Chapter 1<\/p>\n
LUKE\u2019S DIVINE CHRISTOLOGY IN SCHOLARLY STUDIES<\/p>\n
I. Introduction<\/p>\n
Why another study of Lukan Christology? Already in 1968 Professor Moule recognized the \u2018formidable output of literature\u2019 pertaining to Luke\u2019s Christology. But because he understood this wealth of scholarly investigations as \u2018evidence of an increasing awareness of the complexity of the subject\u2019 rather than a sign that all christological questions were successfully addressed, he proceeded with his study, rejoicing at the fact that Professor Schweizer and others were contributing to the subject in the same volume and would not leave his \u2018errors and deficiencies both of fact and of judgment \u2026 wholly uncorrected and uncompensated\u2019. Almost half a century later, Moule\u2019s wise assessment of the field of Lukan Christology remains true, and his passionate yet humble pursuit of \u2018true insights\u2019 into the meaning of the Lukan narrative continues to inspire one to engage scholarly conversations and ask questions that aim at identifying areas in need of consideration. Since 1968 more studies have been done, resulting in an overwhelming number of monographs, articles, and dissertations available today. They can be classified based on a number of different criteria: the scope of the study (e.g., Christology of Luke vs. Christology of Acts vs. Christology of Luke-Acts), Luke\u2019s role (e.g., many conflicting Christologies incorporated by the editor Luke vs. one controlling Christology of the author\/narrator Luke), sources of Christology (e.g., speeches vs. statements vs. titles vs. theological themes\/ideas vs. narrative), and categories (e.g., adoptionist or subordinationist vs. coequality and coregency, low vs. high), which reflects the complexity of the field of Luke\u2019s Christology. Despite this abundance of literature and the scholarly consensus that Luke\u2019s Christology is primarily an exaltation Christology, the question \u2018Does Luke characterize Jesus as God\/\u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 in his two-volume narrative?\u2019 remains uninteresting to the majority of scholars even when such an investigation might be anticipated (e.g., in studies of Jesus as the prophet like Moses since God designated Moses as \u2018god\u2019 to Aaron [\u05dc\u05b5\u05d0\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd, Exod. 4:16] and to Pharaoh [\u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\/\u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd, Exod. 7:1]). In fact, some openly declare this question to be inappropriate. Thus, after not being able to find the titles \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 or \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 applied to Jesus, Jacob Jervell states, \u2018Jesus is not divine, not pre-existent, not incarnated, not the creator or tool of creation, not the universal reconciler, not the imago dei etc.\u2019. Is Jervell stating what many scholars conclude after studying Luke\u2019s Christology, but choose not to voice?<\/p>\n
II. Challenging Scholarly Reservations<\/p>\n
Jervell is correct in not seeing the application of the title \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 to Jesus in the Lukan narrative; yet some would say that there is a slight possibility that Luke applies to Jesus the title \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2. First, it was once a common conviction that Acts 20:28 applied \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 to Jesus and could be used as a proof of Jesus\u2019 divinity in the Lukan narrative. Most scholars, however, no longer understand this verse as a proof of Jesus\u2019 divinity. Second, Bart D. Ehrman observes that Lk. 3:4 can be read as either \u2018make straight his paths\u2019 or \u2018make straight the paths of our God\u2019 (sy s.c.p), which could imply that the longer text calls Jesus \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2. Ehrman notes that the longer text happens to be more faithful to the OT in its quotation of Isa. 40:3 and less harmonized with Mk 1:3 and Mt. 3:3, which might be a sign of originality\u2014although he quickly rejects this option and says that there is little debate among scholars concerning this issue. Consequently, the possibility that the title \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 is applied to Jesus in the Lukan narrative is so insignificant that it does not warrant the argument for Jesus\u2019 divinity in Luke-Acts. Since titles of honor, such as \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, or \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, do not guarantee Jesus\u2019 divinity in and of themselves, there is no surprise that scholars do not find the question of Jesus\u2019 divinity in Luke-Acts worth exploring.
\nMust this lead one to conclude that Jesus\u2019 divinity should be discussed only in reference to NT books that call Jesus \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 explicitly? There are two difficulties with an assumption that only the application of \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 to Jesus can guarantee his divinity. First, even if Luke-Acts did call Jesus \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 explicitly, one would have to determine what such a statement may entail because the way one could understand the statement \u2018Jesus is (\u1f41) \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2\u2019 in the first-century Greco-Roman world could vary significantly. This comes from the fact that although \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 is used sometimes as an appellative within the NT to refer to YHWH, it is naturally a predicate. That is to say, \u2018God\u2019\/\u2018\u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2\u2019 is not YHWH\u2019s name and can be used to refer to different types of individuals, both earthly and heavenly. Since out of 289 occurrences of \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 in Luke-Acts, 8 times in Acts it has a referent other than YHWH, it is clear that even within Luke-Acts the meaning of the predicate \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 is not univocal. Consequently even if Luke-Acts explicitly called Jesus \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, it would be impossible to determine what type of \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 he was without carefully examining the Lukan narrative. Thus, the title \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 predicated of Jesus against the backdrop of first-century Greco-Roman pagan worship could identify Jesus as a god within a pantheon of pagan deities. Moreover, the title \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 could identify Jesus as an exalted patriarch, judge, or heavenly creature of Jewish faith because there are instances in Second Temple Jewish literature where \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 refers to beings other than YHWH, namely, Moses, Melchizedek, human judges, angels, and the gods of other nations. Finally, against the backdrop of Second Temple Jewish monotheism, the title \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 could identify Jesus with YHWH, the God of Israel. Because the application of the title \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 to Jesus would not necessarily place Jesus on the same level with YHWH, one\u2019s argument for or against the possibility that Luke portrays Jesus as God cannot rest exclusively on whether he calls Jesus \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 explicitly.
\nSecond, one can argue that although Luke does not tell his readers directly that Jesus is God\/\u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, the possibility still exists that he shows this indirectly by means of his narrative. That is, if Luke characterizes Jesus in the same way he characterizes YHWH and if he calls YHWH \u2018God\u2019, then he claims by means of this indirect characterization that Jesus is God just as YHWH is God. Therefore, the study of the possibility of Jesus\u2019 divinity in Luke-Acts cannot be determined by a word study of \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 or any other title applied to YHWH in isolation from the Lukan narrative. Only a study of the Lukan narrative with special attention to the characters of God the Father, i.e., YHWH, and Jesus can explain whether Luke portrays Jesus as God. Thus, the question of whether Luke presents Jesus as God goes beyond mere mention of a personal name or title\/predicate, i.e., telling, and is rooted in the story as it unfolds before the eyes of Luke\u2019s readers, i.e., showing. To answer this question successfully, one must carefully examine the Lukan two-volume narrative and determine how Luke presents YHWH as God in order to eliminate misconceptions of what is necessary in Luke\u2019s presentation of Jesus as God.
\nSo, since there is a possibility that Luke characterized Jesus as God by means of his narrative, regardless of whether he called Jesus \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 explicitly, why are so few scholars interested in exploring it? Having analyzed works on Luke\u2019s Christology from the last century, we observe that the source of problems related to this topic lies in the work of Hans Conzelmann, the first person to demonstrate successfully a distinctly \u2018Lukan\u2019 Christology. It is to his work that we now turn.<\/p>\n
III. Conzelmann\u2019s Negative Contribution<\/p>\n
Conzelmann\u2019s The Theology of St. Luke, published first in German under the title Die Mitte der Zeit, has influenced significantly the way the study of Luke\u2019s Christology has been approached since 1954. Not only did it introduce redaction criticism, earning its author the status of a forefather of redaction criticism and converting a great number of scholars to the validity of this method, but it also manifested Luke as a theologian, fully responsible for the Christology of his writings. As a result of this study, Luke could no longer be perceived merely as a faithful transmitter of the primitive Christology of the early church and had to be recognized as a writer who argued for a particular way of understanding Jesus. This, in turn, opened the gates to the study of Lukan Christology. However, because Conzelmann concluded that the Lukan Jesus was not God, his work, as influential as it was, became a stumbling block for the study of Lukan divine Christology. Conzelmann\u2019s conclusions are not with out weaknesses, though, because they are founded on hermeneutical presuppositions that are no longer plausible. We will now examine Conzelmann\u2019s arguments against Jesus\u2019 divinity in order to point out those presuppositions.
\nFirst, when Conzelmann examines Luke\u2019s narrative, he hopes to find \u2018systematic considerations\u2019 (planm\u00e4\u00dfige Reflexion) of the ontological relationship between the Father and Jesus. Although he does not explicitly state what he means by this expression, one can suspect that Conzelmann expects to find at least statements of Jesus\u2019 preexistence and possibly other statements that refer to Jesus\u2019 divine nature. Because he can find neither \u2018systematic considerations\u2019 of the ontological relationship between the Father and Jesus in general nor the notion of preexistence in particular, he argues against the idea that the Father and the Son share a physical divine nature. Thus, he refuses to interpret the relationship between the Father and Jesus in ontological terms as was done in the traditional creeds and patristic literature, and finds it inappropriate to speak of a metaphysical divine nature connecting the Father and the Son. He argues that there is \u2018no metaphysical basis\u2019 for Jesus\u2019 status and that it is \u2018entirely the gift of God\u2019. That he is unsuccessful is unsurprising: he anachronistically attempts to find patristic or even modern systematic reflections concerning Jesus in a first-century document and approaches the Lukan narrative as a collection of doctrinal statements, thus requiring that this two-volume work provide clear-cut, systematic definitions of Jesus\u2019 nature. Luke-Acts as a narrative is interested not in presenting doctrinal statements concerning Jesus\u2019 nature but rather in providing a meaningful account of Jesus\u2019 identity as it unfolds in time. Therefore, to determine if Jesus is presented as God in Luke-Acts, one needs to read Luke-Acts using appropriate methodology available for the study of narratives rather than redaction criticism.
\nSecond, Conzelmann identifies two series of sayings about the relationship between God and Jesus in Luke-Acts, namely, those that show Jesus\u2019 subordination to the Father and those that portray them as being identical in terms of their work on earth. He therefore concludes that Jesus is identical to God \u2018functionally\u2019 but not \u2018ontologically\u2019. This means that although Jesus acts as God, he is not God. There are two difficulties with Conzelmann\u2019s conclusions: (1) the emphasis he places on the tension between Jesus\u2019 subordination to the Father and his functioning as God to the world is greatly exaggerated because subordination does not necessarily imply inferiority; (2) although Conzelmann is right in trying not to read foreign \u2018ontological\u2019 categories into the Lukan text, he goes too far in applying exclusively \u2018functional\u2019 categories to Lukan Christology. Conzelmann\u2019s juxtaposition of \u2018ontological\u2019 and \u2018functional\u2019 categories reflects his faithfulness to the modernistic thinking of the time that promoted the idea that who a person is should be understood separately from what he\/she does. This mode of thinking, however, does not correspond to what Luke-Acts tells us about being and doing. In Lk. 6:43\u201345, for example, we find that:<\/p>\n
No good tree produces bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree produce good fruit; for each tree is known by its own fruit. Figs are not gathered from thorns, nor are grapes harvested from a bramble bush. The good person out of good treasure of the heart produces good, and the evil person out of evil treasure produces evil; for it is out of the abundance of the heart that his\/her mouth speaks.<\/p>\n
Moreover, when John the Baptist sends messengers to Jesus to inquire of him regarding his identity, Jesus explains who he is by indicating what he has done: \u2018Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have good news preached to them. And blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me\u2019 (7:22b\u201323). In these two passages, one finds no distinction between one\u2019s ontology and function. Rather, one finds that a person is understood holistically and what he\/she does is directly connected with who he\/she is. Based on this, one may argue, contra Conzelmann, that Luke does not make a distinction between Jesus\u2019 function and ontology. Rather, when he speaks of Jesus\u2019 actions, he discloses who Jesus is, i.e., his identity, and when he speaks of Jesus\u2019 functioning as God, he characterizes Jesus as God. In fact, all of Conzelmann\u2019s research that indicates the Lukan Jesus as the one functioning as God might be used in support of our thesis.
\nFinally, Conzelmann undoubtedly would find it highly problematic to speak of Jesus as not only functioning as but also being God. He briefly refers to this problem, saying that it would be difficult for a Jew to revere somebody as \u2018Lord\u2019 other than God himself. Based on this, one may argue that although Conzelmann\u2019s approach disregards Jesus\u2019 character construction by means of the Lukan narrative and relies on an ontology-vs.-function dichotomy that is foreign to the Bible, it provides him with a convenient way to interpret the Lukan text without engaging the question, \u2018If God is one and this God is YHWH\/the Father, how then should we understand Jesus as being \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2\/God as well?\u2019 This, however, also implies that if one were successful at showing that the Lukan text allows for the possibility that Jesus is God, one would have to explain how this could be a valid interpretive possibility against the background of Second Temple Jewish monotheism.
\nConzelmann\u2019s convictions that (1) Luke-Acts has to contain systematic considerations of the ontological relationship between the Father God and Jesus to guarantee Jesus\u2019 being God; (2) statements pertaining to Jesus\u2019 functioning as God are not enough to argue for Jesus\u2019 being God; and (3) it is inappropriate to speak of the Lukan Jesus as God against the background of Second Temple Jewish monotheism find their corollary in the fact that few scholars have ventured to argue for the possibility of divine Christology in Luke-Acts. We now turn to these scholarly voices (Laurentin, Turner, and Buckwalter) and voices that we find helpful in framing the question of Jesus\u2019 being God (Fletcher-Louis, Rowe) in order to determine what has already been done to overcome the problems introduced by Conzelmann\u2019s hermeneutical assumptions, what issues still persist, and what still needs to be done to address those issues successfully.<\/p>\n
IV. Lukan Divine Christology after Conzelmann<\/p>\n
a. Laurentin<\/p>\n
In 1957, Ren\u00e9 Laurentin published Structure et th\u00e9ologie de Luc I\u2013II, which, unlike Conzelmann\u2019s work, emphasized the importance of the first two chapters of the Gospel for Lukan Christology and explicitly identified Jesus with YHWH. Laurentin does not assume that the evidence for the divinity of Jesus in Luke should be sought in the use of the word \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 in reference to Jesus or in the presence of systematic considerations of Jesus\u2019 divine nature. When comparing Luke\u2019s Christology to John\u2019s, he admits that Luke does not openly make statements of Jesus\u2019 preexistence and does not discuss metaphysical issues. He explains this by saying that if Luke explicitly identified Jesus with YHWH, he would quickly be accused of blasphemy. He argues that Luke was not silenced by this dangerous possibility. Instead Luke manifested his thought concerning Jesus\u2019 divinity intuitively by way of using OT allusions. That is why he provides a detailed study of the first two chapters of Luke, showing how Luke used the OT imagery and titles reserved for YHWH in his description of Jesus.
\nLaurentin\u2019s work can be praised for its attention to literary context, its thorough work with the Lukan text, and its attempt to use OT imagery for God in clarifying Luke\u2019s portrait of Jesus. However, he does not purport to argue for Luke\u2019s divine Christology because his goal is to study Luke 1\u20132 rather than Jesus\u2019 divinity within the Lukan narrative. Moreover, despite the fact that he is sensitive in reading Luke\u2019s Gospel as a work of literature, his methodology is not always clear\u2014sometimes he draws conclusions based on his reconstruction of the purported Hebrew source of Luke 1\u20132 and other times he uses the Greek text. Having shown that Jesus is portrayed by Luke as YHWH, Laurentin does not explain how Jesus can be identified with YHWH, although he considers this identification to be important for the Christology of Luke 1\u20132. One can even claim that he collapses the boundaries between Jesus and the Father and ignores the dynamics of their relationship. Finally, because Laurentin does not seem to be aware of the ontology-vs.-function dichotomy or difficulties with explaining Jesus as God against the background of Jewish monotheism, as suggested by Conzelmann, he does not offer helpful ways to go beyond those issues.<\/p>\n
b. Turner<\/p>\n
Max Turner is interested in the origins of \u2018divine\u2019 Christology. He admits that the term \u2018divine\u2019 Christology is ambiguous and can imply \u2018anything from the divine agency of any messianic figure to a full trinitarian christology\u2019. Thus, he shows awareness of the fact that the term \u2018god\u2019 or \u2018divine\u2019 can be applied to many individuals. In his study, however, Turner restricts its meaning to a Christology \u2018which appears to push the unity between Jesus and the Father beyond anything Judaism could envisage of any (mere) creature, however exalted, and thus potentially even to breach exclusive monotheism as Judaism understood it\u2019. Moreover, Turner observes that the Spirit in Judaism refers to YHWH\u2019s own being, that is, his self-manifesting, transforming, and empowering immanent presence. That is why he argues that when Luke has Peter quote Joel 2:28 concerning the last days when God would pour out his Spirit on all people (Acts 2:17) and then presents Jesus as the one who receives the Spirit from the Father and pours it out on his followers (2:33), he portrays Jesus as God since Jesus is the only other person besides God who is said to pour out the Spirit. Turner also observes that Jesus in Acts is presented as the Lord of the Spirit and that the Spirit becomes known in Acts as the Spirit of Jesus (16:6\u20137). This implies that Luke depicts Jesus\u2019 relationship to the Spirit in the same way as he depicts God\u2019s own relationship to the Spirit. This relationship with the Spirit enables Jesus to be present among his followers, to empower them, and to direct them through the Spirit, just as YHWH was able to do in the lives of his people Israel. Finally, Turner observes that calling on the name of the Lord Jesus in baptism is equivalent to calling on the name of YHWH, which is necessary for the forgiveness of sins and reception of the Spirit (2:21, 38).
\nTurner takes seriously that Jesus can and should be perceived as God in Luke-Acts. His insightful observations concerning Jesus\u2019 relationship with the Spirit and unprecedented naming of God\u2019s Spirit with reference to Jesus greatly contribute to one\u2019s understanding of what was unique about YHWH and how Jesus participated in that unique identity. Moreover, he enables one to see the importance of the Spirit in the relationship of YHWH and Jesus and, in doing so, emphasizes the importance of a trinitarian perspective of Jesus\u2019 relationship to YHWH. Finally, Turner emphasizes that Christian Jews worshiped the Son and the Father as one God. Following Richard Bauckham, he advocates that Jesus\u2019 divinity has to be explained in light of his participation in YHWH\u2019s divine identity, which prevents one from viewing Christian worship as the worship of two separate gods. However, he is more interested in explaining what led the church to perceive Jesus as divine and to worship him, rather than explaining how Jesus is portrayed in the Lukan narrative as participating in YHWH\u2019s divine identity. Thus, although Turner pioneers the argument for Jesus\u2019 divine identity after Conzelmann, his more traditional methodology does not allow him to ask narrative questions of Luke-Acts and to explore how Luke might have constructed Jesus\u2019 divine identity by means of his narrative. Finally, although he relies on Bauckham\u2019s work on divine identity, he still talks about the possibility that the exclusive Jewish monotheism was breached in the articulation of the unity between Jesus and YHWH.<\/p>\n
c. Buckwalter<\/p>\n
In his published dissertation and in a more recent essay on Luke\u2019s Christology, Douglas Buckwalter argues that because Luke knew Jesus as Lord, he described Jesus\u2019 identity and activity after the resurrection using concepts that in the OT were applicable to YHWH (cf. Laurentin). First, he suggests that Jesus\u2019 post-resurrection manifestations are similar to those of YHWH in the OT and that Luke perceives Jesus as coequal and coregent with God by comparing Jesus\u2019 heavenly reign in Acts and YHWH\u2019s in the OT. Second, he argues that although the name of the Lord is associated with God in Joel 2:32, it is applied to Jesus in Acts 2:21. Third, like Turner, Buckwalter stresses the fact that in Acts Jesus is the only other being, besides YHWH himself, who is said to give the Spirit and whose ministry is perceived as identical to the ministry of the Spirit. He argues that in Acts, Jesus\u2019 relationship with the Holy Spirit resembles God\u2019s relationship with the Spirit of God in the OT since Jesus is presented as being in communion with the church through the Holy Spirit just as YHWH was in communion with the people of Israel through the Spirit. This has a great significance for him because it means that Jesus, while enthroned in heaven, can be present on earth and actively participate in the ministry of his followers, just as YHWH did in the OT. Because of this gift of the Spirit to the followers of Christ, Jesus is able to reign and guide the believers via the Spirit, although at times he manifests himself personally. Finally, Buckwalter states that in addition to demonstrating Jesus as God in light of his appearances, coregency, sharing of the divine name, presence in the lives of his followers through the Holy Spirit, and ability to keep his promises, Luke depicts Jesus as a deity who \u2018by nature\u2019 behaves towards his people as a servant.
\nBuckwalter believes that Luke viewed Jesus as divine in both the Gospel of Luke and in Acts. However, similarly to Turner, the questions that he asks of the text are limited by his methodology, which is why he bases his argument of the divinity of Jesus solely on the book of Acts. Hence, though he is correct in identifying Jesus in Acts with YHWH in the OT and in saying that Jesus\u2019 divinity is manifested through his service to his people, he does not study how Jesus\u2019 divine identity is revealed in the Gospel. Moreover, Buckwalter quotes Lampe, \u2018the thought of the OT is interested in the activity of God rather than in the metaphysical problem of his being\u2019, and suggests, \u2018May not the kinds of conclusions we draw about God\u2019s nature and being in the OT on the basis of his activity, illustrate how Luke understood the nature and being of Jesus\u2019 Lordship on the basis of his heavenly work?\u2026 The Lord Jesus seems for Luke as much God as the Father is on the basis of the kinds of things he does and says from heaven.\u2019 So, he is right in bringing together \u2018being\u2019 and \u2018doing\u2019; yet he does not explain if Jesus can be God on the basis of what he does and says in the Gospel or how Jesus can be God against Second Temple Jewish monotheism. His mention of divine identity may suggest that, like Turner, he found Bauckham\u2019s category helpful.<\/p>\n
d. Fletcher-Louis<\/p>\n
Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louis does not argue that Jesus should be understood as God; yet his work is beneficial for our argument. He bases his study of Luke\u2019s Christology on the work of scholars who emphasize the importance of the Jewish background for the development of the NT Christology and claim the primacy of the angelic category in understanding mediatorial and messianic figures in Jewish thought. He highlights a number of reasons for this emphasis on the angelic category. First, he notices that beginning with the Pentateuch one specific angel (\u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\/\u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05da \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4) is used to communicate the idea of God\u2019s visible presence in history (e.g., Gen. 16:7\u201314; 22:11\u201315; Exod. 3:1\u201314; Num. 22:22\u201335; Judg. 2:1\u20134). Second, he observes that the OT speaks of many gods who are subordinate to the one God and who are later perceived as God\u2019s angelic host (e.g., Exod. 15:11; Deut. 3:24; Ps. 82:1). These angels (\u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\/\u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd) have different roles and responsibilities in the created world and in the relationship between humanity and God. They participate in the being of the One God not only by what they do (agency\/function), but also by who they are (identity). They are called \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03af by Greek-speaking Jews in recognition of their divinity, although they are still perceived as distinguished from and subordinate to YHWH.
\nFletcher-Louis admits that the angelic category is too narrow to describe Jesus because Jesus was both human and divine but not an angel and because this category does not include Jewish ideas of humans who are greater than angels, who deserve angelic praise, and who inherit the name of YHWH. Consequently, Fletcher-Louis proposes to understand Jesus as an angelomorphic figure who possesses characteristics and status specific to angels yet whose identity cannot be reduced to that of an angel. Thus, Jesus can be \u2018more human than would be expected of an angel\u2019 and \u2018more fully Divine\u2019 because he receives worship. However, he can still be understood as \u2018angelomorphic in the sense that he has angelic attributes\u2019. In addition, if Jesus is understood as an angelomorphic figure, his worship can be understood in light of the rabbinic concept of \u2018Two Powers in Heaven\u2019, which deals with the worship of a second divine being alongside God.
\nFletcher-Louis perceives Luke\u2019s Jesus as both human and divine and his goal is to explain the fluidity of Jesus\u2019 human and divine natures. However, he assumes that the categories of human, divine, or angelic\/angelomorphic natures do not need to be defined. He is correct in bringing together concepts of agency and identity in his discussion of angels\/gods. However, he does not explain what made Jesus\u2019 participation in God\u2019s identity different from that of other beings that could be referred to as \u2018gods\u2019. He is also correct in attempting to read Lukan Christology against the Jewish rather than Hellenistic background; yet he relies on the \u2018Two Powers\u2019 concept to explain how Jesus could be worshiped as a divine figure alongside of YHWH, which does not account for the claim that Jewish people during the Second Temple period were monotheistic, nor does it examine Luke-Acts to determine if the \u2018Two Powers\u2019 concept would be acceptable for Luke. Finally, in his study of Luke\u2019s Christology, Fletcher-Louis uses a history-of-religions approach; therefore, he is not interested in exploring how Luke develops Jesus\u2019 portrayal as \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 by means of his narrative.<\/p>\n
e. Rowe<\/p>\n
Kavin Rowe does not argue that Jesus should be understood as God; yet his study is helpful in many ways. He studies Luke\u2019s use of \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 and because he correctly believes that the word \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 does not come loaded with meaning but rather gains its meaning in the process of reading the narrative, he does not aim to reconstruct the history of the word \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 or to produce a mere word study. Thus, he offers an in-depth examination of the occurrences of \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 sequentially from the beginning of the Lukan narrative and allows its meaning as it is applied to both God the Father and Jesus to develop without disrupting the flow of the Lukan narrative. He claims that Luke masterfully crafted his narrative and used the title \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 in such a way as \u2018to narrate the relation between God and Jesus as one of inseparability, to the point that they are bound together in a shared identity as \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2\u2019. Although he focuses his study on the occurrences of \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 in the Gospel, he provides an excursus to deal with a tension between the Gospel\u2019s use of \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 for Jesus and its use in Acts 2:36. Moreover, he speaks concerning the ambiguity of referents for \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 in Acts, ties it to the ambiguity of its referents in the Gospel, and locates it in the \u2018act of God by the Spirit in the conception of Jesus as \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2\u2019. Rowe observes that because of the ambiguity in the referent of \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, the coming of Lord Jesus is understood as the coming of Lord God, the mission of Jesus is identified with the mission of God, and the presence of the God of Israel is experienced in the life of Jesus. Rowe concludes: \u2018To apprehend the identity of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke is to include God, and the question, Who is God in Luke?, of necessity places Jesus at the center of its answer\u2019.
\nWhen Rowe draws upon the implications of his study, he notes that because Jesus is identified as \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, his judgment is superior to that of the prophet John and his status is superior to that of the Son of David. Moreover, because Jesus\u2019 identity as \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 remains the same before and after his death and resurrection, he incorporates the ability to love one\u2019s enemies, endure a violent death, and be raised from the dead into the definition of what it means to be \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2. Finally, Rowe acknowledges that the development of Jesus\u2019 identity in Luke-Acts is dialectical: from Acts to the Gospel the heavenly Lord Jesus is portrayed as a human figure and from the Gospel to Acts the human figure Jesus is portrayed as the heavenly Lord. Yet, Rowe is careful to specify that despite the unity of the Father God and Jesus in the identity as \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, the boundaries between God and Christ or the Father and the Son are never intermixed, i.e., Jesus is not the same character as God the Father (contra Laurentin), who is \u2018alone \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 and \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 for Luke\u2019.
\nRowe\u2019s work is excellent. He is skillful in reading the Lukan narrative as narrative and although he cannot study Acts in as many details, he incorporates helpful insight from Acts throughout his work with the Gospel. He properly rejects the notion that the question of who \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 is can be settled prior to the study of the Lukan narrative and argues that what particular words or concepts mean cannot be settled prior to reading a narrative. This is helpful for our study, because we can argue with Rowe that one cannot assume that he\/she knows the meaning of specific titles or concepts applicable to God and\/or Jesus in isolation from the Lukan narrative.
\nIf one were to read Rowe through the lens of studies by Turner and Buckwalter that argue for Jesus\u2019 being God and his sharing of YHWH\u2019s divine identity, one would assume that Rowe perceives the Lukan Jesus as God. Moreover, if one were to read Rowe\u2019s monograph through his article \u2018Luke and the Trinity\u2019, where he states, \u2018[t]he trinity of the one God emerges from the conception of Jesus as the incarnation of God by the power of the Holy Spirit\u2019, one would assume that Rowe perceives the Lukan Jesus as one God with the Father and the Holy Spirit. However, Rowe speaks of Jesus as \u2018the movement of God\u2019, \u2018the embodied revelation of \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2\u2019, but he does not call Jesus \u2018God\u2019. Rowe suggests that \u2018in construing the identity of Jesus as \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 even from the womb, Luke presents the totally human Jesus as the heavenly Lord upon earth\u2019 in order to combat a pagan view of human deification, because \u2018continuity in heavenly or divine identity protects against a divinizing interpretation of Jesus [as] \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2\u2019. He adds: \u2018Jesus did not after his death and resurrection become something he was not before, but rather was vindicated precisely in respect to or even because of his identity\u2019. That is why it is difficult to determine what Rowe means when he calls Luke\u2019s Christology \u2018high\u2019. If he uses this phrase in the same way as Richard Bauckham, who suggests that high Christology was possible within the context of \u2018strict\u2019 Jewish monotheism by \u2018identifying Jesus directly with the one God of Israel, including Jesus in the unique identity of this one God\u2019 and if he has no problem incorporating Jesus in the trinity of the one God, then why does he shy away from calling Jesus \u2018God\u2019?
\nIt is possible that Rowe, whose work with the title \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 shows his affinity for linguistics, is uncomfortable with speaking of Jesus as God because Luke does not predicate \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 of Jesus. If that is the case, he is guilty of what Stephen Halliwell calls \u2018lexical bias\u2019. Halliwell rejects the idea that \u2018conceptions can be identified primarily by reference to particular lexical items in a language\u2019. He says:<\/p>\n
lexical bias\u2014an assumption \u2026 that individual lexical items and locutions, or the lack of them, are the most significant facts about the way in which a language shapes the conceptions expressible within it \u2026 is often hazardous, but particularly so in the psychological sphere. It may be right to suppose that the language used to describe or analyse [sic] psychological experience is partly constitutive of the nature of that experience, but it is one-sided to translate this supposition into the principle that individual lexical items in themselves carry a greater weight than the total discourse of which they form a part.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, Jesus\u2019 identity cannot be gleaned entirely from the titles applied to him because, in addition to explicit means of characterization, i.e., the use of titles, the author may also rely on implicit means of characterization in depicting his\/her characters, which includes descriptions of what a character does and says and how he\/she is like or unlike other characters. This means that the absence of the term \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 in reference to Jesus does not yet mean that the concept of \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 is not used for his description.
\nHowever, this might not be the reason for Rowe\u2019s refusal to see the Lukan Jesus as God in light of what he says concerning the Holy Spirit. Rowe states: \u2018God the Father is alone \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 and \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 for Luke\u2019; yet prior to that he says that the Holy Spirit is not \u2018one of God\u2019s creatures or a semi-divine being. To the contrary, the Holy Spirit is God, but in the character of his animating activity.\u2019 How does he arrive at the conclusion that the Holy Spirit is God? Is he perhaps thinking of Acts 5:3\u20134, where Luke through Peter indirectly predicates \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 of the Holy Spirit? Why, then, does he say that God the Father is the only referent of the title \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 only two pages later? Or, perhaps, he allows the Holy Spirit to be characterized as God by means of the Lukan narrative. Would he, then, allow that Jesus might be characterized as God in a similar fashion? Because we cannot answer this question with certainty, we cannot classify Rowe\u2019s work together with that of Laurentin, Turner, and Buckwalter, although he comes the closest in overcoming the problems introduced by Conzelmann\u2019s work.
\nHaving looked at the scholarly works of Laurentin, Turner, Buckwalter, Fletcher-Louis, and Rowe, we can conclude that the problems introduced by Conzelmann\u2019s Theology have yet to be fully resolved, despite the fact that each scholar is insightful in his own way and should be praised for his strengths. In what follows we will propose a plan of action for this study that aims at establishing the possibility that Luke characterized Jesus as God by means of his two-volume narrative.<\/p>\n
V. Defining and Defending the Need for this Study<\/p>\n
We have isolated three presuppositions from Conzelmann\u2019s Theology that have made it difficult to speak of divine Christology in Luke-Acts: (1) the struggle to read Luke-Acts as a narrative, a struggle grounded in Conzelmann\u2019s attempt to find in Luke-Acts what it was not designed to provide, i.e., systematic considerations concerning Jesus\u2019 metaphysical nature; (2) the reliance on an ontology-vs.-function dichotomy that allows Conzelmann to state that Jesus can function as God yet not be God; (3) the struggle to understand how Jesus could have been depicted as God by Luke against the background of strict Jewish monotheism.
\nThe first presupposition was not effectively addressed by Laurentin, Turner, or Buckwalter. On the one hand, Turner and Buckwalter are limited by their methodologies and tend not to ask narrative questions of Luke-Acts. On the other, Laurentin is comfortable with reading Luke\u2019s Gospel as a narrative and openly claims that Luke indirectly portrayed Jesus as God; yet his conclusions concerning Jesus\u2019 divinity are different from Rowe\u2019s, who uses a narrative methodology. Consequently, to bring clarity to Rowe\u2019s position concerning Jesus\u2019 divinity and to supplement Laurentin\u2019s methodology, in Chapter 2, we will carefully examine (1) how narrative criticism has been used in biblical studies, (2) what is involved in reading narratives in light of research in narratology and the philosophy of history, (3) what can be expected from an ancient historical narrative such as Luke-Acts, and (4) what is involved in constructing characters\u2019 narrative identities. We will not purport to provide an exhaustive analysis of narrative theories; rather, we intend to outline explicitly our presuppositions regarding narratives and character construction to avoid dismissal of our argument for Jesus\u2019 divinity in Luke-Acts on methodological grounds.
\nThe second and third presuppositions were addressed by Turner and Buckwalter, who use Bauckham\u2019s notion of divine identity and speak of Jesus as one God with YHWH, i.e., incorporated within YHWH\u2019s divine identity. However, this language needs further clarification if one is to understand in what sense the concept of identity can be applied in the study of Luke\u2019s Christology of divine identity because (1) the concept of identity may be perceived in a number of ways, (2) the term identity is not used in the Bible, and (3) biblical scholars vary in how they use identity or even divine identity, as evidenced by the above-mentioned scholars. On the one hand, Fletcher-Louis speaks concerning how Jesus could be understood as \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 against a Jewish background and he uses the concept of identity, as does Bauckham, bridging the gap between doing and being. However, he understands Jesus as a divine figure worshipped alongside YHWH. On the other hand, Rowe speaks of Jesus and God the Father sharing identity as Lord and Jesus having divine identity in heaven; yet he does not claim explicitly that Jesus is God. Moreover, although Fletcher-Louis and Rowe try to understand the Lukan Jesus against the Jewish rather than Hellenistic background, there is no clarity concerning how Jesus could be both human and divine; namely, Fletcher-Louis suggests that Jesus was an angelomorphic figure, while Rowe speaks of Jesus as \u2018the totally human\u2019 person who was \u2018the heavenly Lord\u2019 at the same time.
\nTo clarify the use of Bauckham\u2019s concept of divine identity and how Jesus can be understood as God although he was \u2018totally human\u2019, in Chapter 3 we will (1) explore contemporary trajectories for speaking of identity; (2) study both Hellenistic and Jewish perspectives on personal identity without relying on modern terminology in order to determine how we might search for the concept of identity in the premodern text of Luke-Acts and undermine the validity of the ontology-vs.-function dichotomy reflected in Conzelmann\u2019s work; and (3) articulate how YHWH\u2019s divine identity could have been shared by \u2018the totally human Jesus\u2019 in light of the contemporary discussion of Second Temple Jewish monotheism.
\nFurthermore, because Rowe has successfully demonstrated that one cannot claim to understand the meaning of the word \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 in Luke in isolation from the Lukan narrative, we assume that one cannot claim to know who the Lukan God is without first studying YHWH\u2019s identity within Luke-Acts. Therefore, in Chapter 4, out of concern for space, we will present our discussion of Luke\u2019s characterization of YHWH as God in Luke-Acts by means of our discussion of Luke 1\u20132 and Acts 14 and then provide an overview of how this discussion is representative of Luke\u2019s characterization of YHWH as a whole. As a result of our study, we hope to (1) test our conclusions regarding ancient narratives and construction of characters\u2019 identities, (2) establish that Luke-Acts upholds \u2018strict\u2019 monotheism and would not allow for Jesus to be understood and worshipped as a second god alongside YHWH (contra Fletcher-Louis), and (3) eliminate faulty expectations for what is necessary in Luke\u2019s characterization of Jesus to allow for the possibility of his sharing YHWH\u2019s divine identity.
\nFinally, in Chapter 5, we will make use of Rowe\u2019s suggestion that \u2018future study of Luke\u2019s Gospel will have to deal with a christology that, narratively speaking, binds the identity of Jesus to the identity of the God of Israel\u2019. Thus, relying on our findings in previous chapters, we will explore how Luke develops and binds Jesus\u2019 identity to that of the God of Israel as he unfolds his narrative. Due to space constraints, we will present Luke\u2019s characterization of Jesus as God in Luke-Acts by means of our discussion of Luke 1\u20132 and Acts 2 and then provide an overview of how this discussion is representative of Luke\u2019s characterization of Jesus as God within his two-volume narrative. Having done so, we will be able to claim that although Luke does not explicitly call Jesus \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, he presents Jesus by means of indirect characterization as the one God of Israel with YHWH and as such worthy of worship reserved for YHWH alone.<\/p>\n
VI. Summary<\/p>\n
In this introductory chapter we attempted to defend the need for yet another study of Lukan Christology, particularly, how Luke presents Jesus as God. We anticipated that a reader influenced by Conzelmann\u2019s Theology may question the appropriateness of this study by claiming that Luke presented Jesus as God only functionally, omitting systematic references to his ontology and never applying to him such titles as \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 (or \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 and that he would not have portrayed Jesus as God against the background of strict Jewish monotheism. We indicated that Luke\u2019s reluctance to apply the title \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 in reference to Jesus does not deny the possibility that Jesus is characterized as God implicitly. We also indicated that an explicit application of this title to Jesus would not in itself guarantee that Luke presents Jesus as one God together with YHWH since this title did not have a univocal meaning within the first-century Greco-Roman world. Moreover, we indicated that presuppositions reflected in Conzelmann\u2019s work are flawed and, if corrected, the study of the possibility that Luke presents Jesus as God would need to be done since the works of Laurentin, Turner, and Buckwalter, when analyzed against the studies of Fletcher-Louis and Rowe, have left room for the present study despite their strengths. Therefore, we will rely on these works\u2019 strengths as we outline our hermeneutical method and presuppositions to enable our close reading of the Lukan narrative.<\/p>\n
Chapter 2<\/p>\n
CONSTRUCTING CHARACTERS\u2019 IDENTITIES IN THE LUKAN NARRATIVE<\/p>\n
I. Introduction<\/p>\n
In 1992, in his On Character Building, John A. Darr stated: \u2018biblical critics have largely neglected the subject of Lukan characterization\u2019; moreover, \u2018literary questions have seldom been formulated or posed, much less answered, by interpreters of Luke-Acts\u2019. He attributed this lack of interest to the dominance of traditional, historical-critical methods, which were not designed for posing or answering literary questions. Darr rightly designates character and characterization as literary topics, which should be studied with the help of a literary-critical methodology. In the previous chapter, we have suggested that studies of Lukan divine Christology are almost non-existent due to the fact that Lukan scholars have struggled with how to read biblical accounts as narratives and how to form perceptions of characters\u2019 identity from those narratives. Thus, we can affirm with Darr that new history-of-religions and historical-critical methods, though helpful in other respects, are not well-suited for the interpretation of biblical narratives as works of literature. Moreover, we can argue that in order to explore the possibility that Luke portrayed his character Jesus as God, a mere literary-critical approach is not enough. That is why, before we proceed with our study of the possibility of Jesus\u2019 divinity, we need to clarify what should be involved in reading Luke-Acts as a narrative and in constructing Jesus\u2019 identity as God.<\/p>\n
II. Narrative Criticism and the Need for a Revision<\/p>\n
Darr\u2019s appeal to literary-critical methodology is not original. The study of the Bible as a work of literature was first introduced to the field of biblical studies in the late 1970s, and in the early 1980s it developed into narrative criticism among biblical scholars. However, earlier narrative critics were criticized for their lack of concern for thorough research in secular literary studies and historical-cultural matters. Even today narrative criticism is generally perceived as ignorant of recent developments in literary studies and ahistorical despite the numerous reevaluations and supplementations provided by contemporary users of the method. In light of the criticisms brought against early narrative critics and the reexaminations done by contemporary biblical scholars, it is not enough to use narrative criticism as it has been previously defined. That is why this study is interested in investigating the question of character construction in Luke-Acts, i.e., characterization, by relying not only on works of narrative critics, but also on the knowledge and terminology made available in the study of literature and history. In what follows, we will outline a methodology that will enable us to read Luke-Acts as narrative and to construct the identity of its characters.<\/p>\n
III. Developments in the Study of Narratives<\/p>\n
a. Theories of Narrative<\/p>\n
Wallace Martin observes that the study of literature is a \u2018cumulative discipline to which new knowledge is added, but unfashionable ideas that have long been dormant may at any time prove their relevance to new critical concerns or creative methods\u2019. Accordingly, literary theories do not become completely outdated with time and can be useful depending on what aspects of narrative are under question. Martin also observes that a shift has taken place in narrative studies from linguistic to communication models for explaining how narratives work because the \u2018grammar\u2019 of narratives is more unpredictable and open than the grammar of languages. Instead of trying to figure out the formal structures that underlie all stories, critics are trying to understand why and how the stories are read. Theories that deal with these issues are usually grouped under the label \u2018reader-response\u2019 criticism and are intended to explain how all types of literature affect readers.
