The Replacement of Israel in Luke-Acts

[Jaltus]

I was asked on another thread about a statement I made, and now I will defend it here.


"Luke clearly portrays the church as the New Israel seemingly replacing the entirety of the nation and people-group."

Which passages do you see that supports this interpretation of Luke?

There are a lot of passages which I believe support this interpretation, but let me start by giving a snippet from a paper I wrote and we can continue from there.

"The Temple as a Theological Focus

The gospel of Luke begins and ends at the temple, with the middle portion being about Jesus’ drive to get to the temple, and Acts has the action moving around the temple, but the question yet to be asked is why does Luke focus on the temple? There are many different answers to this question, but there will only be space for three answers proposed by different scholars.

N. T. Wright suggests that Jesus went to the temple in order to be the replacement of it. 1 In discussing the encounter on the road to Emmaus, Wright notes that it is at the breaking of the bread that the two travelers finally realize who Jesus is. The reason is how closely this resembles the Last Supper (22:19). Because of the connection of Psalms 42 and 43 with the gospel of Luke, Wright says, “The Temple, the place where God has promised to dwell with his people, is quietly but decisively replaced by Jesus himself. And the Temple worship is replaced by the breaking of bread in Jesus’ name.” 2 The problem with this solution is that the use of the temple in Acts seems to negate this understanding. Of special importance would be the passages where Paul goes back to the temple and engages in the cultus. If Wright was correct, Luke would need to censure Paul for doing such a thing, but there is no evidence of Luke disapproving. 3 Instead, when given the perfect opportunity to state his case against the temple and declare Christianity to be free, he tells of Paul going to the temple in order to fulfill a vow. 4 This is an interesting solution, but one which seems more appropriate to the theology of John than to that of Luke. 5

The second position defended by scholars is to understand Luke-Acts as a polemic against the temple, which often leads to charges of anti-Semitism against Luke. 6 This view begins with the understanding that the description of the temple is in fact a polemic against it and builds from there. 7 However, this is the exact premise that needs to be questioned. Tannehill argues strongly for replacing the idea of anti-Semitism with the understanding of the story as being partly about the tragedy of Israel in Luke-Acts. 8 Others have argued that it is not the Jews who are rejected by Jesus, rather it is Jesus who is rejected by the Jews. 9 This understanding of rejection, then, means that Jesus is not rejecting the temple in Luke 13:33-35 especially due to how Luke portrays the cleansing in 19:45-46. Erik Franklin says,
“Luke then does not see God as having rejected Israel and he does not envisage a takeover of Israel’s position by others. He is not in fact anti-Semitic. He is indeed harsh with those who reject Jesus, and it is hard to see how he could be otherwise for his whole theological understanding of Jesus’ place in the history of Israel…is the logical outcome of that history and fulfillment of prophetic expectations…Those who reject him have no real excuse. Yet, Luke continues to make excuses.” 10

The sacrifice made by Paul is a good foil to the idea of Luke rejecting the temple as well, since it shows Paul’s adherence to the faith of his fathers without any negative comments by Luke.11

The only major problem left to those who try to defend Luke against the charges of anti-Semitism is Stephen’s speech in Luke 7. There are many different authors who claim that Stephen’s speech is anti-Temple and therefore anti-Semitic. 12 Freudmann states about Luke that, “he added a new [charge against the Jews]: the stoning of Stephen, which appears to have been a riot that got out of hand and ended in a lynching.” 13 The allegation is that Luke continued to pile up charges against the Jews, and this fabrication of Stephen’s incident is just another drop in the ocean. 14 The two arguments brought forth deal with the teaching of God’s presence in the temple and the anti-idol polemic term ceiropoihtoiV (made by human hands) allegedly aimed at the temple. The problem with the arguments, Sweeney says, is that Judaism never taught God was confined solely to the temple nor does ceiropoihtoiV actually mean “idol,” it just happened to be used in such contexts. 15 Stephen’s speech is not anti-Temple, it is set against the abuse of the temple, against misunderstanding the temple, which parallels the warnings of the Old Testament. When it comes to Luke, “There is no mention here of opposition to the Temple and its priestly service.” 16 Luke-Acts is not a polemic against the temple, it is a narrative based around the temple.

