Eschatology in Luke 080063070X

Citation preview

FACETfbBOOKS

BIBLICAL SERIES -

30

John Reumann, General Editor

Eschatology in Luke by E. EARLE ELLIS

FORTRESS PRESS

PHILADELPHIA

FACET BOOKS BIBLICAL SERIES

This book represents an author's revISIon of a paper entitled "The Function of Eschatology in the Gospel of Luke," read at the Journees bibliques, at the University of Louvain, Belgium, August 21-23, 1968. A German translation has appeared in Zeitschrift fur Theologic und Kirche 66 (1%9): 387-402, which is to be reprinted in DaI LllkaJEvangeli/llJl, ed. by G. Braumann (Wege der Forschung, 280 [Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft}). Biblical quotations which are not the author's own rendering are from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyrighted 1946 and 1952 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America, and are used by permission.

Published by Fortress Press, 1972 Copyright © 1972 by FORTRE~S PRESS Library of CongrcIJ Catalog Card Number 72-75649 ISBN 0-8006-3070-X

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.

3235C72

Printed in U.S.A.

1-3070

Contents

Editor's Introduction

VII

ESCHATOLOGY IN LUKE 1. Introductory Problems

1

2. The Views of Conzelrnann, Flender, and Others

5

3. The Conceptual Framework of Luke's Eschatology

11

4. The Two Stages in Luke: Present and Future

16

For Further Reading

21

Editor's Introduction

T

HE study of "Eschatology in Luke," by E. Earle Ellis, of New Brunswick Seminary, rates attention for at least four reasons. Two have to do with matters set forth in the very title: the function of "eschatology," and "Luke" as a reflection of the editorial craftsmanship and the theology of the author of Luke-Acts. A third is the role Luke's eschatology plays in early Christian history and in what has been dubbed "early catholicism." Finally there is the fact that Professor Ellis, as an articulate spokesman for a salvation-history perspective in New Testament scholarship, seeks to pose an alternative to what Hans Conzelmann, Helmut Flender, and others have done with Luke and his eschatology. The matter of eschatology need not detain us long here. Ever since Johannes Weiss insisted in 1892 that Jesus' central message was "inextricably involved with a number of eschatological-apocalyptic views" (Jesl/S' Proclamation of the Kingdom of God, trans. and ed. by R. H. Hiers and D. L. Holland [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971], p. 131) and Albert Schweitzer argued that all Jesus' words and indeed his entire life were based on an "eschatological worldview" (V 011 Reimams ZII Wrede, 1906), eschatology has been with us as a factor in biblical thought which no one can ignore; indeed, it is viewed by many as the mainspring which gives the biblical outlook its tension and power. In systematic theology eschatology has been VII

Editor' J Introduction

restored to a place involving more than "last chapters about last things." It has invaded ecumenical Christendom ("Christ the hope of the world"). It has served as a base for the "theologies of hope." Of course, there have been varying definitions of eschatology, and varying assessments of what should be emphasized in it. "Apocalyptic" has been viewed as a particularly provincial and obscurantist type of eschatology, and in other cases saluted as the matrix out of which Christian faith arose. "Futurist eschatology," centering in the second coming (parousia) of Jesus, has been defended by some as crucial both to Jesus' own outlook and the New Testament faith; but "realized eschatology" (where God's decisive thing is regarded as already having been done) has been touted by others as Jesus' proper view and the real intention of Paul and John-while some contend that only a combination of the two, present and future, will satisfy the evidence. It is to this debate that Professor Ellis's remarks in part speak, both as to Jesus' own eschatology and the function that Luke intends eschatology to play for the church as he writes his two-volume work. About the place of Luke in current New Testament studies, as a barometer of pressures and interests, little need be said either. Dozens of articles, monographs, and books, many of them cited in the footnotes of this essay, document this stress on Luke-Acts. And why should this not be so? After all, Luke has provided us with the longest of the canonical Gospels and the one that seems most like a historian's biography. He has produced the only overall history of any sort from the first two centuries concerning the first three decades of the church. He has provided us with more pages of the New Testament than any other single author. Luke's view of Peter, Paul, Jerusalem Christianity, and, in many ways, of Jesus has become dominant over the centuries, and his chronology has determined the church-year calendar and historical outlook for most of Christendom. In particular, we must note, "Luke the physician" has traditionally been seen as "Luke the historian," his work accorded viii

Editor's Introdllction

high standards of accuracy. More recently he has been recognized as much more a theologian, seen at times as willing even to mold sources or create material to fit his view of the divine plan. For some, the theology of Luke can happily coexist with his historical veracity; for others the theological tendencies make suspect much of the historical data which Luke reports. Appearance in English of Haenchen's commentary on Acts ( 1971) cannot help but emphasize the latter trend. On the whole issue, d. Barrett's Facet Book, LlIke the HiJtorian ill Recellt Stlldy (1970), and a host of articles listed at the end of this book under "For Further Reading." A number of them continue to insist on the factualness of Luke (d. the articles by Lindsey and Gasque), others reflect (while still differing at points) the work of Conzelmann, Haenchen, etc. (e.g., Talbert's article, or Edwards). Of special pertinence are the many treatments on Lukan redaction and theology as factors in shaping his writings. Redaction criticism (Redaktionsgeschichte) of Luke is one of the significant areas of current study, with almost every aspect being touched: Christology (Voss), use of the Old Testament (Holtz), view of history (Morganthaler), prayer (Ott), not to mention the overall assessments by Conzelmann and Flender. Professor Ellis is among those who have entered the interpretative lists here, with a number of articles on Luke-Acts and a commentary on Luke (1966), one of the few in recent years. Aware of all this redaction study and of Luke's reputation as theologian-editor, he seeks also to undergird Luke's place as historian and as one who stands in continuity with the views of Jesus. \X7hen Luke's exact place in Christian beginnings is assessed in relation to later developments, even on into the second and third centuries, the term "early catholicism" (FdjhkatholizisI1lt1 s) is sometimes heard. Luke's role in early Christian history is seen as pivotal: he writes as Jesus' first biographer and the church's first historian, at a time when the old eschatological impulses were being changed, the excitement and enthusiasm channeled institutionally, the church bedding down for a long existence in the world, the parousia now a distant hope instead IX

Editor' J Introduction

of an imminent joy and daily motive for living. Because eschatology was changing (away from Jesus' views, it is said, and from the outlook in the church's early days), Luke's redaction had, it is held, to shape and direct the materials about Jesus and the church so as to help Christians toward a new type of existence in a world of lengthening decades, where the gift of the Spirit and the practice of prayer sustain a missionary advance. It was no longer a time when the Son of man on the clouds of heaven might appear at any moment; now the church, sustained by the word of preaching, must structure itself as an institution, take thought about its ministry, develop an ethic for life in the world, and in general prepare for transition to the settled type of life we know in the catholic Christianity of the second and third centuries. Willi Marxsen has particularly injected the term "early catholicism" into recent discussion (Der "FruhkatholizismlfS" im Net/en Testament [Neukirchen, 1958])_ Luke is seen as a major representative of this catholicizing trend. Some have responded with alacrity, "See, Catholicism is a part of the New Testament canon." Others rejoin that such a step as we have in Luke represents a "fall" into compromise with the world from the standards of the earliest church. And Hans Conzelmann, while suggesting that Luke writes for the thIrd generation of Christians (Luke 1: 1-4: "eyewitnesses," "ministers of the word," and "us" in the third generation; Luke develops the idea of "twelve apostles" as figures in the distant past, with a generation of apostles' disciples as a link to his own day), nonetheless holds that Luke-Acts is of a different stripe than the early catholicism seen in Ignatius of Antioch (cf. All Olltline of the Theology of the New Testamellt, trans. by John Bowden [New York: Harper & Row, 1969], pp. xvi, 149, 289 ff.). Opinions continue to vary, depending on how "early catholicism" is defined and whether it is seen as a positive or pejorative term, but clearly Luke-Acts stands in the middle of today's discussion about early Christian theology and history. In this debate two of the most significant voices belong to Hans Conzelmann and Helmut Flender. Since Dr. Ellis's essay x

