69Mark C. Taylor, Deconstructing Theology (Chico,CA: Scholar’s Press, 1982), 90.

70Roland Barthes, The Rustle of Language, trans.Richard Howard (New York: Hill and Wang, 1986), 54.

71Carl A. Raschke, “The Deconstruction of God,” inDeconstruction and Theology, eds. Thomas A. Altizer, et al.(New York: Crossroad, 1982), 3.

72Stephen Moore, Poststructuralism and the NewTestament: Derrida and Foucault at the Foot of the Cross(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 7-8.

Hermeneutics is a set of principles which is utilized “to

understand what something means, to comprehend what a

message -- written, oral, or visual -- is endeavoring to

communicate.”67 Currently, hermeneutics exists as a

philosophical as well as theological discipline.68

Deconstruction presents a philosophical and

theological movement in hermeneutics. Mark Taylor’s “death

of God”69 and Roland Barthes’ “countertheological refusal of

God”70 represent theological and philosophical proposals.

While Carl Rashke suggests that “deconstruction is the death

of God put in writing,”71 Stephen Moore contends that

Derrida and his brand of deconstruction exists in a “muted

dialogue with theology,” and he suggests that deconstruction

is not “utterly inimical to theological concerns.”72



32

73Jacques Derrida, Limited Inc (Evanston, IL:Northwestern University Press, 1988), 61-62.

74Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in ThisText? The Bible, The Reader, and the Morality of LiteraryKnowledge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 38.

Whether viewed from a negative or neutral view, postmodern

hermeneutics speaks to the theological endeavor of

evangelism.

Through deconstruction postmodernism dismisses the

author in the hermeneutical process. Derrida suggests that

the intent of the author does not lead to the ultimate

meaning, because “the possibility of its being repeated

another time –– breaches, divides, expropriates the ‘ideal’

plenitude or self-presence of intention.” This

“iterability” produces alternate meanings even while the

author speaks or writes with a particular meaning in mind.

The author’s intention is “contaminated” by the possibility

that what he says is “(already, always, also) other than”

the author’s intent.73

The dismissal of the foundations and the

disappearance of the author in postmodernism moves

“interpretation” from a truth claim emerging from a text to

a reference “to what the reader makes of the text.”74

Therefore, Rorty confidently suggests that hermeneutics is

the appropriate remedy for the absence of epistemology.



33


76Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text, 49.

77Derrida, Of Grammatology, 73.

78Ibid., 6-7.

79Moore, Poststructuralism, 50, 56. Moore’sanalysis is instructive. Moore seeks to “capsize thehierarchical opposition that established the parameters ofthe dialogue between Jesus and the Samaritan woman.” Hewants to demonstrate that the woman of Sychar is the “moreenlightened partner in the dialogue.” He traces the imageryof water in John’s Gospel, ultimately demonstrating that“Jesus’ physical thirst [19:28], therefore, is the necessaryprecondition for the proleptic yielding up of that which isintended to satiate the spiritual thirst of the believer,namely, the Holy Spirit.” Moore contends that “thehierarchical opposition established at the well is invertedat the cross, the ostensibly superior, pleromatic term(living water, Spirit) being shown to depend for itseffective existence on the inferior, insufficient term(literal well water), contrary to everything that the Gospelhas led us to expect.”

Rorty posits that hermeneutics is “hope that the cultural

space left by the demise of epistemology will not be

filled.”75

Postmodern hermeneutics does not begin with meaning

prior to interpretation. Even authorial intent does not

provide a prior meaning. Rather, postmodernism suggests

that “what one finds in a text depends on what aims,

categories, and perspectives one brings to it.”76 According

to Derrida, the “signified always already is in the position

of the signifier.”77 No “transcendental signified” exists.78

Meaning, therefore, becomes the creation of the reader.79



34

80Hahn and Verhaagen, Reckless Hope, 39.

81Robert W. Yarbrough, “Variation on a Theme:History’s Nth Great Hermeneutical Crisis,” Journal of theEvangelical Theological Society 39 (Sept 1996): 447.

82Rorty, Philosophy and Mirror of Nature, 392-94.

83Ibid., 226-29.

Todd Hahn and David Verhaagen have studied the

influence of postmodernism in the Christian culture. They

have found that the influence of postmodern hermeneutics has

hampered the evangelistic effort of the church.

The impact of relativism has wormed its way into thechurch. Take a look at our Bible studies. Manyinterpretations of the same passage are allowed andaccepted as equally valid. Everyone’s opinion isconsidered equally viable. Respecting the ideas ofothers has been given precedence over a search for theactual intention of the author. In fact the unrealizedassumption is that one’s sincere ideas are synonymouswith truth.80

Postmodern hermeneutics leads to a indefinite number of

equally valid interpretations of a particular text. As

Robert Yarborough correctly concludes, “A contemporary

commitment to hermeneutical pluralism, if not anarchy, is

demanded by postmodern experience, with a primary casualty

being God’s Scriptural witness to [H]is unified, redemptive

and knowable presence in the world.”81

Rorty trades epistemology for “conversation.”82

Conversation unfolds sentences, bringing about a relative,

conceptual truth in the context of a particular community.83



35

84Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism, Truth, 17.

85P. T. O’Brien, Gospel and Mission in the Writingsof Paul: An Exegetical and Theological Analysis (GrandRapids: Baker, 1995), 70-75.

86Albert Mohler Jr., “Evangelical Tradition,” in TheChallenge of Postmodernism: An Evangelical Engagement, ed.David S. Dockery (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995), 84.

87Walter Truett Anderson, Reality Isn’t What It Usedto Be: Theatrical Politics, Ready-to-Wear Religion, GlobalMyths, Primitive Chic, and Other Wonders of the PostmodernWorld (San Francisco: Harper, 1990), 51.

The outcome of this conversation is the positive goal of

“unforced agreement with tolerant disagreement.”84

Such conversation, although commendable in its

desire for “unforced agreement” and “tolerant disagreement,”

begins with the premise of a truth that is relative to the

community in which one exists, and this premise is untenable

in evangelism. Evangelism proclaims that the gospel is

absolute truth for all of humanity.85

Possible Opportunities for Evangelism

The postmodern condition also presents possible

opportunities for the evangelistic task. Albert Mohler Jr.

indicates that “postmodernism may well represent a new

evangelistic moment.”86 The following postmodern confession

elucidates the situation for evangelism: “I have no beliefs.

I belong to no community, tradition, or anything like that.

I’m lost in this vast, vast world. I belong nowhere.”87



36

88Ibid., 181-83.

89Jacques Derrida, “Différance,” in Deconstructionin Context: Literature and Philosophy, ed. Mark C. Taylor(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986), 419-20.

90Linda Hutcheon, The Politics of Postmodernism(London: Routledge, 1989), 24.

91Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in MoralTheory, 2nd ed. (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press,1984), 211-216.

This interview demonstrates that the yearning of the

individual caught in the morass of a deconstructed life may

provide opportunities for evangelism.

Search for a Better Story

Postmodern people are in search of better stories

for personal existence.88 They desire connections with

stories that will bring fulfillment to their lives. Derrida

concedes this postmodern yearning when he pronounces the

possibility of “nostalgia” over what is lost in his project

of différance. Derrida calls for “laughter and dance”

instead of nostalgia, because the “quest for the proper word

and the unique name” continues.89 It is this quest that

provides opportunity for the gospel in the evangelization of

postmodern people.

The only legitimate story in postmodern thought is

the localized narrative.90 The local story, according to

Alasdair MacIntyre, provides one interpretation of life.91



37

92This has been shown by Stephen Best and DouglasKellner, Postmodern Theory: Critical Interrogations (NewYork: Guilford, 1991), 171-79.

93Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism, 170.

Postmodern people see their local stories as only one of

innumerable, equally true stories.

The buffet of localized narratives rests upon the

table of the postmodern metanarrative.92 The postmodern

individual faces the choices of a smorgasbord of narratives

to provide significance and meaning to life. This

represents the Derridean “laughter and dance.” The quest

for the ultimate signifier and the most beneficial story

remains ever before the postmodern individual. Postmodern

people are searching for the story that will satisfy the

appetite of their souls.

Although postmodernism rejects the gospel as

metanarrative, it must respect it as a local narrative. It

has no place of privilege at the postmodern table, but it

continues to be served. What then is the advantage? Grenz

offers this description of opportunity: “At the heart of

being a Christian is a personal encounter with God in

Christ. . . . It is in this context of making sense out of

life by means of recounting the story of a transformative

religious experience that doctrinal propositions find their

importance.”93 Postmodern people search for such a story.



38

94Leighton Ford, The Power of Story (ColoradoSprings, CO: NavPress, 1994), 10.

95Baudrillard, Illusion of the End, 106-107.

96Long, Generating Hope, 136-38.

The postmodern quest for a better story offers an

opportunity to share the gospel. Through the telling of the

gospel, the power of God takes hold of people, leading them

toward salvation (Rom 1:16). The evangelistic witness

presents postmodern people with a choice of a better story

for their lives. When they encounter the gospel of Jesus

Christ, they determine whether the story of Christ provides

a better story for their personal experience. As Leighton

Ford indicates, they choose “either to reject the Story of

God or to merge [their] story with His Story.”94

Search for Connection

The outcome of postmodernism is a “decentered

self.” The postmodern individual is “free-falling” amidst

the chaotic waters of plurality.95 The concept of truth

that is non-representational and communal has created a

society of individuals who are disconnected and fragmented.

The postmodern person searches for connections which will

offer stability in life.96 Berger’s description of the

postmodern people in the flux of disorientation represents

the search for a community that provides meaning in life.



39

97Berger, The Sacred Canopy, 22. “Anomy” is theloss of any secure sense of meaningful order to the world.

98Grenz, Primer on Postmodernism, 169.

99R. Daniel Shaw, “In Search of Post-modernSalvation,” Evangelical Review of Theology 22 (1998): 57-59.

In the postmodern world, “reality and identity are

malignantly transformed into meaningless figures of horror.

To be in a society is to be ‘sane’ precisely in the sense of

being shielded from the ultimate ‘insanity’ of anomic

terror. Anomy is unbearable to the point where the

individual may seek death in preference to it.”97

Grenz insightfully indicates that postmodern people

are suspicious of verbal presentations of the gospel, but

they are attracted to a community of believers in which the

gospel is incarnated among the relationships. This

community is characterized by “wholesome, authentic, and

healing relationships.”98 R. Daniel Shaw also connects the

postmodern desire for community with the evangelistic

mission of the church. The community of believers may offer

a place of connection between the postmodern reality of this

world and God’s reality found in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The community of faith connects with postmodern people at

the point of need.99 The postmodern search for connection

provides a possible opportunity for the evangelization of

postmodern people.



40

100Zygmunt Bauman, “What Prospects of Morality inTimes of Uncertainty?” Theory, Culture, and Society 15(February 1998): 11-18.

101Michel Foucault, Power/Knowledge: SelectedInterviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977, ed. Colin Gordon(New York: Pantheon Books, 1980), 55-58.

102Richard Lints, The Fabric of Theology (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 216.

103Tom Beaudoin, Virtual Faith: The IrreverentSpiritual Quest of Generation X (San Francisco: Jossey-BassPublishers, 1998), 96-97. Beaudoin takes suffering as apossible avenue for connection with the gospel message, butalso warns against trivialization of suffering.

Search for a Better Life

The postmodern project is a search for a better

life. Zygmunt Bauman suggests that postmodern people seek

life freed from the oppressive forces of modernity.100 The

entire project of postmodernism seeks to divest individuals

from the nightmare of the world in which they live and which

the Enlightenment principles created. This nightmare

includes the horrors of victimization, totalization,

oppression, and injustice.101 These descriptions indicate

that postmodern people want a better life.

The postmodern generation notes the inadequacies of

the world.102 Tom Beaudoin suggests that the postmodern

generation is “suffering” under the threat of nuclear

holocaust, AIDS, and the national debt. Their “suffering”

leads them to a “spiritual crisis of meaning.”103



41

104Ibid., 120.

105Lyotard, The Inhuman, 126-27.

106Charles Winquist, Desiring Theology (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1995), 142-43, 149-50.

107Beaudoin, 120.

108F. S. Fiorenza, “The Crisis of Hermeneutics andChristian Theology,” in Theology at the End of Modernity,ed. S. G. Davaney (Philadelphia: Trinity Press, 1991), 135.

Ultimately, they seek liberty from the multitude of

diversities which overwhelm them.104

The postmodern inability to access the absolute is

the “pleasure of pain,” according to Lyotard.105 The painful

pleasure of fragmented life, however, is not enough to

satisfy the quest of the postmodern person. This fragmented

life that they experience in their “hermeneutics of

suspicion” creates a need to discover “becomings of self” in

the midst of deconstruction. Winquist suggests that this

reconstruction is found ultimately through a “meaningful

community” of love.106

The possible opportunity for evangelism is found in

this quest for a better life in a community of love.

Suffering is the common language of all generations.107

According to Fiorenza, “Suffering brings us to the bedrock

of human existence.”108 The reality of suffering presents

common ground for the witness and the postmodern person.



42

109Long, Generating Hope, 75.

110Jürgen Moltmann, The Church in the Power of theSpirit (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1977), 360.

111Paul Lakeland, Postmodernity: Christian Identityin a Fragmented Age (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 42-43.

112Erickson, Postmodernizing the Faith, 152.

This misery is precisely how “God is preparing people in the

world to respond to the gospel.”109 The reality of suffering

makes the gospel accessible to a postmodern person.

An Apostolic Approach to the PostmodernChallenge

Jürgen Moltmann wrote: “The apostolic church is the

missionary church.”110 As noted in the introduction, an

“apostolic approach” refers to the examples, directions, and

procedures of the New Testament (NT) church recorded

especially in Acts and the Pauline epistles. An apostolic

approach utilizes the work and ministry of the apostolic

church as the paradigm for the evangelization of postmodern

people today.

The evangelical community offers various biblical

paradigms related to the postmodern challenge.111 Millard

Erickson evaluates the primary approaches to postmodernism

within evangelical circles. He identifies four approaches.

The first approach endeavors to “alter the

expression and even the content of the Christian faith.”112



43

113Long, Generating Hope, 19-22. Long modifies thefive models of H. Richard Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture (NewYork: Harper and Row, 1956).

114Leonard Sweet, Post-Modern Pilgrims: First CenturyPassion for the 21st Century World (Nashville: Broadman andHolman, 2000), 143-47.

115Erickson, Postmodernizing the Faith, 123-25, 152. See also, Middleton and Walsh, Truth Is Stranger Than ItUsed to Be, 172-85.

116Erickson, Postmodernizing the Faith, 152.

The church must in some way adjust the gospel to the

postmodern objections to truth as objective, referential,

and corresponding to reality. The gospel as metanarrative

must also be adjusted in expression according to this

approach. Jimmy Long describes this approach as the

“assimilating church,” which adopts “some of culture’s

characteristics” in order to become relevant to that

culture.113 Leonard Sweet espouses this approach to some

extent when he suggests that the church embrace postmodern

hermeneutics.114 Erickson charges Middleton and Walsh with

this approach “by the way in which they recast the method of

utilizing Scripture.”115

The second approach seeks to alter the “method and

means” of gospel witness. Erickson suggests that movement

to a narrative presentation of the gospel serves as one

example of this approach.116 Todd Hahn and David Verhaagen

indicate that this type of alteration is good and necessary.



44

117Hahn and Verhaagen, Reckless Hope, 58-59.

118Sweet, Post-Modern Pilgrims, 141-42.

119Erickson, Postmodernizing the Faith, 152-53.

120Long, Generating Hope, 26-27. Long highlightscorrectly the need to remain radically biblical but notnecessarily traditional. This means that the paradigm ofScripture informs the evangelistic witness, but thetradition of the church is not necessarily synonymous withthe Scriptural paradigm.

121David Wells, No Place for Truth: Or WhateverHappened to Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1993), 102-104.

The narrative method speaks “to the specific and unique

needs of this generation.”117 The proponents of an

alteration of method or means seek to communicate and relate

intimately to postmodern people.118

The third approach consists of no adjustment,

either in expression or method.119 Long identifies this

approach with the “unchanging church” which ignores culture.

These proponents seek to maintain their traditions by

“rising above culture.” For Long, this approach is

indicative of churches which elevate traditionalism above

biblicism.120 The “kerygmatic” proponents of this approach,

however, contend that adjustment in expression or method is

not necessary. They suggest that the power of the gospel,

illumined by the Holy Spirit, is capable of reaching

postmodern people.121



45

122Long, Generating Hope, 27-31; Hahn and Verhaagen,Reckless Hope, 51-53.

123Erickson, Postmodernizing the Faith, 153-54.

124Veith, Postmodern Times, 83.

125David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity(Cambridge: Basil Blackwell, 1989), 113-14, 117.

The fourth approach involves dismantling the

premises of postmodernism.122 Proponents of this approach

contend that postmodern people can be reached through a

demonstration of the “impossibility of living” in the

postmodern way.123 Veith represents this approach when he

evaluates postmodernism as “passive, cynical, and

insecure.”124 The church which engages the deficiencies of

postmodernism demonstrates to postmodern people the “end-

result” of a postmodern life. It stresses the

contradictions of postmodernism so that the postmodern will

see eventually the impossibility of living a meaningful

postmodern life.125

An apostolic approach offers several advantages to

the current proposals. The first advantage of an apostolic

approach is fidelity to Scripture as the principal guide in

faith and practice. An apostolic approach offers a paradigm

for evangelism in light of an exegetical analysis of the NT

church. Evangelization flows out of the commendation of

Scripture rather than out of an accommodation to culture.



46

126Alister McGrath, “The Christian Church’s Responseto Pluralism,” Journal of the Evangelical TheologicalSociety 35 (December 1992): 500.

127Michael Green, Evangelism in the Early Church(London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1970; reprint, Guildford,Surrey: Eagle, 1995), x-xi.

128Grant Osborne, “Preaching the Gospels: Methodologyand Contextualization,” Journal of the EvangelicalTheological Society 27 (March 1984): 33.

In other words, the methodology begins with Scripture rather

than with postmodernism.126 Scripture is the guiding

principle of faith and practice.

The second advantage of an apostolic approach is

effectiveness.127 An apostolic approach seeks to implement

the principles of the apostolic church, which effectively

evangelized a relativistic, pluralistic culture. The

apostolic church “sought ‘redemptive analogies’ in its

presentation of the gospel. . . . Yet at the same time the

Church refused to compromise the content of her message.”128

In the same manner, the contemporary church must apply the

principles of the apostolic church to communicate the gospel

without compromising the content of the message.

The third advantage is the community-emphasis in an

apostolic approach. From its inception, the apostolic

church maintained and emphasized community (Acts 2:41-47).

The postmodern culture desires community, and the church can

provide the specific answer to this yearning for connection.



47

129Stanley Grenz, Created for Community: ConnectingChristian Belief with Christian Living (Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 1996; reprint, 1998), 207.

As Grenz points out, the church is the “pioneer community”

of individuals who “live out in the present the glorious

community for which God created us.”129 An apostolic

approach presents the evangelistic ministry of the NT church

as the starting-point for the evangelization of postmodern

people.

The following chapter deals with the role of the

Holy Spirit in the evangelistic approach of the apostolic

church. The coming of the Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2)

finds deeper significance through an examination of the

promise of Joel’s prophecy (Joel 2:28-32) and the promise of

Christ concerning the Spirit of truth in John’s Gospel.

This writer will seek to show the implications of Pentecost

and the Spirit’s work in the evangelization of the ancient

world and in the evangelization of the postmodern world.



1“But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirithas come upon you and you will be My witnesses in Jerusalemand all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth” (Acts1:8). The Greek text comes from, The Greek New Testament,eds. K. Aland, M. Black, et al., 3rd ed. (Stuttgart: UnitedBible Societies, 1983). All translations are the author’sunless otherwise noted.

2See previous chapter, footnote 6.

48

CHAPTER TWO

PENTECOST, THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND EVANGELISM

Christ provides the specific instructions

concerning the role of the church in the world. Jesus

declared, ajlla; lhvmyesqe dunvamin ejpelqovnto~ tou` aJgivou pneuvmato~ ejf j uJma`~

kai; e[sesqev mou mavrture~ e[n te jIerousalh;m kai; pavsh/ th/ jIoudaiva; kai; Samareiva/

kai; e{w~ ejskavtou th`~ gh`~.1

The biblical record of the apostolic church reveals

the worldview by which it evangelized the ancient world.

This worldview stands in contrast to the postmodern mind-set

in several ways. First, with its premise of anti-

foundationalism, postmodernism rejects any “interpretation

of the particular historical purposes of groups and

individuals” through “objective, transhistorical truths.”2

The apostolic church in Acts believed that God purposed

49

3J. C. O’Neill, The Theology of Acts in ItsHistorical Setting, 2d ed. (London: SPCK, 1970), 177-78.

4Adolf Schlatter, The Theology of the Apostles: TheDevelopment of New Testament Theology, trans. A. J.Köstenberger (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 28-31, 361.

everything in history to culminate in the Christ-event.

This divine purpose continues through the work of the Spirit

in the church. According to J. C. O’Neill, “the success of

Christianity, despite all the set-backs it encountered, was

used to support its claim to be the only true religion.”3

Schlatter further suggests that the apostolic church

possessed the conviction that Christ directed the community

“from within and from without,” so that He is the supreme

interpretation of history and the future.4 In other words,

an apostolic approach promotes the conviction that the

Christian way is true because it corresponds to the external

reality of God’s redemptive activity in history.

Second, postmodernism’s exaltation of “communal

truth” dismisses any proposal of absolute, universal truth.

Accordingly, any claim to truth is the creation of the

social group and context. The apostolic church, however,

construed truth as the external product of God’s mind

communicated to humanity by God’s Spirit. Insightfully,

John Frame proposes that “communal truth” demands omniscient

justification in the social context, so that all potential

50

5John Frame, “Christianity and ContemporaryEpistemology,” Westminster Journal of Theology 52 (Spring1990): 136.

6Everett F. Harrison, The Apostolic Church (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 113.

objections to any particular truth-claim may be refuted.

If, however, God were a member of this social group, then

His omniscience would provide the necessary justification

for “objective knowledge.”5 With the coming of the Spirit

at Pentecost, the Spirit of truth provides the necessary

justification of “objective knowledge” and universal truth

in an apostolic approach (John 16:13).

Third, postmodernism’s “precommitment” to

deconstruction dismisses the possibility of certainty in

meaning. The apostolic church, however, found meaning in

the Spirit’s illumination of Christ’s doctrine through the

apostles and Scripture.6 The apostolic church believed that

the Spirit indwells and instructs believers within the

community, so that they discover the intention of the God of

revelation.

Finally, with its preeminence of pluralism,

postmodernism disdains any proposal of an ultimate “master

narrative.” The apostolic church, however, believed that

the gospel is the “master narrative” which presents the only

true pathway to life. Peter’s statement to the Sanhedrin in

51

7“And there is no salvation in another, for there isno other name under heaven which has been given in humanityby which we must be saved.”

8C. E. Autrey, Evangelism in the Acts (Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1964), 78.

9Gordon Kaufmann, “Religious Diversity, HistoricalConsciousness, and Christian Theology,” Journal of Religion68 (October 1988): 9.

10Ibid.

11Schubert M. Ogden, “Problems in the Case for aPluralistic Theology of Religions,” Journal of Religion 68

Acts 4:12 depicts this conviction in the apostolic church.

In answer to the Sanhedrin, Peter declares: kai; oujk e[stin ejn

a[llw/ oujdeni; hJ swthriva, oujde; ga;r o[noma; ejstin e{teron uJpo; to;n oujrano;n to;

dedomevnon ejn ajnqrwvpoi~ ejn w|/ dei` swqh`nai hJma`~.7 As C. E. Autrey

indicates, this statement declares that Christianity cannot

“peacefully coexist” with a plurality of religious options,

for “Christ and not man was the Messiah.”8

This conviction stands in contrast to the

postmodern proposal. Unlike Gordon Kaufmann, an apostolic

approach does not suggest that the Christian faith is only

one among many worldviews imaginatively constructed in the

“search for orientation in life.”9 Neither does the

community construe the communication of the gospel as the

articulation of “one particular perspective on life among

others.”10 An apostolic approach presents the gospel as the

only “universal salvific truth.”11

52

(October 1988): 498.

12James D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit: A Study ofthe Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and theFirst Christians as Reflected in the New Testament (London:SCM Press, 1975; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997),135.

13Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 135.

As the apostolic church set out to evangelize the

world, these biblical convictions became prominent. The

following discussion will seek to indicate how God

alleviates the barrier of competing worldviews and opens the

door for evangelization of postmodern people.

Pentecost and the Spirit of Truth, Acts 2:1-13

Pentecost is the starting-point for a discussion of

an apostolic approach to evangelize postmodern people.

Pentecost is an historical and theological hinge for the

role of the Spirit and evangelism.12 The fulfillment of

Joel’s prophecy (Joel 2:28-32) and Christ’s promise of the

Paraclete (John 14:16-17, 26; 15:26-27; 16:7-15) demonstrate

the historical significance and theological implications of

the Spirit in the evangelization of postmodern people.13

Fulfillment of the Visionary Gift, Joel 2:28-32

The coming of the Spirit at Pentecost presents the

53

14Merrill Unger, “The Significance of Pentecost,”Bibliotheca Sacra 122 (April 1965): 175.

15See the discussion on the relationship betweenduvnami~ and ejxousiva below on pages 84-87.

16Joel 3:1-5 in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia,eds. A. Alt, O. Eissfeldt, et al. (Stuttgart: DeutscheBibelgesellschaft, 1966-1977). Hereafter cited, BHS.

17John Calvin, A Commentary on the Prophet Joel,trans. J. Owen (London: Banner of Truth, 1958), 81.

18“And it shall come to pass after so I will pourout My Spirit upon all flesh” (Joel 2:28, 3:1 BHS).

historical hinge for the inauguration of a new age.14

Peter’s sermon at Pentecost acknowledges the coming of the

Spirit as the inauguration of Joel’s prophecy (Acts 2:16-21;

Joel 2:28-32) in which the Spirit provides the duvnami~

promised by Christ for evangelization.15

The prophecy of Joel demonstrates the power of the

“visionary gift” through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

This “visionary gift” is the abiding presence of God with

His people through His Spirit. Calvin surmises that the

prophecy of Joel 2:28-3216 promises “something greater than

what the fathers under the Law experienced,” for God “did

not pour out His Spirit so abundantly and so largely under

the Law, as after the manifestation of Christ.”17

Through Joel, God said, rc;B;AlK;Al[' yjiWrAta, JwPov]a, keAyrej}a' hy:h;w.18

This prophecy depicts a future when God will establish His

54

19Duane A. Garrett, Hosea, Joel, New AmericanCommentary (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1997), 368-69.

20H. W. Wolff, Joel and Amos: A Commentary on theBooks of the Prophets Joel and Amos, trans. W. Janzen, S. D.McBride Jr., and C. A. Muenchow, Hermeneia (Philadelphia:Fortress, 1977), 66.

21Leslie C. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah,Jonah, and Micah, New International Commentary on the OldTestament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 99.

22C. F. Keil, Minor Prophets: Two Volumes in One,trans. James Martin, vol. 10, Commentary on the OldTestament in Ten Volumes, by C. F. Keil and Franz Delitzsch(reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 1:211.

presence through the outpouring of His Spirit.19 Peter

affirms the prophecy’s fulfillment at Pentecost (Acts 2:16).

When God pours out His Spirit (jWr), He pours Himself upon

whom He chooses to accomplish the work He desires,20 so that

the intention of God is “the personal experience of every

member of the religious community.”21

Joel indicates the essence of the “visionary gift”

through three terms: abn (to prophesy), .lj (to dream), and

har (to see). Keil suggests that abn is the general

designation of the prophetic gift, and that visions and

dreams are two forms of prophetic revelation.22 When God

pours out His Spirit, He will reveal Himself and His word to

His people, and they will proclaim it to the world.

At Pentecost, all of Christ’s followers receive the

55

23H. W. Wolff, Joel and Amos, 66.

24Boyd Hunt, Redeemed! Eschatological Redemption inthe Kingdom of God (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1993),14, 30.

25David. S. Dockery, “The Theology of Acts,”Criswell Theological Review 5 (1990): 47.

26William M. Schniedewind, The Word of God inTransition: From Prophet to Exegete in the Second TemplePeriod, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament,Supplement 197 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995),55-57.

27Abraham Heschel, The Prophets, 2 vols. (New York:Harper and Row, 1962; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,2000), 2:216.

“visionary gift” and become a “nation of prophets.”23 It is

an historical turning-point in God’s redemptive purposes.24

The Spirit fills (ejplhvsqhsan) the followers of Christ to

“make them missionaries and proclaimers of the good news.”25

The Old Testament (OT) prophets present one

paradigm for the “visionary gift.” One aspect of this

paradigm is that God clothes the prophet with His Spirit.

Schniedewind suggests that God clothes the prophet with His

Spirit, so that the person receives and delivers His word

with the people to whom he is sent.26 Having received this

“visionary gift” of God through revelation, the prophet

discloses to humanity “what otherwise would remain

concealed.”27 Von Rad suggests that the prophet “completely

submerges his own ego” and speaks “as if he were his master

56

28Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, vol. 2,The Theology of Israel’s Prophetic Tradition, trans. D. M.G. Stalker (New York: Harper and Row, 1965), 37.

29Terence Fretheim, The Suffering of God: An OldTestament Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 166.

30Thomas C. Oden, The Word of Life: SystematicTheology, Volume Two (Peabody, MA: Prince Press, 1998), 286.

31David Allan Hubbard, Joel and Amos (Downers Grove:InterVarsity, 1989), 69.

32For rc;B;AlK; as a reference only to Israel, see T. J.Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah (Chicago: Moody, 1990), 71-72. For arguments that rc;B;AlK; includes Gentiles, see, WalterKaiser Jr., “The Promise of God and the Outpouring of theHoly Spirit: Joel 2:28-32 and Acts 2:16-21,” in The Livingand Active Word of God: Essays in Honor of Samuel Schultz,eds. Morris Inch and Ronald Youngblood (Winona Lake:Eisenbrauns, 1983), 119.

himself speaking.”28 Thus, the outpouring of the Spirit

empowers the prophet to engage culture as a living, speaking

embodiment of God’s word.

Fretheim suggests that Christ is the “culmination”

of the “visionary gift.”29 Jesus fully reveals divine

truth, proclaims the way of forgiveness, and calls for

decision as prophet.30 His ministry as prophet extends to

His followers. Thus, Pentecost marks the continuation of

the “visionary gift” by which God’s people fulfill the

function of prophet with Christ.

Pentecost signifies a new relationship between God

and humanity.31 Although Joel most likely envisions rc;B;AlK;

solely as Israel,32 Pentecost (Acts 2) and the outpouring of

57

33I. H. Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles, TyndaleNew Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980;reprint, 1999), 193. Marshall proposes that this phrase,“everyone who believes in Him,” probably intends a widermeaning than Israel.

34Wolff, Joel and Amos, 67.

35W. T. Connor, The Work of the Holy Spirit: ATreatment of the Biblical Doctrine of the Divine Spirit(Nashville: Broadman, 1940), 60.

36Robert Coleman, The Master Plan of Discipleship(Grand Rapids: Fleming H. Revell, 1987), 124.

the Spirit upon the Gentiles (Acts 10:43-45) recasts rc;B;AlK;

to include pavnta to;n pisteuvonta eij~ aujtovn (Acts 10:43).33

Everyone who believes in Jesus will receive forgiveness of

sin and “will stand in a relationship of immediacy to God”

through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.34

Pentecost’s events in Acts 2 provide a framework

for the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy. Indeed, “the whole

historical context in which it [Pentecost] takes place shows

that it was the outgrowth and development of God’s past

dealings with Israel.”35

Pentecost was the culminating act in an agelong processof redemptive activity, the final step in the descent ofthe divine into human. Jesus as an external Presencenow became enthroned Sovereign in the hearts of Hispeople. A new era of the Kingdom had begun in Spirit-endued witnesses. The Gospel had become life and powerwithin them. At last they were ready to go forth aslaborers in the harvest of the Lord.36

The followers of Christ continue His ministry in the

58

37C. E. Autrey, The Theology of Evangelism(Nashville: Broadman Press, 1966), 36-37.

38John 14:15-17, 25-26; 15:26-27; 16:7-11, 12-15.

39Calvin Mercer, “Jesus the Apostle: ‘Sending’ andthe Theology of John,” Journal of the EvangelicalTheological Society 35 (December 1992): 462.

world.37 They reveal God’s truth, proclaim His redemptive

work, and call the world to accept His salvation.

Likewise, Pentecost elucidates contemporary

application for apostolic evangelism with postmodern people.

An apostolic approach depends upon the duvnami~ promised by

Christ (Acts 1:8), inaugurated at Pentecost (Acts 2), and

continued today through the presence of the Spirit.

Christ’s followers continue in the postmodern milieu as a

“nation of prophets” possessed by God’s Spirit to accomplish

His redemptive mission in the postmodern world.

Selected Paraclete Passages in John’s Gospel

An examination of the Paraclete passages in John’s

Gospel provides a theological foundation for engaging

individuals in the postmodern milieu.38 These passages

demonstrate that Christ’s redemptive mission “is continued

through the Paraclete and the disciples.”39

Much of the literature on these passages focuses

59

40“Eschatological comforter,” [J. G. Davies, “ThePrimary Meaning of paravklhto",” Journal of TheologicalStudies 4 (1953): 35–38]; the spirit of messianicproclamation [C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St.John, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 461–63];“sponsor” or “supporter” [K. Grayston, “The Meaning ofPARAKLETOS,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 13(1981): 67–82]. Brown suggests that transliteration is bestsince the term is so packed with significance [Raymond E.Brown, “The Paraclete in the Fourth Gospel,” New TestamentStudies 13 (1967): 118–19].

41C. K. Barrett, Gospel According to St. John, 463.

42G. Quell, s.v. “ajlhvqeia,” in Theological Dictionaryof the New Testament, 10 vols., ed. G. Kittel, trans. anded. G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967; reprint,1978), 1:232-33. Hereafter cited, TDNT.

43Ibid., 1:234-35.

upon the various interpretations of the term, paravklhto~.40

Jesus identifies the Paraclete as to; pneu`ma th`~ ajlhqeiva~ (John

14:17; 15:26; 16:13). The phrase indicates “the Spirit who

communicates truth.”41

The concept of truth, hJ ajlhvqeia, needs further

examination. John’s use of ajlhvqeia is closely akin to the

Hebrew term tm,a. In a general sense, tm,a denotes that which

is solid, valid, or trustworthy.42 When used in connection

with God’s revelation, however, tm,a denotes that which

corresponds to fact or that which is not false.43 When the

OT prophets spoke, they communicated God’s truth to others.

In this communication, they spoke the word of God as tm,a

(Jer 23:29). Quell, therefore, suggests that one who

60

44Quell, s. v. “ajlhvqeia,” TDNT, 1:235.

45C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the FourthGospel (Cambridge: University Press, 1953), 177. Dodd makesthis contention in light of John’s specific use of the termin his Gospel.

46Dennis R. Lindsay, “What Is Truth? jAlhvqeia in theGospel of John,” Restoration Quarterly 35 (1993): 129-45.

47Ibid., 142.

48C. K. Barrett, Gospel According to St. John, 167.

49“The way and the truth and the life.”

communicates tm,a shares “the incontestable fact of truth,

and exercises truth, just as truth is the foundation in

God’s own acts and words.”44 Dodd concurs that ajlhvqeia often

denotes the “eternal reality as revealed to men.”45

Therefore, truth is the divine reality disclosed by God to

humanity.46 The Spirit is the “mediator of divine

revelation.”47 This stands in direct contrast to the

postmodern premise that truth is inaccessible. The Holy

Spirit reveals truth, which corresponds to fact and eternal

reality.

Barrett indicates that John employs ajlhvqeia as “the

Christian revelation brought by and revealed in Jesus.”48

Indeed, in the context of chapter 14, ajlhvqeia in verse 17

calls to mind the self-appellation of Jesus in verse 6: ejgwv

eijmi hJ oJdo;~ kai; hJ ajlhvqeia kai; hJ zwhv (John 14:6).49 The Spirit of

truth unveils, not merely a concept of truth, but the person

61

50D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 500.

51Kelly Monroe, “Finding God at Harvard: Reachingthe Post-Christian University,” in Telling the Truth:Evangelizing Postmoderns, ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 2000), 298.

52Emil Brunner, Truth as Encounter (Philadelphia:Westminster, 1964), 154.

53B. H. Jackayya, “ALHQEIA in the JohannineCorpus,” Concordia Theological Monthly 41 (March 1970): 171-75.

54“But the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom theFather will send in My name, that one will teach you all

who is truth.50 As Kelly Monroe suggests, truth in

reference to divine revelation is “neither an abstract

concept nor a social construct,” but truth is Christ.51

This follows the proposal of Emil Brunner, who writes:

“Truth has come into being through Jesus Christ. This is

the very core of the biblical message. Truth is something

that happens, that God does. Jesus Christ not only reveals,

[but also] He at once fulfills and realizes the will of

God.”52 The Spirit makes divine reality accessible --

ultimately in the person of Jesus Christ.53

Furthermore, the Spirit of truth unveils the

significance of Christ’s teachings to His followers. In

verse 26 Jesus promises, oJ de; paravklhto~, to; pneu`ma to; a{gion, o}

pevmyei oJ path;r ejn tw/ ojnovmativ mou, ejkei`no~ uJma`~ didavxei pavnta kai; uJpomnhvsei

uJma`~ pavnta a} ei\pon uJmi`n.54 The consideration of didavxei pavnta

62

things and call to your mind all things which I have said toyou” (John 14:26).

55Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 351-52.

56D. A. Carson, Gospel According to John, 505.

57Ibid., 541-42.

presents a difficulty in interpretation. Some commentators,

such as Dunn, conclude that the didavxei pavnta of 14:26

includes “new revelation,” albeit controlled by the original

revelation of Christ.55 The Holy Spirit directs the minds

of the followers of Christ to the doctrine taught by Jesus.

D. A. Carson, however, indicates that the Spirit of truth

speaks directly to the disciples. Accordingly, the

Paraclete’s work is to help the disciples grasp the

significance of Christ’s teaching following the

resurrection.56 Carson, however, does allow for the

implication of illumination by the Spirit at work in

believers today.57

Stuhlmacher indicates, on the other hand, that “das

Johannesevangelium erklärt ausdrücklich, das Jesuszeugnis

der nachösterlichen Gemeinde sei vom Geist-Parakleten

bevollmächtigt und getragen (Joh 16,7ff.). Bei der

biblischen martyria handlet es sich also durchgängig um ein

Wortzeugnis in der Kraft des den Menschen zur Erkenntnis und

63

58Peter Stuhlmacher, Vom Verstehen des NeuenTestaments: Eine Hermeneutik (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck andRuprecht, 1986), 53. “The Gospel of John emphaticallydeclares that the testimony of Jesus of the post-Eastercommunity was empowered and born by the Spirit-Paraclete(John 16:7ff.). With the biblical martyria it is generallya question of a word-testimony which equips humanity for theknowledge and proclamation of God in the power of the HolySpirit.”

59Ibid., 222. Through the Spirit believers ofChrist “today hear the voice of God and His Christ.”

60Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed.(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 890.

zur Verkündigung Gottes befähigenden hl. Geistes.”58

Stuhlmacher maintains the uniqueness of the inspiration of

Scripture through the Holy Spirit. The Spirit, also,

illumines the deposit of divine revelation to believers.

Through this ministry, the Spirit equips believers to

proclaim the gospel to others. Through the Spirit the

believers of Christ “bis heute die Stimme Gottes und seines

Christus vernimmt” through Scripture.59 Erickson also

indicates that the ministry of the Spirit of truth helps

“believers today to understand Scripture.”60 The role of

the Paraclete as the Spirit of truth is to teach and to

remind disciples of the revelation of God through the life

and ministry of Jesus Christ so that they might share the

gospel of Christ with the conviction that it is absolute

truth.

The Paraclete aids followers of Christ for the

64

61Todd Hahn and David Verhaagen, Reckless Hope:Understanding and Reaching Baby Busters (Grand Rapids:Baker, 1996), 39.

62“Whenever the Paraclete whom I send to you fromthe Father may come, the Spirit of truth who comes from theFather, that one will testify concerning Me; and youtestify, because you are with Me from the beginning” (John15:26-27).

63H. Strathmann, s.v. “mavrtu~ ktl,” TDNT, 4:497-99.

evangelization of the postmodern world. The Spirit

illumines the followers of Christ today so that they might

bear witness to the gospel in their world with conviction.61

Rather than promoting personal opinion, the Spirit invests

believers with the conviction that the gospel is truth.

The theme of the Spirit of truth in John 15:26-27

elucidates the Paraclete’s role in the conviction of truth.

The Spirit of truth works in the world as witness to Jesus

(marturhvsei peri; ejmou`). In this passage Jesus declares, {Otan

e[lqh/ oJ paravklhto~ o}n ejgw; pevmyw uJmi`n para; tou` patrov~, to; pneu`ma th`~

ajlhqeiva~ o} para; tou` patro;~ ejkporeuvetai, ejkei`no~ marturhvsei peri; ejmou: kai;

uJmei`~ de; marturei`te, o{ti ajp j ajrxh`~ met j ejmou` ejste.62

The verb marturevw describes both the sense of

“witness to ascertainable facts” and “the making known and

confessing convictions.”63 The role of the Spirit is to

make known the facts concerning Jesus Christ. Allison A.

Trites indicates that the witness-motif presents an

historical apologetic concerning the miracles and

65

64Allison A. Trites, The New Testament Concept ofWitness (Cambridge: University Press, 1979), 78-90, 138.

65This subject will be examined in chapter five.

66Rudolph Bultmann, The Gospel of John, trans.George R. Beasley-Murray (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971), 553-54.

67Fritz Rienecker, Linguistic Key to the Greek NewTestament, ed. and trans. Cleon Rogers Jr. (Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1976; reprint, 1980), 253. This could be thesecond person indicative, but the context appears to suggestthe imperative.

resurrection of Jesus for a lost world.64 Indeed, the

apostolic approach for the evangelization of the ancient

world centers upon the concept of witness.65 Jesus sends

the Spirit of truth to empower His followers as witnesses

through His own activity of witness. The Spirit empowers

witnesses sufficiently in the postmodern world.

Jesus states that the witness of the Spirit

conjoins with the witness of His followers in John 15:27.

Bultmann suggests that “the Spirit is the power of the

proclamation in the community.”66 John uses different

tenses of marturevw in verses 26 and 27. When he describes

the testimony of the Spirit of truth, John uses the future

tense, marturhvsei. This represents the future work of the

Spirit of truth, which is to bear witness concerning Jesus.

In verse 27, John uses the imperative, marturei`te, which

denotes a command and mandate.67 The followers of Christ

have the mandate to join with the mission of the Spirit of

66

68Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 684.

69Herman A. Hoyt, “The Frantic Future and theChristian Directive: Acts 1:8,” Grace Journal 10 (Winter1969): 38. The concept of a “credible witness” isspecifically pertinent to the postmodern person who isimmersed in skepticism about absolute “truth-claims.”

70John Frame, “The Spirit and the Scriptures,” inHermeneutics, Authority, and Canon, eds. D. A. Carson andJohn D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 231.

71W. T. Connor, Work of the Holy Spirit, 89-90.

truth and bear witness concerning Jesus Christ.68 The

Spirit clothes the followers of Christ and their testimony

for effective evangelization. Hoyt further suggests that

the Spirit provides the duvnami~ for “credible witness.”69

John further describes the Spirit’s work in 16:13.

He highlights the work of the Spirit in the illumination of

Christ’s followers. The role of the Spirit, according to

John Frame, is to meet the need in believers “for inward

change, a need to reconcile ourselves to what God has

already revealed.”70

The Spirit bears witness of Christ to the world,

which is hostile toward Jesus and the gospel. The Holy

Spirit is on mission “to bear witness to Christ and to make

Christ real to men.”71 This is the work of the Spirit in

16:7-11. The key term in these verses is ejlevgcw. Büchsel

suggests that ejlevgcw usually means “to show someone his sin

67

72F. Büchsel, s.v. “ejlevgcw,” TDNT, 2:474.

73Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 564–65; George R.Beasley-Murray, John, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas:Word, 1987), 280-81.

74I. De la Potterie, La Vérité dans Saint Jean, 2vols. (Rome: PBI, 1977), 2:404: “to demonstrate the error orthe wrongs of somebody.”

75H. Sasse, s.v. “kovsmo~,” TDNT, 3:894.

76Walter Bauer, Das Johannesevangelium (Tübingen:Mohr, 1933), 149: “the three o{ti-sentences concern, in whatway the Spirit condemns regarding the named entity the worldto its humiliation.”

and to summon him to repentance.”72 Bultmann posits a legal

setting in which the Spirit stands as the prosecuting

attorney.73 De la Potterie indicates that ejlevgcw in this

passage is “démontrer l’erreur ou les torts de quelqu’un.”74

Kovsmo~ is the object of the Spirit’s work of ejlevgcw.

In distinctively Johannine language, the kovsmo~ consists of

those who are apart from Christ and opposed to Him. The

kovsmo~ is the aim of the redemptive mission of God through

the Spirit.75 John indicates that the Paraclete works in

the world to lead lost humanity to repentance.

The o}ti clauses provide further indication of the

Spirit’s work (John 16:9-11). Bauer indicates that “die

drei o{ti-Sätze 9-11 gehen an, inwiefern der Geist bezüglich

der genannten Dinge die Welt zu ihrer Beschämung

überführt.”76 In this sense, ejlevgcw takes the o{ti clauses as

68

77Carson, “The Function of the Paraclete in John16:7–11,” 548.

78Beasley-Murray, John, 281.

79Thomas C. Oden, Life in the Spirit, 91.

explicative, by which the Spirit demonstrates how the world

is wrong about sin, righteousness, and judgment.

Carson seeks to maintain the parallelism of the

three o{ti clauses and concludes that the Spirit speaks to

the world’s sin, pseudo-righteousness, and wrong estimation

of Jesus and their spiritual reality.77 Through witness,

the Spirit reveals the truth of sin, demonstrates the

pathway to righteousness, and warns of impending judgment.

The proclamation of the followers of Jesus is the instrument

which the Spirit of truth uses to accomplish His work in the

world.78 Through the witness of Christ’s followers, the

Paraclete penetrates the evangelistic obstacles to bring

individuals to the awareness of their need for repentance

and salvation through Christ.79

The promise of the “visionary gift” and the promise

of the Paraclete become a reality at Pentecost. God pours

out His Spirit upon believers in fulfillment of the OT

prophecy and Christ’s promise. Believers, then and now,

live in personal intimacy with the Father and continue the

69

80Walt Russell, “The Holy Spirit’s Ministry in theFourth Gospel,” Grace Theological Journal 8 (Fall 1987):237.

81David Wells, God the Evangelist: How the SpiritWorks to Bring Men and Women to Faith (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1987; reprint, Carlisle, Cumbria: PaternosterPress, 1997), 46.

82Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology, corrected ed.,trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (Baltimore: Johns HopkinsUniversity Press, 1997), 295-302.

ministry of His Son.80

The Holy Spirit: The Bridge for the ObjectiveTruth of the Gospel

The evangelization of postmodern people occurs in a

chaotic kovsmo~ in which postmodernism is hostile to the

gospel as objective truth. Bearing witness to Jesus in the

postmodern world presents the challenge of epistemology.

The ministry of the Spirit, however, provides a bridge

between the gospel metanarrative and postmodern incredulity.

David Wells correctly argues that the evangelistic witness

is effective “because of the mighty power of the Holy

Spirit, who alone is able to turn rebellious sinners into

obedient followers of Christ.”81

Epistemology: A Postmodern Dilemma

The postmodern premise suggests that one may not

know truth because language is not a clear nor reliable

representation of truth.82 By implication, postmodernism

70

83Julian N. Hartt, “Theological Investments inStory: Some Comments on Recent Developments and SomeProposals,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 52(1984): 121.