The last important understanding of the theology of the temple in Luke-Acts is that this theme is to help ground the understanding of who the people of God are. David Pao argues quite persuasively for the idea that Luke is working to identify early Christianity as the realized or actual people of God in Luke-Acts by looking at the theme of the Isaianic Exodus. 17 Instead of focusing on that aspect (though it could be tied in through Stephen’s speech and the idea of anti-idol polemics), the concept of the temple and how Luke portrays it in Luke-Acts gives a strong understanding of who should really inherit the temple. At the cleansing of the temple, Jesus declares that the Jewish leaders have made the temple a den of robbers. 18 The temple is being cleansed not for the Jews, but for the people of God. 19 The beginning of Acts shows increased hostility towards the early church, but it comes from the religious leadership, not from the people nor from the priesthood itself. 20 The rejection of Christ by the leaders declares those leaders defunct, and the temple should now be properly situated within the sphere of the church which has the true rights to the temple. 21 The temple in Luke-Acts is not a theological stigma of the Jewish people, a relic of a better time when Israel was faithful to the Lord. Instead, the theological significance of the temple is that it is the center of salvation-history in that Israel once was faithful to the Lord there and now the church is carrying on that legacy."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 N. T. Wright, “The Resurrection and the Postmodern Dilemma.” Sewanee Theological Review 41 (1998): 152. This section will be following Wright’s argument from 151-152.

2 Ibid. Wright fleshes out his reasoning a bit more, but this is the basic idea and flow of the argument.

3 I. Howard Marshall, Acts, TNTC, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000), 345-346. Marshall notes that some commentators think Luke invented this just to show Paul as an active Jew, which certainly would carry no condemnation toward the rituals then.

4 Ibid., 345, n 1.

5 Paul Hoskins, “Jesus as the Replacement of the Temple in the Gospel of John,” (Ph.D. diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2002). See especially chapter 6.

6 Jack T. Sanders, The Jews in Luke-Acts, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987). The entire book is building a case against Luke as essentially anti-Semitic, much more than just anti-Nationalistic Judaism (see pp. 304-305).

7 Joseph B. Tyson, Images of Judaism in Luke-Acts, (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1992), 183-185.

8 Robert Tannehill, “Israel in Luke-Acts: A Tragic Story.” JBL 104 (1985): 81-82.

9 Jacob Jervell, Luke and the People of God, (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972), 41.

10 Erik Franklin, Luke: Interpreter of Paul, Critic of Matthew, (JSNTS 92; Somerset: Sheffield, 1994), 240.

11 Oskar Skarsaune, In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity, (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2002), 157.

12 Just for a short list see James P. Sweeney, “Stephen’s Speech (Acts 7:2-53): Is it as ‘Anti-Temple’ as is Frequently Alleged?” Trinity Journal 23 (2002): 198, n. 54.

13 Lillian C. Freudmann, Antisemitism in the New Testament, (New York: University Press of America, 1994), 281.

14 Ibid. Freudmann goes so far as to say that Stephen brought this on himself.

15 Sweeney, “Stephen’s Speech,” 199-207.

16 Ernst Lohmeyer, Lord of the Temple: A Study of the Relationship Between Cult and Gospel, (trans. Stewart Todd, Richmond: John Knox, 1962), 58.

17 David Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2002).

18 J. Bradley Chance, Jerusalem, the Temple, and the New Age in Luke-Acts, (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1988), 56-57. Chance does not name the leader as such, but he does mention it is those who abused the temple system that Jesus is against.

19 Peter L. Walker, Jesus and the Holy City: New Testament Perspectives on Jerusalem, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996), 63, declares the cleansing is in order to judge the temple, but that hardly fits with the disciples coming back to the temple in Acts.

20 Chance, Jerusalem, the Temple, 71-72.

21 Ibid., 71-74.

[GrayPilgrim]

:huh: The last paragraph did not seemto flow, that is I did not follow you, one second you're talking temple and why it is not anti-semitic and then you show that it is replacement...please elucidate further.

