^{page 145 note 1} Notably, beginning with Hans, Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke (New York: Harper & Row, 1960)Google Scholar. See especially Robinson, William C. Jr, Der Weg des Herrn, Studien zur Geschichte und Eschatologie im Lukas-Evangelium (Hamburg: Reich, 1964)Google Scholar; Ulrich, Wilckens, ‘Interpreting Luke–Acts in a Period of Existentialist Theology’ in Keck, L. E. and Martyn, J. L., Studies in Luke–Acts (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966), pp. 60–83Google Scholar; Francis, Fred O., ‘Eschatology and History in Luke–Acts,’ J.A.A.R. XXXVII (1969), 49–63Google Scholar; Talbert, Charles H., ‘The Redactional Critical Quest for Luke the Theologian’, in Jesus and Man's Hope (Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, 1970)Google Scholar; and Eric, Franklin, ‘The ascension and the eschatology of Luke–Acts,’ S.J.T. XXIII (1970), 191–200.Google Scholar

^{page 145 note 2} Conzelmann, , Theology, pp. 117, 119, 128–32, 135.Google Scholar

^{page 145 note 3} Luke does not use the terms ‘Parousia’ or ‘Eschaton’. The former does appear elsewhere in the NT. We use it here as a symbol for the series of events including the future coming or manifestation of the Son of Man, Resurrection, Judgement, and Kingdom of God.

^{page 145 note 4} Luke xviii. 7 f.; xxi. 32, 34–6. Francis directs attention to such data, but his proposal is somewhat ambiguous: ‘(Luke) supports the imminence of the end while denying its immediacy’ (‘Eschatology’, p. 56). Willi Marxsen takes note of several passages which evidence Luke's understanding that the Parousia could come at any time, but assumes as a matter of course that ‘the evangelist no longer awaits the end as imminent’ (Mark the Evangelist, Nashville: Abingdon, 1969, pp. 191, 194–6).Google Scholar

^{page 145 note 5} Conzelmann, Theology, pp. 122 f.

^{page 145 note 6} Ibid. p. 125.

^{page 146 note 1} In all the gospels, it is possible to discern a tendency to divinize Jesus, i.e. to attribute to him certain divine qualities, in particular foreknowledge, if not omniscience, and omnipotence. This tendency is most pronounced, of course, in the Fourth Gospel; but it is evident that Luke regarded Jesus as one who possessed divine powers during his lifetime. Luke's birth stories testify to Jesus' supernatural as well as messianic identity: angels and prophecies inspired by the Holy Spirit foretell his birth and mission. And it is the Holy Spirit who begets him of Mary, not, so Luke suggests, Joseph, his supposed Father (i. 35; ii. 4–6; iii. 23). Even demons testify to his messiahship and deity (iv. 41). Luke's Jesus, like the Fourth Evangelist's, raises people from the dead (vii. 11–17; viii. 53, 55). Similarly, he is virtually omniscient: at the age of twelve, his understanding puts to shame the learned rabbis in the Temple (ii. 46 f.). He reads the minds of his would-be accusers (vi. 8); he knows that he will finish his course and perish in Jerusalem, but not before then, despite the machinations of Herod (xiii. 33, cf. xvii. 25). Luke omits Jesus' expressions of anxiety reported at Mark xiv. 33 f., and xv. 34, for his Jesus is confident that he will enter immediately into Paradise, calmly prays God to forgive his executioners and to receive his spirit (xxiii. 34, 46). Afterwards angels remind the disciples how he had told them while still in Galilee what his fate would be (xxiv. 6 f., cf. Mark xvi. 7 = Matt. xxviii. 7), and then the risen Jesus himself reminds them that he had so advised them when he was still with them (xxiv. 44 ff.). A Jesus who knew this much about the future course of events would not have expected the Kingdom of God to come before its time. For other evidence of Luke's conception of Jesus' divinity and foreknowledge, see Howard, Clark Kee, Jesus in History (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1970), pp. 176 f.Google Scholar

^{page 147 note 1} Such also was the message of Jesus' followers and ‘witnesses’: Luke ix. 2, 60; Acts viii. 12; xix. 8; xx. 25; xxviii. 23, 31.

^{page 147 note 2} Conzelmann, , Theology, p. 122.Google Scholar

^{page 147 note 3} That Luke omitted Markan traditions which he considered inappropriate is generally acknowledged, as is the fact that he used considerably less of Mark than did Matthew. It would seem probable that he also utilized less of Q than did Matthew. In that case, one might expect that at least some of the ‘M’ traditions were actually derived from Q.

^{page 147 note 4} Mark ix. 9–13; cf. Mal. iv. 5 f.; Ecclus. xlviii. 10.