84Kelsey’s approach extends Frei’s proposal. SeeHans Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative (New Haven:Yale University Press, 1974).

proposes that the gospel is an illusionary foundation, since

no foundations for knowledge or certainty exist. This

presents a dilemma in the evangelistic work of the church.

Julian Hartt rightly assesses this postmodern dilemma: “If

the ontological truth-claims of the New Testament are false,

then the Christian religious life, understood and pursued as

the knowledge and service of God in Jesus Christ, is founded

on an illusion.”83

With epistemology jettisoned in postmodernism, the

evangelistic ministry of the church submerges into a

quagmire of postmodern skepticism and doubt in relation to

the gospel. The postliberal and revisionist approaches to

postmodernism increase this skepticism.

For example, the postliberal approach begins with

the “self” and moves to Scripture. David Kelsey’s

discussion of Scripture presents a postliberal approach.84

Kelsey sees the authority of a text in its pragmatic and

productive uses within the context of a particular

71

85David H. Kelsey, The Uses of Scripture in RecentTheology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 150.

86Ibid., 89.

87David Tracy, Blessed Rage for Order: The NewPluralism in Theology (New York: Seabury Press, 1975;reprint, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 43-45.

88Ibid., 175.

community.85 For Kelsey, texts are authoritative on the

basis of “how they are used in the Christian community.”86

Along these lines, however, Kelsey’s postliberal approach

devolves into an extreme pragmatic theory of truth, whereby

something is true because it works. Evangelization of

postmodern people, then, depends primarily upon the

demonstration of the gospel’s pragmatic effects as a sign of

its veracity rather than upon the work of the Spirit of

truth.

David Tracy proposes a revisionist model which

begins with self and moves to questions about God and

Scripture. The revisionist approach couples “Christian

texts” with “common human experience and language” as the

two principle sources of theology.87 Tracy offers a

theology which provides a “proper understanding of our

common experience and its fundamental continuity with the

God proclaimed in the Christian scriptures.”88 For Tracy

the gospel may be true if it is “existentially meaningful,”

72

89Ibid., 71.

90W. F. Lofthouse, “The Holy Spirit in Acts and theFourth Gospel,” Expository Times 52 (1940-41): 336.

91Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 890.

92“All authority has been given to Me in heaven andupon the earth.”

93W. Foerster, s.v. “ejxousiva,” TDNT, 2:566.

internally coherent, and verifiable through experiential

analysis.89 Truth is determined by the self-enlightenment

which a text provides. In this light, evangelization of

postmodern people depends upon the gospel’s ability to lead

the individual to self-understanding.

An apostolic approach, however, presents a

different solution to the dilemma of epistemology. The

“conception of the Spirit” in the evangelistic ministry of

an apostolic approach answers the postmodern skepticism.90

The Spirit illumines the hearts and minds of

believers through the Scripture to the truth of God found in

Jesus Christ,91 so that each believer receives the “Spirit

of Christian proclamation.” This outpouring inheres

authority (ejxousiva) and power (duvnami~) for the evangelization

of postmodern people. Although postmodernism rejects this

type of authority, Jesus declares in Matt 28:18, jEdovqh moi

pa`sa ejxousiva ejn oujranw/ kai; ejpi; th`~ gh`~,92 so that ejxousiva represents

the power of ultimate arbitration ejn oujranw/ kai; ejpi; th`~ gh`~.93

73

94Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology: Volume3, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1998), 16.

95“Therefore as you go make disciples of allnations.”

96W. Grundmann, s.v. “duvnami~,” TDNT, 2:284-85.

Pannenberg notes that “as the Spirit bears witness in

believers to Jesus as the truth of God, they themselves are

ecstatically raptured and are outside themselves in Jesus,

while conversely Jesus is in them to bind them in fellowship

with one another, and along with Jesus the Father also takes

up [H]is dwelling in believers.”94 Just as Jesus possesses

ejxousiva, He invests His ejxousiva through the Spirit to His

followers. This continual presence of Christ in believers

produces the authority for evangelism in a postmodern world.

It is this ejxousiva of Christ which produces the right and

responsibility of His followers to poreuqevnte~ ou\n maqhteuvsate

pavnta ta; e[qnh (Matt 28:19a).95

Bearing witness in the epistemological dilemma of

postmodernism highlights the significance of duvnami~.

Indeed, the basic meaning of duvnami~ centers on one’s ability

to perform a task.96 In the context of evangelism, duvnami~

is the enabling power of God in the witness of Christ’s

followers. According to Christ’s promise (Acts 1:8), this

power comes upon Christ’s followers through the Holy Spirit.

74

97Ibid., 311.

98This language represents Paul’s experience on theDamascus road (Acts 9). The layers of rabbinicinterpretation were deconstructed or unraveled in a decisiveencounter with Jesus Christ, the truth. Upon thisencounter, Paul’s epistemological skepticism of Jesus Christas Messiah and Lord was diffused. The power of the gospelled him to repentance and salvation.

The Spirit “dispenses and mediates” the power which enabled

Christ to fulfill His mission and which equips His followers

to “stand in the place of Jesus and continue His work.”97

The Spirit of truth joins Christ’s followers in the

witnessing encounter to bear witness together that Jesus

Christ is the way, truth, and life.

The Spirit further infuses the witnessing encounter

with duvnami~ to lead postmodern people to truth. The

conversion of Saul provides exemplifies the evangelization

in the midst of epistemological uncertainty (Acts 9).

Although Saul rejected the “truth-claims” of the gospel

(Acts 6-7), the power of the Spirit of truth deconstructs

his epistemological skepticism (Rom 1:16-17).98 In the same

manner, the Spirit of truth deconstructs the epistemological

dilemma of postmodern people.

Borrowing cautiously from Tracy’s revisionist

approach, the Spirit of truth establishes the gospel of

Christ as “meaningful” to the postmodern person through the

conviction (ejlevgcw) of sin, righteousness, and judgment.

75

99David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity(Cambridge: Basil Blackwell, 1989), 44–45.

The Spirit of truth establishes the “meaning” of the gospel

through the empowered, internally coherent proclamation of

Christ’s witnesses. The Spirit of truth establishes the

“truth” of the gospel experientially and existentially in

postmodern people. The Spirit of truth answers the

postmodern dilemma of epistemology through His witness to

truth and the conviction of truth for the postmodern kovsmo~

of the truth. In this light, the evangelization of

postmodern people depends primarily upon the proclamation of

the gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit to lead

postmodern people to truth who is Jesus Christ.

Beyond Babel: Epistemology and eJtevrai~ glwvssai~

The evangelization of postmodern people presents

the problem of language in a world of pluralities. The

global scope of evangelization for the apostolic and

contemporary church creates the difficulties of language and

culture. David Harvey describes postmodernism as a

rejection of any “meta-language” which can overcome the

plurality of “power-discourses” or “language-games.”99 The

events of Pentecost point to the “meta-language” of God

through the Spirit which overcomes the problem of languages.

Dunn suggests that “the glossolalia of Pentecost

76

100Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 174.

101“They began to speak with other tongues” (Acts2:4), and “Each one was hearing them speaking in his ownlanguage” (Acts 2:6).

102See, Malcolm McDow and Alvin L. Reid, Firefall:How God Has Shaped History Through Revivals (Nashville:Broadman and Holman, 1997), 86.

103Jacques Derrida, “Des Tours de Babel,” Semeia 54(1991): 3-34, especially 7-8, 31-32.

104Ibid., 7.

105Ibid., 8.

fulfils [sic] Joel’s expectation of the outpouring of the

Spirit in prophecy.”100 In verse 4 Luke states that the

disciples h[rxanto lalei`n eJtevrai~ glwvssai~, and in verse 6 Luke

states that h[kouon ei|~ e{kasto~ th/ ijdiva/ dialevktw/ lalouvntwn auJtwn.101

The difference between glwvssai~ and dialevktw/ is the difference

between that which is spoken and that which is heard.102

This writer contends that the Spirit of God communicates

through the words of Christ’s followers so that the hearer

understands the message which is communicated.

Derrida presents the story of Babel as a foundation

for deconstruction.103 He states that God “deconstructs” the

universal language so that translation is impossible.104 The

result is the “multiplicity of idioms” found in a confusion

of tongues.105 Derrida posits that God deconstructs meaning.

Despite Derrida’s pursuit of confusion and trace through

77

106Ibid., 6-7.

107Umberto Eco, Serendipities, trans. W. Weaver (SanDiego: Harcourt Brace, 1998), 28-29.

108William Neil, The Acts of the Apostles, NewCentury Bible Commentary (London: Marshall, Morgan, andScott, 1973; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 74.


110Dockery, “The Theology of Acts,” 46.

111C. Bartholomew, “Babel and Derrida: Postmodernism,Language, and Biblical Interpretation,” Tyndale Bulletin 49(November 1998): 317.

deconstruction,106 Umberto Eco suggests that the confusion of

languages at Babel provides the hope that confusion might

end.107

Luke’s list of nations (Acts 2:9-11) covers the

entirety of the known world in the apostolic period.108

Amidst these pluralities, the “truth-claims” of the gospel

story encountered the obstacles of language and meaning.

Yet, eJtevrai~ glwvssai~ at Pentecost shows that “the Spirit of

God speaks all languages.”109 The reality of eJtevrai~ glwvssai~

establishes confidence in communicating the gospel cross-

culturally, for God speaks through His followers to hearers

of all races, languages, and cultures (Acts 2:6-8).110 Thus,

the Spirit reverses the consequences of Babel in Genesis

11:4-9.111 Pentecost marks the call of grace to “all

humanity by making all human languages congruent with God’s

78


113William Neil, The Acts of the Apostles, 72.

114For a discussion of the veracity of the speechesin Acts and the arguments against it, see, Hans Conzelmann,A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, trans. JamesLimburg, A. T. Kraabel, and Donald Juel (Philadelphia:Fortress, 1987), xliv. This writer contends that Luke’srecord of the speeches in Acts reflect the content of thesermons delivered, yet the sermons are not verbatim reports.

115H. N. Ridderbos, The Speeches of Peter in the Actsof the Apostles (London: Tyndale, 1962), 11.

address.”112 Neil indicates that the occasion of eJtevrai~

glwvssai~ reverses the curse of Babel so that “now men from

all nations could be brought into one fellowship by the

power of the Spirit.”113

The Spirit of truth serves as the epistemological

bridge for evangelism with postmodern people. Regardless

the cultural, ethnic, or socially informed situation of

postmodern people, the Spirit of truth fills the witness of

Christ’s followers so that the hearers experience conviction

and comprehension.

Evangelistic Approach at Pentecost, Acts 2:14-41

Peter’s sermon at Pentecost represents an apostolic

approach for evangelism.114 An examination of Peter’s sermon

provides a framework for the proclamation of the gospel in a

postmodern world. Ridderbos insightfully suggests that this

sermon is illustrative of “apostolic preaching.”115

79

116On the paradigmatic nature of the speech, seeMarion L. Soards, The Speeches in Acts: Their Content,Context, and Concerns (Louisville: Westminster, 1994), 9-11.

117C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and ItsDevelopment (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1936), 7-8. Dodddistinguishes khvrugma from didavskein. The latter is moralinstruction for believers.

118Ibid., 17-24.

119These five elements are: 1) the dawn of themessianic age (Acts 2:16-21); 2) the life, death, andresurrection of Christ (Acts 2:22-32); 3) Jesus is theexalted Lord sitting at the right hand of God as the head ofthe “new Israel” (Acts 2:33-36); 4) the Spirit is the signof Christ’s exaltation (Acts 2:33); 5) a call forrepentance, the offer of forgiveness, and the gift of theSpirit (Acts 2:38-39). The sixth element speaks to theconsummation of the messianic age (Acts 3:21).

120John B. Polhill, Acts, New American Commentary(Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 107.

Accordingly, Peter’s sermon is paradigmatic of other

speeches in Acts as well as for evangelism in postmodern

times.116

C. H. Dodd indicates that the apostolic khvrugma is

the public proclamation of the gospel to unbelievers.117

Dodd proposes that the apostolic khvrugma includes six basic

elements present in Luke’s presentation of the speeches.118

Of these six elements, Peter’s sermon at Pentecost includes

five.119 Within this examination, one notes the OT

foundations of the messianic age, the life, death, and

exaltation of Jesus, and a call to repentance.120

An apostolic approach for the evangelization of

80

121C. H. Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 8.

122E. Earle Ellis, Prophecy and Hermeneutic in EarlyChristianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 151-52.

123Ibid., 160-61.

124J. W. Bowker, “Speeches in Acts: A Study of Proemand Yellammendu Form,” New Testament Studies 14 (1967-1968):96-109; Richard Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in theApostolic Period (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 100-103.

125E. Ellis, Prophecy and Hermeneutic, 201-204.

126Ibid., 203-204.

postmodern people requires the proclamation of the gospel.

Peter’s sermon provides a pattern for this public

proclamation. The apostolic khvrugma is not optional in

evangelism, for it is the essence of gospel proclamation.121

Most commentators agree that Peter utilizes either

a midrash or pesher model. Generally, the midrash is

“interpretive renderings of the Hebrew text.”122 The pesher

adds an “eschatological exegesis” by which the OT prophecies

find fulfillment in the current time of the commentary.123

Bowker and Longenecker point to Peter’s sermon as a midrash

of Joel’s prophecy.124 Ellis suggests that the

eschatological focus drawn from Joel 2 reveals Peter’s use

of pesher.125 Following Ellis’ suggestion, an apostolic

method begins with the contemporary event, brings together

an OT text and “christological kerygma,” and applies the

interpretation to the evangelization of the hearers.126

81

127M. Soards, The Speeches in Acts, 32.

128C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures: TheSubstructure of New Testament Theology (London: Nisbet,1952), 127. Dodd writes that OT scripture “is thesubstructure of all Christian theology and contains alreadyits chief regulative ideas.” This pertains to a Jewishaudience. For the evangelization of Gentiles, see chapterfive, “Apostolic Witness in Postmodern Time, Acts 1:8.”

129F. F. Bruce, “The Significance of the Speeches forInterpreting Acts,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 33

Peter’s explication of the phenomena of Pentecost

to the crowd presents the message of salvation.127 Four

elements within Peter’s sermon provide insight for an

apostolic approach: the allure of the Spirit’s activity, the

OT foundation, the “christological kerygma,” and the witness

of Christ’s followers. The following section will focus

upon these elements as instructive for the evangelization of

postmodern people. The propositions from OT Scripture

presents a central feature in the definition of the Spirit’s

activity, the interpretation of the “christological

kerygma,” and in the validation of the followers of Jesus.

Propositions from Old Testament Scripture

Peter’s evangelistic approach interprets the

experience of his hearers with the OT Scripture.128 Joel

2:28-32 provide the interpretive framework for the

miraculous events of Pentecost and serve as a spring-board

for the systematic presentation of the gospel.129

82

(Fall 1990): 21.

130John B. Polhill, Acts, 114.

131M. Dahood, Psalm I: 1-50, The Anchor Bible (GardenCity, NJ: Doubleday, 1966), 1:91, suggests that this phraseindicates eternal life.

132Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “David, Being Therefore aProphet (Acts 2:30),” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972):332-339; see also, Walter C. Kaiser Jr., “The Promise toDavid in Psalm 16 and Its Application in Acts 2:25–33 and13:32–37,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 23(1980): 228.

133W. Kaiser Jr., “Promise to David,” 229.

Psalm 16:8-11 provides the foundation for the

resurrection. A key element in Peter’s interpretation is

the identification of dysij; or “favored one” (Ps 16:10).

Kaiser suggests that David is the representative and

recipient of “God’s ancient but ever-renewed promise.”130

The term dysij; points to the object of God’s favor and

covenant commitment. God’s promise of a future for His dysij;

is the “path of life.”131

Fitzmeyer indicates that David’s prophetic ability

led him to see the future of God’s dysij;.132 Peter utilizes

David’s prophecy that God’s “ultimate hasid would triumph

over death. For David, this was all one word: God’s ancient

but ever-new promise.”133 Through the OT foundation, Peter

declares that Christ’s resurrection fulfills the promise of

the eternal kingdom to David. An analysis of this

83

134See, W. R. G. Loader, “Christ at the Right Hand:Psalm CX.i in the N.T.,” New Testament Studies 24 (1977–78):199–217.

135See Mark 12:35-37 in which Jesus attributes thepsalm to David.

“christological kerygma” will follow in the next section.

Psalm 110:1 provides the foundation for the

exaltation of Jesus. Peter declares that the unusual

phenomenon at Pentecost is the outpouring of the Spirit from

the exalted Jesus Christ. Psalm 110:1 serves as Peter’s OT

support for the exaltation of Jesus as well as the blessings

of the exalted Christ upon His followers.134 The oracle from

Yahweh to ynIdoa, however, is certain in its portrayal of ynIdoa as

distinct from both David and Yahweh.135

In this way, OT Scripture serves as the foundation

of knowledge to interpret the experience of the hearers. To

this foundation, Peter joins the “christological kerygma”

and the personal testimony of the disciples. OT Scripture

provides the foundation of knowledge for the “truth-claims”

of the cross and the resurrection.

The Cross and the Resurrection: An Objective, Historical Reality

Alvin Reid suggests, “The objective message of the

cross and Jesus’ resurrection permeated the witness of the

84

136Alvin Reid, Introduction to Evangelism (Nashville:Broadman and Holman, 1998), 48.

137Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: AnInquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity, 2d ed.(London: SCM Press, 1990), 16-21; Henry J. Cadbury, TheMaking of Luke-Acts (New York: MacMillan, 1927), 280; HansConzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke, trans. GeoffreyBuswell (New York: Harper and Row, 1960), 200-201.

138I. H. Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970), 171.

139Ibid., 169-73. For contrary view, see Dunn, Unityand Diversity, 17-18.

early church.”136 Peter’s sermon affirms that statement.

The “christological kerygma” in Peter’s sermon focuses upon

the death (Acts 2:22-23), resurrection (Acts 2:24-28; Ps

16:8-11), and exaltation of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:29-36; Ps

110:1). Dunn, following Conzelmann and Cadbury, however,

contends that the kerygma of Acts does not contain a

“theology of the death of Jesus.” He argues that the

sermons in Acts do not interpret the historical fact of

Jesus’ death but focus on His resurrection and exaltation.137

I. H. Marshall also acknowledges that Luke provides “scanty”

material on the death of Jesus and its significance.138

Marshall, however, finds vicarious atonement in Philip’s

evangelistic encounter with the Ethiopian (Acts 8:26-39) and

in the formula, “hanging on a tree” (Acts 5:30; 10:39;

13:29).139 Conner argues that Peter applies the Servant

motif to Jesus (Acts 3:13, 26; 4:27, 30), “who redeems [H]is

85

140Leon Morris, The Cross in the New Testament (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 111.

141It is possible that the participle modifies bothboulh`/ and prognwvsei, since both are in the dative.

142K. L. Schmidt, s.v. “oJrivzw,” TDNT, 452-56.

143Fritz Rienecker, Linguistic Key to the Greek NewTestament, trans. Cleon Rogers Jr. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1976; reprint, 1980), 266.

144H. J. Holtzmann, Die Apostelgeschichte, 3d ed.,Hand-Commentar zum Neuen Testament 1/2 (Tübingen: J. C. B.Mohr, 1901), 34. “So here human freedom and divinenecessity presented to themselves the source: this thesimplest and probably also oldest form, to reconcile

people by suffering and death.”140

Peter’s sermon at Pentecost presents the cross as

the essential ingredient in the purpose of God for the

salvation of humanity (Acts 2:23). The perfective

participle, wJrismevnh/, modifies boulh`/.141 Schmidt indicates

that oJrivzw promotes the idea of God’s determination and

appointment.142 Peter’s use of oJrivzw suggests that God set a

pathway for the completion of His purpose (boulhv).143

Peter indicates that God purposed for Jesus to be

crucified. Even though God’s predetermined counsel includes

the death of Jesus, Peter unapologetically proclaims the

human responsibility. Holtzmann states that “so reichten

sich hier menschliche Freiheit und göttliche Notwendigkeit

die Hand: Dies die einfachste und wohl auch älteste Form,

sich mit dem paradoxen Schicksal des Messias auszusöhnen.”144

86

themselves to the paradoxical destiny of the Messiah.”

145John B. Polhill, Acts, 112.

146Ibid. “Lawless hands” is idiomatic for Gentiles.

147Neil, Acts of the Apostles, 76.

148I. H. Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles, 74-76.

149Leon Morris, Cross in the New Testament, 124-25.

150Alister McGrath, The Mystery of the Cross (GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1988), 29.

The issue for Holtzmann is the paradox between divine

purpose and human responsibility. Polhill suggests that

“Peter carefully balanced the elements of God’s divine

purposes and the human responsibility for the crucifixion of

Jesus.”145 Peter also declares that the Jewish crowd of

hearers and the Gentiles share the guilt of killing Jesus.146

The cross, however, “was not a disaster but an act

of God’s grace for man’s salvation.”147 Peter proclaims the

triumph of God over death through Christ (Acts 2:24).148

Morris insightfully states that the message of the cross in

the Pentecost sermon “is not put forward from any idea that

it was good teaching, or good strategy, or that it could

meet a damaging criticism. It is put forward because it is

held to be true.”149 For Peter and the apostolic church, the

cross is an objective, historical reality which God purposed

for the salvation of humanity (Acts 2:39).150

87

151W. T. Conner, The Cross in the New Testament(Nashville: Broadman, 1954), 48.

152Leon Morris, Cross in the New Testament, 130.

153A. Oepke, s.v. “ajnivsthmi,” TDNT, 1:370-72.

154Curtis Vaughan, Acts: A Study Guide Commentary(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 27.

Peter also presents the resurrection of Jesus as an

objective, historical reality. The apostolic church

connects the significance of the cross with the

resurrection.151 This significance is that the cross is “the

means to the end, and that end is victory.”152 God provides

victory over death through Christ’s resurrection. The

gospel promises victory through the inauguration of the new

age at Christ’s exaltation and His bestowal of the Spirit to

His followers (Acts 2:33).153

An apostolic approach follows Peter’s example. The

OT Scripture provides the hearers foundations for belief.

The eyewitness testimonies of the disciples about the

resurrection also provide a foundation for belief. Finally,

Peter presents the proof of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:33).

This represents the “crowning proof that Christ had been

raised from the dead and enthroned in heaven as exalted

Messiah.”154

David Wells connects this proclamation also to the

witness of the Spirit of truth. The witness of the Spirit

88

155David Wells, God the Evangelist, 45. Peter’sstatement in Acts 2:36 is a climactic statement, by whichPeter and the apostolic church give to Jesus the highesttitle, signifying Yahweh Himself.

joins Peter’s evangelistic proclamation to draw the hearers

toward salvation.

The sermon Peter preached at Pentecost was one in whichJesus was the focus and the Holy Spirit’s ministry ofconviction was apparent. He convicted listeners of sin(‘you . . . put [H]im to death’; Acts 2:23),righteousness (‘But God raised [H]im from the dead’;[H]e is ‘exalted to the right hand of God’; 2:24, 33),and judgment (‘The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at [M]yright hand until I make your enemies a footstool foryour feet’; 2:34-35). Those who heard were ‘cut to theheart’ (2:37); on that day, three thousand believed.155

Thus, Peter joins the testimony of the Spirit to evangelize

the Jerusalem crowd at Pentecost.

Following these proofs, Peter concludes his

evangelistic sermon with a call for the audience to repent.

He declares that the foundations for faith have been laid at

the feet of his hearers so that they should know (ginwskevtw)

that God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36).

The truth of God’s salvation is the impetus for the creation

of the community of faith (Acts 2:41-47).


postmodern people proclaims the cross and the resurrection

as the “truth-claims” of the gospel to postmodern people.

The contemporary church follows the example of the apostolic

church, proclaiming the death and resurrection as objective,

89

156Robert Webber, Ancient-Future Faith: RethinkingEvangelicalism for a Postmodern World (Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 1999), 150.

157Ibid.

historical facts which are essential in evangelism.

Robert Webber suggests that evangelism in a

postmodern world “must recover the emphasis that Christ’s

death is a victory over the powers of evil.”156 This is the

message which Peter proclaims in his sermon at Pentecost,

and it is the content of the proclamation of the gospel in

the postmodern world. The proclamation of Christus Victor

“makes connection with churched and unchurched people.”157

In the evangelization of postmodern people, the gospel of

the cross and the empty tomb declares that God has gained a

victory that is unattainable without Him.

The contemporary church must proclaim the

“christological kerygma.” Scripture, personal witness, and

the Spirit of truth provide the foundations for belief.

Proclaiming the cross and resurrection as objective,

historical realities, the Spirit of truth verifies the truth

of the gospel and convicts postmodern people.

Objective or Communal? The Postmodern Question of Truth

The “truth-claims” of the cross and the

resurrection are essential for the evangelization of

90

158Richard Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth:Philosophical Papers, Volume 1 (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1991), 23-25, 165.

159On the production of meaning and truth by thecommunity, see Stanley Fish, Is There a Text in This Class?(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980), 14.

160Hans Hübner, “The Holy Spirit in Holy Scripture,”Ecumenical Review 41 (July 1989): 328–29; Stanley Grenz,Theology for the Community of God (Nashville: Broadman andHolman, 1994), 482-85.

postmodern people; yet for the postmodern mind, the question

of truth and the acquisition of truth must be considered.

According Richard Rorty and other postmodern theorists,

truth is a function of community.158 The community creates

truth that is most beneficial for the continuance of that

community.159 This truth remains in tact until an individual

or a group of individuals within the community develop

enough skill in the “language games” to change or alter the

truth. Truth then changes according to the context of the

community and the language games within the community.

The outpouring of the Spirit of truth at Pentecost

teaches, however, that community is a function of truth.

The Christian community in apostolic times and in the

postmodern world is built upon the truth of the gospel and

the power of the Spirit of truth applying the truth to the

hearts of the hearers. The Holy Spirit creates community

through the truth of the gospel.160 The Holy Spirit, who

91

161William Neil, Acts of the Apostles, 79; Dunn,Jesus and the Spirit, 260-62; G. W. H. Lampe, The Seal ofthe Spirit (London: Longmans, 1951), 3-7.

162Arthur Darby Nock, Conversion: The Old and New inReligion from Alexander the Great to Augustine of Hippo(London: Oxford University Press, 1933), 7.

163Rienecker, Linguistic Key, 267. Luke’sdescription, katenuvghsan th;n kardivan, indicates a “painfulemotion which penetrates the heart as if stinging.”

comes to indwell individuals upon their conversion,

validates the common bond of salvation for every member of

the Christian community.161 The Holy Spirit creates an

epistemological bridge to conversion and an experiential

unity within the community.

The Spirit of Truth, Conversion, and Community

Arthur Darby Nock provides a helpful definition of

conversion as a “reorientation of the soul” which involves a

“turning which implies a consciousness that a great change

is involved, that the old was wrong and the new is right.”162

In Peter’s Pentecost sermon, the people respond to the

gospel with a cry of dismay over their condition (Acts

2:37).163

Peter calls for repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38).

In the context of this call for decision, repentance

connects the hearer to conversion. Stagg confirms this

connection when he declares that metanoevw represents the NT

92

164Frank Stagg, New Testament Theology (Nashville:Broadman, 1962), 118-19.

165J. Behm, s. v. “metanoevw ktl,” TDNT, 4:1003-1004.

166The text reads, metanohvsate ou\n kai; ejpistrevyate eij~ to;ejxaleifqh`nai uJmw`n ta;~ aJmartiva~.

167G. Bertram, s. v. “ejpistrevfw ktl,” TDNT, 7:727-28.

168David Wells, God the Evangelist, 95.

idea of conversion. He writes, “The call to ‘repentance,’

then, was a call . . . to conversion.”164 Repentance and

conversion mean to change one’s mind and turn toward

something or someone else. Indeed, Behm indicates that

conversion is “the basic requirement” in the apostolic

kerygma, and metanoevw is “the heart of the apostolic

mission.”165 Peter clearly presents the connection between

metanoevw and ejpistrevfw in Acts 3:19.166 Repentance is to

change one’s mind concerning the old way of life, and

conversion is to change one’s direction toward God.167

The work of repentance and conversion comes to the

postmodern person through the work of the Spirit of truth in

the evangelistic engagement. The Spirit of truth leads the

postmodern person to the acquisition of the truth of the

gospel. Wells suggests that evangelism involves

“explanation and persuasion relative to Christ” and the

truth of the cross. “Biblical conversion is conversion that

is brought about by truth.”168

93

169William Barclay, The Promise of the Spirit(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 58.

170George R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the NewTestament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 102-103. Thephrase, eij~ a[fesin tw`n aJmartiw`n uJmw`n (Acts 2:38), should beconnected to metanoevw in conjunction with baptivzw. As Bruce(Book of Acts, 70) writes: “It would indeed be a mistake tolink the words ‘for the forgiveness of sins’ with thecommand ‘be baptized’ to the exclusion of the prior commandto repent. It is against the whole genius of biblicalreligion to suppose that the outward rite could have anyvalue except insofar as it was accompanied by the work ofgrace within.”

171Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, 103.

172“For in one Spirit we all were baptized into onebody” (1 Cor 12:13a).

Baptism connects the hearer to community. Barclay

writes that baptism joins the “confession of faith” with

“entry into the fellowship of the church.”169 Beasley-Murray

shows that the confession of faith identifies the believer

to the Lord for the purpose or with the result of

salvation.170 The corollary identification in baptism is

incorporation as a member of the community of believers.

The believer in baptism numbers “himself with the people who

invoke the Name of Jesus” and is incorporated “into the

community of those who inherit the Kingdom.”171

The concept of incorporation indicates the nature

of involvement and participation in Christ’s body. Paul

writes, kai; ga;r ejn eJni; pneuvmati hJmei`~ pavnte~ eij~ e{n sw`ma ejbaptivsqhmen.172

Here, Paul emphasizes the relationship between “Spirit-

94

173G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the NewTestament, 169-71. The preposition ejn may signify thedative, locative, or instrumental case. If one sees thelocative case in this verse, then pneuvmati is the realm inwhich believers are baptized. If one sees the instrumentalof agency, then pneuvmati is the “agent of baptism tomembership in the Body” (167).

174Ibid., 169. His arguments include: 1) the work ofChrist by His Spirit in baptism for consecration of thebeliever in 1 Cor 6:11; 2) evidence from Acts in which theprimitive church saw the fulfillment of messianic baptism inthe outpouring of the Spirit and in the “administration ofbaptism to those responsive to the gospel” and 3) theconnection between Gal 3:27 and this verse which link“baptism to Christ with baptism to the Church.”

175Ibid., 170.

baptism” and incorporation into the “body of Christ.”

Beasley-Murray takes the phrase, ejn eJni; pneuvmati, to depict

agency, so that the Spirit is the “agent of baptism to

membership in the Body.”173 Beasley-Murray contends that

this verse points directly to “Christian baptism in

water.”174 This conclusion presents dangerous implications.

The apparent danger of this view, in this writer’s opinion,

is the unlikely identification that water-baptism is Spirit-

baptism. Beasley-Murray sees this danger and writes that

“there is nothing automatic about this association of

baptism and the Spirit” but “the relation of the believer

with the Spirit is to be construed in strict analogy with

his relation to the Risen Christ.”175 Beasley-Murray,

therefore, contends that the reference in this verse is to

95

176Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians,New International Commentary on the New Testament (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 604-606.

177Ibid., 605.

178See Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NewInternational Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1996), 359-79.

179Ibid., 604 n. 24.

180Ibid., 604.

water-baptism, but it does not refer to water-baptism as a

salvific act of the Spirit through water-baptism.

Fee provides a lengthy discussion on this verse.

He suggests that Paul is not referring to water-baptism in

any way in this text.176 His argument, which looks upon ejn

eJni; pneuvmati as locative, places the emphasis upon conversion

when the believer is “immersed in the Spirit.”177

Although Fee’s emphasis on conversion is admirable,

one must ask if his diligent denial is justified. Paul

understands the symbolism of water-baptism (Rom 6:3-11).178

As Fee concedes, however, “the point of reference for the

metaphor would be their own baptism (immersion) in water.”179

Fee himself indicates the association between baptism and

the reception of the Spirit, which is the “crucial

ingredient” of conversion.180 It is therefore reasonable

that Paul refers to conversion, calling to his readers’

minds their water-baptism, when he writes ejn eJni; pneuvmati hJmei`~

96

181F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, New CenturyBible Commentary (London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott,1971), 121.

182Beverly Roberts Gaventa, From Darkness to Light:Aspects of Conversion in the New Testament (Philadelphia:Fortress Press, 1986), 98.

pavnte~ eij~ e{n sw`ma ejbaptivsqhmen.

The significance of this discussion is that Spirit-

baptism incorporates believers into the “body of Christ.”

Water-baptism is the visible demonstration of this

incorporation. Bruce suggests that “faith-union with Christ

brought [H]is people into membership of the Spirit-baptized

community, procuring for them the benefits of the once-for-

all outpouring of the Spirit at the dawn of the new age,

while baptism in water was retained as the outward and

visible sign of their incorporation into Christ.”181

The call to conversion and community through

repentance and baptism provides a transition from Peter’s

Pentecost sermon to apostolic community life (Acts 2:41-47).

Gaventa points out that Acts 2:38 “provides a transition to

the ensuing narrative of the expansion of the Jerusalem

[Christian] community.”182 Those who submit to baptism as an

expression of repentance receive the seal of the Spirit.

Conversion which is wrought by the Spirit leads to community

of the Spirit in the fellowship of the saints. Thus, the

apostle Paul elucidates the preeminent community ethic in

97

183“One body and one Spirit, just as also you havebeen called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, onefaith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who [is]above all and through all and in all” (Eph 4:4-6).

his epistle to the Ephesians: e}n sw`ma kai; e}n pneu`ma, kaqw;~ kai;

ejklhvqhte ejn mia/ ejlpivdi th`~ klhvsew~ uJmw`n: ei|~ kuvrio~, miva pivsti~, e}n bavptisma,

ei|~ qeo;~ kai; path;r pavntwn kai; dia; pavntwn kai; ejn pa`sin.183

Through this extensive examination of Pentecost,

the Holy Spirit, and evangelism, the following foundations

hopefully are established. First, Pentecost is the

historical and theological hinge for the evangelization of

postmodern people. God inaugurates a new age in which the

church joins the Spirit to evangelize the postmodern world.

Second, the Spirit is the epistemological bridge for the

objective truth of the gospel in a postmodern context. The

Spirit unites ejlevgcw with the evangelism of the church.

Third, Peter’s sermon at Pentecost reveals an example of

apostolic khvrugma for postmodern people by which the Spirit

speaks through the believer to the hearer. The objective

reality of the cross and resurrection is the center of

evangelistic preaching to postmodern people. The Spirit

establishes the conviction of postmodern people that the

“truth-claims” of the apostolic khvrugma are in fact true.

The Spirit leads postmodern people to conversion through

repentance and community through baptism.

1Paul Minear, Images of the Church in the NewTestament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 268-69. Heproposes ninety-six “analogies” of the church in the NT. This examination is not as exhaustive as Minear’s and

98

CHAPTER THREE

THE FUNCTION OF COMMUNITY IN AN APOSTOLIC APPROACH


postmodern people has a community focus. Postmodernism has

inaugurated the demise of the “autonomous individual” and

given way for the exaltation of community. This creates a

specific advantage for the contemporary church following an

apostolic approach for evangelism in the postmodern milieu.

The influence of community in the postmodern world, however,

engenders the notion of truth as a social construct. An

apostolic approach depends upon the Spirit as the

epistemological bridge toward the access of truth. What,

then, is the role of community?

Images of an Apostolic Community

An examination of the biblical images of an

apostolic community serves as a starting point for an

analysis of the role of community in an apostolic approach.1

99

organizes specifically around a trinitarian motif.

2Boyd Hunt, Redeemed! Eschatological Redemption andthe Kingdom of God (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1993),182.

3Acts 5:11; 8:1, 3; 9:31; 11:22, 26; 12:1, 5; 13:1;14:23, 27; 15:3, 4, 22, 41; 16:5; 18:22; 20:17, 28. jEkklhsivais assumed as the referent in Acts 2:47.

4Eduard Lohse, Die Entstehung des Neuen Testaments(Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1972), 192. The translation is:“yet even more it [ejkklhsiva] presents itself in the gatheringof the Christian church as the holy people of God.” Lohsefurther writes that the local church can representcompletely (vollständig) the Church of Jesus Christ.

5Stanley Grenz and John Franke, BeyondFoundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context

These images, drawn from Acts and Paul’s epistles, reveal an

apostolic view of the Christian community. Although this is

not an exhaustive examination, the premise of this author is

that the images of an apostolic community present an

evangelistic focus for the apostolic church.

The most common term for the Christian community in

the NT is ejkklhsiva.2 This is the primary term in Acts.3

Lohse understands ejkklhsiva to mean the “immer handelt es sich

in der Versammlung der christlichen Gemeinde um Gottes

heileges Volk,”4 and the following images reinforce this

concept.

Stanley Grenz and John Franke propose that the

Trinity provides a fundamental framework for the Christian

answer to God’s identity in a postmodern context.5

100

(Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 187.

6Ibid.

7P. Minear, Images of the Church in the NewTestament, 223.

8Edmund P. Clowney, “Interpreting the BiblicalModels of the Church: A Hermeneutical Deepening ofEcclesiology,” in Biblical Interpretation and the Church:Text and Context, ed. D. A. Carson (Exeter: PaternosterPress, 1984), 76.

9Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth: Textsand Archaeology (Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1983), 167; idem.,Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press,

Therefore, as these authors seek to “shape theology in a

postmodern context,” they suggest that the Christian

community “finds its basis in being and action” within the

framework of the Trinity.6 Paul Minear also indicates that

the biblical images of the church point “to a realm in which

God and Jesus Christ and the Spirit are at work.”7 Clowney

furthermore proposes that these images “continually relate

the church to the triune God.”8 With this concept in mind,

the trinitarian metaphors for the Christian community

provide the basis for “being and action” in apostolic

approach.

Christ’s Body

The “body of Christ” represents one of the major

metaphors for the apostolic community. Paul describes the

unity of the body amidst the diversity of the membership.9

101

1997), 288. Each member of the community relates to othermembers as an organic whole called the “body of Christ.”

10Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to theCorinthians, New International Commentary on the NewTestament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 606. Thetranslation is “whether Jews or Greeks or slaves or freepersons, and we all have been made to drink one Spirit” (1Cor 12:13).

11Jean Baudrillard, The Transparency of Evil: Essayson Extreme Phenomena, trans. James Benedict (New York:Verso, 1993), 4-6.

12Ibid., 5.

13Ibid., 6.

The Spirit “eliminates the old distinctions,” ei[te jIoudai`oi ei[te

{Ellhne~ ei[te ejleuvqeroi, kai; pavnte~ e{n pneu`ma ejpotivsqhmen (1 Cor

12:13).10 The elimination of these symbols of alienation

presents an answer to the postmodern quest.

Baudrillard suggests that the postmodern desire for

“relationality” emerges from the “fractal stage” of

values,11 which is the “haphazard proliferation and

dispersal of value” so that there is “no law of value.”12

Good is no longer the opposite of evil, nothing can nowbe plotted on a graph or analysed in terms of abscissasand ordinates. Just as each particle follows its owntrajectory, each value or fragment of value shines for amoment in the heavens of simulation, then disappearsinto the void along a crooked path that only rarelyhappens to intersect with other such paths. This is thepattern of the fractal -- and hence the current patternof our culture.13

This postmodern pattern produces a desire for “otherness,”

102

14Ibid., 172-73.

15See the previous examination of Nietzsche,“Introduction,” 3-6.

16Georg Strecker, Theology of the New Testament,trans. M. Eugene Boring (New York: Walter de Bruyter, 2000),184.

17Robert Jenson, The Triune Identity: God Accordingto the Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), 120.

18S. Grenz and J. Franke, Beyond Foundationalism,201.

which for Baudrillard is “getting beyond alienation.”14

Here, Baudrillard’s solution is to pursue “radical

otherness” in which alienation becomes “definitively other.”

In this way, the individual loses “any trace of my own.”

Baudrillard’s solution heralds back to Nietzsche’s

exaltation of the “free spirit.”15

This “relationality” within an apostolic community

theologically reflects the “relationality” within the

Trinity.16 Jenson suggests that trinitarian doctrine begins

with the premise that “God’s relations to us are internal to

[H]im.”17 Therefore, as Grenz and Franke suggest, the

apostolic community provides “the foretaste of the new

humanity” who “represent God in the midst of the fallenness

of the present through relationships that reflect God’s own

loving character.”18 As Baudrillard concludes, the “Object”

is the answer to alienation, even though he equates “radical

103

19Baudrillard, Transparency of Evil, 173-74.

20Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community inCorinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 259.

21James D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit: A Study ofthe Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and theFirst Christians as Reflected in the New Testament (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 264.

22F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, New CenturyBible Commentary (London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott,1971), 122-23.

otherness” of the individual, which is beyond “the Other.”19

From an apostolic approach, this “Object” is community with

God through Christ. The image of the “body of Christ,”

therefore, presents an apostolic answer to the postmodern

quest for an escape from alienation.

The “relationality” of the “body of Christ”

proceeds to a specific application of purpose; namely, to be

used by God (1 Cor 12:18).20 Dunn suggests that “there is

no such thing as passive membership.”21 Active membership

involves the fulfillment of specific functions within

Christ’s body (1 Cor 12:27-28). Each member of the sw`ma

Cristou` has a function to fulfill for the edification of the

whole.22 The contention of this writer is that each

member’s function corresponds to the leadership and

priorities of Christ Jesus who is the head of His body.

The concept of hJ kefalh; tou` swvmato~ th`~ ejkklhsiva~ (Col

104

23“[Christ] is the image of the invisible God andthe first-born of all creation.”

24“And He is before all things and in Him all thingsare held together.”

25Everett Ferguson, The Church of Christ: A BiblicalEcclesiology for Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 96.

26Ernest Best, One Body in Christ: A Study in theRelationship of the Church to Christ in the Epistles of theApostle Paul (London: SPCK, 1955), 120.

27“By Him all things were created” (1:16), and“through Him to reconcile all things to Himself” (1:20).

1:18) promotes the conviction that the leadership of the hJ

kefalh; tou` swvmato~ is the priority of the apostolic community.

Paul declares that Christ ejstin eijkw;n tou` qeou` tou` ajoravtou,

prwtovtoko~ pavsh~ ktivsew~ (Col 1:15).23 Furthermore, kai; aujtov~

ejstin pro; pavntwn kai; ta; pavnta ejn aujtw/ sunevsthken (Col 1:17).24 In

this way, the apostle describes the centrality and supremacy

of Christ in the cosmic world as the source and origin of

all things.25

Paul’s description of Christ as hJ kefalh; tou` swvmato~

also points to the relationship between the head and the

body. The community of faith “draws its life from [H]im to

whom it is united.”26 The apostolic community exists as

Christ’s body through Christ’s reconciling work. As ejn aujtw/

ejktivsqh ta; pavnta (Col 1:16), so also di j aujtou` ajpokatallavxai ta;

pavnta eij~ aujtovn (Col 1:20).27 Alienation between God and His

105

28F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, toPhilemon, and to the Ephesians, New International Commentaryon the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 74-75.

29P. Minear, Images of the Church, 213.

30F. F. Bruce, “Colossian Problems: Part 4, Christas Conqueror and Reconciler,” Bibliotheca Sacra 141 (October1984): 300-301.

31Eduard Schweizer, The Church as the Body of Christ(Richmond: John Knox, 1964), 78. Robert H. Gundry, Sôma inBiblical Theology with Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology,Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 29(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 228. Gundryproposes that this metaphor points to “an ecclesiastical

creation becomes reconciliation through Christ.28

The connection between the reconciling work of

Christ and the evangelistic emphasis of Christ’s body is

further amplified through Paul’s description in verses 21

through 29. Paul Minear writes:

The forgiveness that had become effective within theChristian community was seen as the beginning of aprocess that would continue until it had achieved itsgoal not only within the church but also throughoutcreation. (Vs. 20-23) Those who to this end shared theredemptive sufferings of the Messiah were carrying out aministry for the body, thus making God’s word more fullyknown. (Vs. 24-28)29

Paul’s concern is for God’s reconciling work through Christ

to permeate the world through the apostolic mission.30

Thus, Eduard Schweizer states that “the church is understood

as the body of Christ because of its obedience to its Head.

The church manifests itself in the mission to the

nations.”31

106

Body consisting of believers, in which [H]e [Jesus Christ]dwells on earth through [H]is Spirit.”

32E. Lohse, Die Entstehung des Neuen Testaments,192.

The image of Christ’s body reveals that the

apostolic community is the presence of Christ on mission.

In an apostolic approach for the evangelization of

postmodern people, the image of Christ’s body presents the

priority of evangelism, for Christ’s body naturally follows

the leadership of the Head, who is Christ Jesus. Christ’s

purpose of reconciliation answers the postmodern quest for

escape from alienation. As an extension of Christ’s

ministry, the church today recognizes its mission of

evangelism in the postmodern setting. The function of an

apostolic community is to evangelize the world as an

extension of Christ’s ministry.

God’s People

A second image for the apostolic community is the

“people of God.” The apostolic community represents the

gathering of the followers of Christ as God’s holy people,

set apart by the Spirit to accomplish the purposes of God in

Jesus Christ.32 As such, “Christians were heirs to the

Jewish conception of the people of God as ‘brothers and

107

33David A. deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship, andPurity: Unlocking New Testament Culture (Downers Grove:InterVarsity, 2000), 200.

34Jacques Derrida, De L’hospitalité (Paris: Calmann-Lévy, 1997), 29; quoted in Richard Kearney, “Others andAliens: Between Good and Evil,” in Evil After Postmodernism:Histories, Narratives, and Ethics, ed. Jennifer L. Geddes(New York: Routledge, 2001), 105. All references toDerrida’s De L’hospitalité are translated and cited byKearney.

35Ibid.

36Richard Kearney, “Others and Aliens: Between Goodand Evil,” in Evil After Postmodernism: Histories,Narratives, and Ethics, ed. Jennifer L. Geddes (New York:Routledge, 2001), 105.

sisters.’”33 This language reveals the “relationality”

within the community of faith between God and His people and

between individual members of the community.

Once again, as with the “body of Christ,” the

postmodern quest for “relationality” finds fulfillment in

this trinitarian image of the apostolic community.

Derrida’s concept of hospitality helps elucidate this

postmodern quest. Derrida calls for absolute hospitality.34

He proposes hospitality which gives place (donne lieu)

“without demanding that he give his name or enter into some

reciprocal pact.”35 Through this process of “absolute

hospitality,” Kearney suggests that the host must “allow

some way for the absolute other to enter our home, family,

nation, state.”36 The role of “absolute hospitality”

108

37Ibid., 112.

38Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NewInternational Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1996), 504 n. 41.

39“Then you are of the seed of Abraham, heirsaccording to promise.”

40“If then children [of God], also heirs; heirsindeed of God, and joint-heirs of Christ.”

41D. Moo, Epistle to Romans, 505.

42James D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians,Black’s New Testament Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,1993), 208.

presents an answer to the postmodern quest for identity and

legitimation.37 An apostolic conception of the “people of

God” provides an answer to Derrida’s call for absolute

hospitality.

Paul uses uiJoi; qeou and kat j ejpaggelivan klhronovmoi to

describe the “people of God.”38 Paul declares that those in

Christ, a[ra tou` jAbraa;m spevrma ejstev, kat j ejpaggelivan klhronovmoi (Gal

3:29).39 He suggests elsewhere, eij de; tevkna, kai; klhronovmoi:

klhronovmoi me;n qeou`, sugklhronovmoi de; Cristou` (Rom 8:17).40 The

picture of klhronovmoi is one of inheritance. Those who are ejn

Cristw/ inherit the promises of God because they are

sugklhronovmoi Cristou`.41 As Christ is tw/ spevrmativ of Abraham

(Gal 3:16), uJmei`~ Cristou` have become grafted into the

promises of God to Abraham through Jesus Christ.42

An apostolic community in a postmodern world is a

109

43Jürgen Moltmann, The Church in the Power of theSpirit: A Contribution to Messianic Ecclesiology, trans.Margaret Kohl (London: SCM Press, 1977; reprint,Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1993), 76.