[Bill the Cat]

Hey Jaltus,

From what I know of the temple, that was where God's presence manifested. In Ezekial, God withdrew His presence from the temple, and it did not return until Ezekial's temple was built. The temple of Zerubabel did not meet the requirements of Ezekial's temple, so I am doubting God's presence ever returned after the exile.

This could mean 1 of 2 things IMO

1. That a lietral temple will be built, and God's presence will manifest there again (I believe after the Church is raptured)

2. It is metaphorical of the temple of our bodies, and God's presence manifests there (I do not proscribe to this at all)

But as always, I am not 100% settled on the issue.

[Solly]

Bill, Jesus is the place where God's presence is manifest: the propitiation set forth, the place where God and man shall meet. That is why the temple veil was rent - remember that the whole temple complex was so that man's approaches to God could be ordered to avoid sin coming into his presence. (That is why the idea of a new temple is so anathema to nonDisps, since it turns back the clock on the work of Christ to our minds.) The Temple was only the shadow of things seen in its heavenly pattern, which is Chirst as Mediator and Sacrifice and High Priest.
Remember how the writer to the hebrews says that we eat of a differnt altar?
We are the Temple in so far as the church is being built into Christ - but the altar renders the temple holy, not vicky verky.

[Bill the Cat]

I'm still stuck on Eze 43... especially

43:3 , which describes His re-habitation AFTER the destruction of the city.

and 43:7 which describes the restoration of favor to Israel

and 42:9 where He promises to dwel with them if they will put away their harlotry

and the last 7 or 8 verses which describe sacrificial cleansing and offerings.

This was not Herod's temple, so did this prophecy fail? Or will there be another temple built and sanctified per Zeke's directions? If it is metaphorical, was the first temple that God's presence left (Eze 10:8) just metaphorical?

[Solly]

Eze 40:1 In the five and twentieth year of our captivity, in the beginning of the year, in the tenth [day] of the month, in the fourteenth year after that the city was smitten, in the selfsame day the hand of the LORD was upon me, and brought me thither.
Eze 40:2 In the visions of God brought he me into the land of Israel, and set me upon a very high mountain, by which [was] as the frame of a city on the south.


Is it a prophecy or a vision Bill?
As Israel lay in servitude in Babylon, this vision was told to encourage them that God had not left off his work, or them, but that restoration would come. Is there anything to say that the Jews themselves saw it as proscriptive of what should be done on their return, or that Herod tried to implement it?
More the fact that, despite the failure of Israel, God was still working to a plan, and they still figured in it. I see no warrant for projecting this into the future, esp as mentioned cos Christ is the fulfillment of the Temple and all it stands for, just as Christ is the fulfillment of Jerusalem and the Land, as Ezekiel also goes on to speak about.

[Bill the Cat]

It was a vision, but I fail to see how that changes anything. Most visions are symbolic, but the speaking in the visions is usually descriptive of what's going to happen.


Eze 43:3 And it was like the appearance of the vision which I saw, like the vision which I saw when He came to destroy the city. And the visions were like the vision which I saw by the river Chebar; and I fell on my face.


God definitely destroyed the city and definitely left the temple, so why is this vision any different from the former two?

[Solly]

Eze 43:2 And, behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east: and his voice [was] like a noise of many waters: and the earth shined with his glory.
Eze 43:3 And [it was] according to the appearance of the vision which I saw, [even] according to the vision that I saw when I came to destroy the city: and the visions [were] like the vision that I saw by the river Chebar; and I fell upon my face.


The likeness lies in the appearance of God in the visions firstly coming to destroy the city, and now coming back to it. After all, Ezekiel does not appear to have been in the city, but at Chebar. What Zeke saw was not the literal fall of Jerusalem, but its spiritual significance; he sees the restoration in similar terms, as a return of God to the city and the Temple - what else could he see it as; all the OT prophets saw in Jewish terms that they understood. It needed a John to point out that, once the work of Christ was done, there would be no temple, because God would be there in person, and we would have access to him, not via a priesthood and sacrifices, and cleansings, etc.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Solly :thumb:

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 10:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=163596#post163596)
Solly:

Eze 43:2 And, behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east: and his voice [was] like a noise of many waters: and the earth shined with his glory.
Eze 43:3 And [it was] according to the appearance of the vision which I saw, [even] according to the vision that I saw when I came to destroy the city: and the visions [were] like the vision that I saw by the river Chebar; and I fell upon my face.