Editor's Introduction

deals with their stances on eschatology, it is important to understand something more of the total views of these two presentations on Luke's theology. Conzelmann, now professor at G6ttingen, set forth his views in an epoch-making book in 1954 entitled "The Mid-Section of Time" (more prosaically in the English translation, The Theology of 51 LlIke). Though tersely written, at times almost like a collection of exegetical notes on "geography in Luke" or "Lukan eschatology," the book is a brilliant rereading of the Lukan landscape, mapped according to the pIan of history presupposed for the author of Luke-Acts, for his views on Jesus, man, and the church. In thus analyzing Luke's theologicalredactional work, without going into detail on Luke's sources or being concerned about how much of this was the view of the historical Jesus (though he shows at times how Luke has changed his sources or differs from Jesus), Conzelmann in many ways inaugurated the current interest in Redakliol1Sgeschichte (see the titles by Rohde and Perrin on this discipline). According to Conzelmann, the heart of Luke's theology is a plan or history of salvation, developed by the evangelisttheologian-historian in light of the failure of the parousia to materialize. Luke's view, which became normative for much of the church, can best be visualized schematically in terms of three periods stretching from creation to the second coming: the age of Israel; the unique time when Jesus was on earth (in Conzelmann's graphic title, Die Mitte der Zeit); and the age of the church (cf, Acts), The middle panel is again subdivided into three parts: Jesus in Galilee; on the way to Jerusalem; and at Jerusalem. If one wants to stress symmetry, the period of the church in Acts can also be subdivided into three parts: Jerusalem; Samaria and neighboring regions; and "into all the world" (Asia Minor, Greece, and Rome). Separating the period of Jesus and the age of the church is a "holy time," intersecting from above, between the epochs and consisting of Jesus' resurrection appearances at Jerusalem over forty days, and then the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost, opening a new and lengthy epoch in God's plan. In Luke the parousia is not expected very XI

Editor's Introduction

soon. All sorts of apocalyptic signs may occur, but "the end will not be at once" (21:9; contrast the parallels at Mark 13:7 and Matthew 24:6). From this overall summary it can be seen that Conzelmann's analysis begins with observations on Luke's "theological geography," i.e., the use of details of place to express a theological meaning. Thus, according to Conzelmann, a "mountain" is usually a place of revelation (6: 12), where "the crowds" do not come (compare Luke 9:37 with Mark 9:9 and Matthew 17:9); for Luke it is especially a place for prayer, not teaching (hence he has a sermon, not on "the mount" but on "the plain"; in chapter 21 the eschatological discourse is not on the Mount of Olives but at the temple). The lake, representing the "abyss," is a place where Jesus can manifest his power, though not a place where he teaches. Luke's idea of the general geography of Palestine is also "theological." One may liken it to "a New Yorker's map of the U.S.A." with its exaggerated features (the five boroughs huge, the suburbs important, but little between Jersey City and say, Las Vegas or San Francisco!). The holy land seems a block with Samaria in the left half, Galilee in the top right and Judea bottom right. The border line between Judea and Galilee is fuzzy (cf. Luke 4:44, and the placing of Nain apparently in Judea, 7: 17). Jerusalem is envisioned as a "free city" of the Jews, separate from its temple. Jesus seems to make his triumphal entry directly into the temple (19:45), where he has a sustained teaching ministry (19:47; 20:1; 21:1 ff., 37). He weeps over the city (19 :41-44) and enters it only to be rej ected and to die (22: 7 ff.). Galilee is regarded as evangelized by Jesus, but not Samaria. He is rejected there (9; 51-56). The "travel section" is not through Samaria, a land that is evangelized only in Acts 8. In sketching this Lukan version of Heilgeschichte or the plan of God (note the emphasis on God's will, e.g., Acts 2: 23, 4: 28; Luke 7: 30 ) -a salvation-history outlook which appears prior to Luke, even in Paul, but which is massively developed by Luke-we may note Conzelmann's assumption that Luke xu

Editor's I ntrodflction

1-2 (the infancy material) is a later addition to the Gospel. Others have sought to build these chapters too into the overall Lukan view (cf. the articles by Oliver and Tatum under "For Further Reading"). The "period of Israel" was marked by "the law and the prophets," down to and including John the Baptist, a preacher of repentance, the last of the prophets, but no eschatological figure. John is not, by Luke, compared typologically with Jesus (9:9, contr,lst the parallels). John's baptism does not give the Spirit (cf. Acts 1:5, 11:16, 18:24-19:7). His 10CliS of activity is the Jordan valley (3: 3), not Galilee or Judea, which are Jesus' "turf." John is not, as Mark 1: 1-4 suggests, "the beginning of the gospel." Instead, "the law and the prophets were until (and including) John; from then (with Jesus' coming) the kingdom of God is being preached as good news" (16:16; contrast Matthew 11:12-13). In contrast to the ages before and after it, the "period of Jesus" is uniquely "salvation time," for during this period Satan is off the stage of the earth and is bound (cf. 4: 13 with 22:3 and 31; contrast 9:3 and 10:4 with 22:35-38). Here we have the unrepeatable epoch of Jesus' ministry, symbolized in the Isaiah quotation on Jesus' lips at 4:21, "Today this scripture (about a "year of the Lord," the Spirit, and good news) has been fulfilled." Jesus' earthly ministry is looked on as the "foundation period," to which it is the duty of eyewitness apostles to testify (d. Acts 10: 38, 1: 21-22). In Galilee Jesus gathers witnesses who see the wonder-working Son of God and later will bear testimony to him. The "travel section" (9: 5119: 27) prepares for the sufferings ahead. The Jerusalem ministry (unlike the earlier phases in that there are no miracles performed) distinguishes sharply between "temple" and "city." The temple becomes the starting point for the church in Acts. The three stages in Jesus' life can also be described as messiahship, passion, and kingship (An Ollt/;Ile of the Theology of the New Testament, p. 151). The "period of the church" (in Acts) reaches from Jesus' ascension to the future parousia. The church is God's people,

xiii

Editor's Introduction

under the Spirit, continuing salvation history. Its program is missionary advance. It is an ecclesia pressa, under persecution, but enduring all pressures through the Spirit, prayer, sacrament, and fellowship. This understanding of the church, as part of God's plan, can be set forth by Luke most clearly in Acts, but his Gospel prepares the way for it by the manner in which, e.g., the Synoptic eschatological discourse is rewritten in 21:5 if. (correcting the notion of a soon-to-be parousia; note Luke's ending, 21: 34-36) . All would agree that Conzelmann has uncovered many significant features of Luke as a theologian of Heilsgeschichte. But there have been numerous criticisms too of his analysis (cf. the treatments listed in the bibliography by Brown, Kiimmel, and Wilson). A major dissenting voice is heard in the dissertation by Helmut Flender, written at Erlangen in 1964, published in German the next year, and translated in 1967 as St Lttke: Theologian of Redemptit'e History. (The German title, Heil ,md Ge.rchichte in der Theologie des Ltlkas, evokes reflections of Oscar Cullmann's Rei! als Geschichte, published about the same time and translated into English as SaliJation i11 Hi.rtory.) Though Flender has interests of his own as a systematic theologian, in this book he parallels Conzelmann in concentrating on Luke and his thought, without particular concern for the historical Jesus or pre-Lukan sources. Luke is regarded by Flender as a man of the postapostolic period who finds himself in a situation more akin to ours today than the apostolic period of Paul with its expectancy of the imminent coming of the Lord. Thus Luke faced the problem of telling the life of Jesus for his day without falling into a false historicizing or a gnostic disregard for history. He had to root salvation in the past story of Jesus, but also make clear the present contemporaneity of salvation for the church of his day. Flender believes that the method of composition of Luke's two volumes is a clue to his theology. Art is harnassed for theological purposes. Accordingly, Flender first analyzes Luke's technique of composition and then takes up his use of "profane" speech (e.g., the expressions from Hellenistic historians xiv

Editor's lnfrodllction

which he uses in his prologues) and the sort of preaching to the Gentile world in its own terms which we have in the Areopagus address in Acts 17. Here Flender argues that the sort of Christology which Luke has taken over is a clue for understanding the way he uses such "secular" language and "worldly" preaching: Luke means the gospel to be seen as penetrating into the world orders. In discussing the sense of Heilsge.rchichte in Luke-Acts, Flender finds the time-scheme presupposed to be like that in Revelation 12-first, victory in heaven, then victory on earth. Hence the importance in Luke of the exaltation of Christ in heaven, where salvation is completed. The church is then assessed in its setting in the world, amid world history, and finally the presence of salvation is seen as lying in the gift of the Holy Spirit and the encounter with the exalted Christ. Flender's conclusions thus deal with the world and the position of Christians and the church in it; the church; and the past "life of Jesus" which means the possibility for salvation now. In all this there is often dependence on what Bultmann and Conzelmann have written. But Flender seeks to elevate Luke to a position which Bultmann assigned only to Paul and John as key theologians of New Testament Christianity. In particular Flender stresses the matter of social ethics, an element which he feels is strong in Luke-Acts but weak in Paul or John, especially as Bultmann interprets them. As for Conzelmann, he agrees with him on many individual points, but questions some of his basic methodology and his general three-division reconstruction of Lukan theology. It is Flender's two-stage Christology, involving heaven and earth, his view of Jesus' exaltation as more decisive than his resurrection, and Flender's individualizing of eschatology which will occupy Professor Ellis's attention in particular in the essay which follows. A general impression from the reviews is that Flender's book has not had the impact which Conze!mann's analysis of Luke did; cf. C. H. Dodd's comment in a private letter, quoted by R. R. Williams in Historicity and Chronology in the New Testament (London: SPCK, 1%5), p. 150: "I xv