\nTherefore, to choose one theory of narrative over the other is to choose one set of literary questions over the other; it is not a matter of choosing the best literary theory but rather of selecting an appropriate theory for the task\u2014a theory that would enable and constrain what a critic might observe in the text. Consequently, by choosing to consult literary theories based on a communication model, this study limits its inquiry to how Luke-Acts conveys meaning to its readers in light of literary and cultural conventions of the first-century Greco-Roman world. In the following section, we will sketch how a narrative text conveys meaning, how a reader participates in the production of meaning, and what constrains the interpretation of the text.<\/p>\n
b. Text and Reader in the Production of Meaning<\/p>\n
Darr states that \u2018each New Testament narrative evokes for its audience a unique narrative world\u2014an ordered whole in which elements mutually condition and illuminate one another\u2014to be studied on its own terms\u2019. However, he does not want to study any narrative completely \u2018on its own terms\u2019. Just a few paragraphs later he criticizes literary and postmodern critics for dismissing the importance of the cultural framework and encourages a reader to ask of the text, \u2018What literary conventions constrained and enabled its first reading or hearing? What social norms and values does it presuppose, and how might a knowledge of these illuminate its rhetoric?\u2019 Darr is right in emphasizing the importance of a cultural framework for the reading of a biblical text, but this means that narratives should not be studied completely on their own terms. The main reason for this is that texts are not sealed containers of meaning. A reader cannot expect to open a narrative and to find the meaning \u2018in\u2019 the narrative without engaging it. Meaning emerges only in the process of reading as the narrative text and the reader interact. However, to conclude that the meaning is \u2018in\u2019 the reader despite what the text says is a great misunderstanding of the process of reading.
\nWolfgang Iser, in his attempt to describe the process of reading, noticed that texts have gaps, which play a vital part in initiating communication between the text and the reader during the process of reading. These gaps create imbalance between the text and the reader, which the reader has to fill in order to attain balance\u2014that is, to understand the meaning of the text. As he\/she collects the clues fragmented in the text, he\/she continuously bombards the gaps with projections, which have to be readjusted in light of the new clues. It is only in the process of these readjustments that the reader can experience something that he\/she has not experienced before. Thus, only through this process of readjustments does a frame of reference evolve for understanding the meaning of the text.
\nThe way the reader fills the gaps is partially determined by the reader\u2019s unique life experiences; moreover, if he\/she takes the text out of its linguistic and cultural frame of reference, he\/she opens the door to limitless possibilities for how the gaps may be filled. If the reader has no knowledge of the linguistic and cultural framework that constrains and enables the interpretation of the text or if he\/she refuses to use that knowledge, he\/she is able to manipulate the text and to make it say anything he\/she wants it to say. Umberto Eco addresses this issue when he states: \u2018The limits of interpretation coincide with the rights of the text (which does not mean with the rights of its author)\u2019. He also states:<\/p>\n
Many modern theories are unable to recognize that symbols are paradigmatically open to infinite meanings but syntagmatically, that is, textually, open only to the indefinite, but by no means infinite, interpretations allowed by the context. To recognize this principle does not mean to support the \u2018repressive\u2019 idea that a text has a unique meaning, guaranteed by some interpretive authority. It means, on the contrary, that any act of interpretation is a dialectic between openness and form, initiative on the part of the interpreter and contextual pressure.<\/p>\n
According to Eco, to argue that the text has only one meaning intended by the author, independent of the reader\u2019s interpretation, or that the text has infinite meanings, is to fall into the trap of \u2018epistemological fanaticism\u2019. That is why a valid reading of the text cannot be produced when either the text or the reader is in control of meaning because meaning is produced as the interaction between the text and the reader takes place, where the text has the leading role. When meaning is defined as a product of a dialogue between the text and the reader, the importance of the text and the responsibility of the reader are emphasized. Thus, the text limits the kind of questions that can be asked by the reader, but it also encourages the reader to use the knowledge of literary and cultural conventions, which, being the product of its culture, the text assumes. Moreover, the text provides guidelines according to which an interpretation can be judged as contextually plausible or contextually illegitimate. These limits on interpretation are set by the location of the text within its linguistic and cultural framework. So when a reader is attempting to fill the gaps of the text, these constraints, which in discourse analysis are called cotext, intertext, and context, set the boundaries for his\/her understanding of the text.<\/p>\n
c. Interpretive Constraints<\/p>\n
Cotext refers to the \u2018string of linguistic data within which a text is set, the relationship of, say, a sentence to a paragraph, a pericope in Luke\u2019s Gospel to the larger Lukan narrative, and so on\u2019. If a text under study does not begin the narrative, then its interpretation is constrained by the preceding discourse. What comes immediately before the text influences the way the text is understood. It creates expectations for what is to come and provides necessary information for making judgments about the meaning of the text. Moreover, it constrains the interpretation by the principle of analogy, which assumes that everything will remain as it was before unless some indication of a change is given, since it is natural for readers to assume relevance and coherence of the text unless they are forced not to do so. Furthermore, what comes immediately after the text helps to reevaluate the interpretation of that text. As the narrative unfolds, new clues help the reader fill the gaps in a fresh way, adjusting or correcting previous interpretations of the text under study. These procedures may be called \u2018progressive discovery\u2019 and \u2018retrospective recovery\u2019 and they are vital for the interpretation and understanding of texts.
\nIn his criticism of structuralists, Wallace Martin says, \u2018Assuming that we don\u2019t know the meaning beforehand \u2026 we will continually readjust our construal of parts and wholes as we go along, recognizing that they are interdependent\u2019. So, in addition to interpreting the text under study based on what comes immediately before and after, it is also important to interpret it in light of the narrative as a whole. It is only at the end of the narrative that the reader has all the information available to him\/her to understand the text. That is why the study of Jesus as God in Luke-Acts has to take into consideration not only the immediate location of the selected texts but also the entire Lukan corpus.
\nIntertext or \u2018intertextuality\u2019 refers to the location of a text within the larger linguistic framework, which the author consciously or unconsciously utilizes in his\/her work. On the one hand, the later texts are shaped by the earlier texts, which are directly quoted, indirectly alluded to, or echoed in the later texts. On the other, they, in turn, modify the meaning of the earlier texts by placing them in the new linguistic and cultural frames of reference. Eco says, \u2018Every character (or situation) of a novel is immediately endowed with properties that the text does not directly manifest and that the reader has been \u201cprogrammed\u201d to borrow from the treasury of intertextuality\u2019. Accordingly, some may assume that intertextuality renders \u2018impossible, undesirable, and irrelevant the terminology that assumes narratorial reliability, omniscience, or sufficiency\u2019. Although this may be true for contemporary literature, this is not true for Luke-Acts. Since Luke was an ancient historian, he argued for a particular version of the past. His goal was to present his evidence in a convincing way in order to persuade his audience of his credibility and of the truthfulness of his account (Lk. 1:1\u20134). Thus, to shy away from understanding Luke as an omniscient narrator would take away from his goal and that is why we will treat him as an omniscient narrator. Moreover, some may assume that intertextuality undermines the author\u2019s role in skillfully creating a narrative, placing the idea of wholeness of texts under fire. Yet, Porter H. Abbott argues that the concepts of allusion and imitation tend to do just the opposite, i.e., they emphasize the author\u2019s control and, therefore, the wholeness of the work. We affirm Abbott\u2019s argument and attribute any problems with the wholeness of the text or with the author\u2019s ability to incorporate his\/her sources well to the author\u2019s humanity and cultural conventions of his\/her time.
\nConsequently, what is known about intertextuality leads one to conclude that (1) Luke\u2019s readers would intuitively make connections between Luke-Acts and other texts available and familiar to them; and (2) earlier texts available to Lukan readers not only shaped the text of Luke-Acts, providing the author and the readers with conventional ways of talking about the issues in question, but also were shaped by this later text as it interpreted them in a different and possibly \u2018peculiar and scandalous\u2019 manner. Thus, intertextuality can be called reinterpretation of earlier texts\u2014ones that are familiar and most likely important for the author and the readers within a particular cultural setting\u2014in order to produce a specific effect on the readers by defamiliarizing them and endowing them with new meanings.
\nThe task of locating a text under study within the larger linguistic framework is not straightforward, although it is essential for the production of meaning. In order to understand in what ways Jesus is characterized as God in Luke-Acts, it is essential for readers to listen to Luke\u2019s description of Jesus with a readiness to hear not only direct citations from the Septuagint and Second Temple Jewish Literature but also the allusions, type-scenes, echoes, symbols, images, and metaphors. Moreover, since readers cannot assume that Luke-Acts takes the meaning of the previously written text, they have to not only identify earlier texts that might have echoed in the echo chamber of Luke-Acts but also detect what meaning they acquire as they are used in the new text.
\nContext refers to the cultural presuppositions and socio-historical realities that are reflected in the text. Mieke Bal argues that since narratives are embedded in culture, the task of interpretation of narratives is \u2018susceptible to cultural constraints\u2019 and this turns any attempt to interpret narratives into an activity of \u2018cultural analysis\u2019. This means that when a reader reads the text, he\/she reads not only the lines of the text but also what is written between the lines, namely, the knowledge assumed by the author of his\/her readers, i.e., the presupposition pool. Although this knowledge is not explicitly stated in the text, it plays a vital role in the process of reading and understanding the text. Without the knowledge of presuppositions shared between the author and his\/her readers, it is difficult to distinguish between the conventions an author upholds and those he\/she calls into question. Therefore, without knowledge of the socio-historical setting of the period reflected in the narrative, readers will not be able to understand the narrative in the manner expected by the text; thus, the \u2018more complete and reliable our knowledge of the world from which the Bible sprang, the sharper our insight into its working and meaning as text\u2019.
\nInsights into the cultural background of the first-century Greco-Roman world are made available through the work of numerous scholars. For example, first-century categories of honor, patronage, purity, and kinship have proven to be useful in studying characterization and have to be incorporated in the study of the characterization of Jesus. That is why it is our hope that our study of the category of identity (Chapter 3) would contribute to scholarly understanding of the cultural background of the first-century Greco-Roman world by articulating how personal identity was understood in general at this time and how one might talk about Jesus\u2019 divine identity against the background of Second Temple Jewish monotheism in particular.
\nTo summarize, the meaning of the text is not fixed, and this is evident in the fact that different readers are able to produce different readings of the same text, some of which may go beyond what is considered contextually legitimate. That is why readers need, as far as possible, to take on the persona of the model reader, bearing in mind the first-century linguistic and cultural frames of reference, in order to produce a text-specific reading. A model reader of Luke-Acts is the one who is able to (1) attend to the text as a whole and to the details of that text as it unfolds; (2) decipher the presuppositions of the author concerning the literary and cultural conventions of the Roman Empire, including the presuppositions concerning the concept of personal identity; (3) understand the Septuagint and the culture projected by the Septuagint and Jewish writings of the Second Temple period; and (4) be open-minded and receptive to the narrator\u2019s guidance, suspending suspicion and antagonism. In this study it is this model reading that we are attempting to analyze.<\/p>\n
IV. Ancient Historical Narratives and Narrative Criticism<\/p>\n
While it is widely held that Acts belongs generally to the genre of historiography, the genre of Luke is still being debated. Although one should not overlook the diversity of views on the kind of historical genre to which Luke-Acts belongs, greater specificity is not required for this study. So, we will read Luke-Acts as a historical narrative and will explore what we can expect of the Lukan historical narrative before we begin to outline the characterization process.
\nIt almost goes without saying that the kind of history-writing we encounter in Luke-Acts differs from history-writing today. Luke-Acts does not quote the sources it uses, it is written in a narrative form, and it combines both \u2018historical\u2019 and \u2018supernatural\u2019. Yet, until the end of the eighteenth century, similar to Luke-Acts, history was written in a narrative form and, therefore, shared methods of organization and presentation with fictional literature. It was not until the seventeenth century that history-writing in a narrative form was deemed unreliable and unable to provide certainty and truth because the task of a true historian was equated with Leopold von Ranke\u2019s declaration \u2018that he wanted not to pass judgment on the past but simply to report \u201cwie es eigentlich gewesen [how it actually was]\u201d \u2019. Fortunately, for the field of biblical studies, already in the late 1880s the ability of historians to recreate past realities objectively and the hope that scientific methodology would redeem historical truth were called into question. Moreover, in the twentieth century a search for the philosophical foundations of history and another attempt to explain the possibility of transmitting truths through historical narratives began. Thus, although there are still historical critics who reject the methodology used by ancient and medieval historians as inappropriate and find Luke\u2019s account unreliable, there are others who defend its reliability by redefining the modern \u2018scientific\u2019 understanding of history in light of current research in philosophy of history and literature. Marguerat offers a helpful reflection on history:<\/p>\n
There is no history apart from the historian\u2019s interpretative mediation which supplies meaning: history is narrative and, as such, constructed from a point of view. Over the multitude of facts at his\/her disposal, the historian throws a plot, retaining certain facts that are judged significant, while excluding others, and relating some to others in a relationship of cause and effect.\u2026 Historiography does not line up bare facts \u2026 but only facts interpreted by means of a logic imposed by the historian.\u2026 The \u2018truth\u2019 of history does not depend on the factuality of the event recounted (even though the historian is required to keep to the facts), but, rather, depends on the interpretation the historian gives to a reality that is always in itself open to a plurality of interpretative options.<\/p>\n
In his work with Luke-Acts, Marguerat suggests using Ricoeur\u2019s three types of historiography to determine what kind of truth one can find in Lukan historical writings. They are \u2018a documentary history, which seeks to establish the verifiable facts\u2019; \u2018an explicative history, which evaluates the event from a social, economic or political horizon\u2019; and \u2018a historiography in the strong sense, which rewrites the past in the founding narratives that people need in order to construct their self-understanding\u2019, which is called \u2018poetic history\u2019. He indicates that poetic history differs from the other two types of history because it cannot be judged as true or false like a documentary history, nor can it be expected to present various evaluations of an event like an explicative history. Rather, poetic history purports to give an interpretation of the past events, namely, to offer an identity for a community in the present. The trustworthiness of the poetic history is judged based on the self-consciousness that it provides to the community of its readers. Moreover, symbolic expression in poetic history cannot be perceived with suspicion because this type of historiography \u2018derives from a need to symbolize and imagine\u2019. Therefore, Marguerat considers each type of historiography to be a valid way of writing history, although their aims differ, and suggests that to do justice to a historian, readers should evaluate the truth of his\/her account in light of the aim he\/she pursues.
\nMarguerat finds poetic and documentary types of historiography in Lukan writings, although they cannot always be clearly distinguished. He suggests that Luke\u2019s poetic interest can be seen in his demonstration of divine guidance in history and his documentary interest can be seen in his topographical, socio-political, or onomastic notations. Marguerat notes that Luke\u2019s vocabulary and knowledge of Roman institutions are precise and that some could understand this as an attempt to mimic realism while writing a fiction. This raises the question concerning what distinguishes factual and fictional narratives.<\/p>\n
a. Fictional vs. Factual Narratives<\/p>\n
Scholars generally acknowledge a great difference between fictional and historical narratives at \u2018their points of origin\u2019. Martin states that novelists are free to start their stories with a character, an anecdote, or scene, which they fashion into a narrative. Unlike novelists, historians are constrained by historical data they need to represent in and through their narratives. The difficulty is that there is more data than can possibly be incorporated into a meaningful narrative. Moreover, if there is not enough data for a meaningful account, they are prohibited from speculating freely. All their attempts at filling in the gaps, whether finding missing causal links or personal motives, must stay \u2018within the limits of whatever counts as the rules of evidence\u2019. Thus, the imagination and creativity of a historian is revealed not in his\/her ability to create a story out of nothing, but rather in his\/her ability to deduce a common theme that allows him\/her to select and arrange relevant data and to write a meaningful account, using the rhetorical devices of the day. Without this sort of emplotment, which involves selecting, ordering, and finding causal links between the events, data cannot be perceived as meaningful, and in cultures where oral tradition plays a significant role such data cannot be deemed as worthy of attention and remembrance.
\nRegardless of the difference at the points of their origin, factual and fictional narratives are the same in form and cannot be classified as factual or fictional based on form alone. Both history and fiction involve representation of reality and have fictional elements, i.e., selection and ordering of events from a particular point of view, setting them in a relationship of cause and effect, and showing how a situation changes over a period of time from the beginning to the end. By making decisions concerning the beginning (how and where to start their narration), middle (what events and characters to include and in what order to present them), and end (how and where to conclude their narration, and the narrative\u2019s telos), both novelists and historians determine the plot for their narratives. Thus, by rooting his narrative in the story of Abraham and Sarah, Luke chose to show that the story of Jesus is not a new story but a continuation of the story of how God works to bring about his redemptive purpose as this is recounted in the Septuagint. Moreover, by leaving the end of the story open, Luke showed that a proper ending should extend into the future and incorporate God\u2019s working out of his purpose after the Lukan narrative comes to an end.
\nRimmon-Kennan states, \u2018It is arguable that history books, news reports, autobiography are in some sense no less fictional than what is conventionally classified as such. In fact, some of the procedures used in the analysis of fiction may be applied to texts conventionally defined as \u201cnon-fiction\u201d \u2019, although nonfictional narratives have their own distinctive characteristics. She is not the only one to notice that the distinction between what used to be understood as fictional and factual has been reduced. James Clifford also states, \u2018the word [fiction] as commonly used in recent textual theory has lost its connotation of falsehood, of something merely opposed to truth. It suggests the partiality of cultural and historical truths, the ways they are systematic and exclusive.\u2019 Clifford suggests that stories are not merely made or fashioned but actually made up, creating something that does not fully correspond to reality because narratives have to be organized around a certain theme, limiting the number of events included within the narrative.
\nSince fictional and factual narratives are the same in form, when readers encounter them they interpret them in the same way, namely, by reconstructing events and characters from the clues available in the text. This means that the methodology available from the study of literature is equally appropriate for studying both fictional and historical narratives. However, it is important to remember that (1) although fictional and factual narratives share the same form, they cannot be collapsed into one another and (2) the requirements for what a good factual or fictional narrative should look like depend on the conventions of the time when that narrative is being written. Thus, what some view as essential for a well-written historiography is exactly what others perceive as a sign of fictionality. However, as Sternberg correctly observes, \u2018bad historiography does not yet make fiction\u2019. Thus, he suggests that to distinguish between the two different types of narratives, \u2018one must relate the forms of narrative to the functions that govern them in context and assign them their role and meaning\u2019, implying that historical and fictional narratives should be distinguished based on their overall sense of purpose. Similarly to Sternberg, Marguerat says that the criterion for distinguishing historical and fictional narratives is \u2018the character of reality\u2019, namely \u2018the textual presence of realities (topographical, cultural, socio-political, economic) of the world described by the narrator\u2019. Moreover, he observes that the amount of factual material present in Luke-Acts is unprecedented for a fiction, which can be explained by the fact that novel has little concern for credibility, while Luke is intentional in providing his readers with a credible account.
\nAt the beginning of Luke-Acts, model readers are required to make a commitment not usually required of those reading fictional narratives. The author claims to have followed everything carefully from the beginning and to have incorporated testimonies of eyewitnesses in his account. Accordingly, he expects his readers to read in order that they \u2018may know the truth concerning the things in which [they] have been instructed\u2019 (Lk. 1:4). Having stated his expectations for the readers and claims for trustworthiness, Luke defines the purpose of his account as that of instruction and formation of his readers\u2019 Christian identity. There is no way of knowing with certainty if Luke actually used sources and eyewitness accounts or pretended to do so; however, as model readers we are to read his historiography as a historiography, following its ordered sequence of events and collecting clues that constitute the characters\u2019 identity.<\/p>\n
b. Luke-Acts and Jewish Historiography<\/p>\n
The primary aim of the Lukan historical account is to define the community and give it an identity. To this end, Luke constructs his account in part by following norms for writing ancient Greco-Roman historiography. Marguerat notes that the subject of Luke\u2019s historiography would not be considered interesting to a Greek or a Roman although he tries to connect it to history outside of his account (e.g., Lk. 2:1\u20132; 3:1). The subject of Lukan historiography is Jewish and it resembles biblical historiography, devoted to narrating God\u2019s relationship with his people. Moreover, Luke\u2019s account is written from a believer\u2019s perspective, by one who belongs to the community he is addressing. That is why his account shows his affinity not only with Greco-Roman historians but also with Josephus and authors of Maccabees. Finally, as Marguerat indicates, although both Greco-Roman and Jewish historians search for truth, \u2018the former establish the plausibility of the event, while the latter expose the truth of the God who rules the world\u2019. Therefore, in Jewish historiography, the narrator does not intrude into the narrative to guide readers, unlike the narrator of Greco-Roman historiography, and the fact that there is no authorial voice in Acts can be viewed as a sign of Luke\u2019s connection with Jewish historiography.
\nGiven that Luke-Acts is ancient historiography, model readers cannot expect it to provide mere facts about Jesus, although it is based on the events that took place. Nor can they perceive the facts about Jesus recorded in Luke-Acts as polluted by Luke\u2019s interpretation stemming from his faith and theological commitments, since it is impossible to separate the event that took place from its interpretation, which played a valuable part in writing ancient historiography\u2014only those events were remembered and written down for the future generations that were deemed important and to judge one event as more important than the other is to interpret it. Luke\u2019s account, based on eyewitness accounts and other sources, is written by a competent writer and is meant to provide truth about Jesus. Therefore, it cannot be stripped of its partiality, subjectivity, and narrativity, that is, of the signification of the facts provided by Luke, in the construction of Jesus\u2019 narrative identity.<\/p>\n
V. Constructing Characters\u2019 Narrative Identities<\/p>\n
In order for us to proceed with our investigation, we need to know not only what to expect when reading Luke-Acts as an ancient historiography but also how to construct narrative identities of YHWH and Jesus. However, as Abbott strikingly puts it, \u2018there is not yet a consensus on any of the key issues in the study of narrative\u2019, and characterization is one of the most difficult literary concepts. Comparing characters and action, Abbott says that characters are harder to talk about and to understand than action. In light of the difficulties in the study of characters, it is not surprising that different literary scholars provide different answers in regards to characters and their importance for the narrative. In the following section, we will present a brief summary of the discussion concerning the relationship between character and action, the reality of characters, and the process of characterization. Then, we will specify the position on characterization that we will assume in this study.<\/p>\n
a. Relationship between Character and Action<\/p>\n
Abbott observes that theorists can be divided into three camps based on how they view the interplay between character and action within narrative. Some give priority to action over character (e.g., Aristotle). Others believe that the purpose of a narrative action is to reveal a character (e.g., Leslie Stephen). However, Abbott prefers the third position that argues for the interdependency of the two, which was voiced first by Henry James: \u2018What is character but the determination of incident? What is incident but the illustration of character?\u2019. Abbott states:<\/p>\n
Characters, to put this in narratological terms, have agency; they cause things to happen. Conversely, as these people drive the action, they necessarily reveal who they are in terms of their motives, their strength, weakness, trustworthiness, capacity to love, hate, cherish, adore, deplore, and so on. By their actions do we know them.<\/p>\n
This position rightly highlights that every event in a narrative is brought about by characters, and the outcomes of the events are constrained by what characters are involved in those events. Therefore, we will assume this position in our study and investigate the identities of YHWH and Jesus in light of their actions. As we work through the Lukan plot we will study their identities without separating the study of character, plot, setting, and point of view into separate sections. Now we turn our attention to the other important issue in studying characters, i.e., what characters are and what can be said of their reality.<\/p>\n
b. Reality of Characters<\/p>\n
According to Edward M. Forster, characters can be classified as \u2018flat\u2019 or \u2018round\u2019. Flat characters are developed around a single idea or quality and as the story unfolds they stay undeveloped. There is no mystery about these characters and it takes almost no imagination to construct them. On the other hand, round characters are complex\u2014they have more than one quality and develop as the story unfolds. The rounder the character, the more he\/she resembles real people, tempting readers to identity with him\/her and to forget that he\/she is only a character who cannot exist outside of the constraints of the text.
\nRimmon-Kennan critiques Forster\u2019s classification for placing complexity and development under the same category because a character may be complex, yet he\/she may not be developing and vice versa. She claims that this dichotomy is \u2018highly reductive, obliterating the degrees and nuances found in actual works of narrative fiction\u2019. Martin also suggests that there is no need to distinguish \u2018flat\u2019 or \u2018round\u2019 characters because there are times when characters are emphasized and there are times when action is emphasized. Although the way Forster classifies characters does not allow for different nuances and degrees of characterization to stand, it highlights an interesting issue\u2014characters that are more complex and developed resemble real people more closely and cause some readers to treat them as real people.
\nWhen Bal speaks of reality of characters, she points out that narratives are written \u2018by, for, and about people\u2019 and yet people, who are depicted in narratives, are not real flesh-and-blood people even though they resemble human beings. Characters are constructs who are created from the author\u2019s \u2018fantasy, imitation, memory\u2019. They have \u2018no real psyche, personality, ideology, or competence to act\u2019 even if, on account of their characteristics, it is possible to describe them in psychological or ideological terms. Consequently, characters are often subject to projection and fallacy. Bal notes that while some readers clearly distinguish between characters and real people, others tend to treat characters as real people and identify with them. As a result, they tend to ask questions that are irrelevant and reductionistic\u2014a pitfall that can be avoided if one restricts his\/her study to the actual words of the text.
\nSeymour Chatman would agree that some questions are not beneficial in studying characters. However, he warns against restricting the study of a character simply to the words on the page. For him an interpretation of a character, whether fictional or historical, \u2018requires reconstruction, inference, and speculation\u2019. Therefore, he argues that images of characters become independent of the text after they have been generated in the readers\u2019 minds in the process of reading and are not directly tied to the specific words on the page. Chatman, relying on Barthes for whom to read is to name elements in the text, suggests that a reader has to make decisions concerning how best to name traits that are described indirectly because, unlike those that are presented directly, they are open to a variety of names. Thus, naming an indirectly stated trait requires going beyond the words on the page and drawing on the reader\u2019s personal experiences of knowing people. We will explore this further when we discuss means of characterization, i.e., indirect presentation.
\nBaruch Hochman expands and revises Chatman\u2019s view by stating that there is a similarity between how people perceive characters, both fictional and historical, and people in real life. He explains that people generate in their minds images of characters in literature (homo fictus) and people in real life (homo sapiens) in light of their general understanding of what people are and how they operate, and the clues that they collect and process in their construction of characters and real people in their lives are practically identical. These clues are collected through a number of ways: \u2018the characters\u2019 \u201cown\u201d speech, gesture, actions, thoughts, dress, and surroundings; the company they keep and the objects and subjects they desire, abhor, and equivocate about; the images and associations they stir in our consciousness, including the epithets that we apply to them\u2019. Hochman dismisses the fact that in literature characters may be presented through a reliable or unreliable narrator or character because the information given about people in real life may also be reliable or unreliable. Thus, no matter whether a person is constructing a perception of a character in literature or a person living next door, he\/she has to sort through a great number of reliable and unreliable clues in order to accomplish that task.
\nConsequently, Hochman allows characters in literature to be read through the categories of real people, although they are not identical because the sphere of the characters\u2019 existence is limited to the literary medium. For Hochman, characters are a lot like dead people because the readers cannot interact with them as they do with living beings and because once they are written they are at the mercy of their readers who make judgments about them only based on the clues in the text. Moreover, he notes that information that readers gather about characters is constrained by the text and is usually very limited and highly organized, unlike information they gather about real people, which is very diverse and usually cannot be organized and interpreted within any single system. Therefore, readers may have a feeling that they know characters in literature better than real people because the clues that they gather are more easily organized into coherent images. Finally, Hochman suggests that the concept of character is a paradoxical concept because characters exist only in the readers\u2019 minds as they are encountered through the text, although their image in the readers\u2019 consciousness is extremely vivid.
\nAbbott is similarly interested in answering the question of the reality of characters. It is important, for Abbot, to decide \u2018how and where\u2019 characters exist\u2014whether they live in the real world of people or only in the minds of people that come in contact with narratives. He concludes that characters of fictional narratives, having no referents in the real world, exist only in people\u2019s minds. However, in order to provide a model that would explain the construction of characters of nonfictional narratives, one has to venture outside of the realm of imagination. He states, \u2018However poorly they are composed or however poorly we may read or view them, histories, biographies, newspaper reports, legal briefs, documentaries, film biographies all purport to tell us about real people\u2019. He acknowledges that his position is not shared by all critics and those who oppose it believe that (1) characters in nonfictional narratives create illusions; (2) there are no true stories; and (3) no character, no matter how round he\/she might be, can reach the complexity of a real person. However, he is not ready to say that narratives only create illusions of real people, although, similarly to Hochman, he agrees that characters in nonfictional narratives cannot incorporate the complex and always-changing nature of real people and that any characterization of real people would involve some degree of \u2018flattening\u2019. He relies on the concept of \u2018types\u2019 to explain his position.
\nAbbott observes that in all cultures people use types to describe characters in a variety of both fictional and nonfictional narratives. He also observes that when a person uses types to describe real people, he\/she denies them their capacity to surprise and to be individualistic. However, he argues that it is difficult for people to avoid using types when representing human beings; the only way one can avoid that is by eliminating narrative. Consequently, if it is impossible without narrative to know oneself and others as active individuals that operate through time, it is impossible not to use types when thinking of or characterizing oneself and others. Despite limitations, characterization by type can incorporate a great deal of human complexity because characters may be described by one or a number of types, i.e., a synthesis of types, allowing them to be more or less individualistic.
\nIn her study, Rothschild treats Jesus as a synthesis of types, although she uses the term \u2018paradigm\u2019 rather than \u2018type\u2019:<\/p>\n
The author of Luke-Acts associates his portrait of Jesus in the Third Gospel not, for example, as many have argued, with a single all-pervasive ideal, but with a wide variety of Jewish and Graeco-Roman paradigms including the Messiah or ideal king in 2 Samuel (Lk. 9:20; cf. 2 Sam. 7:5\u201316; Ps. 89), the Son of Man figure from Daniel (Dan. 7:13\u201314), a Mosaic Prophet from Deuteronomy (Deut. 18:15; Lk. 9:31; Acts 3:22; 7:37), an Isaianic suffering servant (Isa. 42:1\u20134; 29:1\u20136; 50:4\u201311; 52:13\u201353:12), Elijah (Mal. 4:5), and from the Graeco-Roman side, the philosopher, divine man, and benefactor.<\/p>\n
In our study, we are not concerned with all the possible types\/paradigms that compose the synthesis of Jesus\u2019 identity. We are interested only in how Jesus is characterized as God, i.e., how he shares the synthesis of types with YHWH. However, we anticipate that as we explore Jesus\u2019 characterization, we will encounter other types\/paradigms that are not attributed to YHWH but are inseparable from Jesus\u2019 identity. If we succeed in showing that Luke presents Jesus as God\/\u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, Rothschild\u2019s list of paradigms will need to be expanded.
\nTo conclude, it is important to make a distinction between characters in literature and real people, because characters are generated and sustained by the text and cannot exist outside of it. Speculation about information not contained in the text is only speculation and cannot be treated on the same level as the clues found in the text. Nevertheless, these clues do not come only from the words on the page but also from inferences spawned by the text. The task of naming character traits from inferences is crucial for constructing characters\u2019 identities although it is ambiguous because readers may name them differently due to their personal experiences and backgrounds.
\nAccordingly, it is important to remember that although Jesus was a real historical figure, Luke-Acts cannot present its readers with the real person Jesus. Rather, it presents a highly organized and structured portrait of its character Jesus who cannot contain the complexity of the historical figure Jesus although the former is inspired by the latter. Moreover, since Luke-Acts purports to tell its readers about the real person Jesus, irrespective of how one judges its success in doing so, the Lukan character Jesus is not simply the fruit of Lukan imagination but is firmly rooted in the real person Jesus. Since it already has been observed that Jesus in Luke-Acts is characterized by a number of types\/paradigms, it is safe to conclude that he is a complex character who is presented by a synthesis of types and if we succeed in showing that Luke presents Jesus as God, this will not detract from his characterization as a prophet, Messiah, or the like.<\/p>\n
c. Characterization Process<\/p>\n
Thus far, we have talked about the relationship between characters and action and the reality of characters. Now we turn to a discussion of the process of characterization and character construction. In a narrative, where events are arranged in sequence and where events are assumed to lead to each other and to follow on from each other, any sequence of events implies process. So, characterization is not a simple action of naming a particular character, although naming is the first step in characterization; it is rather a process through which a named character is endowed with descriptive attributes or qualities. As the narrative unfolds, the traits mentioned under a specific proper name are collected and remembered by readers. The further into the narrative, the more traits can be recalled as that proper name is mentioned. Moreover, gaps and discrepancies in the description of that character may be filled or explained differently as readers become more familiar with the narrative or as they acquire new experiences from their own lives.
\nMost contemporary scholars would agree that character construction process calls readers to redraw their understanding of events and characters every time new clues are given in the text. This implies that we, as model readers, should be ready to reevaluate and expand the portrait of the Lukan Jesus in the process of reading. Moreover, since Luke-Acts claims to provide a continuation of the story that started in Genesis, we need to pay close attention to whether it provides new clues in its characterization of God. If it does, it encourages us to incorporate new information in the familiar understanding of God\u2019s identity.
\nTherefore, in the process of character construction, readers collect specific character traits that are associated with a specific proper name into a network of traits that constitutes a type\/paradigm. The way the author characterizes his\/her characters may vary significantly from one work to another and from one character to another; however, it is generally accepted that textual character-indicators can be either directly defined or indirectly presented. Therefore, sometimes these traits appear directly in the text and they are named by an adjective, a noun, or part of speech, and at other times they are not named and have to be inferred from the character-indicators scattered throughout the text. In the following section, we will look at these two methods of characterization.<\/p>\n
d. Means of Characterization<\/p>\n
The two means of presentation of characters, direct definition and indirect presentation, can also be referred to as telling and showing respectively. Telling is a straightforward technique that refers to a mediated characterization presented via an authoritative narrator or reliable characters who speak directly to the readers, providing them with interpretations, definitions, general or moral observations, and summaries of characters\u2019 words and deeds that guide the readers\u2019 perception of those characters. It is more explicit than showing, but it requires readers to evaluate the reliability of the voice that speaks against reliable voices within the narrative before direct definition of the character\u2019s qualities\/traits is accepted as trustworthy. The most trusted direct presentation is that of the omniscient narrator, who knows more than characters in the narrative. He\/she is above the narrative. Usually this narrator is not a character within the narrative he\/she is telling and is able to know everything characters do, say, or think. Moreover, everything he\/she presents should be accepted as being of highest validity and importance.
\nSternberg argues that the Bible \u2018always tells the truth in that its narrator is absolutely and straightforwardly reliable\u2019 although he does not tell the whole truth. Moreover, he says, \u2018Anonymity in ancient narrative validates supernatural powers of narration; and in Israelite culture, which not only institutionalized prophecy but invested its writings with canonical authority, the narrator\u2019s claim to omniscience dovetails rather than conflicts with his claim to historicity\u2019. He argues that this practice is very different from the modern because in modern narrative omniscience is understood as a sign of fictionality, while in the ancient tradition it ensures authenticity. So, the fact that the author of Luke-Acts is unknown does not take away from the authenticity of the omniscient presentation of the account.
\nAs we analyze the direct presentation of characters, it is important to separate focalization from voice, i.e., who sees and who speaks\/narrates. The narrator is often a focalizer; however, a character may be a focalizer as well. When we see what is taking place through the eyes of a character, it may be mediated and, therefore, evaluated via narrator\u2019s voice or presented in his\/her own voice, i.e., reported plainly. Unlike the narrator, a character can be \u2018unreliable\u2019 only to him\/herself, so when he\/she speaks or thinks, his\/her words\/thoughts are truthful. The narrator and a character may focalize what takes place differently, which makes the reading process more complicated. In contrast to focalization, voice refers to speech or other explicit means through which information about any aspect of the narrative is communicated to the audience. So, focalization does not refer to an expression but only to a perspective in terms of which the expression is made. Moreover, the perspective and the expression need not be lodged in the same person.
\nBecause it is the more explicit method of characterization, direct definition provides a clear picture of a character and is useful at the beginning of the narrative when readers begin to form their perceptions of characters. However, biblical accounts rarely use it. In addition, directly presented information is not necessarily left without qualifications, complications, or challenges, for its trustworthiness depends on the trustworthiness of the voice that offers it. That is why direct presentation of characters is often expanded and clarified with the subsequent disclosures and often through indirect characterization.
\nShowing refers to a supposedly unmediated presentation of events and conversations that encourages readers to make their own conclusions concerning characters based on what they see and hear in the narrative. It is not as explicit as telling; yet it is a preferred technique of characterization in biblical narratives. When a narrator shows his\/her readers what takes place, readers feel they can be a part of the action and observe what is taking place personally, although this type of \u2018direct witnessing\u2019 is controlled by what the narrator allows them to witness. This method of characterization does not allow for an explicit presentation of character traits; therefore, readers have to pay close attention to how characters\u2019 identities are constructed.
\nFirst, traits may be implied by both one-time actions, which suggest dynamic and crucial qualities of the character, and habitual actions, which reveal character\u2019s unchanging qualities. These actions include those that the character performs, does not perform even though he\/she should, thinks about performing, and those that are directed at him\/her. Second, what a character says or thinks and how he\/she articulates his\/her thoughts may indicate certain character traits. What the character says or thinks about other characters may be indicative not only of his\/her own qualities but also of the qualities of those he\/she speaks about, unless he\/she cannot be deemed a reliable character. Third, external appearance, referring to what the character wears, how he\/she looks, moves, and so on, may indicate certain character traits because even though some things are beyond the person\u2019s control, others do depend on him\/her. There are times when references to external appearance are easy to connect to a trait and there are times when the narrator has to help the reader; however, when the narrator speaks, indirect presentation turns into direct definition. Fourth, character traits may be implied by the character\u2019s physical and social surrounding, or environment, which refers to where an action takes place and who is present during that action. Physical and social environment helps character traits to stand out and indicate how the character behaves in different settings. Finally, a character\u2019s specific traits may be emphasized when he\/she is compared with\/contrasted from other characters, showing him\/her to be like or unlike others in the above-mentioned four categories. This category of indirect presentation does not help readers discover characters\u2019 new traits; rather, it draws their attention to the traits that have already been displayed and guides them in understanding the importance of these traits for the characters\u2019 identities. Of the four categories, action and speech are the most useful factors for character construction, while appearance and environment are helpful in creating a setting for the scene.
\nOf the two methods of characterization, neither one is a better one. However, showing may be more problematic because no text can actually \u2018show\u2019 what takes place since it uses language rather than pictures to do so. Narrative can only create a semblance of mimesis through diegesis. So, the distinction in the presentation of characters and events is not between telling and showing but rather between different degrees and kinds of telling.<\/p>\n
VI. Summary<\/p>\n
In this chapter, we have outlined what is involved in using narrative criticism as an approach to explore the possibility that Luke portrayed Jesus as God. Although narrative criticism as we have outlined it (as with any other analytical method that seeks to study ancient texts) has its limitations, its validity rests in its attempt to study the original text without attempting to fragment it or to overemphasize some elements at the expense of others. This approach allows and enables one to ask questions of the text concerning the historical person Jesus as a character within the Lukan narrative without reducing Jesus to a mere object of the writer\u2019s imagination, yet understanding the limitations that the text sets on learning about historical figures.
