Kavin Rowe

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

C. Kavin Rowe

Rowe analyzes the use of κύριοςin Luke’s Gospel and the role it plays in shaping the “narrative identity” of Jesus. His primary argument is two-fold. First, Rowe argues that Luke positions κύριος within the movement of the narrative “in such a way as to narrate the relation between God and Jesus as one of inseparability, to the point that they are bound together in a shared identity as κύριος.”¹¹¹ Second, “the development of κύριος throughout the entire Gospel narrative serves to tell the human or earthly story of the heavenly Lord.”¹¹² For Rowe, Jesus does not become κύριος as the story develops or progress into someone he was not in the beginning. He writes, “there are not two figures, one Jesus of ‘history,’ as it were, and another exalted Lord, but rather only one: the Lord who was κύριος even from the womb.”¹¹³

Rowe’s contribution to Lukan Christology is substantial. Although other scholars have argued for a ‘high’ Christology in Acts based upon Luke’s use of κύριος to identify both Jesus and the God of Israel (e.g., Flender, Bock, and Buckwalter), Rowe

109Ibid., 143. Tuckett argues that this subordination is emphasized by Luke because he is “as much interested in Jesus from the point of view of ‘theo’-logy, that is, the idea of God” (143). In other words, Jesus’ identity is determined by what God has done to and through him. For example, it is God who raises Jesus from the dead (Acts 2:32-33; 3:15; 4:10; 5:31), God declares Jesus to be his son (Luke 3:22;

9:35), God works miracles through Jesus (Acts 2:22), God has made Jesus Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36) and Jesus is a man chosen by God to do his will (Acts 2:22; 17:31).

110Ibid., “Christology,” 155-156.

111Rowe, Narrative Christology, 27.

112Ibid.

113Ibid.

provides a cogent argument for this identical function of κύριος in the Gospel. This identification of Jesus with the God of Israel through the title κύριος begins in the infancy narrative, in which Luke creates an intentional ambiguity regarding the referent of κύριος.

Rowe argues that the way Luke introduces Jesus into the story as κύριος in Luke 1:43 (“the mother of my κύριος”) “effects a duality in the referent of the word κύριος, which then allows the ambiguity of 1:17 (‘to prepare for the κύριος’), 1:76 (‘you will go before the κύριος to prepare his ways’), and 3:4 (‘prepare the way of the κύριος’) to emerge narratively with theological force.”¹¹⁴ Thus as the narrative unfolds the story shifts focus from κύριος θεός to the κύριος χριστός,which, for Rowe, has significant implications for the narrative identity of Jesus: “The narrative itself is the theology: the coming of the κύριος χριστός is the coming of κύριος θεός. The opening of the Gospel thus narrates, in the move from promise to active fulfillment, the presence of the God of Israel in the life of Jesus.”¹¹⁵

Although Rowe does not deal explicitly with the theme of Jesus as Spirit-giver, I believe his work suggests several implications for rethinking the contribution of this motif to Lukan Christology, especially with regards to John the Baptizer’s announcement concerning the coming one who “will baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire” (Luke 3:16).

Due to the inclusion of this tradition in all four Gospels, scholars have tended to interpret the accounts identically (at least the Synoptics) or have simply highlighted Luke’s

redaction of Mark and Q. However, the narrative approach employed by Rowe demands that this verse be read, not within the context of its pre-synoptic form, but rather within the whole of Luke’s narrative (especially its immediate co-text: 1:5-3:22). John’s

announcement follows Luke 1:1-3:6, in which his ministry is presented as the fulfillment of Isaiah 40:3—he is the one “to prepare the way for the κύριος” (Luke 1:17, 76; 3:4). If

114Ibid., 200.

115Ibid.

in fact “the opening of the Gospel thus narrates . . . the presence of the God of Israel in the life of Jesus,”¹¹⁶ then John’s announcement of the one who will baptize with the Spirit should be interpreted within this theological co-text. In addition, a narrative reading of Luke’s orderly (καθεξῆς) account will allow the early reference to the act of giving the Spirit (i.e., 3:16) to influence the interpretation of the subsequent references (e.g., 11:13;

24:49; Acts 2:1-41).