Editor' J Introdlletion

suppose we shall have to give Acts over, so to speak, to Conzelmann," a judgment that may apply to Luke's Gospel as well. But Flender and other critics of Conzelmann do pose some options. The essay which follows seeks to offer an alternative from a less radical point of view. It was originally presented as a lecture during the Journees bibliques, at the University of Louvain, in 1968, and published in German in Zeitschrift fiil' Theologie lind Kirche, that version being chosen for reprinting in a German volume of significant essays on the Gospel of Luke in recent research (see p. ii for details). The version that follows reflects minor revision. E. Earle Ellis received his early training in biblical studies at the University of Virginia, where the late Professor S. Vernon McCasland introduced him to New Testament criticism, and at Wheaton (Illinois) Graduate School of Theology (M.A., B.D.). His doctoral dissertation at Edinburgh dealt with Paul's use of the Old Testament (1955; published in book form two years later). He has taught at Aurora College ( Illinois), Southern Baptist Seminary (Louisville), Bethel Seminary (St. Paul, Minnesota), and at New Brunswick Seminary (New Jersey) where he is Professor of Biblical Studies. He has given invited lectures at a number of other schools in the United States and in Europe. Post-doctoral study has included work at Tiibingen, Gottingen (von Humboldt scholar), and Marburg. In addition to the books and articles listed at the end of this book, he is at work on a commentary on 1 Corinthians in the new edition of the International Critical Commentary senes. Lutheran Theological Seminary Philadelphia February, 1972

XVI

JOHN REUMANN

INTRODUCTORY PROBLEMS

T

HE function of eschatology in the Gospel of Luke has evoked increasing interest in recent years for a number of reasons. First, it is a part of a theme, eschatology, that has led, if not dominated, New Testament studies since the beginning of this century.l Also, it accords with the current emphasis of redaction criticism that the evangelists were not merely reporters or editors but were theologians in their own right. Finally and more specifically, the eschatology of Luke plays a significant role for an important school of New Testament scholars in their interpretation of early Christian theology and history.2 1. The literature is voluminous. For a summary selection, compare W. G. Kiimmel, Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte .. Gesammelte Aufsatze 1933-1964, ed. by Erich Grasser, Otto Merk, and Adolf Fritz (Marburger Theologische Studien, 3 [Marburg: N. G. Elwert Verlag, 1965]): "Die Eschatologie der Evangelien" (1936), pp. 48-63; "Die 'konsequente Eschatologie' Albert Schweitzers im Urteil der Zeitgenossen" (1957), pp. 328-39; "Futurische und prasentische Eschatologie im altesten Urchristentum" (1959), pp, 35163 (Eng. trans., "Futuristic and Realized Eschatology in the Earliest Stages of Christianity," Journal of Religion 43 [1963]: 303-14); "Die Naherwartung in derVerkiindigung Jesu" (1964), pp, 457-70; and A. L. Moore, The Parousia in Ihe New Testament (Supplements to Novum Testamentum, 13 [Leiden: Bri II, 1966]). 2. Cf. Hans Conzelmann, Die Mitte der Zeit .. Studien zw' Theologie des Lukas (Beitrage zur historischen Theologie, 17 [Tiibingen: Mohr, 1954; 5th ed., 1964]), Eng. trans. by Geoffrey Buswell, The Theology of St Luke (New York: Harper, 1960). Studies in Lllke-Acts (festschrift for Paul Schubert), ed. by Leander E. Keck and]. Louis Martyn (Nashville & New York: Abingdon, 1966). E. Earle EJlis, The Gospel of Luke (The Century Bible, new ed. [London: Nelson, 1966]), pp. 48 ff.

1

Eschatology in Lllke

In the present situation, therefore, it is no longer the simple question, What aspects of Jesus' eschatology did Luke record? The function of eschatology in Litke has become the function of eschatology for LlIke. This raises immediate and difficult problems. To begin with, the area of inquiry must be broadened to include the book of Acts. Also, there is no agreed methodology by which one discovers what in Luke is "Lukan." Some would define "Lukan" in terms of the evangelist's own innovations. Most would agree that Mark and Q traditions give a touchstone by which variations in parallel Lukan passages may be tested. But, of course, it is not always certain whether a Lukan variation is his own de no~'o or his use of a tradition parallel to MarkS or of the retained text of Q (that Matthew has altered). Even when a text or setting or structure is in Lukan style, one must always reckon with the possibility that Luke is summarizing a source4 or taking over a setting or structure from a source. 5 The practice of making a radical distinction between a biblical writer's own comment and his use of a source rests, therefore, on a number of uncertainties. It also appears to be an oversimplification of the problem. As a method, it is questionable simply to equate "pre-Lukan" with "non-Lukan": the fact that a passage in Luke, or for that matter in a letter of Paul, is derived from an earlier tradition does not in itself make the 3. The agreements of Matthew and Luke against a parallel source in Mark are more extensive than B. H. Streeter observed in The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (London: Macmillan, 1924). Cf. Nigel Turner, "The Minor Verbal Agreements of Mt. and Lk. against Mk," in Studia Evengetica I (Texte und Untersuchungen, 73, ed. by Kurt Aland et at. [Berlin: Akademie· Verlag, 1959]), pp. 223-34; E. P. Sanders, The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tl'adition (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series, 9 [New York: Cambridge University Press, 1969]), pp. 290 ff. . 4. For example, is Luke's editorial comment in Luke 19:11 created de novo or is it a summary of matter stated or implied in his tradition (s) of the parables of "The Pounds" and "The Rejected King" (Luke 19:12-27)? 5. Regarding structure, cf. William R. Farmer, "Notes on a Literary and Form·Critical Analysis of Some of the Synoptic Material Peculiar to Luke," Neu' Testament Studies 8 (1961-62): 301-16; Charles H. Talbert, "An Anti·Gnostic Tendency in Lucan Christology," New Testament Studies 14 (1967-68): 259-71, especially 260-61.

2

Introdllctory Problems

passage less Lukan or less Pauline. One must ask a further question: In using a source, to what degree and in what way does the writer make it his own? To ask this does not solve any problems, but it offers a guideline to avoid oversimplified answers to a complex question. All of the material in Luke is in some sense "Lukan" from the fact that Luke includes it. If the traditional material has acquired a Lukan shape, the editorial material also may have a traditional character. In choosing sources, as much as in ad hoc elaboration, Luke is expressing his concerns and preferences. The investigator, therefore, must be concerned with the whole and cannot limit his attention to Lukan variations from Mark and Matthew, however important they may be. 6 Even so, the task-the very subjective taskremains: In building a general hypothesis about Luke's eschatology, what weight should be placed upon a given passage or interpretation or modification? A second problem is to discover the historical background against which the teaching of Luke is to be viewed. In some ways one is faced with the same kind of hermeneutical circle that is encountered in the "quest of the historical Jesus." From selected passages in the Synoptics one reconstructs a picture of Jesus' preresurrection mission (or proclamation); from this reconstruction one then identifies the Synoptic passages that genuinely reflect that mission.7 In the case of Luke more controls are operative, but the essential problem remains. A proper evaluation of the eschatology in Luke greatly depends upon a reconstruction of the eschatological teaching and climate in the total context. This means not only the church and society of Luke's day but also the earliest church and the preresurrection 6. Luke may include more from a source than the aspect that he is concerned to develop. But since he shows himself quite capable of altering his sources, it is doubtful that he includes anything, however traditional, with which he explicitly disagrees. 7. Cf. also R. P. C. Hanson, "The Enterprise of Emancipating Christian Belief from History," in Vindication!" EJSaYJ 011 the HiJt01'ica! Bash of Christianity, ed. by Anthony Hanson (London: SCM, and New York: Morehouse-Barlow, 1966), pp. 29-73, especially 38 f., who makes a similar observation concerning some form criticism: the Gospels are used to reconstruct the setting in the primitive church; from that reconstruction the various passages are then explained as originating in that setting.

3

Eschatology in Lllke

mission of Jesus. The limited amount of hard, factual evidence and the literary character of the evidence we do possess gives to that evaluation a considerable measure of subjectivity. In criticizing the reconstructions of certain colleagues I do not wish to leave the impression that the thesis developed here is free from these subjective elements. The task is one of weighing probabilities in which differences of judgment as well as differences of philosophy and world view play their role. 8 And, no doubt, each student is prone to read the New Testament through glasses ground in his particular theological tradition and personal inclinations. 8. For example, Continental rationalism may be contrasted with British empiricism from the time of Rene Descartes and John Locke. While these streams of thought certainly have overlapped and altered, they are not indistinguishable even today (d. Jose Ferrater Mora, PhiloJophy Today: Conflicting TendencieJ in Contempol'al'Y Thought [New York: Columbia University Press, 1960], pp. 89-98). Tn biblical studies they very likely continue implicitly to influence the priorities that a scholar in the "rationalist" or the "empiricist" tradition gives, respectively, to his approach to a problem. One may observe this kind of issue appearing at times in James Barr's critique of the Theologist'her Wih-tnbuch in his book, The Semanticr of Biblical Language (New York: Oxford University Press, 1961), pp. 211-13, 218-33, 257-60; cf. Barr's article, "Common Sense and Biblical Language," Biblica 49 (1968): especially 378,383-87. More broadly, one may note the philosophical presuppositions distinguishing the theologies of Bultmann and Cullmann.