\nAs we prepare to explore the possibility that Jesus is characterized as God in the Lukan narrative, there are a few things of which we should be mindful. First, we need to recognize textual gaps and fill them in light of clues available in the text, taking into consideration textual constraints\u2014cotext, intertext, and context. Second, we need to look for both direct and indirect ways of characterization and to allow the process of characterization to take place gradually. Third, since our task is to understand if and how Luke characterizes Jesus as God, which involves understanding how he binds Jesus\u2019 identity to the divine identity of YHWH, we first need to understand how he characterizes YHWH as God in order to provide guidelines for how Luke may speak of Jesus as sharing YHWH\u2019s divine identity. In order to do so, we need to provide a sketch of how we are going to define \u2018divine identity\u2019 in this study.<\/p>\n
Chapter 3<\/p>\n
EXPLORING THE CATEGORIES OF PERSONAL AND DIVINE IDENTITY<\/p>\n
I. Introduction<\/p>\n
In Chapter 1, we observed that Conzelmann denies the possibility that in Luke-Acts Jesus can be understood as God. First, he denies that Jesus can be perceived as YHWH ontologically because he cannot fnd systematic metaphysical references to Jesus\u2019 divinity. Second, he cannot affirm Jesus\u2019 divinity on the basis of Jesus\u2019 functioning as YHWH in the world because this position is given to him by YHWH, whom he calls \u2018Father\u2019 and to whom he is subordinate. Conzelmann thus introduces a foreign ontology-vs.-function dichotomy into the study of Lukan Christology, a dichotomy that prevented him and others from arriving at a coherent argument regarding Jesus\u2019 divinity in Lukan writings. We noted that a number of scholars finds the reliance on this dichotomy problematic because universally humans assume that function is firmly rooted in ontology, although, as Klaas Runia suggests, in presenting Jesus as equivalent to God functionally, NT scholars avoided the embarrassment previously caused by their attempts to \u2018justify the origins of ontological christology on historical grounds\u2019 in response to the questions raised by the historical-critical method, the history of religions, and mythology. To bridge the gap between ontology and function in the field of Lukan Christology, we suggested, relying on Turner and Buckwalter, that Bauckham\u2019s concept of divine identity would be helpful. However, we also suggested that to use it without necessary clarifications may be more problematic than helpful. In this chapter, we will address the areas in need of clarification. First, we will review various contemporary views of identity and theorize which is most at home in the first-century world. Second, since the term identity is not used in biblical literature, we will examine how personal identity was construed at the time of Luke\u2019s writing by investigating different worldviews present during the Greco-Roman period and how they contributed to people\u2019s perception of who they are. Third, because Fletcher-Louis\u2019s conclusion regarding how Jesus can share YHWH\u2019s identity differs from that of Turner and Buckwalter, we will place our discussion of the identity concept against the background of Second Temple Jewish monotheism. As we explore our presuppositions and those found in particular ancient texts, we hope to establish parameters that both enable our interpretive work and set limits for what interpretation can be deemed appropriate in reading Luke-Acts.<\/p>\n
II. Contemporary Trajectories<\/p>\n
It has been recognized that there are two dominant contemporary trajectories for speaking of personal identity in the West, namely, the path of introspection, or depth, and the path of relationality, or breadth.<\/p>\n
a. Path of Introspection<\/p>\n
The trajectory characterized by a sense of introspection, which was employed by Conzelmann and his followers, emerged during the period of Enlightenment. It is rooted in the writings of Ren\u00e9 Descartes, who, in response to the Copernican revolution, rejected the then-widespread notion of the soul as a form of the body or principle of life, positing instead his view of persons as compounds of two distinct substances: material body and immaterial mind. Accordingly, Descartes was faced with a problem of how to explain the body-mind relationship. That is, if the person were composed of two different substances, then the senses of the material body could not be trusted in the perception of reality by the immaterial mind. This led him to accept that only the ideas\/thoughts generated by the mind could be true. Moreover, relying on Augustine\u2019s notion of interiority, i.e., that we know our souls\/minds directly, he concluded that a person could know his\/her true identity directly through the faculties of the mind and without reference to the external world.
\nDescartes\u2019 mind-body dualism was later summarized by the phrase the \u2018ghost in the machine\u2019, since it allowed the mind to have a private, inaccessible existence, disengaged from the body and the world. This Cartesian notion of identity was later expanded by other Enlightenment philosophers and became associated not only with a sense of inwardness and self-sufficiency but also with liberation from custom\/traditional authority and individual particularity. Since personal identity (1) was linked to some sense of uniqueness, which stemmed from the immaterial mind \u2018within\u2019, (2) was characterized by unity through time, and (3) had clearly defined boundaries with the material world, it was concluded that a person\u2019s function within a society did not necessarily reflect who that person was. Thus, embodied actions of a person directed toward others and the world ceased being the indicator of his\/her true nature.
\nAlthough this understanding of identity was birthed in the field of modern philosophy, it penetrated into various fields of study, including theology, biblical studies, and modern psychology, giving \u2018this introspective location of the self a powerful modern idiom and broad cultural appeal\u2019. Therefore, it continues to dominate Western cognition and is capable of influencing one\u2019s philosophical thought without one\u2019s awareness, although some consider this modern approach incomplete and harmful. That is why the use of ontology-vs.-function dichotomy in reading biblical narratives can be explained but not justified\u2014this way of understanding identity is a modern innovation, limited in influence only to those cultures affected by the Enlightenment, and cannot account for how the concept of identity was defined prior to the rise of modernity or outside of Western cultures. Therefore, we now turn to those approaches that critique theories of this modern introspective self.<\/p>\n
b. Path of Relationality<\/p>\n
F. LeRon Shults observed that, after Hegel, relying on Kant\u2019s critique of an Aristotelian treatment of relationality, challenged the separation between substance and accident, taken for granted by most Western philosophers, and argued that relationality is essential to being, dynamic relational ways of understanding reality and personal identity began to emerge in various disciplines. As a result, criticisms of the introspective self of modernity that undermined the value of relationships began to appear.
\nStarting with Nietzsche, postmodern philosophers have called the modern quest for a true self an illusion. They recognized that each individual is subject to unconscious internalization of a variety of aspects of his\/her society, which he\/she learns from childhood into adulthood. Moreover, they recognize all individuals as socially and historically constructed\u2014how a person thinks, speaks, makes judgments, and orders his\/her experiences cannot be absolutely unique or take place outside of particular time and space. This is a helpful critique. However, one cannot substitute the modern introspective view with the postmodern one simply because it recognizes that the identity of a person cannot be defined apart from his\/her community. In its extreme, postmodern thought understands individuals as mere sums of aspects of their society, in which they exist in a state of flux, continuously constructing and reconstructing themselves. Thus, it argues that there is no self and refuses to acknowledge that people have a sense of self-awareness and control over what they become in the process of absorbing various aspects of their cultures.
\nA corrective to this view arose when it was emphasized that individuals do have a sense of self-awareness and that they are capable of controlling the outcome of the process of their becoming. Especially helpful was the publication of Ricoeur\u2019s Time and Narrative, which emphasized the importance of narrative for how one understands the nature of the world and personal identity. Ricoeur argues that since people are situated in time, any understanding of personal identity must account for how a person remains the same despite the changes that happen to him\/her from birth to death and the only way to do this is by means of story. Consequently, it is only through self-narratives that people articulate their goals, values, and commitments and assess whether they are able to uphold them. It is only by locating their present life experiences within a particular story, connecting them causally to their past life experiences, and making projections for what to expect and how to act in the future, that people make sense of who they are. Finally, it is only in dialogue with the \u2018other\u2019 that people become self-aware and can speak of themselves as individuals. That is, as people encounter stories of others, whether fictional or factual, they interpret them in light of their life experiences; yet they understand their life experiences, goals, values, and commitments in light of stories that they learn from their culture. This implies that people\u2019s identity is shaped by the stories they deem meaningful and the stories they choose to tell about themselves.
\nRicoeur\u2019s narrative understanding of identity is opposed to a \u2018metaphysical view of self as the substance or the essence to which accidents like narratives can be added or subtracted without violating the prior given substance\u2019. Moreover, it provides a middle ground between the private disengaged self of modernity and the postmodern self, which is a mere product of its society. On the one hand, it highlights that personal identity is constructed in the process of assimilating and integrating various aspects of its culture. On the other, it emphasizes the person\u2019s active involvement in the process of evaluating where he\/she stands in the present in light of the past and what he\/she intends to become in the future in light of a plot he\/she assumes for his life. Finally, by emphasizing the importance of relationships and culture, a narrative way of understanding personal identity acknowledges the self as embodied, which implies that one can no longer define the self apart from what the self does or the self\u2019s predicates.
\nIn the discussion of identity as embodied, one cannot omit research done in the neurosciences, which argue that it is no longer possible to speak of human mind as separate from human brain. Human capacities\u2014intellectual, emotional, and moral\u2014that were in the past attributed to the soul\/mind have now been shown to be rooted in the neural and biological systems of human bodies. Without simply equating mind and brain, it is possible to claim that the body\u2019s neural systems are implicated in a person\u2019s ability to think, have emotions, feel, participate in relationships, and learn his\/her role within a society. This implies that rational, emotional, and ethical beings are essentially embodied beings. Consequently, a person cannot be defined apart from his\/her body, just as he\/she cannot be defined apart from his\/her relationships within society. This may lead some to say that individuals are nothing but their bodies. However, because human identity is rooted in a body affected by time, space, and a network of relationships, it is not enough to observe the body apart from those variables if one is to make conclusions concerning human identity. Under the influence of those variables, the physiology of both body and brain undergoes changes; that is, their development is not complete at birth and continues to various degrees throughout one\u2019s life. Thus, even if one\u2019s genetic makeup sets certain limits on what a person can become, it does not determine human identity. Rather, it determines a potential for what a person could become when he\/she is motivated by his\/her life experiences and meaningful relationships repeatedly to act in particular ways as to form recognizable patterns of behavior. Therefore, when we speak of identity in light of research in the neurosciences, we speak of genetic potentiality that must be actualized through action. We do not speak of \u2018substance\u2019.
\nHaving examined the introspective and relational approaches to the concept of human identity, we theorize that the relational approach, characterized by its emphasis on narratival and embodied understanding of identity, will be surprisingly at home in premodern world of Luke-Acts since, according to Robert Higbie, an understanding of identity that was generally equated with social roles is still present in baroque romance, where a protagonist\u2019s character is equated with his\/her virtue and his\/her acceptance of social authority. We will now turn to a discussion of the concept of personal identity in the first-century Greco-Roman world in order to begin to justify our claim.<\/p>\n
III. Personal Identity in the First-Century Greco-Roman World<\/p>\n
The term \u2018identity\u2019 is a modern term not found in ancient literature. However, this does not imply that the concept of identity is not present in ancient texts. The question arises then, where and how should one look for the concept of identity that would serve as a background for understanding the question of identity reflected in Luke\u2019s narrative? Since Luke is writing in the first-century Greco-Roman world, it is necessary to survey perspectives on personal identity that were available during that time. We will first explore Hellenistic perspectives on personal identity, which will include discussions of positions articulated by Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics; then, we will explore Jewish perspectives, which will include discussions of positions articulated in the OT, Second Temple Jewish literature, and the NT.<\/p>\n
a. Hellenistic Perspectives<\/p>\n
Even though Plato (424\u2013348 B.C.E.) and Aristotle (384\u2013322 B.C.E.) lived over three centuries prior to our period, their work continued to exercise influence in the first-century world dominated by Hellenism. That is why we will first present an overview of their views before we examine Stoicism, the most popular philosophy of the first century.
\nPlato believed that god, the father of the universe, created this world in perfect harmony to be a reflection of the true world of ideal forms, the realm of the divine, and that the goal of humanity was to become like god: righteous, holy, and wise. The ability to know god\u2019s will and to be like god Plato connected to the soul. He upheld that soul was immortal and preexistent, connected humans with heaven, the divine realm, and served as a proof that humans were heavenly creatures rather than earthly. Although Plato distinguished the soul from the body, he did not have a clear understanding of how soul and body relate, nor did he undermine the value of bodily life for the formation of the soul. Thus, he argued for a three-fold division of the soul: rational (immortal), spirited, and appetitive, which could be influenced by sensory experiences of the body. Until the body and soul were separated, a person had to find ways to control the body, which could feed the irrational passions of the appetitive component of the soul. He, like his followers after him, believed that the desires of the soul\u2019s appetitive component would lead to action, action to patterns of conduct, and conduct to the formation of character\u2014who a person is was determined by what he\/she does and what he\/she does is determined by who he\/she is. However, he did not allow people whose choices were overpowered by vice to remain in their vice and to define their identity by it; rather, he argued that this vicious cycle of being could be broken when a person continuously acted on virtuous desires. Therefore, he understood human life as embodied in the sense that the body had a direct effect on the formation of the soul; that is, if the body were allowed its vices, it would keep the soul from achieving its god-given goal.
\nFor Plato, human life was not only embodied, but also embedded within society. That is why he emphasized the importance of virtuous living in pursuit of one\u2019s god-given goal and, therefore, happiness, and believed that a person could neither critically evaluate his\/her actions nor cultivate virtuous character in isolation. Only through education and critical evaluation from his\/her friends and mentors could a citizen learn to be virtuous, i.e., like god. Thus, despite his interest in metaphysical issues, Plato was just as interested in ethics and politics, evident in the Republic and the Laws. So, even though Plato was a dualist, he was not a dualist in a modernist sense.
\nPlato understood everything to exist in a hierarchical structure. He explained the structure of the universe as a hierarchy, with god at the top, in the realm of the forms; humans in the middle, connected to the divine realm through the soul\u2019s rational component and to the created world through the body; and everything else was at the bottom. He also explained hierarchically the relationship of the soul and body and the interrelationships among the soul\u2019s three components. Since he perceived the structure of the soul to be the model for a well-run city-state\/polis, he placed the ruling class of philosopher-kings, i.e., the soul\u2019s rational component, at the top, the guardians, i.e., the spirited component, in the middle, and the rest\u2014children, women, slaves, and freedmen, i.e., the appetitive component, at the bottom. Accordingly, Plato believed that a human being obtained his\/her identity from his\/her divinely ordained hierarchical position within both the universe and society.
\nAristotle\u2019s view of the human relationship with nature was more positive than Plato\u2019s due to his extensive research in the biomedical field. He observed that human mental capacities were connected to the body; hence, he viewed the body as essential for human existence and perceived humans as interrelated with the natural world. Moreover, he believed that all living things had a soul, i.e., the principle of life, which gave form to matter, and organized humans, animals, and plants hierarchically in accordance with the type of soul\/s they possessed: plants with the nutritive soul at the bottom; animals with the nutritive and sensitive souls in the middle; and humans with the nutritive, sensitive, and rational souls at the top. Even though, unlike Plato, he did not believe that souls were preexistent, he entertained the possibility that the rational soul of humans, and more precisely the mind, which he connected with the divine realm, could survive death.
\nAristotle did not have a personal view of god. He believed that god did not know the world but only knew god\u2019s self. However, he also believed that god, an Unmoved Mover, set everything in motion and the goal of created beings was to learn their purpose\/potential, i.e., their place in the universe ordered by god, and to realize it through action. For humans, this involved the pursuit of the Good through virtuous living, which could be achieved through (1) education, which nurtured the mind, and (2) friendships based on virtue rather than on pleasure or usefulness. Moreover, he believed that social hierarchical order was good because it was given by god, who was at the top of the universal hierarchical order. Thus, he believed that the ideal society would not be a democracy, but would have Greek philosophers at the top and slaves, barbarians, and women at the bottom. Consequently, even though Aristotle was interested in metaphysical speculations about the soul and explored the nature of living beings in his Soul and Metaphysics, he also explored the questions of how people can live virtuous lives and how they can function as responsible members of society in Nichomachean Ethics and Politics. Hence, human identity in Aristotle\u2019s view was not only embodied and relational but also derived from one\u2019s position within a hierarchical structure of society.
\nStoics developed their views in dialogue with Platonists and Aristotelians and perceived the world, similarly to Heraclitus, as ordered and logical, where everything was governed by god\/Logos. Furthermore, Stoics perceived reason\/logos as the defining human characteristic that distinguished them from animals and earned them a special place in the middle of the hierarchical ladder between the realm of the cosmic Logos and the rest of the living beings, who derived their purpose from serving humanity. Accordingly, they believed that humans were the most perfect of god\u2019s creatures who were to live a virtuous life in accordance with reason in order to become like god\/gods. This constituted the highest good\u2014the goal of the moral life\u2014because it brought humans in harmony with cosmos\/nature. To do that one had to learn to perceive reality in accordance with what was genuinely (1) good, i.e., that which was in accordance with nature\/logos, (2) evil, i.e., that which was contrary to nature\/logos, or (3) neither.
\nMoreover, Stoics were monists\/materialists and viewed both mind and body as good. Therefore, their goal of becoming wise\/a Stoic sage, i.e., like god\/gods, was connected not only to exercising their rational ability, participating in the divine realm, comprehending god\/Logos\/Zeus, but also to being in control of their judgments, passions, and impulses that originated in their bodies and to acting virtuously within their communities. Alternatively, not to exercise reason over passions, to have a distorted view of reality, or to fail to live virtuously was equated to being like animals rather than gods.
\nFinally, because the Stoics perceived god as the father of all, they professed to be citizens of the world and broke all boundaries between slave and free, Greek and barbarian. However, this perception did not annihilate the hierarchical view of reality\u2014they severed their ties with the masses, driven by their passions, and only recognized the kinship of the wise as real. The society to which they belonged was that of philosophers. Consequently, despite the fact that they upheld a monistic\/materialistic view of people and differed from Plato\u2019s and Aristotle\u2019s teachings on a number of points, they, like Plato and Aristotle, viewed personal identity as embodied and defined by one\u2019s position within both the universe and human society.
\nIn general, in Greek anthropology, humans were perceived not as free but as responsible members of a society, who are to pursue virtue for its own sake rather than for its rewards, to increase in knowledge through education, and to live in a society based on just laws. Even though there was no unified \u2018Greek thought\u2019 and philosophers\u2019 positions varied, they were similar in that they understood the world to be structured hierarchically and perceived this structure as good and natural. Moreover, they perceived personal identity as deriving from people\u2019s social and legal roles, i.e., rights and responsibilities that people had in relation to the divine realm and to each other. Finally, even though they explored the issues of metaphysical composition of humans, Greek philosophers were more interested in human beings as embodied and relational, which can be evidenced by their interest in exploring the ethical and moral aspects of the human soul through human involvement in the functions of society.<\/p>\n
b. Jewish Perspectives<\/p>\n
Perspectives that can be called Jewish in the first-century Greco-Roman world can be found in the OT and the literature influenced by it, i.e., the writings of Philo, Josephus, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Dead Sea Scrolls, and the NT. However, one cannot assume that because all of these writings were influenced by the OT, they express the same views. In fact, because they were written over a vast span of time, they express a variety of views, which can be situated on a continuum from ones that are much more oriented toward traditionally Hebrew commitment to Torah and the worldview that it offers to ones that are much more Hellenistic. In this section, we are interested not in providing a detailed study of all Jewish perspectives available in the first-century Greco-Roman world but rather in making broad observations concerning Jewish perspectives on personal identity without negating their diversity.
\nIt is generally accepted that the OT provides a monistic understanding when it says that God created a human being, Adam, as a totality (Gen. 2:7). He is formed out of dust and is not considered a living being until God breathes the breath of life into his nostrils. The result of this inbreathing cannot be understood as a placement of the soul inside Adam\u2019s body, because animals have the breath of life in them, just like Adam. However, this does not imply that Jewish thought in the frst century was exclusively monistic. In fact, evidence of a body-soul duality can be found in some of the Jewish writings of this time and sometimes scholars are unable to determine whether a Jewish writer upheld a holistic or dualistic anthropology, as is evidenced by the studies of Pauline writings. Despite this variety of views, some of which were more interested in metaphysical questions than others, Jewish thought valued embodied existence, which was judged as righteous or unrighteous based on how a person acted in accordance with God-given law, and perceived the relationship between God and human to be a centerpiece of human life. Therefore, even though some Jewish writers who were interested in asking metaphysical questions favored anthropological duality, their understanding of anthropology cannot be equated with that of Descartes and modernism.
\nSimilar to Greek philosophers, Jews organized the universe hierarchically and placed humans in the middle between the realm of God and other created beings. In Jewish writings, the exalted status of humans is reflected in the idea that God personally decided to create humans in his image (1:26\u201327), which emphasizes the relationality of humans, placed them only a little lower than God\/angels, and crowned with glory and honor (Ps. 8:5). This exalted status of humans over the rest of the creation cannot be associated with anything that humans deserve based on their constitution. In fact, human constitution is weak and prone to failure, which is evidenced by a recurrent theme of people\u2019s inability to do on their own what is right, as defined by God. Only through the study of Torah, i.e., God\u2019s Law\/Word, can people learn their proper place in relation to God and to the rest of the created order. Furthermore, only through relationship with God can they be empowered to attain that proper place. This can be demonstrated by the tendency of Jewish writers to speak of human abilities\u2014whether they concern craftsmanship, wisdom, or charismatic leadership\u2014with reference to God.
\nConsequently, if humans are to attain their proper place within the created order, they must fully submit to God. This submission involves human beings as a whole and is expressed through their righteous behavior within society. Likewise, to fail to depend on God for guidance through Torah\/Word and the Spirit, i.e., to act in accordance with one\u2019s own understanding of the world and to rely on one\u2019s weak flesh, eventually leads to people\u2019s inability to sustain their proper place within the created order. The failure to depend on God was a real possibility since God set humans apart from the rest of his creation by giving them a choice whether to heed his caring, guiding, and empowering presence. No matter what they chose, they were responsible for their actions and had to live with the consequences of their choices. While in Hellenistic philosophy, humans could attain their proper place within the universe by nurturing reason\u2014the divine element of their constitution\u2014through education, Jewish thought advocates that the exalted status of humans is God\u2019s gift, which proceeds from his initiative and which can be exercised only through a relationship with him.
\nSince to be human is to be made in the image of God, i.e., to be like God, speaking of humans apart from who God is and of God apart from his covenantal relationship with Israel, his chosen people, becomes impossible. This implies that what God does for Israel has a direct impact on Israel\u2019s identity and what Israel does has a direct impact on God\u2019s identity as he responds in accordance with his covenantal promises. Moreover, since one cannot achieve exalted status on his\/her own but only through the study of God\u2019s Law and through God\u2019s empowerment, it becomes difficult to establish clear boundaries between what people do and what God does. Thus, boundaries between God and humans are not as clearly defined as one may think, although these boundaries are never collapsed. This is evidenced by the fact that God is the eternal Creator of the universe who is always at the highest position, represented by his enthronement on the glorious heavenly throne, and has unlimited power over his creation unless he chooses to limit it, as in the case when he gave humans free will or when he came to the patriarchs as a man (Gen. 18:1\u201316; 32:24\u201330).
\nThere can be observed some continuity between this way of thinking and thought expressed in Greco-Roman literature, starting with Homer, where speaking of human beings in metaphysical terms is avoided and relationships between humans and gods\/goddesses are emphasized (e.g., Homer, Il. 1.54; Isocrates, Evag. 9.25\u201326; Xenophon, Mem. 1.1.2). Although people are presented as capable of making choices and responsible for those choices, gods\/goddesses are perceived as playing a part in seemingly human actions. Some writings speak of gods\/goddesses as capable of invading the human mind, influencing human actions, overriding human judgment, and causing tragedy. Others, as in the case of Isocrates\u2019s Evagoras, share more optimistic beliefs, asserting that human beings and divine support can be interweaved in perfect harmony. This implies that both Jewish and Hellenistic thought could not speak of humanity apart from human relationships with God\/gods\/ goddesses and with each other.
\nJust like Plato, Aristotle, and Stoics, in Jewish writings humans draw their identity from their place within the hierarchically organized universe. That is, humans are like other living beings\u2014made of dust and sustained by the breath of God\u2014yet they are made in the image of God and exalted to a position just below God\/angels. Luke shares this Jewish perception of humans, evidenced by his reference to Adam as God\u2019s son (Lk. 3:38), and displays his awareness of the similar view among Greeks\/Romans when he quotes their poets: \u2018We are his [god\u2019s] offspring\u2019 (Acts 17:28b). Moreover, while some more Hellenistic Jewish writers were interested in metaphysical questions (e.g., Philo, Josephus) and other more traditionally oriented writers were not, all Jewish writers shared similarity with Hellenistic writers in that their focus was never on human beings in isolation but on people as embodied and embedded in their relationships with the world, with each other, and with God\/god\/gods. This is also true for the Lukan writings, for when Luke presents his characters, they are always identified in reference to their community and characterized through their words and actions within those particular communities (e.g., Lk. 1:5\u201325; Acts 16:1\u20133; 18:24\u201328; 22:3\u201321). Having looked broadly at how personal identity was understood in the first-century Greco-Roman world and having determined that ancient texts, despite their differences in reference to how they understood God\/gods or what constituted righteous\/virtuous living, shared similar perspectives, we now turn to the question of how personal identity was constructed within ancient communities.<\/p>\n
c. Personal Identity Relationally and Functionally Defined<\/p>\n
Since people in the Greco-Roman world were community oriented, their sense of identity was embedded in the identity of their communities. The most significant of those communities were family\/household and polis\/clan. Unlike Western societies that consider a nuclear family to be the smallest societal unit, a family among the first-century inhabitants of the Greco-Roman world was understood as an extension of a man and had no significance apart from its belonging to a larger family unit, i.e., the household. Thus, households rather than nuclear families functioned as the basis of one\u2019s personal identity.
\nHousehold size varied, but it could include up to three or four generations of men with their wives, children, unmarried women, and slaves. All people within the household derived their identity from the head of the household, i.e., paterfamilias or lord. The father was responsible for (1) defending the honor of his household, because when the honor of any household member was threatened, his honor was threatened by extension, and it was his obligation to defend his family\u2019s honor (e.g., Judg. 6:25\u201332); and (2) securing economic stability, which guaranteed posterity for his lineage\/name. Even freed slaves continued to derive their identity from that of their masters by taking upon themselves their masters\u2019 names. Therefore, everyone who drew his\/her identity from his\/her paterfamilias could potentially bring honor or shame to the household and the paterfamilias himself. That is why it was the responsibility of the paterfamilias to educate and discipline those who belonged to his household. This position gave the paterfamilias an unquestionable authority over the members of the household; in fact, his household\u2019s members had few rights, if any at all, apart from the rights that he bestowed.
\nThe authority over the household and responsibility for continuation of its lineage\/name was usually passed down to the oldest son of the paterfamilias after his death, who often functioned as his father\u2019s representative, fully embodying his father\u2019s presence and authority even while his father was alive. However, it was not always the first-born who inherited the task of continuation of the name. In a case when a man could not produce a son to continue his name, another man belonging to his household\u2014free or slave\u2014could become his heir and, therefore, a son by means of receiving his name and inheritance (e.g., Gen. 15:2; Prov. 17:2). Thus, the next paterfamilias was not chosen exclusively based on his blood relations to the current paterfamilias or on his birth order among the paterfamilias\u2019 sons but rather on his endowment with the authority of the paterfamilias and his ability to properly carry out the paterfamilias\u2019s obligations.
\nSince the household was the basic unit of society, it provided language for describing other social relationships, whether legal, political, or religious. Consequently, \u2018brotherhood\u2019 language indicated a relationship between people of equal status and \u2018father\u2019\/\u2018son\u2019 indicated a relationship between people of different social positions. Moreover, the language of love and loyalty, which was used to describe relationships of obligations and duties among kinsfolk, was also used to describe international relationships between states bound by treaties. Thus, kings and God\/gods were called \u2018fathers\u2019 because they occupied the highest position of authority in their respective households rather than because they were related by blood to those who belonged to their households.
\nThis lack of concern for genetics in application of family-related language among ancient people can be evidenced by the fact that the people of Israel, who could trace their ancestry to Jacob\/Israel and, therefore, could be called \u2018sons\/children of Israel\u2019, were not all related by blood. Rather, the people of Israel comprised a conglomeration of different people groups united by their covenant relationship with YHWH and commitment to his law, which provided a universal system of values and defined people\u2019s obligations and privileges in their relationship with YHWH and with each other. This allegiance to YHWH was above and beyond blood ties and determined who was kin and who was not. All who were committed to YHWH were incorporated into the people of Israel by means of segmented genealogies. Thus, a kin could be either a \u2018blood\u2019 relative or an outsider legally incorporated into the kinship group by marriage, adoption, or other types of covenants, which were sworn before YHWH as their witness. Consequently, there was no distinction between real and fictive kinship relationships. People incorporated into the tribal genealogies became true \u2018bone and flesh\u2019 or \u2018blood\u2019 kinsfolk, and were endowed with both obligations and privileges that came with that status. This implies that the ontology of an Israelite was defined relationally through his\/her commitment to YHWH and, therefore, his\/her belonging to a particular tribe, clan, and household, and functionally through his\/her ability to carry out his\/her obligations. What William F. Albright says is of particularly importance here:<\/p>\n
The Levites were thus a class or \u2018tribe\u2019 which was kept distinct from other tribes because of its function. In practice we may safely suppose that the Levites were constantly being increased in number by the addition of children vowed by their parents to YHWH, but that the total number was kept down by the defection of Levites scattered through the country, either through intermarriage or because of inability to make a living as sanctuary attendants. Seen from this point of view the question of whether Moses and Aaron were members of the tribe of Levi loses all significance; they were Levites by virtue of their priestly function. In other words, one could either be born into the Levite tribe or one could be adopted as a full member of it.\u2026 In short, we are not justified either in throwing overboard the standard Israelite tradition regarding priests and Levites, or in considering these classes as hard and fast genealogical groups.<\/p>\n
Albright, thus, bears witness to the fact that there was no dichotomy between ontology and function among the ancient Jewish people. Rather, one\u2019s ontology was explained by one\u2019s function\u2014as in the case of Moses and Aaron, who were priests, i.e., Levites, not because it can be proven with certainty that they were blood descendants of Levi, but because they functioned as priests. This practice of extending kinship ties via segmented genealogies was not limited to the Jewish people but rather was common to Greeks, Egyptians, Persians, Romans, and others and continued into the Hellenistic times. Hence, kin in the Greco-Roman world was not necessarily a blood relative, but rather a person who was included within a particular community of people and who dutifully followed the laws prescribed by that community.
\nIn both Hellenistic and Jewish thought, family and society regulated all human relations and individuals were expected to align their behavior in accordance with what was considered proper for them as determined from birth by their gender, age, and social status. Therefore, being born of a good family did not guarantee that a person would be righteous\/just; rather, it set a potential for what a person could become. Only a person who aligned his\/her behavior with the type of person he\/she was supposed to represent was believed to have brought his\/her innate potential to fruition. This entitled him\/her to receive honor appropriate for his\/her social position. By giving proper honor to an individual, people showed their recognition of his\/her ability to function as determined by his\/her social standing; yet by not offering him\/her suitable recognition, people challenged his\/her honor and threatened to bring shame upon his\/her name, unless his\/her honor was properly defended. Hence, to give a person his\/her due honor was perceived as honorable because it helped to maintain proper societal order. Likewise, not to give proper honor to the one who deserved it was perceived as a challenge not only to his\/her honor but also to societal order as a whole and to God\/gods who ordained this order.
\nThis way of thinking is different from the modern ideal of the self-sufficient private self. First, to claim within the Greco-Roman honor-driven world that one had a right to define his\/her life independently from his\/her family and society would be equated with a claim to lead a miserable life of an expendable, a person with no status\/honor, because even slaves enjoyed a social status derived from the status of their masters and could not be perceived as people without honor. Rather, an individual was praised for his\/her compliance and blamed for his\/her noncompliance within the social roles determined for him\/her by birth rather than for his\/her unique life choices. Second, neither in Hellenistic nor in Jewish circles was acting in accordance with the type\/role prescribed by the society viewed as mere conformity of action since it was believed that repeated action led to the transformation of the heart\/mind and that through action one\u2019s true intentions and qualities were revealed. Hypocrisy, though possible, was not a concern, especially since God\/gods was\/were the ultimate judge\/judges of human behavior. Consequently, an individual\u2019s identity was not understood in abstract terms but rather as displayed through overt, publicly recognizable activities and behavior.
\nHaving looked at how identity was understood among the inhabitants of the first-century Greco-Roman world, we now turn to the discussion of how Jesus could be understood as God against the background of Second Temple Jewish monotheism.<\/p>\n
IV. YHWH\u2019s Identity and Monotheism in Second Temple Judaism<\/p>\n
It is generally accepted that the primacy of monotheism in Second Temple Judaism would necessitate that the question of Jesus\u2019 deity be resolved prior to the appearance of Paul\u2019s writings that present the earliest evidence for the use of monotheistic language in reference to Jesus (e.g., 1 Cor. 8:6; Phil. 2:9\u201311). However, how one should understand the deity of Jesus has been a subject of much debate. In Chapter 1, we observed that scholars who have attempted to argue for the possibility of divine Christology in Luke-Acts (except Laurentin) used the concept of identity in overcoming the ontology-vs.-function dichotomy. We also noticed that the way Fletcher-Louis used this concept differed from those scholars who relied on Bauckham\u2019s category of divine identity. In this section, we will look at Second Temple Jewish monotheism in order to establish a background for determining which of the two ways of explaining Jesus\u2019 divinity is more appropriate.<\/p>\n
a. Second Temple Jewish Monotheism<\/p>\n
The nature of Jewish monotheism has been a subject of scholarly discussion for about thirty years. Issues that are being raised concern (1) the appropriateness of the term \u2018monotheism\u2019 in reference to Jewish faith, which incorporated belief in angels\/gods in addition to YHWH; (2) variations in cultic practices of Jewish people from the preexilic to postexilic time in light of the predominantly \u2018polytheistic\u2019 background of their neighbors and relatively recent archaeological discoveries; and (3) an explanation of Jesus\u2019 divinity against the background of Jewish faith in YHWH in the first-century Greco-Roman world. In this study we are interested predominantly in the third issue, so we will make only brief comments on the first two issues before proceeding with a discussion of the third.
\nDespite the fact that the term \u2018monotheism\u2019 was only coined in 1660 and carries with it associations that are inappropriate to Second Temple Judaism, it can still be used to speak of the distinct character of Jewish faith especially after the exile. Regardless of variations that may have existed in the religious practices of ancient Israel, it is generally accepted that Jewish faith in the first century was monotheistic and aniconic\u2014Jews worshiped one God, YHWH, whom they believed to be unique and to have incontestable power over the world that he alone created. This commitment to the worship of one God aniconically was symbolized by one centralized place of worship, i.e., the Jerusalem temple, which contained no image of YHWH, and was affirmed by daily recitations of Shema and the Decalogue. This commitment to the unique God YHWH was foundational for Jews and can be evidenced by their refusal to alter their beliefs or ritual practices despite the cost, namely, persecution and even martyrdom, and a reputation as an antisocial and atheistic nation (e.g., Tacitus, Hist. 5.4\u20135; 1-2 Maccabees).
\nSecond Temple Judaism allowed for the existence of other heavenly beings, and some members of upper-class Jewish nobility believed there was no difference between Jewish monotheism and \u2018monotheisms\u2019 of other nations, evidenced by their participating in pagan worship at the Jerusalem temple (e.g., 1 Macc. 1:43). They perceived YHWH as no different from other supreme gods. Namely, he was the paterfamilias of a divine family\u2014one among many even though supreme in power. This understanding of monotheism, i.e., inclusive monotheism, was not a traditional understanding. It is true, YHWH was presented in Jewish writings as a supreme heavenly being; however, YHWH was unlike any other supreme god of neighboring cultures since he is never presented as having a rival. None of the Jewish writings offer accounts of theogony or cosmogony, implying that YHWH alone has created everything\u2014even the heavenly creatures called gods and worshiped by other nations. Although Jews\u2014some more than others\u2014believed in the existence of angels\/gods and could speak of human beings as gods (e.g., Moses), they perceived YHWH as unique, as one who had a unique relation to the universe, i.e., that of a creator to his\/her creation. Thus, although YHWH could be called Zeus by some, he was not Zeus and would never have been worshipped as Zeus by the Jews who upheld traditional beliefs (e.g., 2 Macc. 6:2). This more traditional Judaism, i.e., exclusive monotheism, considered YHWH alone as the eternal God, Creator, and Ruler over his creation, both heavenly and earthly, and placed him at the highest position of the universal hierarchy.
\nAlthough YHWH alone was God and YHWH\u2019s worship was connected to one place to symbolize his oneness, he could reveal himself in a number of different ways and in a number of different places. The multiplicity of his revelations and personifications of his aspects did not detract from his oneness, since it was natural for ancient people to speak of oneness despite a multiplicity of expressions. Ancient people, whether Greeks, Romans, or Jews, spoke of different body parts and organs, e.g., heart, soul, flesh, spirit, ear, mouth, hand, and arm\u2014which could enjoy relative independence and be capable of spiritual and ethical impulses\u2014as references to the whole person, similar to pronouns, although one would be hard-pressed to find references to self-division or self-doubt. That is why Jewish writings may speak of God in a variety of ways\u2014presenting him in anthropological terms (e.g., Ps. 8) or speaking of him as a man (e.g., Gen. 18:1\u201316; 32:24\u201330), Wisdom, Spirit, or Word\u2014without compromising his oneness. Having specified in what sense the Jewish faith of the Second Temple period was monotheistic, we now turn to our main issue, i.e., how Jesus can be understood as God against this background.<\/p>\n
b. Jesus and YHWH\u2019s Divine Identity<\/p>\n
When Fletcher-Louis speaks of Jesus\u2019 sharing YHWH\u2019s identity, he presents Jesus as the highest among the lesser divine beings, yet he does not place Jesus on the same level with YHWH. Fletcher-Louis does not discuss how he understands the concept of identity, yet one can gather from his work that he is aware of how identity was understood among the people of the first-century Greco-Roman world. That is, he is aware that all those who belonged to a particular household\/community were identified in relation to the head of that household\/community and, therefore, their identity was rooted in their paterfamilias\u2019s identity. He is even aware of the fact that not all who belonged to the same household\/community had the same status, which can be seen in his speaking of Jesus as having higher status when compared to other heavenly beings. Therefore, the position that Jesus has, based on Fletcher-Louis\u2019s understanding, is high but not as high as that of YHWH. One may conclude from Fletcher-Louis\u2019s work that Jesus is a god among other gods, i.e., angels or exalted human beings. He is even a god with more power than the rest; yet he is not God. In light of this position, worship of Jesus by the early Christians would be understood as worship of a second divine being alongside God and would be acceptable only to those Jews who would accept the rabbinic concept of \u2018Two Powers in Heaven\u2019 and who would be more willing to allow for inclusive monotheism under the influence of Hellenism.
\nOn the contrary, Bauckham\u2019s concept of divine identity does not extend to the lesser divine beings. It is possible that Bauckham believes that heavenly beings shared in the identity of YHWH, but he clearly excludes them from sharing YHWH\u2019s unique identity, which he extends only to YHWH\u2019s personifications, i.e., Spirit, Word, and Wisdom. One may even argue that Bauckham reserves a term \u2018divine\u2019 to describe God\u2019s uniqueness over against the rest of the created order, since he uses the terms \u2018semi-divine\u2019 or \u2018subordinately divine\u2019 in reference to Jewish intermediary figures that could be called gods.
\nBauckham shows that he is aware of contemporary discussions of the concept of identity when he says that identity has to be \u2018understood not as a mere ontological subject without characteristics, but as including both character and personal story (the latter entailing relationships)\u2019, since \u2018[t]hese are the ways in which we commonly specify \u201cwho someone is\u201d \u2019. Moreover, Bauckham is working with a narrative understanding of identity, which is compatible not only with a contemporary relational understanding of identity but also with a premodern understanding. Thus, he says, \u2018Jesus\u2019 identity is, like all human identity, a narrative identity \u2026 his story is not yet finished and cannot be while the meta-narrative of creation also remains unfinished\u2019 and \u2018[i]f it is in Jesus that God\u2019s sovereignty comes to universal effect \u2026 then Jesus\u2019 own story belongs to the narrative identity of God himself\u2019. Moreover, he speaks of God as known by the name YHWH and identified by his gracious acts in history on behalf of Israel (e.g., Exod. 20:2; Deut. 4:32\u201339; Isa. 43:15\u201317). He is the sole Creator of all things and sovereign Ruler of all things who will reveal himself as the only true God to all nations and who will establish his universal kingdom in the eschatological future. Bauckham emphasizes the supremacy of God YHWH, depicted through the powerful imagery of height\u2014God rules from his great throne exalted over many heavenly realms and even the most exalted angels are not allowed to approach his throne (e.g., 1 En. 14.18\u201322)\u2014and argues that this supremacy was what separated God from other heavenly beings because none of them participated with God in creation and none participate in his rule over the universe.