The likeness lies in the appearance of God in the visions firstly coming to destroy the city, and now coming back to it. After all, Ezekiel does not appear to have been in the city, but at Chebar. What Zeke saw was not the literal fall of Jerusalem, but its spiritual significance; he sees the restoration in similar terms, as a return of God to the city and the Temple - what else could he see it as; all the OT prophets saw in Jewish terms that they understood. It needed a John to point out that, once the work of Christ was done, there would be no temple, because God would be there in person, and we would have access to him, not via a priesthood and sacrifices, and cleansings, etc.

I understand Solly, but I need to nitpick on one thing... He was in Jerusalem as the Angel took him into the temple and further into the courtyards (Ez 42:1, 15, Eze 43:5)

The rest is a matter of perspective and perception.

[Jaltus]

Um, guys, while I appreciate your debate, I'd like to keep this thread on topic.

I will be posting substantively tomorrow or late tonight.

[Solly]

Sorry Jaltus, it's just that your post was all high faluting Phd thesis type interacting with your peers, which lost me somewhat on what the issue is. Can you bring it down to Bible study level?

/ot Bill, only in a vision; real Jerusalem lay waste at that time.

[Bill the Cat]

Sorry Jaltus, I was actually discussing the temple and the future, I thought that was on topic in a way.

Do I need to go back and preface my posts with the / ot thing? :rofl:

[Jaltus]

This is the begining portion of my paper dealing with how the temple is used in Luke-Acts. I left out the footnotes and some of the technical discussion, but it should still get the point across. This is part 1 of 2.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction

Perhaps one of the most controversial concepts in biblical theology is the relationship between the church and Israel. Closely tied to this issue is the understanding the contemporary church has of the biblical author’s understanding of Israel. Central to this discussion is how the New Testament treats the concept of the temple. Elsewhere it has been argued that Jesus is the fulfillment and replacement of the temple in the gospel of John. This paper is going to explore movement toward the temple in Luke and away from the temple in Acts in order to show that the temple is the narrative fulcrum of Luke-Acts. A study of the temple in Luke and in Acts will be the first step. Rather than entering into the quagmire of citing every mention of the temple and Jerusalem, only the major relevant passages will be dealt with in order to show the general concept. At the same time, possible counterexamples will be mentioned and harmonized. Next will be the argument that Jerusalem and the temple are closely interconnected, so the view of Jerusalem in Luke-Acts will be explored as well. The relationship between the temple and Jesus as well as the temple and the church will be developed from Luke and Acts respectively. The charge of anti-Semitism with respect to Luke’s use of the temple will be considered. Finally, an attempt will be made to show how the temple is central to Luke-Acts not just in terms of narrative, but also in terms of the theological message Luke wants to convey.

The Temple in Luke

Birth and Early Life of Jesus

The first two chapters of Luke’s gospel show a strong connection to the temple. The birth of John the Baptist is closely tied to the temple, as seen by the visitation of the angel to Zechariah in Luke 1:21-22. In fact, the only place name given during the pericope is the temple itself. right after the birth of Jesus, Mary and Joseph take Him to the temple in 2:22-52, with the temple being specifically mentioned in 2:27 and 2:37. The very next pericope deals with the celebration of the Passover Feast, where Jesus stays behind at the temple in order to discuss the Torah. Again, the place of the temple is emphasized. These early narratives of John and Jesus clearly show the temple as some sort of focus for their coming into being. With John’s birth foretold at the temple and with Jesus’ only childhood stories being centered on the temple (with the exception of the birth and fleeing to Egypt), there seems to be definite foreshadowing that the temple is going to be an important place in the gospel. The explicit mention of the salvation coming from Jesus is even more important due to this message being delivered in the temple itself. The temple is used as a way of binding together the birth narratives of Jesus and John, showing the temple to be a focus for their respective ministries. The temple as “my Father’s house” is a foreshadow of the future importance the temple will hold in Luke. The early life of Jesus in Luke is intertwined with the presence of the temple.

