1. Do an Initial Synthesis of a Book

A. The Book of Titus

For the sake of illustration I have chosen the book of Titus. It is small, only three chapters, and is fairly uncomplicated. The first thing I want to do is to read it through several times noting the beginning and the ending and the basic idea of each paragraph in between. In the NET Bible the beginning or introduction is found in 1:1-4 and the ending is found in 3:12-15. There are six paragraphs in between. They are: (1) 1:5-9; (2) 1:10-16; (3) 2:1-10; (4) 2:11-15; (5) 3:1-7; (6) 3:8-11.

B. Title the Paragraphs

Let’s title each paragraph so that we can remember at a glance what’s in that paragraph. These titles are not permanent, but only temporary and may be changed somewhat if we were going to do a complete analysis of the book.

1:1-4	Greetings: Faith, Truth, Godliness and the Hope of Eternal Life
1:5-9	The Qualifications of Elders
1:10-16	Rebellious People Teaching for Dishonest Gain
2:1-10	Proper Ethical and Doctrinal Teaching for Congregations
2:11-15	Grace Leads to Holiness
3:1-7	Relationships with the World
3:8-11	Summary of Letter
3:12-15	Final Instructions and Greeting

C. Now, Let’s Relate the Paragraphs One To Another

1. 1:1-4

There are elements in the introductory paragraph (1:1-4) that appear throughout the letter. Did you notice that? In certain ways, then, 1:1-4 serves as a preview of what is coming. The lesson we learn from this is to look for similar patterns elsewhere in Paul and the letters of the New Testament. These patterns will be seen in Paul most clearly and often in his opening thanksgiving and prayer sections. At your leisure some time, compare Romans 1:1-17 with the rest of the letter. Try also 1 Cor 1:1-9; Galatians 1:1-5; Phil 1:1-11; Col. 1:1-14; 1 Thess 1:1-10.

a. The Importance of Introductions

The comment about a “knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness” brings together the idea of “truth” and a “lifestyle” that goes with it. From your readings of the letter you can tell that this basically sums up what is said throughout. The qualifications of the elders in 1:5-9 is a lifestyle based on the message of truth (cf. 1:1, 3, 9). The rebellious people of 1:10-16 are those who reject truthful teaching (1:11, 14). Timothy’s responsibility not only to the elders (1:5-9), but also to the church at large (2:1-10) was to urge ethical conduct consistent with sound teaching (2:1, 8, 10), etc.

b. Eternal Life

Paul mentions “eternal life” in 1:2. He mentions it again near the end of the letter in 3:7. Both of them refer to a future time.

c. God our Savior

He refers to God as “God our savior” in 1:3, 2:10 and 3:4. He also refers to Christ as “Christ our savior” in 1:4, 2:13, and 3:6.

d. Faith

“Faith” is referred to in 1:1 and in 1:4, 13; 2:2, 10; 3:15.

2. 1:5-9

So we know now that the first paragraph, somewhat unusual in Paul in that it contains so much theological information, is really intended as a general survey of what is coming in the rest of the letter. So it is functioning much the same way as the “thanksgiving and prayer” sections in some of Paul’s other letters. Now let’s move on to talk about 1:5-9.

Paul has already said that he is a “slave of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to further the faith of God’s chosen ones” (1:1). One of the ways he furthered the faith of God’s chosen ones was to disciple other men, faithfully imparting his life and teachings to them (cf. 2 Tim 3:10) so that they could teach others (2 Tim 2:2). Titus was such a man whom Paul had earlier sent to Crete to organize the churches there and teach them properly, thus furthering the faith of God’s chosen ones (1:5). It seems, then, that 1:5-9 as it concerns elders and their leading the churches in Crete begins the letter as an example of what Paul meant by furthering the faith of God’s chosen ones (1:1).

3. 1:10-16

The next paragraph in 1:10-16 is connected to 1:5-9 through the first word “For.” This indicates that 1:10-16 is the reason why the elders should have the qualifications spoken of in 1:5-9. The reason, then, that elders should live and teach a certain way (1:5-9) is because there are many rebellious men who are living unholy lives and teaching false doctrines (1:10-16). Do you see the connection between these two paragraphs?

4. 2:1-10

The next paragraph, 2:1-10, is set off by the word “But”—a contrast marker. This means that what follows in 2:1-10 is in contrast to 1:10-16. What Paul is saying, then, in 2:1-10 is that Titus is not to be like the men in 1:10-16, but is instead to communicate the kind of holy behavior that accompanies sound teaching. Just as the men in 1:10-16 taught whole households (1:11) so Titus is to teach older men and women, younger men and women, and slaves (i.e., everyone in the church) and is to do it with integrity and dignity (neither of which the false teachers of 1:10-16 possessed) so that the message of God might be honored in every way and nothing evil spoken of the church (2:10)! Wouldn’t this principle, if properly applied, help a lot of our churches today?

5. 2:11-15

The next paragraph begins with a familiar term, i.e., the word “For.” Once again, this term here means that what follows in 2:11-15 is a further reason for the commands given Titus in 2:1-10. In 2:1-10 we learned that there was a practical reason that Titus was not to be like the men in 1:10-16 who were godless and taught incorrect doctrines. We learned in 2:8-10 that he was to live and teach properly so that the teaching of God would not be maligned by outsiders. In 2:11-15, however, Paul wants to give Titus a theological reason for teaching sound doctrine: it is because the same grace that saves us, also teaches us to say no to ungodliness. God’s grace teaches us to live upright and godly loves while we wait for Christ’s return.

6. 3:1-7

The next paragraph, 3:1-7 has no apparent connecting word with it, i.e., there is no “therefore,” “but,” “for,” “since,” etc. at the front of the first sentence. But the theme of the paragraph concerns a godly life style based on God’s saving mercy, similar to 2:1-10 and 2:11-15. The difference in 3:1-7, however, is that Paul is not talking specifically about relations within the church as seems to be the focus in 2:1-10, 11-15, but is concerned with how the members of the church relate to political authorities outside the church and indeed to the world in general (i.e., “all people”). Thus it is a development of the idea of 2:10 (“to credit the teaching of God”), but not in reference to relationships in the church, but rather in reference to relationships in the world.

7. 3:8-11

The next paragraph, 3:8-11, begins with the words “this saying” which undoubtedly refers to the idea of justification and the hope of eternal life expressed in 3:7. But the reference to “such truths” in 3:8 broadens the idea to include all the Paul has just talked about in the letter. Further, the reminder to reject foolish controversies in 3:9 (cf. 1:14; 2:8) and the manner in which Titus is to deal with divisive people, outlined in 3:10-11 indicates that this is probably a summary connected to the original intent of the letter (see 1:5).

8. 3:12-15

The last paragraph, 3:12-15 (aren’t you glad?), seems to be simply a conclusion in which Paul makes certain wishes known to Titus and gives his final greetings.

D. State the Message of the Book

2. Do an Analysis of a Single Paragraph

Now that we have a fairly good idea of the overall “big picture” of the book we are ready to start to study a paragraph. Let’s study 2:11-15. On an 8.5” x 11” piece of paper reproduce the following chart:

A. Analyze the Details of the Paragraph

Book: Titus Passage: 2:11-15

Context:

Before: Paul talks about “elders (1:5-9), “rebellious teachers” (1:10-16), and the truth that Titus is supposed to teach while he is in Crete (2:1-10), teaching which stands in contrast to the rebellious teachers.

After: The relationship of the church to those in the world (3:1-7).

The Paragraph: Ask “Who,” “What,” “When,” “Where,” “Why,” and “How” Questions. You can ask literally hundreds of questions on any passage or paragraph. Here are a few examples. Try to answer the questions that you think are most crucial to a proper understanding of the paragraph. If you ask good questions you will not be able to answer them all. Some are just too difficult or there simply isn’t enough information. You may use a dictionary, or other passages in Paul or the rest of the Bible to answer your questions. Be careful in the use of other verses to answer questions: don’t assume that Paul is necessarily talking about the same things here just because the same terms are used. Check the context of each cross-reference you make.

The point of this exercise is to get you making observations on the text (e.g., noting details about words and how they’re put together in sentences and paragraphs) and asking questions based on what you observe. This is a skill of fundamental importance in studying the Bible and will be greatly developed at the intermediate and advanced levels.

Verse	Observations	Questions	Answers
2:11	“grace of God” This seems to be the topic of the paragraph, broadly speaking.	What does “grace of God” mean in this passage/paragraph?	The unmerited favor of God. Cf. Rom 5:8. While the word “grace” seems to convey the idea of “help given to the helpless and undeserving” (cf. 3:3) is there anything in the passage that shows how that “grace” was expressed by God, since after all it is the grace of God that we’re speaking about. Verse 14 seems to provide an answer (Notice that we appeal first to the immediate context to answer questions). In v. 14 we are told that Jesus gave himself to set us free and purify us, so that we might be eager to do good works. Further, the fact that it teaches us to say “no” to sin indicates that it involves the imparting of spiritual strength to the recipient.
2:12	“trains”	How so?	The “training” involves both a negative and positive aspect. Negative: to reject godless ways and worldly desires; Positive: to live self controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present evil age. But this still doesn’t tell how this is accomplished. It seems that the internal motivation comes from the renewing work of the Spirit who was himself given to us on the basis of Christ’s sacrificial work. This is the point of 3:4-6. Thus the “training” taught to us by the example of Christ and the apostle’s teaching is applied to our hearts and consciences through the Holy Spirit who lives in us. This seems to agree generally with Romans 8:1-39; Galatians 5:16-23; and Ephesians 5:18-20.
2:13	“great God and savior”	In what sense is he God? How is he our savior?	Paul refers to Jesus as “our great God and savior” indicating that while he did not deny his humanity he also held that Jesus was full deity (cf. Phil 2:6-11; Col. 1:15-20; cf. also John 1:1; Heb 1:8). He is our savior in the sense that he sets us free from every kind of lawlessness and brings us into a relationship with God.
2:14	“He gave himself…to set us free…to purify…to do good”	To what does this refer?	The expression “he gave himself” probably refers to Jesus’ death as substitutionary to deliver us from sin (cf. Galatians 1:4). The focus on Jesus as Savior in the letter to Titus also carries the positive idea of bringing us into a right relationship with God. This is expressed in the idea of a purified people who are truly his.
2:15	“exhortation”	What does it mean? How would he do it?
	“authority”	What does this mean?
	Summary Statement of the Entire Passage The Subject: The grace of God The Complement: has appeared and brings salvation to all men, training them to live godly lives until Christ returns.
	Application Theoretical Principles: Practical Applications:

B. Summarize the Paragraph

At the end of your study of the paragraph, after you have made numerous observations and answered questions, you will need to tie the study together again. The way to do this is by writing out in one sentence the “big idea” of the paragraph. There are two parts to any idea: (1) the subject, or what the author talks about, and (2) the complement, or what he says about what he’s talking about. Our purpose is only to introduce this to you here. At the next level we will learn how to do this in more detail. We will also learn how to verify that the subjects and complements we write out are most likely correct. NOTE: You cannot include every detail of the paragraph in your subject/complement. You might as well rewrite the paragraph. The point of this exercise is to force you to summarize. On the other hand, do not be so vague that your summary could fit any paragraph of Scripture.

In our example above we have written out a subject-complement as follows:

The Subject: The grace of God

The Complement: has appeared and brings salvation to all men, training them to live godly lives until Christ returns.

