Situating the Spirit in the preface of the Acts Narrative.
DAVID M. PARKER
Our canonical "The Acts of the Apostles" is often caricatured as "The Acts of the Holy Spirit." This is supposedly for good reason, since instrumentally the Spirit’s activity is implicitly, if not explicitly, evident in the developing narrative. But is this a rhetorically appropriate delineation? In this paper I investigate the programmatic function of the Spirit introduced in the preface, deduced from the implied occasion, readers and purpose. I then propose a continuing rhetorical implication from the incidentals of Luke’s narratival development.
The Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts are treated as one work in two volumes by much of modern scholarship.1 Repetition of what is most likely the Patron’s name2 in Lk 1:3 and Acts 1:1 and a précis of the concluding matter of Lk 24:15-51 in Acts 1:1-11 (e.g. Lk 24:51//Acts 1:1-2; 24:49//1:4-5; 24:51//1:9) support the notion that
ton men prwton logon ("In the first book" Acts 1:1) is a reference to the canonical Gospel of Luke.3 Again an emerging consensus4 thus understands Lk 1:1-4 as a preface for the entire work rather than simply the Gospel, programmatically foreshadowing Luke’s kaqexhV ("an orderly account"), and identifying the implied recipient(s), purpose and occasion. From the many explanatory parenthesis (e.g. "King Herod of Judea" [1:5]; "chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood" [1:9]) an implied Gentile recipient is usually deduced and, following first century custom, Theophilus is taken to be the patron one of whose tasks was to disseminate the work among his fellow catechists (cf. kathcew 1:4) likely also implied Gentiles. An exigency is inferred, by mirror reading the purpose of Luke-Acts (ina) with the subjunctive 1:4), of a disturbance to the surety of their new found faith, likely, by again mirror reading the narrative response of the document, a challenge to the inclusion of Gentiles among the people of God.5 It will be my purpose in this article to investigate the preface of the second volume (1:1-11)6 to establish a "symbolic universe" which programmatically informs the remainder and within which I can situate the narrative work of the Spirit.If the implied recipients are newly converted Gentiles being challenged as to their being numbered among the people of God, their initial belief, that Messiah (Jesus) had come, the Spirit had returned, and renewed faithful Israel had begun to ingather the Gentiles inclusive of them, had turned to doubt. Since Luke7 is writing thirty plus years after the events recorded, when the Gentiles to whom he writes are questioning their status, Luke appears to be supplying an etiology to rectify such questioning. The preface thus situates Heilsgeschichte (holy history) at restored Israel, the return of the Spirit and the ingathering of the Gentiles as imminent. Justification for this may be read from the response of the disciples at the resurrected Jesus’ "speaking about the kingdom of God" (1:3) and dispensing of the Spirit (1:4). Naturally the question arises from these penultimate events; "is this the time when you will restore the kingdom to Israel?"
Restoration hopes were deeply rooted in classical prophecies of Israel’s future and closely tied to the sacred space of Jerusalem/Zion. A typical perspective on the climactic ‘days to come’ (or ‘that day’) envisioned the mass return of scattered Israelites to the holy city/mount and establishment of a glorious new Israelite kingdom governed in peace and righteousness. This scenario also projected that the Gentile nations would concurrently stream to Jerusalem and acknowledge the sovereignty of Israel and her God, either voluntarily converting to Yahweh’s ways (Isa. 2.2-4; Mic. 4.1-8; Zech. 8.20-23) or forcibly being brought to submission on the battlefield (Joel 3; Zech. 12.8-9; 14.1-3; cf. Psalm 2…Tob. 13.1-14.7; cf. Sir. 36.1-17; Bar. 4.5-5.9; Pss. Sol. 11.1-9; 17.21-46).8
Jesus’ response is less likely dismissive as reorientating:
It is not for you to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But (
Confirmation of their deduction appears in the long-held anticipation of "the Gentile nations stream[ing] to Jerusalem and acknowledg[ing] the sovereignty of Israel and her God," now to be fulfilled by their empowerment by the returned Spirit to be "my witnesses (
martuV) in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth (ewV escatou thV ghV)." Wherever the "ends of the earth" might be, Ethiopia or Rome for example,9 it appears certain that a reference to the Gentiles is envisaged and thus the disciples are to be propagators of the Messianic scenario developed from the concatenation of resurrection, Spirit, Kingdom language, Gentile inclusion and apocalyptic assumption (1:9-10). Typical of the Lucan style,10 the Spirit is the cause of the Gentile ingathering effect.11 I thus draw the programmatic juxtaposition, where the Spirit is present, witness to Jesus follows, samples of which are readily at hand. Peter, one of the one hundred and twenty who received the Spirit (2:4), witnessed to the Messianisms outlined above in 2:14-41 (cf. 4:8-12; 5:29-32), the most explicit equation being 4:31. It is Peter whom Luke chooses to illustrate the cause-effect at the extremities of Jesus’ promise when in Acts 10-11 the Gentile Corneilus benefits from witness culminating in he and his household receiving the self-same Spirit (10:47; 11:15, 17); Luke’s deduction is rhetorically unassailable;When they [the circumcised {believers} of Jerusalem 11:1] heard this, they were silenced. And they praised God, saying, "Then God has given even to the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life."