44David M. Hay, “Pistis as ‘Ground for Faith’ inHellenized Judaism and Paul,” Journal of Biblical Literature108 (1989): 461-76.

45Ibid., 471.

community of faith. “Relationality” in the apostolic

community comes dia; th`~ pivstew~ ejn Cristw/ jIhsou` (Gal 3:26).

Derrida’s call for “absolute hospitality” is a call for the

alien-other to be provided an avenue into community. This

avenue for community is found dia; th`~ pivstew~ ejn Cristw/ jIhsou`.

Pivsti~ is not only the avenue into the family of God, but it

is also the avenue to a community that hopes in the work of

Christ in the present mission and future eschaton.43

David Hay suggests that ancient Greek, Jewish, and

Christian writers use pivsti~ to denote the “pledge” or

“evidence” to base a belief.44 Hay, therefore, concludes

that in Gal 3:23 and 25, pivsti~ “means ‘the objective ground

of faith.’ Jesus is the decisive evidence or pledge given

humankind by God which makes faith possible.”45 The

incredulity of postmodern people confronts the pivsti~ tou`

Cristou`. Lohse writes, “Der Glaube erkennt das Evangelium

in den Sinn als wahr an, dass es als Heilsbotschaft und

Zuspruch der Bettung fortan das ganze Leben der Glaubenden

110

46E. Lohse, “Emuna und Pistis,” Zeischrift für dieneutestamentliche Wissenschaft 68 (1977): 153. “Faithconsiders the gospel as true in the sense that it, as themessage of salvation and encouragement, determines hereafterthe entire life of faithfulness.”

47T. David Gordon, “The Problem at Galatia,”Interpretation 41 (1987): 40.

48See Beverly Robert Gaventa, “The Eschatology ofLuke-Acts Revisited,” Encounter 43 (1982): 27-42.

bestimmt.”46 The foundation of pivsti~ tou` Cristou` produces a

transformation in the orientation of a postmodern person.

In this way, evangelism in an apostolic approach connects

postmodern people with the revelation of the gospel so that

they make individual decisions based upon “the objective

ground of faith” in Jesus Christ as God’s pledge to them.

The apostolic community as the “people of God”

finds “relationality” in Christ as the klhronovmoi apart from

the rite of circumcision or Judaism (Gal 3:26-29).47 The

promise of the Spirit pa`sin toi`~ eij~ makravn (Acts 2:39; 11:15-

18) bears resemblance to Paul’s argument.48 The “people of

God” comprises all genders, social standing, and ethnicity.

The evangelistic emphasis of this apostolic image

of the Christian community of faith centers upon the avenue

through which postmodern people may become God’s people.

The “people of God” refers to the apostolic community whose

111

49Thomas C. Oden, Life in the Spirit: SystematicTheology, Volume Three (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998),296.

50Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2d ed.(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 1049.

51Stanley Grenz, Created for Community: ConnectingChristian Belief with Christian Living, 2d ed. (GrandRapids: Baker Books, 1998), 209.

52“But the Most High does not live in a buildingmade by human hands.” See similarly, Acts 17:24.

“proclamation would address all nations, all cultures.”49

All people of every cultural, racial, and social background

may enter into the apostolic community through faith in

Christ, answering Derrida’s call for “absolute hospitality”

and the postmodern quest for “relationality.”

The Spirit’s Temple

The image of the temple of the Holy Spirit presents

the third trinitarian metaphor of the apostolic community.50

Stanley Grenz insightfully indicates that the OT conception

of the temple is “God’s earthly dwelling place.” After the

coming of the Spirit, however, “the focus of the Spirit’s

presence is no longer a special building, but a special

people” whom He possesses.51

Stephen alludes to this image when he declares, ajll j

oujc u{yisto~ ejn ceiropohvtoi~ katoikei` (Acts 7:48).52 De Silva

suggests that the first six chapters of Acts describes “the

112

53D. A. deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship, andPurity, 292-93.

54Carey Newman, “Images of the Church in Paul,” inThe People of God: Essays on the Believers’ Church, eds.Paul A. Basden and David S. Dockery (Nashville: Broadman andHolman, 1991; reprint, 1999), 153.

55P. T. O’Brien, “The Church as a Heavenly andEschatological Entity,” in The Church in the Bible and theWorld: An International Study, ed. D. A. Carson (GrandRapids: Baker, 1987), 100.

56“Do not become mismated with unbelievers” (v. 14). . . “for we are the temple of the living God” (v. 16). The hJmei`~ in verse 16 refers to individual believers and tothe community. See Joseph A. Fitzmeyer, Essays on theSemitic Background of the New Testament (London: Chapman,1971), 214.

57See Ralph P. Martin, 2 Corinthians, Word BiblicalCommentary (Waco: Word, 1986), 201. He suggests that pistov~is a technical “designation of the follower of Jesus.” Seealso, R. Bultmann, s. v. “pistov~,” in Theological Dictionaryof the New Testament, 10 vols., ed. G. Kittel, trans. anded. G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967; reprint,1978), 6:215. Hereafter cited, TDNT.

presence and activity of God’s Holy Spirit in the midst of

the community.”53 The church as the “temple of the Spirit”

portrays “the place of presence for the risen Lord.”54

This image presents “relationality” as distinctive

from postmodern pluralsim. Paul uses this image as a

warning “against compromise with heathen society” (2 Cor

6:14-18).55 Paul writes, mh; givnesqe eJterozugou`nte~ ajpivstoi~ (v.

14) . . . hJmei`~ ga;r nao;~ qeou` ejsmen zw`nto~ (v. 16).56 The pistw/

(v. 15) refers to the community of faith,57 and ajpivstoi~

113

58Margaret Thrall, “The Problem of 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1in Some Recent Discussion,” New Testament Studies 24 (1977-78): 143.

59“Agreement by the temple of God with idols.”

60Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community inCorinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 405.

61See, Paul Lakeland, Postmodernity: ChristianIdentity in a Fragmented Age (Minneapolis: Augsburg FortressPress, 1997), 86.

62Ibid.

refers to pagan worshipers in Corinth.58 Thus, there can be

no sugkatavqesi~ naw/ qeou` meta; eijdwvlwn (v. 16).59 Paul warns

against “becoming spiritually linked” with pagan worship.60

Thus, an apostolic community relates to the

postmodern world in a distinctive fashion. The church,

which relates to the postmodern world, must not “become

spiritually linked” with the philosophies of postmodernity

which defile the distinctiveness of the community. The

postmodern quest for pluralism calls for “agreement” between

the “temple of the Spirit” and other religious narratives.

Lakeland, who writes for a postmodern theology, declares

that such a theology will “reflect the open-ended,

pluralistic, pragmatic, and tentative nature of the

postmodern world.”61 Lakeland suggests that the church in

the postmodern setting must “embrace the spirit of the

age.”62 To accomplish this task, Lakeland relegates the

114

63Ibid., 102.

64Ibid., 108.

65Ronald Y. K. Fung, “Some Pauline Pictures of theChurch,” Evangelical Quarterly 53 (1981): 107.

mission of the church to “pluralistic discourse” which seeks

“consensus.”63 The necessity of consensus leads Lakeland to

conclude that “Christ will not be in the foreground of

Christian mission in the postmodern world,” but He “will be

the distinctive element ‘behind’” the mission.64 Is this

not the fulfillment of Paul’s warning in 2 Corinthians 6?

According to Fung, the trinitarian images of the

apostolic community point to the “relationality” between the

church and God in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit.65

This writer suggests a modification of Fung’s conclusion.

The self-conception of the apostolic community includes the

relation to the world as well; therefore, the conclusion

would be that the images reflect the “relationality” between

the church and God in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit

to the world.

The application of this self-conception to the

contemporary scene compels the Christian community to

conceive this single reality in a postmodern world. The

church lives in connection with God’s redemptive actions in

Christ as the mission of the church among postmodern people.

115

66Moltmann, Church in the Power of the Spirit, 75.

67Ibid.

68Markus Barth, The Broken Wall: A Study of theEpistle to the Ephesians (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1959),131.

69Richard Lints, “The Vinyl Narratives: TheMetanarrative of Postmodernity and the Recovery of aChurchly Theology,” in A Confessing Theology for PostmodernTimes, ed. Michael Horton (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books,2000), 102.


Through this work of God in the apostolic community, the

church seeks to continue Christ’s priority and mission of

“self-giving liberation of men for their true future.”66

Moltmann further declares, “Then, as the community of the

cross it consists of the fellowship of the kingdom . . . it

spreads the feast without end.”67

An apostolic community in a postmodern world is

“not a casual collection of some individuals with more or

less common religious convictions,”68 but it is the

“mediated presence of God in the world.”69 As Webber puts

it, “The goal of the church is to be a divine standard, a

sign of God’s incarnational presence and activity in

history. In a postmodern world the most effective witness

to a world of disconnected people is the church that forms

community and embodies the reality of the new society.”70

116

71Charles Kraft, Christianity and Culture(Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1979), 53.

72N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People ofGod, vol. 1, Christian Origins and the Question of God(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 124.

73J. Richard Middleton and Brian J. Walsh, Truth IsStranger Than It Used to Be: Biblical Faith in a PostmodernAge (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1995), 11.

Transformation of Worldviews

An apostolic approach focuses on the transformation

of worldviews from postmodern to Christian through the

apostolic community. A worldview, according to Charles

Kraft, presents “ the central systematization of conceptions

of reality . . . from which stems their value system.”71

Wright further suggests that worldviews are “the lens

through which the world is seen, the blueprint for how one

should live in it, and above all the sense of identity and

place which enables human beings to be what they are.”72

Middleton and Walsh propose that worldviews “give

faith answers to a set of ultimate and grounding questions.”

Postmodern people seek the nature of reality, the purpose

for life, the reason and cause for evil in the world, and

the path to wholeness.73

At the conclusion of Peter’s sermon at Pentecost,

he calls to the hearers: swvqhte ajpo; th`~ genea`~ th`~ skolia`~ tauvth~

117

74“Be delivered from this crooked race.”

75Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the NewTestament and Other Early Christian Literature, eds. W. F.Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, 2d ed., eds. F. W. Gingrich and F.W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957;reprint, 1979), s. v. “ajpov,” 86. Hereafter cited, BAGD. Itdenotes a separation from a sphere of origin.

76Brad J. Kallenberg, “Conversion Converted: APostmodern Formulation of the Doctrine of Conversion,”Evangelical Quarterly (1995): 358.

77Brian Walsh, “Reimaging Biblical Authority,”Christian Scholar’s Review 26 (1996): 207.

78Clifford Geertz, Interpretation of Cultures (NewYork: Basic Books, 1973), 99.

(Acts 2:40).74 Through the use of the preposition ajpo;, Peter

calls his hearers a conversion of worldviews.75 Peter

promotes salvation from the worldview embraced and embedded

in the culture of their world (th`~ genea`~ th`~ skolia`~ tauvth~).

In this way, conversion creates a “paradigm shift” in which

an individual emerges into a “new mode of life occasioned by

a self-involving participation in the shared life, language,

and paradigm of the believing community.”76

Such a transformation is welcome in the postmodern

milieu. Brian Walsh writes that the worldview of modernity

is currently at a stage of incredulity.77 Such incredulity

promotes “the gravest sort of anxiety” for the postmodern

person.78 The postmodern person, in general terms, searches

for an option better than the modern worldview or the

118

79B. Walsh, “Reimaging Biblical Authority,” 207.

80“But they were attending constantly to theteaching of the apostles and to fellowship, to the breakingof bread and to prayers” (Acts 2:42).

81See previous chapter on “The Holy Spirit: TheBridge for the Objective Truth of the Gospel.”

anxiety caused by its demise. This writer proposes that the

apostolic approach presents a worldview that meets the

postmodern challenge of “profound disorientation in which

nothing seems to cohere.”79

The summary statement of Acts 2:42 demonstrates the

transformation of worldviews by which an apostolic community

provides the interpretation of life through the lens of the

apostles’ doctrine and through the koinwniva of the community.

Luke records the work of the church when he writes, h\san de;

proskarterou`nte~ th/ didach/ tw`n ajpostovlwn kai; th/ koinwniva/, th/ klavsei tou`

a[rtou kai; tai`~ proseucai`~.80

The Significance of the Apostles’ Doctrine

The apostles’ doctrine provides the process by

which the apostolic church transforms worldviews. This

writer contends that th/ didach/ tw`n ajpostovlwn is divine

revelation which defines the way life should be. It is the

definition of the “true life” inscribed by the Spirit of

truth.81 Postmodern people reject such a “totalizing”

statement as an oppressive metanarrative, yet the intent of

119

82William Neil, The Acts of the Apostles, NewCentury Bible Commentary (London: Marshall, Morgan, andScott, 1973; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 80-81.

83K. Rengstorf, s.v. “didachv,” TDNT, 2:164-65.

84M. James Sawyer, “Evangelicals and the Canon ofthe New Testament,” Grace Theological Journal 11 (Spring1990): 40.

85Richard N. Longenecker, “Taking Up the CrossDaily: Discipleship in Luke-Acts,” in Patterns ofDiscipleship in the New Testament, ed. Richard N.Longenecker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 59.

the apostolic approach is to deconstruct postmodern

incredulity of the gospel and to re-construct a worldview in

concert with the doctrine of Christ through the Holy Spirit.

An examination of th/ didach/ tw`n ajpostovlwn demonstrates

its connection with the doctrine of Christ. William Neil

proposes that th/ didach/ tw`n ajpostovlwn refers to the “words and

works of Jesus as later incorporated in the Gospels.”82

Rengstorf concludes that th/ didach/ tw`n ajpostovlwn refers to the

proclamation of Christ’s didachv by those whom He has sent

into the world.83 The premise of this section is that the

doctrine of Christ is the apostles’ doctrine. James Sawyer

suggests that the apostles’ teaching serves as the mediation

between Christ and the church.84 Therefore, “the church is

only faithful to its calling as it perseveres in the

teaching and tradition of the apostles, who constitute the

human link with Jesus.”85

120

86F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, rev. ed., NewInternational Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1988), 73.

87F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments, rev.ed. (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1984), 97-98.

88“As you go, therefore, make disciples of all thenations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of theSon and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to fulfill as muchas I have commanded to you” (Matt 28:19-20a).

The historical distance, however, between the

postmodern world and th/ didach/ tw`n ajpostovlwn presents a problem

of truth and authority for postmodern people. Scripture

bridges the historical distance, and the Spirit works

through Scripture to resolve the issues of truth and

authority. Bruce concludes that “New Testament scriptures

form the written deposit of the apostolic teaching.”86

Certainly, the earliest documents of the NT are letters from

apostles which apply Christ’s teaching. The Gospels

comprise the “written transcripts of the Gospel” so that th/

didach/ tw`n ajpostovlwn “might be preserved.”87

Thus, th/ didach/ tw`n ajpostovlwn inextricably coincides

with evangelism. Jesus commissions His followers in Matthew

28:19-20: poreuqevnte~ ou\n maqhteuvsate pavnta ta; e[qnh, baptivzonte~ aujtou;~

eij~ to; o[noma tou` patro;~ kai; tou` uiJou` kai; tou` aJgivou pneuvmato~, didavskonte~

aujtou;~ threi`n pavnta o{sa ejneteilavmhn uJmi`n.88 The activity of

didavskonte~ aujtou;~ threi`n pavnta o{sa ejneteilavmhn uJmi`n corresponds to

the transformation of a life, so that what an individual

121

89Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew, New AmericanCommentary (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 433.


91James A. Brooks and Carlton L. Winberry, Syntax ofNew Testament Greek (Lanham, MD: University Press ofAmerica, 1979), 127; Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to theRomans, 755. Moo suggests that the voice of the verb couldbe passive, middle-reflexive, or “most likely . . . a simple(‘intransitive’) active significance -- ‘do not conform.’”

92Adolf Schlatter, Romans: The Righteousness of God,trans. Siegfried Schatzmann (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,1995), 229. The intent of this phrase, according toSchlatter, is that the world “assumes and specificallydemands” that individuals “conduct themselves just as itdoes.”

93Bo Reicke, “Positive and Negative Aspects of theWorld in the New Testament,” Westminster Theological Journal

does conforms to what Christ commands. As Blomberg writes,

“Teaching obedience to all of Jesus’ commands forms the

heart of disciple making. Evangelism must be holistic.”89

In order for postmodern people to follow Christ, they must

be transformed so that their worldview matches Scripture.90

An apostolic approach promotes this transformation.

Paul describes this transformation in Rom 12:2.

Paul joins mh; to the present imperative, suschmativzesqe, to

form an imperative of prohibition.91 The locative, tw/ aijw`ni

touvtw/, reveals the worldview of “this age” or “the thought

patterns extant outside Christianity.”92 Paul, therefore,

encourages the believers to stop conforming themselves to

the worldview of tw/ aijw`ni touvtw/.93

122

49 (Fall 1987): 363.

94James L. Boyer, “A Classification of Imperatives:A Statistical Study,” Grace Theological Journal 8 (Spring1987): 49.

95See Brooks and Winberry, Syntax of New TestamentGreek, 44-45.

96“So that we might serve in the newness of theSpirit and not in the oldness of the letter.”

97Peter Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: ACommentary, trans. Scott J. Hafemann (Louisville:Westminster / John Knox Press, 1994), 189. J. Behm, s.v.“nou`~,” TDNT, 4:958-59. Behm indicates that nou`~ presentsthe foundation of reason and will that influences how onelives.

The passive imperative, metamorfou`sqe, indicates the

responsibility for action.94 The instrument of

transformation is th/ ajnakainwvsei tou` noo;~,95 by which ajnakainwvsei

indicates “a continuing renewal” (see 2 Cor 4:16; Col 3:10).

This writer, following Moo, suggests that ajnakainwvsei “picks

up kainovthti pneuvmato~ (‘newness of Spirit’) from 7:6.” The

work of the Spirit provides the avenue w{ste douleuvein hJma`~ ejn

kainovthti pneuvmato~ kai; ouj palaiovthti gravmmato~ (Rom 7:6).96 This is

the renewal of the mind by which the Spirit illuminates

Scripture, which is the written deposit of th/ didach/ tw`n

ajpostovlwn. That which is renewed is noo;~, a noun which

points specifically to the worldview of an individual.97

In an apostolic approach for the evangelization of

postmodern people, th/ didach/ tw`n ajpostovlwn provides the avenue

123

98Herman A. Hoyt, “A Genuine Christian Non-Conformity: Romans 12:2,” Grace Journal 8 (Winter 1967): 7.

99D. Moo, Epistle to the Romans, 756-757.

100Udo Schnelle, “Transformation und Partizipation inpaulinischer Theologie,” New Testament Studies 47 (January2001): 68.

101Ibid., 69-70. “. . . as the realm in whichpersonally responsible changes will be fulfilled and lived. The baptized are determined through Christ in all lifeexpressions, and in its community the new existence gainsvisible shape.”

through which the community of faith leads postmodern people

to a transformation of their worldview.98 Moo cogently

summarizes the transformation of worldview when he writes:

“Christians are to adjust their way of thinking about

everything in accordance with the ‘newness’ of their life in

the Spirit (cf. 7:6).99

Schnelle suggests that ei\nai ejn Cristw/ designates the

“newness of life” as a “neuen Seins und Lebens.”100 This new

existence and life of believers ejn Cristw/ appear “als der

Raum, in dem sich seinshafte Veränderungen vollziehen und

gelebt werden. Die Getauften sind in allen Lebensäußerungen

durch Christus bestimmt, und in ihrer Gemeinschaft gewinnt

das neue Sein sichtbar Gestalt.”101 The apostles’ doctrine,

therefore, is the call to conform to the will of God

revealed through Jesus Christ “in allen Lebensäußerungen

durch Christus.”

124

102D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God: ChristianityConfronts Pluralism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 57.


postmodern people requires the transformation of worldviews.

The connection between the community and the transformation

of worldviews is found in devotion to the apostles’

doctrine. Postmodernism, however, exalts the process of

hermeneutics. The following excursus examines the

relationship between hermeneutics and the postmodern

resistance to the transformation of worldview through

Scripture.

Excursus: Hermeneutics and the Postmodern Challenge

Hermeneutics plays an important role in the premise

of postmodernism. Postmodern theorists propose that truth

is a product of the community. D. A. Carson suggests that

postmodernism “depends not a little on what are perceived to

be the fundamental limitations on the power of

interpretation.”102 Stanley Fish, Richard Rorty, and Jacques

Derrida represent three leading voices in postmodern

hermeneutics.

Stanley Fish’s “reader-response” approach to

hermeneutics presents a leading voice in postmodern theory

125

103Stanley Fish, Is There a Text in This Class?: TheAuthority of Interpretive Communities (Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press, 1980), 1-17.

104Ibid., 158.

105Ibid., 13.

106Ibid., 16.

107Ibid., 86.

108Ibid., 326-27. He proposes that in his model “thereader was freed from the tyranny of the text and given thecentral role in the production of meaning” (Ibid., 7).

109William Ray, Literary Meaning: From Phenomenologyto Deconstruction (New York: Basil Blackwell, 1984), 162.

of interpretation.103 According to Fish, the meaning of a

text is the reader’s response to the text.104 The text is an

“entity independent of interpretation” and “is replaced by

the texts that emerge” from interpretation within the social

setting.105 Fish further indicates that all “interpretation

is the source of texts, facts, authors, and intentions.”106

By this endeavor, Fish dismisses foundationalism because it

prohibits the reader from “the most remarkable of his

abilities, the ability to give the world meaning rather than

to extract a meaning that is already there.”107

According to Fish’s hermeneutical program, one

comes to the text to create rather than discover meaning.108

Fish views a text as “an empty, separate domain, awaiting

the collective intention that will fill it.”109 For Fish,

126

110S. Fish, Is There a Text in This Class?, 335-37.

111Jonathan Culler, The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics,Literature, Deconstruction (Ithaca, NY: Cornell UniversityPress, 1981), 125.

112D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God, 126.

113Richard Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979), 390-94.

114Crispin Wright, Truth and Objectivity (Cambridge:Harvard University Press, 1992), 91-93. Wright indicatesthat the “representation of facts” incorporates the “correct. . . perspective on the truth predicate” (Ibid., 83). Wright’s contention is that truth is the “output” of thecognitive function of an individual correctly handling the“input” of information. Differences of opinion between twoor more individuals concerning the same information is theresult of a priori “differences of opinion.”

the only parameter in interpretation is the “point of view”

in the interpretive community.110 As Culler sees Fish’s

proposal, the “notion of ‘what the text says’ itself depends

upon common procedures of reading.”111 Thus, the different

interpretive strategies of exegetical communities make the

text speak differently. The readers in their interpretive

community is determinative in the creation of meaning.112

Richard Rorty proposes another leading approach in

postmodern interpretation which focuses on conversation as

hermeneutics.113 The assumption of Rorty’s position consists

in his concept of the acquisition of truth. He rejects

Crispin Wright’s “representationalist” portrayal of the

cognitive discourse114 which, according to Rorty, views

127

115Richard Rorty, Truth and Progress: PhilosophicalPapers, Volume 3 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1998), 32.

116Ibid., 3-4. Rorty writes: “Truth is not a goal ofinquiry. If ‘truth’ is the name of such a goal then,indeed, there is no truth. For the absoluteness of truthmakes it unserviceable as such a goal.”

117Ibid., 5.


“human beings as machines constructed (by God or Evolution)

to, among other things, get things right.” Rorty’s approach

is “to get rid of that self-image and to replace it with a

picture of machines that continually adjust to each other’s

behavior, and to their environment, by developing novel

kinds of behavior.”115 Rorty’s assumption is that the

acquisition of truth is not the goal of discourse.116

Rather, the continual adjustment toward others and the

social context is the goal of discourse.117

This “continual adjustment” provides the framework

for conversation as “the ultimate context within which

knowledge is to be understood.”118 For Rorty, hermeneutics

is the conversation between people who come to the end of

their “edifying discourse” with understanding, but who do

not seek truth as the goal of the dialogue. Because no

vocabulary or text “is closer to reality than another” nor

128

119Richard Rorty, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 73.

120Richard Rorty, Consequences of Pragmatism(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982), xlii.

121Douglas Groothuis, Truth Decay: DefendingChristianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000), 198.

122Richard Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth:Philosophical Papers, Volume 1 (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1991), 102-103.

123Rorty, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity, 97. Rorty suggests that individuals are not judged by anyexternal reality or final vocabularies, but only bythemselves.

124Ibid.

“in touch with a power not herself,”119 hermeneutics involves

merely “obedience to our own conventions.”120

Rorty seeks to “abandon the courtroom of truth for

the carnival of redescription.”121 “Redescription” is the

process by which one makes something “to look good or bad,”

depending upon the goal and context of “language game.”122

The ultimate arbiter in hermeneutics is the individual.123

Texts and vocabularies are interpreted through conversation

and “re-description.” The end-game of hermeneutics for

Rorty is to “make something that never had been dreamed of

before.”124 This hermeneutical process results in a

pragmatic, “whatever works best” interpretation.

In this way, according to Rorty, “hermeneutics is

129

125Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, 365-66.

126Rorty, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity, 43.

127Roger Lundin, Clarence Walhout, and AnthonyThiselton, The Promise of Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1999), 41.

128Jacques Derrida, “Différance,” in Deconstructionin Context: Literature and Philosophy, ed. Mark C. Taylor(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986), 396-420.

129Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in ThisText?: The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of LiteraryKnowledge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 39.

always parasitic” upon epistemology informed “by the culture

of the day.”125 Interpretation is an internal, unconscious

need to create “a self” for oneself through a re-description

of the “blind impress” of chance upon one’s life.126 The

goal of hermeneutics is to appropriate various options for

epistemology, re-describe the context in life, and create “a

self” for oneself. Roger Lundin suggests that Rorty’s

hermeneutics presents the reader as the “parasite” who seeks

“to bring the dead text to life by internalizing it.”127

Jacques Derrida’s concept of différance provides

another view of the hermeneutical process in postmodern

thought.128 Derrida’s concept of différance is the fulcrum

of his deconstruction project. Vanhoozer suggests that

“Derrida is an unbeliever in the reliability, decidability,

and neutrality of the sign.”129 Différance is the

130

130Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology, rev. ed., trans.Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (Baltimore: Johns HopkinsUniversity Press, 1997), 399-400.

131Jacques Derrida, Speech and Phenomenon: And OtherEssays on Husserl’s Theory of Signs, trans. David B. Allisonand Newton Garver (Evanston, IL: Northwestern UniversityPress, 1973), 16. Derrida seeks to deconstruct Husserl’sexaltation of “voice,” or phone, as the avenue to connectwith the ideal object apart from the contaminating forces ofexternal context.

132Ibid., 64.

133J. Derrida, Of Grammatology, 70. The concept of“trace” is the relationship between the signifier ofsomething in the present and “something other than itself”in the past (retention). It is the relationship between thesignifier in the present and a future element (protention).

“neologism” which Derrida uses to describe the instability,

undecidability, and partiality of language. He suggests

that this hermeneutical process is “strategic” because “no

transcendent truth . . . can govern theologically the

totality of the field.” It is adventurous because it does

not move toward a “a telos or theme of domination.”130

Derrida conceptualizes self-consciousness as a

product of signs and the interminable play of language.131

The consciousness can only express meaning through a

reference to the past (retention) and the future

(protention) -- “memory and expectation.”132 This expression

comes from the movement of trace, which is the “arch-

phenomenon of memory.”133 Retention is the movement of the

trace within the consciousness that “produces the

131

134J. Derrida, Speech and Phenomenon, 82.

135Ibid., 67.

136Ibid., 44.

137Jacques Derrida, Limited Inc (Evanston, IL:Northwestern University Press, 1988), 149.

138Jacques Derrida, Positions, trans. Alan Bass(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), 19.

139Jacques Derrida, Writing and Difference, trans.Alan Bass (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), 280.

140J. Derrida, Positions, 26.

subject.”134 Protention is the movement of the trace which

introduces the “movement of différance,” so that the sign of

the present introduces reference to another sign not in the

present.135 The signifier possesses meaning only in

relationship with other signifiers.136 Différance “‘is’ in

itself nothing outside of different denominations.”137

Derrida’s hermeneutic rejects the possibility of a

transcendental “concept signified in and of itself.”138

Derrida suggests that “the central signified, the original

or transcendental signified, is never absolutely present

outside a system of differences. The absence of the

transcendental signified extends the domain and the play of

signification infinitely.”139 This absence produces

“differences and traces of traces.”140

The result of Derrida’s hermeneutic is a text with

132

141J. Derrida, Writing and Difference, 25.

142Jacques Derrida, Dissemination, trans. BarbaraJohnson (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), 221;idem. Positions, 43. Such terms include pharmakon (neitherremedy nor poison), supplément (neither accident noressence), and hymen (neither consummation nor virginity).

143Morny Joy, “Derrida and Ricoeur: A Case ofMistaken Identity (and Difference),” Journal of Religion 68(October 1988): 514.

144Jacques Derrida, Margins of Philosophy, trans.Alan Bass (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), 67.

145Jacques Derrida, “Foi et savoir -- Les deuxsources de la ‘religion’ aux limites de la simple raison,”in La religion, eds. Jacques Derrida and Gianni Vattimo(Paris: Seuil, 1996), 65-66. He rejects the “religion of

“infinite implications.”141 Derrida’s use of terms with

“double, contradictory, undecidable value” presents his

hermeneutic of différance.142 As Joy notes, Derrida’s use of

these terms “insures that neither any past nor future

possibilities of meaning can be exhausted” and dismantles

“univocity by exploiting plurivocity” in texts.143 For

Derrida, there can be no final, ultimate meaning of a

particular text.

According to Derrida, the movement of différance

overturns “all theologies.”144 Because no transcendental

signified exists, he rejects “la religion du vivant” as a

tautology which creates “impératif absolu, loi sainte, loi

du salut: sauver le vivant comme l’intact, l’indemne, le

sauf (heilig).”145 Derrida verifies his critique against all

133

the living” which creates “absolute command, holy law, lawof salvation: to save the living as the whole, the protectedagainst harm, the set apart (holy).”

146See chapter 2, “Beyond Babel: Epistemology andeJtevrai~ glwvssai~,” for more on Derrida’s use of Babel.

147Geoffrey Bennington and Jacques Derrida, JacquesDerrida (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), 105.

148Craig Bartholomew, “Babel and Derrida:Postmodernism, Language and Biblical Interpretation,”Tyndale Bulletin 49 (November 1998): 324.

149Brian Ingraffia, Postmodern Theory and BiblicalTheology: Vanquishing God’s Shadow (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1995), 223.

theologies in his study of Babel.146 Derrida views the use

of the proper name as the promotion of “logocentrism” --

that there is a stable connection between the world and

language.147 The result of Derrida’s interpretation of

Babel, where Babel (confusion) is the proper name for God,

is that logocentrism itself is confusion and that

“determinate textual interpretation is impossible.”148

Ingraffia presents Derrida’s hermeneutic in a theological

fashion when he writes: “Instead of the Logos calling

humanity into being, humanity calls God into being.”149

Derrida, therefore, promotes a hermeneutic which dismisses

meaning as indeterminable. Instead, meaning moves through

the arbitration of différance in the reading and writing of

the individual.

Unlike the postmodern hermeneutics of Fish, Rorty,

134

150N. T. Wright, “How Can the Bible BeAuthoritative?,” Vox Evangelica 21 (1991): 16; quoted in B.Walsh, “Reimaging Biblical Authority,” 211.

151Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text?, 22.

152Thomas Long, Preaching and the Literary Forms ofthe Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), 29. Thomas Longwrites that “encounters with Scripture itself have built upin the community of faith the expectation of Scripture’sspecial character, rather than the other way around.”

153Lundin, Walhout, Thiselton, Promise ofHermeneutics, 99. Alvin Plantinga, Warrant: The CurrentDebate (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 213. Plantinga proposes “warranted beliefs” which are based upon“design plan” and “proper function.” He writes: “A thing(organism, organ, system, artifact) is functioning properlywhen it functions in accord with its design plan, and thedesign plan of a thing is a specification of the way inwhich a thing functions when it is functioning properly.”

or Derrida, an apostolic approach to hermeneutics seeks to

transform the postmodern worldview to match the apostolic

worldview. Scripture interprets the postmodern person’s

life so that he or she may be free “to be fully human.”150

Derrida, Rorty, and Fish pursue a hermeneutic which

rejects the pretension that exegesis can lead to a “correct

view of things.”151 Yet, encounters with Scripture impinge

certain expectations and demands upon the interpreter.152

Clarence Walhout, following Alvin Plantinga, proposes that

“our hermeneutics needs to be grounded in our warranted

beliefs.”153 In an apostolic approach, these “warranted

beliefs” emerge from the text of Scripture (the design plan)

as it is interpreted in the “cognitive environment” of the

135

154Alvin Plantinga, Warrant and Proper Funtion (NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1993), 82. Plantinga writesthat “the design plan does not cover my cognitive facultiesin isolation from yours or yours from mine.”

155Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism, 81.

156Ibid.; James Barr, The Scope and Authority of theBible (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980), 126-27.

157K. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text?,168.

apostolic community.154

Grenz and Franke similarly propose the concept of

“interpretive framework,” which is “that set of categories,

beliefs, and values . . . which forms one’s perception of

reality and life.”155 The Spirit forms a “communal

interpretive framework” through the biblical text that leads

individuals to view “all reality in light of an unabashedly

Christian and specifically biblical interpretive

framework.”156

Postmodern hermeneutics presents the primacy of the

social context and the interminable play of language as the

arbiter or arbitration of meaning in the hermeneutical

process.157 Rather than dismissing or veiling authorial

intention, this writer suggests that the Spirit illumines

the reader of Scripture so that the meaning of the author’s

intention is accessible.

Following Wolterstorff’s suggestion of “double

136

158Nicholas Wolterstorff, Divine Discourse:Philosophical Reflections on the Claim That God Speaks(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 38-54.

159S. Grenz and J. Franke, Beyond Foundationalism,73-75. Grenz and Franke, however, critique Wolterstorff’sproposal in terms of authorial intention, which they claimis a “modern tendency to elevate some other reality [theauthor] above the Bible as text.”

160K. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text?,409-415, 421.


162Clark Pinnock, “The Role of the Spirit inInterpretation,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological

agency discourse,” this writer proposes that the Spirit

speaks to the reader through the “appropriated discourse” of

the biblical authors.158 Grenz and Franke propose that the

Spirit appropriates Scripture “in its internal meaning

(i.e., to appropriate what the author said).”159 Vanhoozer

proposes the same concept when he suggests that the Spirit

does not “change” meaning but “charges” it with relevance

“by relating the original content to new contexts.”160

Illumination actualizes th/ didach/ tw`n ajpostovlwn in the

postmodern setting. In the words of Grenz and Franke, “the

Spirit speaks to succeeding generations of Christians

through the text.”161 Pinnock warns against the postmodern

hermeneutics by which the reader transforms the text and

commends illumination by which the Spirit transforms the

reader through Scripture.162 Grenz and Franke warn that

137

Society 26 (December 1993): 494-95.


164Daniel P. Fuller, “The Holy Spirit’s Role inBiblical Interpretation,” in Scripture, Tradition, andInterpretation, eds. W. W. Gasque and W. S. LaSor (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 191-92. He draws this conclusionfrom the meaning of three key terms: devcomai, ginwvskw, andajnakrivnw. The first verb, devcomai, suggests to Fuller thatthe “natural man does not welcome the things of the Spiritof God.” The second verb, ginwvskw, indicates that theyuciko;~ a[nqrwpo~ does not embrace ta; tou~ pneuvmato~ tou` qeou` “asthey really are.” The third verb, ajnakrivnw, reveals that theyuciko;~ a[nqrwpo~ cannot evaluate spiritual things.

165M. Erickson, Christian Theology, 274.

illumination leads to subjectivism when biblical authority

is reduced “to our subjective reception of the divine

address.”163

The concept illumination is found in 1 Cor 2:14.

In consideration of this passage, Fuller asserts that

unbelievers may understand spiritual things, but cannot

welcome the spiritual without the work of the Spirit.164

Erickson, however, suggests that “without the help of the

Holy Spirit, they [yuciko;~ a[nqrwpo~] are unable to understand

them [ta; tou~ pneuvmato~ tou` qeou`].”165 Unlike Fuller, Erickson

indicates that only the believer can understand the

objective meaning of Scripture through the work of the

Spirit in illumination. Erickson indicates that the Spirit

of truth elucidates the truth for the apostles and through

138

166Ibid., 274.

167E. Clowney, “The Biblical Theology of the Church,”in The Church in the Bible and the World: An InternationalStudy, ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 72.

168Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text?, 410.

169Ibid., 410.

170Ibid., 421.

the apostles’ doctrine.166 In this way, the Spirit guides

the community of faith into all truth through illumination.

As Clowney writes, “The Spirit who communicated through the

apostles and prophets the deposit of sound doctrine (1 Tim

6:20, 21; 2 Tim 1:13) also works to illumine our

understanding of the truth.”167

Following Vanhoozer, this writer proposes that the

text of Scripture has the “mission of meaning.”168

Illumination is the “perlocutionary effect” of th/ didach/ tw`n

ajpostovlwn by the Spirit.169 The Spirit of truth persuades and

convinces the reader of the truth-claims of the Scripture.

As Vanhoozer writes, “The Spirit’s leading readers into all

truth is a matter of nurturing a Pentecostal conversation

about the correct interpretation of the Word’s past meaning

and present significance.”170 Illumination does not present

the Spirit as a rival author who leads individuals to

deconstruct th/ didach/ tw`n ajpostovlwn, as with Derrida, or who

leads communities to rewrite th/ didach/ ajpostovlwn, as with

139

171Bernard Ramm, The Witness of the Spirit: An Essayon the Contemporary Relevance of the Internal Witness of theHoly Spirit (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 125.

172K. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text?,429.

173Max Turner, “The ‘Spirit of Prophecy’ as the Powerof Israel’s Restoration and Witness,” in Witness to theGospel: The Theology of Acts, eds. I. Howard Marshall andDavid Peterson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 346.

Rorty or Fish. The Spirit works in concert with Scripture

to persuade the reader and produce a transformation.171 As

meaning is “accomplished” in Jesus Christ (John 14:6), the

Spirit illumines the believer “so that [the Word] can

achieve its intended effect: meaning applied.”172

The Spirit’s illumination of Scripture presents the

contemporary avenue for the transformation of worldviews in

the postmodern context. Illumination in an apostolic

hermeneutic is the application of th/ didach/ tw`n ajpostovlwn to

believers through the Holy Spirit. The contemporary

community of faith depends upon the work of the Spirit to

lead postmodern people to know and apply what God’s desire.

As with the apostolic community in Acts 2:42, this

“charismatic teaching” of the Spirit explains the “evident

‘enthusiasm’ and the sense of God’s transforming presence in

the congregation.”173

The Significance of Koinwniva

140

174I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles,Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1980; reprint, 1999), 83.

175Hans Conzelmann, A Commentary on the Acts of theApostles, trans. James Limburg, A. T. Kraabel, and D. H.Juel, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 23.

176John Elliott, “Temple versus Household in Luke-Acts: A Contrast in Social Institutions,” in The SocialWorld of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation, ed. JeromeNeyrey (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 236.

177“The breaking of bread” and “prayers.”

The paradigm shift from postmodern thought to a

Christian worldview continues through koinwniva (Acts 2:42).

Marshall indicates that koinwniva refers to “the holding of a

common meal or to a common religious experience.”174

Conzelmann indicates that koinwniva is further defined by the

sharing of property as well as the common life of the

community (see Acts 4:32).175 This writer proposes that

koinwniva promotes a life of reciprocity in an intimate

community of familial ties and friendship in Christ Jesus.176

In other words, koinwniva represents the ethos of the

apostolic community. This ethos includes the activities of

th`/ klavsei tou` a[rtou kai; tai`" proseucai`".177

The grammatical construction of verse 42 places th/

didach/ tw`n ajpostovlwn, koinwniva/, th/ klavsei tou` a[rtou, and tai`"

proseucai`" as four distinct activities. The general

consideration of koinwniva as participation in a “common

141

178John B. Polhill, Acts, New American Commentary(Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 119; Rudolf Pesch, DieApostelgeschichte, Teilband I: Apg. 1-12, EvangelisheKatholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, 5 (Zürich:Benziger Verlag, 1986), 70-71.

179R. Michiels, “The ‘Model of Church’ in the FirstChristian Community of Jerusalem: Ideal and Reality,”Louvain Studies 10 (1985): 309-310.

180Walter Schmithals, The Theology of the FirstChristians, trans. O. C. Dean Jr. (Louisville: WestminsterJohn Knox, 1997), 188.

181Jerome H. Neyrey, “Ceremonies in Luke-Acts: TheCase of Meals and Table Fellowship,” in The Social World ofLuke-Acts: Models for Interpretation, ed. Jerome H. Neyrey(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 363.

religious experience” suggests that th/ klavsei tou` a[rtou and tai`"

proseucai`" are elements in koinwniva.178

Table fellowship presents an avenue for the

transformation of worldview in the postmodern setting. In

an apostolic community, the table fellowship allows

believers to remember the foundation of their community as

the “body of Christ.”179 The celebration of the common meal

actualizes the “fellowship of the individual church members

in the unity of the body of Christ” for the church.180

Neyrey indicates that the ceremonial meal serves as

a process to “bolster the boundaries defining a group or

institution, even as they confirm established roles and

statuses within the group.”181 The klavsi~ tou` a[rtou is an idiom

for Jewish ceremony opening a meal in which the host offers

142

182Brad Blue, “The Influence of Jewish Worship onLuke’s Presentation of the Early Church,” in Witness to theGospel: The Theology of Acts, eds. I. Howard Marshall andDavid Peterson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 488-89.

183F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, 73; H. Conzelmann,Commentary on the Acts, 23.

184Hans Conzelmann, The History of PrimitiveChristianity, trans. John E. Steely (Nashville: Abingdon,1973), 53.

185J. Neyrey, “Ceremonies in Luke-Acts,” 375.

a prayer of blessing and then distributes the provisions

from God.182 Bruce indicates that this “regular observance”

is the precursor to the Eucharist, in which the klavsi~ tou`

a[rtou is a ceremonial celebration of Christ’s “brokenness in

death” for humanity.183 The klavsi~ tou` a[rtou finds meaning in

the “exposition of Christ’s saving deed.”184 In turn, the

meal strengthens the identity of the community as well as

the participant’s role in the community.185 Through the

common meal, the community celebrates the work of Christ.

This aspect of koinwniva establishes the nature of

Christ’s death as God’s provision of life, promotes the

nature of the future with Christ’s imminent return, provides

the nature of the blessings received as part of the

community, commends the nature of ethics within the

community, and commissions individuals for the continuity

143

186Ibid., 376-77. This conclusion is drawn fromChrist’s farewell meal with His followers as the starting-point of the ceremonial meal of Acts 2:42.

187Michael Green, Evangelism Through the Local Church(Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1992), 299-300.

188H. Greeven, s. v. “eu[comai,” TDNT, 2:807-808.

189Daniel K. Falk, “Jewish Prayer Literature and theJerusalem Church in Acts,” in The Book of Acts in ItsPalestinian Setting, ed. Richard Bauckham, vol. 4, The Bookof Acts in Its First Century Setting (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1995), 300.

190W. Neil, Acts of the Apostles, 81.

and expansion of the community.186 Michael Green suggests

that “much about the Christian faith is ‘spiritual’ and hard

to get a grip on. But eating is the most basic human

activity.”187 The image of klavsi~ tou` a[rtou helps the

postmodern person visualize the nature of salvation, daily

nurture, and future glory in Christ Jesus.

Furthermore, apostolic fellowship includes proseuchv,

which denotes the regular petitioning to God for aid.188

Falk suggests that Luke records the adoption of Jewish

prayer practices including the appointed prayer times.189

The connection, however, between koinwniva and klavsi~ tou` a[rtou

suggests that the devotion to prayer moves beyond the

practices of Temple worship.190 Indeed, the tight connection

of the fellowship suggests that the apostolic community

shares prayer together around the celebration of the common

144

191J. Polhill, Acts, 120.

192Allison A. Trites, “The Prayer Motif in Luke-Acts,” in Perspectives in Luke-Acts, ed. C. H. Talbert(Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1977), 179.

193D. A. deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship, andPurity, 129.

194Ibid., 130-31.

195Ibid., 132.

meal.191 An apostolic approach sees this aspect of koinwniva

as an “integral part of the Christian movement” and is

related “to the growth of the church.”192

DeSilva provides an interesting analysis on the

place of prayer in the apostolic community. His model is

“God as benefactor.” For the apostolic community, DeSilva

suggests that God goes “far beyond the high-water mark of

generosity” through the bestowal of reconciliation to His

enemies.193 Furthermore, as the “personal patron to

Christians,” God hears and acts upon the specific petitions

from “local communities of faith” who enjoy the “privilege

of access to God for such timely and specific help.”194

Prayer, therefore, is “the means by which believers can

personally seek God’s favor, and request specific

benefactions, for themselves or on behalf of one another.”195

The role of th/ klavsei tou` a[rtou and tai`" proseucai`" in

apostolic fellowship presents a valuable picture for the

145

196Sally Morgenthaler, Worship Evangelism: InvitingUnbelievers into the Presence of God (Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1995), 123.

197Ibid., 123.

198Bruce Thede, “How One Church Reached Out to BabyBusters,” Worship Leader (July-August 1994): 14.

199S. Morgenthaler, Worship Evangelism, 120.

transformation of worldview in postmodern people. Sally

Morgenthaler calls for the increased “vertical and

horizontal interaction” in community.196 This interaction

“provides pathways of contact with a holy and loving God”

and “avenues of nurturing, uplifting relationships with

those who are called in God’s name.”197 Bruce Thede suggests

that the evangelization of postmodern people depends upon

more participation and interaction in the community.198

Morgenthaler indicates that postmodern people are searching

for an “escape from the perpetual dehumanizing anonymity” of

everyday life.199 The common meal and the place of prayer in

apostolic fellowship provides such an escape.

For instance, Elmer Towns examines the role of

“small-group prayer” during worship. In this approach, the

worship leader calls for the congregation to gather in small

groups during the worship in order to pray for the needs of

one another. Towns writes that this place of prayer

146

200Elmer Towns, An Inside Look at Ten of Today’s MostInnovative Churches (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1990), 66-67.

201Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: TheSocial World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale UniversityPress, 1983), 84.

202John H. Elliott, “Temple versus Household in Luke-Acts: A Contrast in Social Institutions,” in The SocialWorld of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation, ed. Jerome H.Neyrey (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 226.

203John Koenig, New Testament Hospitality:Partnership with Strangers as Promise and Mission(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 118-23.

connects people to the love of God and community for them.200

Meeks states that “in order to persist, a social

organization must have boundaries, must maintain structural

stability as well as flexibility, and must create a unique

culture.”201 Through the apostles’ doctrine and koinwniva, the

apostolic church transforms worldviews, establishing the

boundaries, structural stability, and unique culture of an

apostolic community. It is the connection within the

community that provides impetus for transformation.

Furthermore, the distinctive nature of the

apostolic community promotes evangelism. Elliott suggests

that the community represents “the basic social organization

through which the gospel advances from Palestine to Rome.”202

Through the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, the apostolic

community establishes solidarity for the church’s missionary

enterprise.203

147

204Zygmunt Bauman, “What Prospects of Morality inTimes of Uncertainty?” Theory, Culture, and Society 15(February 1998): 11-12.

205Thom S. Rainer, Bridger Generation (Nashville:Broadman and Holman, 1997), 63.

