1464
. From Craig S. Keener, “Power of Pentecost: Luke’s Missiology in Acts
1
—
2
,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies
12
(
1
, Jan.
2009
):
47–73
. Reprinted by permission of the Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies, APTS Press. I reused much of this material also in Keener, “Spirit and Mission.”
. Keener, Acts,
1
:
641–1038
.
. These two chapters go beyond the introduction proper (and certainly beyond the preface), but are nevertheless foundational for the rest of Acts (with e.g., Walton, “Beginning,” esp.
466
).
. As generally noted, e.g., Pesch, Apostelgeschichte,
1
:
61
,
72
; Chance, Acts,
34
; Miller, Empowered for Mission,
56–60
; Goulder, Type,
16–17
; Parsons, Departure,
189–90
. For such recapitulation elsewhere, see e.g., Josephus Ag. Ap.
2
.
1
; Chariton Chaer.
5
.
1
.
1–2
; Aune, Environment,
90
,
117
; Marguerat, Actes,
36
.
. For parallels between the model of Jesus in Luke’s Gospel and the church’s experience of the Spirit, see e.g., Talbert, Patterns,
16
; Stronstad, Charismatic Theology,
51
; Brawley, Luke-Acts and Jews,
24–25
.
. See e.g., Polybius
3
.
1
.
3
—
3
.
5
.
9
, esp.
3
.
1
.
7
;
11
.
1
.
4–5
; Rhet. Alex.
29
,
1436
a.
33–39
; Dionysius of Halicarnassus Thuc.
19
; Lys.
24
; Cicero Or. Brut.
40
.
137
; Virgil Aen.
1
.
1–6
; Aulus Gellius pref.
25
; Soranus Gynec.
1
.intro.
2
;
1
.
1
.
3
;
2
.
5
.
9
[
25
.
78
]; Philostratus Vit. Apoll.
7
.
1
;
8
.
1
.
. The eschatological association of the Spirit is stronger in the prophets than in early Judaism, but cf. Sir
36
:
14–16
; Chevallier, Ancien Testament,
31–32
; Ma, Spirit,
175–78
,
210–11
; Davies, Paul,
208–17
; Menzies, Development, 104–8; Menzies, Empowered,
94–98
,
232–43
.
. E.g., the “downpayment” of the Spirit (
2
Cor
1
:
22
;
5
:
5
; Eph
1
:
14
); on this meaning, see e.g., Gen
38
:
17–18
,
20
LXX; Cullmann, Early Church,
117
; Ladd, Criticism,
91
; Horsley, Documents,
1
, §
33
, p.
83
; for firstfruits (Rom
8
:
23
), see Hamilton, Spirit and Eschatology,
19
; Ladd, Theology,
370
.
. A dominant Greek term for “miracles” in the Gospels and Acts is literally “powers”; we should perhaps not read too much into the etymological connection, but Luke might at least play on it (cf. e.g., Luke
10
:
13
;
19
:
37
; Acts
2
:
22
;
8
:
13
;
19
:
11
; see BDAG). Paul can also associate “power” with miracles in Paul (Rom
15
:
19
), though he more often associates it with the “weak” miracle-working message itself (Rom
1
:
16
;
1
Cor
1
:
18
,
24
;
2
:
4–5
; Phil
3
:
10
;
1
Thess
1
:
5
; cf.
2
Tim
1
:
8
). On power’s association with the Spirit in Paul, see Fee, Presence,
35–36
; Gräbe, “Δύναμις.”
. See e.g., Menzies, Empowered,
49–101
; Menzies, Development,
53–112
; Menzies, “Spirit and Power”; Turner, Power,
86–104
; Cho, Spirit and Kingdom,
10–51
; Keener, “Pneumatology,”
69–77
; Keener, Spirit, 10–13
,
31–33
; in the Old Testament, Wright, Spirit through Old Testament,
63–86
.
. In the narrative itself Luke refers especially to the Eleven (
1
:
2
), but they become paradigmatic, rather than exclusive, witnesses (see
2
:
33
;
22
:
14–15
,
18
;
23
:
11
;
26
:
16
). Luke writes history, but ancient historiography usually deliberately provided role models (pp.