David Höhne

A monograph that has explored the way in which the Holy Spirit functions to identify Jesus in Luke-Acts is Höhne’s monograph entitled, Spirit and Sonship.¹¹⁷ Höhne provides a “theological” reading of Luke-Acts by applying Colin Gunton’s proposal that

“particularity be understood as an eschatological work of the Holy Spirit.”¹¹⁸ Specifically, Gunton proposed that the activity of the Holy Spirit in the life of Jesus characterizes him as divine,” and that the Spirit worked “transcendently to enable the incarnate Son to be truly or prototypically human.”¹¹⁹

Within this conceptual framework, Höhne sees in Luke-Acts that “the Spirit . . . . act[s] with and for the Son to perfect his identity in relation to God and his people as the events of the Scriptural drama reach a climax.”¹²⁰ This is first evidenced in Luke’s narrative by the Spirit’s role in Jesus’ conception (Luke 1:32-35) where the Spirit shapes the identity of Jesus by “locating him at the anticipated climax of Israel’s drama as the

116Ibid.

117David A. Höhne, Spirit and Sonship, ANCT (Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2010). Höhne’s monograph is the publication of his Ph.D. dissertation: David Allen Höhne, “The Spirit and Sonship: Colin Gunton’s Theology of Particularity” (Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 2006).

118Höhne, Spirit and Sonship, 20. It is my understanding that “particularity” entails the concept of identity, that is, it explains who someone is. Who Jesus is, or his particularity, lies in his relation to Israel and Israel’s God. For Höhne, this relational matrix is realized by the Holy Spirit.

119Ibid., 21.

120Ibid., 41.

son of David; the agent of divine salvation.”¹²¹ The identity-shaping function of the Holy Spirit continues at Jesus’ baptism. Here Jesus’ particularity in relation to Israel and God is demonstrated. With reference to the latter, the Spirit identifies Jesus as God’s “most intimate other.”¹²² With reference to the former the Spirit identifies Jesus as unique; that is, “From among the people and in preference to John, God designates Jesus as the Messiah with the Spirit.”¹²³ This identity-shaping function of the Holy Spirit climaxes in Acts 2 where Peter explicitly links Jesus’ identity to the out pouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:33). Through pouring out the Spirit, the Son mediates the filial relationship with the Father and yet, at the same time, his absolute sonship is preserved “because he is the one to whom God gives the prerogative of opening filial relations in the Spirit to

others.”¹²⁴

Conclusion

This overview of moderns scholars and their understanding of Lukan

Christology suggests the need for a study that explores the christological significance of the motif of Jesus as the Spirit-giver in Luke-Acts. Despite the importance of this motif for Luke’s own narrative, there has yet to appear a thorough study devoted to this topic.

In general, most scholars have downplayed the unique contribution this act makes to Luke’s portrait of Jesus and have subsumed it under their own controlling Christological category. Even the pioneering and compelling contributions of Turner and Buckwalter point to the need for further study. There is a need for a study which, (1) analyzes the narrative development of this theme throughout the whole of Luke-Acts, (2) connects Luke’s depiction of Jesus as giver of the Spirit to a thorough analysis of the description of

121 Ibid., 45.

122Ibid., 99.

123Ibid., 98.

124Ibid., 167.

Yahweh as giver of the Spirit in the OT and the literature of the Second Temple period, and (3) relates this motif with Luke’s emphasis on Jesus as receiver of the Holy Spirit.

This study will therefore focus exclusively on the motif of the Spirit-giver in order to uncover its significance for Lukan Christology.

Method

When choosing a method for uncovering the Christology of Luke-Acts, one should take into account Luke’s own description of his two-volume work in the preface to his Gospel.¹²⁵ First, he locates his volumes alongside the writings of others who had composed “a narrative (διήγησις) concerning the things which have been fulfilled among us” (Luke 1:1), and second, he claims to have written his narrative “in order” (καθεξῆς;

1:3). Although the precise meaning of διήγησις and καθεξῆς are disputed, it is reasonable to conclude that Luke intended his readers/hearers to gain certainty concerning the things they were taught (1:4) by following the sequential development of his testimony to Jesus and the apostles through the whole of his two volumes. It is the narratives themselves that bear theological meaning, and careful attention to the sequential development of each narrative is the proper means for discovering Luke’s witness to Jesus.¹²⁶

125I view the prologue in Luke 1:1-4 as encompassing both the Gospel and Acts and interpret the prologue in Acts 1:1-3 as connecting Luke’s second volume with his πρῶτον λόγον. I recognize that the literary relationship between Luke and Acts is not without its own methodological challenges (for a vigorous polemic questioning the literary and theological unity of Luke-Acts, see Mikeal C. Parsons and Richard I. Pervo, Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993]), but am persuaded that Cadbury, in general, was correct. The Gospel and Acts “are a single continuous work. Acts is neither an appendix nor an afterthought. It is probably an integral part of the author’s original plan and purpose”

(Cadbury, The Making of Luke-Acts, 9). James. D. G. Dunn, Christ and the Spirit (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), 20, argues that any theology of Luke must take into account the fact that he wrote two volumes. He suggests that the significance of this fact “implies that there is a continuity and interconnectedness between the two parts of Luke’s twofold composition which should prohibit us from drawing conclusions regarding Luke’s christology from only one part, or from one part independently of the other.” For helpful essays discussing the unity (as well as the disunity) of Luke-Acts, see Andrew F. Gregory and C. Kavin Rowe, eds., Rethinking the Unity and Reception of Luke and Acts (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2010).