206David Wells, God in the Wasteland (Grand Rapids:William B. Eerdmans, 1994), 29-30.

207Ibid., 78-81.

208Nicholas Lash, “What Might Martyrdom Mean?” ExAuditu 1 (1985): 23.

Apostolic Ethics and Evangelism

The postmodern person desires intimacy and

belonging,204 which can be found in a community following the

pattern of ethics in an apostolic approach.205 The apostolic

ethics of the community provide a warm environment for the

evangelization of postmodern people. This writer seeks to

demonstrate the necessity of a commendable community for the

evangelization of postmodern people.206

The apostles’ doctrine and koinwniva transform

worldviews so that the community becomes “the contemporary

embodiment of the paradigmatic biblical narrative.”207

Witness occurs through the “way of life” of the community.

Nicholas Lash proposes that martyrdom is the “performance or

enactment of the biblical text: in its ‘active

reinterpretation.’”208 In order to overcome the postmodern

scepticism of truth, an apostolic approach seeks to

148

209Ibid.

210Wayne A. Meeks, The Origins of Christian Morality:The First Two Centuries (New Haven: Yale University Press,1993), 5. The contention of this writer is that the Spiritforms community, and the morals or ethics that proceed fromthe community proceed from the demands of the Spirit uponthe community as revealed through Scripture.

211Brian J. Capper, “The Palestinian Cultural Contextof Earliest Christian Community of Goods,” in The Book ofActs in Its Palestinian Setting, ed. Richard Bauckham, vol.4, The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting (Grand

demonstrate the truth of the gospel through the performative

interpretation of Scripture in the way-of-life of the

apostolic community. In other words, the Christian

worldview is “lived-out” through the community of faith, and

this presents the “transformative power of Christian

‘martyrdom.’”209 Meeks suggests that “making morals means

making community.”210 The premise of this section, however,

is that ethics proceed from the demands of the Spirit and

the One to whom He bears witness. The Spirit establishes

community, and the community adheres to His demands.

The Ethics of Community: Acts 2:44-47 and theImportance of ajllhvlwn in Pauline Paraenesis

The description of the apostolic community in Acts

presents the ideal paradigm for the ethic of community.

Capper and Schmithals indicate that Luke records the

summaries to present the Christian community as an ideal

community (Acts 2:44-47; 4:32-35).211 These summary

149

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 324; W. Schmithals, Theology of theFirst Christians, 334-35.

212Alan Brehm, “The Significance of the Summaries forInterpreting Acts,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 33(Fall 1990): 33.

213Ibid., 35. Luke presents the nature of this unityin the summaries with ejpi; to; aujto/ and a{panta koina; (2:44); kardivakai; yuch; miva and a{panta koina;(4:32).

214T. B. Maston, Biblical Ethics: A Guide to theEthical Message of the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation(Cleveland: Word, 1967; reprint, Macon, GA: MercerUniversity Press, 1982), 246-53.

narratives present a paradigm for all Christian

communities.212 The koinwniva produces the ejpi; to; aujto; so that

the community shares with one another in tangible

expressions of love; such as the sale and distribution of

personal property to those in need. Unity of the apostolic

community leads them to help a[n ti~ creivan ei\cen (Acts 4:35).213

T. B. Maston indicates that there are three aspects

to the apostolic ethic in Acts: ethic of the Spirit, ethic

of fellowship, and ethic of inclusion.214 The ethic of the

Spirit centers on the decision-making within the community

of faith recorded specifically in Acts 5:1-11 and 15:1-29.

The fellowship ethic focuses upon the “the concept of

sharing.” The ethic of inclusion involves the inclusion of

Gentiles in the community (Acts 11:1-18). This apostolic

ethic presents a paradigm for the contemporary church.

Although the community of goods in Acts 2 and 4 appear as an

150

215Gordon Fee, Paul, the Spirit, and the People ofGod (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 115, 106.

216See also the ethic of humility in Rom 12:10. Paulwrites, th`/ filadelfiva/ eij~ ajllhvlou~ filovstorgoi, th`/ timh`/ ajllhvlou~prohgouvmenoi. The translation is: “Loving dearly one anotherwith brotherly love, outstretching one another with honor.” Here, prohgouvmenoi indicates the desire to be the best atgiving honor to one another. BAGD, s. v. “prohgevomai,” 706.

217“Nothing according to ambition and not accordingto vanity, but with humility considering the others betterthan himself.”

218Eckhard J. Schnabel, “How Paul Developed HisEthics,” in Understanding Paul’s Ethics: Twentieth CenturyApproaches, ed. Brian Rosner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995),

occasional concern for the apostolic community, the

collection for the poor by Paul and the paranaetic sections

of Paul’s epistles extend and amplify the ethic for the

Christian community.

Paul describes the apostolic ethic in his

exhortation or paraenetic sections of his letters. His use

of ajllhvlwn (and ajllhvlou~) demonstrates this ethic. Following

the pattern of Christ, an apostolic ethic focuses on love.215

Phil 2:1-4 specifically reveal the principle of

love in the apostolic ethic of the community.216 In verse 3,

Paul presents the ethic: mhde;n kat j ejriqeivan mhde; kata; kenodoxivan

ajlla; th`/ tapeinofrosuvnh/ ajllhvlou~ hJgouvmenoi uJperevconta~ eJautw`n.217

Schnabel indicates that this “modest self-assessment” calls

for each member of the community to seek the “advantage of

his fellow believers” above personal benefit.218 This is the

151

291-92.

219“Who existing in the form of God.” Thistranslation follows Gordon Fee, Paul’s Letter to thePhilippians, 202-204. Fee considers morfh; to be “that whichtruly characterizes a given reality” (204). The use ofuJpavrcwn points to real existence (202). See also, James D.G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiryinto the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980), 114-20. He views thispassage merely a depiction of Christ’s humanity.

220“He emptied himself receiving the form of a slave”and “being found in outward appearance as a man.”

221G. Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, 203.

222Otfried Hofius, Der Christushymnus Philipper 2,6-11: Untersuchungen zu Gestalt und Aussage einesurchristlichen Psalms (Tübingen: Mohr, 1991), 63. Thetranslation is: “voluntarily became poor and chose anexistence in powerlessness and dishonor.”

223Ibid. “[He] became a man (v. 7c.d) and inobedience toward the will of God went the way of

principle of love as sacrificial service for one another.

Christ is the pattern for the ethic of love (Phil

2:5-11). Beginning with the conception of Christ’s

preexistence (o{~ ejn morfh/ qeou` uJpavrcwn),219 the logic of the hymn

moves to the One who eJauto;n ejkevnwsen morfh;n douvlou labwvn and

schvmati euJreqei~ wJ~ a[nqrwpo~ (Phil 2:7).220 This logic presents

“prior existence as God.”221 Christ “freiwillig arm wurde

und ein Dasein in Machtlosigkeit und Entehrung wählte.”222

Christ “ein Mensch wurde (V. 7c.d) und im Gehorsam gegen den

Willen Gottes den Weg der Erniedrigung ging: den Weg an das

Kreuz (V. 8).”223 The apostolic ethic of sacrificial service

152

humiliation: the way by the cross (v. 8).”

224Ralph Martin, A Hymn of Christ: Philippians 2:5-11in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of EarlyChristian Worship (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997), 289-91. Martin argues against such an ethical interpretation ofthis hymn, proposing instead that the purpose of the hymn inthe midst of Paul’s ethical instruction is to call thecommunity to live worthy of Christ’s kenosis, death, andexaltation. His conclusion, however, does not militateagainst the ethic of community toward one another. Indeed,his conclusion only strengthens the portrait of this ethic.

225L. W. Hurtado, “Jesus as Lordly Example inPhilippians 2:5-11,” in From Jesus to Paul: Studies inHonour of Francis Wright Beare, ed. P. Richardson and J. C.Hurd Jr. (Waterloo: Wilfried Laurier University Press,1983), 125.

226Rudolf Schnackenburg, Der Brief an die Epheser,Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 10(Neukirchener-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982), 215. “‘Toone another,’ underscores the commitment to the community.”

for others finds ultimate fulfillment in Christ.224

Obedience to Christ’s command to love one another

sacrificially, as well as following His example, gains

attentive ears as the apostolic community considers the

lordship of Christ.225

In Eph 4:32, Paul once again utilizes ajllhvlou~ to

depict the ethic of the apostolic community. As

Schnackenberg concisely indicates, “‘zueinander,’

unterstreicht die Verpflichtung zur Gemeinschaft.”226

Relationally, this commitment to the community involves

153

227BAGD, s. v. “crhstovth~,” 886. The term indicatesgoodness or generosity toward others.

228H. Köster, s. v. “splavgcnon ktl.,” TDNT, 7:548-49,555-57. The term points to a deep feeling of compassion.

229Markus Barth, Ephesians: Introduction,Translation, and Commentary on Chapters 4-6, Anchor Bible34a (New York: Doubleday, 1974), 523-24. The term indicatesthe activity of forgiveness toward others.

230R. Schnackenburg, Der Brief an die Epheser, 215. “From goodness (crhstovth~) grows a merciful attitude(eu[splagcnoi) and from that the will to forgiveness.”

231“As God in Christ forgave you.” The aorist use ofcarivzomai refers to God’s forgiveness, and the present tensecarizovmenoi refers to the saint’s forgiveness.

232M. Barth, Ephesians 4-6, 525.

crhstovth~,227 eu[splagcno~,228 and carizovmeno~.229 Each of these

virtues proceeds eij~ ajllhvlou~ in an apostolic community.

Thus, “Aus Güte (crhstovth~) wächst barmherzige Gesinnung

(eu[splagcnoi) und daraus der Wille zur Vergebung.”230 The

principle of love is goodness, compassion, and forgiveness

eij~ ajllhvlou~. The pattern for the apostolic ethic of

forgiveness eij~ ajllhvlou~ is: kaqw;~ kai; oJ qeo;~ ejn Cristw/ ejcarivsato

uJmi`n.231 God’s forgiveness in Christ becomes the pattern by

which believers forgive one another. Barth rightly suggests

that “those who are forgiven” are “witnesses to God’s grace”

by the exemplary manner of their communal relationships.232

Col 3:12-13 present additional virtues:

tapeinofrosuvnh (humility), prau>vth" (gentleness), and makroqumiva

154

233Fritz Rienecker, Linguistic Key to the Greek NewTestament, ed. and trans. Cleon Rogers Jr. (Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1976; reprint, 1980), 580-81.

234“Bearing with one another and forgiving oneanother.” The term, ajnecovmenoi, is an admonition to thecommunity to extend love to one another willingly. H.Schlier, s. v. “ajnevcw ktl.,” TDNT, 1:359.

235F. F. Bruce, Colossians, Philemon, and Ephesians,155 n. 134. Here the present participles are utilized inthe sense of a command.

236“Just as the Lord forgave you, in the same manneralso you.”

237“Love, which is the bond of completeness.”

238Paul exhorts the community to ajgapa`n ajllhvlou~ in Rom13:8 and 1 Thess 3:12, 4:9, 18.

(patience).233 Paul then writes, ajnecovmenoi ajllhvlwn kai;

carizovmenoi eJautoi~ (Col 3:13).234 Such a construction is

“characteristic of extended ethical injunctions in the

NT.”235 The apostolic ethic calls for “mutual tolerance” as

well as mutual forgiveness. Once again, the key to

apostolic ethic is found in Christ: kaqw;~ kai; oJ kuvrio~ ejcarivsato

uJmi`n, ou{tw~ kai; uJmei`~ (Col 3:13).236

As ajgavph is the suvndesmo~ th`~ teleiovthto~ (Col 3:14),237

the apostolic ethic finds tangible expression. Paul’s use

of ajgaphv with ajllhvlwn indicates the reciprocity of love.238

This love produces spiritual strengthening of one another.

This edification involves the pursuit of ta; th`~ oijkodomh`~ th`~

155

239“The things for the building up of one another.”

240“To admonish one another.” J. Brehm, s. v. “noevwktl.,” TDNT, 4:1019-1022.

241Abraham J. Malherbe, The Letters to theThessalonians, Anchor Bible 32b (New York: Doubleday, 2000),278. Paul’s exhortation, “comfort one another,” focusesupon the eternal association of all who are in Christ, eventhose who have already died. It further points to thecomfort of Christ’s return.

242“Bear the burdens of one another.” Hans D. Betz,Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches inGalatia, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 299.

243“Bearing with one another in love.”

244James D. G. Dunn, Galatians, 321.

eij~ ajllhvlou~ (Rom 14:19).239 It includes the responsibility

ajllhvlou~ nouqetei`n (Rom 15:14).240 Here, nouqetevw denotes the

activity of a community’s influence upon the mind and will

of others in order to set them upon the right path.

Spiritual strengthening in the community also involves

“reciprocal comfort,” as Paul suggests when he writes,

parakalei`te ajllhvlou~ (1 Thess 4:18, 5:11).241

Spiritual edification involves the ethical

imperative, ajllhvlwn ta; bavrh bastavzete (Gal 6:2).242 As a

community ajnecovmenoi ajllhvlwn ejn ajgavph/ (Eph 4:2),243 the nature of

Christ’s love calls for “helping out those fellow members

whose load is too heavy for them to bear alone.”244 Helping

others overcome the temptation to sin is part of the ethic.

Fung indicates that ta; bavrh euphemistically points to a

156

245Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians,New International Commentary on the New Testament (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 284.

246“You receive one another, just as Christ receivedyou.”

247David Alan Black, Paul, Apostle of Weakness:Astheneia and Its Cognates in the Pauline Literature (NewYork: Peter Lang, 1984), 198-206. Moo does not draw such atight distinction between Jewish and Gentile Christians asthe identification of the “strong” and the “weak,” but herightly indicates that the “dividing line between these twogroups was basically the issue of the continuingapplicability of the Jewish law.”

248D. Moo, Epistle to the Romans, 873-75.

believer’s lapse into sin.245 In this way, the apostolic

community joins together to offer spiritual strength to one

another.

Other tangible expressions of the principle of love

in apostolic ethics include proslambavnesqe ajllhvlou~, kaqw;~ kai; oJ

Cristo/~ proselavbeto uJma`~ (Rom 15:7).246 The exhortation informs

the relationship between the dunatoi; and the ajduvnatoi in Rome.

Black suggests that the ajduvnatoi are Jewish Christians whose

dietary rituals caused them to condemn those who did not

follow their ceremonial laws. The dunatoi; are the Gentile

Christians who condemned the ajduvnatoi for their legalism.247

Paul’s exhortation is for mutual acceptance within the

apostolic community. As Christ received them, they should

receive one another in community.248

The apostolic approach for the evangelization of

157

249Leonard Sweet, Post-Modern Pilgrims: First CenturyPassion for the 21st Century World (Nashville: Broadman andHolman, 2000), 113.

250Kenneth Gergen, The Saturated Self: Dilemmas ofIdentity in Contemporary Life (New York: Basic Books, 1991),5-7.

251L. Sweet, Post-Modern Pilgrims, 115.

postmodern people depends upon a community which follows the

principle of Christ’s love for one another as exemplified by

Christ Himself. Thus, the principle of apostolic ethics is

love and the pattern is Christ.

The Postmodern Need for Intimacy

The postmodern need for intimacy presents a

connecting link between the gospel and postmodernism. In

the postmodern world, individuals possess a hunger for

community and connection. An apostolic approach seeks to

bring ideal community to the hearts of postmodern people.

Indeed, as Leonard Sweet suggests, “relationship issues

stand at the heart of postmodern culture.”249 Kenneth Gergen

notes that postmodernism leads individuals into “a state of

continuous reconstruction.”250 In the flux of interminable

meaning, postmodern people seek “a self-identity within a

connectional framework of neighborliness, civic virtue, and

spiritual values.”251

Middleton and Walsh indicate that postmodern people

158

252Middleton and Walsh, Truth Is Stranger Than ItUsed to Be, 145-46.

253Peter Berger, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of aSociological Theory of Religion (Garden City, NY: Doubleday,1967), 22.

254Stanley Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 169.

255Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth, 38;idem., Essays on Heidegger and Others, 163.

256Rorty, Consequences of Pragmatism, 166.

exist in a state of “radical” homelessness.252 The

deconstruction of metanarrative is also the deconstruction

of reality. As such, postmodern people are “submerged in a

world of disorder, senselessness, and madness.”253 They

exist in a state of exile, searching for intimacy in a world

of violence and isolation.

Postmodern people, in turn, yearn for community

that embodies “wholesome, authentic, and healing

relationships.”254 Rorty’s espousal of a communal view of

understanding promotes the community as the creator of

identity, meaning, and value for the individual.255 Rorty

suggests that in a world with contingencies rather than

truth “loyalty to other human beings clinging together

against the dark” is a more appropriate pursuit than the

pursuit of truth or the goal of “getting things right.”256

Being informed by the “epistemic undecidability” of

159

257Charles E. Winquist, Desiring Theology (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1995), 143.

258Ibid., 146.

259Ibid., 146-47.

260Ibid., 148-50.

postmodernism, Winquist suggests that “we can no longer

develop an ethic in itself.”257 By this, Winquist embraces a

postmodern skepticism toward any claim to a universal,

absolute ethic. In response to this “epistemic

undecidability,” Winquist proposes “paraethics.” He

describes “paraethics” as a “belief that life is less

beautiful when people are oppressed and disenfranchised.”258

“Paraethics” seeks to “deterritorialize” texts, so that no

text has a privileged place.259 With “perspectives that are

never absolute,” Winquist proposes that the “becoming of

paraethics” is love. This love, however, is “contingent on

place and time” and subject to the “finite experience” of

relative context.260 The context of the individual,

therefore, informs and directs the becoming of “paraethics.”

In the view of this writer, an apostolic approach

presents a more constructive avenue of ethics. Being

informed by the apostolic community of the NT, an apostolic

approach seeks to embody the principle of love in Christ.

Rather than allowing the world of contingencies to dictate

160

261Ibid., 142-43.

262Helmut Anselm, “Virtuelle Ethikgemeinschaften undWerteerziehung heute,” Zeitschrift für Evangelische Ethik 41(1997): 129-136.

263Ibid., 133. “It itself, however, is ‘invisible,’unseeable, possesses no structured institution and nospecific form of organization.”

264Ibid., 129. “The postmodern creates us as“hoboes” in a land of values, ethically unsatisfied, morallyhomeless and always on the search for the other, the new.”

and direct the ethics in which one engages,261 apostolic

ethics allows the paradigm of Christ unveiled by the Spirit

of truth to dictate and direct moral principles and

obligations. An apostolic approach, therefore, speaks with

“decidability” to the postmodern need for intimacy.

Helmut Anselm describes the necessity of an ethical

response to the postmodern generation.262 Anselm indicates

that the postmodern generation is an ethical community which

needs a stable, concrete way of life. Postmodern ethics is

“virtuell” -- “Sie selbst aber ist ‘invisibilis,’

unsichtbar, besistzt keine strukturierenden Institutionen

und keine eigenen Organisationsformen.”263 Citing Bauman’s

negative view of the postmodern “way-of-life,” Anselm

suggests: “die Postmoderne macht uns zu ‘Landstreichen’ im

Land der Werte, ethische unbefriedigt, moralisch heimatlos

und immer auf der Suche nach dem Anderen, dem Neuen.”264

This evaluation necessitates that the church is to provide a

161

265Ibid., 135. “One cannot however mediate to theyouth through speeches, but only through specific action,not through theories, but through practice.”

266Stanley Hauerwas, A Community of Character: Towarda Constructive Christian Social Ethic (Notre Dame:University of Notre Dame Press, 1981), 92.

stable, concrete “way-of-life.” This concrete ethic is

built upon the principle of love and the pattern of Christ.

Anselm calls for a movement in the church from “virtuelle

Ethik-Community” dominated by speeches and theories. He

suggests that “kann man den Jugendlichen nicht durch Reden

vermitteln, sondern nur durch eigenes Tun, nicht durch

Theoretisieren, sondern durch Praktizieren.”265

The practice of an apostolic approach follows the

principle of love and the pattern of Jesus Christ modeled by

the apostolic church in Acts and in Paul’s use of ajllhvlwn.

The ethic of community focuses upon the ethic of Christ,

which is not a theory, but an active engagement of others.

The Commendable Community and Evangelism, Acts 2:47, 5:13

A community following an apostolic approach to

ethics provides a commendable community for people in a

postmodern setting. Stanley Hauerwas posits that all human

relationships are “splintered and tribal existence” in

comparison to a church which reflects an apostolic ethic.266

An apostolic community of love in Christ satisfies the

162

267The apostolic community had “favor with all thepeople.” Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: ACommentary, trans. R. McL. Wilson, et al. (Oxford: BasilBlackwell, 1971), 193; W. Neil, Acts of the Apostles, 82. Neil suggests that the “splendid quality of their commonlife” produced a favorable view.


269George G. Hunter III, How to Reach Secular People(Nashville: Abingdon, 1992), 137-40.

270“The people praised them.”

postmodern yearning for intimate connection. This writer

proposes that the commendable community of an apostolic

approach to ethics energizes the evangelistic ministry in

the postmodern world.

The ethic of the apostolic community produces cavrin

pro;~ o{lon to;n laovn (Acts 2:47).267 “As a result of this, the

young community grew day by day, as more and more Jews

accepted Jesus as the Messiah and were thus saved.”268

Indeed, a commendable community which embraces the ethic of

the apostolic community enhances the evangelistic

effectiveness in a postmodern world.269 An apostolic

approach calls for the community of faith to demonstrate the

love of Christ toward one another.

Following the divine judgment on Ananias and

Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11), ejmegavlunen auJtou;~ oJ laov~ (Acts 5:13b).270

163

271H. Conzelmann, Commentary on the Acts, 39. Conzelmann suggests that it is “mere clumsiness” by theauthor.

272“But no one of the rest had courage to unite withthem.”

273D. R. Schwartz, “Non-Joining Sympathizers (Acts5,13-14),” Biblica 64 (1983): 550-55.

274F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, 109.

275C. C. Torrey, “The ‘Rest’ in Acts v. 13,”Expository Times 46 (1934-1935): 428-29. He takes kolla`sqaias “to seize.” The religious leaders did not dare arrestthe members of the apostolic community because of theirfavor and high-esteem by oJ laov~.

276I. H. Marshall, Acts of the Apostles, 115. Hesuggests that loipw`n is a technical idiom for unbelieversand the meaning of kolla`sqai means “to come near.”

The setting of this verse appears “anti-evangelistic.”271

The judgment of Ananias and Sapphira creates an atmosphere

in which tw`n de; loipw`n oujdei;~ eJtovlma kolla`sqai aujtoi`~ (Acts 5:13a).272

D. R. Schwartz proposes that the tension between the

admiration of the people and their fear kept prospective

converts from union with the apostolic community through the

contribution of personal property.273 Bruce also indicates

that these deaths dissuaded all but the totally committed

from joining the community.274 C. C. Torrey, however,

considers loipw`n to refer to the Jewish religious leaders

and kalla`sqai to the arrest of the Christians.275 This writer

follows Marshall who proposes the intent of the verse is:

“unbelieving Jews kept away from the Christians.”276

164

277Polhill, Acts, 164.

278I. H. Marshall, Acts of the Apostles, 115.

279Curtis Vaughan, Acts: A Study Bible Commentary(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 38.

280R. Daniel Shaw, “In Search of Post-modernSalvation,” Evangelical Review of Theology 22 (1998): 57.

The fear of “half-hearted” allegiance to the

apostolic community provides a corrective to the social

ministry in which it engaged. The provision for a[n ti~ kreivan

ei\cen most likely attracted a large following in Jerusalem.

The incident with Ananias and Sapphira, however, caused

those who were looking for physical needs to evaluate their

true commitment to Christ. Unless they were willing to

submit to the Spirit’s power, they kept their distance.277

Nevertheless, even those who feared participation

in the apostolic community “could not help praising them as

they were impressed by what they did.”278 In fact, the ethic

of the commendable community, especially when joined with

the powerful demonstrations of God’s presence and power, led

to the growth of the community (Acts 5:14). Vaughan

proposes that the purity of the community and the obvious

presence of the Lord promotes the growth of the church.279

R. Daniel Shaw suggests that the church in the

postmodern world must utilize specific ministry to those who

are in need as she evangelizes of postmodern individuals.280

165

281Allison A. Trites, “Church Growth in the Book ofActs,” Bibliotheca Sacra 145 (April 1988): 172.

282Hauerwas, A Community of Character, 52-55, 95-97.

283Dennis Hollinger, “The Church as Apologetic: ASociology of Knowledge Perspective,” in ChristianApologetics in the Postmodern World, eds. Timothy R.Phillips and Dennis L. Okholm (Downers Grove: InterVarsity,1995), 182-93. He proposes that the “plausibilitystructure” for the gospel is a “holy, loving, just,forgiving, life-giving community” which reflects theprinciple of love and the pattern of Christ (Ibid., 190). “Plausibility structure” is a “social structure whichmanifests the worldview of a people” (Ibid., 186).

An apostolic approach seeks such an holistic approach. An

apostolic community responds to the practical as well as

spiritual needs of its members (Acts 4:32, 34-35; 6:1-6).

Evangelism and social action join together as a powerful

witness to the postmodern world. Trites writes: “Such an

unselfish, caring fellowship was undeniably attractive to

the pagan world, and it still is.”281

This is not to say that a commendable community

“makes true” the gospel. Hauerwas appears to present such a

conclusion when he suggests that “the truthfulness” of a

story “is known by the kind of community [it] should

form.”282 Dennis Hollinger rightly proposes that the church,

as “a visible, corporate expression” of the gospel, serves

as a witness in the postmodern world.283 Unlike Hauerwas,

this writer proposes that the truthfulness of the gospel is

inherent in its nature as divine revelation and witness.

166

284Ibid., 187.

285William C. Placher, Unapologetic Theology: AChristian Voice in a Pluralistic Conversation (Louisville:Westminster John Knox, 1989), 167.

286For a contrary view, see, James W. Sire, “On Beinga Fool for Christ and an Idiot for Nobody: Logocentricityand Postmodernity,” in Christian Apologetics in thePostmodern World, eds. Timothy R. Phillips and Dennis L.Okholm (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1995), 101-27.

The Spirit of truth bridges the truth of the gospel to

postmodern people. Yet, in evangelism, the community’s

actions join with the Spirit’s witness to Christ. Berger

proposes that the “reality of the gospel is mediated”

through the faith-community modeling the apostolic ethic.284

As such, an apostolic approach presents a model for life

within community which postmodern people seek.285


postmodern people exalts the principle of love for one

another and follows the pattern of Christ in the community.

In this way, the community of faith “incarnates” intimacy,

and the postmodern desire for intimacy finds fulfillment in

the commendable community, which shows love and practical

concern for a[n ti~ creivan ei\cen.

Kevin Graham Ford calls for a commendable community

in the evangelization of postmodern people. He suggests

that the “intellectual dimension” of the gospel is vital for

discipleship (th/ didach/ tw`n ajpostovlwn), but not evangelism.286

167

287Kevin Graham Ford, Jesus for a New Generation:Putting the Gospel in the Language of Xers (Downers Grove:InterVarsity, 1995), 136-37.

288Hauerwas, A Community of Character, 52.

289C. E. Autrey, Evangelism in the Acts (GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1964), 43.

290F. Scheidweiler, “Zu Act. 5:4,” Zeitschrift fürdie neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 49 (1958): 133-37.

291I. Howard Marshall, “Palestinian and HellenisticChristianity,” New Testament Studies 19 (1972-1973): 271-87.

Although this writer does not concur completely with Ford’s

conclusions about apologetics in the evangelization of

postmodern people, his emphasis on community is insightful.

The commendable community in which the church is a “safe and

nurturing haven of relational stability” presents the most

effective tool for the evangelization of postmodern

people.287

Obstacles to Community: Deception and Division

When deceit and division mark the community of

faith, these obstacles encumber the “truthful telling” of

the gospel.288 The apostolic ethic, which exegetes the love

of God through Christ to others, becomes the target of

Satan’s attack against the faith-community.289 The deception

of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11)290 and the division

between the Hellenists and the Hebrews (Acts 6:1-6)

demonstrate an approach to overcome these obstacles.291

168

292Trites, “Church Growth in the Book of Acts,” 172.

293Brian Capper, “The Interpretation of Acts 5.4,”Journal for the Study of the New Testament 19 (1983): 117-31. Capper shows that the candidates for membership in theEssene community went through a probation period in whichall personal property was given, but ownership was nottransferred. To deceive the community demonstrated a lackof trust in the community.

294B. Capper, “Palestinian Cultural Context ofEarliest Christian Community of Goods,” 337-38.

295F. F. Bruce, Acts of the Apostles, 105 n. 15.


Accordingly, this writer will seek to demonstrate how the

apostolic church responded to these threats.292

The setting of the deception and judgment of

Ananias and Sapphira informs the approach involved in the

resolution of the problem in the community. Capper provides

an extensive analysis of the community of goods in its

Palestinian context. He concludes that the violation of the

couple finds a parallel in the Essene community.293 In

drawing this comparison, Capper connects membership in the

community with the transfer of personal property.294 Bruce,

however, rightly indicates that such a conclusion outweighs

the evidence.295 Furthermore, the demand of the surrender of

personal property to join the community finds no parallel in

the NT. Indeed, Peter’s questions in verse 4 demonstrate

the voluntary nature of the community of goods.296

169

297F. F. Bruce, Acts of the Apostles, 102.

298M. Erickson, Christian Theology, 472.

299Brian Rosner, “The Progress of the Word,” inWitness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts, eds. I. H.Marshall and David Peterson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998),224.

300Robert Wall, “Israel and the Gentile Mission inActs and Paul: A Canonical Approach,” in Witness to theGospel: The Theology of Acts, eds. I. H. Marshall and DavidPeterson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 444.

Nevertheless, Ananias and Sapphira sought to deceive, which

interrupts the “victorious progress of the people of God.”297

The work of oJ satana`~ against the apostolic community is the

manifestation of his opposition to God and the work of

Christ. The methodology of oJ satana`~ is the temptation to

sin.298 In an attempt to garner a reputation for generosity,

Ananias and Sapphira seek yeuvsasqai (Acts 5:3). Yet, the

object of this deception is to; pneu`ma and tw/ qew/, not merely

ajnqrwvpoi~. The judgment is swift and final (Acts 5:5, 10).

As the community of the Spirit, the church must

maintain purity in order to maintain effective witness. The

Spirit is the agent of confirmation, power, leadership, and

judgment “by which God launches the good news.”299 The

“execution of Ananias is a prolepsis that the proclaimed

word carries the prospect of divine retribution for any who

deny its truth.”300 Thankfully, the finality and extent of

this judgment does not represent the normative standard.

170

301David P. Seccombe, Possessions and the Poor inLuke-Acts, Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt(Linz: Verlag F. Plochl, 1982), 199-201.

302Max Turner, “The ‘Spirit of Prophecy’ as the Powerof Israel’s Restoration and Witness,” in Witness to theGospel: The Theology of Acts, eds. I. H. Marshall and DavidPeterson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 341.


304“Putting away deceit” and “speak truth each onewith his neighbor” because “we are members of one another.”

305James D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the NewTestament: An Inquiry into the Character of EarliestChristianity, 2d ed. (London: SCM Press, 1990), 178.

306M. Erickson, Christian Theology, 1057-58. Thisincludes the necessity of discipline (1 Cor 5:11-13).

The narrative, however, demonstrates the powerful presence

of God in the midst of His people and “zealous to defend”

the holiness of the community, which is normative.301 This

judgment serves as a blessing for the apostolic community

through the Spirit’s monitor of holiness.302 This narrative

highlights the judgment upon those who defile the “temple”

with impurity (1 Cor 3:16-17).303 Furthermore, the ethic of

community means ajpoqevmenoi to; yeu`do~ and lalei`te ajlhvqeian e{kasto~

meta; tou` plhsivon aujtou` because ejsme;n ajllhvlwn mevlh (Eph 4:25).304

An apostolic approach depends upon the Spirit “for

its spiritual sustenance and sense of direction,” including

judgment upon sin.305 Furthermore, an apostolic approach

requires accountability within the community of faith.306

171

307John Milbank, Theology and Social Theory: BeyondSecular Reason (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990), 5.

308“Grumbling of the Hellenists originated againstthe Hebrews.” Most commentators identify Hellenists as Jewswho spoke Greek while the Hebrews spoke primarily theSemitic language. Notable exceptions are: H. J. Cadbury,“The Hellenists,” in The Beginnings of Christianity. Part 1:The Acts of the Apostles, vol. 4, eds. F. J. Foakes Jackonand Kirsopp Lake (London: MacMillan, 1933), 59-74; OscarCullmann, “The Significance of the Qumran Texts for Researchinto the Beginnings of Christianity,” Journal of BiblicalLiterature 74 (1955): 213-26. Cadbury suggests thatHellenists are Gentiles, and Cullmann proposes thatHellenists are Qumran sectarians.

309Joseph Fitzmeyer, “Jewish Christianity in Acts inLight of the Qumran Scrolls,” in Studies in Luke-Acts, eds.Leander Keck and J. Louis Martyn (Nashville: Abingdon,1966), 238.

Diversity is a norm within the apostolic community.

The biblical images of the community reveal this diversity

of membership. The diversity, however, is “socialized” by

the unity of the Spirit and the ethics of an apostolic

community, specifically in connection with ajllhvlwn. John

Milbank writes that “peace no longer depends upon the

reduction to the self-identical, but is the sociality of

harmonic difference.”307 An apostolic approach, following

the example of Acts 6:1-6, provides this “harmonic peace.”

Along with the growth of the apostolic community,

ejgevneto goggusmo;~ tw`n JEllhnistw`n pro;~ tou;~ JEbraivou~ (Acts 6:1).308

This conflict demonstrates the social, cultural, and

linguistic differences within the growing faith-community.309

172

310I. H. Marshall, “Palestinian and HellenisticChristianity: Some Critical Comments,” New Testament Studies19 (1972-1973): 271-87.

311J. Julius Scott Jr., “Parties in the Church ofJerusalem as Seen in the Book of Acts,” Journal of theEvangelical Theological Society 18 (1975): 221.

312Haenchen, Acts of the Apostles, 266. See also, N.Walter, “Apostelgeschichte 6.1 und die Anfäng der Urgemeindein Jerusalem,” New Testament Studies 29 (1983): 370-93. Walter proposes the two-community structure.

This diversity, although present, should not be

overemphasized since Greek culture had already influenced

much of the Palestinian world.310

Although the subject-matter for the goggusmo;~

focuses on the distribution of food to the needy, this

probably represents one of many factors contributing to the

conflict.311 This writer, however, does not concur with the

reconstruction of many commentators on this passage.

Haenchen, for example, seeks to demonstrate the emergence of

two distinct congregations within the apostolic community.

He builds his case from the conclusion that only Hellenists

experience persecution (Acts 8:1; 9:31; 11:19; 12:1).

Haenchen’s suggestion is that these two groups are so

distinct that the Jewish leaders persecuted one and not the

other. Luke, therefore, creates the conflict within the

apostolic community between the Hellenists and Hebrews to

make room for this persecution.312

173

313“The Twelve” and “seven.” Conzelman, Acts of theApostles, 44.



316Haenchen, Acts of the Apostles, 265.

Conzelmann, as well, suggests the creation of a

two-level structure within the apostolic community: the

community around oiJ dwvdeka and the Hellenist community around

eJptav.313 Capper also indicates that the apostolic community

solves the conflict between these two distinct groups with a

further division. The apostolic community nominates and

elects eJptav to lead the “separately developing community of

hellenistic believers” rather than to unify the Hellenists

and Hebrews.314

The apostolic ethic of community, however, requires

a more synchronic analysis of this text. Unlike the

reconstructive efforts represented here, this writer seeks

to discern the natural appeal of the text. As Bruce notes,

the eJptav certainly are leaders among the Hellenists in the

apostolic community,315 but their selection by the community

does not necessarily point to the further fracture of the

community. In fact, Haenchen initially proposes that “this

story seems entirely plausible.”316 He then builds a case to

“unravel the tangle” which he perceives beyond the text.

174

317Martin Hengel, “Early Christianity as a Jewish-Messianic, Universalistic Movement,” in Conflicts andChallenges in Early Christianity, ed. D. A. Hagner(Harrisburg, PA: Trinity International Press, 1999), 29.

318Polhill, Acts, 179.

319“Examine from among you seven men who arefavorably confirmed.”

320“Before the whole assembly.” I. H. Marshall, Actsof the Apostles, 127. The Greek names of the seven menleads to the assumption that they were Hellenists.

The plausibility of this narrative rests upon a view of

Luke’s historical reliability. Hengel summarizes the

viewpoint of this writer when he suggests that the

historical details within Luke’s writing “do not fit in with

the popular picture of Luke as a kind of pious, ahistorical

novelist.”317 Accordingly, as Luke reports it, “there is no

reason to picture a breach or separation in the total

Christian community -- only the sort of ‘distancing’ created

by natural linguistic and cultural differences.”318

The problem for the apostolic community focuses

upon the “distance” between two groups within the community.

The Twelve offer “total participation” within the community;

namely, ejpiskevyasqe . . . a[ndre~ ejx uJmw`n marturoumevnou~ eJptav (Acts

6:3).319 With the approval ejnwvpion panto;~ tou` plhvqou~, the

community elects seven Hellenists to bridge the distance

between those who were voicing their concern and the whole

of the community within the Jerusalem church (Acts 6:5).320

175


322The present, passive participle, marturoumevnou~,refers to a favorable report concerning these men. Furthermore they should be “full of the Spirit and wisdom.”


324Jean-François Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: AReport on Knowledge, vol. 10, Theory and History ofLiterature, trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi(Minnaopolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984), 82.

325Albert Borgman, Crossing the Postmodern Divide(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 116-18.

Even if the choice of seven Hellenists is a movement to

placate the Hellenists,321 the primary requirement for these

men is marturoumevnou~, plhvrei~ pneuvmato~ kai; sofiva~.322 Bruce

indicates that these are “ideal requirements” for

appointments in church leadership.323 As such, these men

provide the leadership necessary to maintain the unity of

the Spirit within the community of faith through the

leadership of the Spirit who guides them into all wisdom.

Postmodern people seek to distance themselves from

the “distance of others.” They despise the relegation of

“others” to the place of inferiority. Postmodernism rejects

outright this “totalization.” As Lyotard pronounces, “Let

us wage a war on totality.”324 Albert Borgman suggests that

the postmodern person desires to hear and to respond to the

“voice of alterity,” which is the cry of the “other.”325 The

apostolic community responds to the voice of alterity.

176

326Thomas D. Lea, The New Testament: Its Backgroundand Message (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1996), 295.

327“The word of God grew and increased.”

328Trites, “Prayer-Motif in Luke-Acts,” 180.

An apostolic approach deals with divisions in the church

according to the pattern of Acts 6:1-6. The “voice of

alterity” gains a hearing, and the leadership respond with

decisive action to respond to the specific needs.326

The result of this immediate response is that oJ lovgo~

tou` qeou` hJuvxanen kai; eplhquvneto (Acts 6:7).327 “The Christian

community had evidently been guided in the disposition of

its own affairs so that its witness to ‘those outside’

remained vibrant and attractive.”328 The same is true for

the contemporary church in a postmodern world.

This lengthy analysis of the role of community in

the evangelization of postmodern people focuses on the

biblical conception of the community of faith: unity and

mission; inclusion dia; th`~ pivstew~ ejn Cristw/ jIhsou`; and

uniqueness and purity. As a “divine standard” of God to the

world, an apostolic community serves as an avenue for the

transformation from a postmodern to a Christian worldview

through th/ didach/ tw`n ajpostovlwn and koinwniva. The community also

functions as a living witness to the love of God following

the pattern of Jesus Christ through the apostolic ethic.

177

329Moltmann, Church in the Power of the Spirit, 153-54.

This ethic uniquely answers the postmodern desire for

intimacy. As such, the apostolic ethic of community

provides a powerful tool for the evangelization of

postmodern people. Finally, the obstacles to an apostolic

community, which includes deception and division, find

resolution through the leadership of the Spirit in a

postmodern world.

The role of the community in the evangelization of

postmodern people does not present the absolutism of the

community, which is the postmodern plea. Instead, the role

of community exalts the absolutism of Christ. As Moltmann

cogently states: “The visible church is, as Christ’s church,

the ministry of reconciliation exercised upon the world.

Thus the church is to be seen, not as absolute, but in its

relationship to the divine reconciler.”329

1David Tracy, “Christianity in the Wider Context:Demands and Transformations,” in Worldviews and Warrants:Plurality and Authority in Theology, eds. William Schweikerand P. M. Anderson (New York: University Press of America,1987), 2.

2D. A. Carson, Gagging of God, 13. Carson givesplurality the nomenclature of “empirical pluralism.”

3Alister E. McGrath, “The Challenge of Pluralism forthe Contemporary Christian Church,” Journal of theEvangelical Theological Society 35 (September 1992): 363.

177

CHAPTER FOUR

POSTMODERN PLURALITIES, PLURALISM, AND AN APOSTOLIC APPROACH

Evangelization in the Midst of Pluralities

The postmodern ethos seeks pluralism in the face of

pluralities. This dissertation distinguishes between

plurality and pluralism. David Tracy suggests that

“plurality is a fact. Pluralism is one of the many

evaluations of that fact.”1 Plurality is “the sheer

diversity of race, value systems, heritage, language,

culture, and religion in many Western and some other

nations.”2 Pluralism, however, is the response to plurality

which approves, cherishes, and embraces the multiple, and

sometimes contradictory, differences.3 As such, pluralism

178

4Lieven Boeve, “Christus Postmodernus: An Attempt atApophatic Christology,” in The Myriad Christ: Plurality andthe Quest for Unity in Contemporary Christology, eds. T.Merrigan and J. Haers (Leuven: Leuven University Press,2000), 577-78.

5D. Tracy, “Christianity in the Wider Context,” 2.

6Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 1.

7Paul Lakeland, Postmodernity: Christian Identity ina Fragmented Age (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press,1997), 102-103.

declares that all truth-claims, and religions, are equal.

Therefore, “Jesus Christ must then be regarded as a

religious genius like Buddha or Mohammed -- human beings at

the origin of a world religion, praiseworthy but nothing

more.”4 Pluralism seeks the “deferral of all strong claims

to unity or even truth”5 so that “there is no officially

approved pattern of belief or conduct.”6

This writer proposes that evangelism in the midst

of postmodern pluralities follows the pattern of evangelism

in apostolic times. Paul Lakeland, however, suggests that

the postmodern identification of the “community of

redemption” as a “place of relative, revisable, pragmatic,

provisional ‘ways of seeing what-is’” demands an approach

different from the first-century church.7 Lakeland’s

approach does not seek persuasion toward the gospel, but a

179

8Ibid., 102.

9Ibid., 104-105.

10Ibid., 109-111.

11Ibid., 111.

12Ibid., 112-13. Lakeland writes: “What isdistinctive about Christianity remains within Christianityand in no way challenges or represents itself as superior toother religious traditions, namely, the belief that inChrist God has spoken in a way that human beings can receivethe word.”

13Ibid., 113.

conversation with pluralities which leads to a consensus.8

Lakeland further indicates that the Christian community

“cannot realistically understand itself as the only avenue

of the divine into human history.”9 Lakeland, therefore,

rejects the necessity of Christ for salvation.10 For

Lakeland, Nietzsche’s Zarathustra defines salvation as

“being faithful to the earth.”11 Thus, he concludes that

other religious traditions are equally valuable for the

salvation of the postmodern world.12

Such an approach for evangelization, however,

deconstructs the gospel so that it is no longer biblical,

apostolic, or Christian. Although Lakeland’s approach calls

for postmodern people to “choose one” among the alternative

versions of reality, no one version is better than

another.13 The evangelization of the apostolic church in

180

14Harry Eberts Jr., “Plurality and Ethnicity inEarly Christian Mission,” Sociology of Religion 58 (1997):317. According to Eberts, the apostolic church faced thecultural, social, and religious differences within thetarget-groups for evangelism: Galilean, Hebrew, Hellenist,and pagan Greek culture.

15Robert M. Grant, Gods and the One God(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986), 19-28.

16Anthony Blasi, “Sociology of Early Christianity --By Way of Introduction,” Sociology of Religion 58 (1997):299-303.

pluralities presents a better approach for the contemporary

church.

Pluralities in Apostolic and Postmodern Times

The nature of plurality in pre-modern and

postmodern times presents similarities as well as

differences, but the fact of plurality in apostolic age is

certain. An examination of New Testament (NT) literature

provides a mosaic of the religious and cultural pluralities

in the pre-modern world of the apostolic church.14 Robert

Grant’s summary of the gods in the book of Acts certainly

points to this fact.15 Anthony Blasi of Tennessee State

University describes the sociology of early Christianity

within the framework of the Roman Empire. He suggests that

the context of the apostolic church’s evangelization was a

“culturally pluralist environment.”16

Several examples from Acts and the Pauline epistles

181

17“For there is no difference of both Jew and Greek,for the same Lord [is] rich toward all who are calling uponHim.”

18These terms are translated: dou`lo~ (slave), ejleuvqero~(free), a[rsen (male), and qh`lu (female) in Galatians 3:28;peritomh; (circumcision), ajkrobustiva (uncircumcision), bavrbaro~(barbarian), and Skuvqh~ (Scythian) in Colossians 3:11.

19Tessa Rajak, “The Location of Cultures in SecondTemple Palestine,” in The Book of Acts in Its PalestinianSetting, ed. Richard Bauckham, vol. 4, The Book of Acts inIts First Century Setting (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 3.

provide ample evidence of the plurality which confronted the

apostolic church in the evangelization of the ancient world.

The apostle Paul writes: ouj gavr ejstin diastolh; jIoudaivou te kai;

{Ellhno~, oJ ga;r aujto;~ kuvrio~ pavntwn, ploutw`n eij~ pavnta~ tou;~ ejpikaloumevnou~

aujtovn (Rom 10:12).17 jIoudaivou and {Ellhno~ represent plurality,

as does dou`lo~, ejleuvqero~, a[rsen, and qh`lu in Gal 3:28. In Col

3:11 Paul adds peritomh; and ajkrobustiva, bavrbaro~ and Skuvqh~ to

the list of pluralities.18 Rajak indicates that these

listings represent ethnic, linguistic, religious, or social

differences.19

More specifically, however, the apostolic church

faces the challenges of religious plurality. Paul’s

evangelism in Athens illustrates this plurality (Acts 17).

Athens possessed “a blend of superstitious idolatry and

enlightened philosophy” in its cultural and religious

182

20I. H. Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles, TyndaleNew Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980;reprint, 1999), 281.

21C. K. Barrett, “Paul’s Speech on the Areopagus,”in New Testament Christianity for Africa and the World:Essays in Honour of Harry Sawyer, eds. Mark Glasswell and E.W. Fashole-Luke (London: SPCK, 1974), 71.

22Bertil Gärtner, The Areopagus Speech and NaturalRevelation, trans. C. H. King (Uppsala: C. W. K. Gleerup,1955), 144-69.

23Hans Conzelmann, A Commentary on the Acts of theApostles, trans. James Limburg, A. T. Kraabel, and D. H.Juel, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 138-39.

life.20 The city is an example of the religious and

philosophical plurality that pervaded the ancient world.

Barrett, drawing from kateivdwlon (Acts 17:16), states that

Athens “was overrun with idols.”21 Furthermore, Bertil

Gärtner’s complex analysis of the Areopagus speech seeks to

demonstrate Paul’s use of Stoic and Jewish concepts as an

apostolic approach to evangelize those gathered at Athens.22

Conzelmann indicates that Paul’s speech brings “the

representatives of the universal Greek culture into play”

and engages the audience as “typical Athenians.”23 This

apostolic approach will be discussed below.