\nTo conclude, the participation in YHWH\u2019s identity that Fletcher-Louis speaks of is that of a household member\u2019s participation in paterfamilias\u2019 identity. This understanding would allow Jesus to be a divine being subservient to God but not God himself and would be more acceptable to those Jews who under the strong influence of Hellenism were sympathetic to more inclusive monotheism. On the contrary, the sharing in YHWH\u2019s unique identity that Bauckham speaks of can be compared to speaking of many organs or body parts of one and the same individual, who does not differ whether he\/she is identified in reference to his\/her kidneys, heart, or spirit. Despite its complexity, this model of identity would be at home in the first-century Greco-Roman world that allowed for multiplicity to be understood as unity\/oneness. Moreover, Sommer finds witness in the Jewish sources to one God YHWH presented through multiple representations and argues that the problem of understanding Jesus as God is not theological:<\/p>\n
Some Jews regard Christianity\u2019s claim to be a monotheistic religion with grave suspicion, both because of the doctrine of the trinity (how can three equal one?) and because of Christianity\u2019s core belief that God took bodily form. What I have attempted to point out here is that biblical Israel knew very similar doctrines, and these doctrines did not disappear from Judaism after the biblical period. To be sure, Jews must repudiate many beliefs central to most forms of Christianity.\u2026 No Jew sensitive to Judaism\u2019s own classical sources, however, can fault the theological model Christianity employs when it avows belief in a God who has an earthly body as well as a Holy Spirit and a heavenly manifestation, for that model, we have seen, is a perfectly Jewish one.<\/p>\n
If one takes Sommer\u2019s position seriously, one will see that Christian monotheism that speaks of Jesus as one God with YHWH is an acceptable form of Jewish monotheism although not acceptable to all Jews. Consequently, when compared against the background of Second Temple Jewish monotheism, Bauckham\u2019s explanation of how Jesus could share YHWH\u2019s divine identity seems to be more appropriate for those Jews who upheld more traditional exclusive monotheism. Therefore, we theorize that in Luke-Acts the characterization of God is oriented towards a more traditional exclusive monotheism and that Jesus, if he is presented as \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, is characterized as one God with YHWH, rather than as a second god subservient to YHWH, even if that presupposes a concept of identity that is confusing for a modern\/postmodern mind.
\nHowever, we cannot assume that what we learn about God from the OT and Second Temple Jewish literature provides a complete explanation of who God\/\u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 is in Luke-Acts. In fact, if we are successful in showing that Luke-Acts characterizes Jesus as one God with YHWH, we will automatically show that despite the continuity it may have with the OT and Second Temple Jewish literature in how it characterizes God, it claims to provide a more complete understanding of who that God is and encourages its model readers to incorporate new information concerning God\u2019s human identity, i.e., Jesus\u2019 identity, into their traditional understanding of God\u2019s identity.<\/p>\n
V. Summary<\/p>\n
In this chapter, we attempted to define how we will use the category of divine identity in our study. First, we examined various contemporary views of identity and distinguished two trajectories for speaking of personal identity. We noticed that the modern introspective model, reflected in Conzelmann\u2019s ontology-vs.-function dichotomy, locates human identity within an individual and promotes disengagement from one\u2019s body and society. This model has been predominant in the West but can account neither for how the concept of identity was defined prior to the rise of modernity nor for how it was understood outside of Western cultures affected by modern thinking. Therefore, if not revised, it will continue to be incomplete and even harmful.
\nWe also noticed that the relational model understands identity of an individual in connection with his\/her participation\/function in his\/her communities, situated in time and space. Even though postmodern philosophers may perceive people as products of their cultures who remain passive in the process of becoming who they are, those who follow Ricoeur acknowledge that people are actively involved in the construction of their personal identity as they apply culturally available plots to their lives. This relational and narratival way of understanding identity requires an embodied view of humans, which is supported by current research in the neurosciences.
\nSecond, we examined how personal identity was understood in the first-century Greco-Roman world and concluded that Greeks, Romans, and Jews could refer to individuals with a number of references to internal organs without compromising their unity as individuals. Moreover, they defined personal identity relationally and functionally and valued humanity as embodied and embedded in their relationships with the world, with each other, and with God\/god\/gods. Thus, we established that a relational model, characterized by its emphasis on narratival and embodied understanding of identity, is more at home in the premodern world of Luke-Acts than an introspective one.
\nFinally, we analyzed the concepts of identity employed by Fletcher-Louis and Bauckham in light of our discussion on identity. We noticed that both scholars rely on the relational model to form their understanding of God\u2019s identity. However, because they use it differently, they reach different conclusions concerning how Jesus could share God\u2019s identity. Fletcher-Louis sees Jesus as a second god, as someone who was below YHWH hierarchically and who derived his identity from YHWH, just as a member of a household derived his\/her identity from the paterfamilias. On the contrary, Bauckham incorporates Jesus within YHWH\u2019s unique identity and perceives him in a similar manner as other personifications of God, such as Word, Wisdom, and Spirit. We anticipate that Bauckham\u2019s understanding provides a more appropriate explanation of Jesus\u2019 divinity against the background of the exclusive Jewish monotheism of the Second Temple period (contra Fletcher-Louis) without collapsing the boundaries of the relationship between Jesus and YHWH (contra Laurentin). In the following chapter, we will examine how Luke characterizes YHWH in order to clarify the conclusions of this chapter.<\/p>\n
Chapter 4<\/p>\n
YHWH\u2019S DIVINE IDENTITY IN LUKE-ACTS<\/p>\n
I. Introduction<\/p>\n
Thus far we have argued that another study of the possibility of divine Christology in Luke-Acts is necessary in order to address problems that have prevented scholars from speaking of the Lukan Jesus as God and we attempted to address weaknesses in the studies of scholars who spoke of a Lukan divine Christology despite the extensive influence of Conzelmann\u2019s Theology. Now we need to outline how Luke-Acts constructs YHWH\u2019s identity in order to eliminate faulty expectations for what is necessary in Luke\u2019s characterization of Jesus to allow for the possibility of his sharing YHWH\u2019s divine identity. Based on our findings in Chapters 2 and 3, we theorize that Luke will not limit his characterization of YHWH to direct titles; rather, in addition to using titles, he will employ indirect means of characterization to demonstrate YHWH\u2019s traits, encouraging his readers to use titles that he predicates of YHWH and also a variety of titles available in their culture in their construction of YHWH\u2019s identity. Moreover, we theorize that he will not be interested in presenting metaphysical considerations when constructing YHWH\u2019s divine identity; rather, he will speak of YHWH (1) relationally, in light of his hierarchical position within the universe and in comparison with others who may claim the same position; and (2) functionally, with regard to how he carries out responsibilities prescribed to him by his position within the universe and his covenant with Israel.
\nAs we begin our study of YHWH\u2019s characterization in Luke-Acts, we are faced with a major difficulty. The task of bringing together all the aspects of Luke\u2019s characterization of YHWH is complex and must be rooted firmly in a thorough analysis of the entire Lukan narrative as it unfolds. However, a detailed presentation of this analysis is beyond the scope of our study. Therefore, after carefully investigating Luke-Acts as a whole from beginning to end, we have identified three chapters that might serve as a lens for the presentation of our findings, i.e., Luke 1\u20132; Acts 14, for the following reasons. First, since our goal is to examine if and how Jesus\u2019 identity is bound to YHWH\u2019s divine identity, we chose Luke 1\u20132 because they contain the gist of what Luke wants his readers to know about YHWH, although information Luke presents in these chapters is expounded elsewhere in Luke-Acts. Second, most of the information concerning YHWH that Luke 1\u20132 present is not communicated through what Jesus says and does, which allows us to examine YHWH\u2019s characterization apart from that of Jesus. Third, although Luke 1\u20132 contain the gist of YHWH\u2019s characterization, it is important to include in our study how Luke characterizes YHWH for a predominantly Gentile audience in order to achieve a balanced portrait of YHWH in Luke-Acts. Hence, we include Acts 14 in our analysis, which contains what is for the Lukan narrative the first proclamation of YHWH to a Gentile population on Gentile soil.
\nAs we study these three chapters, we will focus on individual pericopes that contain pertinent information concerning YHWH and explore them in detail. As we examine YHWH\u2019s characterization, we will attend closely to what means of characterization Luke utilizes. When he relies on direct definition, we will note the titles he uses and how they are endowed with further meaning through indirect presentation. When he relies on indirect presentation, we will note what he says about YHWH\u2019s actions, words, and appearance, and about the physical and social surroundings being described, i.e., where the action takes place and who is present. As we bring together the clues concerning YHWH\u2019s divine identity, we will identify the traits of YHWH\u2019s character. At the end of our inductive analysis, we will summarize our findings and trace YHWH\u2019s traits found in the three chapters throughout the Lukan narrative in order to demonstrate how these traits function in the construction of YHWH\u2019s divine identity. Having outlined how we are going to present our findings, we now proceed to the examination of YHWH\u2019s divine identity in (1) Lk. 1:5\u201325, 57\u201380; (2) Lk. 1:26\u201338, 39\u201356; 2:1\u201320; and (3) Acts 14:8\u201318.<\/p>\n
II. Luke 1:5\u201325, 57\u201380: Good News of YHWH\u2019s Mercy and Salvation<\/p>\n
The story of Zechariah and Elizabeth takes up much of Luke 1; however, it does not take up the entire chapter, as Luke switches his focus from Zechariah and Elizabeth to Mary in 1:26\u201338 in order to encourage his readers to treat the stories of annunciation and birth of their sons side by side. Moreover, in 1:39\u201356, 67\u201379, Luke intertwines the lives of Zechariah, Elizabeth, and Mary, making it difficult to speak of those characters separately. Despite this, we choose not to take our focus off Zechariah and Elizabeth until we have explored what Luke has to say about YHWH through his relationship with them; this is because our goal is to sketch how Luke characterizes YHWH rather than to recognize Luke\u2019s literary creativity. After we have dealt with the story of Zechariah and Elizabeth, we will treat the story of Mary and the shepherds also without interruption.<\/p>\n
a. Introduction of Zechariah and Elizabeth<\/p>\n
Luke starts this section by situating his narrative historically in the time of Herod\u2019s rule over Judea (1:5a), i.e., a time of foreign oppression by the Romans and socio-economic hardship, which he later equates with oppression by Satan himself (4:6; Acts 26:18). Then he introduces Zechariah and Elizabeth both relationally and functionally. Descendants of Aaron, the first high priest of YHWH (Lk. 1:5b), they are \u2018both righteous before God\u2019 (\u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, 1:6a) and \u2018blameless in accordance with all the commandments and requirements of the Lord\u2019 (\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, 1:6b), yet they have no apparent blessing from YHWH (e.g., Deut. 7:12\u201314)\u2014that is, they are unable to have children due to Elizabeth\u2019s barrenness (1:7a). This problem is more complicated when Luke announces that they are both getting on in years, highlighting the length of time they have endured this condition and their inability to address this need by human efforts (1:7b). Thus, Luke introduces Zechariah and Elizabeth in light of their relation to YHWH and ability to carry out their functions determined by YHWH. In doing this, he makes YHWH the focal point in their characterization; however, he omits any introduction to YHWH as a character per se, implying that YHWH is not a new character and encouraging his readers to treat the OT as a cotext.
\nIn this brief introduction, Luke is able to accomplish at least three things. First, in his presentation of Zechariah and Elizabeth, he emphasizes their unity and presents them as having one identity, firmly rooted in YHWH, whom Luke calls both \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 and \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 (1:6). Only one distinction is made, i.e., Elizabeth is barren, which may imply that she is perceived by their community as more responsible than Zechariah for their lack of children and, possibly, as deserving more disgrace associated with this lack of blessedness than Zechariah does (cf. 1:25).
\nSecond, by identifying Zechariah and Elizabeth as righteous and blameless before \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2\/\u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 and by placing them in Judea (1:5), Luke establishes that he speaks of YHWH, the God of Israel, whose name in Hebrew was read as \u05d0\u05b2\u05d3\u05b9\u05e0\u05b8\u05d9\/\u2018Lord\u2019 out of respect and was substituted with a title \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2\/\u2018Lord\u2019 in the Greek OT. By avoiding the mention of YHWH\u2019s name and instead using the predicates \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 and \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 when identifying YHWH, Luke demonstrates his conformity with this traditional Jewish practice, yet opens up a possibility that other characters within his narrative may share the same predicates. This does not imply, however, that he uses those titles thoughtlessly, allowing anyone called \u2018god\u2019 or \u2018lord\u2019 to share YHWH\u2019s divine identity. As Luke-Acts unfolds, Luke will continue to specify indirectly what those titles mean when predicated of YHWH. Even now, he does not allow them to stand alone, but connects them to YHWH\u2019s giving the law to Israel and judging every person belonging to Israel as righteous or sinful in light of his law\u2014functions usually carried out by a king, judge, or paterfamilias, i.e., the lord and benefactor of a household. Consequently, he identifies YHWH as a figure of highest authority, from whom everyone belonging to Israel should derive his\/her identity, as do righteous Zechariah and Elizabeth; and who can appropriately be called King, Judge, and Father\/Paterfamilias, based on the functions he carries out in relation to Israel. By choosing to mention righteousness and blamelessness in regard to YHWH\u2019s law as Zechariah\u2019s and Elizabeth\u2019s identifying traits, Luke draws attention to the importance of YHWH\u2019s covenant with Israel, which established a kinship relationship between YHWH and Israel and provided the system of mutual obligations and responsibilities for YHWH and Israel.
\nThird, by portraying Zechariah and Elizabeth as highly honorable in view of their priestly heritage and righteous standing before YHWH and yet living in shame among people due to the apparent lack of YHWH\u2019s blessing (1:7a, 25), Luke highlights people\u2019s inability to evaluate the situation correctly and introduces a need for YHWH to carry out his responsibilities as Israel\u2019s Lord and God by intervening in human history and vindicating the righteous couple. Since in their presentation Luke echoes a number of the OT stories of barrenness, especially that of Abraham and Sarah (Gen. 18:11), he encourages his readers to anticipate YHWH\u2019s intervention on their behalf. Moreover, since he situates his narrative historically and roots Zechariah\u2019s and Elizabeth\u2019s identity in the identity of their people, Luke prevents his readers from dealing with their need for liberation from disgrace in isolation from Israel\u2019s need for liberation from disgrace and oppression under the Roman rule and encourages them to anticipate YHWH\u2019s intervention not only of behalf of Zechariah and Elizabeth but also on behalf of Israel in accordance with his covenantal promises.<\/p>\n
b. At the Temple<\/p>\n
Having introduced Zechariah and Elizabeth, Luke locates Zechariah in a public setting on temple duty \u2018before God\u2019 (\u1f14\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6), together with other priests of his division (1:8). There, YHWH begins to act on Zechariah\u2019s behalf, just as readers anticipate. YHWH publicly bestows on him a high honor and blessing by choosing him from among other priests through the casting of lots to offer incense inside his sanctuary (\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, 1:9a), which is symbolic of offering prayers on behalf of the believing community. Zechariah responds with obedience, evidenced by his leaving the praying multitude outside and going inside YHWH\u2019s sanctuary (1:9b\u201310). Luke does not offer a detailed account of who else goes inside the sanctuary with him or how the ceremony of incense offering takes place, implying that it is unimportant for the narrative. Instead, Luke focuses exclusively on the righteous priest Zechariah and his experience as he finds himself inside the sanctuary at YHWH\u2019s initiative.<\/p>\n
c. Inside the Sanctuary<\/p>\n
1. Gabriel\u2019s appearance and Zechariah\u2019s fear. In the private setting of YHWH\u2019s sanctuary, the place where heaven and earth meet, YHWH\u2019s messenger Gabriel (\u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, 1:11), whose identity is derived from his service to YHWH (1:19), appears to Zechariah, whose reaction upon seeing him is distinguished by distress and fear (\u1f10\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03cc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u02bc \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, 1:12). In the OT, fear is a common human reaction to someone who poses a threat to personal safety or life and has authority and power to carry out that threat. Since YHWH commands to fear parents (Lev. 19:3) and speaks of fearing and honoring fathers and masters as a right thing to do (Mal. 1:6), fear is an appropriate reaction toward those who are in a position of authority. In fact, not to fear them is a sign of arrogance and disobedience (e.g., Ps. 36:1). However, reactions of fear that jeopardize one\u2019s relationship with YHWH, Israel\u2019s Lord and Paterfamilias, placing fear of others above the fear of YHWH, are inappropriate (e.g., Isa. 57:11), as evidenced by numerous warnings not to fear other nations and their gods (e.g., Num. 14:9; Deut. 7:18; 2 Kgs 17:37). This implies that for a righteous Israelite fear is an appropriate response only to his\/her parents, masters, kings (e.g., 1 Kgs 3:28), and YHWH (e.g., Gen. 18:15; Exod. 20:18; Deut. 5:5; Jdt. 8:8). Moreover, since YHWH is a figure of the highest authority, fear of YHWH should be above all other fears.
\nHowever, fear of YHWH should not be understood merely as a negative reaction. This is because it is meant to (1) encourage an Israelite to show his\/her complete reliance on YHWH\u2019s power and covenantal promises; (2) free him\/her from fearing others (e.g., Exod. 20:20; Lev. 26:6; Deut. 10:12, 20; Ps. 27:1; Isa. 54:14; Tob. 4:21); and (3) help him\/her grow in wisdom and fulfill YHWH\u2019s law (e.g., Prov. 1:7; Sir. 19:20). That is why people who are God-fearing are pious, righteous, and faithful. They love YHWH, learn his word, keep his commandments, submit to his will, have a special relationship with him, and become recipients of his mercy and blessings. Moreover, they are privileged to have friendship with YHWH (e.g., Ps. 25:14), his fatherly compassion (e.g., Ps. 103:13), and his salvation (e.g., Ps. 145:19). It is in these people that YHWH takes pleasure (e.g., Ps. 147:11), which explains why they are truly the ones who lead a happy life (e.g., Ps. 112:1).
\nZechariah\u2019s encounter with YHWH\u2019s messenger Gabriel inside YHWH\u2019s sanctuary enables communication between YHWH and Zechariah and may be viewed as a theophany, in which Gabriel represents YHWH fully, although Luke discourages his readers from equating Gabriel with YHWH. That is, his presence is YHWH\u2019s presence, his message is YHWH\u2019s message, and response to him is a response to YHWH himself. Therefore, Luke\u2019s readers are encouraged to understand Zechariah\u2019s reaction of distress and fear (1:12) at the encounter with Gabriel as a confirmation of Luke\u2019s previous characterization of Zechariah as righteous and blameless before God (1:6), reinforcing readers\u2019 expectations for YHWH\u2019s intervention in Zechariah\u2019s life.<\/p>\n
2. YHWH\u2019s message. Before Gabriel begins to proclaim YHWH\u2019s message to Zechariah, he addresses Zechariah\u2019s fear. With the words \u2018Do not fear, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard\u2019, he intends to calm Zechariah and to explain the reason for his appearance. These comforting words indicate that YHWH not only knows Zechariah by name but also is able to see what people do not (cf. 1:25), namely, that Zechariah is righteous and blameless despite his childlessness. YHWH has already honored him by selecting him to come inside the sanctuary and now he is honoring him further by responding to his prayer. From this point on Zechariah\u2019s righteousness before YHWH can no longer be doubted.
\nAlthough Luke does not present Zechariah\u2019s prayer, readers can deduce its contents based on how YHWH answers it. YHWH begins by addressing Zechariah\u2019s personal need. He promises that Elizabeth will bear him a son, whom he should call John (1:12b\u201313), which can be rendered \u2018God is gracious\u2019 or \u2018God has shown favor\u2019. In giving John a name with such meaning, YHWH identifies himself as a gracious God, echoing his previous self-identification as compassionate and merciful. This self-identification directly defines YHWH as a merciful God; yet when taken on its own it does not provide enough detail to be meaningful. Therefore, it has to be understood in light of its immediate cotext and intertext. We will now explore how Luke begins to endow this self-identification of God with meaning by looking at Daniel\u2019s prayer because in the OT Daniel is the only one to whom Gabriel appeared to announce that YHWH has heard his prayer (\u03b4\u03ad\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) and is about to answer it (Dan. 8\u201310) and because Luke\u2019s account provides multiple parallels between the two encounters.
\nIn his prayer, Daniel uses \u03b4\u03ad\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 (Dan. 9:17, 23) synonymously with \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae (9:3, 17, 18, 20, 21) and \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 (9:3), which can be understood as a request for YHWH\u2019s mercy. He understands foreign oppression as Israel\u2019s punishment given by YHWH in accordance with the law (9:11\u201314) and associates the disgrace (\u1f21 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7, 9:7, 8; \u1f40\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2, 9:16) that Israel is experiencing with her sin. Thus, he confesses sin and ignorance (9:15), which he attributes not only to his people of past and present generations (9:16) but also to himself, firmly rooting his identity in the identity of his people (9:20); and anticipates that YHWH will show mercy in accordance with his covenantal promises (e.g., Deut. 30:1\u201310) and on account of his servants (Dan. 9:17), his mercy (9:18), and his name, which is associated with Jerusalem and the people of Israel (9:19). Daniel asks YHWH to turn away his wrath (9:16), listen, look with favor, see the desolation of his city and people, and show mercy (9:17\u201319) although people have turned away from him (9:13) and did not listen to his voice (9:5, 6, 9b, 10, 11, 14). Thus, Daniel characterizes YHWH as great, mighty, and terrible, who keeps his covenant and mercy (\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2) for those who love him and follow his commandments (9:4). Moreover, he emphasizes YHWH\u2019s righteousness (\u1f21 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7, 9:7, 9, 16; cf. 9:14) and mercy (\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2, 9:3, 4, 9, 18) throughout his prayer because YHWH remains compassionate and merciful despite human rebellion (9:9) or human merit (9:18; cf. Exod. 33:19; Deut. 30:1\u20138; Ruth 1:1; Isa. 44:21\u201328; Jer. 2\u201316).
\nThrough this intertextual connection, Luke encourages his readers to understand Zechariah\u2019s prayer as a request for YHWH\u2019s mercy on Israel\u2019s sin and disgrace, evidenced by foreign oppression (cf. Lk. 1:5). He insists that YHWH\u2019s self-identification as a gracious and merciful God should not depend on the faithfulness of Israel as a nation, for it continues to fail to listen to his voice. Nor should it depend on the faithfulness of its individuals who, like Daniel and Zechariah, may live blamelessly in accordance with YHWH\u2019s law yet indirectly participate in the nation\u2019s sinfulness, as stated by Daniel and possibly evidenced by Zechariah\u2019s childlessness. Rather, it should be rooted in YHWH\u2019s faithfulness to his covenantal promises reflected in Israel\u2019s Scripture and his determination to care for his people despite their rebellion or merit. Having specified how Luke begins to endow God\u2019s self-identification as gracious with meaning, we return to our discussion of YHWH\u2019s message.
\nAfter YHWH announces John\u2019s birth through Gabriel, he declares that John will become great before him. First, he will be a Nazarite (Num. 6:1\u201321), dedicated to YHWH from birth like Samson and Samuel, which is implied in YHWH\u2019s instructions for John to abstain from wine or strong drink (Lk. 1:15a). Second, he will be a prophet, filled with the Holy Spirit (\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5), i.e., YHWH\u2019s Spirit (Ps. 51:11 [50:13, LXX]; Isa. 63:10\u201311; Wis. 9:17) from his mother\u2019s womb (1:15b). Third, he will be YHWH\u2019s instrument in turning Israel to the Lord their God (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c8\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, 1:16). This will involve going \u2018before him with the spirit and power of Elijah\u2019 (\u1f10\u03bd\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f28\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5) in order to turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous with the purpose of making ready a \u2018people prepared for the Lord\u2019 (\u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3, 1:17). Stated in this way (cf. 1:76), John\u2019s mission echoes Mal. 2:6; 3:1; 4:5\u20136 [3:22\u201323, LXX] (cf. Sir. 48:1\u201310), which bring to the fore the themes of the dawning of the messianic age, the coming of the Day of the Lord, and the coming of the Lord to his temple; identifies John as the forerunner of the messianic age; and thus reinforces the connection between Gabriel\u2019s encounter with Zechariah and Gabriel\u2019s encounter with Daniel (Dan. 9:24\u201327).
\nThis description of John\u2019s mission raises two questions. First, to what does \u2018the spirit and power of Elijah\u2019 refer? In 1:15 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 refers to the Holy Spirit. In 1:17, \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 is in a parallel construction with \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2, which appears again in 1:35 in reference to the Holy Spirit and the power of the Most High (\u1f51\u03c8\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5), i.e., YHWH (e.g., Gen. 14:22; Deut. 32:8; Isa. 57:15; 1 Esd. 2:3 [2:2, LXX]; Tob. 1:4). Since in the OT only YHWH can give his power (e.g., Deut. 8:18) and spirit (e.g., Isa. 42:1; Ezek. 11:5; Joel 2:28), the phrase \u2018the spirit and power of Elijah\u2019 cannot be understood apart from YHWH\u2019s empowerment. So, although John\u2019s mission echoes that of Elijah, he will perform his mission only through YHWH\u2019s empowerment (1:15). Second, how should one understand \u1f10\u03bd\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 (1:17a)? Before whom will John go? Thus far, Gabriel announced that John would be great \u2018before the Lord\u2019 (\u1f10\u03bd\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd [\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6] \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, 1:15) and later he characterizes himself as standing \u2018before God\u2019 (\u1f10\u03bd\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, 1:19). Moreover, in 1:76 Zechariah says that John is to go \u2018before the Lord\u2019 (\u1f10\u03bd\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5) to prepare his ways and in 1:17b Gabriel says that John is to prepare people for the \u2018Lord\u2019 (\u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that \u1f10\u03bd\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 means \u1f10\u03bd\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\/\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6.
\nConsequently, just like his parents, John is introduced relationally and functionally in reference to YHWH. Moreover, since John\u2019s birth is supposed to bring joy and gladness not only to Zechariah and Elizabeth but also to many people who will rejoice at his birth (1:14) and who will later partake of his ministry, it is impossible to construct John\u2019s identity in isolation from his relationship to and function within his family or nation, just as it is impossible to separate YHWH\u2019s answer to Zechariah\u2019s personal need for a son from his answer to Israel\u2019s need for repentance, reconciliation, and ultimately restoration. By choosing to show mercy to one righteous couple within sinful Israel, oppressed by Satan through the power exercised by the Roman Empire, YHWH declares that he is ready to forgive sin, show mercy to the people as a whole, and declare his power within the territory claimed by Satan. In fact, his readiness to forgive and show mercy is a part of his salvific plan that he had prepared and announced long ago and now has begun to put into action by (1) showing initiative in selecting Zechariah to go inside his sanctuary to offer prayers before him, (2) announcing the conception of the messenger of the messianic age, (3) giving that messenger the mission of preparing people for reconciliation with him, and (4) promising to empower him to be successful.<\/p>\n
3. Zechariah\u2019s objection and Gabriel\u2019s response. Having heard the message, Zechariah raises objections, pointing out his and Elizabeth\u2019s old age as an obstacle to the fulfillment of YHWH\u2019s plan and, thus, doubting YHWH\u2019s ability to accomplish what he promises. As a response, Gabriel presents his credentials as the \u2018one standing in the presence of God\u2019 (\u1f41 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u1f7c\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6), who is sent to function as YHWH\u2019s personal messenger and to communicate the good news (1:19) of YHWH\u2019s care and mercy for Zechariah in particular and for his people in general (1:13\u201317). Furthermore, Gabriel emphasizes Zechariah\u2019s disbelief and declares that Zechariah will become mute until the day when YHWH\u2019s message is fulfilled (1:20). In the OT, physical deafness was regarded as a judgment from YHWH (e.g., Exod. 4:11; Mic. 7:16) and later in Luke (11:14) dumbness is understood as demon possession, which is healed through exorcism. That is why Zechariah\u2019s muteness can be understood as a sign of judgment for doubting YHWH\u2019s message.
\nReaders may wonder why Gabriel interprets Zechariah\u2019s response of doubt as disbelief when it can be compared to (1) Abraham\u2019s objection to YHWH\u2019s promise of the land (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03af \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, Gen. 15:8), repeated by Zechariah verbatim (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03af \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf, 1:18); (2) Sarah\u2019s doubt of YHWH\u2019s promise concerning Isaac\u2019s conception due to her barrenness and Abraham\u2019s old age (Gen. 18:12); (3) Moses\u2019 recurring objections to YHWH\u2019s choosing him to play a role in YHWH\u2019s salvifc plan due to his slowness of tongue (Exod. 3:11; 4:10, 13); and (4) Mary\u2019s question concerning Jesus\u2019 conception (Lk. 1:34). Readers may also wonder why Zechariah\u2019s muteness should be understood as a sign of judgment when Daniel\u2019s muteness during his encounter with Gabriel (Dan. 10:15) and Ezekiel\u2019s temporary dumbness during his encounter with YHWH (Ezek. 3:26\u201327; 33:22) are not understood as signs of judgment. Luke does not answer those questions. However, because he characterizes YHWH as the one who knows hearts (e.g., Acts 15:8; cf. Isa. 29:13), he encourages his readers to accept Zechariah\u2019s muteness as an appropriate consequence for his objection and, thus, disbelief.
\nFurthermore, readers may wonder how Zechariah\u2019s muteness may function within the story of John\u2019s annunciation and birth when they notice that Zechariah\u2019s encounter with Gabriel follows a convention of biblical annunciations of birth, which usually includes an objection and a sign from YHWH. First, it can be understood as YHWH\u2019s way to enable Zechariah to overcome his doubts, just as the phrase \u2018Do not fear\u2019 was used to overcome his terror of the divine presence (1:13). Second, it can be viewed as YHWH\u2019s way to teach Israel that he is, indeed, the same YHWH he has always been, as in Ezekiel\u2019s story (Ezek. 24:27), since the first words that come from Zechariah\u2019s mouth are the words of prophecy that praise YHWH for his gracious acts in the present and in the past (1:64, 67). Finally, it can be a combination of the two possibilities, which would imply that having seen the sign at work and having overcome his doubts and repented of his disbelief, Zechariah will be enabled to embrace the message wholeheartedly and to testify to everyone at the appointed time that YHWH is the merciful and gracious God he has always been (1:67\u201379). Therefore, despite its being a sign of judgment, Zechariah\u2019s muteness may also be understood as an enabling sign and yet further evidence of YHWH\u2019s compassion and mercy\u2014for despite Zechariah\u2019s objection, YHWH does not change his promise, i.e., Zechariah is still going to have a son who will be great before the Lord and who will function as a forerunner of the messianic age. Accordingly, Luke continues to endow YHWH\u2019s self-identification as merciful with meaning when he shows that YHWH is capable of understanding human weaknesses and powerful enough to work toward the fulfillment of his plan without breaking his promises.<\/p>\n
d. At the Temple after the Encounter<\/p>\n
When Zechariah rejoins the people outside, where they wait for him, astonished at his delay (1:21), they recognize Zechariah\u2019s inability to speak as evidence of his otherworldly encounter inside the sanctuary (1:22). However, there is no indication that they are aware of the content of YHWH\u2019s message. Although the text does not directly mention this, it is possible that there was a sense of shame attributed to Zechariah, since his muteness could have been understood as a divine confirmation of his guilt implied by his childlessness (cf. Jn 9:2). Shame also could have been attributed to him due to his inability to perform the priestly duty of pronouncing the Aaronic blessing over the people, since honor and shame were assigned in accordance with how one performed his\/her socially assigned role. If this is the case, Zechariah\u2019s public disgrace is now equivalent to that of Elizabeth, which allows the identity of the husband to be conformed fully to that of the wife. Since Luke\u2019s mention of Zechariah\u2019s immediate muteness confirms YHWH\u2019s ability to accomplish his promises, readers begin eagerly to anticipate how YHWH\u2019s promised intervention will play out in the life of this righteous-yet-disgraced couple and in the life of Israel as a whole.<\/p>\n
e. At Zechariah\u2019s House<\/p>\n
1. John\u2019s conception. At the end of his time of service, Zechariah joins his wife in the private setting of his house, where the focus moves to Elizabeth who soon conceives (1:24) in accordance with YHWH\u2019s promise (1:13b). Elizabeth attributes this miraculous conception to the work of the Lord, interpreting it as a sign of YHWH\u2019s favor since he took special attention to address her need in order to remove her disgrace among the people (1:25) and vindicate her as the righteous woman she has always been (1:6). Because Elizabeth understands her pregnancy as a blessing, she shows unshaken trust in YHWH and his promise, showing concern neither for her life, considering the dangers of this late pregnancy, nor for her child\u2019s life, despite the high rate of infant and child mortality. By echoing the response of Rachel to her pregnancy (Gen. 30:23) in Elizabeth\u2019s response, Luke demonstrates that this caring and compassionate behavior of YHWH on behalf of his people is firmly rooted in his divine identity and cannot be understood as mere caprice\u2014through his gracious acts on behalf of particular righteous individuals and Israel as a whole, he demonstrates that he is the same gracious God in the present as he was in the past. Luke further contributes to the description of YHWH as merciful when he speaks of John\u2019s birth, which fulfills YHWH\u2019s earlier promise (1:13b) and which is publicly acknowledged by Elizabeth\u2019s neighbors and relatives as an act of YHWH\u2019s great mercy on Elizabeth\u2019s behalf (cf. \u1f10\u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2, 1:58).<\/p>\n
2. John\u2019s birth. Zechariah remains mute until the moment he writes on a tablet that his son\u2019s name should be John (1:63), just as Elizabeth insisted earlier (1:59\u201360). This shows that despite Zechariah\u2019s disability, the couple could communicate with each other and live righteously in unison as they eagerly sought to obey YHWH\u2019s will in naming their son. What is more, both of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and enabled to prophesy (1:41\u201342, 67), presenting a reliable perspective, i.e., YHWH\u2019s perspective, on the things that YHWH had begun to accomplish among his people. Since Elizabeth\u2019s prophecy concerns Mary and Jesus, it will be examined in Chapter 5. Now we turn to YHWH\u2019s characterization in Zechariah\u2019s prophetic song, the Benedictus.<\/p>\n
3. Benedictus. Zechariah\u2019s ability to speak has returned as promised, producing fear in all the neighbors, as they recognized YHWH\u2019s activity in Zechariah\u2019s life and considered John\u2019s future (1:65\u201366), and indicating that John has already begun to turn people back to YHWH, since their reaction of fear at YHWH\u2019s activity implies their recognition of YHWH\u2019s authority over their lives. Filled with YHWH\u2019s Spirit, Zechariah prophesies, blessing the Lord God of Israel for having visited and liberated his people (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03ad\u03c8\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bb\u03b1\u1ff7 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, 1:68b). The reason for Zechariah\u2019s blessing YHWH in 1:68 is closely related to that of Elizabeth in 1:25 because (1) both \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03ad\u03c8\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf (1:68) and \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd (1:25; cf. Acts 4:29) express the idea that YHWH is concerned with humans\u2014he thinks about them with care and is ready to respond appropriately to their needs; and (2) both Elizabeth and Zechariah speak of YHWH as the agent of liberation. In Elizabeth\u2019s case, the meaning is straightforward, i.e., YHWH has liberated her by taking away her disgrace. In Zechariah\u2019s, the explanation of how YHWH has liberated his people is open to more possibilities. Readers can immediately think of Zechariah\u2019s having been liberated from his embarrassing muteness or childlessness. However, the liberation of YHWH\u2019s people cannot be limited to Zechariah\u2019s household since through John\u2019s mission YHWH desires to prepare people for the messianic age intended for the liberation of many (1:16). By echoing Elizabeth\u2019s words in Zechariah\u2019s, Luke continues to emphasize YHWH\u2019s gracious care on behalf of his people and his intent to show favor though their liberation at the time of need.
\nAs the Benedictus continues, YHWH\u2019s visitation, indeed, extends beyond Zechariah\u2019s household and is connected with the \u2018mighty savior\u2019 whom YHWH has raised up in the house of his servant David for Zechariah and the people of his time (1:69), just as he had declared through the mouth of his holy prophets from of old (1:70). Furthermore, it is connected with salvation from their enemies and from the power of all those who hate them (1:71) in order that they may fearlessly worship YHWH in holiness and righteousness before him as long as they live (1:74\u201375). YHWH\u2019s liberation defined in this way brings to mind imagery of Israel\u2019s exodus from Egyptian slavery (Exod. 4:23; 7:16; cf. Acts 7:34) and may encourage readers to theorize that because of the foreign oppression experienced by the people during the time of King Herod (1:5), the salvation with which Luke is concerned is of a socio-political nature, and enemies are the foreign oppressors who prevent Israel from worshiping YHWH in holiness and righteousness. However, since Luke does not allow Zechariah to specify the enemies and since he continues to expand what YHWH\u2019s salvation entails, he discourages his readers from defining YHWH\u2019s salvation only in terms of socio-political liberation.
\nIn 1:76\u201379, Luke presents through the mouth of the inspired righteous priest two more explanations of how YHWH might accomplish his liberation and bring about the salvation and restoration of Israel. The first one is connected with John, a prophet of the Most High (1:76), i.e., YHWH\u2019s prophet (cf. 1:15), who is to teach YHWH\u2019s people salvation that will be accomplished through the forgiveness of their sins (1:77). The second is connected with the dawn from on high who is to give light to those who sit in darkness\/the shadow of death and to guide their feet into the way of peace (1:79), equating YHWH\u2019s salvation with enlightenment. Therefore, in the Benedictus Luke defines salvation as liberation not from foreign oppressors, as readers might expect, but from enemies, sins, and darkness, echoing definitions of YHWH\u2019s salvation found in the OT. Moreover, since Luke emphasizes that YHWH will accomplish this multifaceted salvation in order to enable his people to have a proper relationship with him, manifested by their holy and righteous worship (1:74\u201375), and since later he explains all earthly power as being under the power of Satan (4:6), he implies that YHWH\u2019s liberation will involve liberation from the oppression by Satan expressed through people\u2019s oppression by enemies, sins, and darkness.
\nIn the Benedictus, Luke once again characterizes YHWH as a gracious and merciful God and emphasizes his faithfulness to his promises. That is, YHWH raises up a mighty Davidic savior (1:69) to show mercy (\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2) promised to Israel\u2019s ancestors and to remember his holy covenant, the oath he swore to Abraham (1:72\u201373). It is because of YHWH\u2019s tender mercy that the dawn from on high will visit Zechariah and his community (\u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03c7\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, 1:78). Consequently, although the way YHWH\u2019s liberation should best be understood in light of the Benedictus is open to possibilities, Luke leaves no doubt that YHWH\u2019s liberation is rooted in his divine identity, characterized by grace, mercy, and power, and in his covenantal promises to Israel\u2019s ancestors, starting with Abraham.<\/p>\n
f. Overview<\/p>\n
In the account of Zechariah and Elizabeth, YHWH is characterized as the highest power and authority in heaven and on earth because everyone and everything in heaven and on earth derives his\/her\/its identity and function from YHWH. That is, Zechariah and Elizabeth are righteous before YHWH because they keep all his commandments as outlined in his covenant with Israel, Zechariah is a priest because he serves YHWH at YHWH\u2019s temple, Gabriel is an angel because he serves as YHWH\u2019s messenger, and the sanctuary is YHWH\u2019s throne room\/house because YHWH is present there and uses it to convene his affairs. This indirectly identifies YHWH as a Father\/Paterfamilias, King, and Judge of the heavenly realm and of Israel and gives meaning to the titles God, Lord, and Most High that YHWH predicates. Thus, although other characters, like King Herod, may predicate the same titles and claim authority implied in these titles, they are not YHWH and cannot be equated with him in the extent of their authority and power. This portrayal of YHWH is consistent with the OT understanding of him as God and King and is essential to how YHWH is understood throughout Luke-Acts, where he is characterized both directly and indirectly as the Father\/Benefactor of the Israelites who provides and protects (e.g., Lk. 6:35\u201336; 11:2\u20134, 13; 12:28, 30, 32), the King whose kingdom is proclaimed through his messengers (e.g., Lk. 2:10; 4:43; 8:1; 11:2; 16:16\u201317; Acts 1:3; 8:12; 28:23) and whose law will remain forever (e.g., Lk. 10:28; 16:17\u201318), the Judge who has authority to forgive sins and justify the humble (e.g., Lk. 1:77; 3:3; 5:21; 11:4; 18:14; Acts 5:31; 26:18), and the Most High God who has the highest position not only on earth in Judea but also in heaven (e.g., Lk. 2:13\u201314; 8:28; Acts 7:48\u201349).
\nDue to his position of authority, which presupposes power, YHWH inspires fear and awe, as seen in Zechariah\u2019s response to his encounter with Gabriel inside the sanctuary and Zechariah\u2019s neighbors\u2019 responses to YHWH\u2019s healing of Zechariah\u2019s muteness. Throughout his narrative, Luke continues to emphasize fear as an appropriate response to YHWH because it leads people to give him proper honor and praise, enables them to follow his commandments, and frees them from fear of others (e.g., Lk. 1:74; 5:26; 7:16; 12:4\u20135; Acts 10:2; 13:26; cf. Lk. 18:2; 23:40). Despite this, Luke reminds his readers that YHWH does not want to terrify people; rather, he wants them to know him as a gracious and merciful God who comforts with his words (e.g., Lk. 1:30; 2:10; 18:9; 24:24) and liberates through his deeds, as he has done in the past. Thus, although YHWH shows his special favor to the righteous by blessing them and answering their prayers, his favor is not limited to the righteous but impacts all who come in contact with that favor. This is not because YHWH is unaware of who is or is not righteous\u2014his intimate knowledge of people is evidenced by his knowledge of their names and hearts, i.e., thoughts (Lk. 16:15; Acts 1:24; 15:8; cf. Deut. 8:2; Pss. 7:8; 139:23). Rather, he shows care for all regardless of what they deserve or how they respond (Lk. 6:27\u201336; 15:21\u201332) because his care is rooted in his promises to Israel\u2019s ancestors and, therefore, in his divine identity, rather than in human merit (Lk. 1:72\u201373; 11:2; Acts 3:25; 7:5, 17). That is why people who turn away from sin and turn toward him in humility can trust that he will act in accordance with his promises for his name\u2019s sake and that he will answer their prayers with power and generosity, evidenced in his enabling an elderly couple to conceive not just a child, but the messenger of the messianic age of YHWH\u2019s salvation (cf. Lk. 11:1\u201313; 12:32; Acts 4:24\u201331; 12:5\u20139; 16:25\u201330). In characterizing YHWH as merciful and generous in this fashion, Luke presents YHWH as a Lord\/Paterfamilias\/Benefactor of all Israel, who not only defines rules and regulations for his household but also has authority to show unconditional care within his household without concern for loss of honor or goods because he is the source of all honor and all goods.