126Rowe, Narrative Christology, 12-14.

This claim suggests that the method known as narrative or literary criticism is the one most appropriate for studying Christology in Luke-Acts because its approach is consistent with Luke’s own description of the nature of his work. First, the narrative approach locates meaning within the text itself rather than behind or in front of the text.

Second, the literary approach seeks Luke’s meaning within the movement of the story since, “It is of primary importance to locate where something occurs in Luke’s narrative.

The connections between individual vignettes are as important as their respective contents. The sequence itself provides the larger meaning.”¹²⁷ In view of this understanding of literary criticism, I will attempt to determine how the passages describing Jesus as Spirit-giver contribute to his narrative identity through exegesis which takes into account each text’s placement, development, and intra-textual links within the whole of Luke’s two-volume work.¹²⁸

In addition to concern for intra-textual exegesis, literary criticism also takes into account the inter-textual links an author makes to other texts.¹²⁹ The importance of

127Johnson, Luke, 4. Feiler, “Jesus the Prophet,” 23, helpfully categorizes Luke-Acts as a

“plotted-narrative.” For Feiler, Luke-Acts is a “narrative” in the sense that its “final form reflects a coherent, intelligible world in which the identity of the characters resides . . . in the sum of the actions and comments about actions which occurs throughout the time and space of the text.” It is “plotted” in the sense that Luke-Acts is “temporally and logically sequenced by devices that provide continuity of character and theme from scene to scene.”

128This emphasis on literary criticism is not intended to deny the relevance of redaction criticism for Gospels studies, but it does recognize its limitation. Although I regard Luke’s use of Mark for his Gospel as probable, the existence of Q as a written document is more doubtful, and the sources underlying Acts remain hidden within the text itself and therefore redaction criticism cannot be applied to the second volume. Thus the claim to be able to determine Lukan theology through analyzing the way Luke edited his sources does not provide a sure footing for theological formulation in Luke-Acts (contra

Buckwalter, The Character and Purpose of Luke’s Christology, 79-81; cf. G. W. H. Lampe, “The Lucan Portrait of Christ,” NTS 2 [1955-56], 160, who writes, “The best way in which we may hope to form some idea of Lucan thought is to examine the use which he has made of material derived from Mark and that which he shares in common with Matthew.”). For example, a narrative interpretation of John the Baptizer’s prophecy (3:16-17) is determined by Luke’s positioning of this tradition within the co-text of chaps. 1-3 of his Gospel and his development of this motif throughout Luke-Acts.

129Joel B. Green, “Narrative Criticism,” in Methods for Luke, ed. Joel B. Green (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2010), 83, describes Luke-Acts as a narrative within a narrative. That is, Luke intentionally situates his story of Jesus and the early church within the “continuation of the

the OT for Lukan Christology is well known and, yet, its significance for the Spirit-giver motif has not been adequately explored. It is, therefore, necessary to discover the echoes to Yahweh’s role as Spirit-giver in the Jewish Scriptures that Luke creates in narrating Jesus’ role as Spirit-giver. However, merely noting these OT echoes is not enough. In order to grasp the full significance of these inter-textual links this dissertation employs a methodology established by Richard Bauckham. Up to this point allusions have been made to Bauckham’s paradigm-shifting work, but it is now necessary to briefly summarize his approach and demonstrate how I see my work as building upon his method for interpreting Lukan Christology.

In his book God Crucified, Bauckham addresses the relationship between Jewish monotheism and New Testament Christology.¹³⁰ He argues that the high

Christology reflected in the NT authors (e.g., Paul and John) developed within a Jewish, monotheistic context by the NT authors including Jesus in the unique identity of the one God.¹³¹ Bauckham focuses on the way in which Second Temple Judaism characterized the uniqueness of God (i.e., his “divine identity”). That is, “How did they answer the question, ‘Who is God?’? Bauckham considers God’s identity as analogous (though not identical) with human identity in that it is defined by his character and personal story.¹³² He writes, “In the narratives of Israel’s history . . . God acts as a character in the story, identifiable in ways similar to those in which human characters in the story are

redemptive story, in which divine promises to Abraham are shown not to have escaped God’s memory but indeed to be in the process of actualization in the present.”