Peter’s Pentecost sermon includes the promise to the enquirers; "the promise [of the Spirit]12 is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him." Many13 understand
toV eiV makran ("for all who are far away") as an echo of the OT depiction of Gentiles, and, by narrative plot, "everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him," certainly is inclusive of such. Luke rhetorically itemizes the first respondents to the Spirit empowered witness to Jesus along the programmatic lines of 1:8 provocatively inclusive of "visitors from Rome, both Jews (IoudaioV) and proselytes (proshlutoV)." It is to them that Peter promises "the gift of the Holy Spirit," which mandates, as a Lucan corollary, "witness to Jesus."14 Though historically speculative at best, narratively it is likely "the believers from there" (28:15) are disciples from the "witness" of those listed in 2:10; witnesses inclusive of Spirit empowered Gentiles (proshlutoV).Narrative closure for Luke-Acts is both dramatic and provocatively incomplete. After explaining the Kingdom of God (cf. 1:3, 6) to the Roman Jewish leaders (cf. 28:17 with 23) Paul pronounces the judgment of Isa 6:9-10 on those refusing his messianic witness (NB not all refused "some were convinced" 28:24) and then declares, "Let it be known to you [the Roman Jewish leaders] then that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen." Luke then adds, Paul "lived there two whole years at his own expense and welcomed all who came to him." Our author knows more than he tells and hence the abrupt end to Acts is rhetorically intentional. An inclusio at 1:3 and 28:30 formed by "the Kingdom of God" suggests the future orientation inferred in Jesus’ "corrective" (1:6-7 cf. 14:22) is in contrapunctum with the more realized notions of resurrection, return of the Spirit and ingathering of the Gentiles (cf. 8:12), a contrapunctum resolved by an inaugurated eschatology which can tolerate such realized and futurists aspects. It is this inaugurated eschatology which provocatively closes Acts with Paul "proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance," for two whole years! Luke’s
(kaqexhs) concludes with Jesus’ future realization of the establishment of the Kingdom still subject to the "Father’s own authority," but Paul "proclaiming the kingdom of God…without hindrance," in the power of the Spirit (cf. 28:25). Luke’s recipients are benefactors of such unhindered proclamation of the Kingdom, incorporated into an established and continuing people of God inclusive of Gentiles who, by Luke’s narrative development, can experience the same Spirit empowerment for witness they themselves are the product of.If it be asked why Luke does not work the angle of Spirit empowered Gentiles giving witness to the Messianisms his Jewish counterparts do, we note his etiology is focused on situating Heilsgeschichte. Messiah has arrived, the Spirit has returned, faithful Israel is renewed and must now draw in the Gentiles. Luke’s Gentiles so drawn are in need of this situated etiology: they are indeed embraced within the divine economy. The distributed task of Gentiles as true members of the people of God themselves drawing others into this eschatological harvest is not directly within Luke’s agenda.
Luke’s programmatic preface envisions a symbolic universe where God’s end-time program has begun with the resurrection of Jesus Messiah, the dispensing of the prophetic Spirit and welcoming of Gentiles as the people of God, but the Kingdom of God, as God’s rule over all, anticipates climax; a climax under the "Father’s authority." This paradox of eschatological realization and anticipation I resolve by an inaugurated schema with the datum of Jesus’ "taken up…come in the same way" (1:11). Luke situates his implied audience between the two comings of Messiah, the first of which commences the resurrection and ingathering with the second implying a final resurrection and fullness of the Gentiles of the early Christian tradition. It is this commencement moving to fullness of Gentile ingathering that I propose as the occasion/purpose of Luke-Acts and specifically its accomplishment by the promised Spirit as the motif and informing programmatic of the Acts preface. Spirit empowered faithful Israel in the person of Jesus’ one hundred and twenty mandated with his imperative to witness to the "ends of the earth," have embraced Luke’s implied (Gentile) recipients, but only indirectly (cf. Lk 1:3)! If the implied readers (more likely hearers) are accepting of Luke’s etiology then the implication of continuing the inaugural work of faithful Spirit empowered ethnic Israel lies at hand. Once the cause-effect of Spirit-inspired speech is established15 Luke, minimally not one of the one hundred and twenty and possibly not Jewish, can be accepted as paradigmatically fulfilling what he records as implicit in such narratives as that of Cornelius. The Spirit is the Key!