\nJason A. Whitlark observes that Greco-Roman benefactors were advised to choose their beneficiaries with care and give to them in accordance with their social standing to insure reciprocity, i.e., exchange of benefits of equal value (e.g., Cicero, Off. 1.45\u201346). Following Victor M. Matthews, he notes that benefactors who gave gifts that were too generous to reciprocate properly brought shame to their clients and were considered hostile. Thus, he argues that Philo (see also Ephesians), who portrays YHWH as a free giver of all things who seeks no return (Cher. 123) because all humans are in need of his benefaction (Spec. 1.152) and because there is nothing they can give back to YHWH to enrich him (Leg. 3.78), uses the Greco-Roman benefactor-beneficiary model to describe YHWH\u2019s relationship with humans, yet undermines the logic of reciprocity. He is correct in his observations; however, he fails to distinguish expectations for gift-giving inside kinship groups from those outside kinship groups. Gary Stansell observes that within a kinship group generosity brought honor to the benefactor without placing expectations for beneficiaries to reciprocate to maintain their honor while gift exchanges outside of kinship groups could function as challenges to one\u2019s honor and required ripostes. Therefore, based on Luke\u2019s presentation of YHWH, one could call YHWH a Benefactor because kings\/fathers were perceived as benefactors, whose honor was tied to how generously they gave to the members of their respective households. However, one can understand YHWH as a Benefactor only if one understands him as Israel\u2019s Paterfamilias, whose kinship to Israel is established by his treaties starting with Abraham and whose endless giving is rooted in his responsibilities determined by his position within the household. Because, as Israel\u2019s Paterfamilias, YHWH occupies the highest position of authority in heaven and in Israel, no one can challenge his actions as dishonorable because no one is equal to him in authority.
\nFinally, Luke displays YHWH\u2019s unparalleled power and authority as he speaks of YHWH promising, preparing, initiating, and realizing his salvific plan, despite human and demonic opposition (Lk. 4:2\u201313; Acts 5:38\u201339; 7:38\u201343, 51\u201353) and human weaknesses (Lk. 1:18; Acts 4:31). As YHWH guides and empowers humans in realizing their role in his plan through his Spirit (Lk. 1:67; 4:14; 5:17; 24:49; Acts 1:8; 10:38; 13:4, 9; 19:21; 21:4) and eliminates obstacles through the help of his angels (Lk. 22:43; Acts 12:7\u20139) or nature (Acts 16:26), he demonstrates himself as God who crosses boundaries of time, space, laws of nature, jurisdictions, and social norms to bring about his salvation.<\/p>\n
III. Luke 1:26\u201338, 39\u201356; 2:1\u201320: YHWH\u2019s Unexpected Ways<\/p>\n
Having looked closely at how YHWH is characterized through his relationship with Zechariah and Elizabeth, we now turn to examine how he is characterized through his relationship with Mary and the shepherds in the annunciation and birth of Jesus. We theorize that Luke will continue to rely on indirect means of characterization, i.e., what YHWH says and does in the life of Mary and the shepherds as individuals and as representatives of Israel, in order both to present YHWH\u2019s divine identity and clarify titles that YHWH predicates. Here we will not discuss Jesus\u2019 identity since that is the focus of Chapter 5.<\/p>\n
a. Mary\u2019s Introduction<\/p>\n
After Luke announces Elizabeth\u2019s pregnancy as an outpouring of YHWH\u2019s favor (1:24\u201325), he skips forward in time and declares that Gabriel was sent \u2018from God\u2019 (1:26) to the Galilean city Nazareth to a virgin betrothed to Joseph, David\u2019s descendent, whose name was Mary (1:26\u201327) to announce the birth of her son. Comparing the setting of Gabriel\u2019s encounter with Mary with that of Zechariah, readers may observe that Nazareth, situated on the outskirts of the land of the Jews and to a certain degree populated by Gentiles (1 Macc. 5:9\u201323), stands in sharp contrast with Jerusalem\u2019s sanctuary in terms of religious holiness, purity, or cultural significance; and that the hour of this encounter is not mentioned, which also contrasts with the time of public worship mentioned at Gabriel\u2019s first appearance. This unexpected setting for a divine-human interaction brings to mind YHWH\u2019s interactions with the patriarchs in the course of their ordinary lives, highlighting the fact that although YHWH chose to be present at Jerusalem\u2019s sanctuary, he is not limited by it (cf., e.g., 1 Kgs 8:27\u201329; Acts 7:48\u201350), and, consequently, is capable of employing any means of communication he finds appropriate.
\nJust as there are points of contrast between the places and times of these two encounters, there are points of contrast between Mary and Zechariah. First, Mary is a young virgin, unlike Zechariah, a man advanced in years (1:7). Second, he is Aaron\u2019s descendent (1:5), while she seems to have no ties to a family since there is no mention of her father\u2019s household. Third, he is a model of religious piety (1:6), while Mary\u2019s piety is not mentioned. Consequently, Zechariah is presented as deserving honor due to his gender, age, high social status, and righteousness\u2014especially now after Elizabeth was enabled to conceive in her old age like to Sarah\u2014while Mary is presented as having no particular significance, as judged by human standards. The only two things that are stated in Mary\u2019s characterization and, therefore, are important in defining her identity are her virginity (1:27 [2\u00d7], 34) and her legal connection to David\u2019s household by means of her betrothal to Joseph (1:27)\u2014the household she has not yet entered (1:56).<\/p>\n
b. In Nazareth<\/p>\n
1. Gabriel\u2019s appearance and Mary\u2019s fear. Having introduced Mary, Luke draws attention to the dialog between Gabriel and Mary by allowing it to unfold almost without mediation. Gabriel begins by greeting Mary, although he did not greet Zechariah: \u2018Rejoice, favored one, the Lord is with you\u2019 (\u03c7\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b5, \u03ba\u03b5\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7, \u1f41 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6, 1:28). In this greeting, Mary is addressed by name, like Zechariah. Moreover, she is called \u03ba\u03b5\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7, identifying Mary as a recipient of YHWH\u2019s favor and bringing to mind YHWH\u2019s previous characterization as merciful in his showing favor to Elizabeth. Mary, like Zechariah, is terrified by this encounter. She does not respond to this greeting, yet she is perplexed by it and ponders its meaning (1:29), which is clarified by what Gabriel says next.<\/p>\n
2. YHWH\u2019s message. With words \u2018Do not fear\u2019 Gabriel comforts Mary, as he comforted Zechariah, and then explains that her honored status (1:28) is due to her finding \u2018favor with God\u2019 (\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7, 1:30). Since Gabriel does not say how Mary has found favor, it is possible that she is simply the recipient of the favor YHWH chose to show her, despite her apparent lack of distinction. Gabriel continues by explaining that YHWH is with Mary so that she may conceive and give birth to a son, whom she should name Jesus, i.e., \u2018YHWH saves\u2019. Jesus\u2019 name, just like John\u2019s, has significance for YHWH\u2019s characterization because in giving Jesus his name, YHWH identifies himself as Savior; yet, as in John\u2019s case, it is not self-explanatory and requires readers to attend to the cotext in determining its meaning.
\nFurthermore, Gabriel announces: (1) Jesus \u2018will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High\u2019; (2) \u2018the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David; and, therefore, (3) Jesus will reign over the house of Jacob forever and his kingdom will have no end\u2019 (1:32\u201333). This reference to David\u2019s household brings to the forefront what YHWH has done for David and what YHWH has promised him (2 Sam. 7:1\u201329). That is, YHWH took David from sheep stables, made him a ruler over his people Israel, destroyed all of David\u2019s enemies, and made him famous as compared to great people of the earth (2 Sam. 7:8\u20139). Moreover, YHWH promised that after David died, he would raise David a descendent after him, who would build a house to YHWH\u2019s name, who would become YHWH\u2019s son, whose kingdom YHWH would prepare (7:12b), whose throne YHWH would restore forever (7:13), and from whom YHWH would not withdraw his mercy (\u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2) even after YHWH disciplined him for his unrighteousness (7:14\u201315).
\nBecause this covenant with David is an eternal covenant (2 Sam. 7:16), it is given without conditions, although it mentions discipline for unrighteous living. Consequently, it is as binding in the present as it was in the past despite the elapse of time and the fact that David\u2019s descendants lost the throne when taken into Babylonian exile. That is why this eternal covenant has been referenced and reinterpreted throughout the OT and the Second Temple Jewish literature. Furthermore, in exilic and postexilic literature, it has acquired new elements, beginning to connect the former hope for the coming of the Davidic king and restoration of the Davidic dynasty with a new hope for the coming of the ideal eschatological messianic king. Consequently, the covenantal promises that used to be connected with the Davidic dynasty as a whole and expressed in the lives of David\u2019s descendants\u2014i.e., Solomon (1 Kgs 6:2\u201323), Hezekiah (Isa. 9; 11), and Zerubbabel (Zech. 4:9)\u2014are now connected with a single eschatological figure from the Davidic line who would become the recipient of this eternal promise of YHWH.
\nTherefore, in promising Mary a son who will be a Davidide, i.e., an ideal Davidic King, with an eternal rule, YHWH demonstrates his faithfulness to his eternal covenant with David and his ability to carry out the obligations prescribed to him by this covenant. Moreover, since there is no mention of a human need, whether personal or communal, to which YHWH has to respond, as in the case of Zechariah, readers can deduce that the reason for YHWH\u2019s sending of Gabriel to the apparently unremarkable virgin legally connected to David\u2019s household is rooted in YHWH\u2019s covenantal promises to David rather than in human merit.<\/p>\n
3. Mary\u2019s objection and Gabriel\u2019s response. Like Zechariah, Mary raises an objection to Gabriel\u2019s promise, to which Gabriel responds by giving her a sign, i.e., Mary\u2019s relative Elizabeth, who was known to be barren, has conceived. This sign points to YHWH\u2019s unlimited power to do what is considered impossible\u2014not only does he promise the impossible, but he is faithful and powerful to accomplish the impossible. Consequently, if he can promise a barren old woman a son and then enable her to conceive (1:36), he can promise a young unremarkable virgin a unique Davidide because none of his promises are without power (1:37; cf. 18:27). As a response, Mary places her trust in YHWH\u2019s message and humbly submits under his authority as YHWH\u2019s servant (\u1f21 \u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03b7 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, 1:38), embracing her honored role in YHWH\u2019s plan. By placing herself under YHWH\u2019s authority, she places herself under his protection and care and redefines her identity in relation to YHWH rather than her betrothed, despite the cultural expectations that required women to define themselves in relation to a man.<\/p>\n
c. At Zechariah\u2019s House<\/p>\n
1. Mary\u2019s exemplary embrace of YHWH\u2019s message. As soon as Gabriel leaves Mary, she rises, goes with haste into the Judean highlands, enters Zechariah\u2019s home, and greets Elizabeth. Her actions are described abruptly, creating a sense of impatience. She is eager to embrace YHWH\u2019s message and the sign of her newly acquired identity defined by her role in YHWH\u2019s plan. Unlike Zechariah\u2019s sign, which did not require him to act yet enabled him to obey YHWH in accordance with YHWH\u2019s promise after John\u2019s birth, Mary\u2019s sign required her to leave her father\u2019s household and to move across the country in order to receive confirmation of what she has accepted by faith. This characterizes Mary not only as a hearer of YHWH\u2019s word but also a doer and establishes her as a model to imitate by all who claim their membership in YHWH\u2019s household (8:21; 11:28; Acts 1:14).<\/p>\n
2. Elizabeth\u2019s Spirit-filled speech. When Elizabeth hears Mary\u2019s greeting, the baby moves joyfully in her womb and she is filled with the Holy Spirit (1:41; cf. 1:15) and begins to prophesy, calling Mary blessed (\u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7) and happy (\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1) for believing that what has been spoken to her by the Lord will be fulfilled (1:42, 45; cf. 1:38a). Although Luke presents Elizabeth as the recipient of the filling, readers can deduce that YHWH is actively involved in the process since he enables her to prophesy by means of the Holy Spirit concerning matters unknown to Elizabeth prior to the filling (1:42\u201345).
\nIn the OT, YHWH possesses and dispenses all the blessings. He blesses his creation, the first human, the patriarchs, and others who prove to be righteous. Even in cases where a human blesses another individual or a group, the blessing does not come from that human but from YHWH and by YHWH\u2019s commission. So, humans bless only by invoking YHWH\u2019s blessing (e.g., Gen. 26:3, 24; 39:21; Deut. 2:7; Jer. 17:7). Therefore, just as in the OT, where YHWH\u2019s presence and blessing go together, in Luke\u2019s narrative YHWH\u2019s presence with Mary (1:28) goes together with his blessing of Mary through Elizabeth, whom he enables to recognize Mary\u2019s exalted status. Consequently, the blessing of Mary takes place because YHWH inspires Elizabeth, rather than because Mary insists on being blessed. In fact, Luke is careful to tell his readers that Mary continues to lead a humble lifestyle as prescribed by her social status, evident in her greeting Elizabeth first. Thus, in the worldview where YHWH is the only dispenser of blessings, Elizabeth\u2019s inspired acknowledgement of Mary\u2019s blessed status implies that YHWH is the one who has blessed Mary and continues to bless her as he gives knowledge through his Spirit of her honored status before YHWH despite her lowliness within society (1:48\u201349; cf. 1:77\u201379).
\nAs a response to Elizabeth\u2019s prophetic blessing, Mary bursts into a song of praise, which resembles biblical declarative psalms of praise in its form and provides an expanded characterization of YHWH\u2019s identity. Mary, the favored one of YHWH, magnifies and rejoices in YHWH (\u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 and \u1f20\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, 1:46, 47), demonstrating that she, indeed, is YHWH\u2019s obedient servant, who gladly derives her identity from her relationship with YHWH (1:38, 48) and who, therefore, is able to provide a reliable perspective on YHWH\u2019s divine identity in her song, the Magnificat.<\/p>\n
3. Magnificat. Mary\u2019s song can be divided into two parts: words of praise (1:46b\u201347) and reasons for praise (1:48\u201354a), with the latter rooted in YHWH\u2019s gracious acts on behalf of his servants Mary (1:48\u201350) and Israel (1:51\u201355). The function of this song is not merely to recount the event of Mary\u2019s singing, but rather to ensure that Lukan readers properly understand the meaning of the events that took place thus far and to prepare them for what to expect as the narrative unfolds. This is evident by the fact that the Magnificat brings together themes that have been emphasized already in the story of Zechariah and Elizabeth and that will become vital to Luke\u2019s narrative as a whole.
\nAn examination of the Magnificat reveals that what YHWH has done for Mary parallels what he has done for Israel. That is, YHWH has looked with favor on the lowliness of his servant Mary (1:48), for which she properly recognizes him as her God and Savior (\u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03af \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, 1:47), and he has helped his servant Israel in remembrance of his mercy by lifting up the lowly, filling the hungry with good things, scattering the arrogant, bringing down the powerful, and sending the rich away empty (1:51\u201354). YHWH, the Mighty (\u1f41 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, 1:49) and Holy One (\u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, 1:49b), has done these gracious acts by his own power (1:51a; cf. Acts 13:17), testifying to the superiority of his power (cf. 1:37). Consequently, in the Magnificat, both Mary and Israel are characterized as YHWH\u2019s servants (1:48, 54), recipients of YHWH\u2019s mercy (1:50, 55), and witnesses of his strength (1:49, 51). This shows, as in the story of Zechariah and Elizabeth, that Mary\u2019s identity is strongly rooted in the life of her kin and that she cannot acknowledge YHWH\u2019s favor to her without recognizing this behavior of YHWH as a consistent trait of YHWH\u2019s divine identity revealed in his relationship with Israel and rooted in his promise to Abraham and his descendants, rather than in anything Mary or Israel did (1:54b\u201355; cf. 1:72\u201373).
\nThus far in the narrative, Luke\u2019s readers have encountered only characters who submit to YHWH\u2019s authority, i.e., Zechariah, Elizabeth, and Mary, and to whom YHWH has shown favor by lifting them up and out of disgrace or lowliness (1:25, 48\u201349), so it is natural to hear that YHWH\u2019s mercy and deliverance are for those who fear him from generation to generation (1:50, 52b, 53a). Here, however, others are brought to the readers\u2019 attention (cf. also 1:16). They are the arrogant, the powerful, and the rich, i.e., the ones who attempt to take life into their own hands and to define their identity apart from YHWH. They, thus, choose to undermine YHWH\u2019s position of authority and present themselves as rivals to YHWH despite YHWH\u2019s superior power and ability to scatter the arrogant in the thoughts of their hearts (1:51b), bring down the powerful from their thrones (1:52a), and send the rich away empty (1:53b).
\nThis development does not automatically undermine YHWH\u2019s characterization as a gracious and merciful God. In fact, it emphasizes his gracious character since YHWH\u2019s judgment is brought about as a side-effect of his salvific acts on behalf of the lowly and disgraced oppressed by the arrogant, the powerful, and the rich (cf. Exod. 6:6; Deut. 4:43; Isa. 2:11\u201322; Sir. 10:14; Acts 13:17). Moreover, since YHWH\u2019s acts of mercy are rooted in his promises to Abraham and his descendants rather than in human merit, even the arrogant, the powerful, and the rich are not outside of YHWH\u2019s grace, demonstrated by YHWH\u2019s thoughtful planning in bringing Israel back to himself (1:16). This leaves room for YHWH\u2019s mercy to work great things (1:49) in the lives of all Abraham\u2019s descendants, including even those who do not yet recognize him for who he is.
\nThus, Luke presents YHWH as the figure of ultimate power and authority, i.e., the Mighty One, the Holy One, the Savior, and the Lord, who displays unprecedented mercy as he freely offers his generous gifts to all descendants of Abraham, both pious and impious. Luke roots YHWH\u2019s generosity in his covenantal promises to Israel\u2019s ancestors and, accordingly, emphasizes YHWH\u2019s role as Israel\u2019s King\/Father\/Paterfamilias, who controls wealth and goods within the household and who has authority to give them freely to all its members.<\/p>\n
d. In Bethlehem<\/p>\n
1. Birth of Jesus. After Mary returns to her own house (1:56), Luke moves his focus from Mary to recount John\u2019s birth and then back to Mary to narrate Jesus\u2019 birth. He explains that Mary and Joseph go to Bethlehem, the city of his ancestor David, to be registered (2:3\u20134) as a response to Caesar Augustus\u2019 decree that mandated registration of all people within his Empire, i.e., his household (2:1). When their journey begins, Mary is pregnant, but is not yet Joseph\u2019s wife (2:5), just as Gabriel has promised (1:31, 34\u201335). While they are in Bethlehem, she gives birth to her promised son, wraps him in swaddling clothes, and places him in a manger because there is no place for them in the guestroom (2:7). Thus, Luke\u2019s account of Jesus\u2019 birth confirms Gabriel\u2019s statement that YHWH\u2019s word, i.e., promise, would not be void of power (1:37) and provides further evidence that YHWH is faithful to his promises even if they do not appear realistic. It also brings to the readers\u2019 attention the existence of YHWH\u2019s rival, Caesar Augustus, born Gaius Octavius. Unlike King Herod, who seems to play no part in Luke\u2019s story, Octavius claims Israel as part of his household and issues decrees that he expects Israel to obey. Furthermore, it indicates that Mary, to whom YHWH has shown favor and who claimed to be YHWH\u2019s servant, continues to live as a person of low status despite her high status before YHWH, prophetically recognized by Elizabeth. Thus, she has to obey Augustus\u2019s decree together with Joseph and give up the guestroom for those of Joseph\u2019s family more honorable than she is. Nevertheless, Luke does not allow his readers to despair. First, he denies Octavius\u2019s claim to divine authority when he avoids using the Greek title \u03a3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 in place of the transliterated \u0391\u1f54\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. Second, despite the fact that Octavius is acting in opposition to YHWH when he requires a registration of YHWH\u2019s people, he becomes unknowingly an agent of YHWH\u2019s salvific plan, guaranteeing that Mary\u2019s child, a promised Davidide (Lk. 1:32\u201333, 35, 69), is born in Bethlehem as prophesied (Mic. 5:2). Third, because Octavius\u2019 power is undermined by YHWH\u2019s use of Octavius\u2019 decree for furthering his salvific plan, Mary and Joseph in their obedience to Octavius\u2019 decree, in fact, show their obedience to YHWH. Finally, Luke abruptly moves from the account of Jesus\u2019 birth to the coming of an angel of the Lord to the shepherds to provide YHWH\u2019s perspective on what is taking place.<\/p>\n
2. Appearance of YHWH\u2019s angel to the shepherds. The encounter of YHWH\u2019s angel with the shepherds follows closely the encounters with Zechariah and Mary, yet with minor differences: (1) the shepherds see the angel and are terrified (2:9); (2) they are comforted with the familiar phrase \u2018Do not fear\u2019 (2:10); (3) they are given a reason for this visit, that is, the birth of their Savior and Christ Lord in David\u2019s city (2:10\u201311); (4) they are not given a chance to object; but (5) they are given a sign, i.e., a child wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger (2:12); (6) unlike Zechariah and Mary, they witness a great multitude of the heavenly host praising YHWH: \u2018Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace among people whom he favors\u2019 (2:13\u201314); (7) like Mary, they go with haste to Bethlehem to embrace YHWH\u2019s sign (2:15\u201319; cf. 1:39); and (8) they return home, glorifying and praising God for what they have heard and seen since everything happened as they were told (2:20; cf. 1:46\u201355, 67\u201379).
\nThis encounter continues to recount themes introduced in the two previous angelic encounters; yet these themes are further developed. First, the glory of the Lord, which was associated with YHWH\u2019s sanctuary, shone around the shepherds (2:9) during their night watch in the fields (2:8), challenging assumptions of what should be expected in human-divine encounters, redefining YHWH\u2019s concern with purity, and recalling YHWH\u2019s light-giving presence with Israel during their exodus from Egypt. This shining of YHWH\u2019s glory recalls Zechariah\u2019s prophetic words (1:78\u201379) since YHWH\u2019s glory breaks upon the shepherds as light, while they sit in the dark of the night, giving them knowledge of YHWH\u2019s salvation and directing their feet to Bethlehem in order to confirm their favored status before YHWH. Second, despite the fact that the place and participants of the divine-human encounters change\u2014from the restricted setting of the Lord\u2019s sanctuary and the old righteous priest, to the private setting and the young unremarkable virgin, to the public setting of the field and the group of unremarkable shepherds\u2014YHWH\u2019s favor and salvation are communicated to all without concern for the purity\/holiness of the place or religious righteousness of the participants, demonstrating that YHWH\u2019s good news of great joy is, indeed, for all people as long as they embrace it (2:10; cf. 2:29\u201332). Third, since YHWH\u2019s Savior, Messiah, and Lord is already born, the shepherds are not required to believe in something that will take place in the future, as Zechariah and Mary were; yet, they still need to accept this birth as YHWH\u2019s good news for them in order to assume their new identity rooted in YHWH\u2019s favor. Fourth, the angel is joined by a multitude of the heavenly host who respond to the angel\u2019s message immediately by praising and glorifying God, while Mary, Zechariah, and the shepherds join the angelic praise after they see YHWH\u2019s sign and are enabled by that sign to accept YHWH\u2019s message. Fifth, the heavenly host sings glory to God in the highest (\u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03c8\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7, 2:14), designating that as his dwelling place, as opposed to the earth, the dwelling place of those whom YHWH favors (2:14) or heaven, the dwelling place of the heavenly host (2:15). This description articulates a hierarchy that places the heavenly host and humans in direct dependence on YHWH, who alone occupies the highest heaven.
\nLuke in this pericope further undermines the power of the emperor and his empire when he connects the titles \u2018Savior\u2019 and \u2018Lord\u2019 with YHWH\u2019s Davidide and \u2018good news\u2019 and \u2018peace\u2019 with YHWH\u2019s salvific actions on behalf of those he favors (cf. 1:19; Isa. 40:9; 52:7) rather than with the emperor and his actions. Despite this, Luke does not merely adopt the imperial model to speak of YHWH\u2019s Davidide or YHWH\u2019s household. Accordingly, he allows Mary to be YHWH\u2019s favored one who is nevertheless excluded from the guestroom; Mary\u2019s son to be YHWH\u2019s Davidide, Savior, and Christ Lord who is nevertheless placed in a manger (2:7, 12); and the shepherds to be honored above the rulers as they receive YHWH\u2019s good news yet holding an occupation that is characterized as low status. In light of this, YHWH\u2019s sign to the shepherds can be just as magnificent as the signs given to Zechariah and Mary, for if YHWH\u2019s promised king is brought into the world as a lowly peasant by an unremarkable mother, surely the shepherds can claim him as their Savior and as a sign of their favored status before YHWH. Consequently, this sign, like the signs to Zechariah and Mary, enables the shepherds to claim YHWH as their God\/Father, joyfully accept his salvation as his gracious gift for them despite their low status among people, and join Zechariah (1:68\u201379), Mary (1:46\u201355), and the multitude of the heavenly host (2:13\u201314) in praising YHWH (2:20), demonstrating that they are not only hearers but also doers of YHWH\u2019s word (cf. Lk. 8:11\u201315, 21).<\/p>\n
e. Overview<\/p>\n
As Luke tells of YHWH\u2019s relationship with Mary and the shepherds through the account of Jesus\u2019 annunciation and birth, he continues to present YHWH as a gracious and merciful God who occupies the highest hierarchical position in the universe and, therefore, has authority over the heavenly host and humans, control of all the wealth and goods, and unlimited power to ensure that everything happens in accordance with his plan. Moreover, his gracious actions are not based on human need or merit; rather, they are rooted in his relationship to Israel as Paterfamilias, established by means of his covenant with Israel\u2019s ancestors starting with Abraham. However, in this account, Luke distinguishes YHWH\u2019s power and authority from human analogs when he shows that YHWH, the Mighty One, is predominantly concerned with the lowly and shows them favor by liberating them, while powerful humans despise and oppress them. Furthermore, since YHWH\u2019s salvific acts on behalf of the lowly bring about judgment on those who oppress them, YHWH\u2019s power is presented as superior to that of powerful humans. This is evidenced in the way that Luke presents Octavius, the most powerful figure in the human world, whose household was the vast Roman Empire and who claimed to be the world benefactor due to his generous benefactions, since he presents Octavius as an unconscious agent of YHWH\u2019s salvific plan, speaks of YHWH\u2019s lowly Davidide as the true Savior and Lord as opposed to Octavius, and proclaims YHWH\u2019s good news to the lowly shepherds, judging them rather than Octavius as worthy of this proclamation.
\nAs Luke\u2019s narrative unfolds, Luke continues to present YHWH\u2019s power and authority as separate from and superior to those of human leaders, both Gentile and Jewish, and, therefore, to Satan, who stands behind all human power (Lk. 4:5\u20137; 16:8; Acts 26:18; cf. Lk. 20:25). This is because, despite opposition, YHWH continues to implement his salvific plan while using his opponents as unconscious tools (Acts 2:23\u201324).
\nFurthermore, Luke emphasizes a discrepancy between human perception of reality influenced by Satan and YHWH\u2019s perception when he identifies Mary and the shepherds as people of high standing before YHWH, yet having low status among people. Luke, thus, questions socially accepted definitions of power, authority, status, wisdom, purity, and righteousness when he presents YHWH as showing favor and granting high status to unexpected people in unexpected places at unexpected times. He also emphasizes that only YHWH can enable one to have a correct perception of reality when he shows that Elizabeth recognizes Mary\u2019s exalted status through the Holy Spirit and the shepherds recognize YHWH\u2019s Davidide in a son of a lowly peasant girl through what they have learned from the angel; yet Joseph\u2019s Bethlehem family is not enlightened by YHWH and, therefore, treats Mary as a lowly peasant girl whose place is among animals. Thus, Luke does not speak of YHWH\u2019s reversal of social order in favor of the lowly as reserved for the end times (cf. Acts 2:25\u201335); however, he does reserve a correct perception of what is happening to those who receive a special revelation from YHWH. As Luke\u2019s narrative unfolds, Luke continues to show that YHWH\u2019s ways cannot be fully explained by human societal norms; to become the greatest in YHWH\u2019s household, for example, one must become a servant (Lk. 22:26). Moreover, he continues to emphasize that YHWH shows favor to the most unexpected people, revealing to them his plan and enabling them to play a role in his salvific plan (Lk. 6:20\u201326; 13:12\u201314; 16:19\u201331; 19:1\u201310; Acts 4:13\u201322; 9:1\u201316); yet he hides his plan from the arrogant who claim authority, power, and wisdom apart from YHWH\u2019s authorization or enlightenment and who will be judged as fools when their appropriate position before YHWH is revealed (Lk. 10:21; 12:21; 13:11).
\nTherefore, in this account, Luke shows that YHWH alone has authority to determine social order in relation to himself and define concepts of power, authority, majesty, holiness, purity, and righteousness. Consequently, he is able to show favor without concern for people\u2019s gender, age, purity, righteousness, or location. As those who receive YHWH\u2019s favor respond with faith by actively embracing their new identity, rejoicing in YHWH\u2019s salvific acts, and joining the heavenly host in praising him, they demonstrate their obedience to YHWH and confirm YHWH as a true judge of character. Moreover, Luke emphasizes that YHWH\u2019s mercy toward those who fear him is displayed as an act of liberation from the arrogant, the powerful, and the rich, who use their positions of power to oppress the God-fearers and who receive judgment as the outcome of YHWH\u2019s merciful liberating acts, creating a separation between people based on their standing before YHWH (Lk. 2:34\u201335; Acts 1:25). However, since YHWH\u2019s acts of mercy are not based on human merit but firmly rooted in YHWH\u2019s covenantal promises and initiated by YHWH alone, Luke anticipates that the arrogant, the powerful, and the rich might become recipients of YHWH\u2019s mercy if they turn to him; recognize him as a merciful God, Lord, and Savior; and embrace his salvation brought about in unexpected ways as they hear the good news of YHWH\u2019s mercy and forgiveness.<\/p>\n
IV. Acts 14:8\u201318: YHWH\u2019s Claim on the Gentiles<\/p>\n
Having analyzed how Luke characterizes YHWH for the Jewish audience in the center and on the outskirts of the land of the Jews, we now turn to Acts 14:8\u201318, which contains what is for the Lukan narrative the first proclamation concerning YHWH to the Gentile population on Gentile soil, in order to provide a balanced understanding of YHWH\u2019s divine identity in Luke-Acts.<\/p>\n
a. Introduction of Barnabas and Paul<\/p>\n
By the time we encounter Paul and Barnabas in 14:8\u201318 they are not new characters; therefore, we must rely on this pericope\u2019s cotext in order to determine the reliability of their words and actions. We learn from the beginning of ch. 14 that Paul and Barnabas went to Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and to the surrounding country, because they had to flee Iconium, where both Gentiles and Jews were plotting to stone them (14:1\u20137) due to their success in turning many Jews and Gentiles to faith through the proclamation of YHWH\u2019s gracious word, confirmed to be true by their ability to perform signs and wonders (cf. 2:22, 43). We also learn that they left Lystra, where the events of our pericope take place, for Derbe following Paul\u2019s stoning by Gentile inhabitants of Lystra and Jews from Antioch and Iconium. What they do in those cities is briefly summarized as preaching the good news (14:7, 21). From the preceding narrative, we find that Paul, called Saul, opposed YHWH and his plan (cf. 2:23) and was instrumental in stoning Stephen (7:57; 8:1), a man full of faith and Holy Spirit (6:5). However, he subsequently (1) embraced YHWH\u2019s purpose (9:1\u201318); (2) received support and encouragement (9:27; 11:25\u201326) from Barnabas, a man, like Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit and faith, able to perceive YHWH\u2019s grace at work (4:36\u201337; 11:22\u201324); and (3) joined Barnabas in teaching new believers in Antioch.
\nWhile in Antioch, Barnabas and Saul are commissioned by the church during a worship setting, at YHWH\u2019s request through his Holy Spirit, to do the work YHWH had called them to do (13:2\u20133). So they leave Antioch and travel through Gentile lands and, empowered by the Holy Spirit (13:9), perform signs and wonders like Jesus (2:22) and his followers before them (14:3; cf. 13:9\u201312; 15:12) and proclaim YHWH\u2019s word to both Jews (13:5, 14, 26) and Gentiles (13:7, 16, 26). Despite opposition (13:6\u201312, 42\u201352; cf. 14:22), which comes from both Jews and Gentiles (13:50; 14:2), they successfully complete their mission (14:26; cf. 13:1\u20133), return to Antioch (14:22\u201323), and share what YHWH has done through their words and deeds and how he has opened a door of faith to the Gentiles (14:27; cf. Lk. 2:10, 31\u201332). Thus, in being obedient to YHWH and undertaking the work to which YHWH had called them, they become messengers of YHWH\u2019s good news of YHWH\u2019s salvation to all people, as first announced in the birth narrative (Lk. 2:10, 31\u201332), like YHWH\u2019s angel (Lk. 1:19; 2:10), Jesus (8:1), and the church\u2019s witnesses before them (Acts 8:4, 25). This brief summary displays both Barnabas and Paul as reliable sources for YHWH\u2019s characterization since they are (1) called, authorized, and empowered by YHWH for work that YHWH prepared for them; (2) dedicated to YHWH and his salvific plan confirmed by the signs and wonders they perform and by their perseverance despite suffering; and (3) used by YHWH as successful instruments in preaching his good news, despite opposition, and enlarging the church, which is now identified with the restored Israel.<\/p>\n
b. Paul Heals a Crippled Gentile<\/p>\n
Acts 14:8\u201318, which focuses on Paul and Barnabas\u2019s preaching of the good news in Lystra, begins with a striking description of a crippled Gentile man. This man is characterized as one \u2018without power\u2019 (\u1f00\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) in his feet from his mother\u2019s womb (\u1f10\u03ba \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, 14:8). This characterization both contrasts this man with John the Baptist who, unlike this man, was filled with YHWH\u2019s power (\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c8\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, Lk. 1:35) from his mother\u2019s womb (\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03ba \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, 1:15) and whose ministry was characterized by the spirit and power of Elijah (\u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f28\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, 1:17); and associates him with the lowly people in Mary\u2019s Magnificat, who are without power yet are exalted by YHWH (\u1f55\u03c8\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2, 1:52), unlike the powerful who are brought down by YHWH from their positions of power (\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, 1:52). It also provides readers with information about the severity and duration of his suffering, implying that his condition was beyond human help, as in the case of Zechariah and Elizabeth (1:7). Finally, this man is portrayed as the one who, after having heard Paul proclaim the good news, had faith to be saved (\u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, Acts 14:9). However, he is a Gentile rather than a Jew. Therefore, anticipation is kindled to see how YHWH will act in regard to this man. Will YHWH extend his grace and favor to all Gentiles by saving this man, who, unlike Cornelius (10:1\u20132), is not a God-fearer and, unlike Paul\u2019s Gentile audience in 13:15\u201349, is not associated with any synagogue?
\nReaders do not have long to wait for the answer, for Luke immediately provides an account of healing, which echoes the healing of a Jewish man lame from birth (3:2) accomplished by Peter at the temple gate soon after Pentecost; this further confirms the reliability of Paul and Barnabas as YHWH\u2019s servants. As Beverly Gaventa notes, in the two healing accounts both Peter and Paul look intently at the men in need of healing (3:4; 14:9), who leap in demonstration of the effectiveness of the healing accomplished through Peter and Paul (3:8; 14:10). Moreover, in both accounts the healing is connected with faith (3:16; 14:9) and is followed by response from local religious authorities (4:1\u20134; 14:13) although their responses differ. Because of these similarities, readers are led to believe that YHWH treats not only Jews but also Gentiles without partiality.
\nBecause readers might hear echoes of the Magnificat in this healing account, given that the Gentile man is characterized by both powerlessness and faith (14:8\u20139), they are encouraged to continue to define salvation among the Gentiles as it was defined in the Magnificat, i.e., the lifting of the powerless who submit under YHWH\u2019s authority as God-fearers. Thus, through this healing, Luke characterizes YHWH as a gracious God not only of the Jews but also of the Gentiles and further clarifies YHWH\u2019s plan to offer salvation to all people, both Jews and Gentiles, already announced in the birth narrative (Lk. 2:10, 31\u201332).<\/p>\n
c. Barnabas and Paul Proclaim YHWH as the One, Living God<\/p>\n
This healing miracle is understood as a sign of the extraordinary; yet, it is not self-explanatory. As a result of this incident, the inhabitants of Lystra misunderstand the nature of the divine power manifested through Paul and Barnabas and thus equate them with Zeus and Hermes, gods of the Greek pantheon whom they worshipped. They call them \u2018gods in human form\u2019 (\u03bf\u1f31 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, 14:11) and, under the leadership of the priest of Zeus, attempt to offer them sacrifices, showing themselves as deeply religious people (14:13). Their eagerness to honor Barnabas and Paul through worship and sacrifice makes sense in light of their religious worldview, influenced by Homer and others who spoke of gods appearing in human form as strangers from afar, speaking with a loud voice (\u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u1fc3 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1fc7; cf. 14:10), looking intently (\u1f00\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2; cf. 14:9), and having the ability to heal (cf. 14:10\u201311). However, when Paul and Barnabas realize that the people attributed to them divine status and thus were prepared to offer them the welcome suitable for gods, they tear their clothes, rush to the crowd, and protest against this madness, \u2018People, what are you doing? We are humans just like you (\u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9). We proclaim the good news to you that you may turn from these worthless things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them\u2019 (14:15). This protest echoes Peter\u2019s response (\u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03b9, 10:26) yet stands in sharp contrast to Herod\u2019s failure to stop the people of Tyre and Sidon from hailing him as a god, which was immediately followed by his miserable death (12:22\u201323). Consequently, in light of its cotext, this protest draws clear boundaries between YHWH, who alone deserves human worship and recognition as God, and humans, whose acceptance of worship as gods by other humans is offensive and punishable by death, and, thus, emphasizes the uniqueness of YHWH\u2019s divine identity.
\nThis immense misunderstanding of the nature of the divine power operating through Paul and Barnabas and their refusal of worship serves as grounds for Paul\u2019s proclamation of the God who offered healing through him and of the good news (cf. 14:7). In this proclamation, Paul contrasts YHWH and the \u2018worthless things\u2019 that the Lystrans worship as gods (14:15). He characterizes YHWH as the \u2018living God\u2019 who (1) created the heaven and the earth (cf. Exod. 20:11; Ps. 146:6; Isa. 37:16; Jer. 10:11; Acts 4:24; 17:24\u201325); (2) continuously gave generous gifts of rain and harvests, food and happiness to the Lystrans, regardless of their merit before him, their ignorance, and their failure to recognize him for who he is; and thus (3) demonstrated himself as Father not only of the universe but of the Lystrans in particular (14:15b\u201317; cf. 17:28). Accordingly, he claims that YHWH, the one, living God, alone provides for people as Father and has the power to heal because he alone occupies the highest position in the universe as the Lord of heaven and earth (cf. Lk. 10:21). Paul also emphasizes that in the past, YHWH the Creator, i.e., Paterfamilias of all the created world, allowed people to do what they wanted (14:16), even if that involved worshiping worthless things, implying that now that the people have learned that YHWH rather than Zeus is the true Father and Benefactor of humanity they can no longer justify their pointless idol worship but should turn to the one living God (\u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03b6\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1), YHWH, and worship him alone (14:15).
