The+Shipwreck

toc

There are not many scenes throughout the Bible that include time on the seas. However, in Acts 27, Luke spends thirty one verses explaining Paul’s experience on the ship as he was heading to Rome. While on the ship, there is a large storm at sea and Luke goes into great detail about the storm and the shipwreck. There have been many different speculations about why Luke went into such detail about this particular event. Was it really //that// important? Was it symbolic? Was it allegorical? The views on Luke’s account of the storm and shipwreck are numerous; nevertheless, Luke’s point is showing God’s sovereignty.

There are several different interpretations of the Scripture in Acts 27. One interpretation is that it is simply a historical report. However, this view seems unsatisfactory. While it is possible that it is an eyewitness that gives the account, which would explain the detailed narrative, it doesn’t explain why Luke would include it all.[|[1]] It also doesn’t “enable [the readers] to appreciate which moments out of a very long and frightening journey are selected for narration: was nothing of moment said or done by any of the characters during the fourteen days of drifting?”[|[2]]

Another view is the complete opposite: the Scripture is interpreted to have a symbolic meaning. Some of the things that pull this theory together are the parallels between Jesus’ and Paul’s paths toward their fates, sea and water are associated with death and resurrection, and the use of the terms such as “being saved” (Acts 27:31). This is all an allegorical parallel to the death and resurrection of Jesus.[|[3]] One of the problems with this view is that it is too highly schematic that it can take away from the text. If Luke’s point was allegorical, it wouldn’t explain the narrative from the point of a witness; and Luke wouldn’t have put in so much detail if his point wasn’t about the detail but about the overall story.[|[4]] One of the last, but important problems with this interpretation is that it isn’t consistent with Luke’s writings. Nowhere else in this long narrative does Luke ever have the reader make such a huge leap to see this as an allegory.[|[5]]

A third interpretation of the Scripture is that all of the Scripture in Acts 27 about the storm and the shipwreck is fictional. It would give Luke the opportunity to add details to make the story more exciting and entertaining. This would account for the Hellenistic literary motifs that are in the narrative, according to this view.[|[6]] However, the term “fictional” could be misleading and the reader’s may think that this was entirely made up from Luke’s imagination. It would also be safe to say that there was too much time and detail taken on this to end up being fictional.[|[7]] Probably the best way to interpret this section of Scripture is to recognize “that ancient historians used “fictional” techniques even when they were relating events that had every claim to be considered historical, since narrative of any sort requires both strong selection and shaping if it is to yield any meaning at all.”[|[8]] Luke was not only interested in giving the facts, but he was also interested in communicating a moral message of an example of instruction and imitation. This interpretation also makes the readers pay closer attention to //how// Luke figured out what to include and how to shape it in the narrative to convey his meaning.[|[9]]

While it is important to interpret the Scripture in the correct way, it is also important to understand Luke’s message and his entire reason for going into so much detail about the large sea storm and the shipwreck: God is sovereignly in control. Even through the fourteen days that they were drifting in the ship, the times that they had no food, and feared for their safety, God was always in control, and He sovereignly ordained everything to happen the way that it did. Paul had prophesied early in Acts 27 that there would be great injury and loss to the boat, but that there would be no loss of life. The only way that Paul could have known that was if the Lord was in control. There was also a time that they escort had a plan to kill the prisoners, in verse 42, so that they wouldn’t be able to escape. This could not happen because it would disrupt God’s plan to have everyone on the boat survive.[|[10]] Another piece of evidence that is proof that God is in control is the fact that Julius, a pagan who had divine purpose, saved Paul’s life and therefore the lives of everyone on the ship through God’s intervention. The people’s lives were saved because of Paul’s presence on the boat.[|[11]] Julius couldn’t stop the other men from carrying out their plan, but he saved Paul, which then ensured that the prophecy would be fulfilled.[|[12]]

It has always been stressed that interpreting Scripture correctly is very important. Understanding Scripture wrongly could affect one’s view of the Bible and its passages. In relation to the story of the storm and shipwreck in Acts 27, there are many different views about interpreting Luke’s story. While that is important, the readers need to look at the main point that Luke was trying to make in putting this story in his narrative: God is sovereignly in control.

Bibliography

Fernando, Ajith. //The NIV Application Commentary: Acts//: Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998. Johnson, Luke Timothy. //The Acts of the Apostles//: Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1992. Keck, Leander E., Ed. //The New Interpreter’s Bible: General Articles and Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections for Each Book of the Bible//: Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2002.

[|[1]] Luke Timothy Johnson //The Acts of the Apostles// (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1992), 456. [|[2]] Ibid, 457. [|[3]] Ibid, 457. [|[4]] Ibid, 457. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13px;">[|[5]] Ibid, 457. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13px;">[|[6]] Ibid, 457. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13px;">[|[7]] Ibid, 457. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13px;">[|[8]] Ibid, 457-458. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13px;">[|[9]] Ibid, 458. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13px;">[|[10]] Leander E. Keck, Ed, //The New Interpreter’s Bible: General Articles and Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections for Each Book of the Bible// (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002), 353. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13px;">[|[11]] Ajith Fernando, //The NIV Application Commentary: Acts// (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 643. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13px;">[|[12]] Leander E Keck, Ed, //The New Interpreter’s Bible: General Articles and Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections for Each Book of the Bible// (Nashville, Abingdon Press, 2002), 353.

media type="custom" key="9723796"

media type="custom" key="9723800"