4

2

THE VIEWS OF CONZELMANN, FLENDER, AND OTHERS

Iportance recent research two hypotheses have had considerable imfor the reconstruction of Lukan eschatology. The N

most widely discussed thesis is that Luke has introduced a theology of salvation history to explain the delay of the parousia (Hans Conzelmann: see pp. xi- xiv, 17 f.). A second thesis is that Luke's eschatology involves a shift from horizontal, apocalyptic categories-this age/age to come-to vertical, Platonic categories-earth / heaven, time / eternity. By this shift the consummation of salvation is removed from the temporal future to a timeless sphere (Helmut Flender). At the beginning of this century Johannes Weiss noted an early transformation in the church's eschatology from an expectation of an imminent parousia and new creation to a view in which the righteous were transferred at death to the messianic kingdom in Paradise or heaven. As examples of this transformation he pointed to Acts 14:22 ("through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God") and to the special Lukan traditions, that is, the rich man and Lazarus and the promise to the robber on the cross (Luke 16: 19-31; 23: 4 3) , whose origin he placed in the Jerusalem congregation. 9 To 9. J. Weiss, Die P,·edigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892), pp. 37 note, 67 note; Eng. trans. by R. H. Hiers and D. L Holland, Jesus' Proclamation of the Kingdom of God (Lives of Jesus

5

Eschatology in Luke

these texts may be added Stephen's vision of the exalted Lord (Acts 7: 56), interpreted as Jesus' welcome of his martyr into heavenly glory. Going beyond Weiss, C. K. Barrett finds this interpretation to be part of a Lukan rewriting of primitive Christian eschatology: "Luke saw that for the individual Christian death was truly an eschaton (though not the eschaton ... ) marked by what we may term a private and personal parousia of the Son of man. That which was to happen in a universal sense at the last day, happened in individual terms [at death}."lO Helmut Flender, in an appraisal of Luke's theology on this question, rea(hes essentially the same conclusion by a different route.ll According to Flendee, Luke seeks to relate the ongoing history of the world to "the new world of God which Christ brought" (p. 164). By making Jesus' exaltation-in distinction from his resurrection 12-the decisive event, Luke places the Series [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971]), p. 99, note 65; p. 136, note 100. Weiss thinks that this is the (only) form of the parousia hope that Chris· tions today can affirm. 10. C. K. Barrett, "Stephen and the Son of Man," in Apophoreta: Festschrift fiir Emst Hamchen ... , ed. by W. Schneemelcher (Beihefte 2ur Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 30 [Berlin: A. Topelmann, 1964]), pp. 35 f. There are problems in this interpretation of Acts 7. First, the episode ends with the comment not that Stephen "departed" or "was carried to heaven" but that "he fell asleep." That is, it follows the idiom of the eschatology of the primitive church (Acts 13:36; 1 Thess. 4:l3 ff., 5:10; 1 Cor. 11:30, 15:18) and of Jesus (Luke 8:52-54; d. John 1l:11; Luke 7:14). More importantly, the context of the vision in Acts 7 is the speech scene and not the death scene, the reason for the attack against Stephen and not Jesus' response to it. In the context of the speech the vision is best understood as a witness to or confirmation of Stephen's judgment upon the temple cult and the nation, a judgment which is not his own but that of the judging Son of man who is none other than Jesus (Acts 7:55 f.). There are verbal similarities with Jesus' prophecy against the temple in Luke 13:34 f. Cf. Ellis, Luke (cited above, note 2); see below also, note 30. 11. H. Flender, St Luke: Theologian 0/ Redemptit'e History, trans. by R. H. and I. Fuller (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967). This somewhat misleading title reads, in the German original, Heil und Geschichte in del' Theolo.gie des Lukas (Beitrage zur evangelischen Theologie, 41 [Munich: Chr. KaIser Verlag, 1965]). 12. This is exegetically disputed, as Flender, St Luke (cited above, note 11), p. 18, note 5, observes. Cf. C. H. Talbert, " . . . Lucan Christo logy" (cited above, note 5), p. 262, note 1; A. M. Ramsey, "What Was the Ascension?" St"diO/'ll1n NOlli Testamenti Societas, Bulletin II (1951-52; reissued, 1963), pp. 43-50; reprinted in Historicity and Chronology in the New Testament,

6

The Views of COllzelmal1f1, Flender, and Others

consummation of salvation in heaven (pp. 91-106). For Paul, the turn of the ages occurs at Jesus' resurrection, that is, in time; for Luke, "the transition ... is from this world into the celestial world which exists concurrently" (p. 19). Although eschatology is (hiddenly) made present in the church in the Spirit come "down from heaven" and in the word of proclamation (pp. 140-52), their heavenly origin determines their character: "the divine presence cannot be projected indefinitely into time" (p. 151). Since Jesus' goal is achieved with his exaltation, it and the parousia are essentially identical (p. 94). The apocalyptic sayings in Luke 17 are, therefore, given a transferred, individual application by Luke: "in that night one shall be taken and the other left" in Luke 17: 34 (cf. 12: 20 ) is similar to Jesus' word to the robber on the cross, "This day you shall be with me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43). Both refer to the day of the individual's death, in which he either loses his life or "gains it" (pp. 15, 159). Flender makes many good observations and directs attention to fundamental questions in New Testament eschatology, specifically, (1) the relation of horizontal and vertical eschatology and (2) the nature of the continuity and discontinuity between this age and the age to come. In each case, however, his answers rest upon a frame of reference and preconceptions that must in tUrn be questioned. Is the vertical dimension given to Christian eschatology by Jesus' exaltation a vehicle by which Luke shifts the temporal frame of salvation history toward the earth/heaven, time/eternity categories of Platonism and gnosticism, as Flender appears to assume?13 Or is the vertical dimenby D. E. Nineham et a!. (Theological Collections, 6 [London: SPCK, 1965] ), pp. 135-44. Although Acts 5: 31 is uncertain, no distinction between resurrection and exaltation is evident in Acts 10:39 f., 13:28, 30 f., where there appears to be a word play on "exalt" and "hang" (cf. Matthew Black, "The Son of Man Problem in Recent Research and Debate," Bulletin of the John Ry/andI Lib,.a.·y, ManrheItel' 45 [1962-63]: 305-318, especially 315 fr.). The identification of the resurrection and exaltation is favored by the grammar at Acts 2: 32 f. and by the chiastic pattern at Acts 3: 13-15, "glori· fied/delivered up, killed/raised." Cf. Luke 24:46; Acts 2:34 fr. 13. Flender thinks that, to solve the theological problem posed by redemption as an event in the past, Luke "discovers a 1-'ia media between the gnostic denial and the early catholic canonization of history" (p. 167). "Tn his

7

Eschatology in Luke

sion a necessary consequence of Jesus' exaltation which, from the beginning of the church, was incorporated into the horizontal, two-age eschatology? To determine the jUllction of Lukan eschatology it is vitally important to determine first the collceptllal context of the subject matter. In this regard the nature of man and the nature of death, as well as the relation of redemption to time, are prior questions that cannot be glossed over. As far as one can tell, Luke, like Jesus and Paul, views man in Old Testament terms. Man is a unified totality who may be viewed from different perspectives but who is not, e.g., a souVbody dualism. l4 There is nothing in man inherently immortal or divine and, consequently, the whole man is equally subject to the power of death. 15 Furthermore, the whole man is the object of God's humility he [Jesus] belongs to the new period . . . . In his divinity he stands outside of any chronological scheme, sharing God's contemporaneity with alI human time" (p. 125). "Luke has no notion of any redemptive history extending in time" (p. 162). He escapes prolonging "the eschato· logical reality of the resurrection into earthly time" (p. 19). Flender shows no awareness of Oscar CulImann's Christ and Time; The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and History (1946), Eng. trans. by Floyd V. Filson (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1950; rev. ed., 1964) or of the issues raised in it. 14. Cf. W. G. Kiimmel, Man in the Nell! Testament, trans. by John ]. Vincent (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), pp. 24, 31-34, 40-71; E. E. Ellis, "Life," in The New Bible Dictionat·y, ed. by J. D. Douglas (London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1962), pp. 735-39; R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, trans. by Kendrick Grobel (New York: Scribner's), Vol. 1 (1952), pp. 168, 202 f.; A. T. Nikolainen, Der Aufmtehungsglauben in der Bibel und ihrer Umwelt, 2 vols. (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, B XLIX, 3 and B LIX, 3 [Helsinki, 1944, 1946]), vol. 2, pp. 33-40. The pertinent passages are primarily carried over from Luke's sources. Psyche usually means "life" or "self" which is lost at death. Cf. Luke 9:24; 12:19 f.; Acts 2:27 (= Ps. 16:10); 20:10; 27:22 f. [n the midrash at Acts 2:31 the parallelism of self and sarx follows the paraIlelism of psyche and self in the preceding quotation (Acts 2:27; cf. 13:37). Note also the paraIlelism of psyche and pneuma (Luke 1;46 f.), of psy"he and soma (Luke 12:22 f.) and the equivalent use of pneuma and psyche for life-principle (Luke 8:55; Acts 20:10). Luke 12:20 ("your soul is required of [apo] you") and 23:46 (cf. Acts 2 :27, 31) reinforce the impression that no anthropological dualism affects Luke's handling of his traditions. 15. A number of scholars view the Areopagus speech (Acts 17:22-31) as an exception: "The stoic·pantheistic understanding of man in Acts 17:28 cannot be brought into harmony with the rest of the New Testament" (Kiimmel, Man in the New Testament [cited above, note 14], pp. 91. f.; cf. the literature cited there). More significantly, it cannot be brought IOto