53-54
). For the Twelve as the witnesses, cf. Turner, “Witness”; Köstenberger and O’Brien, Salvation,
126–27
; but even the immediate context indicated witnesses present for the events beyond the Twelve (Luke
24
:
33
, “those with them”; see Dillon, Eye-Witnesses,
291
). For their paradigmatic role, cf. Gebauer, “Mission und Zeugnis”; Bolt, “Mission”).
. On Isaiah in Acts, including Acts
1
:
8
, see especially and most usefully Pao, Isaianic Exodus.
. The exact phrase is quite rare in pre-Lukan Greek literature; see Tannehill, Acts,
17
; followed also by Pao, Isaianic Exodus,
94
. Most recognize the Isa
49
:
6
allusion based on Acts
13
:
47
; see e.g., Tannehill, Acts,
17
; Dupont, Salvation,
18
; Arrington, Acts,
9
; Moore, “End of Earth”; Pao, Isaianic Exodus,
92
.
. Paul’s own letters suggest that he read his own mission in light of them; cf. Wagner, Heralds,
32–33
(more fully, see
29–33
).
. Cf. e.g., Thucydides
1
.
23
.
6
; Pliny Nat.
8
.
1
.
1
;
18
.
1
.
1
;
33
.
1
.
1
;
34
.
1
.
1
;
36
.
1
.
1
;
37
.
1
.
1
; Philostratus Vit. Apoll.
7
.
1
;
8
.
1
.
. E.g., Tannehill, Acts,
9
; Witherington, Acts,
106
; Hengel, “Geography,”
35
; Marguerat, Actes,
20
.
. Keener, Acts,
1:433, 438–40, 662, 697, 701
, but often emphasized, though stated differently, especially as “from Jerusalem to Rome” (e.g., Kent, Jerusalem to Rome).
. For Spain, see e.g., Strabo
1
.
1
.
5
,
8
;
3
.
2
; Seneca Nat. Q.
1
.pref.
13
; Silius Italicus
1
.
270
;
15
.
638
; Pliny Ep.
2
.
3
.
8
; Greek Anthology
4
.
3
.
84–85
; for Oceanus, see e.g., Pliny Nat.
2
.
67
.
167
; Philostratus Her.
8
.
13
.
. Contrasting Spain and India as opposite ends of the earth, see Strabo
1
.
1
.
8
; Seneca Nat. Q.
1
.pref.
13
; Juvenal Sat.
10
.
1–2
.
. China was well-known, and the Roman empire had trade ties there; e.g., Pliny Nat.
12
.
1
.
2
;
12
.
41
.
84
; Casson, Mariners),
198
,
206
. China also knew of Rome (Ying, “Ruler”), and the “Silk Road” already functioned by this period (Herbert, “Silk Road”).
. On Thule at the ends of the earth, see e.g., Seneca Med.
379
; Pliny Nat.
4
.
16
.
104
; Warmington and Millett, “Thule.”
. E.g., Strabo
1
.
1
.
6
; Pausanias
1
.
33
.
3–6
; Josephus Ant.
11
.
33
,
186
,
216
,
272
; see further Martin, “Chamberlain’s Journey,”
118–19
; Thornton, “End of the Earth”; Scott, “Horizon,”
536
; Hengel, Acts and History,
80
; Witherington, Acts,
290
.
. Casson, Mariners,
205
(also noting trade “with Malaya and Java”).
. Kraybill, Cult and Commerce,
104
.
. It proleptically foreshadows the future mission to the south (Martin, “Chamberlain’s Journey”; Keener, “Aftermath”). Favoring the historical plausibility of that narrative, see Keener, “Places.”
. Cf. also Tannehill, Acts,
17
; Jervell, Apostelgeschichte,
116
; Gaventa, Acts,
65–66
; Melbourne, “End of Earth,” esp.
11–14
.
. On the open-endedness of Acts, see e.g., Dunn, Acts,
278
; Marguerat, Histoire,
333
; Marguerat, Historian,
152–54
,
230
; Rosner, “Progress,”
232–33
. Open or incomplete endings were frequent in ancient literature (e.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus Dem.
58
; Valerius Maximus
9
.
15
. ext.
2
; Plutarch Fame Ath.
8
, Mor.
351
B; Fort. Alex.
2
.
13
, Mor.
345
B; Fort. Rom.
13
, Mor.
326
C; Uned. R.
7
, Mor.
782
F; Isocrates Dem.
52
, Or.
1
; Demetrius Style
5
.
304
; Herodian
8
.
8
.
8
; L.A.B.; Mark
16
:
8
; especially Magness, Sense).
