Scriptural Interpretation and Community Self-Definition in Luke-Acts and the Writings of Justin Martyr (Supplements to Novum Testamentum)

Written by Susan Wendel Reviewed By Joshua W. Jipp

One of the paradoxes of the history of early Christianity is the transition that took place whereby the majority of Jesus-believers came to be comprised of non-Jewish ethnicity. Even more remarkable is the claim made by some Christians that non-Jewish followers of Jesus represent the true people of God to whom belong Israel's sacred writings. In this study Wendel compares and contrasts the appropriation of Israel's Scriptures in Luke-Acts and the writings of Justin and asks: “How was it possible for a group of non-Jews to lay claim to the sacred texts of Jews and use these scriptures to define their community?” (p. 2). Her book answers this question in a twofold way by exploring Luke's and Justin's “presentation of Christ-believers as authoritative interpreters of the Jewish Scriptures and their portrayal of Christ-believers as recipients of the promises therein” (p. 3).

Part One (“Authoritative Scriptural Interpretation and Group Identity”) situates the argumentative strategies of Luke and Justin within the common Jewish practice of using scriptural exegesis as a means of revelation. The practice of revelatory scriptural exegesis was used as a means of defining Jewish group identity (ch. 1, “Early Jewish Exegetes and Community Identity”). Thus, Second Temple Jewish authors “demonstrate the belief that scriptural exegesis was a divinely inspired activity that stood in continuity with classical prophetic traditions” (p. 43). Jewish groups thereby began to articulate and defend their identity by using various strategies to portray their group or their leader as in possession of special knowledge or attributes that secured their authoritative exegesis of the biblical texts (e.g., Dan 9; 11-12; 1 Enoch 85-90; CD 2-6).

Like these Jewish groups, Luke and Justin use similar strategies to present Christ-believers as the divinely inspired interpreters of Israel's Scriptures. For both, the interpretation of Israel's sacred texts comprises an essential element of the message about Christ (ch. 2, “Exegesis in the Writings of Luke and Justin”). Perhaps the most striking similarity between Luke and Justin is their description of the risen Christ appearing to his disciples, explaining how he is the focal point of the writings and commissioning them to engage in christological scriptural exegesis in their mission (Luke 24:25-27, 44-47; Justin, 1 Apol. 49:5; 50:12). Believers in Christ possess special exegetical privilege as their scriptural interpretation is mediated to them through the revelation of the risen Christ. There are, however, significant differences between Luke and Justin.Luke presents the apostles as prophetic interpreters of Israel's Scriptures who declare to the Jews how the events concerning Jesus fulfill their Scriptures. Thus, the story of Jesus extends the biblical story concerning Israel. There is, then, a strong prophetic continuity between the Jewish scriptures and the events surrounding Jesus (e.g., Luke 4:25-27; Acts 7:22-53). For Justin, however, Christ is the pre-existent Logos who directly inspires the Jewish writings as predictions that he then teaches and fulfills when he becomes incarnate (e.g., 1 Apol. 36:1-3; 38:1-8). The Jewish writings were never really about the Jewish people, then, “as much as they record the utterances and deeds of the Logos that also presage his incarnation” (p. 119).

Chapter 3 (“Competing for Identity within a Greco-Roman Milieu”) notes that Justin uses the apologetic strategy of appealing to the Jewish Scriptures as an ancient, superior form of knowledge in order to present “the exegesis of Christ-believers as a form of philosophical inquiry that rivals Greco-Roman philosophy” (p. 151). Unlike Justin, Luke does not appeal to the Jewish writings to legitimate Christianity within the Greco-Roman world. The Mosaic law is not set forth as superior legislation, but serves rather a prophetic function that testifies to the authority of Moses, who bestows “living oracles” to Israel (p. 144). Luke is less concerned, then, with presenting his movement to the outside world and more occupied in narrating “a competition between Christ-believers and other Jews for primacy over the same sacred texts” (p. 151).