The first sentence, in this case, expresses the topic Paul wishes to communicate to Titus, namely, the “grace of God.” Several things are said about the grace of God: (1) it has appeared; (2) it brings salvation to all men; (3) it trains… (4) it is related to Christ’s offer of himself. Thus Paul is discussing, broadly speaking, aspects of the nature of the grace of God. This is his subject. Verse 15 forms part of the subject to the degree that he wants Titus to exhort people to live according to a correct understanding of this grace. The injunction to Titus in v. 15 would not be in the complement since it is not, per se, part of the nature of the grace Paul is referring to.

The complement represents a greater level of summary, in this case, than the subject. In it we have covered all the material from 2:11-14. If there were more verses we would not be able to include as much information (from each verse) in our subject/complement as we did in this one.

3. Relate the Paragraph to Your Original Synthesis of the Book

You have done an initial synthesis of the book you’re studying. Then you analyzed and summarized one particular paragraph in the book. Now you need to go back to your overall synthesis and see if the detailed study on this particular paragraph affects your synthesis of the message of the whole.

4. Apply Your Passage: Ethical Principles and Practical Applications (with Scriptural Correlations):

A. Ethical Principles

i. Christians are to reject godless ways and worldly desires and live self-controlled, upright and godly lives.

ii. Paul implies that the Christians are to be patient for the Lord’s return and not give in to temptations to live like the world.

iii. Christians are to be eager to do good works as an expression of the grace of God in their lives. These good works are, however, not to be done in any way other than from pure motives and in keeping with their relationship with Christ.

B. Practical Applications According to One’s Life and Needs

These applications will flow from a person’s life. For example, if you as a Christian have a hard time watching what you say or the way in which you say it, and you feel before God that your language is not godly, then you can first sit down and evaluate why you do what you do. Try to get at the root cause and repent of that as well as the act itself. Then, you might want to read some passages that speak about the correct use of your tongue and seek to apply the passage the next time you say something to anyone (cf. James 1:26). Will what I say build others up (Eph 4:29)? Will it be truthful (Eph 4:15)? Is it at all hypocritical? You may wish to study James 3:1-12 in order to get a better handle on this issue.

Perhaps there is some other area of your life you feel that you do not have the kind of self control that is honoring to God, that is, your life in this area doesn’t reflect the kind of grace that God has shown you. Perhaps a practical way to apply Titus 2:11-12 is to study some passages, using the concordance in your Bible, which relate to the problem area either directly or indirectly. Then set out a plan to play daily about these issues. Make your plan measurable, attainable, and personal.

5. An Example from the Book of Ephesians

Book: Ephesians Passage: 2:1-10

Context:

Before: __________________________________________________________________________________________________

After: __________________________________________________________________________________________________

Observations	Questions	Answers
2:1 “dead”	In what sense does he mean “dead” since he says in verse two that “we lived” in this deadness?
”transgressions” and “sins”	Do these mean the same or different things? Why two words?
2:2 “formerly”	What time contrast does Paul have in mind here?
“the world’s present path”	What is the world’s present path? How is this related to what follows in v. 2
“Kingdom of the air”	What does “kingdom” mean here? “Air”?
“ruler”	Who or what is the “ruler” Paul refers to?
“spirit”	Who or what is this “spirit” Is it a personal being or an attitude?
2:3 “cravings”	What are these?
“flesh”	What is this? How does it relate to my physical body? My “nature” as Paul calls it later on in the verse. cf. also Thoughts? Feelings? Will? Specifically to the “mind” mentioned later in the verse?
“nature”	What does he mean by “nature”
“children of wrath”	Why “children of wrath”? What “wrath” is he referring to?
2:4 “mercy”	What does this mean?
“love”	What does this mean?
“made us alive together with Christ”	How? When? Why? What does this mean? Alive in what sense?
2:5 “grace”	What does this mean here?
“saved”	What does this mean here? Saved from what?
2:6 “raised up”	When? In what sense?
“seated”	When? How? In what sense?
“heavenly realms”	Where is this?
“in Christ Jesus”	To what does this refer?
2:7 demonstrate	Does this indicate the purpose for God saving us?
“coming ages”	What are these?
2:8-9 “For”	What does this term indicate?
“gift” and “works”	What is the nature of the contrast?
2:10 “For”
“workmanship”	How so? How does this relate to what came before in the paragraph?
“created in Christ Jesus”	What was created? in Christ Jesus?
“good works”	What are the good works that Paul is envisioning here?
“God prepared beforehand”	When? Why? How does it relate to our previous life discussed in 2:1-3?
Summary Statement of the Entire Passage The Subject: The reason God saved us by his amazing grace when we were dead in sin and seated us in the heavenly realms The Complement: is so that in the coming ages he might express his kindness to us and so that we might currently walk in the good works he has predetermined for us.
Application Theoretical Practical

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to survey recent discussion on the issue of Luke’s theology of the atonement with an attempt to enumerate the various positions of several authors and their relation to one another in the stream of ideas. The discussion will essentially begin with Hans Conzelmann in 1960, with brief reference being made to the antecedents of his thought in earlier writers such as Henry J. Cadbury and C. H. Dodd, and will continue up to the present day.

While every author agrees that the death of Jesus in Luke-Acts is important, they are not at all agreed on the particular significance Luke maintains for it.4 Thus there is no lack of suggestions as to how Luke frames the death of Christ in his gospel and therefore how he desires that his readers understand this event. Once the traditional view had in large measure been set aside,5 several models were developed which have attempted to define Luke’s soteriology. Some have suggested that Luke simply sees Jesus dying according to a divine plan and that he gives no more thought to it than that. Others understand Jesus’ death in Luke-Acts to be a demonstration of divine favor in which His death sufferings form only part of His atoning work. Still others, by placing the Lucan writings in their first century literary milieu, and paralleling Luke’s passion narrative with what appear to be conceptually similar materials, advance the idea that Luke’s Christ died as an innocent martyr. Still others maintain that Christ’s death in Luke was as the Isaianic Suffering Servant and was indeed vicarious. Finally, others see the death of Christ in Luke-Acts as either a demonstration of God’s righteousness, a prelude to glorification, the representative death of the ‘lowly’ or as a great Benefactor.6 Beginning with Conzelmann, we now turn our attention to a brief description of the various interpretations.

The Death of Jesus to Fulfill Scripture: A Divine Necessity with No Explicit Theology of the Atonement

Hans Conzelmann

Hans Conzelmann’s work, The Theology of St. Luke,7 was one of the first to explain the overall structure of Luke-Acts as “redemptive history.”8 Working on premises laid down by his mentor, Rudolph Bultmann,9 Conzelmann carried on his literary studies in Luke-Acts, outlining the work and ‘plan’ of God in three distinct phases, which are themselves hemmed in by Creation at one extreme and the Parousia at the other. Conzelmann delineates the three phases or time periods as the period of Israel, the period of Christ’s earthly life, and the period of the church which culminates in the Parousia.10

The focus for our discussion concerns Conzelmann’s understanding of the significance Luke accords the death of Christ. Working within his threefold framework, Conzelmann agrees with the idea that Luke’s Jesus suffered as a ‘martyr’,11 but does not feel that this is at all the essential idea in the Lucan account. For him, Luke’s passion account portrays Jesus as one who ‘must’ suffer, albeit willingly, because this is indeed the divine plan and according to Scripture.12 The emphasis is therefore upon the necessity of the suffering of Jesus to fulfill Scripture. In this regard Conzelmann argues from the use of the verb dei‘ and its relation to the fulfillment theme in Luke:

The most important indication as regards the whole complex of ideas is the use of the significant word dei‘. It is again in the defense of the Passion that the word is particularly used, already in pre-Lucan tradition of course. In Luke, however, the ‘necessity’ of the Passion is fully brought out.13

However, while Conzelmann understands the death of Jesus in Luke to be a divine necessity and according to Scripture he argues that nowhere does Luke give the death of Jesus the explanation that Paul does or even that of the other synoptists, all of whom relate it to the forgiveness of sins. He says,

The most important finding in this connection for our purpose is that there is no trace of any Passion mysticism, nor is any direct soteriological significance drawn from Jesus’ suffering or death. There is no suggestion of a connection with the forgiveness of sins (italics mine).14

His argument rests heavily on the following observations: 1) Luke omits Mark 10:45; 2) the cross plays no part in the proclamation of salvation in Luke-Acts; 3) there is no trace of the idea of atonement in Luke’s use of the term paradidovnai and 4) Luke appears to steer clear of any atonement ideas in his use of Isaiah 53. For Conzelmann all these omissions indicate a desire on the part of Luke to avoid casting the death of Christ in expiatory tones.15

Conzelmann’s view, then, regarding the death of Jesus in Luke-Acts is that it is according to divine plan and is never interpreted by Luke to have any connection with the forgiveness of sin. This particular interpretation of the atonement in Luke-Acts was not uncommon in 1960 when Conzelmann wrote. It appears that he was in agreement with earlier writers whom he refers to as influencing his views; men such as Henry J. Cadbury and C. H. Dodd.16

H. J. Cadbury

Henry J. Cadbury’s work, The Making of Luke-Acts17 has been considered “a seminal redaction-critical work before the rise of redaction criticism. . . [which would] influence Lucan studies from that time onward.”18 Conzelmann’s conclusions can be seen in Cadbury’s remarks on the Lucan presentation of the death of Jesus. Cadbury understood the death of Jesus to be of little evidential value to Luke in comparison with the emphasis placed upon the resurrection of Christ. He says,

The death of Jesus was an act of ignorant wickedness and rejection on the part of the Jews. God, however, thwarted its effect by raising Jesus from the dead. The resurrection is therefore the significant thing about Jesus. His death is only the prelude. The resurrection is the great fulfillment of prophecy, the demonstration of Messiahship. . . .19

Cadbury goes on to say that 1) Luke omits Marcan ideas which might suggest a doctrine of atonement; 2) that the longer ending of Luke 22:19, 20 is probably not original; 3) that Luke’s use of Isaiah 53 is devoid of the soteriology that later Christians have come to see in the text20 and 4) any connection between Christ’s death and forgiveness in Acts is simply a Pauline intrusion. Cadbury’s remarks can be summarized in the following two points: 1) Luke makes no comments linking the death of Jesus with forgiveness of sin 2) the death of Jesus was simply necessary to make the resurrection possible. It is the former of these two ideas that can explicitly be found in Conzelmann’s understanding of the Lucan death of Jesus.

C. H. Dodd

C. H. Dodd, in his work, The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments, also espoused the same basic view of the death of Jesus in Luke. According to Dodd,

The Jerusalem kerygma does not assert that Christ died for our sins. The result of the life, death and resurrection of Christ is the forgiveness of sins, but this forgiveness is not specifically connected with His death.21

Dodd claimed that Paul received his doctrine of Christ’s death from the school of Stephen and Philip who had taken the step to interpret the death of Jesus vicariously along the lines of Isaiah 53. Thus it can be seen that Conzelmann’s view, according to his own admission, has its antecedents in Cadbury, Dodd and others. They understand Jesus’ death in Luke to be a necessity according to the divine plan, but not in anyway connected with forgiveness.

