Abstract
The view of large sections of the Church that the Bible alone is the source for Christian thought and living is tested against the writings of Luke. While Luke took Scripture to be important, he considered that without the interpretative role of ideal figures it could be mute. Further, theological creativity did not come through exploring the text, but in using the text to explain a perceived act of God. In this there was a reciprocal relationship between the meaning of the text and understanding God’s activity: Scripture predicted and explained God’s activity, and God’s activity explained Scripture. Moreover, Luke proposed that God guided believers independent of, and sometimes over against, the sacred text. For Luke Scripture was not the supreme or only source consulted for Christian thought and behaviour, and the raw material of theological creativity was the experience of divine activity rather than exegesis.
A shared collection of texts, generally recognized by its adherents as sacred, is a feature of all world religions. How Christians ought to describe and understand, and relate to and use their holy writings in the development of theology is not agreed, remaining a matter of sometimes intense debate.
On the one hand, in The Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology, John Webster, Kathryn Tanner and Iain Torrance take the sources for theology to be revelation, Scripture, tradition, worship, reason and experience, placing Scripture second among a number of others. 1 Indeed, Paul Tillich had said that, ‘In dealing with the question of the sources of systematic theology, we must reject the assertion of neo-orthodox biblicalism that the Bible is the only source.’ 2 He went on to argue that the sources for theology are almost unlimited. Further, he proposed: ‘The sources of systematic theology can be sources only for one who participates in them, that is, through experience. Experience is the medium … through which we can receive them.’ 3
It is the Reformers, in constrast, who have been credited with establishing the conviction that sola scriptura, Scripture alone, is the source for Christian thought and practice. 4 The principle remains a popular catch cry. It is widely held among ordinary Christians that the controlling centre, the foundation, the reliable bedrock and the source of faith, is the Bible and the Bible alone. In scholarly circles the idea is expressed in various permutations by the Evangelical wing of the Church. For instance, Alister McGrath, says, ‘The supreme authority of Scripture as a source of knowledge of God and a guide to Christian living’ is the first controlling conviction of Evangelicalism. 5
My question is, then, borrowing from Christopher Evans, whether or not the Bible viewed as the supreme or sole authority – a notion often implied in the use of the term ‘Holy Scripture’ – is Christian. 6 Since I am not a modern theologian, or the son of one, I am not equipped to provide a thorough answer. However, in that I am trained to champion the various New Testament voices in theological debates I will attempt to set out what Luke, one of those voices, is likely to contribute to a conversation on the place of sacred texts in Christian theology. Not only was Luke writing in a period when the early Church was breaking new theological ground and therefore may have something constructive to say about theological creativity, it seems possible to recover his views on the use of Scripture in this enterprise, views that clearly do not support a sola scriptura position. Also, regardless of how distinctive his ‘Christian’ views may be over against other contemporary views or how they may relate to those of the historical Jesus, the voice of this most prolific writer in the New Testament 7 is codified in the very sacred text to which Christians continue to look for guidance. In that the results of theological creativity can give rise to changed behaviour and changed behaviour can imply changed theology, we will pay at least some attention to what Luke says about Scripture in relation to ethical behaviour and decision making.
To increase the likelihood of hearing what Luke might say we will do three things. First, we will set out what appear to be Luke’s key views on, and approaches to, Scripture in relation to behaviour and theological creativity. Second, we will show that Luke thought God guided followers of Jesus in their actions and theological development independent of direct attention to sacred texts. Then, in order to understand how Luke sees the relationship between Scripture and the various ways God initiates theological creativity and new ways of behaving we will, third, note an extended narrative where Luke appears clearest in his expression of the way he understands how God guides his people. We will then be in a position to see that Luke would answer our question, is ‘Holy Scripture’ Christian? with a resounding no! For Luke, sacred texts were not the sole or most important source for theology and action. 8
Luke and Scripture
We will leave aside Luke’s many allusions to Scripture, for it is often both difficult to determine that he has Scripture in mind and also what he means by an apparent reference or echo. From his direct quotations – primarily in Acts where his use of the text is most obviously related to the post-Easter life of Jesus’ followers – a number of points emerge about his view of the function of Scripture.