. Ezek
5
:
5
;
38
:
12
; Jub.
8
:
12
,
19
; Sib. Or.
5
:
249–50
; b. Yoma
54
b; cf. also Scott, “Horizon,”
526
; Alexander, “Imago Mundi”; Paczkowski, “Ombelico.” Contrast the Greek and Greco-Roman assignment of the role to Delphi; Euripides Med.
667–68
; Or.
591
; Pindar Pyth.
4
.
74
;
8
.
59–60
;
11
.
10
; Paean
6
.
17
;
21
, frg.
54
(in Strabo
9
.
3
.
6
); Varro Lat. Lang.
7
.
2
.
17
; Livy
38
.
48
.
2
; Ovid Metam.
10
.
168
;
15
.
630–31
; Lucan C.W.
5
.
71
.
. For such local applications, see e.g., Kanyoro, “Mission,”
62
. On Jerusalem’s theological, salvation-historical priority, see e.g., Dunn, Acts,
3–4
.
. On gentile ascension narratives more generally, see e.g., Talbert, “Myth”; Strelan, Strange Acts,
42–47
; Eckey, Apostelgeschichte,
57–60
; for the closer Jewish ascension narratives, see e.g., Zwiep, Ascension,
41–75
; Palatty, “Ascension.”
. For this biblical account as the closest model, see also e.g., Zwiep, Ascension,
59–63
,
194
; Litwak, Echoes,
149–50
.
. On succession narratives and Acts, see Talbert, Mediterranean Milieu,
19–55
(though most scholars do not find as much biographic character in Acts as Talbert does).
. See discussion in Turner, Power,
301
; Pao, Isaianic Exodus, 123–29
. Most scholars recognize the choice of the Twelve as symbolizing a restoration movement, analogous to
1
QS
8
.
1–2
;
4
Q
259
2
.
9
(Jeremias, Theology,
234–35
; Bruce, “Jesus,”
75–76
; Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism, 138; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism,
104
).
. See e.g., Bovon, Theologian,
400–403
; Trites, “Prayer Motif”; Karris, Saying,
74–83
; Plymale, Prayer Texts; Han, “Prayer”; Jesudasan, “Prayer”; Green, Thirty Years,
268–73
; Thielman, Theology,
142–46
; Crump, Jesus the Intercessor; Roth, “Pray-er”; O’Brien, “Prayer in Luke-Acts.”
. For the connection, cf. e.g., Hull, Spirit in Acts,
48
; Richard, “Pentecost,”
135; Hur, Reading,
270
. The point need not be prayer for the Spirit so much as the Spirit coming to prayerful people (Twelftree, “Prayer”).
. The context may involve persistence, but it probably also involves the issue of honor and shame, perhaps the honor of God bound up with his promise or with the need of his people (see Bailey, Poet,
126–28
; Johnson, “Assurance”; Huffard, “Parable”).
. I treated Acts
2
at greater length in Keener, Spirit,
190–213
; and especially in Keener, Acts,
1:780–1038
.
. Cf. also Jub.
1
:
3
; L.A.E.
25
:
3
;
4
Ezra
3
:
19
; for Greek analogies to theophanies, cf. Van der Horst, “Parallels to Acts,”
49–50
. In the context of Elijah’s succession, see
2
Kgs
2
:
11
.
. E.g., Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 133
,
138
; Wenk, Power,
246–51
; Fitzmyer, Acts,
234
. Scholars differ on whether this passage in Acts contains specific allusions to Sinai, however.
. Cf. also e.g., Sleeper, “Pentecost and Resurrection,”
390
; Barclay, “Acts ii.
14
–
40
,”
198–99
; Cadbury, “Eschatology,”
300
; O’Hagan, “Pentecost”; Boismard and Lamouille, Actes,
2
:
101
.
. For this background here, see e.g., Grassi, “Ezekiel xxxvii.
1
–
14
,”
164
; Bruce, Commentary,
54
; Longenecker, Acts,
66
; Gibbs, “Launching of Mission,”
21
.
. E.g., Isa
26
:
11
;
66
:
15–16
,
24
; CD
2
.
4–6
;
1
En.
103
:
8
; Sib. Or.
4
.
43
,
161
,
176–78
;
2
Thess
1
:
6–7
.