Vincent Taylor

Vincent Taylor is a more recent advocate of this view.22 He wishes to see a distinction between Luke’s theology and the theology of his sources. He understands Luke to be conveying that Christ’s work was pre-eminently an act of obedience to his father’s will, with no thought given to suffering vicariously. He notes, as did Conzelmann, the omission of Mark 10:45. Then, as regards Luke 22:19, 20 Taylor suggests that these verses belong to a pre-Lukan liturgical source23 (if they are original at all) and that their theology, which is admittedly speaking of a vicarious atonement, is not inherently Lucan.24

The Death of Christ: Part of Christ’s Atoning Work
and a Demonstration of Divine Favor

In his article, “The Salvific Character of Jesus’ Death in Lucan Soteriology,” Richard Zehnle writes explicitly to refute the idea that Luke makes no association of the death of Christ with the salvation of men and to affirm that Luke does indeed have a soteriology with respect to the death of Christ.25 He affirms Dodd, Conzelmann and others as they understand Luke to present no satisfaction theory of the atonement in his two-volume work. However, he sharply criticizes them for equating that idea with the idea that there is therefore “no direct soteriological significance to be drawn from Jesus’ death.” According to Zehnle, this is a wrong, unwarranted and even “dangerous” conclusion to be drawn from an author who makes up more than a fourth of the entire New Testament.26

Zehnle begins his argument by attempting to demonstrate that the theme of salvation is very important to Luke. From an examination of the verb swvzw and its cognates, he attempts tomake it plain that Luke is highly interested in the salvation of men. This emphasis can be misunderstood, according to Zehnle, if Luke is constantly viewed from a Pauline perspective.27 He argues further that Luke gives the details on the nature of salvation and even spells out the requirements of a man’s salvation, namely, an internal response of repentance engendered by genuine trust in Christ leading to baptism in the name of Christ.28 Therefore, since salvation is important to Luke, and since he does record the death of Christ, the two in some way must be connected. In this regard, Zehnle says that the role of Jesus in salvation involves his whole life from birth through to glorification:

Essential to the understanding of the role of Jesus in Luke-Acts is the recognition that the complex, life-death-resurrection-ascension/glorification, constitutes a whole whose individual parts find their full meaning precisely in relation to the whole.29

In this process, Zehnle argues that it is the glorified Christ in Luke who is now the cause of salvation. He refers to the life and death of Jesus as therefore holding mediate influence as regards the salvation of men. He means by this that the perfect life of Christ and his complete obedience unto the cross provide the necessary prerequisites for the glorification of Christ. The death of Christ is the therefore, the formal cause of salvation, not the efficient cause. This belongs to the glorification of Christ.30 But, says Zehnle, we are bound to say that Luke has no soteriology if we focus on any one particular aspect of Christ’s life and death. We must keep in mind the whole and out of that emerges the relation of the death of Christ to the salvation of men.

But the question remains, “Does the death of Christ itself have any intrinsic soteriological value in Luke-Acts?” according to Zehnle. Or, “What is the nature of Christ’s death as a formal cause in salvation?” On this point Zehnle argues that the death of Christ, as it makes up the life-death-resurrection complex, is simply a demonstration of God’s favor toward men and when viewed by man becomes the impetus for making a decision to trust in Christ. When one sees all that Christ has done as a person who perfectly conformed his life to the will of His father, one is moved to dedicate one’s life in faith to Him. Zehnle says,

Thus, in his life, death and resurrection the favor of God for man may be seen, and a man is motivated to make an act of faith in His Name. This explains why the apostolic preaching insists on conformity with God’s will in the life of Jesus, but also why the proclamation of the resurrection plays so central a place. Indeed, apart from it, the death of Jesus has no meaning for Luke.31

In summary, Zehnle understands the death of Christ in Luke to indicate God’s favor upon men and valuable as a saving act only insofar as it forms part of the larger whole of his life-death-resurrection-ascension and glorification. Alone it does not save, but instead motivates a person to trust in Christ.32 For Zehnle, Luke’s soteriology is not primitive and pre-Pauline, and by implication inferior (contra Dodd), but simply unique with different emphases.

Vicarious Atonement and the Idea of the Suffering Servant

Joachim Jeremias

Joachim Jeremias, in The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, argues that it is inconceivable that Jesus should not have viewed His death as a vicarious atonement.33 Jesus has, according to Jeremias, compared Himself with the paschal lamb (cf. Luke 22:15-20) and in so doing has basically affirmed his death as a saving death. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Egyptian paschal lamb and all other Passover meals before him. Just as each Passover meal looked back to Israel’s deliverance from death and judgment in Exodus 12, so Christ also delivers through his death. This is the significance of the Eucharistic words of Jesus in Luke 22:19, 20.34

Adding to this, Jeremias points to the milieu in which Jesus lived and thought as further support for the idea of vicarious atonement in the last supper. He argues that it was very common in first century Palestinian Judaism to view death as possessing atoning power, even the death of a criminal if that person were truly repentant. He says,

Conceptions of the atoning power of death play a large part in the thought of Jesus’ contemporaries. Every death has atoning power—even that of a criminal if he dies penitent. An innocent death offered to God has vicarious power of atonement for others.35

This being the case, it is not surprising that Jesus, knowing he was going to face a violent death, should search for the meaning of his death and find it in the idea of the paschal lamb. This is indeed what Christ did according to Jeremias, and once having clearly understood the meaning of his sufferings he thus taught his disciples at the supper. For Jeremias the Jesus of Luke’s passion knows he is the Servant of God who is going to His death on behalf of others.36

I. H. Marshall

I. H. Marshall, in Luke: Historian and Theologian, begins by pointing out, as others have done, that Luke is not so out of place as might be imagined regarding explanations relating to the death of Christ.37 He says,

As compared with Mark and Matthew, therefore, Luke’s silence about the death of Jesus in the Gospel is not in any way remarkable. It is more significant that there is little about it in Acts. But the rather scanty evidence must be carefully scrutinized lest we take too superficial a view of Luke’s teaching on this theme.38

Having made the point, he nonetheless recognizes that Luke’s emphasis is to link salvation with the exaltation of Jesus and with His name and not so much with the cross.39 But, he says, this does not justify claiming that the cross has no direct soteriological value in Luke. He argues that there is the possibility of a Servant soteriology in Luke.40

Marshall emphasizes the fact that Luke describes Jesus in terms of the Suffering Servant. He bases this on the use of Isaiah 53 in Acts 8:32; that pai‘” (Acts 3:13, 26; 4:27, 30) in the light of 8:32 must mean Servant and not son, and the term divkaio” (Acts 3:14, 7:52; 22:14) associates Christ with Is. 53:11. He acknowledges that the New Testament does not develop at length a Servant christology but maintains nonetheless that a Servant soteriology is not precluded by this fact. He refers to 1 Peter as support for his thesis. The use of the traditions referring to Christ as Servant show that Luke has at least incorporated traditions about the atoning work of the Servant though he himself has not positively interpreted the Servant idea as vicarious, redemptive suffering.

There is, according to Marshall, another way in which Luke has (at least implicitly) affirmed vicarious atonement, namely, through the borrowing of the oldest tradition of “hanging on a tree” (Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29) from Deut 21:22. The oldest form of the tradition seems to be related to the bearing of sin and its curse, as its use in Paul and Peter seem to make clear. What is different in Luke is that he has not explicitly made known its soteriological interpretation, but would have left that up to the community, who undoubtedly understood it as vicarious.41

Finally, Marshall raises the question of whether Luke has misrepresented the teaching of the early church which explicitly claimed that ‘Christ died for our sins’ (cf. 1 Cor 15:3, 4). He says “no.” Luke has simply decided to emphasize that as “exalted Lord and Messiah, Jesus is the Saviour.” Citing Romans 4:25 and 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, he claims that the linking of the death and resurrection of Christ (as Luke has done) was common in the early church.42 Luke has, according to Marshall, recorded one line of preaching in the early church which had, as it focus, the resurrection of Christ as the confirmation of His Lordship and the guarantee of his offer of forgiveness. Thus, Luke’s presentation is one sided (as is every presentation) stressing certain aspects to the playing down of others. One should not conclude, however, that Luke has no rationale for salvation. Indeed he does, namely, that Jesus grants salvation in virtue of the fact that He is Lord and Messiah. Again, what is different is that Luke does not spell out every detail in an attempt to relate the death of Christ as the means of salvation.43

Darrell L. Bock

Darrell Bock is another who is unwilling to claim as did Conzelmann and others that there is no doctrine of the atonement in Luke-Acts. He links the idea of forgiveness in Acts 10:43; 13:38 with the idea of the Servant in Luke 22:37 and the idea of the necessity of Christ’s sufferings in Luke 24:46, 47. From these references he concludes that Luke does indeed present Christ as the Suffering Servant whose death is vicarious.44

He also mentions Luke 22:19, 20 and refers to it as having “undoubted substitutionary significance” and Acts 20:28 as setting forth the purchasing value of the blood, a reference with clear expiatory overtones. But it appears that he has laid less stress on Luke 22:19, 20 and Acts 20:28 in his argument, perhaps due to their textual uncertainty and unusual grammatical problems.

In summary, Bock affirms with Marshall and others that Luke does indeed have a positive theology of the atonement, but has chosen to place greater emphases on other aspects of Christ’s work. Nonetheless, he claims that it is incorrect to think that Luke has no theology of the cross.45

William J. Larkin, Jr.

William J. Larkin has developed the Isaiah 53 background to Luke’s passion narrative in a slightly different manner than has Marshall or Bock.46 Before entering into his main thesis, though, it is worthy to note some interesting answers he supplies to the traditional arguments raised in favor of Luke’s supposed intention to steer clear of any reference to vicarious suffering in his account of the passion.

As far as Luke’s omission of the Mark 10:45 passage (i. e. kaiV dou‘nai thVn yuchVn aujtou‘ luvtron ajntiV pollw‘n) is concerned,47 Larkin says this need not be the result of an a priori soteriological idea in the mind of the evangelist, but simply due to any number of things, including: 1) the desire to link up directly the passion prediction with the following scene in which miraculous powers are demonstrated and a blind man is healed (cf. Luke 18:31-34 and 18:35-43); 2) due to his redactional activity and the wish to avoid repeating similar though independent material or 3) due to Luke’s preoccupation with the large amount of non-Markan material occurring throughout the travel narrative (Luke 9:51-18:14).48

Commenting on the textual problem in Luke 22:19b-20, Larkin argues (based substantially on the work of Jeremias49 and Schürmann50) that when the extrinsic probabilities are combined with the probability that the short form developed as a result of disciplina arcani, 51 the longer reading is to be preferred. This is of course important, for the longer reading almost certainly carries the idea of vicarious atonement.

Larkin also argues that the lack of the soteriological interpretation of the Christ’s death in the preaching in Acts can be accounted for in ways other than presuming Luke’s avoidance of the idea of vicarious atonement. The book of Acts appears to record summary forms of proclamation, linking Jesus with the Isaianic Servant and presenting the fact that as such he suffered unjustly for the sins of people. Larkin admits that the connection is not as explicit as one would like, but it is nonetheless there.52

Finally, in his comments against the traditional arguments for rejecting a soteriological interpretation of Jesus’ death in Luke-Acts, Larkin says that interpretations that want to find Luke’s soteriology completely in the resurrection-ascension-glorification of Christ fail to adequately link Jesus’ present position as glorified Lord with the fruit of salvation, namely, the forgiveness of sins.53 Thus says Larkin, it is probably correct to see the basis of Luke’s soteriology as the death of Jesus.

The reason Larkin responded to the previous arguments against a soteriological interpretation of Jesus’ death in Luke-Acts was to show that the possibility is still open to a redemptive understanding of Luke’s soteriology and to set the stage for his own idea of vicarious atonement as seen in Luke’s use of Isaiah 53:12d in Luke 22:37. We now turn our attention to the main points in his presentation.