The Week Before the Crucifixion

The next cluster of verses which contain the temple are immediately after the triumphal entry with Jesus weeping over Jerusalem and leading up to the betrayal and death of Christ. As presaged by Luke 2:49, Jesus comes and clears out the temple in Luke 19:45-46. This is not just a foretaste of the coming destruction of the city, it is also a declaration of the lack of God’s presence currently found in the temple. This cleansing of the temple by Jesus is what allows the presence of God to once more fill the holiest place in Israel. This cleansing, instead of breaking the link between God and temple, creates a link between the temple and Jesus as Messiah or ruling king. This is clearly portrayed by Luke since 19:47 explicitly mentions Jesus as teaching in the temple kaq hmeran, or “daily.” The temple is not a focal point of God’s rejection of Israel at this point in the narrative, but instead becomes the “house” for Jesus that He mentioned in 2:49. Chance argues,
“Lk. 19:38, which makes reference to Jesus as the King, indicates that it is as Messiah that Jesus takes possession of the temple. The temple, therefore, is the Messiah’s place. It is the proper place for Jesus to carry out his important messianic work of teaching. Unlike Mark, Luke does not condemn the temple because the Messiah has arrived. Rather, the Messiah restores the temple, rendering it fit to fulfill its eschatological role as a decisive center of God’s saving work.”

If the temple had in fact been the center of rejection, one would expect Jesus to either teach just outside the temple or somewhere completely separated from the temple in order to show the contrast between His ministry and that of the cultus. The explication of those teaching sessions in 20:1-21:38 shows the final defeat of Jesus’ opponents occurring on the temple grounds, something which is quite different from the parallel in Mark 11:11-13:37. This portion of Luke, from the triumphal entry until the point of the betrayal, centers around the temple itself, and makes the reader aware of the temple as a place of personal meaning to Jesus such as no other place in the gospel since His visit in 2:41-50. Rather than this being a rejection, it is a cleansing and reclaiming of the temple.

The Death and Resurrection Accounts

The act of betrayal by Judas includes the concept of the temple in each of the synoptic gospels (Matthew 26:55, Mark 14:49, Luke 22:53), but Luke has a stronger emphasis. The Lukan insertion of all auth estin umwn h wra kai h exousia tou skotouV is quite telling, as this makes a break between the temple and those in it, using alla as a disjunctive and umwn to show the darkness of the men and not the place. At the actual crucifixion itself, Luke also includes the reference to the temple veil being torn in two. While commentators debate which veil this was and the actual significance of the event, what matters to this discussion is the mention of the temple at the climax of the gospel. Once again, the temple is being used as a visible reminder of the importance of Jesus and His connection to it. The last mention of the temple in Luke is after the resurrection and ascension, and it shows the disciples continuing their presence at the temple. This is important narratively because it forms an inclusio, bringing the end of the story back to where it all began. While this inclusio is not fully satisfactory, due to the events which happened in Luke, it is still something which brings an end to the book while also looking forward to more of the story being told. The gospel ends with the temple being mentioned in the climax of the book, as well as it being the setting for the ending, which truly makes the temple important.

Summary of Findings

The temple has been a key location throughout all of Luke. It occurred in the earliest passages, giving a strong portent of what was to be coming in the gospel. The entrance into Jerusalem was transformed by Luke into a parade to the temple, once again putting the temple at the forefront of the activity, this time of cleansing. Finally, the temple is not something one expects to be central to the death of Christ, since the action takes place elsewhere, but Luke brings it forth at His death and after the ascension. While not all the passages dealing with the temple were covered, the major portions which were discussed made a strong case for the geographic location of the temple being a focus of the narrative.

