{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023688663282571912, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.915, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Messiah and Mission in Acts

a probing of his articulation of the tension inherent to Luke’s understanding of the Law. Professor Tyson rightly questions Jacob Jervell’s reading of LukeActs, in which Luke is said to view the Law to be fully in force for the early Christian community, both Jew and Gentile obligated to keep the portion of the Law which applies to them. According to Tyson, the Lukan tension between the prophetic and legal portions of the Scripture is a ’utilitarian’ one. Luke recognizes that in some areas Scripture is ’not adequate under any interpretation’. God, Jesus, or the Spirit may annul certain points of the Scripture in some situations. The Cornelius episode provides a good example of this phenomenon. This section is the ’centerpiece’ of Luke’s defense of the Gentile mission, but unlike other sections which figure importantly for Luke in this regard, it lacks any argumentative appeal to the prophetic Scriptures. Instead, Luke here downplays Scripture precisely because he is aware that it is unable to support the revocation of the food laws. Moreover, according to Tyson, Luke is uncomfortable with raising questions about the authority of Torah,