It is Larkin’s desire to demonstrate that Luke’s use of Isaiah 53:12d (i. e. “and he was numbered with the transgressors”) in 22:37 functions as a context pointer to draw the reader back to the entire Servant song in Isaiah 53 and all that it means (cf. Isaiah 52:13-53:12), including the idea of vicarious atonement.54

First, Larkin argues that the specific reference “and he was numbered with the transgressors” is not fulfilled in any specific way in the Lucan context.55 The fact that it is not fulfilled in a specific way leads to the possibility that Luke wants us to read the whole of the passion narrative in the light of Isaiah 53:12d. That is, that the fulfillment of Jesus’ words are to be seen in the whole of the passion. Two reasons suggest this: 1) Luke 22:37 is placed at the end of the farewell discourse and at the beginning of the action of the passion, thus it stands as virtually a headline for all that is about to come56 and 2) Luke uses other fulfillment proof texts in his gospel in similar ways (cf. Luke 3:4-6/Isaiah 40:3-5 and Luke 4:17-19, 21/ Isaiah 61:1-2; 58:6).57

Having established the idea that Isaiah 53:12d is being used by Luke to refer to the entire passion narrative, Larkin raises the question as to what part of the quotation is fulfilled in the passion as a whole. He asks,

What is the precise content from Isaiah 53 that is fulfilled? Is the fulfillment limited only to what is explicitly cited by Luke, or is this brief quotation a pointer to the rest of the original context? Further, if the Luke 22:37/Isa 53:12 quotation is a “context pointer,” is the vicarious atonement significance of the Servant’s death something to which Luke intends to point and present as fulfilled in Jesus’ death?58

There must be some criteria that can be used to determine if an Old Testament text quoted by a New Testament writer is being used as a ‘pointer.’ For this, Larkin draws upon the work of Morna Hooker.59 Two criteria are cited: 1) the presence of other Old Testament allusions in the immediate context and 2) the “presence of a unified interpretation. . . of the whole Isaianic Servant concept.” Luke 22:37 fails the first test, but passes the second according to Larkin.

There are several points in the passion that demonstrate that the suffering experienced by Jesus is identical with that of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53,60 that is, that Jesus was innocent, yet was treated unjustly just as the Servant. Luke brings this out through interpretive comments (cf. 22:48, 52, 53; 23:41), through his arrangement of the details of the narrative and through certain special emphases. The net result is that we see Luke using the objective facts of Isaiah 53:12d (i. e. “that he was numbered with the transgressors”) in Luke 22:37 to show that what follows (i. e. the passion events and suffering) is really to be related to the whole Servant song in Isaiah 53. In the end, according to Larkin, Luke has indeed placed the whole of Isaiah 53 behind his use of 53:12d and therefore, vicarious atonement stands at the heart of the death of the Lucan Jesus. He does this, Larkin says, because in a literary way he wants to drive his readers to ask the question of what possible explanation can there be for this God-ordained injustice? The answer: it must be the vicarious suffering spoken of in Isaiah 53:12.61

The Lucan Jesus as an Innocent Martyr

C. H. Talbert, following M. Dibelius,62 argues that Luke associates the death of Jesus with the motif of an innocent martyr.63 He strongly denies that Luke 22:19, 20 and Acts 20:28 have anything to do with the forgiveness of sins, but instead simply present Christ as the seal of the New Covenant.64 As well, he follows in the line of Conzelmann and others in their treatment of the Luke’s failure to record the soteriological words of Mark 10:45, Luke’s studious avoidance of any redemptive overtones from Isaiah 53 and the lack of reference to the death of Christ in apostolic preaching. According to Talbert, Peter’s and Paul’s sermons in Acts never link the forgiveness of sins with the death of Christ. Instead he says, forgiveness in Luke comes from the earthly life of Jesus as well as Christ, the glorified, ascended Lord.65

For Talbert, then, the significance of the death of Christ must be found in some place other than in a kind of Pauline soteriology. It is his contention, as stated, that Christ died as a martyr: “the unjust murder of an innocent man by the established powers due to the pressure of the Jewish leaders.”66

According to Talbert, the first dimension in understanding Jesus’ death as a martyrdom in Luke is that his death represents the rejection of God’s messenger by God’s people. The nation as a whole was supposed to be God’s people, but indeed the majority of the historical people (i. e. the nation of Israel, the larger populace out of which believers would arise) rejected the Lord, expressed most clearly in His condemnation by the religious authorities, the chief priests and their associates (not so much the Pharisees in Luke).67

The second dimension involved in understanding Luke’s presentation of the death of Jesus as a martyrdom, is that such deaths serve to legitimate the Christian cause and serve as a catalysts for evangelistic outreach.68 To further establish that this is indeed the Lucan idea, Talbert parallels Luke’s portrayal of the death of Jesus with 1) Graeco-Roman views of martyrdom; 2) Jewish views of martyrdom and 3) Christian views of martyrdom. In his mind, these parallels serve to buttress the idea that the Lucan Jesus died as a martyr.

It was common, Talbert argues, for a Graeco-Roman philosopher to enjoin his mighty doctrine with concomitant acts which later result in his unjust death. It was the hope of the philosopher that his death might propel his cause forward. But, adds Talbert, Seneca and others taught that one should not seek death. So there is a parallel here between secular writings on the subject of martyrdom and Luke’s writing of the death of Jesus.

The Jewish view of martyrdom was similar to the Graeco-Roman view with the hope of course that the one might win converts to Judaism. The early Christian view of martyrdom is similar to its Graeco-Roman and Jewish counterparts, except that it apparently put more emphasis on the evangelistic thrust resulting from the death.69

From these observations Talbert argues the following two points:

1) The martyrdom of Jesus in Luke is like the Jewish martyrdoms in that Jesus is a prophet rejected and killed by God’s people and that he is a devout Jew executed unjustly by the Gentiles and 2) Jesus’ martyrdom has points in common with all three views. He did not seek martyrdom and not everyone was converted by his being killed.

Luke’s Passion Account as the Suffering of a Righteous

Man and the Demonstration of God’s Justice

Robert J. Karris argues that the term divkaio” in Luke 23:47 should be translated ‘righteous’ and not ‘innocent.’’ He recognizes the weighty support advanced for the translation of divkaio” as ‘innocent’ but there is other sound evidence, he argues, from the context of Luke-Acts as a whole, from the cry of the centurion and Luke’s use of dovxazein toVn qeovn (cf. Luke 2:20; 5:25, 26; 7:16; 13:13; etc. ) and from Jesus’ death when he recites a Psalm of the righteous suffering one (i. e. Psalm 31) that is commonly overlooked. From these references, as well as Luke’s use of Psalms 22 and 69 and Wisdom 2:18 in Luke 23:34b-38, Karris feels that it is perhaps better to conclude that divkaio” means ‘righteous’ in this context.

Karris then attempts to show how the idea of justice is a pervasive motif in Luke-Acts. Building on the work of John Reumann70 and Norman Perrin,71 he concludes that Jesus’ work in Luke-Acts is as a preacher whose mission of justice it is to go about preaching the good news to the poor so that God’s kingdom (which is founded on righteousness) can be realized on earth.

With that in mind he demonstrates that the death of Christ in Luke is to be seen as a picture of the ‘righteous suffering one,’ whom the just God later vindicated in the resurrection. Anyone who trusts in God’s justice will receive similar vindication. Thus, according to Karris, in Luke,

God has not abandoned his suffering righteous son, whose suffering typifies that of his unjustly treated creation; God graciously vindicates that Jesus and creates salvific trust in those who trust in his justice. Truly, Jesus was the suffering righteous one.72

The Death of Jesus Simply a Means to Resurrection,

Ascension and Glorification

Eric Franklin understands the Lucan Jesus to be cast largely in the light of the Isaianic Servant and puzzles over the question of why Luke avoids any mention of the redemptive sufferings of the Servant.73 His response to this query is to posit that Luke is so controlled by his Christology, and Jesus’ present reign in glory from whence He dispenses salvation, that he does not want to root human salvation in the past event of the cross.

Franklin argues that Luke does not have a negative view of the cross, that is, Luke does not allow it to go against those things that were claimed by the Messiah and he therefore, places it among the events in Jesus’ life that were decreed by God. In short, for Franklin Luke’s cross is simply the means to a higher end, namely, glorification. He says that “its positive value lies in the fact that it alone made the resurrection and ascension possible.”74 Other than that, the cross simply underscores the necessity of suffering, a predominant theme in Luke-Acts.75 Franklin’s view has much in common with Conzelmann, Dodd and others, but he places more emphasis on the cross as a means to the end, namely, glorification.

The Death of Jesus: The Death of the Lowly

In his article, “Luke’s Theology of the Death of Jesus,”76 Jerome Kodell underscores the New Testament affirmation that ‘Christ died for our sins’ and proclaims the fact that there is probably no truth more deeply embedded in the hearts of Christians. He therefore, finds it incredible that it should be altogether “missing” from Luke-Acts.

Kodell acknowledges the veracity of the martyr motif in Luke as well as the necessity of Christ to go to the cross, but building on the work of a German Dominican, Richard Glöckner, he sees salvation in Luke as essentially the raising of the “lowly” and the cross as the means to this end.77 He argues that there is a great struggle going on in Luke-Acts between the truly righteous and the self-righteous, between the truly lowly and those who are mighty, and the death of Christ as one who was lowly (and sought not his own self-glorification) is the means by which God can now raise all those who are likewise lowly. “His death has meaning in itself as the confrontation of human sinfulness by lowliness, which in God’s plan is the state of openness to divine salvation.”78

The Death of Christ Imaged through Beneficence

F. W. Danker places the Lucan account of Jesus squarely in the traditions of the Graeco-Roman writers and parallels the passion narrative to the so-called stories of the Graeco-Roman heroes, superstars—great benefactors.79 He says that the fact that Luke introduces Jesus as a deliverer would have automatically alerted his readers to the fact that Jesus was being cast in this light. By interchanging Christ with Satan in the temptation account, Luke has once again demonstrated the superior ability of the great benefactor, Jesus. Jesus’ sermon in Luke 4 is akin to the great addresses of political leaders who promise liberation and his exorcisms were proof that he had power to carry out his promises.

It is in this context, Danker argues, that Luke presents Jesus. Jesus is the great Benefactor, the one individual of exceptional personal merit and piety. His death then, is to be seen as the ability to face impending danger without flinching or being detoured from his purpose and mission. Danker parallels Christ’s struggles in the Garden of Gethsemane with the life struggles of Demetrios the Great and Antiochus I of Kommagene who faced deadly perils during their various exploits and overcame by persevering. He especially cites a quotation from Eumenes who said that he had undergone many great struggles (povllou” meVn kaiV mevgalou” ajgovna”) yet approached the great dangers with indifference. So Christ has all the qualities of a great Graeco-Roman Benefactor and his death in that it leads to his exaltation and apparent immortality further confirm this interpretation for Danker.

Summary

Since the time of Conzelmann’s work, The Theology of St. Luke (1960), in which he claimed that Luke delineates no clear theology of the atonement, there have arisen several models to account for the Lucan presentation of the death of Jesus. These models have several things in common: 1) they all recognize Luke’s underscoring of the necessity of the death of Jesus; 2) they all recognize that Luke-Acts focuses more on the exalted, glorified Lord and 3) they all tend to see the mixture of motifs Luke uses, including, justice, innocence, betrayal and martyrological ideas. It is this last point, however, that gives rise to the different models advanced, depending on what a commentator thinks should be stressed.