The Temple in Acts

The Church Before Paul

Acts begins with the disciples of Jesus all meeting together. Right after the ascension and Pentecost, in the summary statement at the end of Acts 2, the temple once again comes into focus. Just as Luke’s gospel ends with the followers of Christ meeting in the temple, so does Acts begin with those meetings. Just as Jesus taught in the temple kaq hmeran (Luke 19:47), so do the believers meet in the temple kaq hmeran (Acts 2:46). Acts 3:1-10 gives an explicit example of some of the Twelve going to the temple to pray. In this way, it was still the center of their lives, even as it had been the center of Jesus’ life. What is also important is that the beggar went in with them to the temple in order to tell others of what happened. Upon doing this healing, though, Peter and John were arrested and brought before the leaders (Acts 4:1-21). It was a temple guard who took them, just as a few temple guards took Jesus in Luke 22:52. In another summary statement at Acts 5:12, the believers are seen meeting at Solomon’s Colonnade, a part of the temple. After being arrested another time, the disciples escape and again are found teaching in the temple (Acts 5:20-25). After being arrested for this teaching in the temple, they once more go back to teaching in the temple daily (pasan hmeran) according to Acts 5:42. This does not show the rejection of the temple that many authors argue for, but shows a continuance of the temple as a place of teaching for the early church just as it was for Jesus’ own ministry. More likely is that these stories show a rejection by the Jewish leaders of the gospel, and so they in turn are rejected. According to Tannehill, the early missionary work directed toward the Jews in Acts was successful, it just tapered off over time. The use of the temple in this part of Acts is as a seat for the infancy of Christianity.

Paul’s Arrest and Speeches

The next major portion of narrative in which the temple is mentioned is Paul’s arrest and subsequent retellings of his arrest. Acts 21:26-30 is the tale of Paul going to the temple in order to fulfill a vow. The Jews assume he brought a Gentile into the temple precincts, and therefore a riot ensues. Paul is then taken by the Romans and imprisoned. The verses leading up to this shed an interesting light on the account, namely that Paul is doing this to show that he still holds to the temple cultus (21:24). While the reaction of the Jews is obviously a problem, it is interesting to note that Paul’s “downfall,” much like that of Jesus, is centered on the temple. In his defense before the crowd in 22:1-21, Paul mentions that he was in a trance while in the temple. This vision of what God wants Paul to do occurs once again in the temple, showing the importance it has to the story, even if Luke mentions it out of order by placing this occurrence on Paul’s lips. The retelling of this near-riot by Paul and his defense, most notably in 24:5-18, 25:7-12, and 26:2-23, also deals with the charges of him violating the temple. The temple is then central in the trials before the various officials, and the Jewish leaders mention Paul’s alleged desecration more than once to try to get him imprisoned. The theme that runs through Paul’s arrest and various defenses is that of the centrality of the temple to Paul. The temple is not replaced in his life, but it is to him still a viable part of the cultus.

Summary of Findings

The temple in Acts is a complex concept. It is the obvious focus of the early church to the point that it is central to the religious life of the church. As detailed above, the first five chapters of Acts seem to revolve around the temple, with most of the major action taking place at or in the immediate vicinity of it. Contrary to many claims, there seems to be no malice or lingering ill-will on the part of the believers against the temple itself. In the Pauline sections, the temple is brought back into focus after a significant gap of narration. Paul returns to the temple in order to fulfill religious obligations. The importance of this is the positive way the temple is viewed by Paul in order for him to come back to it and to still hold to the cultus, even though he is the apostle to the Gentiles. The defense speeches of Paul also show the importance of the temple to Paul. Thus, the temple in Acts is still a focal point, but it seems to bookend Acts instead of playing a central role.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Jaltus]

Part 2 of 2

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerusalem in Luke

Early Life of Jesus

The birth narrative of Luke does not contain any direct references to Jerusalem, but the surrounding narratives of Jesus’ early years do. Jerusalem is the backdrop for the story of Jesus being greeted by Simeon and then by Anna. This scene is important for it announces the heart of the mission of Luke-Acts, the integration of the Gentiles into the people of God. This places Jerusalem at a significant point in Luke, the statement of the mission. The next major usage of the word Jerusalem occurs just after this pericope with the story of the boy Jesus at the temple. What is interesting is Luke using repetition to drive home the point of where Jesus was. Ierousalhm occurs in 2:41, 43, 45; giving a near poetic feel to the beginning of the episode, and an obvious stress to the locale. The importance of this episode, as stated before, is the claiming of the temple as Jesus’ own, His natural home. By having Jerusalem as the focus in the early life of Jesus, Luke shows the important role it will play by having the statement of Jesus’ mission and the claiming of the temple not just take place in Jerusalem but also occur in such close narrative proximity.