Chapter 4 demonstrates that Luke and Justin portray their community's scriptural exegesis as a divinely-enabled eschatological gift that presents their group as having sole authority to interpret the Jewish scriptures. In Acts, the “witnesses” take on the role of the Isaianic Servant (cf. Isa 42:6-7; 49:6) who brings illumination to Jews and Gentiles through their revelatory interpretation of the scriptures (e.g., Acts 9:15; 13:46-47; 26:12-13). Conversely, Luke uses Israel's Scriptures to justify the judgment of those who reject the scriptural exposition of the Christians (e.g., Isa 6:9-10; Acts 28:25-27). Justin presents the apostles' preaching as the fulfillment of eschatological promises by portraying those who respond to their message as recipients of a better, new covenant and “as participants in the eschatological pilgrimage described in Isaiah 2 (cf. Micah 4)” (p. 171; cf. Dial. 122.3-5; 1 Apol. 39:1-3). As Luke appeals to Isa 6:9-10 to justify Jewish unbelief, so Justin appeals to Isa 65:1-3 to explain the Jews' inability to recognize Christ as the fulfillment of their Scriptures (1 Apol. 49:1-5). An important contrast, however, should be noted: whereas Luke describes the rejection of the message by some Jews (e.g., Acts 13:27-28), Justin “makes a global statement about the misperception and culpability of all Jews everywhere” (p. 187; e.g., 1 Apol. 31.5-8). Again, where there is prophetic continuity in using Israel's Scriptures to explain some Jews' rejection by Luke-Acts, Justin uses the prophetic oracles as global statements of judgment against the entire Jewish people.

In her final chapter (“Whose Promises Are They?”), Wendel explores how Luke and Justin portray Christians as recipients and heirs of the scriptural promises through a comparison of their treatment of the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises, the Isaianic promises, and the promised descent of the Spirit. Wendel argues that whereas “Justin portrays all Christ-believers . . . as recipients of the promises that God originally made to Israel, Luke depicts only Christ-believing Jews as heirs to these promises” (p. 214). So, for example, Gentile believers do not inherit the promises God made to the seed of Abraham; rather, they simply share in the aspect of the promise that declared that “all the families of the earth” would be blessed through Abraham's seed (cf. Acts 3:25-26). Thus, while Gentile believers benefit from the scriptural promises made to the Jews, they are not the heirs of the promises that were made to and for the Jews. For Justin, however, Christians are “the true Israel,” and as God's new covenant people, they inherit all of the promises made to Israel. While both agree that only Christ-believers are the beneficiaries of the promises, Luke portrays only Jewish Christians as the heirs of the promises made to Israel and Gentile Christians as heirs of those made to the nations.

Wendel's study is impressively researched, clearly written, and exegetically sound (though unsurprising). It nicely demonstrates the value of comparative studies. Long quotations from Luke-Acts and Justin allow the reader to participate easily in comparing and contrasting the writings. Wendel convincingly proves the similarities between the strategies used by Luke and Justin to present Christ-believers as the divinely inspired interpreters and heirs of the Jewish Scriptures. Perhaps of greater interest, however, are the differences she exposes. Whereas Luke-Acts manifests scriptural prophetic continuity between the Jewish people and Christ-believers, Justin dispossesses the Jews of their writings and the promises made to them (save the prophetic judgment oracles!). Though she does not draw out the implication as strongly as I had hoped (but see pp. 7-12), the differences between Luke-Acts and Justin cast in doubt the argument often made, and now in vogue (cf. Richard Pervo, Laura Nasrallah, and Shelley Matthews), that Acts is a second-century text based on its similarities to Justin and second-century Christian apologists. When compared with Justin, Luke appears to be writing at a time when there was greater continuity between “Christianity” and “Judaism.”


Joshua W. Jipp

Joshua W. Jipp
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Deerfield, Illinois, USA

Other Articles in this Issue

Evaluating a new English translation of the Bible can be extremely difficult...

Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) is remembered today as a saint, scholar, preacher, pastor, metaphysician, revival leader, theologian, Calvinist—the list goes on...

Almost two decades ago I wrote an essay titled " When Is Spirituality Spiritual? Reflections on Some Problems of Definition ...

He was the youngest son of elderly parents. His childhood was secluded and unhappy, which might in some measure account for his lifelong melancholy...