Some commentators stress the justice motif and therefore cast his death in the light of God’s vindication of a righteous man.80 Others stress the innocent martyr idea.81 Some feel that the death of Christ in Luke-Acts is that of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 and that the death is presented so as to include the idea of vicarious atonement.82

In summary then, there is at present no satisfactory consensus reached regarding Luke’s presentation of the death of Jesus. Many models have been proposed, but none seem to deal adequately with all that is going on in Luke-Acts.

---

4 Perhaps the major cause for the current dilemma is the textual uncertainty of the only two texts in Luke-Acts that seem to explicate a doctrine of the atonement, namely, Luke 22:19b, 20 and Acts 20:28. The issue of the their authenticity will be taken up in the next chapter. However, one cannot totally put the blame here for there are many commentators, due to the problem of Luke’s use of sources, who nonetheless regard the theology of these two texts (if original) as characteristically nonLucan. Therefore, solving the textual problem does not put the debate to rest; there are several others factors, including ‘Pauline intrusionisms’ in Acts and Luke’s use of apparently unaltered early church tradition.

5 By traditional I mean the interpretation of the death of Christ in Luke as vicarious atonement. It must be said at the outset that many still regard the traditional view as essentially correct, but most scholars appear to have opted for another model for understanding Christ’s death on the cross.

6 For a brief statement of the problem and a summary of some of the suggested solutions, see William J. Larkin, Jr. “Luke’s Use of the Old Testament as a Key to His Soteriology,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 19, 20 (1977): 326. Cf. also A. George, “Le Sens de la Mort de Jésus pour Luc,” Revue Biblique 80 (1973): 186, 87.

7 Hans Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke, Translated by Geoffrey Buswell, (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1960), 200, 201.

8 Ibid., 137. Cf. also I. Howard Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), 77. He says, “The key word in Conzelmann’s approach is Heilsgeschichte, variously rendered into English as ‘the history of salvation,’ ‘redemptive history’ or ‘salvation-history.’”

9 cf. Charles H. Talbert, “Shifting Sands: The Recent Study of the Gospel of Luke,” Interpretation 30 (1976): 381. Talbert says that before the 1950’s Luke was viewed primarily as an historian, one who had researched information on the Jesus tradition and subsequently assembled his findings, according to their historical outworking, in a two-volume work. But by the mid sixties, Luke-Acts had become a hotbed of study focusing on several issues, especially Luke as a theologian. The locus for the change according to Talbert lay in Rudolph Bultmann’s, Theology of the New Testament (1951, 55). Out of his work grew the work of his students; men like Ernst Käsemann and Hans Conzelmann. Conzelmann is dealt with here while E. Käsemann is not. However, it should be noted that while Käsemann saw the death of Jesus in Luke in a slightly different light than his colleague, namely, as ‘a misunderstanding of the Jews which had to be corrected by God’s intervention in the resurrection,’ he nonetheless stands in the same line with Conzelmann in affirming that Luke communicates no positive doctrine of the atonement; cf. Richard Zehnle, “The Salvific Character of Jesus’ Death in Lucan Soteriology,” Theological Studies 30 (1969): 420.

10 Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke, 149, 150. According to Kevin Giles, “Salvation in Lucan Theology (1),” The Reformed Theological Review 42 (1983): 12,13, the basic idea in Conzelmann’s view is that Luke is primarily a historian, not a theologian and thus has abandoned any hope of the imminent return of Christ. Giles attempts to refute this position by affirming the theological character of Luke’s work as proclamation.

11 Ibid., 200, n. 2. Conzelmann says that he agrees with H. W. Surkau, Martyrien in judischer und frühchristlicher Zeit, 1938 and M. Dibelius, Die Formgeschichte der Evangelien, 2nd ed., 1933, that the martyr-motif is present in the Lucan account of the Passion, but says also that the fact that Luke presents Jesus’ death as according to divine plan substantially differentiates it form a pure martyrdom. Cf. also p. 80 where Conzelmann speaks about the martyr idea.

12 Ibid., 200.

13 Ibid., 153. See also p. 153, n. 3: “cf. Luke 17:25. Although the context is eschatological, the word dei~ is used not in connection with the future, but with the Passion. In xxiv, 7 it is a question of a subsequent proof that the Passion was part of God’s plan, by means of a reference back to one of Jesus’ own statements. A comparison with xxii, 37 shows the harmony between Scripture and Jesus’ own statement. In Luke xxiv, 26 the demonstration of the necessity of the Passion is made the climax of the resurrection story; cf. v. 27 and v. 44 where the circle is completed by the fact that Jesus quotes the Scriptural proof and refers to his earlier sayings.” Cf. also p. 57.

14 Ibid., 201.

15 Ibid., 201, 202. This is difficult to fathom since Luke traveled with Paul and was undoubtedly affected by his ministry and message (notice the large place he gives him in the Gentile mission in Acts 13-28). But perhaps this is trying to read Luke’s soteriology through Pauline eyes, with Paul placed consciously or perhaps unwittingly superior to Luke. Cf. also Paul Feine and Johannes Behm, Introduction to the New Testament, 14th ed., Translated by A, J. Mattill, Jr., ed. Werner Georg Kümmel, (Abingdon Press: New York, 1965), 104. Following Bleiben, Feine et. al. claim that Luke is altogether unfamiliar with the Pauline theology. “This unfamiliarity can most clearly be recognized in the author’s conception of Jesus’ death. Although he understands it as corresponding to the divine necessity (9:22; 24:26), he makes no clear reference to an expiatory death. Mark 10:45 is wanting. Luke 22:19f is carried out no further.”

16 Ibid., 201.

17 Henry J. Cadbury, The Making of Luke-Acts, (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1927), 280.

18 Darrell L. Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 12, (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987), 27.

19 Cadbury, The Making of Luke-Acts, 280.

20 Ibid., 281, n. 2 from 280: “It is noticeable how out of the middle of a passage with a dozen “vicarious” phrases (Is. liii, 4-12), Acts quotes vss. 7bcd, 8abc, which have none.”

21 Conzelmann refers to C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching, 1937. But cf. also C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments, (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1964), 25. See also E. Franklin, Christ the Lord: A Study in the Purpose and Theology of Luke-Acts, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1975), p. 65; T. Bleiben, “The Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Paul,” Journal of Theological Studies 45 (1944): 137, who, while disagreeing with Dodd’s analysis of the Lucan and Pauline kerygma, says, “It is perhaps in connexion with the significance attached to the Lord’s death that the divergence between St. Luke and St. Paul is most marked. Both Franklin and Bleiben regard the Cross as the necessary prelude to the exaltation of Christ. But St. Luke seems deliberately to avoid attaching to it any saving power in itself, while the atonement, of course, is a fundamental element in Pauline doctrine. St. Luke omits Christ’s saying about his death being a ransom. According to the shorter text of Luke 22:19-21, which is almost universally regarded as original, there is no reference at the institution of the Eucharist to the shedding of the Lord’s blood on behalf of others” and M. Kiddle, “The Passion Narrative in St. Luke’s Gospel,” Journal of Theological Studies 36 (1935): 267-280, for a similar view.

22 Vincent Taylor, The Passion Narrative of St. Luke, ed. by Owen E. Evans, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 137.

23 Ibid., 57. Taylor suggests the possibility that v. 19a may be a Marcan insertion.

24 cf. Joseph B. Tyson, The Death of Jesus in Luke-Acts, (Columbia, SC: The University of South Carolina, 1986), 172, n. 1. Concerning Lucan soteriology he writes, “The conviction of divine necessity constitutes Luke’s main contribution to the theological discussion of Jesus’ death. But he seems uninterested in piercing through to an understanding of the theological reason for the death or in analyzing what it was intended to accomplish.”

25 Zehnle, “Salvific Character,” 420-44.

26 Ibid., 420.

27 Ibid., 420-23, 44; Zehnle argues that just because Luke disagrees with Paul on a particular point, that fact in and of itself, should not render ipso facto his opinion as invalid or inferior. “Whatever position we may adopt on the much-debated question of the relationship of Paul to the author of Luke-Acts, we are bound to misunderstand it unless we admit that we are dealing with two creative theological geniuses.” Several authors have sounded this warning, including Joel B. Green, “The Death of Jesus, God’s Servant,” in Reimaging the Death of the Lukan Jesus, ed. Dennis D. Sylva, (Frankfurt am Main: Anton Hain, 1990), 6; Jerome Kodell, “Luke’s Theology of the Death of Jesus,” in Sin, Salvation and the Spirit, ed. D. Durkin, (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1979,) 223 and Werner Georg Kümmel, “Current Theological Accusations Against Luke,” Andover Newton Quarterly 16 (1975): 132.

28 Zehnle, “Salvific Character,” 425.

29 Ibid.

30 Ibid., 432.

31 Ibid., 436. He further tries to reinforce this interpretation of the death of Christ by arguing that the phrase “the forgiveness of sins” (ajfevsi" aJmartiw`n) in Luke-Acts really equates to divine favor. And the parable of the prodigal son, as a picture of salvation, is further indication that this is so. The son who knows he has sinned against his father receives special favor from his father when he returns home.

32 At this point Zehnle’s appears to present Christ’s death in Luke as a moral appeal to cause people to turn to him, that is, Luke frames it in such a way so as to reveal its emotional power to motivate lost sinners to turn to Christ in faith.

33 Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, (New York: Charles Scriber’s Sons, 1966): 220-31. It is true that Jeremias is writing largely to refute those who say that while the Eucharistic words of Jesus in the gospels (in particular Luke for our purposes) do assert a vicarious theology, it is nonetheless the dogma of the early church read back into Jesus and not his own interpretation. This situation, however, does not change the fact that Jeremias affirms that Luke 22:19, 20 teaches vicarious atonement. Cf. also, Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology, Translated by John Bowden, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1971), 291.

34 Ibid., 139-59. Jeremias regards the longer text as authentic primarily on the basis of the overwhelming manuscript evidence in its favor. Also, he focuses on the “for you” aspect of the Eucharistic words of Jesus which are proof for him that the idea of vicarious suffering is present in these verses. But cf. Frederick W. Danker, Jesus and the New Age: A Commentary on St. Luke’s Gospel. Revised and Expanded, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988): 346, who believes that the idea of vicarious death indicates a substitution which would go well beyond Luke’s words here. Cf. also Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1954), 555; “The sacrificial death of the Saviour was not the outcome of a fortuitous combination of circumstances, but was in accord with the divine plan of salvation, which had already been foreshadowed in the Old Testament, especially in the sacrifice of the paschal lamb, centuries before. Moreover, the Saviour allowed Himself knowingly and voluntarily to be sacrificed as the perfect paschal lamb. For this reason his sacrificial death possesses an eternal, all-sufficient, divine value.”

35 Ibid., 231.

36 Ibid., 227; Jeremias links the Eucharistic words of Jesus in Mark and Matthew with Isaiah 53 predominantly through the association of polloiv yBr. He refers to it as a leit motiv. In this way he supports the idea of the ‘suffering servant’ standing behind Jesus’ interpretation of the bread and the cup. However, the Lucan text has uJmw`n so this is not valid for our purposes. But, Jeremias does indicate that the Lucan Jesus stands as the suffering servant as well, due to the presence of Luke 22:37, but he [i.e., Jeremias] does not develop it at any length. This has been done by Marshall, Bock and others though Bock affirms that Markan usage is more clearly linked to the Old Testament than is Lucan. Cf. Darrell L. Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy, 338, n. 204 .

37 cf. Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke, 201.

38 Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian, 171.

