This week I have no excuse. I don't know what I was thinking wearing a Buc-ee's t-shirt while recording. Guess it was an unconscious desire to represent
The Acts and Epistles were too broad of a subject. In the future I would prefer to break them apart. At the same time, I'm looking forward to some Hermeneutics 102/201 classes on Paul and John's epistles. The desire is to do one in the fall of next year.
Other then that little side quip, I don't think there was much newness in this lecture. I do believe that the modern church's perspective on the book of Acts is deficient. In reality it contains the historical climax of the history of redemption. This lone book describing the early church historical brings an anti-climactic finish to an otherwise tremendous story.
I think this says a lot about Luke's perspective on the work of the church. It was to continue in the theme and flow of the early church. It was to model the work of Jesus Christ and the apostles.
The epistles are another beast all together. And though we look at very very primitive aspects of them, there were many good questions and significant discussion held afterwards. While looking at the epistles as a genre is useful, each individual author does need to be looked at to see their "color commentary" of the church and salvation history.