First, in contrast at least to occasional later proclivities, 9 it can hardly be doubted that Scripture was profoundly important to Luke. Apart from the allusions, and taking up words and turns of phrase from the Septuagint, 10 in his Gospel and in Acts, Luke cites Scripture numerous times. 11 These quotations do not simply aid his narrative and fill out his speeches. The strategic placement in the narrative of such quotations as ‘he has sent me to proclaim release to the captives’ (Luke 4.18/Isa. 61.1) and ‘In the last days … I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh’ (Acts 2.17/Joel 2.28) make it unavoidably clear that the roots and explanation of the story of Jesus and the movement that followed him cannot be understood apart from the ancient texts. Also, such a heavy dependence on the ancient texts demonstrates that Luke was deeply familiar with them and is likely to see them playing a significant role in colouring and determining behaviour and theological creativity.
Second, most clearly in three passages, Luke acknowledges that Scripture does not always self-evidently reflect the meaning he wishes to see in it.
12
In the episode at the end of the Gospel centred around Emmaus (Luke 24.13–35), in which there is incomprehension on the part of the disciples (24.19–24) and then explanation by Jesus (24.25–27, 44–49), Luke admits that the Christo-centric interpretation of Scripture is not always obvious to followers of Jesus. Others in the period had retold the biblical narrative so that, like the writers of the Qumran scrolls, history was seen to reach a climax in their movement.
13
For Luke, the biblical narrative retold from the perspective of the Jesus movement reaches its high point not only in the tragic and continued betrayal of Jesus but also in the rejection of his followers (Acts 7.52).
14
This, Luke’s narrative shows, would not be obvious without the explanation through Stephen’s voice (7.51–53). In the story of the Ethiopian calling on Philip to interpret what he was reading (Acts 8.26–40; Isa. 53.7–8), Luke also signals that the meaning he wishes to see in the sacred text is not self-evident (Acts 8.35).
In each of these cases the novel interpretation required of the ancient text to enable it to yield its desired meaning and contribute to the theological repository of the believers was provided by one of Luke’s significant characters, each of whom is described as filled with the Spirit and, through the narrative, shown to be an exemplary character (cf. Luke 4.1; Acts 6.5).
Third, for Luke, Scripture both predicts and explains God’s activity, as well as, in turn, being interpreted by that activity. A few examples elucidate this point.
Introducing the election of Matthias, and probably referring to its predictive function, Peter says Scripture ‘had to be’ (dei) fulfilled (Acts 1.16). Then, describing the tragic end of Judas, one of the Psalms that Luke cites (‘Let his homestead become desolate’, Ps. 69.25; Acts 1.20) not only has a predictive function but also helps make sense of God’s involvement in the events described (1.15–26). Similarly, Luke cites a Psalm (‘Why did the Gentiles rage’, Ps. 2.1–2) to explain that even in the suffering of the followers of Jesus God has been sovereign (Acts 4.25–26). Then towards the end of Peter’s Pentecost speech Luke uses Psalm 110.1 (‘The Lord said to my lord’) as a prediction referring to the Messiah (Acts 2.34–35); and he uses recent events to explain the obscure text. Also, in Peter’s use of the saying about ‘the stone that was rejected’ (Ps. 118.22) the ancient text becomes predictive of Jesus’ rejection. However, in saying ‘this (Jesus) is’ (houtos esin) the stone, Luke also uses the rejection to explain an ancient text (Acts 4.11). Although Scripture has a predictive function for Luke, he never uses a text to foretell a still-future event, not even the Parousia.
15
That is, theological creativity begins not with Scripture but with the perceived activity of God.
From these examples we can see that, as well as predicting events that had taken place, Luke saw Scripture explaining what had happened or had been experienced. Moreover, what had happened or had been experienced also explained Scripture.
16
Fourth, there are some hints that Luke also sees Scripture as a guide to behaviour in the form of decision making. Following the demise of Judas, through the voice of a leading character, Peter, he cites not only a Psalm for its predictive value but also another one (‘Let another take his position’, Ps. 69.25;
These four observations on Luke and Scripture show that the sacred texts were profoundly important to him. However, we have seen that he offers clear signals that the meaning he sees in Scripture is not always self-evident. Unaided, Scripture can be mute. It appears that it is through the interpretive contribution of ideal figures that Scripture is able to play a theologically creative role for the community of believers. We have also seen Luke demonstrate a perceived reciprocal relationship between the sacred texts and God’s activity: Scripture predicted and explained God’s activity, and God’s activity explained Scripture. That is, theological creativity, or understanding God, did not come about through exploring the text, but in using the text to explain a perceived act of God. Luke does not suppose Scripture alone enables theological creativity. Even concerning various kinds of behaviour, without the contribution of a key figure, Scripture in itself was not a self-sufficient guide. Luke also has another side to his approach that requires our attention.