39 Ibid., 169.

40 The idea of a Servant christology is admitted by Marshall to be doubtful, but cf. Green, “The Death of Jesus,” 24.

41 Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian, 173. According to Marshall, Acts 20:28 was another traditional expression in the church, but Luke does not develop its theology.

42 Ibid., 174.

43 Ibid., 175

44 For a slightly different emphasis in the development of the “Servant” motif in Luke-Acts see Green, “The Death of Jesus,” 1-29. Green relates the whole of the life and passion of Jesus to the Servant idea throughout Isaiah.

45 Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy, p. 338, n. 204 . Cf. also Kümmel, “Current Theological Accusations Against Luke,” 138, for a similar view and the caution that we not too quickly dismiss Luke as having no redemptive understanding of the cross.

46 Larkin, “Luke’s Use of the Old Testament,” 325-35. Larkin argues similarly to Bock, et. al. and says that Luke’s use of Is. 53:12 sets the historical basis for the doctrine of vicarious atonement and the offer of the forgiveness of sins in Luke-Acts.

47 One might remember that Conzelmann, Dodd, Cadbury and virtually every other commentator who denies a vicarious atonement in Luke-Acts points to this omission in support of their hypothesis.

48 Larkin, “Luke’s Use of the Old Testament,” 326. Larkin attempts to demonstrate his thesis regarding the omission of the ‘Mark 10:45 saying by presenting similar editorial activity, etc. in other places in Luke when compared to Mark.

49 Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, NT Library trans. from 3rd German ed., (London: SCM, 1966), 139-59.

50 H. Schürmann, “Lk 22, 19b-20 als ursprungliche Textüberlieferung,” Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den synoptischen Evangelien (Kommentar und Beiträge ZANT; Düsseldorf: Patmos-Verlag, 1968), 159-97.

51 For a brief discussion of disiplina arcani see Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, (New York: United Bible Societies, 1971), 176.

52 Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, 328.

53 Ibid. For an example of this oversight see Green, “The Death of Jesus,” 10.

54 But cf. Ralph P. Martin, “Salvation and Discipleship in Luke’s Gospel,” Interpretation 30 (1976): 377-378. He feels that the Servant passages are more closely tied to Isaiah 49:6-8 than Isaiah 53.

55 Larkin, “Luke’s Use of the Old Testament,” 329, 30. He suggests that there have been at least four traditional places to place the fulfillment of Jesus’ words (i.e. levgw gaVr uJmi'n o{ti tou'to toV gegrammevnon dei' telesqh'nai ejn ejmoiv, toV kaiV metaV ajnovmwn ejlogivsqh: kaiV gaVr toV periV ejmou' tevlo" e[cei.); 1) when the disciples took up swords and acted like rebelling criminals; 2) when Christ was arrested; 3) when Jesus’ life was given over and Barabbas released in his place or 4) the crucifixion between two criminals. As far as Larkin is concerned all these are wanting on the basis of the lack of verbal and material parallelisms.

56 cf. Green, “The Death of Jesus,” 23.

57 Larkin, “Luke’s Use of the Old Testament,” 331. Larkin deals with the exception to this pattern, namely, Luke 7:27/Malachi 3:1; Exodus 23:20 by showing in fact that it too focuses only on a general description of Johns’ ministry and not on one detail in particular.

58 Ibid., 332.

59 Ibid. Cf. Morna D. Hooker, Jesus and the Servant, (London: SPCK, 1959), 22.

60 And thus Isaiah 53:12d is being used as a context pointer with Luke desiring to ask why a man so innocent should suffer so unrighteously. We find the answer when we read Isaiah 53—he bore our sin.

61 Ibid., Larkin, 332-35.

62 cf. Martin Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1966), 201. “The literary consequence of this view is that Luke presents the Passion as a martyrdom. There were Jewish martyrdoms, as is proved by the literary record of them in the Martyrdom of Isaiah. . .[and] since these were read among the Christians, the evangelist [could expect to be understood].”

63 C. H. Talbert, “Martyrdom in Luke -Acts and the Lucan Social Ethic,” In Political Issues in Luke-Acts, ed. Richard J. Cassidy and Philip J. Scharper, (New York: Orbis Books, 1983), 99 and 110, n. 1. For a similar view of the Lucan Jesus as a martyr, see Arland J. Hultgren, “Interpreting the Gospel of Luke,” Interpretation 30 (1976): 361. But cf. also Green, “The Death of Jesus,” 21. He denies that Luke is representing Christ as a martyr. Cf. also Robert J. Karris, “Luke 23:47 and the Lucan View of Jesus’ Death,” Journal of Biblical Literature 105 (January 1986): 68-70, where he strongly denies the idea of the Lucan Jesus as a martyr. He brings into question the material essence of the so-called parallels from extant non-biblical literature that are often cited as corroboration for such an argument.

64 Talbert, “Martyrdom in Luke -Acts,” 109, n. 2.

65 Ibid., 99.

66 Ibid.

67 Talbert sees Luke as more favorably disposed toward the Pharisees, but not everyone is in agreement with this. Cf. Robert J. Karris, “Luke 23:47,” 189, n. 28.

68 Basic to the idea of legitimating the Christian cause is Talbert’s insistence that Luke wrote with a polemical mindset. One can understand the possibility of this in light of Luke’s second volume which in large measure records the advance of the gospel into unevangelized territory. There would be a need to legitimate the Christian cause.

69 This point involves circular reasoning, assuming the idea of martyrdom to be true.

70 John Reumann, “Righteousness” in the New Testament: “Justification” in the United States Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue, with Responses by Joseph A. Fitzmyer and Jerome D. Quinn, (Philadelphia: Fortress; New York and Ramsey, NJ: Paulist, 1982): 135.

71 Norman Perrin, Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom: Symbol and Metaphor in New Testament Interpretation, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976): 15-32.

72 Ibid., 78.

73 E. Franklin, Christ the Lord: A Study in the Purpose and Theology of Luke-Acts, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1975), 67.

74 Ibid., 66, 67.

75 For a similar view of the relation of the cross to Christ’s glorification in Luke see Hultgren, “Interpreting the Gospel of Luke,” 361.

76 Kodell, “Luke’s Theology of the Death of Jesus,” 221-30.

77 By the term ‘lowly’ Kodell means a person who is humble and ready to receive God’s salvation.

78 Kodell, “Luke’s Theology of the Death of Jesus,” 229.

79 Frederick W. Danker, “Imaged as Beneficence,” in Reimaging the Death of the Lukan Jesus, ed. Dennis D. Sylva, (Frankfurt-am-main: Anton Hain, 1990), 57-67.

80 cf. Karris, “Luke 23:47,” 68-78.

81 cf. Talbert, “Martyrdom in Luke -Acts,” 99 and 110, n. 1; Hultgren, “Interpreting the Gospel of Luke,” 361.

82 cf. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words, 220-31; Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian, 171; Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy, 338, n. 204.

The term Bibliology (from Greek biblos meaning “book”) refers to the study of the nature of the Bible as revelation. It often includes such topics as revelation, inspiration, inerrancy, canonicity, illumination, and interpretation.

Revelation

We use the term “revelation” to translate the Greek term ajpokavluyi" apokalupsis, which means to “unveil” or “uncover.” Biblically speaking, revelation is the act and process whereby God makes Himself known to men and angels. This he has done through miracles, visions, dreams, theophanies, providential control of history, conscience, Jesus Christ, and Scripture. Theologians have spoken of general revelation through nature (i.e., the created order), conscience, and providentially orchestrated history and special or particular revelation primarily in Christ and Scripture (Ps 19:1-6; Rom 1:18-20; 2:14-16; Acts 17:24-34; John 1:14-18). Thus general revelation is equally available to all men at all times and while it alone cannot save, it is nonetheless both essential and preparatory to special revelation.²

Inspiration

“Inspiration” is the theological word, derived from the Latin term spiro, used to refer to the process whereby God superintended the human authors of scripture so that what they wrote was simultaneously their own words as well the Word of God himself; God “breathed out” his words through the words (using the minds and personalities) of his spokespeople. Thus, through Spirit-inspired writings God has preserved an historical/theological record of his words and deeds and has given it to his covenant people as a means of grace that they might trust him fully and obey him implicitly. As a result of our sinfulness and finiteness we stand in need of such divine guidance and wisdom; scripture was inspired to that end.

Inspiration, however, is not limited to mechanical dictation (indeed, very little of it can be said to be mechanical in any way), as we might have, say, in the receiving of the Ten Commandments (or the letters to the churches in Revelation 2-3), but rather occurred in a variety of situations involving the writers as whole people (their minds, emotions, wills, etc.) in their own particular life situations (linguistic, religious, political, economic, etc.). The end product, however, was always God’s Word to man through man (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:20-21) and carries God’s “full weight and authority.” Technically speaking, inspiration applies to the autographa (not copies or translations).

Some theologians have referred to the verbal (extending to the actual words, not just concepts), plenary (the entire Bible, not only those parts that seem to speak directly to issues of faith and practice) inspiration of Scripture. In our opinion, this is the view that (1) best corresponds to the view of OT writers, the prophets, Christ himself and his apostles, and (2) best represents the historic position/understanding of the church on this issue. Since the Enlightenment in France and Germany (17^th/18^th centuries), however, it has been fashionable to deny the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture in light of apparent historical inaccuracies and philosophical objections, particularly with the existence and nature of God as well as the limitations of language. But, while we can learn much from these views, we may safely set aside their antisupernaturalistic prejudices as both unfounded and contrary to the teaching of Jesus who himself strongly upheld the complete trustworthiness of Scripture without reserve (e.g., Matt 5:17-20).³

Inerrancy

Inerrancy, although not always properly defined, is a logical corollary to inspiration and in no way diminishes the human authorship of scripture. If what the authors of Scripture penned was indeed under the supernatural influence and guidance of the Holy Spirit (as is properly affirmed), then since God is true, what they wrote and affirmed is in all ways true as well. Thus inerrancy applies to the autographa and Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic copies insofar as they faithfully reproduce the autographa. The doctrine rightly teaches that the scriptures are without error in all that they affirm (i.e., properly interpreted), whether they refer to geographical, historical, or theological issues. Thus the scriptures are the final authority in matters of faith and practice and take precedence over tradition, culture, and creed. This doctrine also allows for different literary styles, poor grammar, approximations in numbers, etc. (Psalm 119).⁴

Canonicity

The sixty-six books of scripture constitute the Prostestant canon in that they provide God’s rule for faith and life. The process of canonicity involves the church’s recognition of the divine origin and authority of the sixty-six books of scripture. She, as the redeemed community, constituted of those who have genuine faith in Jesus Christ, is qualified for this task. It is important to note, however, that she did not determine which books were canonical, but only recognized those books which were canonical; scripture is self-authenticating. In the case of the Old Testament, generally speaking, she received it as the authoritative Bible of her Lord and his apostles, i.e., the prophetic message of God which was now fulfilled in and through Christ. In the case of the New Testament, the church, by applying varying tests such as apostolicity (was it written by an apostle or authenticated by an apostle?), universality (was it widely read and accepted?), and character (sufficiently spiritual, directed at godliness, doctrinal content in agreement with other apostles) recognized which books were “from the Lord” and which were not, though the process was by no means finalized by the end of the first century. In AD 367, in the 39^th Easter Letter of Athanasius, we find a list of the 27 books of the NT we have today. This list was accepted by the churches east of the Mediterranean while churches in the west came to accept the same list some 30 years later, in AD 397, at the Council of Carthage.⁵

There are undoubtedly many reasons which prompted early Christians to preserve the writings of the apostles, but perhaps the passing away of the apostles as well as the development of heresies (e.g., Marcion) and doctrinal disputes, were two of the most significant, negatively viewed. Also, the Diocletian persecution (AD 303-11), in which Christians were tortured, their property taken, and their sacred books destroyed by fire, undoubtedly helped to move the church along in its recognition of which books were sacred (i.e., inspired) and which were not. That is, there arose the need to know which books to copy and preserve in light of the possibility that the state continue to try and destroy the faith.