8

The Views of COl/zelmal/l/, Flender, al/d O/hel'S resurrection power. This is especially pointed in Luke who, alone .lInong the New Testament writers, specifically identifies the resurrected Jesus as sclr)..": the glorified and incorruptible one who has been exalted to heaven is a man of "flesh and bone."16 It is true that some groups in first·century Judaism did view man dualistically, and Luke 16: 19-31 appears to presuppose that kind of background. 17 Also the patristic church, influenced by Greek philosophy and gnosticism, similarly supplemented its aflirmation of God' s acts in history with a belief in the de· parture of the soul to a timeless, eternal realm at death. Indeed, this point of view continues to be prevalent in traditional and popular theology today. But such a synthesis, a kind of "all harmony with the rest of Luke--Acts. Therefore, one must consider the pos. sibility that Luke understands Acts 17:28 differently, or views it as an ad hominem argument. The quotation from Aratus should be understood in terms of the Lukan context, including the Old Testament allusions (Acts 17:24-27; cf. 14:15). Like Paul (Col. 3:3), Luke speaks elsewhere (Luke 20:38, "all live to him") of a life (of the righteous) "in God" without implying a pantheistic understanding. See below, note 32. The idiom used of the life of the age to come (and, in the Old Testament, of the present life. e.g., Gen. 2:7; Deut. 8:3) is applied in a similar way in Acts 17 to the life of this age. Cf. S. Hanson, The Vllit)' of the Church in the New Testamelll (Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici tTpsaliensis, 14 [Uppsala: AIm· q\'ist & Wiksells, 1946]), pp. 101-5. 16. Luke 24:26. 39; Acts 2:31. Cf. Heb. 10:20. Luke is a precursor of a number of patristic writers and creeds that underscore the resurrection of the "flesh." Cf. Irenaeus, Adt·. Haer. 1. 10. I (anaslesai pasall sarka pases (1I/Ihn3polelos); Tertullian, De Virgillibus Velalldi.r I (per camis eliam resllrrel'liollem); the Apostles' Ci'eed (sarkos allaslasin, camis "esurrectiollem); texts in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christelldom, Vol. 2, The Greek alld Latill Creeds (New York: Harper, 1877), pp. 14, 17, 45; further, J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrilles (New York: Harper, 1959), pp. 463, 467 f .. ·174-79; Justin, Dial. 80; Lynn Boliek, The Resurrection of the Fle.rh; A Study of a COllfessiollal Phrase (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, and Amsterdam: van Campen, 1962). Paul does not speak of the resurrection of the flesh, probably because of the theological connotation he gives to flesh as "man under sin," "man under death." But it is a mistake to set Paul's "spiritual body" in opposition to Luke's resurrected "flesh" or to suppose, with C. K. Barrett, "Immortality and Resurrection," London Quarterly and H olbom Ret,iew 34 (1965): 99, that the phenomenon of gnosticism (e.g., the Gospel of Philip 21 ff.) "seems to do more justice to the Pauline teaching ... than do some of the more reputable patristic writers." See below, note 33. 17. Cf. E. E. Ellis, "Jesus, the Sadducees, and Qumran," New Testament Studies 10 (1963-64): 277, note 2; Luke (cited above, note 2), p. 206. Luke 16: 19-31 does not, howe\'er, pose the contrast in terms of "body" and "sou/."

9

Eschatology in Luke this and heaven too," depends upon an understanding of man and of death quite different from that found in Luke. Is The Platonic contrast of time and eternity is equally absent from Luke's eschatology, as it is from the New Testament generally.lll Luke's contrast between heaven and earth is not the occasion for cosmological speculation. It is a contrast of the "seen" and the "unseen" which, like his anthropology, has antecedents in Paul and in the Old Testament. 2Q Important for this question is Oscar Cullmann's thesis in Immortality of the Soltl or ReSllrrectioll of the Dead? It is not an isolated theme but is a significant link in Cullmann's total theology. As he rightly recognizes, a theology that includes a departure of the soul to a timeless realm or the anticipation of the parousia fulfillment at death contradicts the New Testament concept of a temporal redemption of the whole man.21 18. Cf. Jaroslav Pelikan, The Shape of Death: Life, Death, and Immortality in the Early Fathers (New York & Nashville: Abingdon, 1961), passim; Rudolf Schnackenburg, God's Rule and Kingdom, trans. by John Murray (New York: Herder & Herder, 1963), pp. 320 f.; Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (cited above, note 16), pp. 466-74,482 f. 19. Cf. Cullmann, Christ and Time (cited above, note 13), pp. 51-68: "Primitive Christianity knows nothing of a timeless God" (p. 63). This follows from the fact that "the speCUlative question ... whether the future is f.uture in the eyes of God, the Lord of time, does not exist at all within the province of the New Testament, for its object is only the activity of God in time" (0. Cull mann, Salvation in History, trans. by Sidney G. Sowers et al. [New York: Harper & Row, 1967], p. 177). 20. Cf. W. C. van Unnik, "Die gooffneten Himmel," Apophoreta (Haenchen festschrift, cited above, note 10), pp. 269-80; H. Traub, "ouranos," in Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. by G. Friedrich, trans. by G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), Vol. 5 (1967), pp. 513-35; Acts 7:56; 12:6-11; 2 Kings 6:17. Luke's conception of "heaven" and "earth" may be compared to two television channels showing different segments of the same auto race. The action on each is contemporaneous with and related to the other. But viewers of Channel 1 do not see the action of Channel 2. 21. Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead? The Witness of the New Testament (The Ingersoll Lecture on the Immortality of Man, 1955 [London: Epworth Press, 1958]; reprinted in Immortality and Resurrection, ed. by Krister Stendahl [New York: Macmillan, 1965]). Cullmann's point is not that the resurrection hope arose out of "an anthropological debate" between Platonists and Jews (as assumed by Jiirgen Moltmann, "Resurrec· tion as Hope," Ingersoll Lecture, 1967, Harvard Theological Review 61 [1968]: 131), but that the resurrection hope builds upon assumptions about man and about the dead quite different from those of Platonism. Also, it is not a question of "immortality or resurrection" but "immortality through resurrection."

10

3

THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF LUKE'S ESCHATOLOGY

Ieschatology the light of these considerations, the function of Lukan should be sought within the framework of a twoN

age eschatology and a monistic anthropology, a temporal redemption of the whole man from death. It is characterized by a concern to show the exclusive mediation of the eschatological fulfillment through Jesus and, thereby, to show the relationship of this age to the age to come. In the pre resurrection mission of Jesus the new age of the kingdom of God becomes present in his creative word and acts. 22 "If by the finger of God I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you (ephthasen eph' hymas) " (Luke 11: 20). Also this is the probable import of the "coming" (engiken eph' hymas) of the kingdom in the mission of the seventy.23 By this Luke does not broaden the present mani22. This is not a Lukan contribution or interpretation but is original with Jesus himself, as has been shown by W. G. Kiimme1, Promise and Fulfilment: The Eschatological Message 0/ Jesus (Studies in Biblical Theology, 23, trans. by Dorothea M. Barton [London: SCM, 1957]), pp. 106-24, 138 ff. Apparently the presence of the age to come (in the Gospels' presentation of the preresurrection mission) is identified with Jesus' person only in the Fourth Gospel. Cf. Cullmann, Salvation in History (cited above, note 19), pp. 270 f. 23. Luke 10:9; cf. 10:11, 18; E. E. Ellis. "Present and Future Eschatology in Luke," New Testament Studies 12 (1965-66): 33. The perfect engiken can mean "be at hand" (Luke 21:20). However, Luke (21:8 f.; cf. 19:11) denies that the parousia consummation (to telos) is engiken. Both Luke