Sans scriptural guidance
Although it initially appears the most subtle, from the overall structure of his narrative, the most important aspect of divine guidance Luke proposes for the followers of Jesus is Jesus himself. This is clear in the beginning of Acts. For the most natural way to take Luke’s opening statement, that his first book was about ‘what Jesus began to do and teach’ (Acts 1.1), is that what follows is a description of what Jesus continued to do and teach.
It is notable, then, that Luke has Jesus himself active among his post-Easter followers in ways other than requiring attention to his words. For example, the Pentecost narrative is taken to be of Jesus baptizing his followers with the Holy Spirit and fire (Luke 3.16; Acts 1.5; 2.3). Also, in Luke’s Gospel Jesus promises to put words and wisdom into the mouths of his followers (Luke 21.15), a promise realized in Peter, for example, being filled with the Spirit and speaking boldly. He does this, though, without any recourse to the words of Jesus (Acts 4.8). Then, just as Jesus directed the mission of his followers before Easter (Luke 9.1–6, 10; 10.1–21), he continues doing so subsequently (Luke 24.49; Acts 1.4–5; 2.33). Consistent with this, after the Acts Ascension story, Luke has the eleven ask Jesus (the Lord) who should replace Judas (cf. Acts 1.24–25; and Luke 6.13).
In short, while Luke’s characters attend to the teaching of Jesus, direction by Jesus appears to be realized in the post-Easter community primarily through overlapping or equating his activity with that of the Spirit. In any case, God’s guidance through Jesus is not described as dependent on Scripture. This turns out to be frequently and, at times, dramatically developed in the Acts narrative.
Thus, in line with ancient views, 19 Luke took dreams and visions to be a way God communicated with people in order to develop new ideas and direct their lives. For example, as Abraham was directed to an unknown land by a vision (Acts 7.2), so Stephen’s vision (7.55) is part of developing a theology to extend mission beyond Jerusalem (8.2). In his mission, Philip is directed by an angel (8.26–40). The basis of Paul’s mission to the Gentiles is the Lord (Jesus) appearing to him (9.3–9, 15). In particular, in a dream Paul is later directed to Macedonia (16.9). Also, an appearance both changed the thinking and also directed the activity of Ananias (9.10–19). 20 Notably, in the case of Peter (10.1–48) Luke uses a vision including a heavenly voice (10.9–16) to communicate a new idea. An unidentified voice says, ‘What God has made clean, you must not call profane’ (10.15; cf. 11.9), a view that appears to run counter to Scripture (cf. Lev. 11.1–47). The vision is followed by the Spirit giving a direction (Acts 10.19) resulting in a new theological idea: ‘I should not call anyone profane or unclean’ (10.28). In the context of Luke’s narrative, and in a way the early Church took Jesus’ teaching to go behind Scripture (cf. Matt. 5.21–48), the vision appears to articulate, if not God’s eternal, then, his eschatological intention. In relation to our interests, then, we can note that Luke thought dreams and visions were adequate in and of themselves as the raw material for theological creativity and as a basis for human action. Moreover, they were able to contribute ideas to followers of Jesus that appeared to run counter to Scripture, though not God’s intention.
According to Luke, God also uses prophecy to guide the followers of Jesus. For example, the Spirit’s direction to set apart Barnabas and Saul is probably to be understood as coming through prophecy (Acts 13.1–3). 21 Also, Agabus the prophet offers guidance to Paul (21.10–14). Again, though a reader might infer from both these narratives that the prophecy was tested by others present (cf. 13.3a; 21.13–14), there is no suggestion that Scripture was directly required for the prophecy to be a viable means of divine communication.
Therefore, taking into account the role of Jesus in Luke’s narrative of the post-Easter community, and from what we have noted of dreams and visions and prophecy in Acts, it is reasonable to conclude that Luke considered God contributed to the theological creativity of the followers of Jesus and guided them independently of, and on occasion even over against, Scripture. In order to see how Luke understood ancient texts could function in relation to these other ways God used to guide his people, we can turn to a narrative that dominates the central section of Acts and provides a watershed to the entire second volume of Luke’s work.
