Luke understands himself as a witness of Israel’s story – the story that runs from Creation, through the call of Abraham, the Exodus, the Conquest, the establishment of the Davidic kingdom, to the Exile and return. This story, Luke believes, has reached its climax, its definitive turning point in Jesus. In his Gospel, heaccounts Jesus’ story as the story of Israel’s Messiah. In the Acts, Luke concerns himself with the church’s story as it is the continuation of the story of Jesus and Israel, the seamless narrative of God’s saving acts for the world. As Green explains, “the proper beginning of Luke’s narrative is there, in the past, in God’s redemptive purpose as set forth in the Scriptures.”[1] God has not begun a new work or gathered a new people. Instead, “the God who has been working redemptively still is, now, and especially, in Jesus.”[2] 

As Luke understands it, the God of Israel has acted in Jesus Christ for Israel and for the world. Though many – perhaps even most – Jews fail to discern God’s actions in Jesus, nonetheless God is doing what has always been promised and expected by God’s true people: vindicating Israel and saving the world. How and when God has done this, that is the surprise, which for some is scandalous and offensive.

The kingdom of God, which means the salvation of Israel, is announced by the Israel of God on behalf of the God of Israel. This summarizes the prophets’ message, the word that Luke takes up as his own. Yet he reads this somewhat differently, as it has been transformed by the event that is Jesus Christ.

The God of Israel

Though Luke obviously shares a concern for the Gentile mission, he continues to name God as the God of Israel, the God of the fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (cf. Lk 20.37; Acts 3.13; 5.30; 7.32, 46; 22.14; 24.14). He intends to demonstrate the legitimacy of Christ by linking him with the God of Israel. [3] The church, in turn, is legitmated by its relation to Israel. The church is Israel, that is, the people (among the people) elected by God for mission. The church is the remnant of Israel, the faithful ones seeded like wheat among the chaff, who bear the responsiblity of proclaiming and enacting the long-awaited reign of God.

The tone is set from the start. Luke begins his Gospel with the accounts of devout Jews who live in confident expectation of God’s redemption. The priest Zechariah and his wife Elizabeth – who, like Sarah, Rachel, and Hannah, is barren – are described as “upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commandments and regulations blamelessly” (1.6). After the birth of the promised child, Zechariah’s combusts in doxology (1.67-79). He names “the God of Israel” (κύριος ὁ θεὸς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ) as his God, and claims that it is precisely this God who has given him his son, a gift which is for him a sign that the salvation of Israel has begun. 

The Salvation of Israel

Similarly, when Joseph and Mary bring Jesus to the Temple – Luke carefully notes that the holy couple is acting according to the Torah (2.21-24) – they are met by the ”righteous and devout” (δίκαιος καὶ εὐλαβής) Simeon who is waiting for the “consolation of Israel” (παράκλησιν τοῦ Ἰσραήλ), which means the realization of all God’s promises and the fulfilment of Israel’s hope in YHWY. By the power of the Spirit, the priest recognizes the child Jesus as God’s salvation of Israel – for the nations. Anna the prophetess (2.36-38) also recognizes Jesus as specifically Israel’s redeemer.  

The Kingdom of Israel

It is well known that Jesus’ followers misunderstood his vocation and his intentions, both for himself and for them. Certainly, they would not have gathered to him if they had understood what he was really doing! So he suffered their misunderstandings throughout his ministry (whether it was three years, as John suggests, or one, as the Synoptics have it). At least some of Jesus followers, as well as his opponents - and arguably most of those in both groups -, expected him to be a militant messiah (some Jews expected a priestly messiah, or several messiahs, each with different vocations) who would overthrow the Roman oppressors and inaugurate the long-awaited Reign of God in Zion. When Jesus claimed the presence of God’s reign, they must have heard him saying the time was ripe for a revolution; they would have interpreted his messages nationalistically.

But, as N. T. Wright argues, Jesus disappointed these expectations.

Thus Jesus called Israel to repent of her nationalist ambition and follow him in a new vision of God’s purpose for Israel. Resistance to Rome was to be replaced by love and prayer for the enemy. Israel’s plight was radically redefined: sin, not Rome, was the real enemy. Jesus’ exorcisms point to God’s healing of his sick Israel, and they consequently belong with the controversy stories (e.g. Mk. 2:1-3:6) as part of his lifelong battle with the forces of evil which came to a climax on the cross (cf. Mt. 4:1-11; 8:28-34; 12:22-32; 27:39-44). His healings of the blind, lame, deaf and dumb, and his calling of the outcasts and poor to enjoy fellowship with himself, all of which hinge on faith as the appropriate response to Jesus, indicate his reconstitution of the people of God (Lk. 13:16; 19:9-10). For those with eyes to see, the ‘resurrection’, i.e. the remaking of Israel, has already begun (Lk. 15:1-2, 24, 32; 16:19-31).

Luke tells of two disciples (he gives us only one name: Cleopas; some have speculated the other was his wife) who on their first-day-of-the-week return home after the dark events of Friday, unknowingly meet the resurrected Jesus (Lk 24.13-35) In response to the stranger’s question, they offer a telling confession: “we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel.” Interestingly, even the womens’ testimony of the empty tomb did not change their minds or lift their hearts.

The crucifixion (and resurrection, for those who knew of it) should have ended all this talk. But it did not.

So when they met together, they asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1.6)

Obviously, then, they did not “get it.” Yet, as I hope to show, this was an understandable misunderstanding. And our understanding of Jesus’ message likely is no nearer the mark than was theirs. 

 

 

__________

[1] Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke. The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 54. Emphasis in original.

[2] ibid. Emphasis in original.

[3] Jacob Jervell, The Theology of the Acts of the Apostles. New Testament Theology (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 19.