11

Eschatology in Lllke festation of the kingdom beyond the word and acts of Jesus but rather expresses an identification of Jesus' followers, i.e., the seventy, with his own person. This explanation of the matter is supported by the way in which Luke associates Jesus with his followers. Jesus sends (aposteliein) them and authorizes them to speak and act in his name. He speaks of the robber on the cross as "with me" in his exaltation. 24 At the Last Supper he identifies himself with bread and wine in which he invites the apostles to participate and, thereby, to "see the eschatological consummation in the present through union with the departing JesuS."2U The "sending" and the use of the "name" of Jesus is most likely to be understood in terms of the shalial; in which the agent is viewed virtually as the extension of the personality of the principal. 26 But the explanation of the other passages most likely lies in another Semitic concept, the corporate soli10:9, 11 and 21:8 most likely mean "has arrived," and the former refers, then, to a present and not a parousia manifestation of the kingdom of God. W. G. Kiimmel, Promise and Fulfilment (cited above, note 22), p. 113, declines to accept this usage of engiken; nevertheless, he admits that Luke 10: 18, as an isolated logion, does refer to a present manifestation of the kingdom. But Luke (10:17, 18) dearly applies the logion to the mission of the seventy. On the use of engiken to mean "has arrived," d. M. Black, "The Kingdom of God Has Come," The Expository Times 63 (1952): 289 f., who equates the term with expressions, exempli gratia, in Daniel 4:8 (ml'), Psalm 119:169, and 1 Kings 8:59 (qrb). In Jeremiah 28:9 this meaning of engiken (qrb) is required. 24. On Luke 23 :43, d. Ellis, "Present and Future Eschatology in Luke" (cited above, note 23), pp. 35-40. In Luke 22:28 ("you are those who have continued with me") the perfect tense appears to indicate a previous and continuing future participation corporately "with Christ" in his trials (peira.rmois) since the disciples were not personal participants either in the temptation or in the final testings of Jesus. The alternative, that the Lord is "with" the disciple, has a somewhat different connotation in Acts (11:21; 18: 10). Corporate identification probably is the meaning in Matthew 18:20; 25:40; d. 28:20. 25. Kiimmel, Promise and Fulfilment (cited above, note 22), p. 121. Cf. Luke 9:1 f.; 10:1, 17 f.; 22:19 f., 28; 23:43. 26. Cf. Luke 10:16; Ellis, Luke (cited above, note 2), p. 136, on Luke 9: 1; K. H. Rengstorf, "apostolos," in Kittel's Theological Dictionary (cited above, note 20), Vol. 1 (1964), pp. 121-30; and H. Bietenhard, "OIlOma," Vol. 5 (1967), pp. 276 ff.: In the healings in Acts 3:16; 9:34. Jesus himself is active in the effectual power of his name. Significantly, the power is not restricted to the twelve, and in Luke 9:49 it is perhaps effective in one who has not been "sent." But d. Acts 19: 13-16.

12

The Conceptl/al Framework of Luke's Eschatology

larity of the group in its leader. This is most clearly expressed in the word of the exalted Jesus to Paul, "\'\fhy do you persecute me?" (Acts 9:4). But the same thought probably underlies the motif in Acts of the temple "not made with hands. "27 Unlike Paul,2g Luke expresses the corporate unity of Christians with Jesus in diverse imagery, largely tied to traditional episodes and expressions. But one should not, from this fact, underestimate the importance that the concept has for him. The identification of the eschatological fulfillment exclusively with Jesus provides the rationale by which the relationship of this age and the age to come is understood. First, the twofold eschatology of apocalyptic Judaism, that is, blessing and judgment, becomes a two-stage eschatology. The Spirit's activity in and through Jesus brings eschatological blessings of the coming age now, but the judgment and the consummation of the kingdom are deferred. 29 Similarly Jesus, "the first to rise from the dead" (Acts 26:23), has literally become "a son of the resurrection" who does not die anymore (Luke 20: 36); for his followers the fulfillment of the age to come awaits the future 27. Cf. Luke 20: 17 f.; Ellis, Luke (cited above, note 2), pp. 230 f.; Acts 6:14; 7:48; 15:16; 17:24; B. Gartner, The Temple and the Commtinity in Qumral1 alld the New Testament (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series, I [New York: Cambridge University Press, 1965]), pp. 103, 122, 123-42. A corporate understanding of Son of man also may be implicit in Luke 6; 1-5, but it is not a Lukan development or emphasis. Cf. Daniel 7:13, 27; Luke 22:27 If.; see the penetrating discussion by Morna D. Hooker, The SOil of Mall in Mm'k (London: SPCK, 1967), pp. 140, 142 f., 181 f., 192 If.; d. Matt. 25:31, 40 ("Son of man," "brothers," "me"). Luke 3: 38 also may suggest that Luke viewed Jesus' person in a corporate fashion. Cf. Ellis, Luke (cited above, note 2), p. 39. Othewise, C. F. D. Moule, The Phenomenon of the Neu' Testamem (Studies in Biblical Theology, Second Series, 1 [London: SCM, 1967]), pp. 36 If. 28. The Pauline idiom "in Christ," or "body of Christ," does not appear, although Acts 4: 2 is quite similar: "proclaiming in (ell) Jesus the resurrection from the dead." 29. Luke 4: 18 f. = Isaiah 61: 1 f., but omitting "the day of vengeance of our God"; Luke 7:22 f. Regarding the juxtaposition of the present and future manifestations of the kingdom of God, d. Ellis, Luke (cited above. note 2), pp. 12-15, 210; "Present and Future Eschatology in Luke" (cited above, note 23), pp. 27-41; Luke 3:16 f.; 9:26b, 27; 11:2 f.; 17:20 If.; 23:42 f. Luke stresses that the Spirit comes to the church from Jesus (cf. Luke 3:16 f.; Acts 1:5,2:33; d. Eph. 4:8; Acts 19:2-6). Strangely enough, he, unlike Paul, appears to give the Holy Spirit no role in the eschatological event par exce//ellce, the resurrection of Jesus.

13

Eschatology in Luke consummation:'lO It is present now, in life or death, only corporately "with Jesus" (Luke 23:43) or "in God" (Luke 20: 36). The vertical dimension in Luke's eschatology, therefore, is not a consummation in heaven that is manifested on earth ( Flender ), but a consummation on earth in the resurrectionj exaltation of Jesus that is presently manifested in heaven. It is not a shift away from salvation history but an incorporation of a "heavenly" dimension into it. For Jesus' followers the vertical dimension is not a road map of their individual pilgrimage but rather a relationship with the One who is in heaven "until the times of universal apokatastasis."31 Second, the person and mission of Jesus define for Luke the nature of the continltity and discontinlJity between this age and the age to come. Jesus' healings ,( d. Luke 5 :23 f.; 13: 16; Acts 26: 18) and nature miracles and his own physical resurrection point to the new age as a fltlfillment, a deliverance of the present material creation from the death-powers ot'this age. A similar implication probably is to be found (1) in the references to Paradise (Luke 23:43) and to Adam (Luke 3:38); (2) in the view of the consummation as a "restoration" (Acts 1 : 6; 3: 21 ) ; and (3) in the parallel between "sons of the resurrection" and those of the present creation who, in their respective ways, "live in God" (Luke 20:38; Acts 17:28). Yet the kingdom of God is also a 1JOVIJIlJ whose discontinuity with the present age is as radical as that between death and resurrection. The fate of Jesus is the fate of the disciple, who also must go "through many tribulations" and "lose his life" if he, like Jesus, is to become a "son of the resurrection."32 30. Luke 14:14; 17:30-35; 20:36; 21:28; Acts 17:18; 23:6; 24:15; cf. Acts 4:2, The sequence is not to be understood as an individual fulfillment at death and a universal fulfillment at the future resurrection; otherwise: Barrett, "Stephen and the Son of Man" (cited above, note 10), pp. 35 f.;cf. C. F. D. Moule, "St Paul and Dualism: The Pauline Conception of Resurrection,"· Neul Testament Studies 12 (1965-66): 106-23, especially 122; Jerome on Joel 2:1-11 (Migne Patr%gia Latina 25, 965B, § 188): "What is in store for all at the day of judgment is fulfilled in individuals on the day of their death" Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (cited above, note 16), p. 483. 31. Acts 3:21. Luke is quite clear that the consummation of the age is an earthly phenomenon. Cf. Luke 17:34 f.; 21:27; Acts 1:11; 17:31. 32. Acts 14:22; Luke 17:33; cf. Luke 20:36; 22:28-30. See above, note 15,