. See discussion in Menzies, Development,
137–44
; Keener, Spirit,
127
. Cf. also Luke
12
:
49–50
(as understood in Robinson, Studies,
161
; Dunn, Baptism,
42
).
. See ch.
19
in this book; Keener, “Tongues”; Keener, “Tongues as Evidence”; Keener, Acts,
1
:
806–31; Keener, Questions,
69
; Keener, Gift,
180
; York, Missions,
80
,
185–86; Watson, Gentiles,
68–69
; cf. earlier e.g., Wrede, Secret,
232
; Wikenhauser, Apostelgeschichte,
38
; Hanson, Acts,
63–64
; and especially Ladd, Young Church,
56
; Dupont, Salvation,
52
,
59
; Stendahl, Paul,
118–19
; Kilgallen, Commentary, 16
.
. Still, some others have seen the connection between tongues and crosscultural ministry or unity, especially earlier in history; see e.g., Origen Comm. Rom. on Rom
1
:
14
; Chrysostom Hom. Cor.
35
.
1
; Bede Comm. Acts
2
.
3
A; Leo the Great Sermon
75
.
2
; more recently, cf. Packer, Acts,
27
; and most scholars listed above.
. See e.g., Anderson, Pentecostalism, 33–34
; McGee, “Radical Strategy,”
77–78
,
80–83
.
. McGee, “Hermeneutics,”
102
; McGee, “Strategy,”
52–53
; Goff, “Tongues,”
64–65
; Jacobsen, Thinking in Spirit, 25
,
49–50
,
74
,
76
,
97
; Robeck, Mission, 41–42
,
236–37
,
243
,
252
; see esp. McGee, “Shortcut.”
. Wacker, Heaven,
47–51
; McGee, People of Spirit,
77–78
; Hudson, “Strange Words,”
61–63
; Anderson, “Points,”
167
; esp. McGee, “Strategies,”
204
(noting its waning already by
1906). By contrast, Parham never abandoned it (Anderson, Pentecostalism,
190
).
. E.g., Warner, Evangelist, 256–57; Gardner, Healing Miracles,
38
,
142–43
; McGee, “Shortcut”; McGee, People of Spirit,
24
,
46–47
,
57
,
61
,
64
,
75
; Robeck, Mission, 268–69; Tarr, Foolishness,
401–3
; Blumhofer, “Portrait,”
96
,
99
; Synan, Voices,
60
,
76–77
,
84
,
101–2
; most extensively, Harris, Acts Today,
108–30
; May, Witnesses to Pentecost.
. See e.g., Lederle, “Evidence”; earlier, see e.g., McGee, “Hermeneutics,”
107–10; Jacobsen, Thinking in Spirit,
293
,
314–15
,
395
n
4
.
. Early Pentecostalism exhibited flexibility on secondary theological questions (Lederle, Treasures,
29–31
, esp.
29
; see also Hollenweger, Pentecostals,
32
,
331–36
).
. Cf. e.g., Dibelius, Studies in Acts,
106
; Foakes-Jackson, Acts,
11
; Robinson, Studies,
167
.
. E.g., Moule, Messengers,
23
; Bruce, Commentary,
64
; González, Acts,
39
; Stendahl, Paul,
117
; Dominy, “Spirit, Church, and Mission”; Smith, “Hope after Babel?”; Spencer, Acts,
32–33
; Chéreau, “Babel à la Pentecôte”; Venter, Reconciliation,
155
; Turner, “Experience,”
32
.
. Cyril of Jerusalem Cat.
17
.
16–17
; Arator Acts
1
; Bede Comm. Acts
2
.
4
; patristic sources in Marguerat, Actes,
81
n
45
.
. Anderson, Pentecostalism,
44
.
. E.g., Scott, “Horizon,”
529–30. The geographic content is similar (Goulder, Type,
153–54
,
158
; Moule, Messengers,
24
); early Judaism continued to use this list of nations, as noted in Scott, “Horizon,”
507–22
; Scott, “Geographical Perspectives,”
412–13
; Scott, Nations; Bechard, Walls,
209–31
.
. With Goulder, Type,
158
.
. Cf. González, Acts,
39
; Wagenaar, “Kumba”; Macchia, “Babel.”