\nIn their protest speech, Paul and Barnabas do not simply refuse worship, preventing people from sacrificing to them; rather, they undermine the worldview that allows people to call worthless things \u2018gods\u2019 and worship anything or anybody but YHWH. From their point of view, which represents YHWH\u2019s point of view, the Lystrans\u2019 willingness to worship anyone but YHWH is blasphemous even though it was allowed in the past. That is why they call the Gentiles to turn to YHWH, the living God (14:15; cf. 15:19\u201320), who alone has authority over the created world as its Creator and who alone deserves their worship. As they speak of YHWH, Creator of the world, they declare YHWH\u2019s authority over the Gentiles, just as John the Baptist declared YHWH\u2019s authority over the Jews when he called them to turn to the Lord their God (Lk. 1:16; 3:3\u20139), demonstrating that YHWH\u2019s authority extends over his entire creation and his salvation is for all people who recognize and submit under his authority, both Jews and Gentiles.<\/p>\n
d. Overview<\/p>\n
In Acts 14:8\u201318, Luke continues to emphasize the traits of YHWH\u2019s divine identity that he highlighted in Luke 1\u20132, i.e., YHWH\u2019s position at the top of the hierarchical order, his generous giving without regard for human merit, his favor for the powerless who eagerly submit to his authority, and his powerful guidance and enabling of God-fearers by means of the Holy Spirit to further his salvific plan for all people despite opposition from both Jews and Gentiles. In this account, Luke demonstrates that YHWH\u2019s salvation is indeed for all people (Lk. 2:10, 31\u201332; 3:6; Acts 2:21) and is not limited to the Jews. Although YHWH is not bound to the Gentiles by his special covenants as he is to the Jews (with the possible exception of the covenant he made with Abraham, the father of many nations), he is still bound to the Gentiles as their Creator, Father, and Benefactor and as such offers them his generous care and salvation, and the opportunity to be in a right relationship with him. Thus, in his narrative Luke explicitly presents YHWH as Creator, whose power and authority are not limited by the land of the Jews but extend to the land of the Gentiles, far removed from his temple (7:49\u201350; 17:24; cf. Isa. 66:1\u20132). By doing this, he shows how YHWH works in unexpected ways not only among the Jews in the land of the Jews but also among all people of all lands, even among those who misunderstand him, as did the Lystrans (14:11; cf. 14:22), or oppose his plan, as did Paul (8:1; cf. 26:16\u201318) and those Jews and Gentiles who now oppose God\u2019s working through Paul and Barnabas (14:2, 19); and he firmly identifies the Gentiles as people who belong to YHWH (13:48; 15:14, 16\u201318; cf. Amos 9:11\u201312) as they repent, accept YHWH\u2019s word with joy, receive YHWH\u2019s gift of the Holy Spirit, and are incorporated into the restored people of Israel (10:45; 11:1, 18; 13:48; 14:27; 19:6; 26:20).
\nAgainst the background of Greco-Roman paganism, Luke echoes the OT by claiming that YHWH alone can appropriately be called God and worshiped and by presenting idol worship as foolishness, blasphemy, and an outcome of people\u2019s disobedience to YHWH (cf. 7:40\u201343). His presentation of YHWH as the only living God in 14:8\u201318 is consistent with his presentation of YHWH throughout his narrative\u2014although he allows his unreliable pagan characters to call other beings \u2018gods\u2019 (7:40; 12:22; 19:26, 27, 37; 28:6), he never does it himself nor does he allow his reliable characters to do so. Moreover, Luke shows that Herod is punished by death when, instead of giving YHWH glory, he accepts the pagan crowd\u2019s hailing of him as \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 after his public speech and contrasts Herod\u2019s response with that of YHWH\u2019s messengers, who prevent people from attributing to them honor due to YHWH alone (10:26) and from worshiping them in place of YHWH (14:15, 18; cf. 28:6). Finally, throughout his narrative, Luke demands that YHWH alone should be loved, honored, obeyed, and worshiped as God (Lk. 4:1\u201313; 10:27; 20:25; Acts 5:29; 22:3) and demonstrates that his reliable characters direct their praise and glory to YHWH alone (Lk. 2:28, 38; 5:25\u201326; 7:16; 17:15, 18; 18:43; 19:37\u201338; 24:53; Acts 3:9\u201310; 4:21). Luke does not present the Lystrans as having perfect conditions for faith; rather, he is careful to correct Gentile misconception and to show that despite different pagan practices carried out by people, YHWH is the only one who can be properly called God and who must alone be worshiped and honored as the Gentiles come to repentance and are enlightened by the good news. Thus, according to Luke, ignorance can no longer be claimed as an excuse for blasphemy (14:15\u201317; 17:22\u201331; cf. 15:3; 26:20).<\/p>\n
V. Summary<\/p>\n
In this chapter, we have focused on selected material pertinent to YHWH\u2019s characterization in Luke 1\u20132 and Acts 14 as representative of YHWH\u2019s characterization in Luke-Acts. We have observed that although Luke utilized direct definition in his characterization of YHWH, he predominantly relied on indirect presentation, placing significant emphasis on YHWH\u2019s actions and words in defining consistent traits of YHWH\u2019s divine identity and providing meaning for the titles predicated of YHWH. We have also observed that Luke is not interested in presenting metaphysical considerations when constructing YHWH\u2019s divine identity; rather, he speaks of YHWH relationally, in light of his hierarchical position within the universe and in contrast with others who claim the same position; and functionally, with regard to how he carries out responsibilities prescribed to him by his position within his created world and his covenant with Israel.
\nWe concluded that Luke presents YHWH as a gracious God who continuously shows mercy and offers generous gifts to all without regard to human standing or merit\u2014to the Jews in light of his covenantal promises to their ancestors and to the Gentiles in light of his position as their Creator and, therefore, Father, Lord, and Benefactor. Luke also presents YHWH as a Mighty Savior who (1) favors and liberates the lowly, redefining social order and concepts of power, status, purity, and righteousness in relation to himself; (2) renders judgment on the arrogant, powerful, rich, and wise as he liberates the lowly from their oppression; (3) enables through his Holy Spirit and the proclamation of his good news the most unexpected people to play a role in furthering his salvific plan; and (4) carries out his plan despite opposition from Satan evidenced by resistance from both Jews and Gentiles. Finally, Luke presents YHWH as the only living God and Creator, who alone deserves human worship and who must be praised and honored as such in light of his unique position and function both in heaven and on earth; and in doing this, he condemns worship of anyone but YHWH as blasphemy and foolishness.<\/p>\n
Chapter 5<\/p>\n
JESUS\u2019 DIVINE IDENTITY IN LUKE-ACTS<\/p>\n
I. Introduction<\/p>\n
While the question of the Lukan Jesus\u2019 humanity is taken for granted, the question of his divinity has yet to be resolved. We have already established (1) how we will read the Lukan narrative and construct characters of YHWH and Jesus; (2) how we will use the concept of divine identity; and (3) how Luke presented YHWH by means of his narrative. We observed that in his characterization of YHWH Luke does not predicate the title \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 exclusively of YHWH, nor does he present metaphysical considerations of YHWH\u2019s nature. Rather, he relies on both indirect presentation and direct definition in YHWH\u2019s characterization and speaks of YHWH relationally and functionally.
\nFrom the perspective of the issues that help to frame this study, we should note that, since Luke was not interested in metaphysical considerations when speaking of YHWH, it would seem strange that he would speak of Jesus in such terms. Moreover, since any title, even the title \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, predicated of YHWH can be predicated of other beings, one cannot argue for or against Jesus\u2019 divinity based on titles alone, but must consider how those titles are clarified through indirect presentation. Finally, since in Luke\u2019s narrative world there is no place for other gods but YHWH alone, one can speak of Jesus\u2019 divine identity within Luke-Acts only if one can show that Luke binds Jesus\u2019 identity to YHWH\u2019s. Accordingly, we expect that Luke\u2019s characterization of Jesus as God of Israel will be rooted in how he presents Jesus\u2019 identity, defined both relationally and functionally, by means of both direct and indirect means of characterization.
\nAs we begin our study, we face the same difficulty we faced with the study of YHWH\u2019s characterization in the previous chapter, namely, a detailed presentation of all the aspects of Jesus\u2019 characterization in Luke-Acts would take us beyond the scope of this study. Therefore, we will use three chapters, i.e., Luke 1\u20132 and Acts 2, as a lens through which we can present our findings on Jesus\u2019 characterization, just as we used Luke 1\u20132 and Acts 14 as a lens for the presentation of our findings of YHWH\u2019s characterization. We selected these particular chapters because (1) Luke-Acts as a narrative is meant to be read from left to right and, therefore, Luke\u2019s readers are expected to know how Luke introduces Jesus in Luke 1\u20132 in order to understand properly what he says concerning him in the remainder of his narrative; (2) titles predicated of Jesus in Luke 1\u20132 are permeated with significance by means of their immediate cotext, appropriate intertexts, and their broader cotext within Luke-Acts, yet they also serve as labels for what Jesus says and does throughout Luke\u2019s narrative, enabling the interpretation of Jesus\u2019 indirect characterization; and (3) Acts 2 presents an account of how Jesus is characterized after his death, resurrection, and ascension, which both complements his characterization in the Gospel and sets the tone for how Jesus is characterized in the remainder of Acts.
\nIn our study, we will analyze pericopes that provide information concerning Jesus regardless of whether they state this explicitly. We will observe how Jesus is characterized both directly and indirectly and explore how that characterization is permeated with meaning based on its immediate and broader cotext and appropriate intertexts. As we present our findings, we will focus on how Luke binds Jesus\u2019 identity to the divine identity of YHWH. Having outlined our plan of action, we now turn to the study of Jesus\u2019 characterization in (1) Lk. 1:32\u201333, 35; (2) Lk. 1:43; (3) Lk. 1:69, 71, 78\u201379; 2:11, 30\u201332, 34\u201335; and (4) Acts 2:1\u20134, 14\u201341.<\/p>\n
II. Luke 1:32\u201333, 35: Jesus\u2019 Superior Position Is Rooted in his Father\u2019s Identity<\/p>\n
Luke does not start his narrative with an account of the annunciation or birth of Jesus, but with the presentation of YHWH\u2019s relationship with his chosen people Israel, represented by Zechariah and Elizabeth (1:5\u201325), implying that what comes prior to Jesus\u2019 introduction serves as the proper cotext for understanding Jesus\u2019 story. It is only after Luke embeds Jesus\u2019 story within an account of YHWH\u2019s mercy and salvation promised to Israel\u2019s ancestors and YHWH\u2019s supreme authority and power as heavenly Lord God of Israel, creating anticipation for YHWH\u2019s coming salvation and restoration of his people Israel, that Luke is ready to introduce his readers to Jesus. In what follows, we will demonstrate that as Luke introduces Jesus against the background of YHWH\u2019s position and function in Israel, he encourages his readers to root Jesus\u2019 identity in the identity of YHWH and to understand Jesus\u2019 relationship to YHWH as a relationship that supersedes any other relationship in Jesus\u2019 life. Therefore, he introduces Jesus as the one who shares YHWH\u2019s divine identity from the beginning of his narrative.<\/p>\n
a. Unique Son of God<\/p>\n
We first hear about Jesus when YHWH sends Gabriel to Mary to announce Jesus\u2019 conception and birth (1:26\u201338). As Luke develops Jesus\u2019 characterization in the course of Gabriel\u2019s dialog with Mary, his readers learn that Jesus will be an ideal Davidic King (i.e., Davidide) whose coming was anticipated by the Scriptures. However, they also learn that his unique identity cannot be fully explained through his relationship to David because, unlike Davidic descendants who were to become adopted sons of YHWH at their inauguration, Jesus will be YHWH\u2019s Son from the moment of his unique conception by YHWH\u2019s Spirit. Therefore, he will derive his identity primarily from his unique relationship to YHWH as Son.
\nWhen Gabriel appears to Mary, he promises concerning Jesus: \u2018He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High (\u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c8\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5). The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David and he will reign over Jacob\u2019s descendants forever and there will be no end to his kingdom\u2019 (1:32\u201333). Based on this promise and on Mary\u2019s betrothal to Joseph, descendant of King David (1:27), one is led to perceive Jesus as the long-awaited Davidide in accordance with the covenantal promise given by YHWH to David that emphasized the eternal nature of the rule of David\u2019s descendant and anticipated his becoming YHWH\u2019s son (2 Sam. 7:12\u201316; cf. Pss. 89:3\u20134, 29; 132:12; Isa. 9:7; Sir. 47:11). This promise was generally applied to the kings of Davidic descent, who were praised (e.g., 1 Kgs 3:3; 2 Kgs 18:3; 22:2) or judged (e.g., 2 Kgs 14:3; 16:2) based on how they resembled the image of the idealized King David. Therefore, King David becomes not only the ancestor of all legitimate kings of Judah but also the role model from whom the kings of Judah were expected to derive their identity. Even after the line of the Davidic kings was broken as a result of the Babylonian exile and the promise could no longer be applied to the Davidic dynasty as a whole, YHWH\u2019s covenantal promise to David continued to play an important part in postexilic communities as they developed expectations for the coming of the ideal eschatological figure from the Davidic line. What the Davidide was expected to accomplish varied depending on who engaged in the interpretation of the covenantal promise and when. However, his role was not limited to that of a political leader. Consequently, one cannot assume that Luke is interested in presenting David\u2019s descendant Jesus merely as king, since later in his narrative Luke highlights that David not only was a righteous king who served YHWH\u2019s purpose (Acts 13:22, 36), but also had religious authority (Lk. 6:3), wrote psalms (20:42), and was a prophet (Acts 1:16; 2:25, 30; 4:25). Thus, Luke presents Jesus as a descendant of King David with a legitimate claim to David\u2019s throne and authority over Jacob\u2019s household, who can potentially be like David not only as a righteous king who serves YHWH\u2019s purpose but also a religious authority and prophet.
\nHowever, to understand Jesus\u2019 conception and life only in light of YHWH\u2019s covenantal promise to David is not enough for Luke, which is why he allows Mary to raise a question that enables him to reinterpret YHWH\u2019s promise to David in a new light by means of his reliable character Gabriel. That is, when Mary asks how what was promised to her might happen, emphasizing her status as a virgin (Lk. 1:34), Gabriel explains that fulfillment of the promise does not involve any man because YHWH will father Jesus as his Son on his initiative and through his Spirit (1:35). Until this answer is given, readers could have anticipated that Jesus\u2019 conception, like John\u2019s conception (1:23\u201324), would take place naturally, i.e., Mary would soon be married to Joseph from David\u2019s household and together they would conceive a child who would become a Davidide and a son of God in accordance with YHWH\u2019s promises. However, since Mary\u2019s question emphasizes her virginity, mentioned earlier as her defining characteristic (1:27), and since Gabriel explains Jesus\u2019 divine sonship as a result of YHWH\u2019s initiative and enablement through his Spirit rather than as an adoption at his inauguration as king of the Jews, Luke leaves no room for human initiative or action in Jesus\u2019 conception. Consequently, to understand Jesus\u2019 conception in natural terms or his divine sonship as derivative of his status as a Davidide is inappropriate.
\nBy means of Gabriel\u2019s answer, Luke not only denies the possibility of Jesus becoming a son of God through adoption against the expectations outlined in the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 7:14a), but also discourages his readers from understanding Jesus\u2019 divine sonship against pagan myths of divine conception. This is because neither the verb \u2018to come over\u2019 (\u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9) nor \u2018to overshadow\u2019 (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9), attributed to the activity of YHWH\u2019s Spirit, have sexual connotations (1:35). In fact, Luke uses \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 when speaking of the Holy Spirit\u2019s coming over Jesus\u2019 disciples and enabling them to become his witnesses (Acts 1:8) and \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9 when speaking of the cloud, denoting YHWH\u2019s presence, overshadowing Jesus\u2019 three disciples (Lk. 9:34). Consequently, Luke speaks of Jesus\u2019 conception as resulting from the initiative and activity of YHWH\u2019s enabling and protecting Spirit and discourages his readers from perceiving YHWH as a male counterpart in Jesus\u2019 conception. Although Luke offers little detail concerning how Jesus\u2019 conception takes place, he provides enough detail to establish that Jesus is YHWH\u2019s unique Son, whose conception cannot be explained fully in light of Jewish or Gentile expectations available in the first-century Greco-Roman world; this is because it is rooted exclusively in YHWH\u2019s initiative and non-sexual activity of the Holy Spirit, allowing no involvement of any man.
\nConsequently, unlike John (1:23\u201324), Jesus will not be fathered by a man. Rather, he will be conceived and born as the Son of YHWH, Israel\u2019s Lord, God, Paterfamilias, and King. That is why he will be called holy, the Son of God, from his conception, unlike David\u2019s descendants who were adopted by YHWH as sons at their inauguration. This unusual definition of divine sonship anticipates how the promise concerning Jesus\u2019 assumption of the throne of his ancestor David (1:32\u201333) will play out in Luke\u2019s narrative.<\/p>\n
b. Supposed Son of Joseph<\/p>\n
As Luke\u2019s narrative unfolds, Luke\u2019s readers find that Mary indeed conceived. They learn this from an inspired and therefore reliable character Elizabeth (1:42) and from Luke himself, when he tells that Joseph goes to Bethlehem together with his betrothed Mary who is pregnant (2:4\u20135). Luke is careful to point out that although Mary is pregnant she is not yet Joseph\u2019s wife, just as he is careful not to place Mary in the proximity of any man from the time of the annunciation to the time Elizabeth recognizes her pregnancy (1:39\u201340). This allows him to confirm that, in accordance with Gabriel\u2019s announcement (1:35), Joseph did not father Mary\u2019s child and that Mary\u2019s pregnancy is a result of YHWH\u2019s enabling and protecting presence. However, Luke is also careful to indicate that Joseph is willing to register with Mary despite her pregnancy and, therefore, to legally accept Mary and her son into his household, indirectly characterizing Joseph as Jesus\u2019 father. Luke also shows that Joseph is present with Mary as a father figure at Jesus\u2019 birth (2:16), circumcision, naming, presentation at the temple, offering of sacrifices on Jesus\u2019 behalf (2:21\u201324, 39), and beyond (2:41\u201343). Furthermore, Luke directly refers to Joseph as Jesus\u2019 parent (2:21, 27, 41, 43, 48) and father (2:33), establishes Jesus\u2019 Davidic descent through Joseph (3:23), and allows Mary to refer to Joseph as Jesus\u2019 father (2:48b). Luke thus suggests that Jesus was adopted through Joseph into the Davidic line, making it possible for Jesus to be the legitimate Davidide and to carry out the functions prescribed to him by this position in accordance with Gabriel\u2019s announcement (1:32\u201333). Luke\u2019s explanation of how Jesus was conceived by YHWH and adopted into the Davidic line through Joseph echoes YHWH\u2019s covenantal promise to David yet turns it on its head, making Jesus\u2019 divine sonship a primary characteristic of his identity and his adoption into David\u2019s lineage and becoming the Messiah a consequence of his exalted royal position rooted in the identity of his Father YHWH, Israel\u2019s God and King.
\nRegardless of the fact that Luke presents Joseph as Jesus\u2019 adoptive father, he recounts Jesus\u2019 conception, birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension without giving Joseph a single word to say or an important role to play. In fact, Joseph\u2019s role in Jesus\u2019 life is minimal and overshadowed by that of Mary. That is, Joseph is introduced through Mary as her betrothed (1:27); yet he is absent when Mary receives YHWH\u2019s message, conceives by the Holy Spirit (1:28\u201338), travels to see Elizabeth (1:39\u201340), magnifies the Lord for her favored status, and returns home (1:46\u201356). He reappears to take Mary to Bethlehem, the city of his ancestor David, where she gives birth to her firstborn (2:4\u20137). He is present with Mary and the infant Jesus when the shepherds come (2:16) and he is part of the \u2018all\u2019 who are amazed at the words spoken by the shepherds; yet it is Mary who treasures their words and ponders the message of the shepherds (2:19). Joseph is also present with Mary at Jesus\u2019 circumcision, naming, and presentation at the temple and, together with Mary, is amazed at what Simeon says about Jesus. However, after having blessed both Joseph and Mary, Simeon turns and speaks directly to Mary, the mother of Jesus (2:34), and excludes Joseph from his prophetic speech. Furthermore, both parents are mentioned as traveling to Jerusalem yearly for the Passover feast (2:41), both are unaware of Jesus\u2019 disappearance (2:43), both return to Jerusalem, and both are astounded when they find Jesus among teachers at the temple; yet Mary is the one who questions Jesus concerning his behavior (2:48). The answer that Jesus gives confuses both parents, but only Mary is said to treasure all this in her heart (2:51). Finally, after Jesus takes an active role in defining his life in accordance with YHWH\u2019s purpose (\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03af \u03bc\u03b5, 2:49), returning to Nazareth, and being obedient to both Joseph and Mary, Joseph completely disappears from Luke\u2019s narrative although Mary continues to play a prominent role. That is, she is a model disciple who both hears and does God\u2019s word (8:21; 11:27\u201328; cf. 1:36\u201340, 45) and is counted among those who first receive the gift of the Spirit at the Pentecost (Acts 2:14).
\nIn addition, Luke introduces material that disassociates Jesus from Joseph and discourages his readers from identifying Joseph as a person from whom Jesus derives his identity. First, although Luke allows Joseph together with Mary to name Jesus on the eighth day after his birth, establishing Joseph as Jesus\u2019 father since it was a father\u2019s responsibility to name his children, he undermines Joseph\u2019s fatherly role when he says that the name given to Jesus was the name given to him by YHWH prior to his conception (2:21; cf. 1:31). Therefore, YHWH\u2019s role in Jesus\u2019 naming supersedes that of Joseph. Second, Luke says that teachers at the temple are amazed at the twelve-year-old Jesus\u2019 understanding and questions (\u1f10\u03be\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf, 2:47), as are his parents (\u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, 2:48). Since fathers were their sons\u2019 teachers, Joseph\u2019s amazement indicates that he was not Jesus\u2019 teacher. Furthermore, since no other teacher is mentioned who could have instructed Jesus in Joseph\u2019s place and since YHWH is mentioned previously as Jesus\u2019 Father (1:32, 35), readers are encouraged to assume that YHWH, rather than Joseph, is the one who instructs Jesus in the matters of his Law. Therefore, YHWH\u2019s role in Jesus\u2019 instruction supersedes that of Joseph. Third, although Luke establishes Jesus\u2019 genealogy through Joseph, he says that Jesus was a son of Joseph, as was supposed by people (\u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf, 3:23), implying that Luke does not want his readers to understand Jesus merely as Joseph\u2019s son and Davidide. Since a son was an extension of his father, whose goal was to share his father\u2019s identity fully in order to qualify for his father\u2019s position as a household\u2019s paterfamilias, to identify Jesus as Joseph\u2019s son is to bind his identity to that of Joseph and to limit his function to Joseph\u2019s household. Even to identify Jesus as David\u2019s descendant is to limit his function to David\u2019s household, i.e., his kingdom. However, by characterizing Jesus as YHWH\u2019s Son (1:35) and by attempting to distance Jesus from Joseph, Luke defines Jesus\u2019 identity in relation to YHWH. Therefore, he claims for Jesus the superior position of his Father YHWH, the Lord of heaven and earth, and extends the sphere of his responsibilities to YHWH\u2019s household, which includes not only earth with both Jews and Gentiles but also heaven.<\/p>\n
c. Overview<\/p>\n
As Luke\u2019s narrative unfolds, Luke continues to claim that Jesus\u2019 relationship to YHWH supersedes his relationship with David\u2019s descendant Joseph and is therefore foundational for how one should understand Jesus\u2019 identity. He never allows Jesus to identify Joseph, or David, as his father. In fact, when he allows Jesus to speak for the first time, Jesus, located at the temple, YHWH\u2019s house and symbol of his authority, among teachers of YHWH\u2019s Law, calls YHWH \u2018my Father\u2019 and claims to align his purpose with that of YHWH (\u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03af \u03bc\u03b5, 2:49). One could argue that what Jesus says does not have to imply his unique sonship since YHWH is directly (Lk. 6:36; 11:2, 13; 12:30, 32) and indirectly (Lk. 6:35; 11:3\u20134; 12:28; Acts 14:15\u201317) characterized as the Father of all people, both Jews and Gentiles, and since in the OT, YHWH could be referred to as \u2018my Father\u2019 by the Messiah (e.g., Ps. 89:26 [88:27, LXX]). However, in Luke-Acts only Jesus addresses YHWH as \u2018my Father\u2019, claiming to have a unique relationship that is not extended to others (e.g., Lk. 10:22; 22:29; 24:49); only Jesus is recognized as \u2018my Son\u2019 by YHWH himself (\u1f41 \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, 3:22; 9:35); and only Jesus is tested by Satan with the assumption that Jesus is YHWH\u2019s Son (4:2\u201313; cf. 4:41; 8:28). Furthermore, Jesus questions people\u2019s assumption that the Messiah is David\u2019s son, suggesting that if David calls him \u2018Lord\u2019 in Ps. 110:1, he cannot be merely David\u2019s son (20:41\u201344). In doing so, he echoes what Luke has made known to his readers earlier in the narrative, namely, that YHWH\u2019s promise to David is understood properly only when David\u2019s descendant, the Messiah, is understood as YHWH\u2019s unique Son (1:32\u201335; cf. 4:41; 22:67\u201370). Consequently, the father from whom Jesus fully derives his identity is YHWH.<\/p>\n
III. Luke 1:43: Jesus\u2019 Superior Position Recognized<\/p>\n
After Gabriel leaves Mary, we hear that Mary goes with haste to visit Elizabeth in order to embrace YHWH\u2019s sign given to her by Gabriel. The narrative moves abruptly and quickly from the account of Jesus\u2019 annunciation to that of Mary\u2019s interaction with Elizabeth. As Mary greets Elizabeth, John leaps in her womb and she, having been filled with the Holy Spirit, (1) pronounces a blessing on Mary and the fruit of her womb, (2) expresses her amazement at Mary\u2019s coming to her as she identifies Mary as the mother of her Lord (\u1f21 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, 1:43), and (3) calls Mary happy for believing in YHWH\u2019s promises (cf. 1:38). For the first time in Luke\u2019s narrative, readers hear that Mary is, indeed, with child just as she was promised by Gabriel. Moreover, they hear that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit Elizabeth recognizes the baby Jesus as her Lord, claiming for him the high status implied by the title \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2. We will demonstrate that by calling Jesus Lord Elizabeth not only recognizes Jesus\u2019 superiority but also bears witness to Jesus\u2019 unique relationship to YHWH, binding the identity of her Lord (Jesus) to the divine identity of her Lord YHWH.<\/p>\n
a. Elizabeth\u2019s Lord<\/p>\n
Within Luke-Acts, the title \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 does not have a univocal meaning and can be applied to figures of authority other than YHWH, both earthly and heavenly (e.g., Lk. 12:36, 37, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47; 13:8, 25; 14:21, 22, 23; 16:3, 5 [2\u00d7], 8, 13; 19:16, 18, 20, 25, 33; 20:13, 15; Acts 10:4; 16:16, 19, 30; 25:26). That is why readers can be certain that by calling Jesus \u2018my Lord\u2019, the elderly Jewish woman Elizabeth characterizes him as her superior, but they cannot determine if she characterizes him as her master, king, or God until they examine how this title is endowed with meaning in its immediate cotext. In his annunciation Jesus is characterized as the Davidide (Lk. 1:32\u201333), so it is possible that by calling Jesus \u2018my Lord\u2019 Elizabeth recognizes him as her legitimate king\/master. However, since Luke roots Jesus\u2019 claim to the Davidic throne in his relationship to YHWH as Son (1:35), it is impossible to speak of Jesus as Elizabeth\u2019s legitimate king without speaking of his being YHWH\u2019s Son and sharing YHWH\u2019s divine identity as Lord.
\nLuke provides his readers with further clues that encourage them to treat Jesus as Lord in light of his relationship to YHWH. First, at the beginning of his narrative Luke predicates the title \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 of YHWH alone (1:6, 9, 11, 15, 16, 17, 25, 28, 32, 38) and after he explicitly predicates it of Jesus (1:43), he predicates it of YHWH until YHWH\u2019s angel announces the birth of Jesus (1:45, 46, 58, 66, 68; 2:9), who is now characterized as \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 by \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 (2:9, 11). Then yet again, Luke predicates \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 of YHWH until the end of the birth narrative (2:15, 22, 23, 24, 26, 39). In doing so, he limits the use of the title within Luke 1\u20132 to YHWH and Jesus, binding the identities of the Lord YHWH and the Lord Jesus. Second, before Elizabeth provides this direct characterization of Jesus as Lord, she is allowed to speak only when she recognizes what the Lord YHWH has done for her after John\u2019s conception. Thus, the first time she speaks, she calls YHWH \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2; and the second time she speaks, she calls Jesus \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, which encourages Luke\u2019s readers to hear a connection between Lord YHWH and Lord Jesus. Third, when Elizabeth recognizes Jesus as \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, she implicitly claims to submit to his authority. Because Elizabeth\u2019s submission to Jesus\u2019 authority as \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 follows almost immediately after Mary declares her submission to YHWH\u2019s authority as \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 (1:38), and because Mary\u2019s submission to YHWH is alluded to in Elizabeth\u2019s inspired speech (1:45), Luke encourages his readers to hear echoes of Mary\u2019s submission to YHWH in Elizabeth\u2019s submission to Jesus and, therefore, to understand Jesus\u2019 authority as \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 in light of the authority of his Father YHWH. Fourth, since Elizabeth is characterized by Luke as a righteous woman whose identity is firmly rooted in the identity of her Lord YHWH, to hear that at her encounter with Jesus she is inspired to derive her identity from her Lord Jesus encourages one to see Lord YHWH and Lord Jesus as one and the same Lord. Because Elizabeth\u2019s recognition of Jesus as \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 is inspired by YHWH\u2019s Spirit, readers are encouraged to treat Elizabeth\u2019s recognition of the Lord Jesus and submission to his authority as an appropriate response of any Israelite who is righteous before YHWH. Having outlined how Luke binds the identity of Lord Jesus with the divine identity of Lord YHWH by means of Elizabeth\u2019s inspired speech, we turn our attention to the role John plays in identifying Jesus as Lord, since his role is emphasized through the double reference to his leaping inside Elizabeth\u2019s womb at Mary\u2019s greeting.<\/p>\n
b. John\u2019s Lord<\/p>\n
When Luke\u2019s readers hear of Elizabeth being filled with the Holy Spirit, they are reminded of Gabriel\u2019s declaration that John will be filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother\u2019s womb (1:15b) and will be the forerunner of the messianic age. That is, he will turn many Israelites to the Lord their God (\u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd), by going before him in the \u2018spirit and power of Elijah\u2019 and making ready a \u2018people prepared for the Lord\u2019 (\u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3, 1:16\u201317; cf. 1:76; 3:3\u20136). Although Luke does not explicitly state that John was filled with the Holy Spirit, he encourages his readers to interpret John\u2019s leaping at Mary\u2019s greeting as meaningful and inspired. First, the leaping is mentioned by both Luke (1:41) and Elizabeth (1:44). Second, it precedes Elizabeth\u2019s being filled with the Spirit and her prophetic speech. Third, Elizabeth interprets it as leaping in great joy (\u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9, 1:44) at the presence of Mary and her child, whose true identities would not be known unless revealed by YHWH through his Spirit (cf. 2:7). Readers may therefore conclude that John\u2019s leaping was connected to his being filled with the Spirit inside his mother\u2019s womb as announced through Gabriel (1:15) and should be interpreted as the beginning of his prophetic mission.
\nSince John was to be the forerunner of the messianic age, readers may assume that John\u2019s leaping would signify the beginning of the messianic age and identify Jesus as the Messiah. Moreover, since John was to go before the Lord, making people ready for the Lord\u2019s coming, readers may assume that John through his leaping joins his mother in recognizing Jesus as Lord before whom he will go. Therefore, John\u2019s leaping could be understood as John\u2019s recognition of Jesus as both Messiah and Lord. Finally, since Luke previously defined John\u2019s mission as going before the Lord God YHWH (1:16\u201317), and since he embedded Jesus\u2019 status as the Davidic Messiah in his status as YHWH\u2019s Son (1:35), when one allows John to recognize Jesus as Messiah and Lord through his leaping, one is able to interpret this recognition as a witness to Jesus\u2019 sharing YHWH\u2019s divine identity. Consequently, Luke binds the identities of Lord Jesus and Lord YHWH not only through Elizabeth\u2019s declaration but also through John\u2019s prophetic leaping inside his mother\u2019s womb at the encounter with Jesus inside Mary\u2019s womb.<\/p>\n
c. Overview<\/p>\n
Since this recognition of Jesus as Lord is inspired and comes from (1) a woman characterized repeatedly as righteous before YHWH and (2) an unborn child expected to be a great prophet of YHWH, it sets an expectation for how all righteous people who submit to YHWH\u2019s authority should recognize Jesus. In fact, Luke himself follows the example of Elizabeth and the unborn prophet John and speaks of Jesus as Lord throughout Luke-Acts (Lk. 7:13, 19; 10:1, 39, 41; 11:39; 12:42; 13:15; 17:5, 6; 18:6; 19:8; 22:61 [2\u00d7]; 24:3; Acts 4:33; 5:14; 8:16; 9:1, 5, 10, 11, 15, 27, 28, 42; 11:20, 21, 23, 24; 14:3; 18:8, 9, 25; 19:5, 10, 13, 17; 23:11; 28:31), identifying himself as a righteous person before YHWH. This may appear counterintuitive to Luke\u2019s readers because Jesus is a child of an unremarkable lowly girl. However, Jesus\u2019 lowly societal status should not hinder one from seeing him for who he is against the portrait of YHWH Luke has painted throughout his narrative. Not only does Luke show that YHWH favors lowly people and reverses the social structure, raising up the lowly and bringing down the arrogant, the powerful, and the rich, but also he defines power and authority in terms of servant leadership and encourages people in authority to willingly become servants (Lk. 22:25\u201327). Furthermore, since Luke discourages his readers from deriving Jesus\u2019 identity from anyone but YHWH, one should not limit Jesus\u2019 status to that of a lowly peasant like that of his mother or his adoptive father. Through the Holy Spirit, YHWH reveals to Elizabeth and John that Jesus is much more than what he appears to be. He is Elizabeth\u2019s Lord, John\u2019s Lord, and Lord of all the righteous because his identity is rooted in the divine identity of his Father YHWH, the God of Israel, the Lord of heaven and earth (\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1, \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2, Lk. 10:21; cf. Acts 17:24).<\/p>\n
IV. Luke 1:69, 71, 78\u201379; 2:11, 30\u201332, 34\u201335: Jesus\u2019 Responsibilities Defined<\/p>\n
In Chapter 3 we defined the concept of identity in terms of one\u2019s position as this is determined by one\u2019s relationships and ability to carry out the responsibilities and functions prescribed by that position. Thus far, we have focused on how Luke defines Jesus\u2019 position and argued that Luke claims for Jesus the superior position of YHWH, which he shares with YHWH as his unique Son. We have shown that Luke allows both Elizabeth and unborn child John under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to recognize Jesus\u2019 superior position. Now we need to show that (1) Luke assigns Jesus responsibilities and functions of YHWH in accordance with Jesus\u2019 superior position, which he shares with YHWH as Son; and (2) Luke indirectly characterizes Jesus as one God of Israel together with YHWH when he shows that Jesus is able to carry out YHWH\u2019s responsibilities and functions. We will, first, examine the remainder of the birth narrative, focusing on information pertinent to Jesus\u2019 characterization, in order to establish that Luke attributes to Jesus responsibilities and functions of YHWH himself. Then, we will summarize our findings and, drawing on Luke\u2019s entire narrative, show how Jesus is able to carry out those responsibilities and functions, confirming Luke\u2019s claims for his superior position and identity.<\/p>\n
a. Luke 1:69, 71: Horn of Salvation and Salvation from Enemies<\/p>\n
Luke in the Benedictus does not explicitly state that Zechariah speaks of Jesus, but readers can deduce that this song characterizes Jesus because of the language used in 1:69, 78\u201379. We will first examine 1:69, then turn to 1:78\u201379.
\nIn 1:69, Zechariah blesses YHWH for having \u2018raised a horn of salvation\u2019 (\u1f24\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2) in \u2018the house of David\u2019 (\u1f10\u03bd \u03bf\u1f34\u03ba\u1ff3 \u0394\u03b1\u03c5\u03af\u03b4). Since Luke previously has spoken only of Jesus as the Davidide (1:32\u201333), it is Jesus whom he characterizes as a \u2018horn of salvation\u2019. Later he expands this characterization and characterizes Jesus as \u2018salvation from our enemies\u2019 (\u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03be \u1f10\u03c7\u03b8\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, 1:71). This phrase characterizes Jesus because it appears in apposition to \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 and, with no main verb of its own, functions as a direct object of \u1f24\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u03bd (1:68). It is not surprising to hear Luke speak of YHWH raising a horn for David, i.e., a Davidide, to ensure salvation from enemies and fulfill the oath he swore to Abraham (1:69\u201374; cf. 2 Sam. 7:12\u201316; Ps. 132:17 [131:17, LXX]; Ezek. 29:21) since it is in accordance with Jewish expectations to anticipate YHWH\u2019s restoration of Israel from oppression by enemies through a Davidic Messiah. However, as readers examine Luke\u2019s text against its intertexts and cotext, they will notice that although Luke relies on Jewish expectations, his characterization of Jesus takes him outside of what was commonly expected, for he characterizes Jesus as more than a mere Davidide. That is, he roots Jesus\u2019 identity in the divine identity of YHWH and attributes to him responsibilities of YHWH himself.
\nIn the OT, a horn is a symbol of power and strength, and commonly refers to human power. It can be exalted by YHWH in the case of the righteous (1 Chron. 25:5; Pss. 89:17, 24 [88:18, 25 LXX]; 92:10 [91:11, LXX]; 112:9 [111:9, LXX]; 148:14; cf. Lam. 2:17), especially his anointed one (1 Sam. 2:10; Ps. 132:17 [131:17, LXX]; Sir. 47:11), in order to ensure salvation from enemies (1 Sam. 2:1; Ezek. 29:21; cf. Lk. 1:71). It also can be cut down\/not exalted by YHWH in the case of the wicked who try to raise their own horns (Ps. 75:4\u20135, 10 [74:5\u20136, 11, LXX]; Lam. 2:3). The expression \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, applied by Luke to Jesus, is used only twice (2 Sam. 22:3; Ps. 18:2 [17:3, LXX]) and exclusively as a reference to YHWH, where it is collocated with such titles as helper, protector, defender, and refuge. Consequently, when Luke characterizes Jesus as the \u2018horn of salvation\u2019 rather than as a horn, he predicates of Jesus what in the LXX was predicated exclusively of YHWH, claiming for Jesus YHWH\u2019s divine identity and YHWH\u2019s responsibilities as Savior.
\nThis claim is further developed when Luke characterizes Jesus as salvation from enemies. At first glance, readers may find it strange that Jesus is characterized as \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1, commonly translated as \u2018salvation\u2019. However, because this term can also be understood as \u2018a way or means of safety\u2019, it can function similarly to its cognates \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 and \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 in designating a person as a savior. In the LXX, both \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 (e.g., Exod. 15:2; Ps. 118:28 [117:28, LXX]; cf. Isa. 25:9; 63:8) and \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 (e.g., Deut. 32:15; 1 Sam. 10:19; Ps. 24:5 [23:5, LXX]; Isa. 17:10; 45:15, 21; Mic. 7:7; Hab. 3:18; Jdt. 9:11; Sir. 51:1; cf. 3 Macc. 6:29; 7:16; Ps. Sol. 17:3) are predicated of YHWH and on one occasion they occur together, both as predicates of YHWH (Isa. 12:2). Since in the Magnificat YHWH is directly identified by \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 (Lk. 1:47), in the Benedictus he is characterized as the one who visits and redeems his people (1:68), and throughout Luke-Acts he is presented as the one who saves (e.g., 1:25, 64, 77; Acts 7:9\u201345; 13:17\u201322), Luke encourages his readers through both these intertexts and the Lukan cotext to understand Jesus\u2019 characterization as the \u2018horn of salvation\u2019 and \u2018salvation from our enemies\u2019 in light of his relationship with YHWH. Accordingly, although in the frst-century Greco-Roman world, numerous individuals, including Roman emperors, could be characterized as saviors, Luke encourages his readers to understand Jesus as Savior in light of his superior position as YHWH\u2019s Son.<\/p>\n
b. Luke 1:78\u201379: Dawn from on High<\/p>\n
Having stated that Jesus the Savior was raised by YHWH in order to show mercy promised to Zechariah\u2019s ancestors, to remember YHWH\u2019s holy covenant with Abraham, and to allow people to worship in holiness and righteousness (1:72\u201375), Luke through Zechariah characterizes John as a \u2018prophet of the Most High\u2019 who will \u2018go before the Lord to prepare his way\u2019 (1:76). This reminds Luke\u2019s readers that because Luke predicated the title \u2018Lord\u2019 of both YHWH and Jesus and because Jesus\u2019 identity is rooted in the identity of YHWH, John\u2019s mission that earlier could be understood as going before Lord YHWH can now be understood also as going before Lord Jesus. After this short interruption that refers to John yet encourages Luke\u2019s readers to continue to bind Jesus\u2019 identity to YHWH\u2019s, Luke turns his attention back to Jesusjust as in 1:69, Luke does not directly state that 1:78\u201379 refers to Jesus. However, he provides clues indicating that these verses contain pertinent information for Jesus\u2019 characterization. In 1:78\u201379, Zechariah speaks of the \u2018dawn from on high\u2019 (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74 \u1f10\u03be \u1f55\u03c8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 who will visit him and the people of his generation in order to \u2018give light to those who sit in the darkness and in the shadow of death\u2019 and to guide their feet \u2018into the way of peace\u2019. In the LXX, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae used three times to translate Hebrew \u05e6\u05b6\u05de\u05b7\u05d7 (Jer. 23:5; Zech. 3:8; 6:12; cf. Isa. 4:2), which means \u2018branch\u2019 or \u2018sprout\u2019 and refers to an offspring of Davidic descent, i.e., a messianic figure (cf. Isa. 11:1, 10; Jer. 33:15). Therefore, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae can be understood as a messianic title and in Luke can be applicable only to Jesus (1:32\u201333). However, Luke\u2019s characterization of Jesus in 1:78\u201379 goes beyond Jesus\u2019 recognition as the Davidide because against its intertexts and cotext this text claims for Jesus both the status and responsibilities of YHWH himself.
