Greg Bloomquist wrote:
>>>In any case, whether there is or isn't a connection will have to
be developed by more than just a simple rejection on Marshall's part.
The fact that at least three of the elements of 2.42 are
subsequently developed lexically -- rather than just thematically,
which is always a point of criticism in much parallelomania! -- is to
me worth probing.
Pardon me if my memory is failing, but I think only two are developed
lexically. I don't remember seeing any repetition of DIDACH or of
PROSEUCH. The word in the expansion corresponding to "prayer" is
>>>Furthermore, IF there is a connection, it suggests a radical
re-writing of our understanding of apostolic teaching, the first
element of 2.42.
In a previous post I commented favorably on the connection between
teaching and signs/wonders, but I don't want to do any any "radical
re-writing." Examining the occurrences of DIDACH/DIDASKW in Acts
turns up a good number of examples where there is no hint of such
miraculous activity, but where the verbal discourse is quite evident.
The revelational significance of signs and wonders is well accepted
by nearly everyone I know, so I see no need for a radical rewriting.
If the concern is to legitimize signs and wonders for today, one will
have to do more than link them with apostolic teaching. [Greg--After
I wrote this, I saw your follow-up post in which you address this
point. Thanks.] That issue does not depend upon whether signs and
wonders are an aspect of teaching but rather upon whether the events
that took place at the apostles' hands are to be expected in every
In Love to God and Neighbor,
Bob Jones University