14

The Conceptl/al Framework of Luke's Eschatology

In asking whether this kind of eschatology had a polemical function, one must resist the tendency to see an opponent behind every bush in the New Testament theological garden. Nevertheless, in his prologue Luke (1:4) probably does suggest that he is correcting heretical misinformation. The strong emphasis on the physical nature of Jesus' resurrection and the careful distinction between the resurrection and the ascension probably are intended by Luke to safeguard the resurrection against a heavenly or "spiritual" interpretation. aa Certainly this point of view does appear in the church shortly thereafter, if it is not already present. (However, the use of vertical eschatology as a bridge to the thought world of Greek philosophy, which some see in the Gospel of John and Hebrews, appears to have little significance for Luke. ) 34 Also, the discontinuity that Luke poses between this age and the kingdom of God prevents his reader from falling prey to a political messianism. And his emphasis upon the presence of the Spirit and the unity of the disciple with the exalted Lord (Luke 23:43; Acts 7:56) corrects an improper anticipation of the coming end of the age. To that question we may now turn. The similarity to Paul's theology is noteworthy; d. Romans 6:4, 10-13; Colossians 3: 1-5, 12; E. Earle Ellis, "n Corinthians v. 1-10 in Pauline Eschatology," New Testament Studies 6 (1959-60): 212-16. Ernst Kasemann, Hans Conzelmann, Eduard Lohse, and others regard a present "resurrection with Christ" to be a later development, i.e., in Colossians and Ephesians. However, these epistles only elaborate what is already present in Romans 6:10-13 (houtos kai hymeis) , 8:30; 2 Corinthians 13:4 (eis hymas). Romans 6:11 (to thea en Christo) and Colossians 3:3 (syn to Christo en to thea) appear to be equivalent expressions of the present incorporation of the believer into the reality of the new age. Cf. Galatians 2: 19 f. (thea zeso ... ze de en emoi Ch~istos). Cf. E. Kiisemann, "On the Topic of Primiti"e Christian Apocalyptic," Apocalypticism (Journal for Theology and the Church, 6; ed. by Robert W. Funk [New York: Herder & Herder, 1969]), pp. 118 f.; H. Conzelmann, An Olltline of the Theology the New Testament, trans. by John Bowden (New York: Harper & Row, 1969), p. 273; E. Lohse, A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (Hermeneia Series; trans. by W. R. Poehlmann and Robert Karris, ed. by Helmut Koester [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971]), pp. 133 f., 180 f. 33. Cf. Ellis, Lllke (cited above, note 2), pp. 273-75. 34. Luke appears quite unaware of the possibilities in Luke 16: 19-31 or 23:43 for a Platonist or gnostic interpretation; probably such influences were still ;'1 statll nascendi. In the Fourth Gospel also, the terminology of Hellenistic philosophy is used within a Semitic pattern of salvation history. Cf. Cullmann, Sa/I'ation in History (cited above, note 19), pp. 100, 289 ff.

at

15

4

THE TWO STAGES IN LUKE: PRESENT AND FUTURE

BOTH

the preaching of John the Baptist and the mission of Jesus reflect an anticipation of an imminent coming of the kingdom of God. Apocalyptic Judaism-and probably the Baptist was no different-identified this event with the catastrophic consummation of the age and the advent of the messianic age of righteousness and peace. The primitive Christian community shared this expectation with two significant alterations: (1) Christians associated this consummation with the exalted and returning Jesus, and (2) they proclaimed the kingdom of God to be a hidden present reality in their midst. 35 In the tradition behind the Synoptic Gospels the same understanding of the kingdom of God as a present and a future reality is ascribed to Jesus, and W. G. Kiimmel has shown that both perspectives were original to the preresurrection mission: Jesus proclaimed both "Thy kingdom come" and "If I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, the kingdom of God has come upon you" (Matt. 6:10, 12:28) .36 However, since the work of Johannes Weiss it has been held by many scholars that for Jesus, as it was for apocalyptic Juda35. E.g., 1 Thess. 4:13-18; Phil. 1:23; 3:20 f.; Col. 1:13; Gal. 1:4. 36. Kiimmel, Promise and Fulfilment (cited above, note 22); "Futuristic and Realized Eschatology ..." (cited above, note 1).

16

The Two Stages ;n Lllke: Present alld Fllture

ism, the coming of the kingdom of God was solely an imminent future event. Its nonoccurrence became an embarrassment for the church, a problem that had to be solved. Rudolf Bultmann accepted Weiss's apocalyptic Jesus and saw in early Christianity a twofold response to his message. (1) Paul demythologized apocllyptic with an existentialist interpretation; (2) Luke, faced with the problem of the delay of the parousia, substituted a theology of HeiiJgeschichle. 37 This pattern as it applies to Luke's eschatology was given a programmatic development in Hans Conzelmann's Die iHille del' Zeit. 3s Oscar Cullmann regarded this work by Conzelmann as a supplement to his Christ and Time, a compliment that Conzelmann hardly expected! The major criticism of Cull mann (and others) 39 concerns Conzelmann's historical framework in which Heilsgeschichte is regarded as a secondary development. 4o Indeed, the historical framework of Bultmann and Conzelmann may be questioned on several counts. A fundamental objection is the underlying Hegelian dialectic. It provides a key, as it did for F, C. Baur in the last century, for the reconstruction of early Christian history: the original apocalyptic hope (thesis) encounters the problem of Jesus' lengthening absence (antithesis) and is resolved-in the case of Luke-with a theology of salvation history (synthesis). 41 But where is the evidence that the 37. ExisletlCe and Faith .. Shortel' Writings of Rudolf Bultmaml, ed. by Schubert M. Ogden (New York: Meridian, Living Age Books, 1960), pp. 124, 196 ff., 238, 255 ff. 38. Cited above, note 2. 39. Cullmann, Salt'ation in History, (cited above, note 19), pp. 46 f., 18185, 202, 240 f. If "Jesus' eschatology rests upon the tension between 'already' and 'not yet', this same tension cannot be a makeshift solution to the problem of the delayed end . . ." (p. 181). "What is new in Luke is that he reflects about the periods of salvation history" (p. 240). Cf. Schnackenburg, God's Rule (cited above, note 18), p. 275. 10. Even though Conzelmann himself recognizes that Luke only does com· prehensively what earlier New Testament writings touched upon. Cf. his address to the "alte Marburger," "Gegenwart und Zukunft in der synoptischen Tradition," Zeitschrift fii,. Theologie ulld Kirche 54 (1957): 277-96, especially 289 f., 296. 41. Cf. H. Conzelmann, "Luke's Place in the Development of Early Christianity" Studies in Luke-Acts (Schubert festschrift; cited above, note 2), p. 307; "Gegenwart und Zukunft in der synoptischen Tradition" (cited above, note 40), p. 290: though it is not a straight-line development, the different

17

Eschatology in Luke

nonoccurrence of the parousia was a crucial problem that had to be "resolved"? The delay-motif in Luke certainly does not have that function. On the contrary, Luke, unlike 2 Peter, usually employs it to counter an overeager or false anticipation of the parousia. 42 The motif in any case could hardly have originated as a solution inspired by embarrassment or disappointment about Jesus' continued absence, since it appears before there was time to get embarrassed. 43 We may ask also: Where is the evidence for the "apocalyptic Jesus" of Johannes Weiss and Albert Schweitzer? Undoubtedly their thesis was an advance over the "liberal Jesus" of the nineteenth century. But in the light of the work of W. G. Kiimmel and others the "apocalyptic Jesus" also appears as a one-sided and rather artificial figure. The rationale for the delay-motif in Luke, therefore, must be sought elsewhere. First, it should be noted that it is only an emphasis within a twin motif of "imminence and delay" that Luke finds in his traditions. 44 Probably this emphasis both theologies in the New Testament stand in a historical relationship (i.e., of chronological sequence). It is true that Conzelmann, Theology (cited above, note 32), pp. 307-17, sees in the New Testament various attempts (not only Luke's) to solve the problem of the delay of the parousia. This kind of (Hegelian) dialectic is present in F. C. Baur (cf. The Church History of the First Three CentJll'ies [1853; trans. by Allan Menzies (London & Edinburgh: Williams & Norgate, 1878-79)], Vo!' 1, pp. 46-56, 105 f., 133-36), whether he made ab initio direct or express use of Hegel's writings or not. Otherwise, Peter C. Hodgson, The Formation of Historical Theology: A Study of Ferdinand Christian Baur (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), pp. 1-4, 25 f., 58 f., 139 f. Note E. R. Goodenough's "The Perspective of Acts," Studies in Luke-Arts (cited above, note 2), pp. 51-59, which cau· tions against the "assumption that Christianity advanced from stage to stage as a block" (p. 57). 42. E.g., Luke 17:20 f., 23; 19:11 f., 15; 21:8; Acts 1:6-8; cE. Luke 12:39 f., 45, where the delay is also not a "time" problem but an occasion for unfaithfulness. 43. E.g., Matt. 24:26 Luke 17:23; Mark 13:5-8 and parallels;'2 Thess, 2: 1 fr. The intervening "times of the Gentiles" (Luke 21 :24), cited by Conzelmann in The Theology of St Luke (cited above, note 2), pp. 134 f. as an example of the lengthened Lukan perspective is already present in Romans 11 :25 fr. Cf. Peder Borgen, "From Paul to Luke. Observations toward ~Iari. fication of the Theology of Luke---Acts," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 31 (1969): 168-82 (originally in Studia Theologica 20 [1966]: 140-57, in German). 41. See notes 42 and 47.