The extent of the canon has been in some question among Protestants and Catholics since the addition of the Apocrypha at the Council of Trent (AD 1545-63). Anyone who has read these books will find them spiritually encouraging, much the same as reading great Christian literature, but they should not be regarded as on par with the 66 books, a fact which is recognized even by the Catholic church in its reference to them as deuterocanonical.

Illumination

Illumination refers to the work of the Spirit in the believer/believing community enabling him/her/them to understand, welcome, and apply inscripturated truth (cf. 1 Cor 2:9-14).⁶ For our part, we are to follow sound methods of interpretation in keeping with the nature of Scripture and generally accepted principles for understanding written communication. Further, we are, by faith in Christ, to put into practice that which the Scripture teaches us, lest we become blinded by our accumulated ignorance (James 1:21-22) and progressively blurred in our comprehension of spiritual realities. In this way illumination increases and our grip on the truth strengthens (or perhaps its grip on us!). See also the next section, entitled, “Interpretation.”

Interpretation

If Illumination is the work of the Spirit to help believers understand and apply Scripture, interpretation, broadly conceived, is the thought-through method we should follow in this endeavor. Interpretation involves, then, three elements: (1) coming to scripture humbly with a knowledge of my presuppositions, traditions, and cultural influences so as not to blunt or skew the force of scripture (but rather to allow it to leave its mark on me); (2) understanding what an author meant when he said such and such, and (3) understanding what he means, that is, how it applies to our lives today. Thus, in the first step we are interested in gaining an awareness of how our culture, tradition, and past acquaintance with Scripture has affected us. In the second step we are interested in the grammatical-historical meaning of a passage of Scripture. In order to achieve this we study the words of a text in their historical context, the literary structure of a passage, its mood, and the kind (genre) of literature it is. Combined with this is the comparing of scripture with scripture (e.g., interpreting the obscure by the clear) and ultimately the teaching of the Bible as a whole. In this way, and through the illuminating work of the Spirit, the church comes to grips with the meaning and abiding relevance of Scripture.

But this is only half the job. Moses did not write Deuteronomy and Paul did not pen Philippians simply to be understood (i.e., between one’s ears). Rather, they wrote to save, guide, instruct, and orient other believers to God’s will. In short, their writings call for a response and this involves first letting the Bible speak to me; convicting, educating, encouraging, and showing me where to go. I must bring my presuppositions and patterns of life to the passage and allow it to judge and straighten. Then I must allow the Scripture—as the very voice of God himself—to speak to my community and the larger world-context in which I live. The Lordship of Christ extends to the entire universe! And we must remember that his word is a primary way in which he expresses his grace oriented, kingly rule over us.⁷

---

² The objective revelation of God through nature, history, and conscience (human nature) is not extinguished because of man’s fall (see Psalm 19:1-6; Rom 2:14-15; Acts 17:26-27), but is seriously distorted through suppression and deliberate contempt (Rom 1:18-20).

³ For a discussion of this issue, see Ronald Nash, The Word of God and the Mind of Man (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1982). For some philosopical reflections on the reasonableness of God speaking, see Nicholas Wolterstorff, Divine Discourse: Philosophical Reflections on the Claim that God Speaks (Cambridge: CUP, 1995).

⁴ For further discussion of this and related topics, consult the series of articles in Inerrancy, ed. Norman L. Geisler (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980).

⁵ For more information on the canon of Scripture, see Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985); F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1988); Harry Y. Gamble, The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning, New Testament Series, ed. Dan O. Via (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985); Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: University Press, 1987).

⁶ The entire passage from 2:6-16 has received no little attention in recent years. But even though there are disagreements regarding grammar, background, and theological emphases, there can be little doubt that the relevant thought for our purposes is quite clear: man in his unrengenerate and carnal state cannot understand and accept the things of God (e.g., the cross-centered gospel), whereas the believer, who enjoys the enlightening ministry of the Spirit (cf. Eph 1:18), is able to welcome God's truth—now preserved for us in Scripture—in a deeply personal and transformative way. See Marion L. Soards, 1 Corinthians NIBC, ed. W. Ward Gasque (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), 62-63.

⁷ Some good introductory works on biblical interpretation include: Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart, How To Read the Bible for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding the Bible, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993); Leland Ryken, How To Read the Bible as Literature (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984); Robert H. Stein, A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible: Playing by the Rules (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994); William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard (Dallas: Word, 1993); Moiss, Silva, ed., Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation: Six Volumes in One (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996); Grant Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Criticism (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1991).

The term “christology” (from Greek christos meaning “anointed one” or “Christ”) refers to the study of Christ. It often includes such topics as the preexistence and eternality of Christ, OT prophecies about Christ, Christ’s humanity, deity, and incarnation, as well as the issue of his temptations and sinlessness, his death, resurrection, ascension and exaltation, return, three-fold office, and states.

The Preexistence of Christ

There are several texts in the NT that speak in one way or another to the preexistence of Christ. John says the “word” became flesh which implies that he had existed previous to his incarnation (John 1:1, 14). Jesus himself suggests his preexistence in a number of texts. He said he had glory with the father before the world was (John 17:5) and that he had come from the father (John 5:43; 6:38). These imply preexistence. Paul also, in referring to Christ as the last Adam, implies his preexistence since Jews often held that both Adam and Moses were preexistent. So also when he says that Christ was “rich,” but then became “poor,” that he was “in the form of God,” but “humbled himself,” that he was “before all things” (Col 1:17). Both these references refer to the humiliation of the incarnation and therefore suggest that Christ existed previous to his coming to earth (see 1 Cor 15:45; and Phil 2:6).

Prophecies About Christ

Taken in the light of the entire canon, the historical fact of the resurrection, and with a view to Jewish hermeneutics, there are many prophecies about Christ in the Old Testament. Some of the familiar ones include: his birth (Gen 3;15; Gal 4:4); his lineage (Gen 49:10; Luke 3:33); his place of birth (Micah 5:2; Luke 2:4-7); his Galilean ministry of compassion and judgment (Isa 9:1-2; Matt 4:14-16); that he was the prophet to come (Deut 18:15, 18-19; Acts 3:20, 22); that he would function as a priest (Psalm 110:4; Heb 5:5-6); his betrayal (Psalm 41:9; Luke 22:47-48); his being sold for thirty pieces of silver (Zech 11:11-12; Matt 26:15; 27:1-10); his violent death (Zech 12:10; John 20:27); his resurrection (Psalm 16:10; Luke 24:7; Acts 2:25-28); his exaltation to God’s right hand (Psalm 110:1; Acts 2:33-34), his eternal reign in fulfillment of Davidic promise (2 Sam 7:12-16; Psalm 110:1; Isa 55:3; Acts 2:33-34; 13:22-23, 32-34).

The Humanity of Christ

There are several lines of evidence in the Scripture which converge to prove that from a Biblical point of view Jesus was truly and thoroughly human. Jesus had human names (i.e., Jesus, Son of David), was experienced by others as a human being (John 9:16), had a body (1 John 1:1), spoke normal human language(s), referred to himself as a man (John 8:40); others referred to him as a man (Acts 3:22); experienced life as a human being (Luke 2:52), including such limitations as hunger (Matt 4:2), thirst (John 19:28), tiredness (John 4:6), intense sorrow and distress (John 11:35; Luke 13:34-35), and ignorance (Mark 13:32); he had a human soul (Luke 23:46), and died (Hebrews 2:14-15).

The Deity of Christ

There are also several lines of evidence in Scripture which converge to prove that the Biblical writers regarded Jesus as human, but as more than human as well. They considered him divine. John says he was divine or God (John 1:1). Paul says he is the “very form of God” (morphe theou; Phil 2:6) as well as our great God and savior (Titus 2:13). He is referred to as Lord (Matt 2:43-45), Yahweh (cf. Rom 10:9, 13 and Joel 2:32) as well as the King of Kings (a designation a Jew such as John would only give God himself—Rev 19:16). He does the works of God, including creating (John 1:3; Col. 1:15-20), sustaining (Heb 1:3-4), saving (Matt 1:23), raising the dead (John 5:25); judging (John 5:27), sending the Spirit (a work assigned to the father as well; see John 14:26; 15:26), and building his church (Matt 16:18). He accepts, as God himself does, worship from all men (Matt 14:33) and angels (Heb 1:6) and some day all men will bow to him (something only God accepts; Phil 2:10, Isa 45:23).

So we see that the doctrine of the simultaneous deity and humanity of Christ is not the invention of some fourth or fifth century church council (e.g., Nicaea [AD325] or Chaledeon [451]), but is clearly taught in Scripture. The precise formulation (i.e., a working model) of how this could be so may have had to await a response to the Arian heresy and other Christological developments (and a borrowing of Greek metaphysical language), but the essential features of the doctrine are found in apostolic and early church confessions.

The Incarnation & Kenosis

Jesus Christ was born of the virgin Mary (Matt 1:23; Gal 4:4) in fulfillment of Isaiah’s prediction (Isa 7:14). From a more theological point of view, John says that the eternal and divine Word became flesh and that God thus “tabernacled” among us (John 1:1, 14; Exodus 40:34-35). The doctrine of the incarnation means that the second person of the Trinity took on human flesh. Jesus Christ is both undiminished deity united with perfect humanity forever and without confusion of attributes. One person, two natures (divine/human).

God became a man in order to redeem his creation and rule over it. Thus he came to fulfill the Davidic covenant as the promised King (Luke 1:31-33). In his role as Lord and King he reveals God to men (John 1:18); saves sinners (Gal 1:4), destroys the works of the devil (1 John 3:8), judges men (Acts 17:31) and brings all things in creation back in submission to God (1 Cor 15:20-28; Ephesians 1:10-11).

There have been many errors regarding the dual nature of Christ. We will briefly mention some here. The Ebionites denied Christ’s divine nature (he only received the Spirit at Baptism) as also the Arians (cf. present day Jehovah’s witnesses who claim likewise that Jesus is the first and highest created being). The Gnostics (i.e., docetism), affirming that Jesus only appeared human, denied that he had a truly human nature. Nestorius denied the union of the divine and human natures in one person (the divine completely controlled the human) and Eutychianism denied any real distinction in Christ’s natures at all (the human nature was engulfed in the divine resulting in a new third nature). Finally, Appolinarius denied a facet of Jesus’ humanity, namely, that he had a human spirit (the divine Logos took the place of Jesus’ human spirit). These are all errors in light of the Biblical data and were rightly rejected at various church councils.

