A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. Vol. 2: Introduction and Commentary on Acts XV-XXVIII

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Sep 2001 by Pao, David W

A more fundamental matter concerns both Barrett's method and his understanding of the author as a theologian. Barrett adopts the traditional historical-critical method and is able to produce a fresh and insightful work. While his cautious comments regarding other methodologies should not be ignored, one wonders if this historical approach is alone sufficient for uncovering the power of the narrative of Acts. His argument that literary criticism finds "more scope in other parts of the NT than in a matter-of-fact work such as Acts" (p. lxxviii) is debatable, as does his suggestion that "the thought of Acts lies on the surface and does not require elaborate hermeneutical arts to draw it out" (p. lxxviii). While not entirely incorrect, viewing Acts merely as a "matter-of-fact" work can prevent one from recognizing the theological current behind the account of historical events. This may explain why Barrett can say that "there is in Acts no profound Christological thought" (p. lxxxvii), and that the author "has no theological doctrines that he wishes to commend beyond basic Christian conviction" (p. cxii). Moreover, the connections between various episodes frequently lose their significance when Acts is understood merely as a collection of traditional stories. Thus, Barrett concludes that the author's "strength as a writer lies in the presentation of a single event, not in the logical linking of a sequence of events" (p. 1071). Finally, while his statement that the "lessons Luke presses upon his readers are not speculative but practical" (p. liii) may be true, it sets up a false dichotomy between theological truths and practical admonition, both of which we should expect from the narrative of Acts.

In this commentary, one will value the theological insights built on close textual analysis of individual episodes. However, one would hope to find a deeper appreciation of Luke as a theologian who composes a unified theological work. For what Barrett has given us, we should be profoundly grateful. His knowledge of the text and the world from which it emerges provides us with a solid foundation upon which further studies can be built.

David W. Pao

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, IL