=

]8

The Two Stages in Lllke: Present and Futllre

serves Luke's own theological concerns and provides a response to a church problem. The problem is not the delay of the parousia, however, but a false apocalyptic speculation that has misapplied the teachings of Jesus and threatens to pervert the church's mission. This understanding of the matter fits the historical situation. The presence of apocalyptic fever during the last half of the first century is documented both in Christian sources and in secular writings. 45 It is also supported by the Lukan context. The saying in Acts 1 :6-8 is quite significant for understanding Luke's point of view: "It is not for you to know the times ... , but (alia) you shall receive power ... and be my witnesses. "46 As his second volume clearly shows, Luke sees the church's task as mission; this task is not served by preoccupation with "the times" of the consummation. Theologically, the delaymotif is related to the two-stage eschatology mentioned earlier. Because the eschatological reality is present, the length of the interval until the consummation is of no crucial significance.47 The whole of Lukan eschatology is within the context of a two-stage manifestation of the kingdom of God, present and future. But hoUl is the age-to-come present? It has been observed that Matthew couples future eschatology and the church. 48 Luke, on the other hand, combines future eschatology and the 45. Cf. Josephus, Jewish War 6.5.4 (6. 310-15); Tacitus, History 5. 13; Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars, Vespasian 4; 2 Thess. 2:2. 46. Cf. Luke 17:20. 47. CulJmann, Salt'ation in History (cited above, note 19), p. 290. Moore, Parousia (cited above, note 1), pp. 199 f., 206, thinks the delay-motif served as an expression of God's patience; it was one side of a twin theme in Jesus' understanding of the future, eschatology and grace. 48. Cf. Gunther Bornkamm "End-Expectation and Church in Matthew," in G. Bornkamm, G. Barth, H. J. Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, trans. by Percy Scott (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), pp. 15-24; Georg Strecker, Der JVeg der Gerechtigkeit: Untersuchung zur TheoJogie des Matthaus (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, 82 [Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962]), pp. 214-17; Beda Rigaux, Temoignage de /'evangile de Matthieu (Pour une histoire de Jesus, II [Bruges: Desclee de Brouwer, 1967], pp. 179-90. The corporate conception of the church is even stronger in Matthew than in (the Gospel of) Luke. It may be that in Matthew also the corporate unity with Jesus has the character of present eschatology. If so, there is in different imagery a quite similar framework of ideas.

1.9

Eschatology in Luke

Spirit49 or Jesus.M Jesus, who gives the Spirit (Luke 3: 16; Acts 2: 33), represents in his resurrection an individual fulfillment of the age to come. His followers not only manifest the same eschatological powers of the Spirit as he does, but they also have a corporate identification with the (risen) Lord. In both ways Luke sets forth the new age as a present reality. A number of British works, recently Morna Hooker's The 5011 of Man in Mark,51 see in the Gospels' use of Daniel 7:13 a reference to Jesus' expectation of his exaltation. It may be that this discussion can be pursued more profitably within the framework of an eschatology whose f"tllfe consummation also occurs in two stages, individual in Jesus' resurrection/exaltation and universal at his parousia. 52 In any case this possibility warrants consideration in future studies of the function of eschatology in Luke. 49. I.e., the present activity of the Spirit coupled to the future judgment: Luke 3:16 f.; 11:31 f.; 17:21 ff. 50. I.e., to be "with Jesus" in the present suffering or exaltation, guarantees participation in the future kingdom of God: Luke 22:28 ff.; 23:43. 51. The Son of Man in Mark. A Study of the Background of the Term "Son of Man" and its Use in SI Mark'! GOJPel (London: SPCK, 1967), pp. 171 ff. Somewhat similar to the view of Miss Hooker in that of Hans-Werner Bartsch, in "Early Christian Eschatology in the Synoptic Gospels: A Contribution to Form·Critical Research," New Testament Studies 11 (1964-65): 394 f., who thinks that the fulfillment of Daniel 7: 13, for the primitive church, could correspond to "the appearance of the risen Lord" and that Luke (22 :69) reflects a shift of this fulfillment to the exaltation. 52. The ascension tradition in Acts 1 makes an explicit connection between the "cloud" of the ascension and Jesus' return "in the same way."

20

For Further Reading X'here articles, especially those in languages other than English, have been summarized in New Testall/ent Abstracts, reference is given by 'olume number and item number in NT Abstracts. h' E. EARLE ELLrs:

300ks, and articles (arranged chronologically), especially those related to the subject of this book: Palll' s Use of the Old Testament. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, and Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957. Palll and His Recent Interpreters. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961 (paper), Reprints three essays, portions of which appeared previously elsewhere: "Pauline Studies in Recent Research" (The N eUJ Bible Dictionary, ed, by J D, Douglas {London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1962, 2nd ed. 1965], pp. 943-55); "The Structure of Pauline Eschatology (II Corinthians v, 1-10)" (originally in N eUJ T ntament Stlldies 6 [1959-60J: 211-24); and "The Authorship of the Pastorals: A Resume and Assessment of Recent Trends" (originally in Review and Expositor 56 {l959]: 343-54). The World of St. John: the Gospel and the Epistle!. Bible Guides, 14, ed, by William Barclay and F, F. Bruce. London: Lutterworth, and New York & Nashville: Abingdon, 1965 (paper). The Gospel of Llike (based on the Rerised Standard Version). The Century Bible, new ed. London: Nelson, 1966. (Editor), with Max Wilcox. Neotestamentica et Semitica: Stlldies in HOIlOllr of Matthew Black. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1969. "A Note on Pauline Hermeneutics." New Testament Stlldies 2 (195556): 127-33. "A Note on First Corinthians 10:4." JOllrnal of Biblical Literatllre 76 (1957): 53-56. NT Abstracts 2:96. "The Problem of Authorship: First and Second Timothy." RerieUJ and Expositor (Louisville, Kentucky) 56 (1959): 343-54. NT Abstracts 4:473. (Review of) A. R. C. Leaney, A COlllmentary on the Gospel According to St. Llike. Harper's New Testament Commentaries, 1958. Review alld Expositor 56 (1959): 80-81. "II Corinthians V. 1-10 in Pauline Eschatology." New Testament Studies 6 (1959-60): 211-24. NT Abstracts 5:161.

21

"Life" and "Paul." In The New Bible Dictionary, cited above, pp. 73539 and 943-55. "Luke xi. 49-51: An Oracle of a Christian Prophet?" Expository Times 74 (1962-63): 157-58. NT Abstracts 7:808. "Jesus, the Sadducees and Qumran." New Testament Studies 10 (1963-64): 274-79. NT Abstracts 8:967. "Present and Future Eschatology in Luke (for W. G. Kummel on his Sixtieth Birthday)." New Testament Studies 12 (1965-66): 27-41. NT Abstracts 10:537. (Review of) C. H. Talbert, Lllke and the Gnostics (1966). Journal 01 Biblical Literature 85 (1966): 264-66. "The Authority of Scripture: Critical Judgments in Biblical Perspective." E~'angelical Qltarterly (London) 39 (1967): 196-204. NT Abstracts 12 :445. "'Those of the Circumcision' and the Early Christian Mission." In Studia El'angelica, VoL IV, ed. by F. L. Cross. Texte und Untersuchungen, 102. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1968. Pp. 390-99. "Mid rash, Targum and New Testament Quotations." In Neotestamentica et Selllitica (Matthew Black festschrift, cited above), pp. 61-69. "Die Funktion der Eschatologie im Lukasevangelium." Zeitschrilt lilr Theologie lind Kirche 66 (1969): 387-402. NT Abstracts 15:177. To be reprinted in Das Lllkas-Evangelium, ed. by Georg Braumann (Wege der Forschung, 280 [Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche BuchgeseIIschaft, forthcoming]). Eng. version, revised in this Facet Book. "Midrashic Features in the Speeches of Acts." In AUlanges Bibliques en hOllllllage au R. P. BMa Rigaux, ed. by Albert Descamps and Andre de HaIIeux. Gembloux, Belgium: ]. Duculot, 1970. Pp. 303-12. German trans. with revisions, "Midraschartige Ziige in den Reden der Apostelgeschichte," in Zeitschrilt lilr die neutestamentliche Wissenlchaft 62 (1971): 94-104. "The Role of the Christian Prophet in Acts." In Apostolic History and the Gospel: Biblical and Historical Essays presented to F. F. Brllce on his 60th Birthday, ed. by W. Ward Gasque and Ralph P. Martin. Exeter: Paternoster Press, and Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1970. Pp. 55-67. "Paul and His Co-Workers. (For the Very Rev. Professor James S. Stewart on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday)." New Testament Stttdies 17 (1970-71): 437-52. NT Abstracts 16:242. "St. Luke." Encyclopcedia Britannica. New edition, in press. "Luke." "Quotations in the New Testament." International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, rev. ed., ed. by G. W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, forthcoming. "Christ and Spirit in First Corinthians." Festschrift for C. F. D. Moule. Cambridge, forthcoming. (Review of) H. Schiirmann, Das Lukaset·ange!iltlll. Enter Teil (1969). Bib/ica. Forthcoming.

22

ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS BOOK:

General Books and ArticieJ (mentioned in the Editor's Introdllction): B.~RRHT,

C. K. Lllke the Historian in Recent Stlldy. Faeet Books, Biblical Series, 2-1. New edition with select bibliography. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970. CONZELMANN, HANS. An Olitline of the Theology of the New Testament. Tran