Finally, there have been many attempts to explain the meaning of the term kenosis in Philippians 2:7, especially since the mid to late 1800’s and the rise of psychology. It has been argued that the term kenosis refers to Christ willingly laying aside certain essential attributes such as omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence in order to redeem man. This theology in its various forms has come to be known as Kenotic Theology.¹¹ But is this what Paul is saying in Philippians 2:6, that Jesus gave up the use of or the possession of certain divine attributes? This is not likely. In fact, the apostle explains what he means when he says that Christ emptied himself by taking on the nature of a servant. Thus it is not the setting aside of any divine attributes that is being sung¹² about here in Phil 2, but rather the humiliation of the Son of God taking on human form and that “of a servant.” This, of course, is the point Paul is trying to make with those in the Philippian church. They too are to live the humble lives of servants, following Christ’s example.¹³

The Impeccability of Christ

In light of the true divinity and real humanity of Christ, the question arises as to whether his temptations were genuine and if it were really possible for him to have sinned. Was Christ able not to sin or not able to sin? Some say his genuine humanity includes the idea that he could have sinned. Others claim that his deity makes it impossible for him to have sinned. All evangelical scholars recognize the reality of his temptations and the fact that he did not sin, but beyond this there is not much agreement. The oft-quoted analogy of two boys attacking an aircraft carrier in their rubber dingy (using sticks and stones), where the sticks and stones represent temptation and the aircraft carrier Jesus, may go a long way in stressing Jesus’ deity and impeccability, but it simply fails to catch the reality and intensity of the attacks which Satan thrust upon him (cf. Matthew 4:1-11). The bottom line in connection with this debate, however, is that Jesus was both God and man, suffered temptation victoriously (Heb 4:15), and can therefore draw near to help us in time of weakness (Heb 2:18); his temptations have given us confidence in his sympathetic heart. Beyond that we cannot know much at all. We can say that no man has ever understood the strength, viciousness, and deceit of temptation better than him and this precisely because he never gave in.

Death of Christ

All four gospels record the death of Christ (under Pontius Pilate) which is interpreted in advance by Christ himself as a death for the forgiveness of sins, the establishment of the new covenant, and the defeat of Satan (Luke 22:15-20; John 12:31; 16:11). The heart of Christ’s teaching on this matter became the authoritative teaching of the apostles (in keeping with OT assertions to the same). We will talk more about the proper interpretation of the death of Christ when we discuss the doctrine of salvation. It is enough for now to realize that the evidence for his death by crucifixion is overwhelming.

The Resurrection of Christ

All four gospels record the empty tomb and the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead (Matt 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20). He appeared to Mary Magdalene (John 20:11-18), to another Mary (Matt 28:1-2), to Cephas (1 Cor 15:5), to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35), to James (1 Cor 15:7), to ten disciples (Luke 24:36-43), to Thomas and the other ten disciples (John 20:26-29), to seven disciples at the Sea of Tiberias (John 21:1-14), to more than 500 people (1 Cor 15:6), to the eleven at his ascension (Matt 28:16-20; Acts 1:1-11), and finally to Paul (1 Cor 15:8). He appeared to the disciples over a course of about 40 days (Acts 1:3).

In recent times scholars have come to debunk most of the naturalistic theories (e.g., the swoon, hallucination) advanced to account for the resurrection and attending data. Virtually every scholar agrees that “something happened,” and most would agree that the resurrection is the watershed issue in a biblically defined Christianity. The question that is posed most acutely, according to Gary Habermas¹⁴, is whether the kerygma (the preached message of Christ’s resurrection) itself is sufficient to account for the data or whether a literal resurrection plus the kerygma is necessary to account for the data. Habermas outlines the critical answers according to four scenarios, pointing out that this is a debate not just between evangelicals and higher critics, but also between the higher critics themselves. First, there are those like Rudolph Bultmann who argue that the cause of the disciples’ experience is not ascertainable; it is buried in the NT text. Second, scholars like Karl Barth and Sren Kierkegaard argued that the resurrection was literal, but that it is not subject to study since it lies outside the realm of our experience of history. It must be accepted by faith alone. The third group of scholars, including Jürgen Moltmann, argue for the literal empty tomb and a historical explanation for the disciples’ change from grief to joy, but again the resurrection is an event that will only be finally vindicated/verified in the future. Fourth, there are scholars who argue that the available historical evidence suggests that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead. Wolfhart Pannenberg would be an example of this thinking, though he argues against a corporeal body in favor of a spiritual body which was recognized as Jesus and which spoke to the disciples before departing to heaven.

There is, however, no valid a prior reason for rejecting the resurrection as portrayed in scripture. It is usually one’s theology of history that precludes whether resurrections happen or not. In any case, the empty tomb, the eyewitness testimony, the transformed lives of antagonists such as James and Paul, the existence of the church, the inability of the Jewish leaders to disprove the resurrection and the claims of the apostles, the early date and solid character of the claim to resurrection (1 Cor 15:3-4), as well as the solid character of surrounding evidence such as Jesus’ existence, ministry, death by crucifixion, and burial. The explanation which possesses the greatest explanatory power, is the most plausible (not ad hoc), and stands the greatest chance of not being finally overturned, is that Jesus of Nazareth was actually raised from the dead and appeared to many people. His body was a physical body fit for spiritual existence and was not subject any longer to death and limitations.

The theological interpretation of Christ’s bodily resurrection includes the doctrine that it is central to the Christian life and hope (1 Cor 15), that it demonstrates that he is the Son of God (Rom 1:4) and that he will someday return to judge the entire world (Acts 17:31). In the area of soteriology, the resurrection is the foundation of our regeneration and spiritual/ethical life (Rom 6:4-5; 1 Pet 1:2), our justification (Rom 4:25; Eph 2:6), our present ministry and work for the Lord (1 Cor 15:58), our hope of glorification and our eternal communion with the Father, Son and Spirit (1 Cor 15:12-28).

The Ascension & Exaltation of Christ

In Luke 24:50-53 and Acts 1:11, Luke records for us the historical fact and nature of Jesus’ ascension. The language seems to imply that Jesus ascended bodily to some place in the space-time continuum, but we are unable to see or know where.

Theologically, however, Luke has made it very clear as to what the ascension means. It was not just Jesus going somewhere. Indeed, his ascension led to his exaltation to the throne and his right to rule over creation, nations and the church. He was exalted to the right hand of God (a place of power and authority) in keeping with Davidic hope (Psalm 110:1; Acts 2:34-35) and currently reigns over the universe (Eph 1:20-22a) and is head over all things pertaining to the church (Eph 1:22b-23; 1 Peter 3:22). As divine founder, leader, captain, and goal of the church he has sent the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:33) to endow her with life, love and power and will someday return to bring her to be where he is, and to subject all things in heaven and earth to his Lordship. He has received, and continues to receive, glory, praise, and honor in light of who he is and what he has done (Rev 5:12). Every knee should bow before God’s Christ, the exalted Lord of the universe. Someday, all will (Phil 2:9)!

The Return of Christ

The Bible predicts that someday Jesus Christ will return, suddenly, bodily and with great glory for all to see (Matt 24:30; Rev 19:11ff). At that time he will judge Satan and his angels, the living and the dead, and will establish his kingdom in its fullest sense. We will discuss the nature and timing of the rapture as well as the nature of the kingdom under Eschatology.

The States of Christ

It has been common among Reformed and other systematic theologians to speak of the two states of Christ: (1) humiliation, and (2) exaltation. Therefore, although we have covered some of the details already, we nonetheless survey them again in these terms. This will help to equip the student for further reading where these ideas will undoubtedly be discussed. “Christ’s humiliation refers to his (1) incarnation; (2) suffering; (3) death, and (4) burial. His exaltation also contains four aspects: (1) resurrection; (2) ascension; (3) session (his being seated at God’s right hand, and (4) return in glory.

The incarnation of the second person of the Trinity, while not involving the “giving up” of any divine attributes, entailed Christ’s willing submission to the limitations and weaknesses of humanity, being actually found as a servant among men. His suffering in terms of spiritual hardship, physical deprivation, and emotional pain are all part of his sufferings in humiliation. Jesus’ humiliation was furthered heightened by the enormous suffering of an unjust, cruel, and ignoble death, bearing the sin of a cursed humanity on a cross. Though he probably did not descend into Hell, he nonetheless was dead for three days. From the time of the stable in Bethlehem until his death, he underwent humiliation in obedience to his Father for the salvation of the elect and the redemption of the cosmos.

Jesus’ resurrection into a permanent physical body perfectly equipped for spiritual life is the turning point in his humiliation. It is here that he is vindicated and his defeat of all his enemies is secured. He received glory at his ascension and the right to rule as is demonstrated by his sitting at the right hand of God in fulfillment of Psalm 110:1 (Acts 2:34-36). Though the world awaits the final stage in the completion of Christ’s vindication, and the salvation and judgment of the world, Christ will someday return bodily (Acts 1:11) and destroy all his enemies, including death. He will complete the final stage of his exaltation over all things.¹⁵

The Three Offices of Christ

While there were early church fathers who spoke about different offices of Christ, it was John Calvin in his Institutes (2.15) who systematized the idea of the threefold office of Christ: (1) Prophet; (2) Priest, and (3) King.

In Deuteronomy 18:18 Moses predicted that God would send another prophet like him to the people of Israel. Both John and Peter understood Jesus to be that one (John 6:14; 7:40; Acts 3:22-24; see also Matt 13:57, John 4:44). The title of “prophet,” however, is not found in the epistles. Nonetheless, it is clear that Christ functioned as the consummate prophet—one who both gave revelation from God (forthtelling and foretelling) and was himself the quintessential revelation from God (John 1:18). In this way he is unlike other prophets—a fact which may account for the conspicuous absence of this title from the epistles.

Jesus Christ also functioned in the office of priest. While the prophet was God’s representative to the people, the priest was the peoples’ representative before God. But in contrast to priests in the Levitical order, Jesus did not offer any animal sacrifice for our sin, he offered himself, an unblemished lamb of eternal worth. As a priest he has entered the holy of holies, not the copy on earth in the temple, but the heavenly place and is able to lead us, therefore, into the presence of God—a distinctly priestly function. He does not just enter the holy of holies once a year, but indeed he lives there forever now. Finally, both Romans 8:34 and Hebrews 7:25 teach us that his priestly role continues even now as he “ever lives to make intercession” for us in our weakness!

Finally, Jesus Christ fulfilled the office of King. But in contrast to the greatest of Israelite kings, i.e., David, Christ rules over the entire world, indeed the universe, including the church (Eph 1:20-23). He is the consummate king who rules wisely, attentively and with final authority and justice (Ps 2:8-9). In short, he rules as the God-man over the entire cosmos and when he returns he will deal definitively with all hindrances and obstacles to his deserved reign. At that time he will be called “the King of Kings” (Rev 19:16).

---

¹¹ See S. M. Smith, “Kenosis, Kenotic Theology,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 600-602. These speculative theories of the incarnation have little to do with the exegesis of Philippians 2:7. See also B. E. Foster, “Kenoticism,” in New Dictionary of Theology, ed. Sinclair B. Ferguson, David F. Wright, and J. I. Packer (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1988), 364.

¹² This section in Philippians (i.e., 2:6-11) may well have been an early hymn. This too should prevent us from drawing too much theologically from these statements for they are not reasoned theology per se, but instead the worshipful cry of the heart to God—the theology of which was undoubtedly well known in the community(ies) in which it came to expression, but which are to some degree lost on us today.

¹³ For further discussion about the incoherence charge often leveled at the doctrine of the incarnation and possible solutions in modified “kenoticism” or the “two minds” model, see Thomas D. Senor, “Incarnation and the Trinity,” in Reason for the Hope Within, ed. Michael J. Murray (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1999), 238-260.

¹⁴ See Gary Habermas, “Resurrection of Christ,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 938-41.

¹⁵ See Wayne A. Grudem, “States of Jesus Christ,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 1052-54; Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 2^nd rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941), 331-355.