^{page 147 note 5} Luke also is silent as to Jesus' explicit identification of John as Elijah (Matt. xi. 12–15). Instead, Luke introduces John as a prophet, coming ‘in the spirit and power of Elijah’, who would make the people ‘ready for the Lord’, ‘give knowledge of salvation to his people’, but not explicitly come as the one coming ‘before the great and terrible day of the Lord’. Instead of being the precursor of that day (i.e. the Parousia), Luke presents John as herald of the one who was to come after him, Jesus (Luke i. 16 f., 76–9; Acts xix. 4). In effect, John is ‘historicized’, separated from the cluster of events associated with the coming of the Parousia. Thus also Conzelmann, , Theology, pp. 22 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 1} In this connection, Luke omits the request of James and John for special position, and transfers Jesus' remarks as to which of the disciples would have authority and greatness from the journey to Jerusalem to the last supper (Mark x. 38 ff.; Luke xxii. 24 ff.). Thus it is not a question of authority or greatness in the imminent era of Judgement or the Kingdom, but rather of leadership (ήγούμενος) in the apostolic church.

^{page 148 note 2} Luke inserts the same phrase at ix. 23. Cf. Mark viii. 34.

^{page 149 note 1} See also Acts ii. 32 f., 36; iii. 19–21; x. 42; xvii. 31; and Franklin's thorough examination of Luke's conception of the ascension in connection with eschatology (cited above, p. 145 n. 1).

^{page 149 note 2} See Pierre, Grelot, ‘Aujourd'hui tu seras avec moi dans le Paradis,’ R.B. LXXIV (1967) 194–214Google Scholar, and Hiers, R. H., ‘Friends by Unrighteous Mammon,’ J.A.A.R. XXXVIII (1970), 30–6.Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 1} Caird, G. B., The Gospel of St. Luke (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1963), p. 144.Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 2} It could be objected that the message of the seventy to the effect that the Kingdom ‘has come near’ should be read with reference to Jesus himself, since they were sent to the places where ‘he himself was about to come’ (x. 1). But in that case, should we not expect Luke to give the decisive verb in the present or future tense (e.g. ‘the Kingdom of God is coming near’) rather than the perfect? See Talbert, ‘Redactional Quest’, p. 185.

^{page 151 note 1} Thus, e.g., Luke i. 32; iii. 6; vi. 25–8; cf. Acts viii. 4 ff.; x. 10–34.

^{page 151 note 2} That false prophets or messiahs proclaiming the presence or nearness of the Parousia evidently appeared in the years following Jesus' ministry is further evidence for the vitality of the Parousia hope in the early Church. Christians were, apparently, ‘eagerly longing’ for the Kingdom of God: cf. Matt. vi. 33 = Luke xii. 31; Luke xvii. 22; Mark xv. 43 = Luke xxiii. 51. See Erich, Grässer, Das Problem der Parusieverzögerung in den synoptischen Evangelien und in der Apostelgeschichte, 2nd ed. (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1960), p. 36.Google Scholar

^{page 151 note 3} Luke xxi. 20 ff.; xxiii. 27–31. At Luke xxi. 22, Jesus says that these days of vengeance will ‘fulfil all that is written’. But Luke does not evidently mean to include the coming of the Parousia in this ‘all’. Instead, reference is apparently restricted to the fate of Jerusalem (Luke xxi. 20–24c).

^{page 152 note 1} Luke xxi. 24; so also xix. 41–4. Luke also ‘historicizes’ certain other traditions and expectations; e.g. the Q saying which in Matt. xxiii. 39 promises Jesus' eschatological and messianic return to Jerusalem, is located by Luke at xiii. 34 f., and is then fulfilled with Jesus' entry into that city (xix. 38). The outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost partly fulfils the eschatological expectation of the early community (Acts ii) shortly after the ascension, but is dissociated from any immediate connection with the future Parousia. For Luke, Jesus himself represents life or salvation. In Acts iii. 15, Peter refers to Jesus as the ‘Author of Life’. Simeon identifies Jesus as God's ‘salvation’ (ii. 30), and Jesus speaks of the ‘salvation’ that has come to Zacchaeus' house (xix. 9). It would take only a step or two to reach the claim of ‘realized eschatology’ that in Jesus the Kingdom of God was already present. However, Luke does not take that step; he does not identify the salvation in or with Jesus as the Kingdom of God. Luke also historicizes or de-eschatologizes the role of John the Baptist: see above, p. 147 n. 5.

^{page 152 note 2} Luke omits Mark's second warning about false messiahs, prophets, signs and wonders (Mark xiii. 21–3 = Matt. xxiv. 23–5), perhaps in order to avoid duplication. Or, this omission may have been intended in order to schematize more consistently the final pattern of events: as Luke xxi stands, false messiahs were to appear only before the destruction of Jerusalem and the gentile mission; the unmistakable signs that are to appear afterwards (xxi. 11 b, 25) would indicate that the Parousia is about to begin.

^{page 152 note 3} In all probability, the reference to ‘all generations’ at Luke i. 48 refers to past (and present) rather than future generations, as in the instances at Acts xiv. 16; xv. 21. Col. i. 26.