As Marshall suggests, “[t]he world of the New

Testament was a world in which different cultures or ways of

life were in contact with one another, leading to

183

24I. Howard Marshall, “Culture and the NewTestament,” in Gospel and Culture: The Papers of aConsultation on the Gospel and Culture, Convened by theLausanne Committee’s Theology and Education Group, eds. JohnStott and Robert T. Coote (Pasadena, CA: William CareyLibrary, 1979), 27.

25E. Luther Copeland, “Christian Theology and WorldReligions,” Review and Expositor 94 (1997): 423.

26Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in MoralTheory, 2d ed. (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press,1984), 109.

27Charles Jencks, What Is Postmodernism?, 3d ed.(New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1989), 44.

assimilation between them as well as to sharp collision.”24

In the same manner, the contemporary church faces this

collision of pluralities. The pluralities in postmodern

times is comparable to the “encounter of the early church

with the religious variety of the Greco-Roman world,

including Greek philosophy.”25

Alasdair MacIntyre argues that the “contemporary

vision of the world” is a “multiplicity of visions deriving

from that irreducible plurality of values.”26 When

considering the “global village” that has emerged during the

postmodern era, one can recognize the veracity of

MacIntyre’s statement. Charles Jencks proposes that the

“meteroic” rise of the information age has increased the

accessibility to various cultural beliefs.27 Following

Jencks, Grenz declares that the information age has “brought

184

28Stanley Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 18.

29Richard Rorty, Essays on Heidegger and Others:Philosophical Papers, Volume 2 (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1991), 132.

30Todd Hahn and David Verhaagen, Reckless Hope:Understanding and Reaching Baby Busters (Grand Rapids:Baker, 1996), 38.

the world together in a manner never before possible,” so

that “the global village imbues its citizens with a vivid

awareness of the cultural diversity of our planet.”28

The postmodern religious pursuits reflect the

heterogeneity and plurality of the generation. Richard

Rorty indicates that today’s postmodern ethos is filled with

“lots of picture galleries, book displays, movies, concerts,

ethnographic museums, museums of science and technology”

which represent the plurality of cultural options available

for worship.29 With the demise of the Enlightenment ideal,

“empiricism was rejected as the only way of knowing and

replaced with myriad options. There became multiple paths

to knowledge and understanding, none more important or real

than another. As a result, spiritual ideas were acceptable,

but no system of belief was allowed to be more ‘true’ than

another.”30

As with Athens of the first-century, today’s

185

31Rorty, Essays on Heidegger and Others, 132-33.

32See especially, Bertil Gärtner, The AreopagusSpeech and Natural Revelation, 46-50.

33George P. Landow, Hypertext: The Convergance ofContemporary Critical Theory and Technology (Baltimore, MD:John Hopkins University Press, 1992), 74-75.

34Fredric Jameson, Postmodernism, or, The CulturalLogic of Late Capitalism (Durham, NC: Duke University Press,1991; reprint, 1999), 391-99.

postmodern scene is filled with idols.31 One difference

between the pre-modern and postmodern, however, is the vast

landscape of the latter in terms of information access and

dissemination. The philosophers of Athens were primarily

the elite thinkers with specialized training and knowledge.

The plurality of Athens, while specialized, represented the

plurality of the Greco-Roman culture.32 The age of the

postmodern is the age of the computer and the “information

super-highway.” The postmodern philosopher consists of

anyone who has the temerity to “run a search” on the “net”

and consider the information gleaned as both legitimate and

valuable.33 The plurality of the postmodern is neither

specialized nor representative. The “truth statements” or

religious beliefs of the person in the “chat room” are as

legitimate and valuable as the “truth statements” or

religious beliefs of leading academic theorists in the field

of philosophy.34 This status of plurality presents

186

35Michael Green, Evangelism in the Early Church(London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1970), xvii.

36Martin Hengel, Between Jesus and Paul, trans. JohnBowden (London: SCM Press, 1983), 4-11.

opportunity and challenge for the evangelization of

postmodern people. This subject will be discussed in the

later section dealing with Paul’s speech in Athens, for

Paul’s address provides a paradigm for the faithful and

effective evangelization of pre-modern or postmodern

pluralities.

Michael Green presents the challenge of an

apostolic approach in the face of pluralities: “We sometimes

think that relativism and pluralism are peculiar to our

time. We feel it politically correct to adopt them. Not so

the early Christians. They lived in a world more relativist

and far more pluralist than our own. And yet they would not

make any compromise on this issue. What was needed was not

more religion, but a new life -- and Jesus could provide

it.”35 The apostolic church provides insight for the

project of evangelization.

Judaic, Hellenistic, or Christian? A Question of Pluralities

As has already been noted in chapter 3, the

apostolic church struggled with pluralities from within as

well as without.36 The issue in this section, however,

187

37Peter G. Bolt, “Mission and Witness,” in Witnessto the Gospel: The Theology of Acts, eds. I. Howard Marshalland David Peterson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 203.

38Craig Blomberg, “The Christian and the Law ofMoses,” in Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts, eds.I. Howard Marshall and David Peterson (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1998), 404.

39F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, rev. ed., TheNew International Commentary on the New Testament (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 201.

focuses upon the Christian identity for the apostolic

community when facing the plurality of Judaic and

Hellenistic cultures. The increasing differences between

the Hebrews and Hellenists find resolution in Acts 6, but

the diversity among Judaic and Hellenistic influences

continues for the apostolic community.

For example, Cornelius’ conversion marks a

distinctive collision of pluralities for the apostolic

community in the evangelization of the world. Bolt suggests

that the three-fold repetition of the event marks the

significance of the content.37 Through the drama of a

vision (Acts 10:9-16), Peter recognizes that the culturally

specific dietary laws “no longer applied for Gentile or Jew

in Christ.”38 As Bruce suggests, the gospel’s reach “has

been steadily broadened,” but this story illustrates that

the time had come for the barrier between Jews and Gentiles

“to be crossed authoritatively by an apostle.”39

188

40Blomberg, “The Christian and the Law of Moses,”404.

41“Pious and one who fears God.” This descriptionindicates that Cornelius was an “adherent to the synagoguebut not a proselyte to the Jewish faith.” William Neil, TheActs of the Apostles, New Century Bible Commentary (London:Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1973; reprint, Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1987), 137.

42Jacob Jervell, “The Church of Jews andGodfearers,” in Luke-Acts and the Jewish People: EightCritical Perspectives, ed. J. B. Tyson (Minneapolis:Augsburg, 1988), 11-20.

God’s threefold command to eat the unclean animals ofthe heavenly vision (10:9-16) leads to stunningconclusions: Peter deduces that no person is unclean (v.28), that God accepts people of every nation who fear[H]im and do right (vv. 34-35), and that therefore thegospel should be preached to Cornelius (vv. 36-43). Goddramatically confirms Peter’s deductions by sending[H]is Spirit on the centurion and his companions beforehe finishes preaching (v. 44).40

The collision of plurality exists between the

Jewish cultural expressions of the Mosaic law, the

Hellenistic cultural expressions in conflict with the Mosaic

law, and the Christian response of the apostolic community.

This statement does not contradict the case of Cornelius as

eujsebh;~ kai; fobouvmeno~ tou` qeou` (Acts 10:2).41 Although Cornelius

sympathizes with the Jewish cultural expressions and

worship, other Gentile converts do not. Jervell incorrectly

suggests that the qualifications of eujsebh;~ kai; fobouvmeno~ tou`

qeou` represent the paradigm for all Gentile converts.42

Sheeley mistakenly views fobouvmeno~ tou` qeou` as a qualification

189

43Steven M. Sheeley, Narrative Asides in Luke-Acts,Journal for the Study of the New Testament, SupplementSeries 72 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 126.

44J. T. Sanders, The Jews in Luke-Acts(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 256.

45“Men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who coming into Antiochshared also with the Hellenists, preaching the good news ofthe Lord Jesus.”

46See chapter 5, “Obstacles for PersonalEvangelism.”

for the reception of salvation.43 Luke’s use of fobouvmeno~ tou`

qeou`, however, emphasizes his Gentile identity, in order to

highlight the gospel’s proclamation to the Gentiles.44 This

writer contends that Luke purposes to explicate the

distinction between the Jew and Gentile. The narrative does

not indicate that eujsebh;~ kai; fobouvmeno~ tou` qeou` are qualities

that one must have prior to salvation. The emphasis of

Luke’s narrative in chapter 10 points to the movement of the

gospel outside the realm of Jewish traditions.

The Antiochene mission also represents a

continuation of the broadening scope of the apostolic

approach to the Gentiles. Luke records the beginnings of

this work as a[ndre~ Kuvprioi kai; Kurhnai`oi, oi{tine~ ejlqovnte~ eij~

jAntiovceian ejlavloun kai; pro;~ tou;~ JEllhnista;~ eujaggelizovmenoi to;n kuvrion

jIhsou`n (Acts 11:20).45 The persecution of Stephen46 leads to

the dispersion of the apostolic community beyond Jerusalem,

so that oiJ me;n oujn diasparenvnte~ dih`lqon eujaggelizovmenoi to;n lovgon

190

47“Therefore those who were scattered wentthroughout proclaiming the good news of the word.”

48F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, 225.

49Justin Taylor, Commentaire Historique (Act. 9,1-18,22), vol. 5, Les Actes des Deux Apotres, Etudes Bibliques23 (Paris: Librairie LeCoffre, 1994), 59. “This is thefirst step which marks the beginning of the pagan-Christianchurch.” By “pagano-chretienne,” this writer believes thatTaylor is referring to the non-Jewish element rather thanthe outright influence of paganism into the Christiancommunity.

50Heinz-Werner Neudorfer, “The Speech of Stephen,”in Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts, eds. I.Howard Marshall and David Peterson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1998), 290.

51Taylor, Commentaire Historique (Act. 9,1-18,22),65. The mission of the men of Cyprus and Cyrene is“independent of the church of Jerusalem.” Furthermore, hesuggests that “there is no reason to place them in relation

(Acts 8:4).47 This narrative (Acts 11), however, introduces

an entirely new situation. Rather than the occasional

evangelization of non-Jews, Luke reports that the a[ndre~

Kuvprioi kai; Kurhnai`oi begin a “momentous step forward.”48

Justin Taylor proposes that “c’est le premier pas qui marque

le debut d’une eglise pagano-chretienne.”49 Indeed Heinz-

Werner Neudorfer suggests that the theology of the

Hellenist-Jewish converts, which focuses on God’s plan of

salvation in history, compelled them to evangelize non-

Jews.50

Justin Taylor suggests that this missionary

enterprise is “independante de l’eglise de Jerusalem.”51

191

with the ‘Seven’ of Jerusalem or their adherents.”

52Richard Bauckham, “James and the JerusalemChurch,” in The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting, ed.Richard Bauckham, vol. 4, The Book of Acts in Its FirstCentury Setting (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 423-34.

53F. F. Bruce, Book of Acts, 225.

54Ramsay MacMullen, Paganism in the Roman Empire(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981), 53. The Latinphrase may be interpreted as “rebirth in eternity.”

Bauckham rejects this proposal and suggests that Jerusalem

remains the center of the evangelistic enterprise.52

Accordingly, the presence of Barnabas in Antioch as the

formal representative of the Jerusalem church augments

Bauckman’s analysis (Acts 11:22).

Luke describes the proclamation as eujaggelizovmenoi to;n

kuvrion jIhsou`n (Acts 11:20). Bruce notes that the use of kuvrion

is significant.53 The evangelists provide a specific answer

to the need of the Gentiles. Ramsay MacMullen indicates

that the religious pursuits of the Gentiles possessed a

lacuna of assurance for renatus in aeternum.54 Bruce notes

that “many were trying to find in various mystery cults a

divine lord who could guarantee salvation and immortality to

his devotees; now the pagans of Antioch were assured that

what they vainly sought in those quarters could be secured

through the Son of God who had lately become man, suffered

192

55F. F. Bruce, Book of Acts, 225.

56Ben Witherington III, “Salvation and Health inChristian Antiquity: The Soteriology of Luke-Acts in ItsFirst Century Setting,” in Witness to the Gospel: TheTheology of Acts, eds. I. Howard Marshall and David Peterson(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 158-59.

57Ibid., 161.

death, and conquered the grave in Palestine.”55

Witherington makes a similar argument for the use

of swthvr in the apostolic evangelization of the Gentiles.56

As the evangelization occurs among the Gentile pluralities,

the apostolic community utilizes swthvr, connected with the

resurrection and exaltation of Jesus Christ. Just as Christ

conquered the grave, so too will His followers experience

the blessings of eternal life.57

In consideration of pluralities, therefore, the

Antioch mission institutes a new chapter in the

evangelization of the ancient world. The leadership in

Jerusalem sends Barnabas, plhvrh~ pneuvmato~ aJgivou kai; pivstew~

(Acts 11:24), who verifies the ministry and encourages

further evangelism. This marks the growth of the

evangelistic efforts and the intensification of pluralities

within the apostolic community. Interestingly, the

statement in Acts 11:26, crhmativsai te prwvtw~ ejn jAntioceiva/ tou;~

maqhta;~ Cristianouv~, suggests the view of the apostolic

193

58Lawrence W. Wills, “The Depiction of the Jews inActs,” Journal of Biblical Literature 110 (1991): 645. “Andthe disciples first in Antioch were named Christians.”

59Blomberg, “The Christian and the Law of Moses,”405. The use of e[qnh indicates a group that is unrelated tothe Judaic culture.

60Hans Conzelmann, Gentiles, Jews, Christians:Polemics and Apologetics in the Greco-Roman Era, trans. M.Eugene Boring (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 255.

61Jervell, “The Church of Jews and Godfearers,” 18-19.

62“As many as were appointed for eternal life.”

63Conzelmann, Gentiles, Jews, Christians, 251-52.

community as Christian rather than Judaic or Hellenistic.58

Furthermore, Paul’s speech to the Jewish community

in Acts 13:46 demonstrates the necessity of evangelization

among Gentiles unaffiliated with the Jewish synagogue.59

The “inauguration of the Gentile mission” is a necessary

event in God’s plan.60 Paul views the church as the “Israel

of promise” which God offers to the Jews as well as to the

Gentiles.61 The conversion of the Jews and the Gentiles

provides the fulfillment of the promise to become the people

of God in Christ Jesus. In this way the necessity of

proclamation of the gospel to the Jews and to the Gentiles

creates a new identification as o{soi h\san tetagmevnoi eij~ zwh;n

aijwvnion (Acts 13:48).62 This is not an identity of a new

religion but as the “true Israel.”63

194

64E. Richard, “The Divine Purpose: The Jews and theGentile Mission (Acts 15),” in Society of BiblicalLiterature 1980 Seminar Papers (Chico, CA: Scholars Press,1980), 267-82.

65J. T. Sanders, Jews in Luke-Acts, 126-29.

66Conzelmann, Gentiles, Jews, Christians, 252.

67Believers “from the party of the Pharisees”consider that “it is necessary for them to be circumcisedand ordered to keep the law of Moses.”

68“He made no distinction between us and them,cleansing their hearts by faith.”

The issue of identity finds final form in Acts at

the Jerusalem Council.64 Sanders proposes that a conflict

arises between Paul and Barnabas and those who were

preaching that circumcision accompanies salvation.65 Here,

the collision of pluralities initiates a resolution.

Hellenistic Christians consider the law as superfluous,

subsumed under “saving act in Christ.”66 Luke reports,

however, that some believers, tw`n ajpo; th`~ aiJrevsew~ tw`n Farisaivwn,

consider that dei` peritevmnein aujtou;~ paraggevllein te threi`n to;n novmon

Mwu>sevw~ (Acts 15:5).67

Peter argues (Acts 15:7-11) that Cornelius’

conversion is indicative that to;n novmon Mwu>sevw~ is not

salvific. He declares that oujqe;n dievkrinen metaxu; hJmw`n te kai; aujtw`n

th`/ pivstei kaqarivsa~ ta;~ kardiva~ aujtw`n (Acts 15:9).68 The proof of

salvation apart from to;n novmon Mwu>sevw~ is that God accepted

195

69“Giving the Holy Spirit.”

70See chapter 3, “Images of an Apostolic Community:God’s People.”

71F. F. Bruce, Book of Acts, 336; Bauckham, “Jamesand the Jerusalem Church,” 452. Paul and Barnabas supportPeter’s argument, but play a minor role in the debate.

72Bauckham, “James and the Jerusalem Church,” 452.

73Jacob Jervell, Acts and the People of God: A NewLook at Luke-Acts (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1972),188-93.

74Bauckham, “James and the Jerusalem Church,” 453-58. Bauckham provides an excellent analysis of the speech.

them by dou;~ to; pneu`ma to; a{gion (15:8).69 The avenue into

community is through faith in Christ Jesus.70 As Bruce

indicates, Peter warns that the believers of the Pharisee

party stand in opposition to God’s plan and invite His

judgment.71

Bauckham, however, explains that “this line of

argument cannot, for an assembly of Jewish Christians, be

the finally decisive one: the issue is a matter of halakhah,

which can only be decided from Scripture.”72 The speech of

James provides the biblical argument and the decisive proof

that to;n novmon Mwu>sevw~ is not part of salvation.73 Following

the pesher model for interpretation, James utilizes Amos

9:11-12 with allusions to other OT texts.74

In the first place, the conflated quotation in Acts15:16-18 establishes that Gentiles who join theeschatological people of God are not obliged to be

196

75Ibid., 461.

76Haenchen, Acts of the Apostles, 469. Bruceproposes that the four elements are ethical requirementswhich would guard the Christian moral standards. Thissuggestion, however, dismisses the importance of Lev 17 and18 in the discussion. F. F. Bruce, Book of Acts, 300-301.

77Stephen G. Wilson, Luke and the Law, Society forNew Testament Studies Monograph Series 50 (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1969), 76.

78Brian Rosner, “The Progress of the Word,” inWitness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts, eds. I. HowardMarshall and David Peterson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998),227.

circumcised and obey the Law of Moses. But secondly, anexegetical argument which creates a link between closelyrelated prophecies and Leviticus 17-18 establishes thatthe Law of Moses itself contains just four commandmentswhich do explicitly apply to precisely those Gentiles.75

The four prohibitions included in the apostolic decree

indicate the ceremonial requirements from Leviticus 17-18

upon Gentiles who chose to live in the Jewish community.76

As such, the prohibitions present the requirements which had

always been applied to Jew and Gentile alike.77 Thus, the

apostolic community confirms that conformity to to;n novmon

Mwu>sevw~, especially in terms of circumcision, is not a

requirement for salvation. The Jerusalem council’s

conclusion establishes the “universality and progress of the

word . . . on the basis of the unity of the people of

God.”78

One final note needs attention in the consideration

197

79D. A. Carson, “Pauline Inconsistency: Reflectionson 1 Corinthians 9.19-23 and Galatians 2.11-14,” Churchman100 (1986): 6-45.

80“They did not walk straight concerning the truthof the gospel.”

81R. Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, NewInternational Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1988), 107.

82James D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians,Black’s New Testament Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,1993), 121-24.

83T. W. Manson, Studies in the Gospels and Epistles(London: Manchester University Press, 1962), 180-81. Hesuggests that Peter’s table-fellowship with Gentiles wasused as an indictment against the Jerusalem church by Jewishleaders, and Peter did not want to jeopardize the missionarywork of the Jerusalem church or create a stumbling-block forevangelism among the Jews.

of identity in plurality; namely, Paul’s confrontation with

Peter (Gal 2:14-21).79 The occasion for this confrontation

is oujk ojrqopodou`sin pro;~ th;n ajlhvqeian tou` eujaggelivou (Gal 2:14).80

Peter’s inconsistency focuses upon the “free table-

fellowship” between Jewish and Gentile believers.81

Apparently, the messengers from James came to remind Jewish

Christians that they must follow specific requirements

concerning table-fellowship with Gentiles.82 Upon the

arrival of messengers from James, Peter draws back from the

company of Gentiles.83 Neill suggests that Peter’s conduct

“would make a divided Church inevitable or a united Church

198

84W. Neill, The Letter of Paul to the Galatians(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 41.

85For a complete discussion of this confrontation,see Daniel H. King, “Paul and the Tannaim: A Study inGalatians,” Westminster Theological Journal 45 (1983): 349-61.

86Allison A. Trites, “Church Growth in the Book ofActs” Bibliotheca Sacra 145 (April-June 1988): 171-72.

impossible.”84 Paul, therefore, apologetically promotes

once again the impossibility of salvation through the to;n

novmon Mwu>sevw~ (Gal 2:16).85

An Apostolic Approach to Postmodern Pluralities

Paul’s epistles demonstrate an apostolic approach

to postmodern pluralities. An examination of his epistles

provides an aid for evangelization in postmodern plurality.

Paul’s letters highlight an apostolic approach which

recognizes the diversity within culture, yet through which

the Spirit transforms the pluralities into a unified

community for the purpose of mission.86

Paul presents this approach in his epistle to the

church of Ephesus: a[ra ou\n oujkevti ejste; xevnoi kai; pavroikoi ajlla; ejste;

sumpoli`tai tw`n aJgivwn kai; oijkei`oi tou` qeou`, ejpoikodomhqevnte~ ejpi; tw/ qemelivw/

tw`n ajpostovlwn kai; profhtw`n, o[nto~ ajkrogwniaivou aujtou` Cristou` jIhsou`, ejn w|/

pa`sa oijkodomh; sunarmologoumevnh au[xei eij~ nao;n a{gion ejn kurivw/, ejn w|/ kai;

199

87“Consequently therefore, you are no longerstrangers and foreigners but you are fellow-citizens of thesaints and [you are] members of the household of God, havingbeen built upon the foundation of the apostles and theprophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone, inwhom all the building which is fitted together grows into aholy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being builttogether into a dwelling of God in the Spirit” (Eph 2:19-22).

88Interestingly, George S. Duncan, The Epistle ofPaul to the Galatians (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1934),178, paraphrases Paul’s admonition, eij zw`men pneuvmati, pneuvmatikai; stoicw`men (Gal 5:25), to bring out the corporate identityof Spirit-life implied by stoicw`men. See also, R. Y. K.Fung, Galatians, 275-76.

uJmei`~ sunoikodomei`sqe eij~ katoikhthvrion tou` qeou` ejn pneuvmati.87 Upon the

bestowal of new life upon a believer and the baptism of the

Spirit upon the believer, the believer becomes the temple of

the Spirit of God (1 Cor 3:16; 2 Cor 6:16). This individual

reality is also the communal experience in Ephesians.88

Paul describes the apostolic community as the corporate

dwelling place of God in the Holy Spirit.

The corporate nature of the apostolic community

emerges from the pluralities of Gentiles and Jews. Paul

portrays the nature of the heterogeneity within the

apostolic community in verse 19 through the phrase, xevnoi kai;

pavroikoi. Stählin suggests that these two descriptive terms

are synonymous in this verse. He further suggests that, in

the time of Paul’s writing, Judaism considered the xevnoi with

distant courtesy at best and hostility at worst. In light

200

89G. Stählin, “xevno~,” TDNT, 5:2-14.

90Ibid., 5:29.

91Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the NewTestament and Other Christian Literature, trans. W. F. Arndtand F. W. Gingrich, 2d ed., eds. F. W. Gingrich and F. W.Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 629. Hereafter cited, BAGD.

92Meyer, s.v. “pavroiko~,” TDNT, 5:850-51.

93Francis Foulkes, The Letter of Paul to theEphesians: An Introduction and Commentary, rev. ed., TyndaleNew Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 93.

of the diaspora community in Ephesus, the Gentiles

understood the term to mean “God-fearers.”89 As such, when

Paul uses the term here, he is speaking of the existing

differentiation between the Jew and the Gentile in synagogue

worship. To say that Gentile Christians are no longer xevnoi

is to say that they “are not just guests of God, but members

of His household.”90

Paul also describes the believers as oujk pavroikoi,

which is “one who lives in a place that is not his home.”91

This idea of an alien or foreigner in Judaism is different

from the “God-fearer” of synagogue worship. The pavroiko~ is

a “resident alien” who lives in Israel without becoming a

Jew.92 Foulkes suggests that these two terms point to

“people who might live alongside them [the people of God] in

the same country, but owning no land and with only the most

superficial rights of citizenship.”93 Gentile believers are

201

94F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, toPhilemon, and to the Ephesians, New International Commentaryon the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 302.

95F. F. Bruce, Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians, 302. Markus Barth, Ephesians: Introduction, Translation, andCommentary on Chapters 1-3, Anchor Bible Commentary, 34(Garden City: Doubleday and Company, 1974), 320 n. 273,states that aJgivwn refers to the Gentile believers beinggrafted into “the men of Israel.”

96Otto Procksch, s.v. “a{gio~,” TDNT, 1:106. GordonD. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in theLetters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 686. Heappears to follow Procksch’s idea.

not “like the God-fearing Gentiles who attended synagogue”

nor “like resident aliens in a Greek city,” but they are

“full members.”94

The contention in this passage is that the Spirit

merges the cultural distinctive of Jews and Gentiles into

the “temple of the Spirit,” so that all members are

sumpoli`tai tw`n aJgivwn. Much debate surrounds aJgivwn. Bruce

indicates that aJgivwn is “the people of God of all ages.”95

Procksch draws upon the analogy of Rom 11:17, which

describes the Gentile believers being grafted into the “holy

stump of the OT people of God” as new branches. He then

identifies this “holy stump” as politeiva tou` jIsrahvl (Eph 2:12),

“except that we are now dealing with an jIsrahvl kata; pneu`ma.”

Procksch, therefore, concludes that the aJgivwn are Jewish

Christians.96

Andrew Lincoln, however, proposes that Procksch’s

202

97Andrew Lincoln, “The Church and Israel inEphesians 2,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49 (October 1987):605-24. See also the discussion of tertium genus in PeterRichardson, Israel in the Apostolic Church (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1969), 203-204.

98F. Foulkes, Ephesians, 93, writes: “Citizenship ofthe people of God was one expressive way of telling thetruth concerning the position in God’s kingdom that Jews andGentiles now equally share.”

99Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians, Word BiblicalCommentary (Dallas: Word, 1990), 151-52.


comparison of verse 12 with verse 19 fails to comprehend the

“new status” which “transcends the old categories.” Looking

to verses 15 and 16 as the prominent guide for understanding

verse 19, Lincoln indicates that, just as Christ creates one

new man from the two, aJgivwn refers to a community which is

neither Jew nor Gentile, but a new race of all believers.97

Paul extends the metaphor so that the community is

also a family,98 in which all members are oijkei`oi tou` qeou`.

Specifically, according to Lincoln, the Gentiles, who were

once far off (Eph 2:13), now are in the “bosom” of God’s

family.99 In this way, “each member of the household is

functioning optimally in behalf of the whole, not self-

assertively in behalf of individual interest.”100

Beginning with verse 20, the apostle Paul

introduces the imagery of the building and temple for the

apostolic community. He describes the foundation of the

203

101K. Rengstorff, s.v. “ajpovstolo~,” TDNT, 1:441,indicates that tw`n ajpostovlwn kai; profhtw`n refer to the NT and OTwitnesses for God. D. Hill, New Testament Prophecy (London:Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1979), 139, suggests that theuse of the single definite article presents apostles andprophets as the same group of people.

102Markus Barth, A Broken Wall: A Study of theEpistle to the Ephesians (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1965),132-33.

103F. F. Bruce, Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians, 304.

104Markus Barth, Ephesians 1-3, 315-16.

105W. Schmithals, The Office of the Apostle in theEarly Church (Nashville: Abingdon, 1969), 43 n. 91.

oijkei`oi tou` qeou`. Paul explicitly refers to those who proclaim

the revelation of God through Christ.101 Both the prophets

and the apostles lay the foundation upon which the “walls of

the Church bear witness to the community.”102 The apostles

and prophets “constitute the foundation ministries in the

church” and perhaps “the first stones to be laid in the new

building.”103

Markus Barth suggests that ejpi; tw/ qemelivw/ may refer to

gifted individuals “witnessing explicitly to Jesus

Christ.”104 Schmithals indicates that the phrase represents

the “deposit of doctrine.”105 The foundation of the “temple

of the Spirit,” however, does not represent the individuals

themselves. In 1 Cor 3:11, Paul declares that the only

foundation upon which the “temple of the Spirit” may

sufficiently be built is Jesus Christ. It seems, therefore,

204

106“For all are sons of God through faith in ChristJesus.”

107G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1961), 66.

108S. Hanson, The Unity of the Church in the NewTestament: Colossians and Ephesians (Uppsala: Almquist andWiksells, 1946), 131.

109R. J. McKelvey, “Christ the Cornerstone,” NewTestament Studies 8 (1962): 352-59.

that the qemevlio~ tw`n ajpostovlwn kai; profhtw`n refers specifically

to the proclamation of those who received God’s gospel

through Christ to those who, in turn, received Christ Jesus.

Indeed, this interpretation meets Paul’s statement, Pavnte~

ga;r uiJoi; qeou` ejste dia; th`~ pivstew~ ejn Cristw/ jIhsou (Gal 3:26).106

Here, Paul declares that o[nto~ ajkrogwniaivou aujtou` Cristou`

jIhsou`. Debate swirls around the location and meaning of

ajkrogwniaivou, whether it is part of the foundation or at the

top of the building. G. W. H. Lampe indicates that

ajkrogwniaivou is the “top-most angle or point of a pyramid.”107

Hanson concludes that Jesus “is the top stone of the

pinnacle of the building.”108 R. J. McKelvey, on the other

hand, rejects this proposal and contends that ajkrogwniaivou

refers to the foundation stone of the building.109 Jeremias,

however, moves beyond the location of the stone to denote

the significance of the image when he writes that verse 20

describes the church as the spiritual temple, the apostles

205

110J. Jeremias, s. v. “ajkrogwniaiò~,” TDNT, 1:791-93.

111F. Foulkes, Ephesians, 95.

112F. F. Bruce, Epistles to Colossians, Philemon,Ephesians, 306 n. 154.

113“Through Him both have access by one Spirit to theFather” (Eph 2:18).

and prophets as the foundation, and Jesus Christ as the

“final stone” who completes the temple.110 Foulkes also

suggests that this phrase “denotes primarily the honour

[sic] of [H]is position in the building, but then also the

way in which each stone is fitted into [H]im, and finds its

true place and usefulness only in relation to [H]im.”111

Thus, Bruce indicates that “keystone” is the “better

rendering of ajkrogwniaiò~.”112

Paul expands ajkrogwniaiò~ (2:21-22) when he describes

the relationship between Christ, believers, and the church.

Through the use of ejn w|/, Paul reveals once again the

centrality of Jesus Christ in the redemptive plan of God.

Through Jesus Christ, the wall of separation between God and

humanity falls down (Eph 2:1-13). Furthermore, in Christ

the wall of separation which divides individuals from one

another falls down (Eph 2:14-18), so that di j aujtou` e[comen th;n

prosagwgh;n oiJ ajmfovteroi ejn eJni; pneuvmati pro;~ to;n patevra.113 This is

Christ’s project of reconciliation.

In verse 16 Paul writes, kai; ajpokatallavxh/ tou;~

206

114“And that He might reconcile both completely toGod in one body through the cross, killing the enmity by it”(Eph 2:16).

115John B. Polhill, Paul and His Letters (Nashville:Broadman and Holman, 1999), 366.

116The better manuscript evidence, such as theuncials Sinaiticus (a*), Vaticanus (B), Bezae (D),Boernerianus (G), Athos (Y), miniscules, ByzantineLectionary, and church fathers (Clement, Origen, Basil,Pseudo-Justin, Chrysostom, and Theodoret) calls for thecurrent reading. Other manuscripts, such as the uncialsSinaiticus (aa), Alexandrius (A), Ephraemi (C), miniscules,and church fathers (Origen, Chrysostom, Euthalius, andTheophylact) provide the article, so that the text reads,pa`sa hJ oijkodomhv. Understanding that the shorter and moredifficult reading is many times more favorable, the formerreading carries the most weight as original.

ajmfotevrou~ ejn eJni; swvmati tw/ qew/ dia; tou` staurou`, ajpokteivna~ th;n e[cqran ejn

aujtw/.114 The terminology of reconciliation is the language

of human relationships.115 The result of His death on the

cross is the death of the th;n e[cqran caused by sin. In the

same manner, the enmity between Jew and Gentile has also

been killed through the cross of Christ. Because Jesus has

offered peace both to Jew and Gentile, they share the same

access to the Father through Jesus Christ.

Having abolished the wall of separation between Jew

and Gentile, Jesus Christ joins the whole building together.

The use of pa`sa oijkodomh; without the article calls for the

interpretation, “every building.”116 T. K. Abbott concludes

that this construction argues for the description of every

207

117T. K. Abbott, A Critical and Exegetical Commentaryon the Epistle to the Ephesians and to the Colossians,International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. and T.Clark, 1897), 74.

118C. F. D. Moule, Idiom Book of New Testament Greek,94-95

119Gordon Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 686 n. 92.

120C. Maurer, s.v. “sunarmologevw,” TDNT, 7:855-56.

121Rudolf Schnackenburg, Der Brief an die Epheser,Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 10(Neukirchener-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982), 125.

local church.117 Moule suggests that the phrase points to a

Hebraism depicting the entire, rather than localized,

community of believers.118 Fee opts for the idea that the

anarthrous construction describes “all that has gone into

the building” while Christ joins the building together.119

The participle, sunarmologoumevnh, depicts the union

of membership into a unified whole. Christ, as the

ajkrogwniai`o~, is the bond to join each individual together.120

As Christ joins the community together, He also provides for

its growth, which is the continual growth of the individuals

into a unified whole (Eph 4:16).

Schnackenburg concludes that the Spirit is the key

to this text.121 Through a succession of images, the apostle

moves his readers through a series of metaphors until they

come to the final image of the community of believers, which

is the “temple of the Spirit.” These images move from

208

122Gordon Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 689.

123A. T. Lincoln, Ephesians, 158.

124Gordon Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 689 n. 105. Fee contends that Paul’s ecclesiology “finds expression atthe local level, even in this circular letter.”

remote relationships to intimate relationships. Those who

were far off are now brought near. Those who were strangers

and foreigners are now fellow citizens and fellow members of

God’s household. God’s household is a community of

believers, who, through the metaphor of a building, exist as

the “present place of God’s habitation.”122

Although Lincoln posits that this passage refers to

the universal church,123 Fee suggests that the imagery

describes more than “a nebulous entity.”124 The apostolic

community involves personal commitments in relationship.

Unity is not a nebulous concoction of contemporary

ecumenicism for the universal church. Rather, unity comes

through the intimate bond which the Spirit establishes

between individuals within the community. As the same

Spirit dwells within each individual, Paul calls those

individuals to express the unity of the Spirit in a personal

and intimate manner. This intimate expression comes through

a “gathered community ‘filled with the Spirit’ and thus

‘teaching and admonishing one another’ in the various kinds

209

125Gordon Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 689.

126Hanson, Unity of the Church, 130.

127Markus Barth, Ephesians 1-3, 321. Barth furtherwrites: “No one, not even the church and her most piousmembers, can possess God for [H]imself alone.”

128Gordon Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 263. Fee interprets this phrase to mean that the body of theindividual is the “present habitation of God’s Spirit.”

129“But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ,this one is not of Him” (Rom 8:9b). Peter Stuhlmacher,Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary, trans. Scott J.Hafemann (Louisville: Westminster / John Knox Press, 1994),118. He suggests that Paul’s description is similar to theEssene text (1QS 11:9-18), in which the God of righteousness“on the basis of free grace, forgives the sinner histransgressions, fills him with the Holy Spirit, and enableshim to praise as well as to walk in perfection.”

of songs, including those of the Spirit.”125

Hanson correctly adduces that the building

terminology in Paul’s epistles “is not an individualistic

concept, but one of fellowship.”126 Barth oversteps the

evidence, however, when he proposes that this image

“excludes the notion that God’s presence might be primarily

located in the souls of individual believers.”127 The

related passage in 1 Cor 6:19 certainly speaks to the

individual believers as the nao;~ tou` ejn uJmi`n aJgiou` pneuvmato~.128

Rom 8:9-12 also reveals that the Spirit resides in

individual believers, for Paul writes, eij dev ti~ pneu`ma Cristou`

oujk e[cei, ou|to~ oujk e[stin aujtou`.129 Barth’s language suggests a

theological contention that one may not possess the Spirit

210

130Barth, Ephesians 1-3, 323, suggests that althoughindividual growth is concomitant to the growth of thecommunity, Paul decisively has in mind here the growth ofthe entire community.

131Walter Liefeld, Ephesians, IVP New TestamentCommentary (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997), 76-77.

132John R. W. Stott, The Message of Ephesians: God’sNew Society (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1979), 110.

133See discussion in chapter 1, “PrevailingPostmodern Themes: Pluralism”

apart from the church. Paul, however, indicates that one

may not possess the Spirit apart from Christ, who is the

ajkrogwniai`o~. As the ajkrogwniai`o~, Jesus Christ fits together

the individual members of the building of God so that the

community grows eij~ nao;n a{gion ejn kurivw/.130 The function of this

“holy temple” is “to be a dwelling for God.”131 Stott

suggests that eij~ katoikhthvrion tou` qeou` ejn pneuvmati is an image of

God’s “new society, His redeemed people scattered throughout

the inhabited world. They are His home on earth.”132

In this way, the apostolic church envisions the

unity amidst diversity. The apostolic community, facing the

multiplicity of plurality, finds unity through the power of

the Spirit, uniting their hearts and lives with the common

mission of evangelism.

Evangelization in the Midst of Pluralism133

Pluralism also presents a problem for the

211

134Alister McGrath, “The Challenge of Pluralism forthe Contemporary Christian Church” Journal of theEvangelical Theological Society 35 (September 1992): 361-73.

135Alister McGrath, Evangelicalism and the Future ofChristianity (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1995), 159-62.

136D. A. Carson, Gagging of God, 19.

137Alasdaire MacIntyre, After Virtue, 2d ed. (NotreDame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984), 30-31.

evangelization of the postmodern person.134 Alister McGrath

suggests that pluralism is a common issue for the

contemporary and the New Testament church. The New

Testament church was not content with “conversation” or

“dialogue” with the pluralities, but they preached the

gospel. McGrath concludes that the future of Christianity

depends upon evangelism.135

The Imperial Ethic of Pluralism

Cherished pluralism is the only acceptable absolute

in postmodernism and is the ethic which dominates.136

Insightfully, Alasdair MacIntyre indicates that the

postmodern culture has embraced “psychological

effectiveness” as the replacement to truth.137 He further

writes that the pursuit of meaning “cannot be simply or

unconditionally identified with any particular moral

attitude or point of view . . . just because of the fact

212

138Ibid., 31.

139William Lane Craig, “Politically IncorrectSalvation,” in Christian Apologetics in the PostmodernWorld, eds. Timothy R. Phillips and Dennis L. Okholm, 75-97(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1995), 76-77.

140Gordon Kaufman, “Evidentialism: A Theologian’sResponse,” Faith and Philosophy 6 (1989): 40.

141Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind (NewYork: Simon and Schuster, 1987), 26.

142W. L. Craig, “Politically Incorrect Salvation,”77.

that its judgments are in the end criterionless.”138 The

result of “criterionless” judgment is the exaltation of

plurality.139 The postmodern setting, therefore, gives rise

to the “profound human meaning and importance” of the

plurality of religious traditions.140 As such, Allan Bloom

suggests that “relativism is necessary to openness; and this

is the virtue, the only virtue. . . . Openness -- and the

relativism that makes it the only plausible stance in the

face of various claims to truth . . . is the great insight

of our times.”141

Craig proposes that the “postmodernist is not

merely saying that we cannot know with certainty which

religious worldview is true and we therefore must be open-

minded; rather he maintains that none of the religious

worldviews is objectively true, and therefore none can be

excluded in deference to the allegedly one true religion.”142

213

143F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, 333-36.

144Paul’s address, o{ ou\n ajgnoou`nte~ eujsebei`te, tou`to ejgw;kataggevllw uJmi`n (17:23), gives insight for the contemporarychurch in proclaiming the gospel to postmodern people with apenchant for pluralism. See Cornelius Van Til, The God ofHope (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1978), 7.

145Heinz Külling, “Zur Bedeutung des AGNOSTOS THEOS.Eine Exegese zu Apostelgeschichte 17, 22.23,” TheologischeZeitschrift 36 (1980): 67. The translation is: “This eventis, so to speak, the anticipation of the momentous reality

In light of this preeminent ethic of pluralism in religious

thought, how can the contemporary church evangelize

effectively and faithfully the postmodern person?

The Areopagitica, Acts 17:16-34

In light of this imperial ethic of pluralism,

Paul’s Areopagitica (Acts 17:16-34) serves as an example for

an apostolic approach for evangelism. There is a

relationship between deisidaimonestevrou~ (Acts 17:22)143 and the

pluralism prevalent in postmodern thinking. Paul’s witness

in the midst of the pluralism among the philosophers in

Athens sets an example for the evangelism in the postmodern

world.144

Külling suggests that “dieses Ereignis ist

sozusagen die Vorwegnahme der weltgeschichtlich bedeutsamen

Tatsache, dass durch diese Botschaft menschliche Weisheit in

ihren höchsten Errungenschaften herausgefordert sein

wird.”145 Through the evangelistic message of Paul, the

214

of world history, that through this message human wisdom inits highest attainment will be defied.”

146Hans Conzelmann, “The Address of Paul on theAreopagus,” in Studies in Luke-Acts, eds. L. E. Keck and J.L. Martyn (London: SPCK, 1966), 220.

147Conzelmann, “Paul’s Address,” 220.

148Ibid. Conzelmann suggests that Luke takes thecommon inscription on Athenian altars, “to unknown gods,”

gospel engaged the pluralism of the ancient world.

Following the example of Paul, the Areopagitica

speech presents a paradigm for the evangelization of

postmodern people. First, Paul begins with a statement of

recognition. The deisidaimonestevrou~, according to Conzelmann,

means “devout” rather than “superstitious.”146 Rather than

attacking the various idols in place before him, Paul begins

with an acknowledgment of religious pursuit among his

hearers. Although this is not necessarily complimentary, it

clearly is not condemnatory.147

The nature of postmodern pluralism certainly

presupposes the same deisidaimonestevrou~ of postmodern people.

Paul’s example for the contemporary church is to recognize

and acknowledge the spiritual hunger and search of the

postmodern people.

Second, Paul finds a place for common ground in his

evangelistic presentation. The altar ajgnwvstw/ qew/ offers Paul

a starting-point for the gospel.148 Although they did not

215

and then “changes it into the singular and then uses this asa point of departure for Christian ideas.”

149“This one I proclaim to you.”

150Hahn and Verhaagen, Reckless Hope, 120-21.

151Joseph A. Fitzmeyer, The Acts of the Apostles,Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 603.

152Michel Quesnel, “Paul prédicateur dans les Actesdes Apôtres,” New Testament Studies 47 (October 2001): 475. “Paul, who addressed himself to Greek pagans, does not citeevidently Jewish Scripture; he prefers to it the Greekpoets, recognized as capable of opening to mortals the gates

know the identity of this deity, tou`to ejgw; kataggevllw uJmi`n

(17:23).149 The postmodern setting also presents an

opportunity for the church to find common ground for

evangelization. The popular postmodern culture is filled

with spiritual images and symbols which offer a starting-

point for the gospel. Hahn and Verhaagen describe this

situation through the music and television of postmodern

culture. The music of contemporary secular artists provides

common ground for the gospel with postmodern people.150

Third, the apostle describes the identity of the

ajgnwvsto~ qeov~ in verses 24 through 29. He seeks to bring his

audience “to a proper understanding of the living God.”151

As Quesnel suggests, Paul “qui s’adresse á des grecs païens,

ne cite évidemment pas l’Ecriture juive; il lui préfère les

poètes grecs, reconnus comme capables d’ouvrir aux mortels

les portes du contact avec le sacré (v. 28).”152

216

of contact with the sacred (v. 28).”

153J. A. Fitzmeyer, Acts of the Apostles, 612.

In an apostolic approach to postmodern people, the

contemporary church must lead the postmodern listeners to a

proper understanding of the living God. This demands the

use of specific phrases and terms which will not fit neatly

with the pluralism of postmodernism. Yet, this approach

begins with a common ground and moves toward the specific

statements of God’s reality and ultimate sovereignty.

Finally, the apostle presents the necessary

response to God through Jesus Christ (17:30-31). The

resurrection of Jesus Christ is the proof and verification

of the power and victory of God.153 The judgment of the

world is also included in this approach. The clarity of the

gospel demands a faithful presentation of the judgment that

awaits all humanity. The pluralism of postmodern people

will cringe at this presentation of an absolute truth-claim.

The results, however, depend upon the Spirit of truth

leading the hearer toward the conviction that yields

repentance (John 16:8-11).

Following the pattern of the apostolic community,

the contemporary church may deal effectively with the

pluralities and the pluralism of the postmodern world. The

final analysis of an apostolic approach for the

217

evangelization of postmodern people seeks to remain faithful

to the absolute truth of the gospel, and yet also seeks to

find avenues through which the Spirit of truth may move more

readily to the hearts of the postmodern people.

1H. Strathmann, s. v. “mavrtu~ ktl.,” TDNT, 4:492-514.

2Allison A. Trites, The New Testament Concept ofWitness (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 132.

217

CHAPTER FIVE

PERSONAL EVANGELISM AND POSTMODERN PEOPLE

An Apostolic Witness in Postmodern Times,Acts 1:8

As a conclusion, this writer seeks to bring

specific application for personal evangelism in a postmodern

world following an apostolic approach. The first issue to

consider is the form and function of mavrtu~ with postmodern

people (Acts 1:8). According to Strathman, mavrtu~ is one

who proclaims the facts and the truths of the gospel.1

Trites indicates that mavrtu~ in Acts “presents the claims of

Christ against a background of hostility, contention, and

persecution,”2 which finds similarity to postmodernism.

An apostolic approach, therefore, calls for

personal testimony concerning the facts of Christ and the

truth of the gospel. As already noted, the Spirit of truth

conjoins the witness of the follower of Christ to present

epistemological foundations of faith to postmodern people.

218

3“You will be My witnesses.” The future tensecarries the force of a command in this context.

4Jacob Jervell, The Theology of the Acts of theApostles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 9.

5Michael Green, Evangelism in the Early Church(London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1970), 137-38.

6Jervell, Theology of the Acts of the Apostles, 9.

7See chapter 2, “Evangelistic Approach at Pentecost,Acts 2:14-41.

The mandate of Christ is e[sesqe mou mavrture~ (Acts 1:8).3 The

believer in a postmodern milieu has the duty to share the

gospel with individuals through personal witness. The

manner of this evangelistic witness, however, finds various

formulations. This writer proposes that the power of

personal witness moves along the lines of narrative.

The speeches in Acts present one aspect of this

witness.4 These speeches serve as guidelines for a

contemporary approach in personal evangelism. As noted in

chapter one, the postmodern people search for a better story

to provide meaning for their existence. These speeches in

Acts present a variety of style and form.5 This writer

proposes that this variety reflects the different audiences

to whom the apostolic church evangelized with the gospel.6

For instance, when dealing with Jewish sympathizers, the

apostolic witnesses interpret Scripture as the basis for

Israel’s historical place in God’s plan of redemption.7

219

8F. F. Bruce, “The Significance of the Speeches forInterpreting Acts,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 33(Fall 1990): 21.

9Ibid.

10Ibid., 22.

11Jervell, Theology of the Acts of the Apostles, 67-68.

12Ibid., 88-89.

Jesus is the culmination and fulfillment of God’s saving

purpose.8 In Acts 5:29-32, “the apostles affirm more

briefly that God has exalted the rejected and crucified

Jesus, and through [H]im is now offering Israel an

opportunity to repent and receive [H]is forgiveness.”9

Peter’s evangelistic speech to Cornelius represents

the variety of approach to eujsebh;~ kai; fobouvmeno~ tou` qeou`.