“Going Up to Jerusalem”

Scholars all agree that the middle section of Luke, namely chapters 9-19, are all about Jesus’ drive to get to Jerusalem. The first such passage is 9:31, the transfiguration story of Luke, which sets the stage for the rest of 9-19. Both Elijah and Moses understand what is going to happen, so the path of the story is set by this conversation. Walker says, “After only five chapters dealing with the Galilean ministry Jesus ‘sets his face towards Jerusalem’ (9:51). Throughout the ensuing ‘travel narrative’, Jerusalem is frequently mentioned as the goal of Jesus’ journey (13:33-5; 17:11; 18:31; 19:28).” It is quite important to note that the journey toward Jerusalem has two important features. First, it is the longest portion of the book, dwarfing the birth narrative and early ministry sections as well as being bigger than the final week and crucifixion scenes. Second, it causes the reader of the narrative to interpret events differently than if those five statements were not there. Jesus is not performing miracles for no reason, He is not trying to validate at that moment who He is, but each pericope in Luke 9-19 needs to be understood in relation to this journey toward Jerusalem. The didactic elements and narrative asides should not distract the reader from the ultimate goal, nor should it detract from the narrative impetus. In fact, some scholars argue that the various elements in Luke 9-19 are there to build the tension of the journey. Whatever the case may be, it is clear to any reader that Jerusalem plays some sort of central role in this portion of Luke, while also building toward some sort of climax to be realized when Jesus and His disciples arrive there.

Two Sayings About Jerusalem

Within this broad category, only two passages will be discussed, namely 13:33-35 and 21:8-28 (noting especially verses 20-24). The first passage, 13:33-35, is often called the “Lament Over Jerusalem.” This is often seen as the first prophecy regarding the destruction of Jerusalem, for it talks of “your house being left desolate.” Something of note is that Luke is the only evangelist to include 13:33, a unique defense of why Jesus is going to Jerusalem, specifically He is going in order to die. This pericope is specifically about Jerusalem as another name for the people. It is not a geographic issue by necessity, it is here likely standing in for Jewish leadership and the opposition to Jesus’ own ministry considering the mention of the prophets being killed. The other passage is tied to 13:33-35 due to the subject matter. Luke 21:8-28 is the Lukan version of the Olivet Discourse, though it does have some touches to make it distinctive. Both Mark and Matthew avoid specific reference to Jerusalem in their versions, but Luke mentions Jerusalem twice (21:20, 24) and uses it as a sign. The name of the city sandwiches a prophecy about it. Even without mentioning Jerusalem by name in 21-23, the city is still referenced in the paragraph by allusions to Jeremiah 51, which is about David’s city. Most commentators will say that this is a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, generally assuming it refers to AD 70. This is what links 13:33-35 with 21:20-24, the destruction of the leading city of Israel. These two speeches deal directly with Jerusalem and the coming destruction, an emphasis which keeps Jerusalem at the center of the narrative, but in a poor light.

Post-Resurrection Accounts

Obviously, the crucifixion itself and the events immediately leading up to it are centered in and around Jerusalem. The name of the city is not used, but the placement obviously makes Jerusalem a central player. After the resurrection, however, one would assume the narrative could move away from Jerusalem and back to Nazareth or Galilee (as in Matthew 28:10 and John 21:1). Luke instead keeps Jerusalem as the setting for the post resurrection accounts (note 24:13, 18, 47, 52), even though he must know of other appearances of the risen Christ. This reveals how he is trying to keep the location specific to where he wants it, especially considering how he goes against Mark. While this is not a problem in terms of there being an error, it does manifest a deliberate choice on Luke’s part, which in turn shows his narrative (and possibly theological) agenda. Even a story about two men leaving the area begins with an explicit mention of the city (24:13), contains another explicit mention in dialogue (24:18), and ends with an explicit mention (24:33). It is also important to note how the second usage, being on the lips of the travelers, denotes the centrality of the city in the story. Jerusalem begins and ends the story, giving an inclusio which keeps the reader focused on the city even when the story moves away from it. The next mention of Jerusalem occurs in 24:47, a verse which launches the Gentile mission. This is a very important verse in Luke, yet it is made grammatically awkward by the insertion of the phrase, “beginning at Jerusalem.” Marshall states,
“Luke may also have found scriptural backing for the thought of beginning in Jerusalem in Is. 2:2f. par. Mi. 4:1f. This phrase is generally taken with the preceding clause; it is loosely added and has adverbial force (BD 1373); WH mg and B. Weiss … took it with the following verse. In both cases the syntax is harsh, and suggests that Luke had not wholly mastered and revised his material. The difficulty led to textual emendation by scribes. arxamenoi, a B C* L 33 pc sa bo, is the lectio difficilior…here the force is ‘beginning with’ (BD 4193), and the implication is that the Christian mission was to commence in Jerusalem and possibly with the Jews themselves.”