130Richard Bauckham, God Crucified (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998). This book was recently republished as the first chapter in a collection of Bauckham’s essays on Christology: idem, Jesus and the God of Israel (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008), 1-59. Neil MacDonald, Metaphysics and the God of Israel (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), xvii, pays tribute to the influence of Bauckham’s work by stating, “This brilliant little book provided much of the initial impetus to thinking about God in terms of the concept of divine identity instead of the patristic concept of divine ousia.”

131Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 3.

132Ibid., 6.

identifiable. He has a personal identity, as Abraham and David do.”¹³³ In other words, there are characteristics of God that make his identity unique from all other reality and these characteristics constitute his “divine identity.”

Bauckham proposes that the unique, divine identity is especially (though not exclusively) characterized in the Jewish Scriptures and the Jewish Second Temple literature by two features: “that the one God is sole Creator of all things and that the one God is sole Ruler of all things.”¹³⁴ God’s identity is characterized by his unique roles as the creator and sovereign ruler, which, according to Bauckham, are roles reserved exclusively for Yahweh. The intermediary figures in the Jewish literature such as principal angels and exalted patriarchs do not “participate in the exercises of God’s rule by sharing the divine throne, but only carry out God’s will as servants.”¹³⁵

Against the backdrop of this Jewish notion of Yahweh’s divine identity, Bauckham develops the significance of the inclusion of Jesus within the divine identity by the early church: “They include Jesus in the unique divine sovereignty over all things, they include him in the unique divine creation of all things, they identify him by the divine name which names the unique divine identity, and they portray him as accorded the worship which, for Jewish monotheists, is recognition of the unique divine

identity.”¹³⁶ Thus the way the NT authors articulate the deity of Jesus is not through describing his divine nature, but by ascribing to him those very roles which were particular to Yahweh. From the earliest stage of New Testament Christology, the concern was to articulate the identification of Jesus with God.¹³⁷

133Ibid.

134Ibid., 18.

135Ibid.

136Ibid., 19.

137Ibid., 176.

Bauckham, thus far, has focused primarily on Yahweh’s role as creator and ruler; however, I believe his role as Spirit-giver can also be added to the list of

characteristics constituting the “unique divine identity” (especially his “eschatological identity”; see chap. 2, “The Giving of the Spirit and the Unique Identity of Yahweh”).

The role of giving or pouring out the Holy Spirit was one reserved for Yahweh alone and was not a role shared by any intermediary figure. In his development of Jesus as the giver of the Spirit, Luke seems to intentionally connect it with the description of Yahweh as Spirit-giver. In so doing, he parallels other NT writers who include Jesus in the divine identity by attributing to him characteristics unique to Yahweh.¹³⁸

The chapters of this work will proceed as follows. Chapter 2 provides an analysis of the OT texts that portray Yahweh as pouring out/giving the eschatological Spirit (Ezek 36:26-27; 37:1-14; Isa 4:4; 32:15; 44:3; Joel 3:1-5; Zech 12:10). The purpose of this chapter is to understand how that act of giving the Spirit in the age to come contributes to Yahweh’s unique divine identity. The chapter presents three ways the prophets associate this eschatological act with Yahweh’s identity as Israel’s God: (1) the act of giving the Spirit is consistently portrayed as an act of new creation and new exodus and is thus connected with Yahweh’s unique identity as the creator and deliverer of Israel; (2) the act of giving the Spirit is particular to Yahweh; no other figure is portrayed as acting in this role on behalf of Yahweh; (3) the act of giving the Spirit is presented as a means by which Israel will know Yahweh in the age to come. Like his past acts of creation and redemption, which function in the OT to identify Israel’s God, the act of giving the Spirit will function, in the age to come, to identify Israel’s God.

138I am aware of criticisms leveled against Bauckham’s approach, but do not believe these alternative approaches explain the texts of the Second Temple Period and the New Testament as well as Bauckham’s model. See, e.g., Andrew Chester, Messiah and Exaltation, WUNT 207 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 22-24; James F. McGrath, The Only True God (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2009), 10-23; James D. G. Dunn, Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? New Testament Evidence (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010), 141-45. However, I have found that Bauckham’s analysis better explains the texts of both the Second Temple Jewish literature and the New Testament.