Bruce suggests that the apostolic witness proclaims the

fulfillment of prophecy, the facts of Christ’s crucifixion

and resurrection, the eyewitness reports, and the “assurance

of forgiveness to all who believe in Jesus.”10 Paul’s

sermon at Antioch Pisidia represents another witness to

eujsebh;~ kai; fobouvmeno~ tou` qeou`. Paul presents a survey of God’s

mighty acts of redemption in Israel’s history (Acts 13:17-

25).11 Jesus, according to Paul’s witness, is the summit of

God’s saving deeds (Acts 13:26-37). Salvation, therefore,

comes through Jesus Christ (Acts 13:38-39).12

220

13Ibid., 67.

14I. H. Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles, TyndaleNew Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980;reprint, 1999), 238-39.

15M. Green, Evangelism in the Early Church, 137-38.

16F. F. Bruce, “The Significance of the Speeches,”24.

Paul’s speeches to a Gentile audience, however, do

not include an extensive look at Old Testament Scripture.13

In Lystra, as well as in the court of the Areopagus, Paul

forms his witness around the qeo;n zw`nta. Rather than a

description of God’s activity in the history of Israel, Paul

presents the world of nature to point to the “existence,

power, and goodness of the Creator.” According to Marshall,

this presentation leads Paul to the gospel witness, although

Luke does not record this testimony.14

Michael Green proposes that the varieties in the

evangelism of the apostolic church reflect the needs of the

audience. Following an apostolic approach, evangelism is

the proclamation of the gospel “in terms that makes sense”

to the audience.15 As Bruce cogently writes, Luke’s record

of speeches to Jews demonstrates “how to present the gospel

to Jews and God-fearing Gentiles; and when he reproduces the

preaching at Lystra and Athens, this, he implies, is how it

should be presented to pagans.”16

221

17Eduard Schweizer, “Concerning the Speeches inActs,” in Studies in Luke-Acts, eds. L. E. Keck and J. L.Martyn (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966), 208-16.

18Alvin Reid, Introduction to Evangelism (Nashville:Broadman and Holman, 1998), 226-27.

19Ibid., 235.

20Ibid., 236.

21E. Schweizer, “Concerning the Speeches in Acts,”214. This is in contrast to a “christological” kerygma.

Schweizer offers the following elements essential

in the apostolic approach to witness: 1) an appeal to

Scripture, 2) the “christological kerygma,” 3) proclamation

of salvation, and 4) the call to repentance.17 In an

application of the apostolic approach for the evangelization

of postmodern people, this writer proposes similar elements.

Alvin Reid offers a similar proposal in his evangelistic

approach. Reid draws a comparison between the Jews and

nominal Christians who have “some knowledge and background

in the faith.”18 Reference to Scripture makes sense to

postmodern people who have connections to the church.

Gentiles, however, represent the “radically unchurched” in

Reid’s model. Reid suggests that “we need ‘sensory

apologetics’ to reach a postmodern culture.”19 In this

approach, the witness tells the “story of how God relates to

man.”20 Similarly, Schweizer contends that the apostolic

witness to Gentiles promotes the “theological” kerygma.21

222

22Dieter Zander, “The Gospel for Generation X,”Leadership 16 (Spring 1995): 36-42.

23James W. Sire, “On Being a Fool for Christ and anIdiot for Nobody,” in Christian Apologetics in thePostmodern World, ed. Timothy Phillips and Dennis Okholm(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1995), 120-24.

24Walter Ong, Orality and Literacy: TheTechnologizing of the Word (London: Routledge, 1982), 142-43, 171-72.

The personal witness shares the story of Christ’s work in

the individual’s life. Indeed, Dieter Zander suggests that

this is the most authoritative connection to the postmodern

generation. Evangelism that is effective to postmodern

people communicates the personal story of salvation and

forgiveness.22

The metanarrative of the gospel finds connection

with the postmodern person through the personal testimony of

the believer.23 The postmodern culture communicates

knowledge through the fluidity of the spoken word. The

reception of this knowledge depends upon the oral devices,

such as rhythmic balance, formulaic patterns, proverbs,

mnemonic aids, and other tools to provide associative

remembrance in the minds of the hearers. The narrator moves

to the point of action in the story rather than following a

linear plot. In the telling of the story, the hearers

become active participants in the creation of the narrative.

The culture communicates truth by story.24

223

25E. Y. Mullins, Christian Religion in Its DoctrinalExpression (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1917; reprint,1964), 62.

26Richard A. Jensen, Thinking in Story: Preaching ina Post-literate Age (Lima, OH: CSS Publishing Company,1993), 62.

27Robert Stephen Reid, “Postmodernism and theFunction of the New Homiletic in Post-ChristendomCongregations” Homiletic 20 (1995): 7.

28Ibid.

In his description of conversion, E. Y. Mullins

describes personal evangelism: “Christ is presented to the

soul. A new sense of sin is awakened through the power of

the Holy Spirit within. At length the will is surrendered

to God in Christ.”25 The communication of the gospel of

Christ to the soul of the postmodern person comes most

readily through the personal story of the witness.

As Jensen states, “Stories work by indirection.

Working indirectly they have a chance to break through the

cultural filters that work in the heads of those who

listen.”26 Through the use of story, the witness creates an

“affective experience for the audience of a sermon.”27

Listeners are provided room to overhear this kind of“message,” to bridge the distance and choose toparticipate because they identify with the experiencecreated and the impetus to act evoked by the speaker’sown encounter with “meaning.” The goal of this kind ofpreaching is to create an experience of the word of Godin listeners within a range of possible responses ratherthan trying to control the specific response.28

224

29Millard J. Erickson, Postmodernizing the Faith:Evangelical Responses to the Challenge of Postmodernism(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 155.

30James I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty ofGod (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1961), 41.

Erickson suggests that “we may need to modify the

way in which we do the leading or present the message. This

may mean that a more narrative presentation, not in the

hermeneutical or heuristic but in the communicational sense

of narrative, will have to be the beginning of the

conversation.”29 This provides the foundation for witness.

The role of the Spirit, the ethic of a commendable

community, and the personal witness join to provide an

effective evangelistic presentation to postmodern people.

J. I. Packer summarizes the role of personal

evangelism.

Evangelism is just preaching the gospel, the evangel. It is a work of communication in which Christians makethemselves mouthpieces for God’s message of mercy tosinners. Anyone who faithfully delivers that message,under whatever circumstances . . . is evangelizing.Since the divine message finds its climax in a plea fromthe Creator to a rebel world to turn and put faith inChrist, the delivering of it involves the summoning ofone’s hearers to conversion. If you are not, in thissense, seeking to bring about conversions, you are notevangelizing; this we have seen already. But the way totell whether in fact you are evangelizing . . . is toask whether you are faithfully making known the gospelmessage.30

Personal evangelism in an apostolic approach presents the

story of the gospel through the lens of personal experience.

225

31Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, The NewInternational Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids:William B. Eerdmans, 1996), 891-98.

32“To have made full the gospel of Christ.”

33Mark Saucy, “Miracles and Jesus’ Proclamation ofthe Kingdom of God,” Bibliotheca Sacra 153 (July 1996): 286.

34Merrill Unger, The Baptism and Gifts of the HolySpirit (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974), 138-40.

The Power for Personal Evangelism,Rom 15:17-21

The various obstacles for personal evangelism in a

postmodern world necessitate the empowerment of the witness.

Without the power of the Spirit in an apostolic approach,

personal evangelism may be just another story among stories.

The apostle Paul provides insight into the power in an

apostolic approach to personal evangelism (Rom 15:17-21).31

In this passage, the apostle demonstrates the role of the

Spirit which empowers him peplhrwkevnai to; eujaggevlion tou` Cristou`

(Rom 15:19).32 This empowerment comes through shmeivwn kai;

teravtwn. Mark Saucy suggests that “the church is empowered

to preach by the Spirit (Acts 1:8), and it works miracles

through the Spirit.”33 Unger indicates that such miraculous

signs of God’s presence in the apostolic community have

ceased.34 Yet, the presence of the miraculous demonstration

of God’s presence in the apostolic community regularly

accompanies the evangelistic ministry of the church in Acts.

226

35See John Wimber, Power Evangelism (San Francisco:HarperCollins, 1985).

36Allison A. Trites, “The Prayer Motif inLuke-Acts,” in Perspectives in Luke-Acts, ed. C. H. Talbert(Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1977), 168–86.

37H. Wayne House, “The Christian Life According toColossians,” Bibliotheca Sacra 151 (October 1994): 454.

38Kendall Easley, “The Pauline Usage of Pneumati asa Reference to the Spirit of God,” Journal of theEvangelical Theological Society 27 (September 1984): 307-308.

This writer proposes that the manifestation of the Spirit’s

work in the church continues to play an important role.

This is not to embrace wholeheartedly the “power evangelism”

of John Wimber,35 but it is to acknowledge in a postmodern

setting the necessity of the Spirit’s therapeutic work of

power through an apostolic approach for evangelism.

In connection with the source of power, the place

of prayer highlights a significant avenue for empowerment in

personal evangelism (Col 4:2-6).36 Prayer plays a major

role in Paul’s evangelistic ministry. In the contemporary

church, prayer should accompany the evangelistic enterprise

with postmodern people, “so that the mystery of the

indwelling Christ may be proclaimed (4:2-4).”37

In Eph 6:18, Paul calls the apostolic community to

pray ejn pneuvmati. Through prayer, individual witnesses

experience the overflow of God’s power for evangelism.38

227

39F. F. Bruce, “The Holy Spirit in the Acts of theApostles” Interpretation 27 (1973): 166-83; C. Anderson,“Rethinking ‘Be Filled with the Spirit.’ Ephesians 5:18 andthe Purpose of Ephesians” Evangelical Journal 7 (1989):57–67.

40G. Mussies, The Morphology of Koine Greek (Leiden:E. J. Brill, 1971), 272-73.

41H. E. Dana and J. R. Mantey. A Manual Grammar ofthe Greek New Testament (New York: MacMillan, 1950), 105.

42Gordon Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The HolySpirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,1994), 721-24.

43Andreas Köstenberger, “What Does It Mean to beFilled with the Spirit? A Biblical Investigation,” Journalof the Evangelical Theological Society 40 (June 1997): 233.

Furthermore, Paul’s exhortation for the life controlled by

the Spirit presents a prerequisite for empowerment in

personal evangelism (Eph 5:18).39 Mussies concludes that

the present tense of the imperative, plhrou`sqe, calls for a

consistent, continual manner of life.40 Dana and Mantey

suggest that ejn pneuvmati is instrumental, so that the meaning

is “by means of the Spirit.”41

Fee notes that this reference points to the

community experience, as well as the individualistic

experience.42 As such, the phrase points to the apostolic

ethic within the community. Köstenberger notes that the

Spirit permeates the life of the witness, manifested in

wisdom (Eph 5:17-18), “grateful worship” (5:19-20), and

relationships following the principle of love (5:21-6:9).43

228

44Autrey, Evangelism in the Acts, 71.

45See Ramsay MacMullen, Paganism in the Roman Empire(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981), 62-73. PaulVeyne, “The Roman Empire,” in A History of Private Life:From Pagan Rome to Byzantium, ed. Paul Veyne, trans. A.Goldhammer (Cambridge: Harvard University Press), 207-33. “The paganism of the Greeks and Romans . . . was, if I mayput it this way, more an à la carte religion than a religionwith a fixed menu” (208).

46Todd Hahn and David Verhaagen, GenXers After God:Helping a Generation Pursue Jesus (Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 1998), 14.

Obstacles for Personal Evangelism

The postmodern world presents obstacles of paganism

and persecution for personal evangelism. A “stubbornly

entrenched paganism” is one obstacle to apostolic witness.44

Simon in Samaria (Acts 8:9), Elymas in Paphos (Acts 13:6-8),

and the Hellenistic paganism (Acts 14:8-18; 16:16-19; 17:5-

9, 16-34) depict the paganism that pervaded the cultural

landscape of the first-century. This paganism presented an

obstacle to the evangelistic efforts of the apostolic

church.45 The contemporary church faces this same obstacle.

Postmodern people have a “healthy spiritual appetite” that

drives them “to seek our mystical experiences, developing

their own unique religious faith.”46 The dismissal of

foundations, the relativism of truth, and the pluralism that

define postmodernism create fertile ground for the

development of unique religious, syncretistic beliefs.

229

47These religious circles may even be contradictory.

48“[They] believed Philip as he preached the goodnews concerning the kingdom of God and of the name of JesusChrist.” In Acts 13:6-8, Elymas the sorcerer was struckblind by God which led to the conversion of Sergius Paulus.

49F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, rev. ed., NewInternational Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1988), 165.

50See Edwin Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 57-63. Although it isbeyond the reach of this dissertation, later traditionassigns to Simon Magus the origination of the Gnostic heresydenounced by Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and Hippolytus.

51Robert Wall, “Israel and the Gentile Mission inActs and Paul: A Canonical Approach,” in Witness to theGospel: The Theology of Acts, eds. I. H. Marshall and DavidPeterson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 444.

Based upon various mystical experiences and philosophies

from a multitude of religious circles, postmodern people

embrace a contemporary form of paganism.47

Luke reports that many Samaritans ejpivsteusan tw/ Filivppw/

eujaggelizomevnw/ peri; th`~ basileiva~ tou` qeou` kai; tou` ojnovmato~ jIhsou` Cristou`

(Acts 8:12).48 The healing and exorcisms (Acts 8:7) serve

as “visible ‘signs’ confirming the message that he

proclaimed.”49 Luke presents Simon of Samaria as a pagan

counterpart to Philip and the apostolic ministry (Acts 8:9-

11).50 Simon receives baptism along with other converts,

but then he considers the acquisition of miraculous power “a

matter of greed rather than grace (8:14-23),” offering money

to Peter for the power of the Spirit.51

230

52Simone Weil, Waiting for God, trans. Emma Craufurd(New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1951), 185. Weil offersthis conclusion based upon spiritual pursuits of individualssince she includes those who have embraced a native religionas well as those who have not embraced any formal religion.

53J. Richard Middleton and Brian J. Walsh, Truth IsStranger Than It Used to Be: Biblical Faith in a PostmodernAge (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1995), 191.

54M. Green, Evangelism in the Early Church, 132. “The dunamis shown by the Christians appealed to a magicianlike Simon Magus or Elymas.”

This encounter of Phillip and Peter with Simon

reveals the nature of personal evangelization before the

obstacle of paganism in a postmodern milieu. First, the

personal witness must proclaim the gospel. Unlike Simone

Weil, the apostolic approach seeks to evangelize individuals

who adhere to any spiritual pursuit other than Christ Jesus.

Weil considers that such evangelization discounts the

spiritual pursuits of individuals and the possibility that

the cross affects the same benefit of salvation to these

pursuits which are “not too unsuitable for pronouncing the

name of the Lord.”52 For an apostolic approach, however,

the proclamation of the gospel confronts the postmodern

“carnivalesque world of multiple constructions of reality”

and demonstrates the “ongoing drama of God’s redemption of

the world” through Jesus Christ.53 The presentation of the

gospel in the power of the Spirit produces the foundations

for faith in Jesus in the face of postmodern paganism.54

231

55William Neil, The Acts of the Apostles, NewCentury Bible Commentary (London: Marshall, Morgan, andScott, 1973; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 163.

56“To turn from these vain things toward the livingGod.”

Secondly, an apostolic approach corrects any

syncretistic tendency in the evangelization of postmodern

people. Peter corrects Simon’s misconception of the Holy

Spirit (Acts 8:20-24). In Lystra Paul and Barnabas

eujaggelizovmenoi h\san (Acts 14:7). After healing a lame man,

the people seek to worship the missionaries as oiJ qeoi;

oJmoiwqevnte~ ajnqrwvpoi~ (Acts 14:11). As Neil suggests, “This

fascinating glimpse of the superstitious pagan background of

the Empire suggests the magnitude of the problem facing

early Christian missionaries.”55 The apostolic approach

confers no affiliation with the paganism of the people, but

calls for them ajpo; touvtwn tw`n mataivwn ejpistrevfein ejpi; qeo;n zw`nta

(Acts 14:15).56 An apostolic approach diligently presents

the good news of Jesus Christ as the unique and supreme

avenue for salvation. In an apostolic approach, personal

evangelism refuses to accommodate the gospel to the

spiritual “postmodern theater pieces,” which mesh to form a

complex of spiritual claims embraced by individuals.

Rather, the apostolic approach presents the gospel as the

only true story of God’s salvation to humanity.

232

57“We have the divine necessity to obey God ratherthan men.” See, C. H. Cosgrove, “The Divine DEI in Luke-Acts: Investigations into the Lukan Understanding of God’sProvidence,” Novum Testamentum 26 (1984): 186-90.

58Brian Rapske, “Opposition to the Plan of God andPersecution,” in Witness to the Gospel: The Theology ofActs, eds. I. H. Marshall and David Peterson (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1998), 236.

59Ernst Bammel, “Jewish Activity Against Christiansin Palestine According to Acts,” in The Book of Acts in ItsPalestinian Setting, ed. Richard Bauckham, vol. 4, The Bookof Acts in Its First Century Setting (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1995), 358-59.

Persecution also presents an obstacle to personal

evangelism in an apostolic approach. An examination of the

persecutions in Acts reveals that the gospel encounters

specific opposition from the Jewish community. The

apostolic approach in the face of persecution may be

summarized by Peter’s words in Acts 5:30: peiqarcei`n dei` qew/

ma`llon h[ ajnqrwvpoi~.57 In the face of persecution, the apostolic

church continues to evangelize. Yet, the “Christian witness

does not prevail . . . because of human tenacity but by

divine empowerment.”58

Jewish persecution in Jerusalem occurs in response

to the growth of the Christian witness in Jerusalem. The

animosity of the Jewish leaders focuses upon the apostolic

witness that they were responsible for Christ’s passion.59

Opposition to Stephen, which leads to his death, begins with

a debate with the sunagwgh`~ th`~ legomevnh~ Libertivnwn (Acts 6:9).

233

60F. F. Bruce, Men and Movements in the PrimitiveChurch: Studies in Early Non-Pauline Christianity (London:Paternoster Press, 1979), 54-55.

61“[They] went everywhere preaching the good news ofthe word.” M. Green, Evangelism in the Early Church, 131-32. Green suggests that “Stephen did more for his Master inhis death than he did in his life” because of the appeal hiscourage and faith presented to the ancient world.

62B. Rapske, “Opposition to the Plan of God andPersecution,” 249.

63Ibid., 250.

Stephen’s defense speech considers the history of

God’s people apart from any temple.60 The evangelistic

importance of Stephen’s speech culminates in his martyrdom

(Acts 7:54-60). Upon Stephen’s death, the persecution

scatters the apostolic community (Acts 8:1-3). Encouraged

by the boldness and faith of Stephen in martyrdom, the

apostolic community dih`lqon eujaggelizovmenoi to;n lovgon (Acts 8:4).61

Later, when Paul and Barnabas proclaim the gospel

in Iconium, the Jews stir up opposition (Acts 14:1-7). As

Rapske notes: “Relying upon the Lord, they speak fearlessly

(Acts 14:3) concerning God’s grace and their message is

confirmed by miraculous signs and wonders.”62 This boldness

exemplifies an apostolic approach throughout Luke’s account.

This boldness depends upon the empowerment of the Spirit to

“fulfil [sic] the divine plan” and to “to carry on through

the negative effects of opposition and persecution.”63

234

64D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God: ChristianityConfronts Pluralism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 28-36.

65Peter Lampe and Ulrich Luz, “Post-PaulineChristianity and Pagan Society,” in Christian Beginnings:Word and Community from Jesus to Post-Apostolic Times, ed.Jürgen Becker, 242-80 (Louisville: Westminster / John Knox,1993), 261.

66B. Rapske, “Opposition to the Plan of God andPersecution,” 256. Furthermore, “Through such tokens asearthquakes, miraculous releases from prison and visions,the Lord gives both [H]is people, and [H]is plan which theypursue, an unqualified, ‘Yes’.”

67Norman Geisler, “Some Philosophical Perspectiveson Missionary Dialogue,” in Theology and Mission, ed. DavidJ. Hesselgrave (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1978), 228-45.

In a postmodern world, persecution finds its main

expression in the intellectual realm. The pluralism of

postmodernism disdains the absolutism of the gospel.

Persecution comes in the arena of public discourse.64 The

“claim to absoluteness and exclusivity of Christianity”

presents one reason for animosity toward an apostolic

witness to Jesus Christ.65 This “totalizing metanarrative”

remains untenable in a postmodern setting for personal

evangelism. An apostolic approach, however, depends upon

the “unstoppable character of Christian witness” through the

direct influence and empowerment of the Spirit of truth.66

Finding Common Ground, 1 Cor 9:19-23

Personal evangelism to postmodern people demands a

biblical principle of accommodation (1 Cor 9:19-23).67

235

68Leith Anderson, “Practice of Ministry in 21st-Century Churches” Bibliotheca Sacra 151 (October 1994): 388.

69James D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the NewTestament: An Inquiry into the Character of EarliestChristianity, 2d ed. (London: SCM Press, 1990), 25.

70Ben Witherington, III, Conflict and Community inCorinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2Corinthians (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1995), 213.

Leith Anderson suggests that “Paul should be seen as a

skilled ethnologist who understood cultures while

communicating truth.”68 Paul’s example of combining

ethnology and exegesis serves as an apostolic approach in

evangelizing postmodern people. Dunn suggests that “Paul

allowed circumstances and situations to determine the

statement of his kerygma to a considerable degree.”69

This accommodation, however, has limits. As Ben

Witherington states, “[Paul’s] accommodating behavior has

clear limits. He does not say that he became an idolator

[sic] to idolators [sic] or an adulterer to adulterers. But

in matters that he did not see as ethically or theologically

essential or implied by the gospel, Paul believed in

flexibility.”70 This concept of accommodation promotes the

discovery of “common ground” between the postmodern culture

and the gospel. Finding common ground, within limits,

provides a bridge for personal evangelism. Such

accommodation promotes a flexibility, but not compromise.

236

71John Frame, “In Defense of Something Close toBiblicism: Reflections on Sola Scriptura and History inTheological Method,” Westminster Theological Journal 59(Fall 1997): 286.

72George Hunter III, How to Reach Secular People(Nashville: Abingdon, 1992), 95.

73See chapter one, “Possible Opportunities forEvangelism.”


John Frame contends that there are “some areas in which

Christians may and should be like those to whom they preach,

so their witness may be more effective.”71 Simply stated, a

personal witness who is “open to beginning where people are,

will thus discover that the unchaining of his or her own

imagination is indispensable to reaching secular people.”72

As noted earlier, such common ground may be found

in the postmodern search for a better story, for connection,

and for a better life.73 One aspect of a better story is

the postmodern desire to discover a story that overcomes the

powers of evil in the world. Webber suggests that

evangelism in a postmodern world proclaims that “Christ’s

death is a victory over the powers of evil.”74 The common

ground of connection promotes the commendable community of

the church following the ethics of the apostolic community.

The church is the place of connection in a postmodern world.

237

75George Hunsberger and Craig Van Gelder, Church:Between Gospel and Culture, The Emerging Mission in NorthAmerica (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 32.

76Harry Lee Poe, Christian Witness in a PostmodernWorld (Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), 74.


Craig Van Gelder suggests that effective evangelization of

postmodern people demands “building communities of faith and

addressing fragmentation and brokenness.”75 Finally,

evangelism to postmodern people finds common ground with

them as they seek a better life. As Harry Lee Poe writes,

“We have nothing to offer the postmodern world in terms of

organizations, programs, institutions, and structures. What

we have to offer is a concrete basis for peace in a

fragmented world. We have a Savior to offer . . . a Savior

who will put their house in order.”76

Application of an Apostolic Approach

An apostolic approach proceeds from the power of

witness through the outpouring of the Spirit of truth. The

Spirit of truth provides the epistemological bridge for the

postmodern skepticism. The Spirit establishes community,

which, in turn, creates a place of nurture, growth, and

warmth in the evangelistic endeavor. The Spirit of truth

further produces connection and continuity with Christ

through the inspiration and illumination of Scripture.77

238

78R. Daniel Shaw, “In Search of Post-ModernSalvation,” Evangelical Review of Theology 22 (1998): 59.

The ethic of community extends intimacy to postmodern people

and provides a living testament to the veracity of the

gospel proclaimed. The apostolic approach provides specific

approaches to pluralities and pluralism in the postmodern

world, especially in Paul’s speech at the Areopagus.

Finally, the personal evangelism in a postmodern milieu

requires the witness of personal story, the spirit-filled

life which overcomes the obstacles of persecution and

paganism, and the pursuit of common ground with postmodern

people. The contemporary church seeks to build bridges to a

postmodern world through the evangelistic proclamation of

the gospel.

The search for salvation and forgiveness continues

in a postmodern world. Shaw summarizes the situation when

he writes: “The shift to a new culture type [postmodern]

does not change the human condition, merely the way it is

manifest in daily living. It is in relationship . . . with

Christ that we realize salvation.”78

The presentation of this approach possesses both

weaknesses and strengths in the mind of this writer. One

possible weakness of this presentation is the danger of the

oversimplification of the postmodern thought and situation.

239

79M. Erickson, Postmodernizing the Faith, 100.

80Ibid., 153.

The reality of postmodernism is complex, with a multitude of

various versions and concerns. This writer has chosen to

paint broad strokes in his description of postmodernism. In

such a description, the danger by which specific patterns of

postmodernism are chosen to fit the argument of the thesis.

Although this writer has attempted to minimize this danger,

it presents one weakness of the approach.

Secondly, the presentation of this approach may

present the weakness of insufficient engagement with the

complexities of postmodernism. As Erickson suggests,

ministry to postmodern people requires that the contemporary

church adopt some of the characteristics of postmodernism.79

This writer, however, has sought to present the “self-

authenticating character of the biblical message . . .

combined with a strong belief in the convicting,

illuminating power of the Holy Spirit.”80 As such, there

may exist at points a failure to address specific postmodern

issues in an effort to maintain an overall connection with

the approach for evangelization depicted in Acts and the

Pauline epistles.

Thirdly, this analysis does not consider completely

the current status of technology in the postmodern world.

240

81Leonard Sweet, Post-Modern Pilgrims: First CenturyPassion for the 21st Century World (Nashville: Broadman andHolman, 2000), 53-83.

82George W. Peters, A Theology of Church Growth(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 17-18.

As Leonard Sweet points out, the contemporary church must

minister to the “virtual world” of postmodern people,

utilizing the technological opportunities in a postmodern

world.81 The relationship between technology and an

apostolic approach may be fertile field for further study.

Certainly, other weaknesses of this approach occur. These

three, however, present the major limitations that this

dissertation presents in the mind of this writer.

The strengths of this presentation of an apostolic

approach center upon the strict correlation between

contemporary ministry and the biblical pattern. George

Peters indicates that the record of the apostolic community

is the primary source for world evangelism and church

growth. This record includes: 1) the Spirit as the divine

Agent; 2) the apostles as the divine representatives; 3)

witness as the major means; 4) Jesus Christ as the content;

and 5) the world as the object.82 The approach of this

dissertation follows a similar analysis and promotes a

strong connection with the biblical paradigm for evangelism.

As such, the Bible represents the authority for praxis.

241

83Douglas K. Blount, “Apologetics and the Ordinancesof the Church,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 43 (Spring2001): 72.

84M. Erickson, Postmodernizing the Faith, 152.

85Dieter Zander, “The Gospel for Generation X,”Leadership: A Practical Journal for Church Leaders 16(Spring 1995): 39-40.

Furthermore, as Douglas Blount states, “If contemporary

Christians are to find a paradigm suitable to the

commitments of that ancient faith which they have come to

embrace . . . it will be by resituating [sic] themselves

within the spiritual tradition initiated by their ancient

Christian forebears.”83

Secondly, this presentation finds strength in the

community ethic. This provides a connection between

postmodernism and the gospel. The community is the visible,

vital expression of the gospel at work in the world. In

this way, the message of the gospel remains unchanged, but

the community itself provides a flexible, relevant appeal to

postmodern people.84 Dieter Zander notes that the

authenticity of the gospel manifested in the lives of

Christ’s followers attracts postmodern people to the

gospel.85 It is the contention of this writer that there is

no greater community in the world to which postmodern people

may connect than the apostolic community in the twenty-first

century.

242


Conclusion

In the final analysis, this presentation of an

apostolic approach for the evangelization of postmodern

people concludes as does the record of Acts in chapter 28.

An apostolic approach results in “a people divided over the

Christian message, some believing, others unbelieving.”86

The mission, however, remains the same: “[They] went

everywhere preaching the good news of the word” (Acts 8:4).

243

BIBLIOGRAPHY

General Reference

Aland, K., M. Black, et al., eds. The Greek New Testament.3rd ed. Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1983.

Alt, A., O. Eisfeldt, et al., eds. Biblia HebraicaStuttgartensia. Stuttgart: DeutscheBibelgesellschaft, 1966-1977.

Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testamentand Other Early Christian Literature. Translated byWilliam F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich. 2d ed.eds. F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.Reprint, 1979.

Brooks, James A., and Carlton L. Winberry. Syntax of NewTestament Greek. Lanham, MD: University Press ofAmerica, 1979.

Dana, H. E., and J. R. Mantey. A Manual Grammar of the GreekNew Testament. New York: MacMillan, 1950.

Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. TheologicalDictionary of the New Testament. Vols. 1-9.Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1964-1974. Reprint, 1978.

Lampe, G. W. H. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1961.

Moule, C. F. D. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek. 2d ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959.Reprint, 1994.

Moulton, J. H. Prolegomena. Vol. 1, A Grammar of NewTestament Greek. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1906.

Mussies, G. The Morphology of Koine Greek. Leiden: E. J.Brill, 1971.

Rienecker, Fritz. Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament.Translated by Cleon Rogers. Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1976. Reprint, 1980.

Eric Thomas, Ph. D.First Baptist ChurchNorfolk, VA

244

Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in theLight of Historical Research. Nashville: Broadman,1934.

Thrall, Margaret E. Greek Participles in the New Testament.Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1962.

Trench, R. C. Synonyms of the New Testament. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1953.

Turner, Nigel. Syntax. Vol. 3, A Grammar of New TestamentGreek. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1963.

Commentaries

Abbott, T. K. Epistle to the Ephesians and to theColossians. International Critical Commentary.Edinburg: T. and T. Clark, 1985.

Allen, Leslie. The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah.New International Commentary on the Old Testament.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976.

Barrett, C. K. A Commentary on the Second Epistle to theCorinthians. New York: Harper and Row, 1973.

________. The Gospel According to St. John. 2nd ed.Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978.

Barth, Markus. Ephesians: Introduction, Translation, andCommentary on Chapters 1-3. Anchor Bible 34. NewYork: Doubleday, 1974.

________. Ephesians: Introduction, Translation, andCommentary on Chapters 4-6. Anchor Bible 34a. NewYork: Doubleday, 1974.

Bauer, Walter. Das Johannesevangelium. Tübingen: Mohr, 1933.

Beasley-Murray, George R. John. Word Biblical Commentary.Dallas: Word, 1987.

Best, Ernst. A Commentary on the First and Second Epistlesto the Thessalonians. New York: Harper and Row,1972.


245

________. The Letter of Paul to the Romans. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1967.

Betz, Hans Dieter. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letterto the Churches in Galatia. Hermenia. Philadelphia:Fortress Press, 1979.

Blomberg, Craig. Matthew. New American Commentary.Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992.

Bruce, F. F. 1 and 2 Corinthians. New Century BibleCommentary. London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott,1971.

________. 1 and 2 Thessalonians. Word Biblical Commentary.Waco, TX: Word Publishers, 1982.

________. The Book of the Acts. Rev. ed. New InternationalCommentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1988.

________. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, andto the Ephesians. New International Commentary onthe New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.

Bultmann, Rudolph. The Gospel of John. Translated by GeorgeR. Beasley-Murray. Oxford: Blackwell, 1971.

Calvin, John. A Commentary on the Prophet Joel. Translatedby J. Owen. London: Banner of Truth, 1958.

Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1991.

Conzelmann, Hans. A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles.Translated by James Limburg, A. T. Kraabel, and D.H. Juel. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,1987.

________. A Commentary on the First Epistle to theCorinthians. Translated by James W. Leitch.Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975.

Dahood, M. Psalm I: 1-50. Anchor Bible. Garden City, NJ:Doubleday, 1966.

De la Potterie, I. La Vérité dans Saint Jean. 2 vols. Rome:PBI, 1977.


246

Dibelius, Martin. An die Kolosser, Epheser, und Philemon. 3ded. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament. Tübingen: J. C.B. Mohr, 1953.

________. Studies in the Acts of the Apostles. Translated byMary Ling. London: SCM Press, 1956.

Dibelius, Martin, and Hans Conzelmann. The PastoralEpistles. Translated by Phillip Buttolph and AdelaYarbro. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1962.

Dodd, C. H. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel.Cambridge: University Press, 1953.

Duncan, George S. The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians.London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1934.

Dunn, James D. G. The Epistle to the Galatians. Black’s NewTestament Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,1993.

Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NewInternational Commentary on the New Testament.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.

________. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians. NewInternational Commentary on the New Testament.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

Finley, T. J. Joel, Amos, Obadiah. Chicago: Moody, 1990.

Fitzmeyer, Joseph A. The Acts of the Apostles. Anchor BibleCommentary. New York: Doubleday, 1998.

Foulkes, Francis. The Letter of Paul to the Ephesians. Rev.ed. Tyndale New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1989.

Fung, Ronald Y. The Epistle to the Galatians. NewInternational Commentary on the New Testament.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

Garrett, Duane. Hosea, Joel. New American Commentary.Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1997.

George, Timothy. Galatians. New American Commentary.Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1994.


247

Grosheide, F. W. Commentary on the First Epistle to theCorinthians. New International Commentary on theNew Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953.

Haenchen, Ernst. The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary.Translated by R. McL. Wilson, et al. Philadelphia:Westminster Press, 1971.

Hanson, A. T. The Pastoral Epistles. New Century BibleCommentary. London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott,1982. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.

Hawthorne, Gerald F. Philippians. Word Biblical Commentary.Waco, TX: Word, 1987.

Hendrickson, William. I-II Timothy, Titus. New TestamentCommentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1957.

Holtzmann, H. J. Die Apostelgeschichte. 3d ed. Hand-Commentar zum Neuen Testament 1/2. Tübingen: J. C.B. Mohr, 1901.

Hubbard, David. Joel and Amos. Tyndale Old TestamentCommentary. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1989.

Hughes, Philip E. Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians.New International Commentary on the New Testament.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962.

Keil, C. F. Minor Prophets: Two Volumes in One. Translatedby James Martin. Vol. 10, Commentary on the OldTestament in Ten Volumes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1971.

Kelly, J. N. D. A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles.Reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981.

Lea, Thomas D., and Hayne P. Griffin, Jr. 1, 2 Timothy,Titus. New American Commentary. Nashville:Broadman, 1992.

Liefeld, Walter. Ephesians. IVP New Testament Commentary.Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997.

Lock, Walter. The Pastoral Epistles. International CriticalCommentary. New York: Charles Scribner and Sons,1924.


248

Lohmeyer, Ernst. Der Briefe an die Philipper, und dieKolosser, und an Philemon. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck,1953.

Lohse, Edward. Colossians and Philemon: A Commentary on theEpistles to the Colossians and to Philemon.Translated by William R. Poehlmann and Robert J.Karris. Edited by Helmut Koester. Philadelphia:Fortress Press, 1971.

Longenecker, Richard. Acts. Expositor’s Bible Commentary.Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.

________. Galatians. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, TX:Word, 1990.

Lührmann, D. Galatians. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.

Malherbe, Abraham. The Letters to the Thessalonians. AnchorBible 32b. New York: Doubleday, 2000.

Martin, Alfred. First Corinthians. Neptune, NJ: LoizeauxBrothers, 1989.

Marshall, I. Howard. The Acts of the Apostles. Tyndale NewTestament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.Reprint, 1999.

Martin, D. Michael. 1, 2 Thessalonians. New AmericanCommentary. Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1995.

Martin, Ralph. 2 Corinthians. Word Biblical Commentary.Waco, TX: Word, 1986.

________. Colossians and Philemon. New Century BibleCommentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973.

________. Philippians. New Century Bible Commentary. London:Oliphants, 1976.

Melick, Richard R., Jr. Philippians, Colossians, Philemon.New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman andHolman, 1991.

Moo, Douglas. The Epistle to the Romans. New InternationalCommentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1996.


249

Morgan, G. Campbell. The Acts of the Apostles. New York:Fleming H. Revell, 1924.

Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1988.

________. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1971.

Mounce, Robert H. Romans. New American Commentary.Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1995.

Mullins, E. Y. Studies in Colossians. Nashville: The SundaySchool Board of the Southern Baptist Convention,1935.

Neal, William. The Acts of the Apostles. New Century BibleCommentary. London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott,1973. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.

Neill, W. The Letter of Paul to the Galatians. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1967.

Nygren, Anders. Commentary on Romans. Translated by C. C.Rasmussen. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1949.

O’Brien, P. T. Colossians, Philemon. Word BiblicalCommentary. Waco, TX: Word, 1982.

Pesch, Rudolf. Die Apostelgeschichte, Teilband I: Apg. 1-12,Evangelishe Katholischer Kommentar zum NeuenTestament. Zürich: Benziger Verlag, 1986.

Polhill, John B. Acts. New American Commentary. Nashville:Broadman, 1992.

Schlatter, Adolf. Romans: The Righteousness of God.Translated by Siegfried Schatzmann. Peabody, MA:Hendrickson, 1995.

Schnackenburg, Rudolf. Der Brief an die Epheser.Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum NeuenTestament 10. Neukirchener-Vluyn: NeukirchenerVerlag, 1982.

Silva, Moisés. Philippians. The Wycliffe ExegeticalCommentary. Chicago: Moody Press, 1988.


250

Stott, John R. W. The Message of Ephesians: God’s NewSociety. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1979.

Stuhlmacher, Peter. Der Brief an Philemon. Zürich: Benziger,1975.

________. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary.Translated by Scott J. Hafemann. Louisville:Westminster / John Knox Press, 1994.

Tasker, R. V. G. The Second Epistle of Paul to theCorinthians: An Introduction and Commentary.Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1958.

Taylor, Justin. Commentaire Historique (Act. 9,1-18,22).Vol. 5, Les Actes des Deux Apôtres, ÉtudesBibliques 23. Paris: Librairie LeCoffre, 1994.

Vaughan, Curtis. Acts: A Study Guide Commentary. GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1974.

________. Colossians: A Study Guide Commentary. GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1973.

________. The Letter to the Ephesians. Nashville: ConventionPress, 1963.

Walaskay, Paul. Acts. Philadelphia: Westminster John KnoxPress, 1999.

Wanamaker, Charles A. A Commentary on 1 and 2 Thessalonians.New International Greek Text Commentary. GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1990.

Wolff, H. W. Joel and Amos: A Commentary on the Books of theProphets Joel and Amos. Translated by W. Janzen, S.D. McBride Jr., and C. A. Muenchow. Hermeneia.Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977.

Wright, N. T. Colossians and Philemon. Tyndale New TestamentCommentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.

Witherington, Ben, III. Conflict and Community in Corinth: ASocio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.


251

Studies in Acts

Books

Bauckham, Richard, ed. The Book of Acts in Its PalestinianSetting. Vol. 4, The Book of Acts in Its FirstCentury Setting. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

Brox, Norbert. Zeuge und Märtyrer: Untersuchungen zurfrühchristlichen Zeugnis-Terminologie. Munich:Kösel, 1961.

Bruce, F. F. Men and Movements in the Primitive Church:Studies in Early Non-Pauline Christianity. London:Paternoster Press, 1979.

Cadbury, Henry J. The Making of Luke-Acts. New York:MacMillan, 1927.

Conzelman, Hans. The Theology of Saint Luke. Translated byGeoffrey Buswell. London: Faber and Faber, 1960.

Dibelius, Martin. Studies in the Acts of the Apostles.Translated by Mary Ling. London: SCM Press, 1956.

Gärtner, Bertil. The Areopagus Speech and NaturalRevelation. Translated by C. H. King. Uppsala: C.W. K. Gleerup, 1955.

Gasque, William W. A History of the Criticism of the Acts ofthe Apostles. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.

Gill, David W. J., and Conrad Gempf, eds. The Book of Actsin Its Graeco-Roman Setting. Vol. 2, The Book ofActs in Its First Century Setting. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1994.

Harrison, Everett F. The Apostolic Church. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1985.

________. Interpreting Acts: The Expanding Church. GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1986.

Hengel, Martin. Acts and the History of EarliestChristianity. Translated by John Bowden.Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980.


252

Jervell, Jacob. Acts and the People of God: A New Look atLuke-Acts. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1972.

________. The Theology of the Acts of the Apostles.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Keck, Leander E., and J. Louis Martin, eds. Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert.Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1966.

Longenecker, Richard. Biblical Exegesis in the ApostolicPeriod. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.

Marshall, I. Howard. Luke: Historian and Theologian. Exeter:Paternoster Press, 1984.

Marshall, I. Howard and David Peterson, eds. Witness to theGospel: The Theology of Acts. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1998.

Neyrey, Jerome H., ed. The Social World of Luke-Acts: Modelsfor Interpretation. Peabody, MA: HendricksonPublishers, 1991.

O’Neill, J. C. The Theology of Acts in Its HistoricalSetting. 2d ed. London: SPCK, 1970.

Rapske, Brian, and Bruce Winter, eds. The Book of Acts andPaul in Roman Custody. Vol. 3, The Book of Acts inIts First-Century Setting. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1994.

Ridderbos, Herman N. The Speeches of Peter in the Acts ofthe Apostles. London: Tyndale, 1962.

Sanders, J. T. The Jews in Luke-Acts. Philadelphia: FortressPress, 1987.

Seccombe, David P. Possessions and the Poor in Luke-Acts.Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt.Linz: Verlag F. Plochl, 1982.

Sheeley, Steven M. Narrative Asides in Luke-Acts. Journalfor the Study of the New Testament SupplementSeries 72. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,1992.


253

Soards, Marion L. The Speeches in Acts: Their Content,Context, and Concerns. Louisville: Westminster /John Knox Press, 1994.

Stagg, Frank. The Book of Acts: The Early Struggle for anUnhindered Gospel. Nashville: Broadman, 1955.

Wilson, Stephen G. Luke and the Law. Society for NewTestament Studies Monograph Series 50. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1969.

Witherington, Ben, III, ed. History, Literature, and Societyin the Book of Acts. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1996.

Essays / Articles

Bammel, Ernst. “Jewish Activity Against Christians inPalestine According to Acts.” In The Book of Actsin Its Palestinian Setting, ed. Richard Bauckham,357-64. Vol. 4, The Book of Acts in Its FirstCentury Setting. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

Bauckham, Richard. “James and the Jerusalem Church.” In TheBook of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting, ed.Richard Bauckham, 415-80. Vol. 4, The Book of Actsin Its First Century Setting. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1995.

Bowker, J. W. “Speeches in Acts: A Study in Proem andYelammedenu Form.” New Testament Studies 14(October 1967): 96-111.

Brehm, Alan. “The Significance of the Summaries forInterpreting Acts.” Southwestern Journal ofTheology 33 (Fall 1990): 29-40.

Bruce, F. F. “The Holy Spirit in the Acts of the Apostles.”Interpretation 27 (1973): 166-183.

________. “The Significance of the Speeches for InterpretingActs.” Southwestern Journal of Theology 33 (Fall1990): 20-28.


254

Cadbury, H. J. “The Hellenists.” In The Beginnings ofChristianity. Part 1: The Acts of the Apostles.Vol. 4, eds. F. J. Foakes Jackon and Kirsopp Lake,59-74. London: MacMillan, 1933.

Capper, Brian. “The Interpretation of Acts 5.4.” Journal forthe Study of the New Testament 19 (1983): 117-31.

________. “The Palestinian Cultural Context of EarliestChristian Community of Goods.” In The Witness tothe Gospel: The Theology of Acts, eds. I. H.Marshall and David Peterson, 323-64. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1998.

Cheung, Alex T. M. “A Narrative Analysis of Acts 14:27-15:35: Literary Shaping in Luke’s Account of theJerusalem Council.” Westminster Theological Journal55 (Spring 1993): 137-154.

Conzelmann, Hans. “The Address of Paul on the Areopagus.” InStudies in Luke-Acts, eds. Leander Keck and J.Louis Martyn, 217-30. Nashville: Abingdon, 1966.

Copeland, E. Luther. “Church Growth in Acts.” Missiology 4(January l976): 13–26.

Cory, N. Clayton. “Hellenistic Philosophies and thePreaching of the Resurrection (Acts 17:18, 32).”Novum Testamentum 39 (1997): 21-39.

Cosgrove, C. H. “The Divine DEI in Luke-Acts: Investigationsinto the Lukan Understanding of God’s Providence.”Novum Testamentum 26 (1984): 168-90.

Culpepper, R. Alan. “Paul’s Mission to the Gentile World:Acts 13-19.” Review and Expositor 71 (1974): 487-510.

Dibelius, Martin. “The Conversion of Cornelius.” In Studiesin the Acts of the Apostles, ed. H. Greeven, 109-122. London: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1956.

________. “The Speeches in Acts and Ancient Historiography.”In Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, ed. H.Greeven, 138-85. London: Charles Scribner’s Sons,1956.


255

Dockery, David S. “The Theology of Acts.” CriswellTheological Review 5 (1990): 43-55.

Drumwright, Huber L., Jr., “The Holy Spirit in the Book ofActs.” Southwestern Journal of Theology 17 (Fall1974): 3–17.

Elliott, John. “Temple versus Household in Luke-Acts: AContrast in Social Institutions.” In The SocialWorld of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation, ed.Jerome Neyrey, 211-40. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,1991.

Falk, Daniel K. “Jewish Prayer Literature and the JerusalemChurch in Acts.” In The Book of Acts in ItsPalestinian Setting, ed. Richard Bauckham, 267-301.Vol. 4, The Book of Acts in Its First CenturySetting. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

Fitzmeyer, Joseph A. “David, Being Therefore a Prophet (Acts2:30).” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972): 332-39.

________. “Jewish Christianity in Acts in Light of theQumran Scrolls.” In Studies in Luke-Acts, eds.Leander Keck and J. Louis Martyn, 233-57.Nashville: Abingdon, 1966.

Gaventa, Beverly R. “The Eschatology of Luke-ActsRevisited.” Encounter 43 (1982): 27-42.

Haenchen, Ernst. “The Book of Acts as Source Material forthe History of Early Christianity.” In Studies inLuke-Acts, eds. Leander E. Keck and J. LouisMartin, 258-78. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1966.

Hengel, Martin. “Early Christianity as a Jewish-Messianic,Universalistic Movement.” In Conflicts andChallenges in Early Christianity, ed. D. A. Hagner,1-41. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity International Press,1999.

Hoyt, Herman A. “The Frantic Future and the ChristianDirective: Acts 1:8.” Grace Journal 10 (Winter1969): 36-41.

Jackson, F. J. Foakes. “Stephen’s Speech in Acts.” Journalof Biblical Literature 49 (1930): 283-286.


256

Kaiser, Walter C. Jr. “The Promise of God and the Outpouringof the Holy Spirit: Joel 2:28-32 and Acts 2:16-21.”In The Living and Active Word of God: Essays inHonor of Samuel Schultz, eds. Morris Inch andRonald Youngblood, 109-122. Winona Lake:Eisenbrauns, 1983.

Kaufmann, Gordon. “Evidentialism: A Theologian’s Response.”Faith and Philosophy 6 (1989): 35-46.

________. “Religious Diversity, Historical Consciousness,and Christian Theology.” Journal of Religion 68(October 1988): 1-13.

Külling, Heinz. “Zur Bedeutung des AGNOSTOS THEOS. EineExegese zu Apostelgeschichte 17, 22.23,”Theologische Zeitschrift 36 (1980): 65-83.

Lofthouse, W. F. “The Holy Spirit in Acts and the FourthGospel.” Expository Times 52 (1940-1941): 334-36.

Moule, C. F. D. “Once More, Who Were the Hellenists?,”Expository Times 70 (1958-1959): 100-102.