. See Robeck, Mission,
88
,
137–38
; testimony in Horton, Corinthians,
66
n
29
; cf. Synan, Movement,
80
,
109–11
,
165–69
,
172
,
178–79
,
182–83
,
221
; Synan, “Seymour,”
778–81
; Synan, “Legacies,”
148–49
; Lovett, “Holiness-Pentecostalism,”
83
; Daniels, “Differences”; Jacobsen, Thinking in Spirit,
63
,
260–62
.
. Bartleman, Azusa Street,
54
.
. Yong, Spirit Poured,
72–73
; see similarly in India, Yong, Spirit Poured,
56–57
.
. See e.g., Robeck, “Seymour,”
81–89
; Jacobsen, Thinking in Spirit,
78
.
. The seven selected in
6
:
5
are surely Hellenists, given that all had Greek names (a unanimity that is surely deliberate, with e.g., Hill, Hellenists,
47
). Even in Rome, where only
1
percent of Jewish inscriptions are in Semitic languages,
15
.
2
percent of the names include Semitic elements (Leon, Jews of Rome,
107–8
).
. For Philip as Peter’s “forerunner,” in terms of narrative function, see Spencer, Philip,
220–41
.
. For the connection, cf. e.g., Pesch, Apostelgeschichte,
1
:
119
. The neuter singular touto in
2
:
16
answers to the same form in
2
:
12
(probably referring to the phenomenon in general), although not directly to this sound in
2
:
6
(where the feminine singular appears).
. E.g., Silberman, “Unriddling,” passim; Roth, “Subject Matter,”
64–65
; Lim, “Orientation”; on adaptation of quotations to fit new contexts, see especially Stanley, Language of Scripture,
291
; cf.
335
,
337
,
342–44
. Targum typically proved more expansive (though apparently more in later targumim), and midrash even more so. A primary function of midrash was to reapply texts to contemporary settings (Wright, “Midrash,”
133–34
).
. E.g., Isa
2
:
2
; Ezek
38
:
16
; Hos
3
:
5
; Mic
4
:
1
; Dan
2
:
28
;
11
Q
13
,
2
.
4
;
1
En.
27
:
3–4
; T. Iss.
6
:
1
.
. In Ecuador, women Pentecostals tend to prophesy and have visions more (though prophetic dreams less) than men (Castleberry, “Impact,”
142
). Historically, many women have found empowerment for their ministry in this text (Anderson, “Reading Tabitha”), particularly prominently in Pentecostalism (see Powers, “Daughters,”
318
; Yong, Spirit Poured,
190–94
; in early Pentecostalism, see Wacker, Heaven,
158–65
[though note countervailing cultural and traditional tendencies,
165–76
]). For women’s ministry in Pentecostalism, see e.g., Powers, “Daughters,”
313
(worldwide); Ma, “Women,”
136–42
(the Philippines); Pothen, “Missions,”
191–92
,
255
(on Indian missionaries); Kalu, African Pentecostalism, 161–62
(in Africa).
. This does not count the likelihood of the “prophets” in Acts
11
:
27
being male, since a gender-mixed company would be less likely to travel together in this period (except with relatives; Luke
8
:
2–3
was exceptional). But of these prophets, only Agabus is given an active role in the narrative (
11
:
28
).
. E.g., Homer Il.
1
.
259
;
23
.
616–23
; Livy
5
.
25
.
3
;
6
.
24
.
7
; Diogenes Laertius
8
.
1
.
22
(Pythagoras); Pliny Ep.
8
.
14
.
4
,
6
; Select Papyri
3
,
476–77
, §
116
;
4
Bar.
5
:
20
; Sir
8
:
6
; Ps.-Phoc.
220–222
; Syr. Men. Sent.
11–14
; Syr. Men. Epit.
2–4
; t. Meg.
3
:
24
;
1
Tim
5
:
1–2
;
1
Pet
5
:
5
. Also in some other societies (e.g., Confucius Analects
2
.
8
;
13
.
20
).
. “Virgins” probably suggests that they are no older than their teens, since women usually married young and “virgins” thus often functioned as a designation for age. Comparing Mishnaic usage, Le Cornu, Acts,
1159
, suggests that they had not yet reached puberty.
. Philip, Pneumatology,
213
, suggests that this limits “all flesh” to all believers.
.
2
Kgs
9
:
7
,
36
;
10
:
10
;
14
:
25
;
17
:
13
,
23
;
21
:
10
;
24
:
2
; Ezra
9
:
11
; Isa
20
:
3
; Jer
7
:
25
;
25
:
4
;
26
:
5
;
29
:
19
;
35
:
15
;
44
:
4
; Dan
3
:
28
;
6
:
20
;
9
:
6
,
10
; Amos
3
:
7
; Zech
1
:
6
; later, cf. ‘Ab. R. Nat.