^{page 152 note 4} Marxsen's suggestion is no better. He urges that in Mark the expression means ‘the generation still alive’. but that in Luke it should be understood to mean the Jewish ‘race’! (Mark, pp. 195 f.) This type of interpretation was adequately refuted at the beginning of the present century: George, B. Stevens, ‘Is there a self-consistent New Testament Eschatology?,’ American Journal of Theology VI (1902), 668 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 153 note 1} Luke xviii. 1–8. See Cranfield, C. E. B., ‘The Parable of the Unjust Judge and the Eschatology of Luke-Acts,’ S.J.T. XVI (1963), 298.Google Scholar

^{page 153 note 2} E.g. Luke xii. 39–46 ( = Matt. xxiv. 43–51); xvii. 26 f., 34 f. ( = Matt. xxiv. 37–41); see also Gospel Parallels, sect. 222.

^{page 153 note 3} Luke ix. 60 b–62; xii. 57–9 ( = Matt. v. 25 f.); xvi. 1–9.

^{page 153 note 4} Thus also xxi. 35 and xi. 20. That the latter passage also refers to the future coming of the Kingdom of God is argued in Hiers, R. H., The Kingdom of God in the Synoptic Tradition (Gainesville: Univ. of Florida Press, 1970), pp. 30–5Google Scholar. On Luke xvii. 20 f., see Hiers, R. H., ‘Why Will They Not Say, “Lo, here!” Or “There!”?’. J.A.A.R. XXXV (1967), 379–84Google Scholar. Cf. Talbert, ‘Redactional Quest’, pp. 178 f. Talbert, like all others who read the saying to mean that Jesus (and/or Luke) meant that the Kingdom was somehow present, does not explain who ‘they’ are, why they will not say ‘Lo, here!’ or ‘There!’, or why the appearance of the Kingdom of God ‘in your midst’ will account for (γάρ) this future moment of silence.

^{page 154 note 1} Thus also Luke iii. 6, ‘And all flesh shall see the salvation of God’, and xxi. 35, ‘For that day (will) come upon you suddenly like a snare; for it will come upon all who dwell upon the face of the whole earth.’

^{page 154 note 2} By the time the cosmic signs of Luke xxi. 11, 25 f. appear, it will be too late for repentance. The Son of man himself will be (σται) the sign for ‘this generation’ (xi. 30). This saying may have been a Q tradition; it has a counterpart at Matt. xxiv. 30: the decisive sign will be the manifestation of the Son of man himself! From Luke's standpoint, the cosmic signs, culminating in the appearance of the Son of man, will mean that ‘your redemption’ (that of his readers) is near (xxi. 28), namely, the Kingdom of God (xxi. 31).

^{page 154 note 3} So likewise Luke xviii. 8. It is not accidental that these two verses conclude Luke's two apocalyptic sections: xviii. 20-xviii. 8; xxi. 6–36. Both indicate that for Luke the main point of the two apocalyptic discourses was that Christians should be ready for the Parousia at all times, for the Son of man could now come at any time!

^{page 154 note 4} Acts i. 8; Luke xxiv. 47. See also Acts x. 34–48. Luke quotes the ‘light to the nations’ passage from Isa. xlix. 6 at both the beginning and the end of his double volume: Luke ii. 32; Acts xxvi. 23.

^{page 154 note 5} N.B. Rom. x. 14–18; xi. 25 f.; xv. 19, 21–9.

^{page 154 note 6} This message, of course, referred to the future coming of the Kingdom of God and the Lord Jesus Christ. Luke's contemporary readers would not have needed to have this explained, any more than they would have needed a footnote to clue them to the future sense of Luke xvii. 21 b. Luke does incorporate numerous sayings, several from his own special source or adaptation, that should leave no doubt as to his understanding that the Parousia was the decisive future event: Luke x. 9, 11; xi. 2, 30; xii. 32, 40; xvii. 23-xviii. 8; xix. 11; xxi. 27 f., 31; xxii. 16, 18; Acts i; 11; xvii. 30 f.

^{page 155 note 1} The ‘Paul’ of Col. i. 23 claims, possibly with some exaggeration, that the gospel ‘has been preached to every creature under heaven’. Even if ‘Luke the beloved physician’ of Col. iv. 14 was not the author of Luke–Acts, and if (as seems likely) Colossians was not written by Paul, it is still probable that Colossians was written before or about the same time as Luke–Acts. Luke does not give the impression that he is urging his follow-Christians to complete the earlier missionary efforts of the apostles to the Gentiles. Instead, he seems to be interested in justifying the fact that Christianity has become a predominantly gentile religion. There is no evidence to suggest that Luke or the Church of the first century as yet suspected the existence of Gentiles living beyond the lands to the east and north of the Mediterranean Sea. For Luke, the οίкουμένη was the Roman world: Luke ii. 1; Acts xxiv. 5, etc.