I would say that the New Testament histories are like the Old Testament histories in that they continue the same redemptive story, and are therefore organically connected. I would say that they are unlike in that they have lost virtually all of their typology in favor of daylight-clear actual reality. Christ’s coming was as the dawning of the sun — it is difficult to see your way, as you walk in the moonlight, but when the day comes, you can see where you’re coming from, and where you are headed. So, as the story of redemption progressed throughout the OT, it was only dimly seen — but in Acts, it is much more clear, and the Christ-centeredness of it all is blatantly undeniable even to outsiders.

The question of application is very involved and difficult. I would definitely say that the apostolic office is foundational and unrepeatable — and yet the basic picture of a spirit-filled Church seems to be held forth as the normative model for this era of redemptive history.

One point to consider is that, the epistles give commands which, unless explicitly stated otherwise, should be seen as binding on the church until the second coming of Christ. So, when you both see a reality evidenced in NT history and see it commanded in the epistles, I would say it ought to be a reality in the modern church as well. I don’t know if that’s any help or not, but that’s what’s coming to me off-the-cuff.

How are we to interpret and apply what we find in a New Testament post-ressurection historical narrative ? Does it change anything from what you wrote below ? And can interpretative principle settle the issue of to what extent apostles’ signs are available for the Church today ?

Thank you,