\nAlthough in the LXX \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae may refer to a Davidic Messiah when it translates Hebrew \u05e6\u05b6\u05de\u05b7\u05d7 (Zech. 3:8; 6:12), it refers predominantly to the rising of the sun (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74 \u1f21\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5; e.g., Deut. 4:49; Josh. 13:5). Therefore, it can be translated \u2018east\u2019 with reference to the geographical location of the rising sun (e.g., Gen. 2:8; Deut. 3:17; Amos 8:12) or \u2018dawn\u2019 with reference to the time of the rising (e.g., Wis. 16:28; 2 Macc. 10:28). Moreover, its cognate \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9 may denote both the rise of the heavenly bodies, such as sun (e.g., Gen. 32:31 [32:32, LXX]), moon (Isa. 60:19), and stars (Job 3:9; Isa. 14:12), and the rise of a messiah (e.g., Num. 24:17; Jer. 23:5; 33:15; Ezek. 29:21). However, it can also be used in promises associated with YHWH\u2019s rising to bring judgment on evildoers and salvation to God-fearers. One can find a reference to the \u2018sun of righteousness\u2019 (\u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2) rising (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6) with healing in its wings on those who fear YHWH\u2019s name (Mal. 4:1\u20132 [3:19\u201320, LXX]). The people on whom this sun rises \u2018go out and leap like calves released from bonds\u2019 (Mal. 4:2 [3:20, LXX]), indicating that their oppression has been ended and that they may now rejoice in their freed state. This sun is not a regular sun that rises daily; it is the \u2018sun of righteousness\u2019 that brings healing and salvation at the coming of the day of the Lord (4:5 [3:22, LXX]). Its salvific function at the coming of the day of the Lord specifies \u2018the Lord\u2019 as YHWH. Furthermore, one can find the verb \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9 used to speak of the Lord\u2019s glory (\u1f21 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5) rising, which parallels the coming of the light (\u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2, Isa. 60:1). Since the Lord\u2019s glory also appears in parallel construction with the Lord YHWH who will shine over people gathered around his light (\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, Isa. 60:2), both the people of Israel and the nations (60:3\u201314), and since YHWH is directly called an everlasting light (\u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd) and Israel\u2019s glory (\u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1, 60:19\u201320), one can assume that it is YHWH who will rise and shine over people and through this rising and shining will lead them to know that he is the one who saves Israel (60:16). Accordingly, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9 may be used to denote the rising of both messiah and YHWH, and Luke may be relying on this ambiguity when he characterizes Jesus as \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae because it allows him to both identify Jesus as a Davidide and reinterpret this identification in light of Jesus\u2019 unique relationship to YHWH.
\nFirst, Zech. 6:12 identifies the Davidic Messiah as \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae and anticipates his rising from below (\u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6), which could refer to his rising from his ancestors. Moreover, Num. 24:17 refers to the Davidic Messiah as a star who will rise out of Jacob (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6 \u1f04\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03be \u0399\u03b1\u03ba\u03c9\u03b2). However, there are no references to the Davidic Messiah, whether identified as \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae or not, that anticipate his coming \u2018from on high\u2019 (\u1f10\u03be \u1f55\u03c8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2). In fact, in the LXX, \u1f55\u03c8\u03bf\u03c2 is understood as the place of YHWH\u2019s habitation, from which YHWH looks on his people with favor and delivers them (e.g., 2 Sam. 22:17; Ps. 18:16 [17:17, LXX]) rather than a place from which the Davidic messiah comes. This understanding of \u1f55\u03c8\u03bf\u03c2 is familiar to Luke for he speaks of YHWH\u2019s Spirit coming from heaven as \u2018the power from on high\u2019 (\u1f10\u03be \u1f55\u03c8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd, Lk. 24:49; cf. 3:21\u201322). By claiming that \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae comes from the unique place of YHWH\u2019s habitation, i.e., \u1f55\u03c8\u03bf\u03c2, Luke not only identifies Jesus as the Davidic messiah but also reinterprets this designation in light of Jesus\u2019 unique relationship to YHWH\u2014a relationship that was established through the Holy Spirit, i.e., the power from on high, who came down upon Mary (1:35; cf. Acts 1:8) and enabled her to conceive. Luke thus emphasizes that Jesus\u2019 identity should be derived from the divine identity of YHWH rather than from the identity of David\u2019s descendant Joseph.
\nSecond, even though it is not wrong to read 1:79 messianically since one can find references in the OT to the Davidic messiah as a light that shines on both Jews (Isa. 9:2 [9:1, LXX]) and Gentiles (42:6) who sit in the darkness, Luke discourages his readers from understanding Jesus as a mere Davidide. Not only does he attribute to Jesus the function of visitation (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03ad\u03c8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, Lk. 1:79; cf. 7:16; Acts 15:14), which earlier in the Benedictus he attributed to YHWH himself (Lk. 1:68) and which in the OT is attributed to YHWH alone (e.g., Gen. 21:1; Exod. 4:31; 1 Sam. 2:21; Lam. 4:22), but also he echoes in his description of Jesus\u2019 function OT passages that identify the one who brings light, peace, and, therefore, salvation with YHWH himself (Isa. 42:6\u20137; Ps. 107:10\u201314) or with one who is more than a mere Davidide (Isa. 9:6\u20137). Therefore, readers are encouraged to connect Jesus\u2019 function as rising light, i.e., dawn, that illuminates darkness and guides people out of oppression and into the way of peace with YHWH\u2019s function as Savior for those who fear him (cf. Isa. 60:1\u201320; Mal. 4:1\u20135). Thus, readers are encouraged to see Jesus as the Davidic Messiah whose identity is derived from the divine identity of YHWH himself and whose function as the dawn of the eschatological times goes beyond what was expected of a mere Davidide.<\/p>\n
c. Luke 2:11: Savior and Christ Lord<\/p>\n
After the Benedictus, we find an explicit reference to Jesus in the angel\u2019s announcement of Jesus\u2019 birth to the shepherds surrounded by YHWH\u2019s shining glory (\u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2, 2:9). The angel announces the good news (\u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, 2:10) of great joy for all people, identifying Jesus as Savior and Christ Lord (\u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f45\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2) born in David\u2019s city (\u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u0394\u03b1\u03c5\u03af\u03b4, 2:11). After the angel gives the shepherds a sign, he is joined by the heavenly host who praise God, saying, \u2018Glory to God in the highest (\u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03c8\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7, cf. 1:78) and on earth peace among people whom he favors\u2019 (2:14). This characterization brings together all of Luke\u2019s explicit references and allusions to Jesus thus far in the narrative. That is, Luke explicitly refers to Jesus by the titles \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1, already implicit in Jesus\u2019 characterization as the horn of salvation and salvation from enemies (1:69, 71, 78\u201379); \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, already assumed by Jesus\u2019 adopted status as the Davidide (1:32\u201333, 69, 78); and \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, implied by Jesus\u2019 status as YHWH\u2019s Son and predicated of Jesus by Elizabeth (1:35, 43). Moreover, Luke encourages his readers to hear new nuances in Jesus\u2019 characterization: (1) he calls the angelic proclamation \u2018good news\u2019 (2:10), setting the titles predicated of Jesus against the background of the imperial authority of Octavius; (2) he encourages an interpretation of the good news against the Isaianic message of the eschatological coming of YHWH as Savior, Lord, and King of Israel; and (3) he shows the connection between encountering and proclaiming Jesus as Savior and Christ Lord, on the one hand, and praising and glorifying YHWH, on the other. We will now explore these new nuances.
\nFirst, Luke begins his story of Jesus\u2019 birth by situating it historically in the days of Octavius (2:1\u20135), called by a double-title Caesar Augustus, implying his authority as lord over the Roman Empire and his claim to being a son of god during his lifetime. Because Octavius was praised for his establishment of a new order of peace and his beneficent acts on behalf of all people of the empire, which exceeded even the benefactions of the Olympian gods, he was hailed as lord and savior and his birthday marked the beginning of the \u2018good news\u2019 for all those who anticipated it. Having situated Jesus\u2019 birth against the background of Octavius\u2019s rule, Luke narrates Jesus\u2019 birth announcement to the shepherds, appropriating the language used of Octavius in the imperial propaganda only to demonstrate Jesus as superior to Octavius. Thus, Jesus\u2019 birth is proclaimed as the \u2018good news\u2019 not by mere humans, but by YHWH\u2019s angel, who is followed by the heavenly host praising and glorifying YHWH. Moreover, Jesus is proclaimed as Savior and Christ Lord whose legitimacy and authority are rooted in the divine identity of his Father YHWH, the Lord and God Savior (1:35, 46\u201347). Because of this, Jesus\u2019 unique double-title Christ Lord claims for Jesus the high status of Lord and Son of God, a status derivative of his relationship with YHWH, undermining both Octavius\u2019s double-title Caesar Augustus and the claims associated with that title. In doing this, Luke reminds his readers that Emperor Octavius\u2019s power has been shown to be flawed at the beginning of Jesus\u2019 birth story when he unknowingly functioned as an agent of YHWH\u2019s salvific plan and was instrumental in bringing Jesus\u2019 mother to the city of David to ensure Jesus\u2019 connection to the Davidic line.
\nSecond, when Luke proclaims the good news of Jesus\u2019 birth, he implicitly echoes the language of Isaiah, where the good news is specifically connected to the coming of YHWH as King and Savior in power to establish his reign characterized by salvation, peace, and justice (Isa. 40\u201366). This good news is connected with the phrases \u2018Here is your God\u2019 (\u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd, Isa. 40:9) and \u2018Your God reigns\u2019 (\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, 52:7), and is to be proclaimed to the poor as the \u2018favorable year of YHWH\u2019 and the \u2018day of recompense\u2019, with both positive and negative connotations. Moreover, it is to be proclaimed by the one who has YHWH\u2019s Spirit upon him, who is anointed for this task of proclamation (61:1\u20132), and who has a special relationship with YHWH, in which he rejoices (\u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03b8\u03c9, 61:10). What is more, he identifies himself as Lord YHWH (61:8), which may imply that he shares YHWH\u2019s divine identity or, at least, that he is authorized to speak for YHWH as a prophet and to act on YHWH\u2019s behalf in bringing peace.
\nIn Luke\u2019s birth announcement, the good news (2:10) is proclaimed to the poor (2:8\u201320); concerns the birth of Jesus, the Savior and Christ (i.e., the anointed one) Lord; and is correlated with the coming of peace on earth among those whom YHWH favors. Accordingly, Luke\u2019s readers are encouraged to draw connections between Jesus and the Isaianic anointed figure (Isa. 61:1\u20132; cf. 11:1\u20132; 42:1; 48:16). While some may be reluctant to see Jesus as the anointed one before his anointing with the Spirit at his baptism (Lk. 3:22) to inaugurate his ministry (4:14\u201315) or before his inauguration as king at his exaltation to YHWH\u2019s right hand and his reception of the Spirit (Acts 2:33\u201336), Luke does not restrict Jesus\u2019 status as an anointed one to those special occasions (against an adoptionist interpretation). First, because in his birth narrative Luke shows that Jesus is greater than John, he encourages his readers to anticipate that Jesus\u2019 life would be marked by the Spirit\u2019s presence in a greater way than John\u2019s, although John is uniquely filled with the Spirit while still in his mother\u2019s womb (Lk. 1:41, 44). Second, he indirectly shows that the Spirit is active in Jesus\u2019 life even prior to Jesus\u2019 baptism for he is aware of his unique sonship and is endowed with superior wisdom at the age of twelve (2:46\u201349; cf. 2:40, 52; Isa. 11:1\u20132). Therefore, he encourages his readers to see Jesus\u2019 life as endowed with the Spirit from the moment of his unique conception as the Son of God, which need not be at odds with Luke\u2019s later references to the Spirit coming upon Jesus at his baptism or to Jesus\u2019 receiving of the Spirit from his Father. Consequently, based on the cotext of Luke\u2019s story of Jesus\u2019 birth, one is led to conclude that Jesus is the anointed one from the moment of his conception and that the title Christ when applied to Jesus refers to Jesus\u2019 unique status as YHWH\u2019s Son and cannot simply be reduced to a designation of him as a messianic prophet or king. As Luke draws connections between Jesus and the Isaianic anointed figure, he reinterprets Isaiah\u2019s prophecies in a way that goes beyond expectations for the coming of a messianic king, a servant, or a prophet who speaks and acts on YHWH\u2019s behalf and who may share YHWH\u2019s identity, yet without going outside the limits of plausible interpretations (cf. Isa. 9:6\u20137; 61:8). That is, Luke indirectly presents Jesus as the Isaianic anointed one, whose coming should be understood as the eschatological coming of YHWH himself. That is why it is not surprising that at Jesus\u2019 birth Luke, by means of YHWH\u2019s angel, directly predicates of Jesus the titles Savior and Lord, previously predicated of YHWH himself (1:46\u201347).
\nFinally, Luke explicitly states that after YHWH\u2019s angel proclaims Jesus as Savior and Christ Lord and designates his birth as the good news, a multitude of the heavenly host suddenly appears with the angel and begins praising and glorifying God (2:13\u201314), implying that proper recognition of Jesus\u2019 identity leads to proper recognition of YHWH\u2019s divine identity. This angelic behavior is mirrored by the shepherds when they (1) go to Bethlehem to confirm what was revealed to them by the Lord (2:15); (2) find Mary, Joseph, and the child (2:16); (3) reveal what was made known to them concerning the child (2:17); (4) amaze all who hear them, causing Mary to treasure their words in her heart (2:18\u201319); and (5) return home, glorifying and praising God for all they have heard and seen (2:20). This behavior is not completely new because Mary bursts into the song of praise to YHWH as a result of Elizabeth\u2019s inspired recognition of Jesus as Lord (1:43, 46\u201347). However, at this point in his narrative, Luke makes this connection explicit, further binding Jesus\u2019 identity to the divine identity of YHWH.<\/p>\n
d. Luke 2:30\u201332: Lord\u2019s Christ, Salvation, and Light<\/p>\n
After Jesus\u2019 circumcision, naming, and dedication to the Lord, Luke provides further characterization of Jesus through his reliable character Simeon, who, like Zechariah, was a righteous and devout man. Luke identifies Simeon as the one who looked forward to Israel\u2019s consolation (2:25), bringing echoes of Isaianic prophecies into the background for his characterization of Jesus (Isa. 40:1; 49:13; 51:3, 12; 57:18; 66:13) and thus drawing connections between Jesus and Israel\u2019s restoration (cf. Lk. 2:38). Moreover, he identifies Simeon as a person whose life was characterized by the presence of the Holy Spirit resting on him (2:25). It had been revealed to him by the Spirit that \u2018he would not see death before he has seen the Lord\u2019s Christ\u2019 (\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, 2:26). So, when Mary, Joseph, and Jesus come to the temple to accomplish rituals in accordance with the Law, Simeon is led by the Spirit into the temple area where he encounters Jesus. After he takes Jesus into his arms, he begins to bless God, providing Luke\u2019s readers with yet another inspired characterization of Jesus, which attributes to him functions of YHWH himself in accordance with his identity that he shares with YHWH.
\nAs Simeon blesses God, Luke\u2019s readers learn that the reason for his blessing is connected to his encounter with Jesus, which he interprets as his immediate dismissal in peace from YHWH\u2019s service, just as YHWH has promised (2:29; cf. 2:26). This is evident from his calling YHWH \u2018Master\u2019 (\u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1), identifying himself as YHWH\u2019s servant (\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5, 2:29), and recognizing the time of dismissal as \u2018now\u2019 (\u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd, 2:29), namely, the moment his eyes see Jesus, whom he identifies as YHWH\u2019s salvation (\u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f40\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u03af \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5, 2:30; cf. 3:6). In light of 2:26, this dismissal can be equated with YHWH\u2019s permitting Simeon to die and implies that Jesus should be understood as the Lord\u2019s Christ.
\nLuke\u2019s readers may interpret this as a reference to Jesus\u2019 status as the Davidide. However, since Luke has taught them thus far that Jesus\u2019 status as the Davidide is derivative of his status as YHWH\u2019s unique Son, which denotes his sharing YHWH\u2019s divine identity as Savior and Lord, they can no longer understand Jesus as a mere Davidide. Consequently, Luke\u2019s readers are not disappointed when Simeon identifies Jesus as YHWH\u2019s \u2018salvation\u2019 (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5, 2:30), which YHWH has \u2018prepared in the presence of all people\u2019 (\u1f43 \u1f21\u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bb\u03b1\u1ff6\u03bd, 2:31) and \u2018light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory\u2019 of YHWH\u2019s people Israel (\u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03c5\u03c8\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03b8\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03bd \u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f38\u03c3\u03c1\u03b1\u03ae\u03bb, 2:32). Luke has already characterized Jesus as salvation, i.e., Savior, and connected his coming with light (1:69, 71, 78\u201379; 2:9\u201311); yet, here for the first time he directly identifies Jesus as \u2018light\u2019 and extends his influence over both Jews and Gentiles. This characterization echoes Isaiah where YHWH\u2019s salvation is meant for Israel\u2019s glory (46:13) and is identified as light, which will go out and which is correlated with the Gentiles trusting in YHWH (\u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03ac \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bb\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, 51:5; cf. 42:6\u20137; 60:1\u201320) and the people of Israel being comforted by YHWH (51:3; cf. 40:1). This identification of Jesus as salvation and light could be understood as another way of speaking of Jesus as the Davidide and Christ, who brings restoration to Israel and light to the Gentiles (42:6; 49:6), echoing his characterization in 1:78\u201379. However, within this cotext, one is discouraged from viewing Jesus in this way since Luke is careful to develop a portrait of Jesus that goes beyond what was expected of a Davidide and a Christ. Thus, Luke\u2019s model reader would interpret this identification of Jesus as salvation and light in connection with his relationship to YHWH, for YHWH is also characterized as salvation and light, whose coming ends Israel\u2019s days of mourning (Isa. 60:19\u201320) and glorifies Israel (45:25; 60:7, 9, 13, 19; cf. Ps. 62:7 [61:8, LXX]); and his authority also extends beyond the people of Israel and incorporates the Gentiles as well (60:3).
\nIn addition, because Simeon\u2019s release brings to an end his waiting for Israel\u2019s consolation, readers are encouraged to draw connections between the coming of Jesus and the coming of Israel\u2019s consolation (cf. 2:38). Luke has already identified Jesus as Christ and Savior at his birth (2:10\u201311) and has encouraged his readers to understand Jesus\u2019 coming as the eschatological coming of YHWH to bring peace and salvation. Now he further explores Isaianic images of YHWH\u2019s eschatological coming in the coming of Jesus when he connects Jesus\u2019 coming to the arrival of Israel\u2019s consolation and, thus, the inauguration of Israel\u2019s restoration, which in Isaiah is accomplished by YHWH. Accordingly, by stating that Jesus\u2019 coming has brought about Israel\u2019s consolation, Luke assures that his readers will continue to root Jesus\u2019 identity in the divine identity of YHWH, attributing to Jesus not only YHWH\u2019s superior position but also responsibilities and functions connected with that position.
\nIn this characterization of Jesus, readers may hear echoes of Jesus\u2019 previous characterizations (1:69, 71, 78\u201379; 2:9\u201311). They may also hear connections between Simeon blessing YHWH as he encountered Jesus and recognized him as Lord\u2019s Christ, salvation, and light and the responses of Mary, the angels, and the shepherds (1:47; 2:14, 20). Finally, they may hear connections between Jesus being characterized as light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory of Israel, i.e., a Savior to both Jews and Gentiles, and the angelic proclamation of Jesus as good news and great joy to all people (2:10). Consequently, as Luke echoes his previous accounts of Jesus\u2019 characterization in the characterization by Simeon, Luke emphasizes those aspects of Jesus\u2019 identity that bind his identity to the divine identity of YHWH.<\/p>\n
e. Luke 2:34\u201335: Cause of Falling and Rising and Sign That Will Be Opposed<\/p>\n
After Simeon concludes his blessing directed to YHWH, he blesses Jesus\u2019 parents, echoing Elizabeth in blessing Mary and Jesus. Then, he prophesies directly to Mary that Jesus \u2018is appointed for the falling and rising of many in Israel and to be a sign that will be opposed so that the inner thoughts of many may be revealed\u2019 and that a sword will pierce her own soul as well (2:34\u201335). The image this prophecy produces is that of division and judgment. First, it relies on the image of a sword (\u1fe5\u03bf\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03b1, 2:35), which is usually understood as an instrument of judgment and separation (e.g., Gen. 3:24; Num. 22:23). Second, it identifies Jesus as a sign that will be opposed (2:34; cf. Acts 13:45; 28:19, 22), which implies disagreement and the presence of, at least, two opposing sides. Third, it speaks of Jesus as the one responsible for the falling and rising of many in Israel (2:34), which refer to two actions contrary to each other and which might be understood as reference to division in light of the Magnificat\u2019s reference to YHWH\u2019s lifting up the lowly God-fearers and bringing down the powerful, the arrogant, and the rich. Accordingly, Simeon\u2019s prophecy identifies Jesus as a judge who will be instrumental in dividing people based on their inner thoughts in accordance with YHWH\u2019s plan. As the people of Israel encounter Jesus, they will be judged and divided in accordance with their responses to him.
\nReaders may wonder how this role of Jesus is compatible with his role in bringing Israel\u2019s consolation, ushering in salvation to all people, and being light to both Jews and Gentiles. To answer this, they will have to remember that the multitude of the heavenly host proclaimed peace only among those whom YHWH favors (2:14) and that YHWH favors those who fear him and submit to his authority (1:48\u201350). Furthermore, they will have to remember that (1) in the OT light can be used of both salvation and judgment; (2) in the OT it is YHWH who brings both salvation and sword (e.g., Isa. 66:16; Ezek. 6:3; 11:8\u20139; Zech. 13:7), which is why YHWH\u2019s visitation is differentiated between YHWH bringing salvation to the God-fearers and bringing judgment upon evildoers (e.g., Mal. 4:1\u20135 [3:19\u201322, LXX]); (3) in the OT YHWH is described as a stone that functions for some as a sanctuary and for others as a stumbling block that generates opposition (Isa. 8:14\u201315; cf. 28:16); and (4) in the Magnificat YHWH both raises the lowly and brings down the powerful based on their standing before him (Lk. 1:48\u201353; cf. Mic. 7:7\u20138). Thus, Luke does not contradict himself when he presents Jesus as both the eschatological Savior and Judge. Rather, in his presentation of Jesus as both Savior and Judge, Luke draws on YHWH\u2019s characterization in the OT and his previous characterization of YHWH in the Magnificat in order to equate Jesus\u2019 responsibilities with the eschatological responsibilities of YHWH himself. Since thus far Luke has presented Jesus as YHWH\u2019s Son who shares YHWH\u2019s identity, he guides his readers to expect that those who accept Jesus as YHWH\u2019s Son and Lord, as Elizabeth did, are people who fear YHWH and align themselves with YHWH\u2019s will, and those who deny Jesus\u2019 claim to YHWH\u2019s superior status are people who oppose YHWH and reject his will. This means that while Jesus is light and salvation to all, both Jews and Gentiles, only those who recognize his true identity will find peace and consolation, just as Simeon did (2:29). However, those who do not recognize Jesus\u2019 true identity will identify themselves as Jesus\u2019 enemies and, therefore, the enemies of YHWH and YHWH\u2019s people who in Luke\u2019s vision of salvation and restoration include both Jews and Gentiles (1:71, 74; 2:10, 31\u201332). Thus, by means of Simeon\u2019s characterization of Jesus, Luke continues to encourage his readers to view Jesus as more than a Davidide because he presents him as the one who shares YHWH\u2019s divine identity, including not only YHWH\u2019s superior position but also his responsibilities and functions.<\/p>\n
f. Overview<\/p>\n
As Luke\u2019s narrative unfolds, Luke continues to present Jesus as more than an ideal Davidide, binding his identity to the divine identity of YHWH and attributing to him YHWH\u2019s responsibilities and functions instead. Thus, when he indirectly identifies Jesus as Christ by means of his reliable character John, he attributes to him responsibilities and functions that go beyond those expected of a Davidic Messiah. Luke states that Jesus will baptize people with the Holy Spirit and fire and that he will accomplish eschatological judgment (3:15\u201317; cf. Isa. 4:4; 11:1\u20134). In addition, relying on agricultural imagery of the threshing flour when speaking of the eschatological judgment and separation of people into two groups of chaff and wheat (cf. Lk. 2:34\u201335), Luke identifies Jesus as the owner and Lord of the threshing floor and the barn, the final resting place of the wheat, i.e. the righteous (3:17), although later in his narrative he identifies YHWH as the Lord of the harvest (10:2). Therefore, when Luke indirectly identifies Jesus as Christ, he also characterizes him as Lord of YHWH\u2019s eschatological judgment (e.g., 12:49\u201359; Acts 17:31); in doing this, he redefines the OT notion of the Day of YHWH as the Day of Jesus Christ. Moreover, when Luke directly identifies Jesus as the anointed one, i.e., Christ, through Jesus himself, he does not allow him to be a mere son of David through his adoption by Joseph (Lk. 4:16\u201330). Instead, he claims for him both YHWH\u2019s position, when he sets this characterization in the cotext of Jesus\u2019 divine sonship (2:49; 3:22; 4:1\u201313), and YHWH\u2019s function as Judge, when he characterizes Jesus as the sign that generates opposition (4:28\u201330; 10:13\u201316; 11:15\u201316, 53\u201354; 20:1\u20138; 22:1\u20135; Acts 2:13; 4:1\u20133; 5:17\u201318; 7:54\u201360; 13:8; 16:16\u201324; 22:22; 28:23\u201324). Thus, Luke continues to expand the meaning of the title Christ throughout his narrative to reflect Jesus\u2019 superior position and the responsibilities that he shares with YHWH as Son, similar to what he has done through his birth narratives (e.g., Lk. 4:41; 9:20\u201322; 20:41\u201344; 22:67\u201370; 23:2, 35, 39\u201343; 24:26, 46\u201349; Acts 2:38; 3:6).
\nThis is also true for other roles or titles that may be attributed to Jesus as an ideal Davidide. Consequently, Luke allows his readers to understand Jesus as a prophet (e.g., Lk. 4:23\u201327; 7:16, 39\u201347; 9:7\u20138, 19; 13:33; 24:19; Acts 3:22\u201323; 7:37, 52; 10:38) and attributes to him functions that could be associated with a prophetic role, namely, healing (e.g., Lk. 5:12\u201325; 9:37\u201343), teaching (e.g., 6:20\u201349; 10:25\u201337), speaking in parables (e.g., 8:4\u201315), feeding crowds of people in deserted areas (e.g., 9:10\u201317), casting out demons (e.g., 4:33\u201337; 8:26\u201339), raising the dead (e.g., 7:11\u201315; 8:49\u201356), warning the unrepentant (e.g., 10:13\u201316; 11:37\u201352), and defending the purity of worship (e.g., 19:45\u201348). However, he discourages them from limiting Jesus\u2019 function to that of a prophet. First, Luke presents Jesus as the one greater than John and then he presents John as a prophet and yet more than a prophet (7:26\u201327), implying that Jesus\u2019 identity cannot be reduced to that of a prophet (cf. 9:19\u201320). Second, he presents Jesus as more than a mere instrument of YHWH\u2019s visitation (7:16); rather, he characterizes him as one who embodies YHWH\u2019s visitation and, therefore, visits people as YHWH (e.g., 19:41\u201344; cf. 1:68, 78).
\nIn addition, Luke allows his readers to understand Jesus as a legitimate (e.g., 1:32\u201335; 19:11\u201340), righteous (e.g., 3:22; 4:1\u201313), wise (e.g., 11:31), and Spirit-filled (e.g., 4:16\u201319; 9:20) king, who provides for his subjects (e.g., 6:1\u20134), shows mercy in the way he responds to his subjects\u2019 requests (e.g., 18:38\u201339), and has authority to judge evildoers (e.g., Acts 17:31). Yet again, Luke does not allow his readers to limit Jesus\u2019 identity to that of an ideal Davidide. First, he claims that Jesus\u2019 words are more than the words of an earthly king because they have an everlasting significance as YHWH\u2019s law (e.g., Lk. 6:47\u201349; 9:26; 21:33; cf. 16:17). Second, he shows that Jesus\u2019 kingdom is the kingdom of God (e.g., 22:28\u201330; 23:42\u201343) and Jesus\u2019 throne is the heavenly throne of YHWH himself (e.g., 20:41\u201344; 22:69; Acts 2:30\u201336; 7:55\u201356). Therefore, although he is Israel\u2019s king (cf. Lk. 22:67, 70; 23:2\u20133, 38\u201339), his power, authority, and dominion are the power, authority, and dominion of YHWH, the Lord of heaven and earth, and this surpasses what was anticipated of an ideal Davidide (cf. Pss. 2:8; 72:8\u201311).
\nConsequently, Luke demonstrates that Jesus fully shares YHWH\u2019s divine identity when he characterizes Jesus as the one who is capable of carrying out YHWH\u2019s responsibilities and functions and, therefore, worthy to receive the recognition associated with the superior position he shares with his Father YHWH. Thus, he encourages his readers to understand Jesus as one God of Israel with YHWH when he shows mercy and compassion (e.g., Lk. 7:13; 17:13\u201319; 18:38\u201342; cf. 1:50, 54, 58, 72, 78), answers requests of both Jews (e.g., 5:12\u201313; 8:40\u201356; cf. 1:13) and Gentiles (e.g., 7:1\u201310; cf. Acts 14:17), shows concern for the lowly as he judges and calls the rich to repentance (e.g., 5:12\u201313, 18\u201325, 27\u201329; 7:11\u201317; 19:1\u201310), assures divine care (Lk. 5:10; 8:50; 12:4, 7, 32; cf. 1:13, 30; 2:10; Acts 18:9; 27:24), forgives sins that could not be forgiven by means of the law mediated through Moses (e.g., Lk. 5:24; 7:47\u201349; Acts 2:38; 13:38; cf. Lk. 5:20\u201321), claims authority in understanding the meaning of Sabbath and purity laws (e.g., 6:1\u201311; 7:14; 11:37\u201352; 13:10\u201317; 14:1\u20136), knows people\u2019s inner thoughts (e.g., 5:22; 7:39\u201347; 11:17; 20:20\u201326; 21:1\u20134; cf. 16:15; Acts 1:24; 15:8), exercises control over the forces of nature through speech to ensure protection of his followers (e.g., Lk. 8:22\u201325; cf. 1:37; Gen. 1:2; Exod. 14:1\u201331), displays a parental concern for people of Israel that is characteristic only of YHWH (Lk. 13:34; cf. Exod. 19:4; Deut. 32:11\u201312; Pss. 17:8; 36:7; 147:2; Isa. 56:8; Mal. 4:2), and receives worship that is directed to YHWH alone (Lk. 17:15\u201318; 24:52; cf. Acts 12:20\u201323).
\nThus, based on Luke\u2019s narrative, Jesus can be understood as a legitimate heir to the Davidic throne through Joseph because he, in accordance with the expectations associated with an ideal Davidide, functions as a righteous and Spirit-filled king, a wise king like Solomon, savior, psalmist, prophet-like-Moses, religious authority, lord, Messiah, and model for Jewish people to follow. However, to claim that the identity of the Lukan Jesus is exhausted in his status as an ideal Davidide would be erroneous because Luke firmly roots Jesus\u2019 identity in the divine identity of YHWH from before his conception. Because Luke claims for Jesus not only the high status and superior position derived from his relationship to YHWH as Son but also YHWH\u2019s responsibilities and functions associated with YHWH\u2019s eschatological coming, he discourages his readers from simply identifying Jesus with an ideal Davidide. Rather, he claims for Jesus the divine identity of YHWH himself.<\/p>\n
V. Acts 2:1\u20134, 14\u201341: Jesus\u2019 Superior Position and Function in Heaven<\/p>\n
In Chapter 3, we defined the concept of identity relationally and functionally in recognition of the tendency in the first-century Greco-Roman world to identify individuals with regards to both their position within the society and the universe, derived from their relationships, and their ability to carry out responsibilities and functions prescribed to them by their position. We have argued already that Luke defines Jesus\u2019 superior position in light of his relationship with YHWH and demonstrates that Jesus is able to carry out YHWH\u2019s responsibilities and functions and, therefore, to fully share YHWH\u2019s divine identity (sections II\u2013IV). However, most of our study thus far was based on how Luke defines Jesus\u2019 position and responsibilities prior to his death, resurrection, and ascension. In order to provide a more balanced portrait of the Lukan Jesus, now we will focus on Acts 2 and demonstrate that after Jesus assumes his place on YHWH\u2019s throne in heaven, his identity can no longer be separated from the divine identity of YHWH, which indirectly characterizes Jesus as one God of Israel with YHWH.<\/p>\n
a. Acts 2:1\u20134: Jesus\u2019 Theophany<\/p>\n
In Acts 2:1\u20134, Luke concisely recounts the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. Without specifying who are the \u2018all\u2019 (\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, 2:1, 4) that experience the outpouring and in what type of \u2018house\u2019 (\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd, 2:2) they are gathered, he recounts the Spirit\u2019s outpouring as a fulfillment of previous promises and emphasizes that all who were present experienced the outpouring in unison. That is, all are together in a place that is filled with the sound from heaven, which comes as a rushing of a strong wind (2:1\u20132); all have tongues as of fire resting on them (2:3); all are filled with the Holy Spirit; and all begin to speak in languages as the Spirit enables them to speak (2:4), without reference to gender, age, or status. Despite the economy of words in the description of this event, in Acts 2:1\u20134 Luke paints an elaborate portrait of Jesus, which relies heavily on both its cotext and intertexts for meaning. As we examine the wealth of Luke\u2019s characterization, we will discover that through his narration of the Spirit\u2019s outpouring, Luke presents Jesus as YHWH in both his appearance and actions, making it impossible to separate Jesus\u2019 identity from that of YHWH.
\nBecause Luke does not start Acts 2 with a mention of who constitutes the \u2018all\u2019, where the filling takes place, or what promises are fulfilled as a result of the outpouring, he encourages his readers to deduce that information from the surrounding cotext. In Acts 1, Luke establishes Acts as the continuation of the narrative begun in the Gospel (1:1\u20133) and focuses on Jesus\u2019 last words to his disciples and the disciples\u2019 life after his ascension in preparation for the Pentecost events (1:4\u201326; cf. Lk. 24:36\u201353). First, he draws his reader\u2019s attention to Jesus\u2019 command not to leave Jerusalem but to wait for the Father\u2019s promise (i.e., the Holy Spirit), anticipated by John (Acts 1:4\u20135; Lk. 24:49; cf. 3:16). Second, he repeats Jesus\u2019 promise that the disciples will receive power to become his witnesses to all nations starting with Jerusalem as a result of the Spirit\u2019s outpouring (Acts 1:8; Lk. 24:46\u201349; cf. 2:10, 31\u201332). Third, he speaks of Jesus\u2019 disciples\u2019 return to Jerusalem after Jesus\u2019 ascension into heaven, where they remain together until the Day of Pentecost in anticipation of the fulfillment of Jesus\u2019 promises, continuously praising YHWH at his temple (Acts 1:9\u201326; Lk. 24:50\u201353). Moreover, in Acts 2:5\u201341, where Luke\u2019s focus widens, the readers learn that (1) the \u2018all\u2019 are only a small group among the \u2018pious Jews from every nation under heaven\u2019 (2:5) numbered in thousands (2:41); (2) the filling happens during the time of morning prayer (2:15); and (3) it fulfills YHWH\u2019s promise to pour out his Spirit recorded by the prophet Joel (2:17\u201318; cf. Joel 2:28\u201329 [3:1\u20132, LXX]), which expresses Jewish expectation of Israel\u2019s restoration in connection with YHWH\u2019s promise to pour out his Spirit. Therefore, based on cotext, one might assume that the \u2018all\u2019 of Acts 2:1\u20134 refers to the one hundred and twenty of Jesus\u2019 disciples (1:15; 2:17\u201318) who are gathered with the pious Jews from every nation under heaven (2:5) at the Jerusalem temple (Lk. 24:53; Acts 2:15, 41, 46; 3:1; 20:16; 24:17; cf. Isa. 6:4; Josephus, War 2.42\u201343; Ant. 17.254\u2013255) on the Day of Pentecost, one of YHWH\u2019s biggest festivals (Exod. 23:16\u201317; 34:22; Lev. 23:15\u201321; Num. 28:26\u201331; Deut. 16:9\u201310) in order to (1) bring their first-fruit offerings, (2) declare YHWH\u2019s ownership of the land, and (3) give thanks for YHWH\u2019s grace in giving people the covenant, the land, and the crops, and for his mighty deeds on behalf of Israel in bringing about the exodus.
\nThis worship setting of Acts 2:1\u20134 recalls the beginning of the Gospel, when Zechariah went inside YHWH\u2019s sanctuary and experienced a theophany, in which YHWH spoke to him through his angel (1:11\u201322). Moreover, the language that Luke employs in his narration of the Spirit\u2019s outpouring is reminiscent of YHWH\u2019s theophanies. First, in the OT, the sound from heaven (e.g., Exod. 19:16\u201319), wind (e.g., 2 Sam. 22:16; 1 Kgs 19:11\u201312; Ezek. 1:4, 27; 13:13; Job 37:10; cf. Gen. 1:2; 2 Esd. 13:10), fire (e.g., Gen. 15:17; Exod. 19:18; 24:17; Deut. 4:11\u201312, 24, 33; 5:24\u201326; Ps. 29:7\u20139), and Spirit (Isa. 34:16; 61:1\u20132; 63:10\u201314) function as indicators of YHWH\u2019s divine presence (cf. Philo, Decal. 32\u201349). These indicators may be present as YHWH (1) demonstrates his superiority among other gods (1 Kgs 18:38); (2) empowers his people to play their role in his plan (e.g., Exod. 3:1\u201312); (3) offers salvation from enemies (e.g., Exod. 13:21), sins (e.g., Isa. 6:7), and ignorance (e.g., 2 Kgs 6:17); or (4) exercises his judgment (e.g., Lev. 10:2; Isa. 29:6). Second, in the Gospel, Luke identifies the voice from heaven as YHWH\u2019s voice (3:22; cf. 9:34\u201335) and the Holy Spirit as YHWH\u2019s power (1:35) that comes from YHWH and at YHWH\u2019s initiative in order to enable people to fulfill their roles in YHWH\u2019s plan (e.g., 1:35, 41, 44) or to provide YHWH\u2019s enlightened perspective on the events that are taking place (e.g., 1:67\u201379; 2:28\u201332). Accordingly, Luke\u2019s readers are led to conclude that in Acts 2:1\u20134 they are dealing with a theophany, in which YHWH appears to the disciples and fills them with his Spirit to empower them to become Jesus\u2019 witnesses, as Jesus has promised (Lk. 24:48\u201349; Acts 1:8; cf. 1:22).
\nThis identification of YHWH as the giver of his Spirit is further supported by both cotext and intertext: (1) the OT anticipates YHWH to be the one who will pour our his Spirit (e.g., Num. 11:29; Isa. 32:15; 44:3; Ezek. 36:27); (2) Jesus identifies YHWH as the one who gives the Holy Spirit to those who ask him (Lk. 11:13); (3) Peter\u2019s quotation from Joel names YHWH as the one who both promises and pours out his Spirit on all people (Acts 2:16\u201318; Joel 2:28\u201329); (4) Peter\u2019s later explanation of the Spirit\u2019s outpouring attributes the outpouring to YHWH (Acts 5:32; 11:17); (5) the outpouring, accomplished without regard to gender, age, or status (Acts 2:1\u20134, 16\u201318), reflects YHWH\u2019s impartiality emphasized from the beginning of Luke\u2019s narrative (e.g., Lk. 1:11\u201320, 26\u201338; 2:8\u201320; 6:35; 12:22\u201334; 15:11\u201332); and (6) the outpouring fulfills YHWH\u2019s previous promises spoken through the prophets, demonstrating YHWH\u2019s faithfulness, accentuated in the Magnificat and the Benedictus (1:54\u201355, 72\u201373; cf. 1:13\u201317, 25, 57\u201358; 3:1\u201318).