Neudorfer, Heinz-Werner. “The Speech of Stephen.” In Witnessto the Gospel: The Theology of Acts, eds. I. HowardMarshall and David Peterson, 275-94. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1998.

Ogden, Schubert M. “Problems in the Case for a PluralisticTheology of Religions.” Journal of Religion 68(October 1988): 493-507.

Quesnel, Michel. “Paul prédicateur dans les Actes desApôtres.” New Testament Studies 47 (October 2001):469-81.

Richard, E. “The Divine Purpose: The Jews and the GentileMission (Acts 15).” In Society of BiblicalLiterature 1980 Seminar Papers, 267-82. Chico, CA:Scholars Press, 1980.

Rosner, Brian. “The Progress of the Word.” In Witness to theGospel: The Theology of Acts, eds. I. HowardMarshall and David Peterson, 215-33. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1998.


257

Sanders, J. T. “Who Is a Jew and Who Is a Gentile in theBook of Acts?” New Testament Studies 37 (1991):434-455.

Schwartz, D. R. “Non-Joining Sympathizers (Acts 5,13-14),”Biblica 64 (1983): 550-55.

Schwartz, Joshua. “Peter and Ben Stada in Lydda.” In TheBook of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting, ed.Richard Bauckham, 391-414. Vol. 4, The Book of Actsin Its First Century Setting. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1995.

Scheidweiler, F. “Zu Apg. 5.4.” Zeitschrift für dieneutestamentliche Wissenschaft 49 (1958): 133-37.

Schweizer, Eduard. “Concerning the Speeches in Acts.” InStudies in Luke-Acts, eds. L. E. Keck and J. L.Martyn, 208-16. Nashville: Abingdon, 1966.

Scott, J. Julius Jr. “The Cornelius Incident in Light of ItsJewish Setting.” Journal of the EvangelicalTheological Society 34 (December 1991): 475-484.

________. “Parties in the Church of Jerusalem as Seen in theBook of Acts.” Journal of the EvangelicalTheological Society 18 (1975): 217-227.

________. “Stephen’s Defense and the World Mission of thePeople of God.” Journal of the EvangelicalTheological Society 21 (June 1978): 131-41.

Seccombe, David P. “The New People of God.” In Witness tothe Gospel: The Theology of Acts, eds. I. H.Marshall and David Peterson, 349-72. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1998.

Tannehill, Robert C. “The Functions of Peter’s MissionSpeeches in the Narrative of Acts.” New TestamentStudies 37 (1991): 400-414.

Tolbert, Malcolm. “Contemporary Issues in the Book of Acts.”Review and Expositor 71 (1974): 521-531.

Torrey, C. C. “The ‘Rest’ in Acts v. 13.” Expository Times46 (1934-1935): 428-29.


258

Treier, Daniel J. “The Fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32: AMultiple-Lens Approach.” Journal of the EvangelicalTheological Society 40 (March 1997): 13-26.

Trites, Allison A. “Church Growth in the Book of Acts.”Bibliotheca Sacra 145 (April-June 1988): 162-173.

________. “The Importance of Legal Scenes and Language inthe Book of Acts.” Novum Testamentum 16 (1974):278-84.

________. “The Prayer Motif in Luke-Acts.” In Perspectivesin Luke-Acts, ed. C. H. Talbert, 168-186. Macon,GA: Mercer University Press, 1977.

Turner, M. M. B. “The Significance of Receiving the Spiritin Luke-Acts: A Survey of Modern Scholarship.”Trinity Journal 2 (1981): 131-158.

________. “The ‘Spirit of Prophecy’ as the Power of Israel’sRestoration and Witness.” In Witness to the Gospel:The Theology of Acts, eds. I. Howard Marshall andDavid Peterson, 327-48. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1998.

Tyson, Joseph B. “The Gentile Mission and the Authority ofScripture in Acts.” New Testament Studies 33(1987): 619-631.

Unger, Merrill. “The Significance of Pentecost.” BibliothecaSacra 122 (April 1965): 169-77.

Wall, Robert W. “Israel and the Gentile Mission in Acts andPaul: A Canonical Approach.” In Witness to theGospel: The Theology of Acts, eds. I. HowardMarshall and David Peterson, 437-57. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1998.

________. “Peter, ‘Son’ of Jonah: The Conversion ofCornelius in the Context of Canon.” Journal for theStudy of the New Testament 29 (1987): 78-91.

Walter, N. “Apostelgeschichte 6.1 und die Anfäng derUrgemeinde in Jerusalem.” New Testament Studies 29(1983): 370-93.

Wills, Lawrence. “The Depiction of the Jews in Acts.”Journal of Biblical Literature 110 (1991): 631-54.


259

Witherington Ben III. “Salvation and Health in ChristianAntiquity: The Soteriology of Luke-Acts in ItsFirst Century Setting.” In Witness to the Gospel:The Theology of Acts, eds. I. Howard Marshall andDavid Peterson, 145-66. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1998.

Zweck, Dean. “The Exordium of the Areopagus Speech, Acts17.22, 23.” New Testament Studies 35 (1989): 94-103.

Evangelism

Books

Abraham, William J. The Logic of Evangelism. Grand Rapids:William B. Eerdmans, 1989.

Armstrong, Richard S. The Pastor as Evangelist.Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984.

Autrey, C. E. Evangelism in the Acts. Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1964.

________. The Theology of Evangelism. Nashville: Broadman,1966.

________. You Can Win Souls. Nashville: Broadman, 1961.

Barna, George. Evangelism That Works: How to Reach ChangingGenerations with the Unchanging Gospel. Ventura,CA: Regal Books, 1995.

Beaudoin, Tom. Virtual Faith: The Irreverent Spiritual Questof Generation X. San Francisco: Jossey-BassPublishers, 1998.

Bosch, David J. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts inTheology. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1993.

Brown, Stanley C. Evangelism in the Early Church. GrandRapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1963.

Carrier, Hervé. Evangelizing the Culture of Modernity. Faithand Culture Series. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1993.


260

Celek, Tim and Dieter Zander. Inside the Soul of a NewGeneration: Insights and Strategies for ReachingBusters. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

Chafin, Kenneth. The Reluctant Witness. Nashville: Broadman,1974.

Coleman, Robert, ed. Evangelism on the Cutting Edge. OldTappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1986.

________. The Master Plan of Evangelism. Grand Rapids:Fleming H. Revell, 1963.

Dayton, Donald W. and Robert K. Johnston. The Variety ofAmerican Evangelism. Knoxville: The University ofTennessee Press, 1991.

Dayton, Edward R. and David A. Fraser. Planning Strategiesfor World Evangelization. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids:William B. Eerdmans, 1990.

Ford, Kevin Graham. Jesus for a New Generation: Putting theGospel in the Language of Xers. Downers Grove:InterVarsity, 1995.

Ford, Leighton. The Power of Story. Colorado Springs, CO:NavPress, 1994.

Green, Michael. Evangelism in the Early Church. London:Hodder and Stoughton, 1970.

________. Evangelism Through the Local Church: AComprehensive Guide to All Aspects of Evangelism.London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1990. Reprint,Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1992.

Hahn, Todd and David Verhaagen. GenXers After God: Helping aGeneration Pursue Jesus. Grand Rapids: Baker Books,1998.

________. Reckless Hope: Understanding and Reaching BabyBusters. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996.

Heck, Joel, ed. The Art of Sharing Your Faith. Grand Rapids:Fleming H. Revell, 1991.


261

Hemphill, Ken. The Antioch Effect: 8 Characteristics ofHighly Effective Churches. Nashville: Broadman andHolman, 1994.

Hiebert, Paul. The Missiological Implications ofEpistemological Shifts: Affirming Truth in a Modern/ Postmodern World. Philadelphia: Trinity PressInternational, 1998.

Hunsberger George, and Craig Van Gelder. Church: BetweenGospel and Culture, The Emerging Mission in NorthAmerica. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

Hunter, George III. How to Reach Secular People. Nashville:Abingdon Press, 1992.

Knitter, Paul F. One Earth, Many Religions: MultifaithDialogue and Global Responsibility. Maryknoll:Orbis, 1995.

Kolb, Robert. Speaking the Gospel Today: A Theology forEvangelism. St. Louis: Concordia, 1984.

Kraft, Marguerite G. Understanding Spiritual Power: AForgotten Dimension of Cross-Cultural Mission andMinistry. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1995.

Kraus, C. Norman. An Intrusive Gospel? Christian Mission inthe Postmodern World. Downers Grove: InterVarsity,1999.

Larsen, David L. The Evangelism Mandate: Recovering theCentrality of Gospel Preaching. Wheaton, IL:Crossway Books, 1992.

Long, Jimmy. Generating Hope: A Strategy for Reaching thePostmodern Generation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity,1997.

Marty, Martin E. and Frederick E. Greenspahn, eds. Pushingthe Faith: Proselytism and Civility in aPluralistic World. New York: Crossroad, 1988.

McDow, Malcolm, and Alvin Reid. Firefall: How God Has ShapedHistory Through Revivals. Nashville: Broadman andHolman, 1997.


262

Miles, Delos. Evangelism and Social Involvement. Nashville:Broadman, 1986.

Morgenthaler, Sally. Worship Evangelism: InvitingUnbelievers into the Presence of God. Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1995.

Newbigin, Lesslie. Foolishness to the Greeks: The Gospel andWestern Culture. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans,1986.

________. The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. Grand Rapids:William B. Eerdmans, 1990.

Nida, Eugene A. The Communication of the Christian Faith.Rev. ed. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1990.

Packer, J. I. Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. DownersGrove: InterVarsity, 1961.

Peters, George W. A Theology of Church Growth. Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1981.

Piper, John. Let the Nations Be Glad: The Supremacy of Godin Missions. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993.

Poe, Harry Lee. Christian Witness in a Postmodern World.Nashville: Abingdon, 2001.

Poterski, Donald. Reinventing Evangelism. Downers Grove:InterVarsity, 1989.

Rainer, Thom S. The Bridger Generation. Nashville: Broadmanand Holman, 1996.

Reid, Alvin. Introduction to Evangelism. Nashville: Broadmanand Holman, 1998.

Roxburgh, Alan J. Reaching a New Generation: Strategies forTomorrow’s Church. Downers Grove: InterVarsityPress, 1993.

Senn, Frank. The Witness of the Worshiping Community:Liturgy and the Practice of Evangelism. New York:Paulist Press, 1993.


263

Sjogren, Steve. Conspiracy of Kindness: A Refreshing NewApproach to Sharing the Love of Jesus with Others.Ann Arbor: Servant Publications, 1993.

Stewart, James. A Faith to Proclaim. New York: CharlesScribner’s Sons, 1953.

Sweet, Leonard. FaithQuakes. Nashville: Abingdon Press,1994.

Thompson, W. Oscar. Concentric Circles of Concern.Nashville: Broadman, 1981.

Towns, Elmer. An Inside Look at Ten of Today’s MostInnovative Churches. Ventura, CA: Regal Books,1990.

Walker, Alan. A Ringing Call to Mission. Nashville:Abingdon, 1966.

________. The Whole Gospel for the Whole World. Nashville:Abingdon, 1957.

Wells, David F. God the Evangelist: How the Holy SpiritWorks to Bring Men and Women to Faith. GrandRapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1987.

Wimber, John. Power Evangelism. San Francisco:HarperCollins, 1985.

Essays / Articles

Anderson, Leith. “Theological Issues of 21st-CenturyMinistry.” Bibliotheca Sacra 151 (April 1994): 131-139.

Geisler, Norman. “Some Philosophical Perspectives onMissionary Dialogue.” In Theology and Mission, ed.David J. Hesselgrave, 228-45. Grand Rapids: Baker,1978.

Gosnell, Rick. “Proclamation and the Postmodernist.” In TheChallenge of Postmodernism: An EvangelicalEngagement, ed. David S. Dockery, 374-391. GrandRapids: Baker Books, 1995.


264

Hengel, Martin. “Die Ursprüng der christlichen Mission.” NewTestament Studies 18 (1971): 15-38.

Hesselgrave, David J. “Fitting Third-World Believers withChristian World View Glasses.” Journal of theEvangelical Theological Society 30 (June 1987):215-222.

Hybels, Bill. “Speaking to the Secular Mind.” Leadership(Summer 1988): 28-34.

Johnson, Philip. “Postmodernity, New Age, and the ChristianMission: Mars Hill Revisited.” Lutheran TheologicalJournal 31 (December 1997): 115-124.

Loscalzo, Craig A. “Apologizing for God: ApologeticPreaching to a Postmodern World.” Review andExpositor 93 (Summer 1996): 405-418.

Monroe, Kelly. “Finding God at Harvard: Reaching the Post-Christian University.” In Telling the Truth:Evangelizing Postmoderns, ed. D. A. Carson, 295-306. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.

Pyne, Robert A. “The Role of the Holy Spirit in Conversion.”Bibliotheca Sacra 150 (April 1993): 203-218.

Radmacher, Earl D. “Contemporary Evangelism Potpourri-PartII.” Bibliotheca Sacra 123 (April 1966): 158-167.

Roebben, Bert. “Do We Still Have Faith in Young People? AWest-European Answer to the Evangelization of YoungPeople in a Postmodern World.” Religious Education90 (Summer-Fall 1995): 327-345.

Thede, Bruce. “How One Church Reached Out to Baby Busters.”Worship Leader (July-August 1994): 14-37.

Troeger, Thomas H. “A Poetics of the Pulpit for Post-ModernTimes.” In Intersections: Post-Critical Studies inPreaching, ed. Richard L. Eslinger, 42-64. GrandRapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1994.

Van Engen, Charles. “Mission Theology in the Light ofPostmodern Critique.” International Review ofMission 86 (October 1997): 437-461.


265

White, James Emory. “Evangelism in a Postmodern World.” InThe Challenge of Postmodernism: An EvangelicalEngagement, ed. David S. Dockery, 359-373. GrandRapids: Baker Books, 1995.

Winter, Ralph. “The Highest Priority: Cross-culturalEvangelism.” In Let the Earth Hear His Voice, ed.J. D. Douglas, 213-225. Minneapolis: World WidePublications, 1975.

Zacharias, Ravi. “Reaching the Happy Thinking Pagan.”Leadership 16 (Spring 1995): 18-27.

Zander, Dieter. “The Gospel for Generation X.” Leadership 16(Spring 1995): 36-42.

Dissertations

Conniry, Charles J. Jr. “Apostolic Christianity in aPostmodern World: A Theological Analysis.” Ph. D.diss. Fuller Theological Seminary, 1997.

Fjeldstad, Arne H. “Communicating Christ on the InformationSuperhighway.” D. Minn. diss. Fuller TheologicalSeminary, 1997.

Gosnell, Ricky D. “The Postmodern Paradigm: Challenges tothe Evangelistic Ministry of the Church.” Ph. D.diss. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1993.

Biblical Studies

Books

Bailey, Raymond. Paul the Preacher. Nashville: Broadman,1991.

Banks, Robert. Paul’s Idea of Community: The Early HouseChurches in Their Historical Setting. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1980.

Barclay, William. The Promise of the Spirit. Philadelphia:Westminster, 1960.

Barr, James. The Scope and Authority of the Bible.Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980.


266

Barth, Markus. The Broken Wall: A Study of the Epistle tothe Ephesians. Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1959.

Basden, Paul A., and David S. Dockery, eds. The People ofGod: Essays on the Believers’ Church. Nasvhille:Broadman and Holman, 1998.

Beasley-Murray, George R. Baptism in the New Testament.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962.

Beker, J. Christian. Heirs of Paul: Their Legacy in the NewTestament and the Church Today. Minneapolis:Augsburg Fortress Press, 1991. Reprint, GrandRapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1996.

________. Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life andThought. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980.

Berger, Klaus. Theologiegeschichte des Urchristentums:Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Tübingen: FranckeVerlag, 1994.

Berkouwer, G. C. The Church. Translated by James E. Davison.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976.

Best, Ernst. One Body in Christ: A Study in the Relationshipof the Church to Christ in the Epistles of theApostle Paul. London: SPCK, 1955.

Black, David Alan. Paul, Apostle of Weakness: Astheneia andIts Cognates in the Pauline Literature. New York:Peter Lang, 1984.

Bloesch, Donald. Essentials of Evangelical Theology, VolumeOne: God, Authority, and Salvation. New York:HarperCollins, 1978. Reprint, Peabody, MA: PrincePress, 1998.

________. Essentials of Evangelical Theology, Volume Two:Life, Ministry, and Hope. New York: HarperCollins,1978. Reprint, Peabody, MA: Prince Press, 1998.

________. Holy Scripture: Revelation, Inspiration, andInterpretation. Vol. 2, Christian Foundations.Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994.

________. A Theology of Word and Spirit: Authority andMethod in Theology. Vol. 1, Christian Foundations.Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992.


267

Boers, Hendrikus. The Justification of the Gentiles: Paul’sLetters to the Galatians and Romans. Peabody, MA:Hendrickson, 1994.

Bornkamm, Günther. The New Testament: A Guide to ItsWritings. Translated by R. H. Fuller. Philadelphia:Fortress Press, 1973.

Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to the New Testament. TheAnchor Bible Reference Library. New York:Doubleday, 1997.

Bruce, F. F. The Books and the Parchments. rev. ed. OldTappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1984.

________. Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1977.

Brunner, Emil. Truth as Encounter. Philadelphia:Westminster, 1964.

Bultmann, Rudolf. Theology of the New Testament. Vol. 1.Translated by Kendrick Grobel. New York: CharlesScribner’s Sons, 1951.

________. Theology of the New Testament. Vol. 2. Translatedby Kendrick Grobel. New York: Charles Scribner’sSons, 1955.

Cancik, Hubert, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Peter Schafer,eds. Geschichte, Tradition, Reflexion: Festschriftfür Martin Hengel zum 70 Gerbertstag. Tübingen: J.C. B. Mohr, 1996.

Carson, D. A. The Gagging of God: Christianity ConfrontsPluralism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

________, ed. Biblical Interpretation and the Church: Textand Context. Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1984.

________, ed. The Church in the Bible and the World: AnInternational Study. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987.

Conner, W. T. Christian Doctrine. Nashville: Broadman, 1937.

________. The Cross in the New Testament. Nashville:Broadman, 1954.


268

________. The Work of the Holy Spirit: A Treatment of theBiblical Doctrine of the Divine Spirit. Nashville:Broadman, 1940.

Conzelmann, Hans. Gentiles, Jews, Christians: Polemics andApologetics in the Greco-Roman Era. Translated byM. Eugene Boring. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.

________. The History of Primitive Christianity. Translatedby John E. Steely. Nashville: Abingdon, 1973.

________. An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament.Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM Press, 1969.

________. The Theology of Saint Luke. Translated by GeoffreyBuswell. London: Faber and Faber, 1960.

Corley, Bruce, Steve Lemke and Grant Lovejoy. BiblicalHermeneutics: A Comprehensive Introduction toInterpreting Scripture. Nashville: Broadman andHolman, 1996.

Cullmann, Oscar. The Earliest Christian Confessions.Translated by J. K. S. Reid. London: LutterworthPress, 1949.

Dahl, Nils Alstrup. Studies in Paul: Theology for the EarlyChristian Mission. Minneapolis: Augsburg Press,1977.

________. Das Volk Gottes: Eine Untersuchung zumKirchenbewisstsein des Urchristentums. Darmstadt:Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1963.

Davies, W. D. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some RabbinicElements in Pauline Theology. 4th ed. Philadelphia:Fortress Press, 1980.

DeSilva, David A. Honor, Patronage, Kinship, and Purity:Unlocking New Testament Culture. Downers Grove:InterVarsity, 2000.

Detweiler, Robert, ed. Reader Response Approaches toBiblical and Secular Texts. Semeia, 31. Decatur,GA: Scholar’s Press, 1985.


269

Dockery, David S. Christian Scripture: An EvangelicalPerspective on Inspiration, Authority, andInterpretation. Nashville: Broadman and Holman,1995.

Dodd, C. H. According to the Scriptures: The Substructure ofNew Testament Theology. London: Nisbet, 1952.

________. The Apostolic Preaching and Its Development.London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1936.

Dunn, James D. G. Christology in the Making: A New TestamentInquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of theIncarnation. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980.

________. Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious andCharismatic Experience of Jesus and the FirstChristians as Reflected in the New Testament. GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1975.

________. The Living Word. London: SCM Press, 1987.

________. Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: AnInquiry into the Character of EarliestChristianity. 2d ed. London: SCM Press, 1990.

Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament: A Historical Introductionto the Early Christian Writings. New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 1997.

Ellis, E. Earle. Paul and His Recent Interpreters. GrandRapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1961.

________. Pauline Theology: Ministry and Society. GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1989. Reprint, Lanham, MD:University Press of America, 1997.

________. Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 2d ed. GrandRapids: Baker, 1998.

________. Evangelical Interpretation: Perspectives onHermeneutical Issues. Grand Rapids: Baker Books,1993.


270

________. The Evangelical Left: EncounteringPostconservative Evangelical Theology. GrandRapids: Baker Books, 1997.

________. Evangelical Mind and Heart: Perspectives onTheological and Practical Issues. Grand Rapids:Baker Books, 1993.

Fee, Gordon. God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit inthe Letters of Paul. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,1994.

________. Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God. Peabody,MA: Hendrickson, 1996.

Ferguson, Everett. The Church of Christ: A BiblicalEcclesiology for Today. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1996.

Fitzmeyer, Joseph A. Essays on the Semitic Background of theNew Testament. London: Chapman, 1971.

Frei, Hans. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative. New Haven:Yale University Press, 1974.

Fretheim, Terence. The Suffering of God: An Old TestamentPerspective. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.

Funk, Robert W. Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God. NewYork: Harper and Row, 1966.

Gaventa, Beverly R. From Darkness to Light: Aspects ofConversion in the New Testament. Philadelphia:Fortress Press, 1986.

Geertz, Clifford. Interpretation of Cultures. New York:Basic Books, 1973.

Giles, Kevin. What on Earth Is the Church? An Exploration ofNew Testament Theology. Downers Grove:InterVarsity, 1995.

Goppelt, Leonhard. Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times. GrandRapids: Baker, 1970.

Grant, Robert M. Gods and the One God. Philadelphia:Westminster Press, 1986.


271

Green, Joel and Mark Baker. Recovering the Scandal of theCross: Atonement in New Testament and ContemporaryContexts. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000.

Grenz, Stanley. Created for Community: Connecting ChristianBelief with Christian Living. 2d ed. Grand Rapids:Baker Books, 1998.

________. Theology for the Community of God. Nashville:Broadman and Holman, 1994.

Grenz, Stanley, and John Franke. Beyond Foundationalism:Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context.Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001.

Gundry, Robert H. Sôma in Biblical Theology with Emphasis onPauline Anthropology. Society for New TestamentStudies Monograph Series 29. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1976.

Hanson, S. The Unity of the Church in the New Testament.Uppsala: Almquist and Wiksells, 1946.

Harnack, Adolf von. The Mission and Expansion ofChristianity in the First Three Centuries.Translated by James Moffatt. 2 vols. London:Williams and Norgate, 1908. Reprint, New York:Harper and Row, 1962.

Hauerwas, Stanley. A Community of Character: Toward aConstructive Christian Social Ethic. Notre Dame:University of Notre Dame Press, 1981.

Hawthorne, Gerald F., Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid,eds. Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. DownersGrove: InterVarsity, 1993.

Hengel, Martin. Between Jesus and Paul. Translated by JohnBowden. London: SCM Press, 1983.

Heschel, Abraham. The Prophets. 2 vols. New York: Harper andRow, 1962. Reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000.

Hill, D. New Testament Prophecy. London: Marshall, Morgan,and Scott, 1979.

Hirsch, E. D. Validity in Interpretation. New Haven, CT:Yale University Press, 1967.


272

Hofius, Otfried. Der Christushymnus Philipper 2,6-11:Untersuchungen zu Gestalt und Aussage einesurchristlichen Psalms. Tübingen: Mohr, 1991.

Horton, Michael, ed. A Confessing Theology for PostmodernTimes. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2000.

Howard, George. Paul: Crisis in Galatia. Society for NewTestament Monograph Series 35. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1979.

Hunt, Boyd. Redeemed! Eschatological Redemption and theKingdom of God. Nashville: Broadman and Holman,1993.

Jensen, Richard A. Thinking in Story: Preaching in a Post-literate Age. Lima, OH: CSS Publishing Company,1993.

Jenson, Robert. The Triune Identity: God According to theGospel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982.

Kaiser, Walter C. Toward Rediscovering the Old Testament.Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987.

Käsemann, Ernst. Perspectives on Paul. Translated byMargaret Kohl. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971.

Kee, Howard Clark. Who Are the People of God?: EarlyChristian Models of Community. New Haven: YaleUniversity Press, 1995.

Kelsey, David H. The Uses of Scripture in Recent Theology.Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975.

Klein, William, Craig Blomberg, and Robert Hubbard Jr.Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Dallas:Word, 1993.

Koenig, John. New Testament Hospitality: Partnership withStrangers as Promise and Mission. Philadelphia:Fortress, 1985.

Kugel, James and Rowan Greer, eds. Early BiblicalInterpretation. Philadelphia: Westminster Press,1986.


273

Lampe, G. W. H. The Seal of the Spirit. London: Longmans,1951.

Larkin, William J. Culture and Biblical Hermeneutics. GrandRapids: Baker Books, 1988.

Lea, Thomas D. The New Testament: Its Background andMessage. Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1996.

Lints, Richard. The Fabric of Theology. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1993.

Litfin, Duane. St. Paul’s Theology of Proclamation: 1Corinthians 1-4 and Graeco-Roman Rhetoric.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Lohse, Eduard. Die Entstehung des Neuen Testaments.Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1972.

Long, Thomas. Preaching and the Literary Forms of the Bible.Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989.

Longenecker, Richard N. Biblical Exegesis in the ApostolicPeriod. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.

________. New Testament Social Ethics for Today. GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1984.

________, ed. Patterns of Discipleship in the New Testament.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

Lundin, Roger, Clarence Walhout, and Anthony Thiselton. ThePromise of Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1999.

MacGorman, J. W. The Gifts of the Spirit: An Exposition of 1Corinthians 12-14. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1974.

Manson, T. W. Studies in the Gospels and Epistles. London:Manchester University Press, 1962.

Marshall, I. H. Biblical Inspiration. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1982.

________. Luke: Historian and Theologian. Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1970.


274

Martin, Ralph. The Family and the Fellowship: New TestamentImages of the Church. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.

________. A Hymn of Christ: Philippians 2:5-11 in RecentInterpretation and in the Setting of EarlyChristian Worship. Downers Grove: InterVarsity,1997.

Maston, T. B. Biblical Ethics: A Guide to the EthicalMessage of the Scriptures from Genesis toRevelation. Cleveland: Word, 1967. Reprint, Macon,GA: Mercer University Press, 1982.

McClendon, James Wm. Jr., and James M. Smith. Convictions:Defusing Religious Relativsm. rev. ed. ValleyForge: Trinity Press International, 1994.

McGrath, Alister. Evangelicalism and the Future ofChristianity. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1995.

________. The Mystery of the Cross. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1988.

McKelvey, Richard. The New Temple: The Church in the NewTestament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969.

Meeks, Wayne. The First Urban Christians. New Haven: YaleUniversity Press, 1983.

Metzger, Bruce M., ed. Historical and Literary Studies:Pagan, Jewish, and Christian. Leiden: Brill, 1980.

Migliore, Daniel L. Faith Seeking Understanding: AnIntroduction to Christian Theology. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1991.

Minear, Paul. Images of the Church in the New Testament.Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960.

Milbank, John. Theology and Social Theory: Beyond SecularReason. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990.

Moltmann, Jürgen. The Church in the Power of the Spirit: AContribution to Messianic Ecclesiology. Translatedby Margaret Kohl. London: SCM Press, 1977. Reprint,Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1993.


275

Moore, Stephen. Poststructuralism and the New Testament:Derrida and Foucault at the Foot of the Cross.Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994.

Morris, Leon. The Cross in the New Testament. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1965.

Mullins, E. Y. The Christian Religion in Its DoctrinalExpression. Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1917.Reprint, 1964.

Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. Paul: A Critical Life. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1997.

________. St. Paul’s Corinth: Texts and Archaeology.Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1983.

Newbigin, Lesslie. The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1989.

Niebuhr, H. Richard. Christ and Culture. New York: Harper,1951.

Nock, Arthur Darby. Conversion: The Old and New in Religionfrom Alexander the Great to Augustine of Hippo.London: Oxford University Press, 1933.

O’Brien, P. T. Gospel and Mission in the Writings of Paul:An Exegetical and Theological Analysis. GrandRapids: Baker Books, 1995.

Oden, Thomas C. Life in the Spirit: Systematic Theology,Volume Three. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998.

________. The Word of Life: Systematic Theology, Volume Two.Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998.

Osborne, Grant. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A ComprehensiveIntroduction to Biblical Interpretation. DownersGrove: InterVarsity, 1991.

Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Systematic Theology: Volume 3.Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1998.


276

Peterson, Brian K. Eloquence and the Proclamation of theGospel in Corinth. Society of Biblical LiteratureDissertation Series, 163. Chico, CA: ScholarsPress, 1998.

Pinnock, Clark. Tracking the Maze: Finding Our Way ThroughModern Theology from an Evangelical Perspective.San Francisco: Harper, 1990.

Piper, John. The Justification of God: An Exegetical andTheological Study of Romans 9:1–23. Grand Rapids:Baker, 1992.

Plantinga, Alvin. Warrant and Proper Function. New York:Oxford University Press, 1993.

________. Warrant: The Current Debate. New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 1993.

Pogoloff, Stephen M. Logos and Sophia: The RhetoricalSituation of 1 Corinthians. Society for BiblicalLiterature Dissertation Series, 134. Atlanta:Scholars Press, 1992.

Polhill, John B. Paul and His Letters. Nashville: Broadmanand Holman, 1999.

Ramm, Bernard. Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1971.

________. The Witness of the Spirit: An Essay on theContemporary Relevance of the Internal Witness ofthe Holy Spirit. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959.

Ramsay, William M. St. Paul the Traveller and the RomanCitizen. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1949.

Richardson, Peter. Israel in the Apostolic Church.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.

Ridderbos, Herman. Paul and Jesus. Translated by David H.Freeman. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and ReformedPublishing Company, 1957.

________. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Translated byJohn R. de Witt. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans,1975.


277

________. Studies in Scripture and Its Authority. St.Catherines, Ontario: Paideia, 1978.

Riesner, Rainer. Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, MissionStrategy, Theology. Translated by Doug Stott. GrandRapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1998.

Ropes, James H. The Singular Problem of the Epistle to theGalatians. Harvard Theological Studies, 14.Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929.

Rosner, Brian S., ed. Understanding Paul’s Ethics:Twentieth-Century Approaches. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1995.

Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison ofPatterns of Religion. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,1977.

________. Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People.Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.

Sanders, J. T. The Jews in Luke-Acts. Philadelphia: FortressPress, 1987.

Schlatter, Adolf. The Church in the New Testament Period.Translated by Paul P. Levertoff. London: SPCK,1955.

________. The Theology of the Apostles: The Development ofNew Testament Theology. Translated by A. J.Köstenberger. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998.

Schmithals, Walter. The Office of the Apostle in the EarlyChurch. Translated by John Steely. Nashville:Abingdon, 1969.

________. Paul and the Gnostics. Translated by John E.Steely. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1972.

________. The Theology of the First Christians. Translatedby O. C. Dean, Jr. Louisville: Westminster JohnKnox Press, 1997.

Schneiders, S. M. The Revelatory Text: Interpreting the NewTestament as Sacred Scripture. San Francisco:Harper, 1991.


278

Schniedewind, William M. The Word of God in Transition: FromProphet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period.Journal for the Study of the Old TestamentSupplement 197. Sheffield: Sheffield AcademicPress, 1995.

Schweizer, Eduard. The Church as the Body of Christ.Richmond: John Knox, 1964.

Sheeley, Steven M. Narrative Asides in Luke-Acts. Journalfor the Study of the New Testament, SupplementSeries 72. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,1992.

Shurden, Walter B. The Doctrine of the Priesthood ofBelievers. Nashville: Convention Press, 1987.

Simmons, William A. A Theology of Inclusion in Jesus andPaul: The God of Outcasts and Sinners. Lewiston,NY: Mellen Biblical Press, 1996.

Smith, Abraham. Comfort One Another: Reconstructing theRhetoric and Audience of 1 Thessalonians. LiteraryCurrents in Biblical Interpretation. Louisville:Westminster / John Knox, 1995.

Snyder, Howard A. The Community of the King. Downers Grove:InterVarsity, 1977.

Stagg, Frank. New Testament Theology. Nashville: Broadman,1962.

Stendahl, Krister. Paul Among Jews and Gentiles and OtherEssays. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976.

Strecker, Georg. Theology of the New Testament. Translatedby M. Eugene Boring. New York: Walter de Bruyter,2000.

Stuhlmacher, Peter. Vom Verstehen des Neuen Testaments: EineHermeneutik. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht,1986.

Theissen, Gerd. Psychological Aspects of Pauline Theology.Translated by John P. Galvin. Philadelphia:Fortress Press, 1987.


279

________. Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity.Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress,1978.

Thiselton, Anthony. New Horizons in Hermeneutics. GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Tracy, David. Blessed Rage for Order: The New Pluralism inTheology. New York: Seabury Press, 1975. Reprint,Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.

________. Plurality and Ambiguity: Hermeneutics, Religion,Hope. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1987.

Trites, Allison A. The New Testament Concept of Witness.Cambridge: University Press, 1979.

Unger, Merrill. The Baptism and Gifts of the Holy Spirit.Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Van Til, Cornelius. The God of Hope. Phillipsburg, NJ:Presbyterian and Reformed, 1978.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Is There a Meaning in This Text? TheBible, the Reader, and the Morality of LiteraryKnowledge. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.

Von Rad, Gerhard. The Theology of Israel’s PropheticTradition. Vol. 2, Old Testament Theology.Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. New York: Harperand Row, 1965.

Webber, Robert E. The Church in the World. Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1986.

Weil, Simone. Waiting for God. Translated by Emma Craufurd.New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1951.

Weima, Jeffrey A. D. Neglected Endings: The Significance ofthe Pauline Letter Closings. Journal for the Studyof the New Testament Supplement Series, 101.Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994.

Westerholm, Stephen. Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith:Paul and His Recent Interpreters. Grand Rapids:William B. Eerdmans, 1988.


280

Wolterstorff, Nicholas. Divine Discourse: PhilosophicalReflections on the Claim That God Speaks.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Wright, N. T. The New Testament and the People of God. Vol.1, Christian Origins and the Question of God.Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.

Yamauchi, Edwin. Pre-Christian Gnosticism. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1973.

Essays / Articles

Alexander, Loveday. “Paul and the Hellenistic Schools: TheEvidence of Galen.” In Paul in his HellenisticContext, ed. Troels Engberg-Pederson, 60-83.Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1995.

Allan, J. A. “The ‘In Christ’ Formula in Ephesians.” NewTestament Studies 5 (1958-1959): 54-62.

Anderson, C. “Rethinking ‘Be Filled with the Spirit.’Ephesians 5:18 and the Purpose of Ephesians.”Evangelical Journal 7 (1989): 57-67.

Anselm, Helmut. “Virtuelle Ethikgemeinschaften undWerterziehung heute.” Zeitschrift für EvangelischeEthik 41 (1997): 129-36.

Barclay, John M. G. “Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter:Galatians as a Test Case.” Journal for the Study ofthe New Testament 31 (1988): 73–93.

Barnett, Paul W. “Wives and Women’s Ministry (1 Timothy2:11–15).” Evangelical Quarterly 61 (1989): 225–37.

Barrett, C. K. “Paul’s Speech on the Areopagus.” In NewTestament Christianity for Africa and the World:Essays in Honour of Harry Sawyer, eds. MarkGlasswell and E. W. Fasholé-Luke, 69-77. London:SPCK, 1974.

Bartholomew, Craig G. “Babel and Derrida: Postmodernism,Language, and Biblical Interpretation.” TyndaleBulletin 49 (November 1998): 305-328.


281

Beasley-Murray, George R. “Romans 1:3f: An Early Confessionof Faith in the Lordship of Jesus.” TyndaleBulletin 31 (1980): 147-154.

Beker, J. Christian. “Paul the Theologian: Major Motifs inPauline Theology.” Interpretation 43 (1989):352–65.

________. “Paul’s Theology: Consistent or Inconsistent?” NewTestament Studies 34 (1988): 364–77

Black, David Alan. “Paul and Christian Unity: A FormalAnalysis of Philippians 2:1-4.” Journal of theEvangelical Theological Society 28 (September1985): 299-308.

Blasi, Anthony. “Sociology of Early Christianity -- By Wayof Introduction.” Sociology of Religion 58 (1997):299-303.

Bloesch, Donald. “The Sword of the Spirit: The Meaning ofInspiration.” Themelios (May 1980): 1-18.

Blomberg, Craig. “The Christian and the Law of Moses.” InWitness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts, eds.I. Howard Marshall and David Peterson, 397-416.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

Blount, Douglas K. “Apologetics and the Ordinances of theChurch,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 43(Spring 2001): 68-83.

Blue, Brad. “The Influence of Jewish Worship on Luke’sPresentation of the Early Church.” In Witness tothe Gospel: The Theology of Acts, eds. I. HowardMarshall and David Peterson, 473-97. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1998.

Boeve, Lieven. “Christus Postmodernus: An Attempt atApophatic Christology.” In The Myriad Christ:Plurality and the Quest for Unity in ContemporaryChristology, eds. T. Merrigan and J. Haers, 577-93.Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000.

Bolt, Peter G. “Mission and Witness.” In Witness to theGospel: The Theology of Acts, eds. I. HowardMarshall and David Peterson, 191-214. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1998.


282

Boring, M. Eugene. “The Language of Universal Salvation inPaul.” Journal of Biblical Literature 105 (June1986): 269-292.

Boyer, James L. “A Classification of Imperatives: AStatistical Study.” Grace Theological Journal 8(Spring 1987): 35-54.

Bregman, L. “Baptism as Death and Birth: A PsychologicalInterpretation of Its Imagery.” Journal of RitualStudies 1:27-42.

Brown, Raymond E. “Diverse Views of the Spirit in the NewTestament.” Worship 57 (1983): 216-229.

________. “The Paraclete in the Fourth Gospel.” NewTestament Studies 13 (1966-1967): 113-32.

Bruce, F. F. “Colossian Problems: Part 4, Christ asConqueror and Reconciler,” Bibliotheca Sacra 141(October 1984): 291-302.

Carson, D. A. “Pauline Inconsistency: Reflections on 1Corinthians 9.19-23 and Galatians 2.11-14.”Churchman 100 (1986): 6-45.

Clark, David K. “Narrative Theology and Apologetics.”Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36(December 1993): 499-515.

Clowney, Edmund P. “Interpreting the Biblical Models of theChurch: A Hermeneutical Deepening of Ecclesiology.”In Biblical Interpretation and the Church: Text andContext, ed. D. A. Carson, 64-109. Exeter:Paternoster Press, 1984.

________. “The Biblical Theology of the Church.” In TheChurch in the Bible and the World: An InternationalStudy, ed. D. A. Carson, 13-87. Grand Rapids:Baker, 1987.

Conzelmann, Hans. “The Address of Paul on the Areopagus.” InStudies in Luke-Acts, eds. L. E. Keck and J. L.Martyn, 217-32. London: SPCK, 1968. Reprint, 1976.

________. “Paulus und die Weisheit.” New Testament Studies12 (1966): 231-244.


283

Copeland, E. Luther. “Christian Theology and WorldReligions.” Review and Expositor 94 (1997): 423-35.

Dahl, Nils Alstrup. “The Particularity of the PaulineEpistles as a Problem in the Ancient Church.” InNeotestamentica et Patristica: Freundesgabe OscarCullmann, 261-271. Novum Testamentum Supplement, 6.Leiden: Brill, 1965.

Davies, J. G. “The Primary Meaning of paravklhto~.” Journal ofTheological Studies 4 (1953): 35-38.

De Silva, David A. “Paul’s Sermon in Antioch of Pisidia.”Bibliotheca Sacra 151 (January-March 1994): 32-49.

Easley, Kendall. “The Pauline Usage of Pneumati as aReference to the Spirit of God.” Journal of theEvangelical Theological Society 27 (September1984): 299-313.

Eberts, Harry Jr. “Plurality and Ethnicity in EarlyChristian Mission.” Sociology of Religion 58(1997): 305-21.

Ellis, E. Earle. “Paul and His Co-workers.” New TestamentStudies 17 (1971): 437-452.

________. “‘Spiritual’ Gifts in the Pauline Community.” NewTestament Studies 20 (1974): 128-144.

Evans, Craig A. “‘Preacher’ and ‘Preaching’: Some LexicalObservations.” Journal of the EvangelicalTheological Society 24 (December 1981): 315-22.

Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schüssler. “The Ethics of BiblicalInterpretation: Decentering Biblical Scholarship.”Journal of Biblical Literature 107 (1988): 3-17.

Fiorenza, F. S. “The Crisis of Hermeneutics and ChristianTheology.” In Theology at the End of Modernity, ed.S. G. Davaney, 128-36. Philadelphia: Trinity Press,1991.

Frame, John. “Christianity and Contemporary Epistemology.”Westminster Journal of Theology 52 (Spring 1990):131-51.


284

________. “In Defense of Something Close to Biblicism:Reflections on Sola Scriptura and History inTheological Method.” Westminster TheologicalJournal 59 (Fall 1997): 269-91.

________. “The Spirit and the Scriptures.” In Hermeneutics,Authority, and Canon, eds. D. A. Carson and John D.Woodbridge, 217-35. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986.

Fuller, Daniel P. “The Holy Spirit’s Role in BiblicalInterpretation.” In Scripture, Tradition, andInterpretation, eds. W. Ward Gasque and WilliamSanford LaSor, 187-201. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1978.

Fung, Ronald Y. K. “Some Pauline Pictures of the Church.”Evangelical Quarterly 53 (1981): 83-107.

Gasque, W. Ward. “Images of Paul in the History of BiblicalInterpretation.” Crux 16 (1980): 1-12.

Gordon, T. David. “The Problem at Galatia.” Interpretation41 (1987): 32-43.

Grayston, K. “The Meaning of PARAKLETOS.” Journal for theStudy of the New Testament 13 (1981): 67-82.

Grube, Dirk-Martin. “Realism, Foundationalism, andConstructivism: A Philosopher’s Bermuda Triangle,”Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie undReligions-philosophie 40 (1998): 101-118.

Harrison, Everett F. “Some Patterns of the New TestamentDidache.” Bibliotheca Sacra 119 (April 1962): 118-128.

Hartt, Julian N. “Theological Investments in Story: SomeComments on Recent Developments and SomeProposals.” Journal of the American Academy ofReligion 52 (1984): 116-29.

Hay, David M. “Pistis as ‘Ground for Faith’ in HellenizedJudaism and Paul.” Journal of Biblical Literature108 (1989): 461-76.

House, H. Wayne. “The Christian Life According toColossians,” Bibliotheca Sacra 151 (October 1994):440-54.


285

Howell, Don Jr. “The Center of Pauline Theology.”Bibliotheca Sacra 151 (January 1994): 50-70.

Hoyt, Herman A. “A Genuine Christian Non-Conformity: Romans12:2,” Grace Journal 8 (Winter 1967): 3-9.

Hübner, Hans. “Pauli Theologiae Proprium,” New TestamentStudies 26 (1980): 445–73.

Hurtado, L. W. “Jesus as Lordly Example in Philippians 2:5-11.” In From Jesus to Paul: Studies in Honour ofFrancis Wright Beare, eds. P. Richardson and J. C.Hurd Jr., 113-26. Waterloo: Wilfried LaurierUniversity Press, 1983.

Ingraffia, Brian. “Deconstructing the Tower of Babel:Ontotheology and the Postmodern Bible.” In RenewingBiblical Interpretation, eds. C. Bartholomew, C.Greene, and K. Möller, 284-306. Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 2000.

Jackayya, B. H. “ALHQEIA in the Johannine Corpus.”Concordia Theological Monthly 41 (March 1970): 171-75.

Jervell, Jacob. “The Church of Jews and Godfearers.” InLuke-Acts and the Jewish People: Eight CriticalPerspectives, ed. J. B. Tyson, 11-20, 383-404.Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988.

Judge, Edwin A. “The Early Christians as a ScholasticCommunity,” Journal of Religious History 1 (1960):4-19.

Keck, Leander E. “Images of Paul in the New Testament.”Interpretation 43 (1989): 341–51.

King, Daniel H. “Paul and the Tannaim: A Study inGalatians.” Westminster Theological Journal 45(1983): 349-61.

Klooster, Fred H. “The Role of the Holy Spirit in theHermeneutic Process: The Relationship of theSpirit’s Illumination to Biblical Interpretation.”In Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible, eds.Earl D. Radmacher and Robert D. Preus, 451-472.Grand Rapdids: Zondervan, 1984.


286

Köstenberger, Andreas. “What Does It Mean to Be Filled withthe Spirit? A Biblical Investigation.” Journal ofthe Evangelical Theological Society 40 (June 1997):229-40.

Kroeger, Catherine. “The Apostle Paul and the Greco-RomanCults of Women.” Journal of the EvangelicalTheological Society 30 (March 1987): 25-38.

Külling, Heinz. “Zur Bedeutung des AGNOSTOS THEOS. EineExegese zu Apostelgeschichte 17, 22.23.”Theologische Zeitschrift 36 (1980): 65-83.

Lampe, Peter, and Ulrich Luz, “Post-Pauline Christianity andPagan Society.” In Christian Beginnings: Word andCommunity from Jesus to Post-Apostolic Times, ed.Jürgen Becker, 242-80. Louisville: Westminster /John Knox, 1993.

Lash, Nicholas. “What Might Martyrdom Mean?” Ex Auditu 1(1985): 14-24.

Lincoln, Andrew. “The Church and Israel in Ephesians 2.”Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49 (October 1987): 605-24.

Lindbeck, George. “Scripture, Consensus, and Community.”This World 23 (1988): 11-19.

Lindsay, Dennis R. “What Is Truth? jAlhvqeia in the Gospel ofJohn,” Restoration Quarterly 35 (1993): 129-45.

Lints, Richard. “The Vinyl Narratives: The Metanarrative ofPostmodernity and the Recovery of a ChurchlyTheology.” In A Confessing Theology for PostmodernTimes, ed. Michael Horton, 91-110. Wheaton, IL:Crossway Books, 2000.

Loader, W. R. G. “Christ at the Right Hand: Psalm CX.i inthe N. T.” New Testament Studies 24 (1977-1978):199-217.

Lohse, Eduard. “Emuna und Pistis.” Zeischrift für dieneutestamentliche Wissenschaft 68 (1977): 147-63.


287

Louthan, Stephen. “On Religion –– A Discussion with RichardRorty, Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff.”Christian Scholar’s Review 26 (1996): 178-89.

Luter, A. Boyd, Jr. “Discipleship and the Church.”Bibliotheca Sacra 137 (July-September 1980): 267-273.

Manson, T. W. “St. Paul in Greece: The Letters to theThessalonians.” Bulletin of the John RylandsLibrary 35 (1952): 428-447.

Marshall, I. Howard. “Culture and the New Testament.” InGospel and Culture: The Papers of a Consultation onthe Gospel and Culture, Convened by the LausanneCommittee’s Theology and Education Group, eds. JohnStott and Robert T. Coote, 21-48. Pasadena, CA:William Carey Library, 1979.

________. “Palestinian and Hellenistic Christianity: SomeCritical Comments.” New Testament Studies 19 (1972-1973): 271-287.

Martyn, J. Louis. “A Law-Observant Mission to Gentiles: TheBackground of Galatians.” Scottish Journal ofTheology 38 (1985): 307–24.

McGrath, Alister. “The Challenge of Pluralism for theContemporary Church.” Journal of the EvangelicalTheological Society 35 (September 1992): 361-73.