The delay in "restoring the Kingdom" (of God) must (
alla) await the Spirit empowered ingathering. I understand the genitive absolute participial clause (epelqontoi tou agiou pneumatoV ej umaV) as adverbial and temporal, likely antecedent to the main verb16 which is contingent on it, and follow the NRSV, "when the Holy Spirit has come upon you." Further, I take esesqe as indicating a state (eimi) of witness into which the Holy Spirit inducts. Such provocative language (cf., ej umaV) "echoes" OT images of anointing to divine vocation, with possible resonance to the invocation of a Spirit initiated vocation of replicated Moseses (cf., Num 11:29 to pneuma autou ep autouV) inaugurating a second Exodus.17We must acknowledge the occasionality of the New Testament, which I have endeavored to grapple with above, but inevitably conservative faith communities are impatient seeking a more immediate "application." The constituency to which I belong has long since settled the issues Luke addresses but continue to be primarily informed by him in their restorationist world-view. Vocation is seen to be the continuation of the Lucan narrative – "witnessing to the ends of the earth;" more pragmatically implemented along 1:8 concentrics read as, "to my neighbor, in my home town/country, short-term missions and unto career missionary." I have already sampled Luke’s implicit adoption of Gentiles into Heilsgeschichte, notably the programmatic Cornelius episode occupying focused narrative space, but conclude by developing a further example hopefully suggestive to a more conservative appetite.
The inaugural fulfillment of Joel (Acts 2:17-21) is inclusive of "visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes"
(proshlutoV 2:10). Peter’s citation of Joel is arranged in two units which I read as eschatologically inaugural and teleological. The first, framed around the inclusio ekcew apo tou pneumatoV mou..., kai projhteusousin ("I will pour out my Spirit…and…shall prophesy" 2:17, 18), inaugurates "the last days" (taiV escataiV hmeraiV), the second establishes the penultimate events preceding their conclusion.18 Those responding to Peter’s proclamation are situated within this narrative space and identified with the Messianisms indexed in the preface. Peter identifies what the crowd "both see and hear," as, "the promise (epaggelia) of the Holy Spirit" (2:33) and responds, "you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For (gar) the promise (h epaggelia) is for you…" Minimally, the antecedent of the "you" includes the "proselytes" (proshlutoV) of 2:1; that is, Gentiles are embraced within the inaugural fulfillment of Joel. They are included within the effect reception of the Spirit causes. Since they are included at inception, and Luke punctuates his focused purpose with occasional implications of Gentile Heilsgeschichte vocation, I conclude their inclusion until the dénouement. Thus the unpacking of "all flesh" in the parallelismus membrorum of 2:17-18 explicitly embracive of gender (sons and…daughters; both men and women), age (young men…and…old men), status (slaves), may implicitly include ethnicity (slaves), and certainly does in Luke’s narrative selection. Gentiles were involved in both the inaugural (2:10, 33, 39) and ongoing fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy and thus I conclude will continue to be involved to its telos. Parochially, I stand true to my Pentecostal heritage and affirm Spirit empowered witness to the ends of the earth as a prelude to the "coming of the Lord’s great and glorious day." A Spirit empowered witness that has as its goal that "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved" (2:21).Endnotes:
1
Eg. Tannehill 1996, 28; Green 1997, 6-10.2
Cf. Barrett 1994, 66.3
See the discussion in Haenchen 1985, 144-6.4
Eg. Johnson 1991, 29.5
Cf. Johnson 1991, 30.6
Cf. Gaventa 2003, 62.7
I use Luke interchangeably with author for heuristic purposes not as a commitment to any definitive position on actual authorship.8
Spencer 2004, 36.9
Cf. Gaventa 2003, 65.10
Cf. Johnson 1991, 16-20.11
I take the anarthrous epelqontoV as instrumental and kai as consecutive.12
I take the article in the arthrous h epaggelia as anaphoric, finding its antecedent in thn dwrean tou agiou pneumatoV of v. 38. cf. Barrett 1994, 154.13
Eg. Gaventa 2003, 80; Barrett 1994, 155-6; Johnson 1992, 58.14
One of the most popular explanations for the establishment of the Roman church is returnees from this incident and, again popular, is the exigency of division along ethnic lines within that church upon the return of Jews after the expulsion of Claudius. See for eg. Donfried 1991.15
Johnson’s 1991, 16 "programmatic Prophecy." Cf. pp. 17-20: "Prophetic structure of Luke-Acts."16
Cf. Wallace 1996, 655.17
See Pao 2000.18
I reject the NRSV rendering of kai estai with "then…" in favor of the NIV "and.."©Southern Cross College, 2006