\nHowever, when readers examine what Luke has told them concerning the Spirit\u2019s outpouring from the beginning of his narrative, they will notice that he directly names Jesus as the giver of the Spirit by means of three reliable characters: (1) John attributes the outpouring of the Spirit (i.e., the baptism with the Holy Spirit and fire) to the Christ, whom he indirectly identifies as Jesus (Lk. 3:16); (2) Jesus explicitly promises his disciples that he will send the Holy Spirit (i.e., his Father\u2019s promise and the power from on high; cf. 1:35) upon them (24:49); and (3) Peter identifies Jesus as the giver of the Spirit when he provides an inspired explanation of the outpouring to the pious Jews from every nation under heaven on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:32\u201333). In addition, one might understand the disciples\u2019 identification of Jesus as the one who will restore the kingdom to Israel (1:6) as Luke\u2019s indirect characterization of Jesus as the giver of the Spirit, since in Jewish expectation the Spirit\u2019s outpouring was connected to Israel\u2019s restoration (e.g., Isa. 32:15\u201320; Ezek. 37:14; 39:29; cf. Zech. 12:10). Furthermore, because Jesus, like YHWH, has treated people without regard to their gender, age, or status throughout his ministry (e.g., Lk. 7:11\u201317, 36\u201350; 19:1\u201310) and because he was identified as the one who shared not only YHWH\u2019s superior position but also YHWH\u2019s responsibilities (e.g., 1:69, 71, 78\u201379; 2:11, 30\u201332, 34\u201335), one is encouraged to attribute the role of the Spirit\u2019s outpouring to Jesus. Finally, one might notice that because Luke allows the promise of the Father concerning the outpouring (Lk. 24:49; Acts 1:4; 2:16\u201317) to become synonymous with the promise of Jesus (Lk. 24:49; cf. Acts 1:4\u20135), he encourages one to understand the outpouring as a fulfillment of the promises of both YHWH and Jesus. Therefore, because the Spirit\u2019s outpouring can be attributed to both YHWH and Jesus and because it fulfills the promises of both YHWH and Jesus, one is led to believe that in the Spirit\u2019s outpouring YHWH and Jesus act as one, without collapsing the boundaries between them. This makes it impossible clearly to distinguish Jesus\u2019 promises and actions from YHWH\u2019s, binding Jesus\u2019 identity to the divine identity of YHWH to such an extent that YHWH\u2019s theophany can now be understood as Jesus\u2019 theophany as well. That is why Jesus\u2019 coming to YHWH\u2019s temple on the Day of Pentecost, filled with devout Jews from every nation under heaven (2:5) who represent both the \u2018entire house of Israel\u2019 (\u03c0\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f38\u03c3\u03c1\u03b1\u1f74\u03bb, 2:36) and the nations from which they have come to Jerusalem, can now be interpreted as YHWH\u2019s eschatological coming to his temple to inaugurate his eschatological salvation (e.g., Isa. 60:1\u201320).<\/p>\n
b. Acts 2:14\u201341: Salvation Found in Jesus Alone<\/p>\n
Having recounted the event of the Spirit\u2019s outpouring, Luke widens his focus to include the devout people from every nation, both Jews and proselytes (2:10), who are present at the temple during the time of worship on Pentecost (cf. 2:17, 21; Lk. 2:10, 31). They are (1) attracted to the group of the disciples by the sound of their speaking of YHWH\u2019s mighty deeds (\u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, 2:11; cf. 10:46; 19:6; Lk. 1:46, 49); (2) extremely amazed and confused (\u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03c7\u03ad\u03c9, 2:6, \u1f10\u03be\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9, 2:7, 12; \u03b8\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9, 2:7; \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9, 2:12) at the fact that the disciples, identified as Galileans (2:7; cf. 1:11; 4:13) and, therefore, not distinguished by linguistic abilities, are able to speak in their native languages (Acts 2:6, 8, 11), just as the people at Nazareth were amazed at Jesus\u2019 address before they attempted to kill him (\u03b8\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9, Lk. 4:22); yet (3) divided in their responses to this supernatural phenomenon, just as people were divided in their response to Jesus\u2019 ministry (e.g., 6:17\u201319; cf. 19:47\u201348; 20:1\u20138) as prophesied by Simeon (2:34\u201335). Some seek explanation, inquiring about the meaning of this amazing event. Others suggest that the disciples are drunk, displaying their inability to comprehend reality from YHWH\u2019s perspective. Challenged by their responses, Peter is inspired (\u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03b8\u03ad\u03b3\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, 2:14; cf. 2:4) to provide an interpretation of the amazing event, which culminates in his claim that Jesus is both Lord and Christ and that salvation can be found in him alone.
\nWhen Luke introduces the Jews present at the temple on the Day of Pentecost during the Spirit\u2019s outpouring as \u2018devout\u2019 (\u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, 2:5), he encourages his readers to compare them with the righteous and devout Simeon (\u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u1f74\u03c2, Lk. 2:25) who anticipated Israel\u2019s consolation and who was brought to the temple by the Holy Spirit to identify Jesus as Israel\u2019s Messiah, salvation, light, and, therefore, consolation, who shares YHWH\u2019s divine identity (2:28\u201335; cf. 2:36\u201338). Like Simeon, they are found at the temple due to their devotion to YHWH and their obedience to his will expressed through the law. Like Simeon, they might be expected to await Israel\u2019s consolation and to connect it with the coming of YHWH\u2019s Messiah. However, as Luke develops Peter\u2019s inspired speech, the readers learn that, unlike Simeon, they lack an inspired understanding of the events that take place and can be compared to Jesus\u2019 disciples prior to Jesus opening their minds in order to understand the Scriptures and to interpret his death and resurrection in an unexpected way (24:13\u201349; cf. 9:46, 47). Consequently, they lack understanding of the disciples\u2019 speaking in tongues, just as they lacked understanding of Jesus\u2019 divine identity when they participated in killing him (Acts 2:23, 36). Through their responses to Jesus\u2019 disciples, whose identity was revealed to them through their miraculous speaking in tongues enabled by the Holy Spirit (2:4), and to Jesus, whose identity was attested to them through miracles, wonders, and signs performed by YHWH through him (2:22), they display themselves as people who are in the dark concerning YHWH\u2019s purpose. What is more, in their ignorance, they fnd themselves in opposition to YHWH\u2019s purpose and become enemies of YHWH\u2019s people as they align themselves with the lawless (2:23). Thus, although Jews gathered for worship at the temple in celebration of YHWH\u2019s provision and care on the Day of the Festival of Weeks might have been united in their anticipation of Israel\u2019s consolation and restoration, they are unaware of what YHWH in his mercy and faithfulness has already begun to accomplish on their behalf.
\nWhen Peter is inspired to address the accusations against the disciples put forward by these devout Jews from every nation characterized by their confusion and unawareness of YHWH\u2019s unexpected ways, he does not set himself above them. Rather, he addresses them as his kin (2:29) and delivers a message that invites them to \u2018repent\u2019 (2:38) so that (1) their sins might be forgiven (2:38), (2) they might \u2018be saved from this perverse generation\u2019 (2:40), and (3) they may join Peter as brothers and sisters in YHWH\u2019s household of reconstituted Israel as they are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and receive the Holy Spirit (2:29, 37\u201338, 41). By YHWH\u2019s initiative, this invitation to repent in order to receive forgiveness of sins is open to all without partiality, i.e., those present, their children, and those far away (2:39), and it echoes that of John (Lk. 3:3\u201314); yet the content of Peter\u2019s message is different from that of John\u2019s because John\u2019s role was to prepare people for the eschatological coming of the Lord but Peter\u2019s role was to witness to Jesus\u2019 identity as defined by his life, death, and resurrection (Acts 1:8, 22). That is why he first defends the disciples against accusations of drunkenness and explains their speaking in tongues as prophecy enabled by the Spirit\u2019s outpouring and as an indication of the beginning of the last days promised by YHWH through his prophet Joel (2:15\u201318; Joel 2:28\u201329; cf. Num. 11:25). Then, he focuses his proclamation on Jesus as Lord and Christ, in whom all Jews can find salvation (2:19\u201341). In doing so, not only does he declare Jesus\u2019 followers witnesses to Jesus\u2019 resurrection (2:32), but he also inaugurates the disciples\u2019 mission promised to them by Jesus, which anticipates proclamation of salvation in Jesus alone to all nations (24:46\u201348; Acts 1:8; cf. 1:22).
\nLuke carefully composes Peter\u2019s speech on the Day of Pentecost in order to demonstrate that Jesus\u2019 divine identity was displayed through his life, death, resurrection, ascension, and the Spirit\u2019s outpouring. First, by means of his reliable, Spirit-filled character Peter, he continues the quotation from Joel in order to include YHWH\u2019s promise to bring about wonders and signs before the day of the Lord and to offer salvation to everyone who calls on his name (2:19\u201321; Joel 2:30\u201332a). Second, he establishes Jesus as a man through whom YHWH performed miracles, wonders, and signs, drawing linguistically on his quotation from Joel (Acts 2:19\u201320) and, therefore, emphasizing YHWH\u2019s promise concerning the day of the Lord and his salvation. Third, he argues that Jesus had to (1) suffer death in accordance with YHWH\u2019s plan (2:23) and (2) be raised (2:24\u201332) and enthroned by YHWH on YHWH\u2019s throne in heaven (2:33\u201335) in accordance with YHWH\u2019s promises given through the prophet David (cf. Lk. 1:32\u201333). Fourth, he argues that Jesus was the one who poured out YHWH\u2019s Spirit given to him by his Father YHWH after his exaltation and enthronement, connecting Jesus\u2019 outpouring of YHWH\u2019s Spirit with YHWH\u2019s promise to pour out his Spirit quoted earlier (2:17\u201318, 33). Thus, he presents the disciples\u2019 speaking in tongues enabled by the Spirit\u2019s outpouring as a proof of Jesus\u2019 exalted status and enthronement and an indication of the beginning of the last days in which all who call on the Lord\u2019s name will be saved. Finally, he declares Jesus as Lord and Christ in whose name everyone must be baptized to receive forgiveness of sins and, therefore, salvation (2:36, 38, 40; cf. Lk. 1:77; 3:3\u20136). Consequently, by means of Peter\u2019s elaborate message, Luke declares Jesus as Lord on whose name everyone must call in order to be saved and become part of reconstituted Israel (2:21, 38), which makes Jesus\u2019 name synonymous with the name of YHWH, the God of Israel (\u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 [LXX], \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 [MT], Joel 2:32a [3:5a, LXX, MT]).
\nAs the Jews from every nation hear Peter\u2019s inspired message, they are cut to the heart (2:37), which indicates their distress and regret, and implies that their minds were enlightened through the message, just as the minds of Jesus\u2019 followers were opened as he explained to them how the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms were fulfilled through his suffering, death, and resurrection. Now that they can understand the amazing events that they witnessed from YHWH\u2019s perspective, they are no longer walking in the darkness. Therefore, they have an opportunity to repent, embrace Peter\u2019s message that claims for Jesus the divine identity of YHWH, receive baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, and become members of YHWH\u2019s household of reconstituted Israel together with Jesus\u2019 Spirit-filled followers (2:37\u201341).
\nAt this point in his narrative, Luke does not mention if there were any Jews among those present at the temple who did not accept Peter\u2019s message. However, there is a sense that after widening his focus to include all the devout Jews present at the temple Luke narrows it to include only the group of Jesus\u2019 followers, which has now grown by three thousand (2:41). Those who accused the disciples of drunkenness disappear from the scene after they utter their accusations just as easily as they appeared after the outpouring (2:5\u201313). Luke thus silences the opposition and focuses his readers\u2019 full attention on Peter\u2019s message of Jesus and on those who were saved as they repented and were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ\u2014a name now synonymous with YHWH (2:21, 38, 47)\u2014claiming that for any Jew who worships YHWH in anticipation of Israel\u2019s consolation, regardless of whether he\/she lives in Jerusalem or in the Diaspora, whether he\/she is a Jew by birth or a proselyte, YHWH\u2019s salvation and the gift of YHWH\u2019s Spirit instrumental in Israel\u2019s restoration are available through Jesus alone.
\nIt has been noted by scholars to various degrees that in Acts 2:14\u201341 Luke draws strong connections between YHWH and Jesus. It has been generally observed that as Luke develops his interpretation of Joel 2:32 [3:5, LXX], where the name of the Lord on which all should call for salvation refers to YHWH (Acts 2:21), he presents Jesus as the Lord of Joel\u2019s prophecy (2:36, 38). Therefore, he closely identifies Lord Jesus with Lord YHWH, which allows Jesus to share \u2018God\u2019s presence, God\u2019s task, God\u2019s authority, and \u2026 God\u2019s name\u2019. It has also been observed that Luke contrasts Jesus with (1) his ancestor David (2:30), who prophesied about Jesus\u2019 resurrection and enthronement at YHWH\u2019s right hand but who was neither raised from the dead nor seated at YHWH\u2019s right hand (2:25\u201335; cf. Pss. 16:8\u201311; 110:1; 132:11); (2) Elijah who ascended into heaven (2 Kgs 2:1\u201314) but who was not enthroned at YHWH\u2019s right hand (2:33; cf. 7:56); and (3) Moses who ascended to YHWH to receive the law and give it to Israel, but who did not become the giver of YHWH\u2019s Spirit. Moreover, it has been argued that Luke closely connects what Jesus does with what YHWH does when he speaks of (1) YHWH acting through Jesus as Jesus performs miracles, wonders, and signs (2:22) in accordance with Joel\u2019s prophecy (2:19\u201320), and (2) Jesus acting in YHWH\u2019s stead when he pours out the Spirit and offers salvation to all people though his name (2:17, 33, 38). Finally, it has been argued that when Luke shows Jesus sitting on YHWH\u2019s throne, from which he rules the cosmos as heavenly Lord, he characterizes him as one who is included in the unique identity of God and whose name can now stand for the name of God of Israel just as the name YHWH. We will now turn to scholarly arguments that are especially pertinent for our argument.
\nFirst, Max Turner observes that in Judaism the Spirit refers to YHWH\u2019s own being and presence. Therefore, he argues that when Luke first quotes Joel 2:28, which identifies YHWH as the one who promises to pour out his Spirit on all people in the last days (Acts 2:17) and then presents Jesus as the one who receives the Spirit from the Father and pours it out on his followers (2:33), he portrays Jesus as the Lord of God\u2019s Spirit, namely, God. Turner further observes that the Spirit becomes known in Acts as the Spirit of Jesus (16:6\u20137), which implies that Luke\u2019s Jesus relates to the Spirit in the same way as YHWH does and that the Spirit enables Jesus to be present with his followers through the Spirit in the same way YHWH was present with his people Israel. Finally, Turner observes that calling on the name of the Lord Jesus in baptism is equivalent to calling on the name of YHWH, which is necessary for the forgiveness of sins and reception of the Spirit (2:21, 38).
\nSecond, Douglas Buckwalter argues that when Luke describes Jesus\u2019 identity and activity after resurrection, he uses OT concepts applicable to YHWH. He suggests that Luke presents (1) Jesus\u2019 post-resurrection manifestations as those of YHWH in the OT, (2) Jesus as coequal and coregent with YHWH, and (3) Jesus\u2019 heavenly reign in Acts as YHWH\u2019s in the OT. He concludes that Luke demonstrates Jesus as God with regard to his appearances, coregency, sharing of the divine name, presence in the lives of his followers through the Holy Spirit, and ability to keep his promises.
\nFinally, Andy Johnson observes that when one understands Elijah\u2019s ascension (2 Kgs 2:1\u201318) as an intertext for Jesus\u2019 ascension (Acts 1:9\u201311), one is led to anticipate that the spirit that will descend and empower them will be the spirit of the person who ascended. Thus, one is led to anticipate Jesus\u2019 spirit to be poured out; yet, instead, they are promised that they will receive the Holy Spirit of YHWH himself. Consequently, Johnson argues that Luke intertextually connects the Spirit of Jesus to the Spirit of YHWH and thus redefines divine identity.
\nAll these arguments are helpful in confirming our thesis and establishing how, for Luke, Jesus may share YHWH\u2019s divine identity as Son. Yet, there is one more argument to be made, namely, Luke draws close connections between Jesus and YHWH when through his quotation of Ps. 16:8 he identifies YHWH as the one on the right hand of Jesus and, then, identifies Jesus as the one on the right hand of YHWH through his quotation of Ps. 110:1 (2:33\u201334). It is generally accepted that in the quotation from Psalm 110, the first \u2018Lord\u2019 refers to YHWH and the second \u2018Lord\u2019 to Jesus, who is now seated at the right hand of YHWH. Therefore, to support our argument we need to establish that the Lord of whom David speaks in Psalm 16 is YHWH (2:25).
\nAs we examine Luke\u2019s quotation of David\u2019s psalm and its interpretation, we notice that Luke quotes the psalm to support his claim of Jesus\u2019 resurrection. Not only does the quotation follow the statement of Jesus\u2019 resurrection (2:24), but also it is interpreted through Peter as a prophecy concerning Jesus\u2019 resurrection (2:31). Luke emphasizes that in his psalm David speaks prophetically because he directly identifies David as a prophet (2:30) and attributes to him an ability to foresee the future as he interprets YHWH\u2019s promises to him concerning his descendant (2:31). He clarifies that David does not speak of his own resurrection because David died, was buried, and has not been raised since his tomb is well-known to those he addresses (2:29). Moreover, he quotes part of the same psalm again, substituting David\u2019s personal pronouns for Jesus\u2019 and, thus, interpreting the psalm in reference to Jesus, just as he stated earlier\u2014i.e., David spoke this psalm concerning Jesus (2:25). \u2018For you will not abandon my [David\u2019s] soul to Hades, or let your Holy One [David] experience decay\u2019 (2:27) becomes \u2018he [Jesus] was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his [Jesus\u2019] flesh experience decay\u2019 (2:31). This substitution becomes a clue that enables us to substitute all personal pronouns that refer to David for personal pronouns that refer to Jesus. Accordingly, in the phrase \u2018I saw the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand so that I will not be shaken\u2019, we are enabled to understand first person singular pronouns as references to Jesus and the Lord and third person singular pronouns as references to YHWH. This allows us to conclude that Jesus\u2019 resurrection was made possible by YHWH because YHWH was always at Jesus\u2019 right hand. Furthermore, since Luke claims that YHWH has always been at Jesus\u2019 right hand just as Jesus is at YHWH\u2019s right hand now, we are led to conclude that it is impossible to distinguish a hierarchy between YHWH and Jesus, although they can be distinguished as Father YHWH and Son Jesus (2:24, 32).
\nIn Acts 2:14\u201341 Luke uses multiple arguments for Jesus\u2019 divine identity. This is consistent with what he has argued in his narrative thus far because he has demonstrated continuously that Jesus, though he was a son of David through adoption into the Davidic line, was more than an ideal Davidide, namely, he was the unique Son of YHWH. Therefore, Jesus\u2019 responsibilities surpassed those of a righteous and Spirit-filled king, a wise king like Solomon, savior, psalmist, prophet-like-Moses, religious authority, lord, Messiah, and model for Jewish people to follow. Thus, from the beginning of his narrative, Luke has claimed for Jesus not only YHWH\u2019s responsibilities and functions but also YHWH\u2019s position as the Lord of heaven and earth. Moreover, he has demonstrated that the human ignorance and opposition which led to Jesus\u2019 suffering and death could not detract from the fact that he was YHWH\u2019s unique Son because YHWH himself attested to his true identity when he performed miracles, wonders, and signs through Jesus (2:22); when he raised him up after his death accomplished in accordance with YHWH\u2019s plan and foreknowledge (2:23); and when he exalted him to his throne to sit at his right hand and to carry out his responsibilities and functions (2:33\u201335). Therefore, in Acts 2:14\u201341, Luke continues to characterize Jesus as YHWH\u2019s Son who is also Lord and Christ, just as he has done from the beginning of his narrative (cf. 1:32\u201335; 2:11), except now that he characterizes Jesus as the one who shares YHWH\u2019s title \u2018Lord\u2019 (2:36), which in Luke\u2019s LXX quotations stands for YHWH\u2019s name (2:20\u201321, 25, 34; Joel 2:31\u201332a [3:4\u20135a, LXX]; Pss. 16:8 [15:8, LXX]; 110:1 [109:1, LXX]; cf. Joel 2:32b [3:5b, LXX]; Acts 2:39), YHWH\u2019s throne (2:34), and YHWH\u2019s responsibilities as eschatological Savior of the house of Israel (2:21, 38\u201341), whose name is now synonymous with YHWH\u2019s, he makes it impossible to distinguish between Israel\u2019s God YHWH and Jesus who alone offers YHWH\u2019s eschatological salvation to those who call on his name.
\nThus, in Acts 2 Luke indirectly characterizes Jesus as the God of Israel without collapsing the boundaries between him and his Father YHWH.<\/p>\n
c. Overview<\/p>\n
Although in this section (section V) we focused on how Jesus is characterized in Acts 2, in Acts 1 it already has become difficult to distinguish Lord Jesus from Lord YHWH. When the disciples are gathered in Jerusalem joyfully (Lk. 24:52) and prayerfully (Acts 1:14) waiting for the Father\u2019s promise (Lk. 24:49; Acts 1:4\u20135), it is impossible to identify the Lord to whom they pray to guide them in the selection of Judas\u2019 replacement through casting of the lots (1:24). The immediate cotext identifies Jesus as their Lord (1:6, 21), the one who previously chose his apostles (1:2; cf. Lk. 6:13). Moreover, the larger cotext demonstrates that Stephen prays to Jesus (Acts 7:59) in a similar manner as Jesus prayed to YHWH (Lk. 23:46) when both Jesus and YHWH are present (Acts 7:55\u201356). However, the wider cotext also demonstrates that (1) YHWH picked Zechariah through the casting of lots to go into the sanctuary (Lk. 1:9); (2) YHWH was indirectly involved in choosing the apostles because Jesus chose them only after he prayed to YHWH all night (6:12); (3) YHWH is the one who knows people\u2019s hearts and minds (Acts 15:8), who determines the right people for the tasks that he plans to accomplish (Lk. 1:5\u201338), and whose will is ultimately accomplished despite opposition (Acts 2:23\u201324); and (4) people when they pray in unison address YHWH (4:24). Therefore, unless it is specified that the reference is to Lord Jesus (e.g., 1:6; 2:36; 4:33; 7:59\u201360; 8:16; 9:17, 27\u201328) or to Lord God (e.g., 2:20\u201321, 25, 34, 39; 3:20, 22; 4:26; 7:31, 33), it is impossible to know whether the title Lord refers to Jesus or YHWH (e.g., 1:24; 2:47; 4:29; 5:9, 19; 8:22, 24\u201325; 9:35, 42; 10:14), testifying to Jesus\u2019 divine identity that he shares with YHWH as Son.
\nThus, as Luke unfolds his narrative, he continues to show that Jesus shares YHWH\u2019s divine identity to such an extent that it becomes impossible to distinguish clearly between Jesus and YHWH. This is reflected in numerous ways. First, Luke continues to describe Jesus\u2019 presence in ways that recall YHWH\u2019s theophanies just as he did on the Day of Pentecost at Jesus\u2019 outpouring of the Spirit (2:1\u20134; cf. Acts 1:9; 7:55). Thus, when Jesus appears to Paul (1) his appearance is accompanied by light from heaven brighter than the sun (26:13) that shines around Paul (9:3; 22:6; cf. 26:13), similar to the way YHWH\u2019s glory shone around shepherds (Lk. 2:9; cf. Acts 12:7); (2) he is visible neither to Paul nor to his companions (they can only hear his voice; Acts 9:5; cf. 22:8; 26:14\u201315), similar to the way YHWH\u2019s voice can be heard during Jesus\u2019 baptism and transfiguration (Lk. 3:22; 9:35); (3) he appears in order to communicate his plan, clarify Paul\u2019s role in this plan, and enable him to carry out his role (Acts 9:6; 22:10; 26:16\u201318); (4) Paul suffers short-term blindness (9:3\u20138; 22:6\u20139; 26:13\u201320) because he finds himself in opposition to YHWH\u2019s plan as he persecutes Jesus by persecuting his followers (9:4\u20135; 22:7; 26:14\u201315), which echoes Zechariah\u2019s temporary muteness that resulted from his disbelief (Lk. 1:20, 22); and (5) Paul describes this encounter as a heavenly vision (\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u1ff3 \u1f40\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3, Acts 26:19; cf. 9:10), similar to the way Zechariah\u2019s encounter inside the temple was described (Lk. 1:22; cf. 24:23). Furthermore, if the Gospel is reread with the account of Jesus\u2019 theophany in Acts 2 in mind, one may recognize that Luke described Jesus\u2019 presence in a language characteristic of theophanies to indicate his divine identity. Thus, the visitation pericope (Lk. 1:39\u201345), which has language reminiscent of OT theophanies, may present the first appearance of the unborn Jesus in the narrative as a theophany. How about this, \u201cSimilarly, the pericope that describes Jesus\u2019 encounter with Simon Peter and other fishermen may be understood as a theophany. In this encounter (a) Simon Peter\u2019s alarming reaction (\u03b8\u03ac\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2) to the catch of fish may be interpreted as a reaction of worshipful fear in light of Peter\u2019s kneeling down before his \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 (changed from \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1), (b) Peter\u2019s request that Jesus would leave him on account of his being \u1f00\u03bd\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2 may bind Jesus\u2019 identity to that of YHWH, the Giver of the Law and the Judge, as discussed in Chapter 4, \u00a7II.c.2, and (c) Jesus\u2019 comforting words (\u03bc\u1f74 \u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6), followed by his declaration of Peter\u2019s new identity as the \u2018catcher of humans\u2019, may bind Jesus\u2019 identity to identify YHWH\u2019s for Jesus has YHWH\u2019s authority to both comfort and to define people\u2019s identity and function (5:1\u201311; cf. 1:11\u201320, 26\u201338).\u201d
\nSecond, Luke continues intimately to connect Jesus\u2019 identity and YHWH\u2019s when he shows that (1) YHWH\u2019s Spirit can now also be identified as the Spirit of Jesus (Acts 16:7) and YHWH\u2019s name becomes synonymous with the name of Jesus by which Jesus\u2019 followers heal (3:6; 4:30), teach (5:28, 40), and exorcise demons (16:18; 19:13), and on which they invite people to call for salvation (9:14; 22:16); (2) YHWH\u2019s universal claim and YHWH\u2019s impartiality are now connected with proclamation of Jesus alone as Savior (4:12; 5:31; 13:23, 38; 15:11; 26:18; cf. Lk. 1:47; 2:11) to both Jews and Gentiles (10:1\u201311:18; 26:20) in Jerusalem (2:14\u20137:60), Samaria (8:4\u201340), and Gentile lands (chs. 13\u201328), including Rome (28:23\u201328); (3) YHWH\u2019s ability to carry out his salvific plan despite opposition is displayed by Jews and Gentiles turning to Jesus in faith as a result of the proclamation by Jesus\u2019 followers despite opposition (7:57\u20138:1; 9:1\u20139; 14:4, 19; 28:24); (4) YHWH\u2019s protection is now echoed in Jesus protection of his followers (18:9\u201310); (5) turning to YHWH for salvation and away from the power of Satan becomes synonymous with faith in Jesus and his resurrection (26:17\u201318, 20); and (6) exclusive devotion to YHWH is now correlated with exclusive devotion to Jesus who alone is Savior for both Jews and Gentiles (19:17).
\nThus, as Luke characterizes Jesus in Acts, he continues to present him as the one who shares YHWH\u2019s divine identity by sharing not only YHWH\u2019s superior position as Lord of heaven and earth but also by carrying out YHWH\u2019s responsibilities and functions as he offers YHWH\u2019s eschatological salvation to all people. Moreover, he binds Jesus\u2019 identity to the unique identity of God to such an extent that God\u2019s name YHWH becomes synonymous with the name of Jesus. This indirectly characterizes Jesus as Israel\u2019s God who by means of his life, death, resurrection, and ascension has inaugurated the eschatological times during which salvation through Jesus alone is offered to all people without partiality.<\/p>\n
VI. Summary<\/p>\n
In this chapter, we argued that Luke characterizes Jesus as the God of Israel by binding Jesus\u2019 identity to the divine identity of YHWH. Because in Chapter 3 we defined the concept of identity in terms of one\u2019s position as this is determined by one\u2019s relationships and ability to carry out the responsibilities and functions prescribed by that position, we have focused on how Luke defines (1) Jesus\u2019 position through his relationships, (2) Jesus\u2019 responsibilities and functions in light of his position, and (3) Jesus\u2019 ability to carry out those responsibilities and functions. Thus, we established that Luke identifies Jesus as YHWH\u2019s unique Son conceived by YHWH\u2019s empowering presence (i.e., the Holy Spirit) in order to claim that Jesus\u2019 identity should be constructed only in relation to YHWH. Therefore, he attributes to Jesus the highest position in the universe, derived from the position of his Father YHWH, the Lord of heaven and earth. Having done so, we showed that Luke allows Elizabeth and John through the Holy Spirit to recognize Jesus\u2019 superior position and to present them as models for any God-fearer to follow. Furthermore, we argued that in Luke 1\u20132 Luke attributes to Jesus responsibilities and functions of YHWH himself and then shows how Jesus successfully carries them out. Finally, we argued that after Jesus\u2019 ascension Luke characterizes Jesus and YHWH in ways that make it impossible to distinguish Jesus from his Father YHWH. Thus, we concluded that by rooting Jesus\u2019 identity in the divine identity of YHWH from before his conception, by attributing to Jesus YHWH\u2019s superior position and functions derivative of that position, by showing that Jesus is able successfully to carry out those functions, and by making it impossible clearly to separate Jesus and YHWH, especially after Jesus\u2019 resurrection, ascension, and enthronement on YHWH\u2019s throne, Luke characterizes Jesus as the God of Israel, whose name is now synonymous with the name of YHWH himself, although the two names cannot be collapsed since Luke distinguishes Jesus as Son and YHWH as Father throughout his narrative.<\/p>\n
Chapter 6<\/p>\n
CONCLUSION<\/p>\n
In this study, we have argued that in his two-volume narrative Luke indirectly characterizes Jesus as God when he shows that Jesus shares YHWH\u2019s divine identity despite the fact that Luke never predicates the title \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 of Jesus. In Chapter 1, we first highlighted that in the Greco-Roman world it was not enough to call Jesus \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 if one were to claim that Jesus was Israel\u2019s God. This is because \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 is a predicate rather than the name of Israel\u2019s God and that Luke\u2019s reluctance to apply the title \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 (or \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2) in references to Jesus does not rule out the possibility that Jesus is characterized as God implicitly. Then we argued that the problems found in the study of Lukan divine Christology can be understood better if seen against the backdrop of Conzelmann\u2019s Theology, which insisted that the Lukan Jesus could not have been perceived as God. We pointed out that Conzelmann and others that follow him (1) misunderstand what is implied by a reading of Luke-Acts as narrative, (2) rely on a modernist ontology-vs.-function dichotomy in their reading of Luke\u2019s text, and (3) have an overly restrictive understanding of Second Temple Jewish monotheism. We suggested that if these problems were eliminated, the question of whether Luke characterizes Jesus as God of Israel would have to be reassessed.
\nMoreover, we noted a small number of scholars-Laurentin, Turner, and Buckwalter (possibly Rowe)\u2014who, despite Conzelmann\u2019s influential position, were not discouraged from arguing that the Lukan Jesus must be perceived as \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2. Having reviewed their studies, we determined that they left room for further study because their approach did not allow them to engage Luke-Acts as narrative and because their attempts to go beyond the ontology-vs.-function dichotomy depended on Bauckham\u2019s concept of divine identity, which itself required further clarification. Therefore, we determined that we could contribute to the current discussion of Luke\u2019s Christology of divine identity by first outlining how one might read Luke-Acts as ancient narrative and construct characters\u2019 identities, how one might understand the concept of divine identity with regard to beliefs and practices in the Greco-Roman world, and thus how one might expect Luke to characterize YHWH as God; and then by examining how Luke characterizes Jesus as one God with YHWH when he shows that Jesus shares YHWH\u2019s divine identity.
\nIn Chapter 2, we focused on how one might construct characters\u2019 identities when one reads Luke-Acts as an ancient narrative. First, we pointed out that a narrative method is required to study the Lukan Jesus. Taking into consideration criticisms brought against biblical scholars who employed narrative criticism in the past, we outlined how we would read Luke-Acts as narrative and emphasized the importance of textual constraints, i.e., cotext, intertext, and context, in interpreting textual gaps. Moreover, relying on studies in narrative and history, we concluded that we are able to ask questions concerning the historical person Jesus as a character within Luke\u2019s two-volume narrative without reducing Jesus to a mere object of the writer\u2019s imagination, yet understanding that the text limits what one can learn about historical figures. Thus, we examined what is involved in the process of characterization as readers move from the beginning, to the middle, and to the end, and defined both direct and indirect ways of characterization.
\nIn Chapter 3, we clarified how we would use the category of identity in our study of both YHWH and Jesus. First, we pointed out that there are two contemporary models of understanding identity: the introspective and the relational. We determined that Conzelmann\u2019s ontology-vs.-function dichotomy reflects the introspective model, which locates human identity within an individual and promotes disengagement from one\u2019s body and society. We indicated that this model, a modern innovation, is (or should be) limited in influence to those cultures affected by the Enlightenment because it reflects neither how identity was defined prior to the rise of modernity nor how identity is understood outside of Western cultures. However, a relational model, with its emphasis on a narratival and embodied understanding of identity, is surprisingly at home in the premodern world of Luke-Acts. In fact, we established that despite differences in their beliefs about God\/gods, people of the first-century Greco-Roman world valued understandings of humans as embodied and embedded in their relationships. They were not concerned with individuals per se but with their function as responsible members of the hierarchically structured world governed by a set of God-given\/god-given\/universal\/just laws. Consequently, people derived their identity and therefore their social role from their relationship to the head of their household and to God\/gods and evaluated others as honorable or shameful with regard to how well they fulfilled their social role, determined for them from birth. Second, based on our discussion of Second Temple Jewish monotheism, we concluded (with Bauckham) that the majority of Jews who upheld traditional views of God would allow for worship of Jesus only if Jesus were understood as one God with YHWH. Moreover, we concluded that to understand Jesus as one God with YHWH would not go against their perception of identity, for it was common for ancient people to refer to individuals by multiplicity of expressions without undermining their unity. This understanding of how Jesus could share YHWH\u2019s divine identity provides a more appropriate explanation of Jesus\u2019 divinity against the background of the strict Jewish monotheism of the Second Temple period (contra Fletcher-Louis) without collapsing the boundaries of the relationship between Jesus and YHWH (contra Laurentin).
\nIn Chapter 4, we explored YHWH\u2019s characterization in Luke-Acts, relying on our discussion in Chapters 2 and 3 in order to set appropriate expectations for how Luke might characterize Jesus as God. We focused on YHWH\u2019s characterization in Luke 1\u20132 and Acts 14 as representative of YHWH\u2019s characterization in Luke-Acts. We observed that Luke used both direct definition and indirect presentation in his characterization of YHWH, placing a significant emphasis on YHWH\u2019s actions and words in defining consistent traits of YHWH\u2019s divine identity and providing meaning for the titles predicated of YHWH, which are not limited to \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2. We established that Luke is not interested in presenting metaphysical considerations when constructing YHWH\u2019s divine identity. Rather, he presents YHWH relationally, with regard to his hierarchical position as Lord of the universe and as covenantal Lord of Israel, and functionally, with regard to how he carries out responsibilities prescribed to him by his position. Moreover, we determined that Luke-Acts is not interested in speaking of any other gods but YHWH, for it presents YHWH as the one God of Israel who has no rival, who has absolute authority over human history, and who has a personal relationship with his chosen people. Thus, we established that if Luke were to characterize Jesus as God, he would do so in similar ways.
\nIn Chapter 5, we argued that Luke characterizes Jesus as the God of Israel by binding Jesus\u2019 identity to the divine identity of YHWH. We first focused on how Luke defines (1) Jesus\u2019 position through his relationships, (2) his responsibilities and functions in light of his position, and (3) his ability to carry out those responsibilities and functions. We established that Luke encourages his readers (1) to construct Jesus\u2019 identity only in relation to YHWH, claiming for him the position of his Father YHWH, the Lord of heaven and earth, and presenting Elizabeth and John as models for any God-fearer to follow as they recognize Jesus\u2019 superior position through the Holy Spirit; (2) to attribute to Jesus responsibilities and functions of YHWH himself; and (3) to accept that Jesus carries out YHWH\u2019s responsibilities and functions successfully. Based on this we concluded that Luke characterizes Jesus as the one who shares YHWH\u2019s divine identity fully. Second, we focused on how Luke characterizes Jesus after his death, resurrection, and ascension in order to demonstrate that Luke characterizes Jesus and YHWH in ways that make it impossible to distinguish Jesus from his Father YHWH and that make Jesus\u2019 name synonymous with the name of YHWH himself. Accordingly, we have demonstrated that Luke in both volumes of his narrative indirectly characterizes Jesus (together with YHWH) as the one God of Israel.
\nAt the beginning of our project, we proposed to argue that Luke in his two-volume narrative indirectly characterizes Jesus as one God of Israel with YHWH and we were able to do that. Therefore, we challenge scholars to reevaluate their reservations concerning calling Jesus \u2018God\u2019 in Luke-Acts and insist on taking Lukan divine Christology seriously. This is the main contribution of our study to the field of NT theology. However, we could suggest that our study also (1) demonstrates how Luke-Acts might be read as a meaningful account of Jesus\u2019 identity and how characters might be constructed in reading biblical narratives; (2) examines how identity is constructed in the ancient world; and (3) shows how Bauckham\u2019s concept of divine identity might be clarified based on how Luke characterizes God in both volumes of his narrative.
\nFurthermore, this study offers an assessment of the hypothesis of the theological unity of Luke-Acts with respect to the possibility of a divine Christology in both volumes. Today, not all scholars find an argument for the unity of Luke-Acts convincing. Some call for a reexamination of the unity of Luke and Acts. Others try to make a case against the unity of Luke-Acts based on their evaluation of the reception history of Luke and Acts, yet recognize that their findings are not determinative for how Luke-Acts should be read. Thus, by examining this possibility in both Luke and Acts, it claims that any study of Christology that does not cover both volumes is incomplete at best.
\nMoreover, this study offers a way to go beyond the high-vs.-low dichotomy in the study of Lukan Christology because it demonstrates that the Lukan Jesus was characterized by Luke as both the Son of David and the Son of God, i.e., man and God. Therefore, it allows one to speak of Luke\u2019s divine Christology, since what constitutes a \u2018high\u2019 Christology in Luke-Acts is not clear. On the one hand, a scholar may claim that Luke offers a \u2018high\u2019 Christology and imply that Luke portrays Jesus as God (e.g., Bock, Buckwalter). On the other hand, a scholar may claim that Luke offers a \u2018high\u2019 Christology, yet does not speak of the Lukan Jesus as God explicitly (e.g., Rowe).
\nFinally, we argued in the line of numerous scholars that it is impossible to separate function from ontology and showed incompatibility of the introspective model for understanding identity in the premodern world of Luke-Acts. Because we claimed that ontology is revealed through function, we provided a way to examine functional statements concerning Jesus\u2019 identity as God identified by Conzelmann and others and to incorporate them into the description of Jesus\u2019 divine identity.
\nAlthough our project is finished, the discussion of Luke\u2019s Christology of divine identity is not. We relied on scholarly works by Laurentin, Turner, Buckwalter, Fletcher-Louis, and Rowe to guide us in our research on Lukan divine Christology and we hope that our study has contributed to the works of these scholars by pointing out areas in need of clarification and by attempting to provide appropriate answers. Unfortunately the scope of our study did not permit us to examine even more extensive evidence for Jesus\u2019 divine identity in Luke-Acts. We therefore, similar to Moule, hope that others will extend this work further, not leaving our \u2018errors and deficiencies both of fact and judgment \u2026 wholly uncorrected and uncompensated\u2019, as we are convinced that any model reader\u2019s discussion of the Lukan Jesus without reference to the divine identity he shares with YHWH is incomplete.<\/p>\n
title= Luke\u2019s Christology of Divine Identity
\nauthor= Henrichs-Tarasenkova, Nina<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chapter 1 LUKE\u2019S DIVINE CHRISTOLOGY IN SCHOLARLY STUDIES I. Introduction Why another study of Lukan Christology? Already in 1968 Professor Moule recognized the \u2018formidable output of literature\u2019 pertaining to Luke\u2019s Christology. But because he understood this wealth of scholarly investigations as \u2018evidence of an increasing awareness of the complexity of the subject\u2019 rather than a … <\/p>\n