________. “The Christian Church’s Response to Pluralism.”Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 35(December 1992): 487-501.

________. “Doctrine and Ethics.” Journal of the EvangelicalTheological Society 34 (June 1991): 145-56.

McKelvey, R. J. “Christ the Cornerstone.” New TestamentStudies 8 (1962): 352-59.

Mercer, Calvin. “Jesus the Apostle: ‘Sending’ and theTheology of John.” Journal of the EvangelicalTheological Society 35 (December 1992): 457-62.


288

Metzger, Bruce M. “Methodology in the Study of the MysteryReligions and Early Christianity.” In Historicaland Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish, and Christian,ed. Bruce M. Metzger, 1-24. Leiden: Brill, 1980.

Mickelsen, Alvera. “There Is Neither Male nor Female inChrist.” In Women in Ministry: Four Views, eds. B.Clouse and R. Clouse, 177-207. Downers Grove:InterVarsity, 1989.

Moody, Dale. “Baptism in Theology and Practice.” In ThePeople of God: Essays on the Believers’ Church,eds. Paul A. Basden and David S. Dockery, 41-50.Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1998.

Moxnes, Halvor. “The Quest for Honor and Unity of theCommunity in Romans 12 and in the Orations of DioChrysostom.” In Paul in His Hellenistic Context,ed. Troels Engberg-Pedersen, 203-30. Minneapolis:Augsburg Fortress Press, 1995.

Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. “Christological Anthropology inPhil. II,6-11.” Revue biblique 83 (1976): 25-50.

Newman, Carey C. “Images of the Church in Acts.” In ThePeople of God: Essays on the Believers’ Church,eds. Paul A. Basden and David S. Dockery, 135-147.Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1998.

O’Brien, P. T. “The Church as a Heavenly and EschatologicalEntity.” In The Church in the Bible and the World:An International Study, ed. D. A. Carson, 88-119.Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1987.

Osborne, Grant. “Preaching the Gospels: Methodology andContextualization.” Journal of the EvangelicalTheological Society 27 (March 1984): 27-42.

Ortland, Raymond. ““A Biblical Philosophy of Ministry --Part I: Priorities for the Local Church.”Bibliotheca Sacra 138 (January 1981): 3-12.

Packer, J. I. “Infallible Scripture and the Role ofHermeneutics.” In Scripture and Truth, eds. D. A.Carson and John D. Woodbridge, 325-56. GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1983. Reprint, Grand Rapids:Baker, 1992.


289

Pinnock, Clark H. “The Role of the Spirit inInterpretation.” Journal of the EvangelicalTheological Society 36 (December 1993): 491-497.

Plevnik, Joseph. “The Center of Pauline Theology.” CatholicBiblical Quarterly 51 (1989): 461–76.

Quesnel, Michel. “Paul prédicateur dans les Actes desApôtres.” New Testament Studies 47 (October 2001):469-81.

Rajak, Tessa. “The Location of Cultures in Second TemplePalestine.” In The Book of Acts in Its PalestinianSetting, ed. Richard Bauckham, 1-14. Vol. 4, TheBook of Acts in Its First Century Setting. GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

Reicke, Bo. “Positive and Negative Aspects of the World inthe New Testament.” Westminster Theological Journal49 (Fall 1987): 351-69.

Russell, Walt. “The Holy Spirit’s Ministry in the FourthGospel.” Grace Theological Journal 8 (Fall 1987):227-39.

Saucy, Mark. “Miracles and Jesus’ Proclamation of theKingdom of God.” Bibliotheca Sacra 153 (July 1996):281-307.

Sawyer, M. James. “Evangelicals and the Canon of the NewTestament.” Grace Theological Journal 11 (Spring1990): 29-52.

Schaeffer, Francis. “He Is There and He Is Not Silent --Part III: Man’s Epistemological Problem.”Bibliotheca Sacra 128 (October 1971): 300-15.

Schmithals, Walter. “Judaisten in Galatien?” Zeitschrift fürdie Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 74 (1983):27–58.

Schnabel, Eckhard J. “How Paul Developed His Ethics.” InUnderstanding Paul’s Ethics: Twentieth CenturyApproaches, ed. Brian Rosner, 267-300. GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1995.


290

Schnackenburg, Rudolph. “Christus, Geist, und Gemeinde (Eph4:1-16).” In Christ and Spirit in the NewTestament, eds. B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley, 279-296. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973.

Schnelle, Udo. “Transformation und Partizipation inpaulinischer Theologie.” New Testament Studies 47(January 2001): 58-75.

Schrage, Wolfgang. “The Formal Ethical Interpretation ofPauline Paraenesis.” In Understanding Paul’sEthics: Twentieth Century Approaches, ed. BrianRosner, 301-335. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

Sloan, Robert B. “Images of the Church in Paul.” In ThePeople of God: Essays on the Believers’ Church,eds. Paul A. Basden and David S. Dockery, 148-167.Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1998.

Stanley, D. M. “Become Imitators of Me: The PaulineConception of Apostolic Tradition.” Biblica 40(1958): 859-77.

Stein, Robert. “An Early Recension of the GospelTraditions?” Journal of the Evangelical TheologicalSociety 30 (June 1987): 167-83.

Stuhlmacher, Peter. “Der Abfassungszweck des Römerbriefes.”Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft77 (1986): 180–93.

Saucy, Mark. “Miracles and Jesus’ Proclamation of theKingdom of God.” Bibliotheca Sacra 153 (July 1996):281-307.

Thatcher, Tom. “The Plot of Galatians 3:1-18.” Journal ofthe Evangelical Theological Society 40 (September1997): 401-410.

________. “The Relational Matrix of the Pastoral Epistles.”Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38(March 1995) 41-45.

Theissen, Gerd. “Legitimation und Lebensunterhalt. EinBeitrag zur Soziologie urchristlicher Missionare.”New Testament Studies 21 (1975): 192-221.


291

Thrall, Margaret E. “The Problem of 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1 in SomeRecent Discussion.” New Testament Studies 24 (1977-78): 132-48.

Thurston, R. W. “The Relationship Between the ThessalonianEpistles.” Expository Times 85 (1973): 51-57.

Tracy, David. “Christianity in the Wider Context: Demandsand Transformations.” In Worldviews and Warrants:Plurality and Authority in Theology, eds. WilliamSchweiker and P. M. Anderson, 1-16. New York:University Press of America, 1987.

Turner, Max. “The ‘Spirit of Prophecy’ as the Power ofIsrael’s Restoration and Witness.” In Witness tothe Gospel: The Theology of Acts, eds. I. HowardMarshall and David Peterson, 327-48. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1998.

Vanhoye, A. “Pivsti~ Cristou`: fede in Cristo o affidabilita diCristo?” Biblica 80 (1999): 1-21.

Walsh, Brian. “Reimaging Biblical Authority.” ChristianScholar’s Review 26 (1996): 206-20.

Warren, Timothy S. “A Paradigm for Preaching.” BibliothecaSacra 148 (October–December 1991): 463–86.

Westerholm, Stephen. “Letter and Spirit: The Foundation ofPauline Ethics.” New Testament Studies 30 (1984):229-248.

Winger, Michael. “Unreal Conditions in the Letters of Paul.”Journal of Biblical Literature 105 (1986): 110-12.

Winter, Bruce W. “On Introducing Gods to Athens: AnAlternative Reading of Acts 17:18-20.” TyndaleBulletin 47 (1996): 71-90.

Wright, N. T. “The Paul of History and the Apostle ofFaith.” Tyndale Bulletin 29 (1978): 61–88.

Wuest, Kenneth. “The Holy Spirit in Greek Exposition.”Bibliotheca Sacra 118 (July 1961): 216-27.


292

Yarbrough, Robert W. “Variation on a Theme: History’s NthGreat Hermeneutical Crisis.” Journal of theEvangelical Theological Society 39 (September1996): 443-455.

Zeller, D. “Theologie der Mission bei Paulus.” In Mission imNeuen Testament, ed. K. Kertelge, 164-89. Freiburg:Herder and Herder, 1982.

Zemeck, George J. “Awesome Analogies: Kathos Constructs inthe NT.” Journal of the Evangelical TheologicalSociety 38 (September 1995): 337-348.

Postmodern Studies

Primary Sources

Bakhtin, Mikhail. The Dialogic Imagination. Edited byMichael Holquist. Translated by Cary Emerson andMichael Holquist. Austin: University of TexasPress, 1981.

Barthes, Roland. The Rustle of Language. Translated byRichard Howard. New York: Hill and Wang, 1986.

Baudrillard, Jean. Forget Foucault. Translated NicolaDufresne. New York: Semiotext(e), 1987.

________. The Illusion of the End. Translated by ChrisTurner. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994.

________. In the Shadow of the Silent Majorities...or theEnd of the Social and Other Essays. Translated byPaul Foss, Paul Patton, and Philip Bleitchman. NewYork: Semiotext(e), 1983.

________. The Mirror of Production. Translated by MarkPoster. St. Louis: Telos Press, 1975.

________. The Transparency of Evil: Essays on ExtremePhenomena. Translated by James Benedict. New York:Verso, 1993.

________. Simulacra and Simulation. Translated by SheilaFaria Glaser. Ann Arbor, MI: University of MichiganPress, 1994.


293

Bauman, Zygmunt. Intimations of Postmodernity. London:Routledge, 1992.

________. Life in Fragments: Essays in PostmodernMoralities. Oxford: Blackwell, 1995.

________. Modernity and the Holocaust. London: Routledge,1989.

________. Postmodern Ethics. Oxford: Blackwell, 1993.

________. “What Prospects of Morality in Times ofUncertainty?” Theory, Culture, and Society 15(February 1998): 11-18.

Bertens, Johannes Willem. The Idea of the Postmodern: AHistory. London: Routledge, 1994.

Culler, Jonathan. On Deconstruction: Theory and CriticismAfter Structuralism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UniversityPress, 1982.

________. The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature,Deconstruction. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UniversityPress, 1981.

________. Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics,and the Study of Literature. Ithaca, NY: CornellUniversity Press, 1975.

Derrida, Jacques. De L’hospitalité. Paris: Calmann-Lévy,1997.

________. “Des Tours de Babel.” Semeia 54 (1992): 3-34.

________. Dissemination. Translated by Barbara Johnson.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981.

________. “Foi et savoir -- Les deux sources de la‘religion’ aux limites de la simple raison.” In LaReligion, eds. Jacques Derrida and Gianni Vattimo,9-86. Paris: Seuil, 1996.

________. Limited Inc. Evanston, IL: Northwestern UniversityPress, 1988.


294

________. Margins of Philosophy. Translated by Alan Bass.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982.

________. Of Grammatology. rev. ed. Translated by GayatriChakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: Johns HopkinsUniversity Press, 1997.

________. Of Spirit: Heidegger and the Question. Translatedby Geoffrey Bennington and Rachel Bowlby. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1989.

________. Positions. Translated by Alan Bass. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1981.

________. Speech and Phenomenon: And Other Essays onHusserl’s Theory of Signs. Translated by David B.Allison and Newton Garver. Evanston, IL:Northwestern University Press, 1973.

________. “To Forgive the Unforgivable and theImprescriptible.” In Questioning God, eds. JohnCaputo, Mark Dooley, and J. Scanlon, 21-51.Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2001.

________. Writing and Difference. Translated by Alan Bass.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978.

Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory. Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press, 1983.

Eco, Umberto. Postscript to “The Name of the Rose.” NewYork: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1984.

________. Serendipities. Translated by W. Weaver. San Diego:Harcourt Brace, 1998.

Ferre, Frederick. Knowing and Value: Toward a ConstructivePostmodern Epistemology. Albany: State Universityof New York Press, 1998.

________. Shaping the Future: Resources for the Post-ModernWorld. New York: Harper and Row, 1976.

Fish, Stanley. Is There a Text in This Class? Cambridge:Harvard University Press, 1980.


295

________. There Is No Such Thing as Free Speech and It’s aGood Thing, Too. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1994.

Foucault, Michel. Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourseon Language. Translated by A. M. Sheridan Smith.London: Tavistock Press, 1972.

________. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison.Translated by Alan Sheridan. New York: VintageBooks, 1977.

________. The Foucault Reader. Edited by Paul Rabinow. NewYork: Pantheon Books, 1984.

________. Language, Counter-Memory, and Practice: SelectedEssays and Interviews. Translated by Donald F.Bouchard and Sherry Simon. Ithaca, NY: CornellUniversity Press, 1977.

________. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the HumanSciences. New York: Pantheon Books, 1971.

________. Power / Knowledge: Selected Interviews and OtherWritings 1972-1977. Edited by Colin Gordon.Translated by Colin Gordon, Leo Marshall, JohnMepham, and Kate Soper. New York: Pantheon, 1980.

Habermas, Jürgen. Communication and the Evolution ofSociety. Translated by Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press, 1979.

________. The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: TwelveLectures. Translated by Frederick G. Lawrence.Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1987.

Hassan, Ihab. The Dismemberment of Orpheus: Toward aPostmodern Literature. New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 1971.

________. The Right Promethean Fire: Imagination: Scienceand Cultural Change. Urban, IL: University ofIllinois Press, 1987.

________. The Postmodern Turn: Essays in Postmodern Theoryand Culture. Columbus: Ohio State University Press,1987.


296

Jameson, Fredric. The Cultural Turn: Selected Writings onthe Postmodern, 1983-1998. New York: Verso, 1997.

________. Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of LateCapitalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press,1991. Reprint, 1999.

________. The Seeds of Time. New York: Columbia UniversityPress, 1994.

Jencks, Charles. The Language of Post-Modern Architecture.4th ed. London: Academy Editions, 1984.

________, ed. The Post-Modern Reader. New York: St. Martin’sPress, 1992.

________, ed. What Is Post-Modernism? 3d ed. New York: St.Martin’s Press, 1989.

Levinas, Emmanuel. Alterity and Transcendence. Translated byMichael B. Smith. New York: Columbia UniversityPress, 1999.

________. Existence and Existents. Translated by AlphonsoLingis. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1978.

Lyotard, Jean-François. The Inhuman: Reflections on Time.Translated by Geoffrey Bennington and RachelBowlby. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press,1991.

________. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge.Translated by Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi.Vol 10. Theory and History of Literature.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984.

________. The Postmodern Explained: Correspondence, 1982-1985. Translated by Morgan Thomas. Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 1992.

________. Postmodern Fables. Translated by Georges Van DenAbbeele. Minneapolis: University of MinnesotaPress, 1999.

MacIntyre, Alasdair. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory.2d ed. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press,1984.


297

Neville, Robert C. The Highroad Around Modernism. Albany,NY: State University of New York Press, 1992.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to aPhilosophy of the Future. Translated by WalterKaufmann. New York: Random House, 1966. Reprint,1989.

________. The Birth of Tragedy and The Genealogy of Morals.Translated by F. Golffing. New York: Doubleday,1956.

________. Early Greek Philosophy and Other Essays.Translated by M. A. Müdge. Vol. 2. The CompleteWorks of Friedrich Nietzsche, ed. Oscar Levy. NewYork: Russell and Russell, 1964.

________. The Portable Nietzsche. Translated by WalterKaufmann. New York: Penguin Books, 1954.

________. Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for Everyone and NoOne. Translated by R. J. Hollingdale. New York:Penguin Books, 1961.

________. Will to Power. Translated by Walter Kaufmann andR. J. Hollingdale. New York: Vintage, 1968.

Norris, Christopher. Deconstruction: Theory and Practice.New York: Methuen, 1982.

________. What’s Wrong with Postmodernism: Critical Theoryand the Ends of Philosophy. Baltimore: JohnsHopkins University Press, 1990.

Rorty, Richard. Essays on Heidegger and Others:Philosophical Papers. Vol. 2. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1991.

________. Consequences of Pragmatism. Minneapolis, MN:University of Minnesota Press, 1982.

________. Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1989.

________. Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth: PhilosophicalPapers. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1991.


298

________. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979.

________. Truth and Progress: Philosophical Papers. Vol. 3.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Taylor, Mark C. Altarity. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1987.

________. Deconstructing Theology. New York: Crossroad,1982.

________. Disfiguring: Art, Architecture, Religion. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1992.

________. Erring: A Postmodern A/theology. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1984.

________, ed. Deconstruction in Context: Literature andPhilosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1986.

Ulmer, Gregory. Applied Gramatology: Post(e)-Pedagogy fromJacques Derrida to Joseph Beuys. Baltimore: JohnHopkins University Press, 1985.

Vattimo, Gianni. The End of Modernity: Nihilism andHermeneutics in Post-Modern Culture. London:Polity, 1988.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations, 3d ed.Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. New York:Macmillan, 1958.

Wyschogrod, Edith. Saints and Postmodernism: RevisioningMoral Philosophy. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1990.

Young, Robert, ed. Untying the Text: A Post-StructuralistReader. London: Routledge, 1981.

Secondary Sources: Books

Adam, Andrew K. What Is Postmodern Biblical Criticism?Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1995.


299

Allen, Diogenes. Christian Belief in a Postmodern World: TheFull Wealth of Conviction. Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox Press, 1989.

________. Quest: The Search for Meaning Through Christ. NewYork: Walker and Company, 1990.

Anderson, Walter Truett. Reality Isn’t What It Used to Be:Theatrical Politics, Ready-to-Wear Religion, GlobalMyths, Primitive Chic, and Other Wonders of thePostmodern World. San Francisco: Harper and Row,1990.

________. Winning the Value War. Minneapolis: Bethany House,1994.

________, ed. The Truth About the Truth: De-Confusing andRe-Constructing the Postmodern World. New York:Putnam Publishing Group, 1995.

Benne, Robert. The Paradoxical Vision. Minneapolis: AugsburgFortress, 1995.

Bennington, Geoffrey, and Jacques Derrida. Jacques Derrida.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993.

Berger, Peter. The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a SociologicalTheory of Religion. Garden City, NY: Doubleday,1967.

Bernstein, Richard J. Beyond Objectivism and Relativism:Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis. Oxford: BasilBlackwell, 1983.

Berry, Philippa, and Andrew Wernick, eds. Shadow of Spirit:Postmodernism and Religion. New York: Routledge,1992.

Best, Steven, and Douglas Kellner. Postmodern Theory:Critical Interrogations. New York: The GuilfordPress, 1991.

Bloom, Allan. The Closing of the American Mind. New York:Simon and Schuster, 1987.

Borgmann, Albert. Crossing the Postmodern Divide. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1992.


300

Braaten, Carl E., and Robert W. Jenson. Either, Or: TheGospel or Neopaganism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1995.

Brockelman, Paul. The Inside Story: A Narrative Approach toReligious Understanding and Truth. Albany: StateUniversity of NY Press, 1993.

Brueggemann, Walter. Texts Under Negotiation: The Bible andPostmodern Imagination. Minneapolis: AugsburgFortress Press, 1993.

Burnham, Frederick, ed. Postmodern Theology: Christian Faithin a Pluralist World. San Francisco: Harper andRow, 1989.

Cheney, Lynne V. Telling the Truth: Why Our Culture and OurCountry Have Stopped Making Sense and What We canDo. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995.

Connor, Steven. Postmodernist Culture: An Introduction toTheories of the Contemporary. 2d ed. Oxford:Blackwell, 1997.

Cox, Harvey. Religion in the Secular City: Toward aPostmodern Theology. New York: Simon and Schuster,1984.

Cox, Kristoffer K. GenX and God: A GenX Perspective. NewYork: Tekna Books, 1998.

Cupitt, Don. Creation Out of Nothing. London: SCMP, 1990.

Danto, Arthur C. Connections to the World: The BasicConcepts of Philosophy. New York: Harper and Row,1989.

Dockery, David S., ed. The Challenge of Postmodernism: AnEvangelical Engagement. Grand Rapids: Baker Books,1995.

Erickson, Millard J. Postmodernizing the Faith: EvangelicalResponses to the Challenge of Postmodernism. GrandRapids: Baker Books, 1998.

Fowler, James W. Faithful Change: The Personal and PublicChallenges of Postmodern Life. Nashville: AbingdonPress, 1996.


301

Geddes, Jennifer L., ed. Evil After Postmodernism:Histories, Narratives, and Ethics. New York:Routledge, 2001.

Gergen, Kenneth. The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity inContemporary Life. New York: Basic Books, 1991.

Gill, Jerry H. Faith in Dialogue: A Christian Apologetic.Waco, TX: Word Publishing Company, 1985.

________. Mediated Transcendence: A Postmodern Reflection.Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1989.

________. On Knowing God: New Directions for the Future ofTheology. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1981.

Grenz, Stanley. A Primer on Postmodernism. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1996.

Griffin, David Ray. God and Religion in the PostmodernWorld: Essays in Postmodern Theology. Albany: StateUniversity of New York Press, 1989.

________. Primordial Truth and Postmodern Theology. Albany,NY: State University of New York Press, 1989.

________, ed. Spirituality and Society: Postmodern Visions.Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988.

________, ed. Reenchantment of Science: PostmodernProposals. Albany: State University of New YorkPress, 1988.

________, William A. Beardslee, and Joe Holland. Varietiesof Postmodern Theology. Albany: State University ofNew York Press, 1989.

Groothuis, Douglas. Truth Decay: Defending ChristianityAgainst the Challenge of Postmodernism. DownersGrove: InterVarsity, 2000.

Habermas, Jürgen. The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity:Twelve Lectures. Translated by Frederick Lawrence.Cambridge: MIT Press, 1987.

Harvey, David. The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiryinto the Origins of Cultural Change. New York:Basil Blackwell, 1989.


302

Heidegger, Martin. Introduction to Metaphysics. Translatedby Ralph Manheim. New Haven: Yale University Press,1959.

Holstein, James A. and Jaber F. Gubrium. Self We Live By:Narrative Identity in a Postmodern World. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1999.

Horkheimer, Max, and Theodor W. Adorno. Dialectic ofEnlightenment. Translated by John Cumming. NewYork: Continuum, 1999.

Hunsberger, George and Craig Van Gelder, eds. Church:Between Gospel and Culture, The Emerging Mission inNorth America. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

Hutcheon, Linda. The Politics of Postmodernism. London:Routledge, 1989.

Ingraffia, Brian D. Postmodern Theory and Biblical Theology:Vanquishing God’s Shadow. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1995.

Jasper, David, ed. Postmodernism, Literature, and the Futureof Theology. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992.

Kaufmann, Walter. Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist,Antichrist. 4th ed. Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress, 1974.

Knight, Henry H. III. A Future for Truth: EvangelicalTheology in a Postmodern World. Nashville: AbingdonPress, 1997.

Kung, Hans. Global Responsibility: In Search of a New WorldEthic. New York: Crossroad, 1991.

Lakeland, Paul. Postmodernity: Christian Identity in aFragmented Age. Minneapolis: Augsburg FortressPress, 1997.

Landow, George P. Hypertext: The Convergence of ContemporaryCritical Theory and Technology. Baltimore, MD: JohnHopkins University Press, 1992.

Loy, David, ed. Healing Deconstruction: Postmodern Thoughtin Buddhism and Christianity. Atlanta: ScholarsPress, 1996.


303

Lundin, Roger. The Culture of Interpretation: ChristianFaith and the Postmodern World. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1993.

Madison, Gary Brent. The Hermeneutics of Postmodernity:Figures and Themes. Bloomington: Indiana UniversityPress, 1990.

McCallum, Dennis, ed. The Death of Truth. Minneapolis, MN:Bethany House Publishers, 1996.

McKnight, Edgar V. Postmodern Use of the Bible: TheEmergence of Reader-Oriented Criticism. Nashville:Abingdon Press, 1988.

McRobbie, Angela. Postmodernism and Popular Culture. London:Routledge, 1994.

Megill, Allan. Prophets of Extremity: Nietzsche, Heidegger,Foucault, Derrida. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1985.

Middleton, J. Richard, and Brian J. Walsh. Truth Is StrangerThan It Used to Be: Biblical Faith in a PostmodernAge. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1995.

Mode, Erwin. Fundamentaltheologie in postmoderner Zeit: Einanthropotheologischer Entwurf. Munchen: EditionPsychosymbolik, 1984.

Newbigin, Lesslie. The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1990.

Oden, Thomas C. After Modernity ... What? Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1990.

Ong, Walter. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of theWord. London: Routledge, 1982.

Pefanis, Julian. Heterology and the Postmodern: Bataille,Baudrillard and Lyotard. Durham, NC: DukeUniversity Press, 1991.

Peters, Ted. God –– The World’s Future: Systematic Theologyfor a Postmodern Era. Minneapolis: AugsburgFortress Press, 1994.


304

Phillips, Timothy R., and Dennis L. Okholm, eds. ChristianApologetics in the Postmodern World. Downers Grove,IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995.

Placher, Williams C. Unapologetic Theology: A ChristianVoice in a Pluralistic Conversation. Louisville,KY: Westminster / John Knox Press, 1989.

Rosenau, Pauline M. The Post-Modern and the Post-Industrial:A Critical Analysis. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1991.

Roxburgh, Alan J. Reaching a New Generation: Strategies forTomorrow’s Church. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsityPress, 1993.

Scharleman, Robert P. Theology at the End of the Century: ADialogue on the Postmodern with Thomas J. J.Altizer, Mark C. Taylor, Charles E. Winquist, andRobert P. Scharlemann. Charlottesville: UniversityPress of Virginia, 1990.

Smith, Huston. Beyond the Post-modern Mind. Wheaton, IL:Quest Books, 1982.

Southgate, Beverly. History, What and Why? Ancient, Modern,and Postmodern Perspectives. London: Routledge,1996.

Spretnak, Charlene. States of Grace: The Recovery of Meaningin a Postmodern Age. San Francisco: HarperCollins,1991.

Sweet, Leonard. Post-Modern Pilgrims: First Century Passionfor the 21st Century World. Nashville: Broadman andHolman, 2000.

________. SoulTsunami: Sink or Swim in New MillenniumCulture. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999.

Thiele, Leslie Paul. Friedrich Nietzsche and the Politics ofthe Soul: A Study of Heroic Individualism.Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990.

Thiselton, Anthony C. Interpreting God and the PostmodernSelf: On Meaning, Manipulation, and Promise. GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1996.


305

Tilley, Terrence W. Postmodern Theologies: The Challenge ofReligious Diversity. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books,1995.

Turner, Bryan S., ed. Theories of Modernity andPostmodernity. London: SAGE Publications, 1990.

Turner, James. Without God, Without Creed. Baltimore: JohnsHopkins University Press, 1985.

Veith, Gene Edward, Jr. Postmodern Times: A Christian Guideto Contemporary Thought and Culture. Wheaton, IL:Crossway Books, 1994.

Walsh, David. After Ideology: Recovering the SpiritualFoundations of Freedom. San Francisco:HarperCollins, 1990.

Webber, Robert. Ancient-Future Faith: RethinkingEvangelicalism for a Postmodern World. GrandRapids: Baker, 1999.

Wellmer, Albrecht. The Persistence of Modernity: Essays onAesthetics, Ethics, and Postmodernism. Translatedby David Midgley. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991.

Wells, David R. God in the Wasteland. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1994.

________. No Place for Truth. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

Westphal, Merold, ed. Postmodern Philosophy and ChristianThought. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press,1999.

Wilcox, John T. Truth and Value in Nietzsche: A Study of HisMetaethics and Epistemology. Ann Arbor: Universityof Michigan Press, 1974.

Winquist, Charles E. Desiring Theology: Religion andPostmodernism. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1995.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.Translated by D. F. Pears and B. F. McGuiness.London: Routlege, 1961.


306

Wright, Crispin. Truth and Objectivity. Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press, 1992.

Wright, N. T. The Millennium Myth: Hope for a PostmodernWorld. Louisville: Westminster / John Knox Press,1999.

Secondary Sources: Articles / Essays

Aeschliman, Gordon. “Generation X: Will the Church Be inTheir Future?” Prism (May 1994): 12-16.

Allen, Diogenes. “The End of the Modern World: A NewOpenness for Faith.” The Princeton SeminaryBulletin 11 (1990): 11-31.

Allen, Ronald. “As the Worldviews Turn: Six Key Issues forPreaching in a Postmodern Ethos.” Encounter 57(Winter 1996): 23-35.

Amaladoss, Michael. “Mission in a Post-Modern World: A Callto be Counter-Cultural.” Mission Studies 13 (1996):68-79.

Anderson, Leith. “The Church at History’s Hinge.”Bibliotheca Sacra (Jan-Mar 1994): 3-10.

________. “The Practice of Ministry in 21st-CenturyChurches.” Bibliotheca Sacra 151 (October 1994):387-92.

Bartholomew, Craig. “Babel and Derrida: Postmodernism,Language and Biblical Interpretation.” TyndaleBulletin 49 (November 1998): 305-28.

Beck-Gernsheim, Elisabath. “On the Way to a Post-FamilialFamily: From a Community of Need to ElectiveAffinities.” Theory, Culture, and Society 15(October 1998): 53-70.

Bell, Vikki. “Performativity and Belonging: AnIntroduction.” Theory, Culture, and Society 16(April 1999): 1-10.

Bennahmias, Richard. “Postmodernité, Pragmatism et ThéologieChrétienne Évangélique.” Revue D’Histoire et dePhilosophie Religieuses 78 (1998): 57-77.


307

Bevir, Mark. “The Errors of Linguistic Contextualization.”History and Theory 31 (October 1992): 276-298.

Bourdieu, Pierre and Loïc Wacquant. “On the Cunning ofImperialist Reason.” Theory, Culture, and Society16 (February 1999): 41-58.

Bria, Ion. “Postmodernism: An Emerging Mission Issue.”International Review of Mission 86 (October 1997):417-424.

Buckley, Don W. “The Southern Baptist Mind in the PostmodernEra.” Faith and Mission 13 (Spring 1996): 60-65.

Caputo, J. D. “The Good News About Alterity: Derrida andTheology.” Faith and Philosophy 10 (October 1993):453-465.

Cetina, Karin Knorr. “Sociality with Objects: SocialRelations in Postsocial Knowledge Societies.”Theory, Culture, and Society 14 (November 1997): 1-30.

Chantraine, Georges. “Beyond Modernity and Postmodernity:The Thought of Henri de Lubac.” Communio 17 (1990):207-219.

Connor, Frederick. “Man the (Un)Maker: An Exploration ofModernism and Postmodernism in Their CulturalRelations.” Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal65 (1982): 251-279.

Craig, William Lane. “Politically Incorrect Salvation.” InChristian Apologetics in the Postmodern World, eds.Timothy R. Phillips and Dennis L. Okholm, 75-97.Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1995.

Evans, Mary. “‘Falling in Love with Love Is Falling for MakeBelieve’: Ideologies of Romance in Post-Enlightenment Culture.” Theory, Culture, andSociety 15 (October 1998): 265-276.

Flynn, T. R. “Partially Desacralized Spaces: The ReligiousAvailability of Foucault’s Thought.” Faith andPhilosophy 10 (October 1993): 466-475.

Gatlin, Todd. “Postmodernism Defined at Last.” Utne Reader(July-August 1989): 52-61.


308

________. “The Postmodern Predicament.” The Wilson Quarterly13 (Summer 1989): 67-76.

Greenberg, Irving. “From Modernity to Post-Modernity:Community and the Revitalization of TraditionalReligion.” Religious Education 73 (1978): 449-469.

Grenz, Stanley. “Star Trek and the Next Generation:Postmodernism and the Future of EvangelicalTheology.” In The Challenge of Postmodernism: AnEvangelical Engagement, ed. David S. Dockery, 84-97. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995.

________. “Twentieth Century Theology: The Quest for Balancein a Transitional Age.” Perspectives (June 1993):10-13.

Guarino, Thomas. “Postmodernity and Five FundamentalTheological Issues.” Theological Studies 57(December 1996): 654-689.

Hollinger, Dennis. “The Church as Apologetic: A Sociology ofKnowledge Perspective.” In Christian Apologetics inthe Postmodern World, eds. Timothy R. Phillips andDennis L. Okholm, 182-93. Downers Grove:InterVarsity, 1995.

Johnson, Philip A. “Postmodernity, New Age, and theChristian Mission: Mars Hill Revisited.” LutheranTheological Journal 31 (December 1997): 115-124.

Jones, Ivor H. “Narrative Theology, Postmodernism, andHistory.” Epworth Review 23 (January 1996): 33-41.

Joy, Morny. “Derrida and Ricoeur: A Case of MistakenIdentity (and Difference).” Journal of Religion 68(October 1988): 508-26.

Kallenberg, Brad J. “Conversion Converted: A PostmodernFormulation of the Doctrine of Conversion.”Evangelical Quarterly 67 (October 1995): 335-364.

Kaufman, Gordon. “Evidentialism: A Theologian’s Response.”Faith and Philosophy 6 (1989): 35-46.


309

Kearney, Richard. “Others and Aliens: Between Good andEvil.” In Evil After Postmodernism: Histories,Narratives, and Ethics, ed. Jennifer L. Geddes,101-113. New York: Routledge, 2001.

Kee, James M. “‘Postmodern’ Thinking and the Status of theReligions.” Religion and Literature 22 (Summer-Autumn 1990), 35-51.

Kellner, Douglas. “Zygmunt Bauman’s Postmodern Turn.”Theory, Culture, and Society 15 (February 1998):73-85.

Kenneson, Philip D. “There’s No Such Thing as ObjectiveTruth and It’s a Good Thing Too.” In ChristianApologetics in a Postmodern World, ed. Timothy R.Phillips and Dennis L. Ockholm, 142-63. DownersGrove: InterVarsity, 1995.

Little, Bruce A. “Christian Education, Worldviews, andPostmodernity’s Challenge.” Journal of theEvangelical Society 40 (Summer 1997): 433-444.

Long, Burke O. “Ambitions of Dissent: Biblical Theology in aPostmodern Future.” Journal of Religion 76 (April1996): 276-289.

Lorenz, Chris. “Historical Knowledge and Historical Reality:A Plea for ‘Internal Realism’.” History and Theory33 (October 1994): 297-327.

Makarushka, Irena. “Nietzsche’s Critique of Modernity: TheEmergence of Hermeneutical Consciousness.” Semeia51 (1990): 191-212.

McCarthy, Thomas. “On Margins of Politics.” Journal ofPhilosophy 86 (1989): 645-58.

McGrath, Alister E. “The Challenge of Pluralism for theContemporary Church.” Journal of the EvangelicalTheological Society 35 (September 1992): 358-374.

________. “The Christian Church’s Response to Pluralism.”Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 35(December 1992): 487-501.

________. “Doctrine and Ethics.” Journal of the EvangelicalTheological Society 34 (June 1991): 145-56.


310

McKnight, Edgar V. “A Defense of a Postmodern Use of theBible.” In A Confessing Theology for PostmodernTimes, ed. Michael Horton, 83-97. Wheaton: CrosswayBooks, 2000.

McQuilkin, Robertson, and Bradford Mullen. “The Impact ofPostmodern Thinking on Evangelical Hermeneutics.”Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40(March 1997): 69-82.

Mohler, Albert Jr. “Evangelical Tradition.” In The Challengeof Postmodernism: An Evangelical Engagement, ed.David S. Dockery, 78-94. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995.

Noys, Benjamin. “Communicative Unreason: Bataille andHabermas.” Theory, Culture, and Society 14(February 1997): 59-76.

O’Neill, John. “Two Body Criticism: A Genealogy of thePostmodern Anti-Aesthetic.” History and Theory 33(February 1994): 61-78.

Palmer, Richard E. “Postmodern Hermeneutics and the Act ofReading.” Notre Dame English Journal 15 (Summer1983): 55-84.

Raschke, Carl. “The Deconstruction of God.” InDeconstruction and Theology, ed. Thomas A. Altizer,et al., 1-19. New York: Crossroad, 1982.

Reid, Robert Stephen. “Postmodernism and the Function of theNew Homiletic in Post-Christendom Congregations”Homiletic 20 (1995): 1-16.

Shaw, R. Daniel. “In Search of Post-modern Salvation.”Evangelical Review of Theology 22 (1998): 48-60.

Smith, Dennis. “Zygmunt Bauman: How to Be a SuccessfulOutsider.” Theory, Culture, and Society 15(February 1998): 39-46.

Sire, James W. “On Being a Fool for Christ and an Idiot forNobody: Logocentricity and Postmodernity.” InChristian Apologetics in the Postmodern World, eds.Timothy R. Phillips and Dennis L. Okholm, 101-27.Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1995.


311

Stiver, Dan. “Much Ado About Athens and Jerusalem: TheImplications of Postmodernism for Faith.” Reviewand Expositor 91 (1994): 83-102.

Van Engen, Charles. “Mission Theology in the Light ofPostmodern Critique.” International Review ofMission 86 (October 1997): 437-461.

Van Gelder, Craig. “Scholia: Postmodernism as an EmergingWorldview.” Calvin Theological Journal 26 (1991):412-17.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. “Mapping Evangelical Theology in a Post-Modern World.” Evangelical Review of Theology 22(January 1998): 5-27.

West, Cornel. “Nietzsche’s Prefiguration of PostmodernAmerican Philosophy.” In Why Nietzsche Now?, ed. D.T. O’Hara, 241-69. Bloomington, IN: IndianaUniversity Press, 1985.

Westphal, Merold. “Levinas and the Immediacy of Face.” Faithand Philosophy 10 (October 1993): 478-94.

New Testament Background and the Early Church

Books

Angus, S. The Religious Quests of the Graeco-Roman World.London: John Murray Publishing, 1929.

Aune, David E. The New Testament in Its LiteraryEnvironment. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987.

Armstrong, A. H., ed. The Cambridge History of Later Greekand Early Medieval Philosophy. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1968.

Barrett, C. K. The New Testament Background: Writings fromAncient Greece and the Roman Empire That IlluminateChristian Origins. Rev. ed. San Francisco:HarperCollins, 1987.

Bauckham, Richard. The Gospels for All Christians:Rethinking the Gospel Audiences. Grand Rapids:William B. Eerdmans, 1998.


312

Borgen, Peder. Early Christianity and Hellenistic Judaism.Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1996.

Brown, Peter. Authority and the Sacred: Aspects of theChristianisation of the Roman World. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Brox, Norbert. A History of the Early Church. Translated byJohn Bowden. London: SCM Press, 1994.

Bultmann, Rudolf. Primitive Christianity in Its ContemporarySetting. Translated by R. H. Fuller. New York:Meridian Books, 1957.

Chadwick, Henry. The Early Church. Baltimore: Penguin Books,1967.

Chevallier, Raymond. Roman Roads. Translated by N. H. Field.Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976.

Conzelmann, Hans. History of Primitive Christianity.Translated by John E. Steely. Nashville: AbingdonPress, 1973.

Crowe, Jerome. From Jerusalem to Antioch: The Gospel AcrossCultures. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1997.

Cullmann, Oscar. The State in the New Testament. London: SCMPress, 1957.

Davies, J. G. Daily Life in the Early Church. London:Lutterworth Press, 1952.

Deissmann, Adolf. Light from the Ancient East: The NewTestament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Textsof the Graeco-Roman World. Translated by Lionel R.M. Strachan. New York: George H. Doran Company,1927. Reprint, Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers,1995.

Dodd, C. H. The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments.New York: Willett, Clark, and Company, 1937.

Donfried, Karl P. and Peter Richardson, eds. Judaism andChristianity in Rome in the First Century. GrandRapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1998.


313

Doran, Robert. Birth of a Worldview: Early Christianity inIts Jewish and Pagan Context. Boulder, CO: WestviewPress, 1995.

Droge, Arthur J. Homer or Moses? Early ChristianInterpretation of the History of Culture. Tübingen:Mohr, 1989.

Elliger, Winfried. Paulus in Griechenland: Philippi,Thessaloniki, Athen, Korinth. Stuttgart:Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1978.

Elwell, Walter A. and Robert W. Yarbrough, eds. Readingsfrom the First-Century World: Primary Sources forNew Testament Study. Grand Rapids: Baker Books,1998.

Engberg-Pedersen, Troels, ed. Paul in His HellenisticContext. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995.

Feldman, Louis H. Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World:Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander toJustinian. Princeton: Princeton University Press,1993.

Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. 2d ed.Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1993.

Ferguson, Everett, Michael McHugh, and Frederick Norris,eds. Encyclopedia of Early Christianity. 2d ed. NewYork: Garland Publishing, 1997.

Fox, Robin Lane. Pagans and Christians. New York: Knopf,1987.

Frend, W. H. C. The Archaeology of Early Christianity: ASurvey. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1996.

________. The Early Church. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,1982.

________. The Rise of Christianity. Philadelphia: FortressPress, 1984.


314

Freyne, Sean. Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian:323 BCE to 135 CE. University of Notre Dame Centerfor the Study of Judaism and Christianity inAntiquity, 5. South Bend, IN: University of NotreDame Press, 1980.

Fustel de Colanges, N. D. The Ancient City. Garden City, NY:Doubleday, 1976.

Gagé, Jean. Les Classes sociales dans l’empire romain.Bibliothèque historique. Paris: Payot, 1964.

Gamble, Harry Y. Books and Readers in the Early Church. NewHaven: Yale University Press, 1995.

Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York:Basic Books, 1973.

Hatch, Edwin. The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages uponthe Christian Church. 5th ed. London: Williams andNorgate, 1895. Reprint, Peabody: HendricksonPublishers, 1995.

Hills, Julian V., ed. Common Life in the Early Church:Essays Honoring Graydon F. Snyder. Harrisburg, PA:Trinity Press International, 1998.

Hinson, E. Glenn. The Early Church: Origins to the Dawn ofthe Middle Ages. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996.

Horsley, Richard A., ed. Paul and Empire: Religion and Powerin Roman Imperial Society. Harrisburg, PA: TrinityPress International, 1997.

Kelly, Joseph F. The Concise Dictionary of EarlyChristianity. Collegeville, MN: The LiturgicalPress, 1992.

________. The World of the Early Christians. Collegeville,MN: Liturgical Press, 1997.

Kollmann, Bernd. Jesus und die Christen als Wundertater:Studien zu Magie, Medizin, und Schamanismus inAntike und Christentum. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck andRuprecht, 1996.


315

MacMullen, Ramsay. Paganism in the Roman Empire. New Haven:Yale University Press, 1981.

Malherbe, Abraham J., Frederick Norris, and James W.Thompson, eds. The Early Church in its Context:Essays in Honor of Everett Ferguson. New York:Brill, 1998.

Malherbe, Abraham J. Social Aspects of Early Christianity.Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.

Malina, Bruce J. Christian Origins and CulturalAnthropology: Practical Models for BiblicalInterpretation. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1986.

Martin, Luther, ed. Hellenistic Religions: An Introduction.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.

Metzger, Bruce M., ed. Historical and Literary Studies:Pagan, Jewish and Christian. Leiden: Brill, 1980.

Murphy-O’Connor, J. St. Paul’s Corinth: Texts andArchaeology. Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier,1983.

Nock, Arthur Darby. Conversion: The Old and the New inReligion from Alexander the Great to Augustine ofHippo. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.

________. Early Gentile Christianity and Its HellenisticBackground. New York: Harper and Row, 1964.

Pearson, Birger A. The Emergence of the Christian Religion:Essays on Early Christianity. Harrisburg, PA:Trinity Press International, 1997.

Ramsay, William M. The Cities of St. Paul: Their Influenceon His Life and Thought. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1960.

Reitzenstein, Richard. Hellenistic Mystery-Religions: TheirBasic Ideas and Significance. 3d ed. Translated byJohn E. Steely. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1978.

Safrai, Samuel and Menahem Stern, eds. The Jewish People inthe First Century. 2 vols. Compendia RerumIudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum. Philadelphia:Fortress Press, 1974.


316

Segal, Alan. Rebecca’s Children: Judaism and Christianity inthe Roman World. Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress, 1986.

Seltzer, Robert, ed. Religions of Antiquity. New York:Macmillan, 1989.

Sherwin-White, A. N. Roman Law and Roman Society in the NewTestament. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1963.

Theissen, Gerd. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity:Essays on Corinth. Translated by John H. Schütz.Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982.

________. Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity.Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: FortressPress, 1978.

Trocme, Etienne. The Childhood of Christianity. Translatedby John Bowden. London: SCM Press, 1997.

Veyne, Paul, ed. A History of Private Life: From Pagan Rometo Byzantium. Translated by Arthur Goldhammer.Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987.

Wetlin, E. G. Athens and Jerusalem: An Interpretive Essay onChristianity and Classical Culture. Atlanta:Scholars Press, 1987.

Wilkin, Robert. The Christians as the Pagans Saw Them. NewHaven: Yale University Press, 1987.

Wilson, Stephen. Related Strangers: Jews and Christians, 70-170 C.E. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press,1996.

Winter, Bruce. Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians asBenefactors and Citizens. Vol. 1, First-CenturyChristians in the Greco-Roman World. Grand Rapids:William B. Eerdmans, 1994.

Witherington, Ben, III. Women in the Earliest Churches.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.


317

Essays / Articles

Achtemeier, Paul. “Omne verbum sonat: The New Testament andthe Oral Environment of Late Western Antiquity.”Journal of Biblical Literature 109 (1990): 62-70.

Barthes, Roland. “L’ancienne rhétorique.” Communications 16(1970): 172-229.

Baugh, S. M. “The Apostle Among the Amazons.” WestminsterTheological Journal 56 (Spring 1994): 153-171.

Black, C. Clifton. “Rhetorical Questions: The New Testament,Classical Rhetoric, and Current Interpretation.”Dialog 29 (1990): 62-70.

Clark, D. L. “Imitation: Theory and Practice in RomanRhetoric.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 37 (1951):11-22.

Cosigny, Scott. “Rhetoric and Its Situation.” Philosophy andRhetoric 7 (1974): 175-185.

Cullmann, Oscar. “The Significance of the Qumran Texts forResearch into the Beginnings of Christianity.”Journal of Biblical Literature 74 (1955): 213-26.

Harding, Mark. “Church and Gentile Cults at Corinth.” GraceTheological Journal 10 (Fall 1989): 203-223.

Harrison, Everett F. “The Attitude of the Primitive Churchtoward Judaism.” Bibliotheca Sacra 113 (April1956): 130-140.

Hay, David M. “What Is Proof? Historical Verification inPhilo, Josephus, and Quintilian.” Society ofBiblical Literature 1979 Seminar Papers, 87-100.Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979.

Judge, Edwin A. “The Early Christians as a ScholasticCommunity.” Journal of Religious History 1 (1960-1961): 4-15, 125-137.

________. “St. Paul and Classical Society.” Jahrbuch fürAntike und Christentum 15 (1972): 14-32.

Kessler, Martin. “An Introduction to Rhetorical Criticism ofthe Bible: Prolegomena.” Semitics 7 (1980): 1-27.


318

King, Donald B. “The Appeal to Religion in Greek Rhetoric.”Classical Journal 50 (1955): 363-371, 376.

Kroeger, Catherine. “The Apostle Paul and the Greco-RomanCults of Women.” Journal of the EvangelicalTheological Society 30 (March 1987): 25-38.

Marshall, I. Howard. “Palestinian and HellenisticChristianity: Some Critical Comments.” NewTestament Studies 19 (1972–73): 271–287.

McKeon, Robert. “Literary Criticism and the Concept ofImitation in Antiquity.” Modern Philology 34(1936): 1-35.

Metzger, Bruce M. “Methodology in the Study of the MysteryReligions and Early Christianity.” In Historicaland Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish and Christian,ed. Bruce M. Metzger, 1-24. Leiden: Brill, 1980.

Rajak, Tessa. “The Location of Cultures in Second TemplePalestine: The Evidence of Josephus.” In The Bookof Acts in Its Palestinian Setting, ed. RichardBauckham, 1-12. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

Reid, Marty L. “A Consideration of the Function of Rom 1:8-15 in Light of Greco-Roman Rhetoric.” Journal ofthe Evangelical Theological Society 38 (June 1995):181-191.

Theissen, Gerd. “Die Starken und Schwachen in Korinth:Soziologische Analyse eines theologischenStreites.” Evangelische Theologie 35:155-172.

Unger, Merrill F. “Historical Research and the Church atThessalonica.” Bibliotheca Sacra 119 (January1962): 33-44.