The divine, the human and the Scriptures
Luke’s story of the Jerusalem council is a relatively transparent point in the narrative where readers appear to be able to see how he thought Scripture, along with other elements, functioned in the development of Christian thought and action (Acts 15.1–35). The question facing the apostles and elders at Jerusalem was the necessity for the Gentiles to keep the law of Moses in order to join the followers of Jesus (15.5). During the meeting Scripture is invoked, and towards the end a letter is issued to the effect that ‘it has seemed to the Holy Spirit and to us’ (15.28) 22 that the Gentiles are to be burdened with no more than the essentials for good relations between Jews and Gentiles. The central place of this story in Luke’s overall narrative, the extent of the story, the slowing of the narrative through the use of detail, the significance of the characters involved, the weighty subject matter and the repercussions of the outcome, all suggest that Luke would have carefully crafted this piece so that his readers could see how he understands such theological creativity arises.
Along with Scripture, a number of factors contributed to the new theological position.
1. Luke says that initially there was ‘much debate’ among the apostles and elders (Acts 15.6) before 2. Peter gave a report (15.7–11) that God had given the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles as a guarantee (martureō, 15.8)
23
that he had cleansed their hearts by faith (15.9). Peter concludes by noting that this is consistent with their own earlier experience (cf. 2.1–4), and that God therefore sees no distinction between Jew and Gentile (15.8–10). 3. Then, probably in line with the convention of requiring a second witness,
24
Barnabas and Paul also tell of ‘all the signs and wonders that God had done through them among the Gentiles’ (15.12). 4. Finally, James points out that Peter’s report shows God has already – before the deliberations of the meeting – looked favourably on, or saved, the Gentiles (15.14; cf. Luke 1.68; 7.15–16). Notably, James says God’s act of favour, involving his return to include all people, agrees with the words of the prophets, obvious from Amos 9.11–12. As leader (Acts 12.17; 21.18), James fulfils the same interpretive role as did Peter on the day of Pentecost. 5. Also, roughly parallel to the Pentecost narrative, the leader’s scriptural interpretation is affirmed by others: at Pentecost by hearers believing and being baptized (Acts 2.37–41), in this story through the whole group agreeing to send representatives carrying a letter (15.22–29).
In the light of our interests, what is crucial to note is that, in the decision making that involved both theological creativity and changed behaviour, Luke has given a role to a number of factors: ‘much debate’; two independent corroborating reports of God’s miraculous activity; the use of Scripture by the leader to confirm and illustrate the significance of the reports; and the affirmation of the whole group. Moreover, in this Luke gives priority not to Scripture but to the reports of the experience of God’s activity. There is no prior search, collecting and weighing of various ancient texts, some of which would run counter to the conclusion by James that the Gentiles were already among the people of God.
25
Instead, through the voice of James, Luke cites a passage that is in harmony with the report of God already including the Gentiles in salvation and the people of God.
Notably, God’s role – signalled in the line ‘it has seemed to the Holy Spirit’ (Acts 15.28) – is not described as some quiet inner assurance. Nor is there any suggestion that the Holy Spirit illuminated a scriptural text to aid decision making. Also, Luke gives no hint of the use of ecstatic, Spirit-enabled speech and its interpretation as the work of God. Instead, for Luke, the work of the Holy Spirit is seen in the two reports of God taking the initiative in saving the Gentiles and doing signs and wonders among them. We have already noted in Jesus’ use of Scripture to explain his experience of the Spirit and Peter’s turning to Scripture to explain the experience of Pentecost that Luke describes a pattern of the experience of God’s initiative subsequently interpreted through Scripture.
A Lucan perspective
Although Scripture was extremely important to Luke, and probably taken to colour the entire Christian movement, to our question, is Holy Scripture Christian – in the sense that the sacred text is the supreme or only source consulted for Christian thought and activity – Luke would give a clear no! Instead, we have seen Luke propose that God guided in ways not directly related to Scripture: through the ongoing presence of Jesus, and through dreams and visions, and prophecy. When Scripture is involved in theological advances, two points of significance emerge. One is the hermeneutical reciprocity between the ancient text and contemporary events or experience that Luke sees as theologically creative. Nevertheless, second, more in line with Tillich and John Webster, for example, than the Reformers, for Luke theological advances proceeded not from initial studies of the text but in using the text to understand what God had already done or was doing, and to allow the text to take on (new) meaning in the light of experience. From Luke’s perspective, the raw material of theological creativity is not exegesis but the experience of divine activity. A new divine act, recognized as consistent with previous experience, and interpreted by the leader as such in the light of a perceived agreement with Scripture, can become the basis for new ideas and action.