37
, §
95
B.
. In light of Lev
25
:
44
, Joel’s “male and female servants” might also suggest gentiles; Luke’s developing narrative will point in the same direction, despite his change in wording. The transcending of ethnic, class, and gender barriers in Gal
3
:
28
could reflect the influence of Joel
2
:
28–29 (Keener, Galatians [
2018
],
168
; Keener, Galatians [
2019
],
306–7
).
. Cf. e.g., Marshall, Acts,
73
n
3
; York, Missions,
82
; Bayer, “Preaching,”
268
.
. Pao, Isaianic Exodus,
230–32
.
. With e.g., Dunn, Acts,
27
; Costa Grillo, “Discurso de Pedro”; Marshall, “Acts,”
536
,
543
; Haenchen, Acts,
184
n
5
; Dupont, Salvation,
22
; Zehnle, Pentecost Discourse,
34
; Pao, Isaianic Exodus,
231–32
.
. E.g., Mek. Pisha
5
.
103
; Nez.
10
.
15–16
,
26
,
38
;
17
.
17
; in this passage, see Longenecker, Exegesis,
97
.
. For devotion to Jesus in Luke-Acts, see Hurtado, Become God,
160–62
; cf. O’Toole, Christology, passim; Rowe, “Trinity.”
. See Grasham, “Archaeology and Baptism”; for the temple’s water supply, see Safrai, “Temple,”
884
; McRay, Archaeology, 123
.
. For proselyte baptism (as well as John’s baptism) as part of the background of the early Christian practice, see e.g., Keener, Acts,
1
:
977–82
; further Abrahams, Studies,
1
:
42
; Montefiore, Gospels,
1
:
8
; Rowley, “Baptism”; Schiffman, “Crossroads,”
128
; Schiffman, Jew,
26
; differently regarding proselyte baptism, see Taylor, “Baptism”; Smith, “Baptism,”
13–32; Beasley-Murray, Baptism,
18–31
; Snyder, “Purity,”
282–337
.
. Acts
2
:
41–47
is the first major summary section; for discussions of such sections, see e.g., Brehm, “Significance of Summaries”; Joubert, “Gesigpunt.”
. On this passage, see e.g., Hoyt, “Poor in Luke-Acts,”
213–22
; Mitchell, “Friends by Name,”
237–40
; on Acts and sharing possessions, see e.g., Johnson, Function; Johnson, Sharing Possessions; Bovon, Theologian,
390–96
; see more recently Gillman, Possessions and Faith; Kim, Stewardship and Almsgiving,
218–33
; Karris, Saying,
84–104
. For partial Qumran analogies, see e.g., Fitzmyer, Essays,
284–88
; Mealand, “Community of Goods”; Fabry, “Umkehr und Metanoia”; Klauck, “Gütergemeinschaft”; Finger, Meals,
146–66
.
. Just as Pentecostalism highlights a significant aspect of Luke’s theology in Acts
1
–
2
, Anabaptists (and many monastic movements) have highlighted this significant aspect (e.g., Hutterites, although few go this far; McGee, “Possessions,”
167–68
; Williams, Radical Reformation,
232
,
426–29
, esp.
429
). One indigenous Chinese Christian movement emphasized both aspects (Anderson, Pentecostalism,
135
; Zhaoming, “Chinese Denominations,”
452–64
; Yamamori and Chan, Witnesses,
54–62
).
. Dining with prisoners could be punishable even by death (Josephus Ant.
18
.
230–33
; Rapske, Custody,
392
).
. The meal in
16
:
34
cannot have been kosher (cf. Josephus Life
13–14
), reinforcing the emphasis on crossing cultural barriers there (with Rapske, Custody,
215
). Common meals in Luke-Acts reveal Christ’s family transcending ethnic and cultural barriers (Finger, Meals,
280–81
,
286
; cf. Ashworth, “Hospitality”). The importance of table fellowship may be more intelligible in a modern Asian than a modern western context (Yao, “Barriers,”
33–35
).
. Pharisees emphasized pure table fellowship (Goodman, State,
77
). For Christian resistance to the gospel in Acts, see Rapske, “Opposition,”
239–45
.