The reading which best explains the other variants is to be preferred generally, so keeping the phrase makes the most sense. This sets up Jerusalem once more as the center of the action. Finally, 24:52 makes the final mention of the city, and it leads the narrative back there in order to end. This group of texts strengthens the idea that Jerusalem is at the heart of the narrative flow of Luke’s gospel. Each of the resurrection appearances is based in the Jerusalem area by Luke, even though he had other stories from which to choose.

Summary of Findings

Luke begins and ends in Jerusalem. The actual birth of Jesus is not in Jerusalem, but His dedication is. Luke is the only gospel which gives the story of the dedication at the temple and the meetings with Simeon and Anna. The story of Jesus staying behind at the temple when His parents had left uses Jerusalem three times, giving it a near poetic feel and driving home the stress in Luke 2 on the city. The middle portion of Luke, chapters 9-19, are the story of Jesus moving toward Jerusalem, with phrases such as Luke 9:53 “He was heading for Jerusalem” appearing over and over again. The two sayings about Jerusalem by Jesus focus on the catastrophic events which would soon unfold, but both keep the importance of David’s city in front of the reader. Finally, the accounts of the post-resurrection appearances of Christ to His followers are limited to the city and the surrounding area. The gospel of Luke is focused on driving Jesus toward Jerusalem and then keeping His followers there.



Jerusalem in Acts

The Church Before Paul

One of the key verses in the entire book is Acts 1:8, which is the mission statement or outline of the book as a narrative. These words of Jesus inform the reader from the beginning that the narrative will begin in Jerusalem and move out from there. The reader expects, then, to find the beginning of the book dominated by Jerusalem, and Luke is more than accommodating. The action of the book proper begins in 1:12 (with a mention of Jerusalem) and stays in the city until 8:1. Chapters 2-4 are centered on what the apostles, and especially Peter, are doing in the city. They are preaching the gospel message and healing people, all within the confines of Israel’s most well known town. Even when brought before the leaders for a trial, the work of the apostles springs forth from the lips of their adversaries. The last explicit mention of the city in this section is 6:7, which gives a summary statement for the opening chapters of the book. This early part of Acts is set in Jerusalem with all the action revolving around the city.

From Saul to the Jerusalem Council

Acts 8:1 begins the career of the man who will become Paul the apostle, but it begins with the persecution of the church in Jerusalem, which causes the believers to scatter. This should change the geographic location of the narrative, and quickly branch away from any mention of the city. Instead, more references to the place of Jesus’ death are found. Acts 8:26-27 is the beginning of the story of the eunuch, and 8:27 specifically mentions he was in Jerusalem to worship. While this does reveal the man as a God-fearing Gentile, it was an unneeded repetition since the city was also mentioned in 8:26. Once more the city is made central to the movement of the book. The story of Saul’s conversion and subsequent time with Ananias also draws in mention of the city frequently. Saul is looking to take any prisoners he finds back to Jerusalem, and Ananias mentions how Saul was after the believers in Jerusalem. Other believers also mention his persecution of those in the city in 9:21. He then goes to Jerusalem himself in order to meet with the leaders of the church. Throughout this section, the importance and leadership of the church in Jerusalem is mentioned again and again. Even as the narrative moves away from the city, it is still central to the development of the plot. Furthermore, the leadership of that church can also be seen in 11:1-30, with the church talking to Peter and with Barnabus being sent from Jerusalem to see what is going on in Antioch. Each piece of progress, in terms of how this new faith is to be understood and practiced, is closely tied to the decisions and locale of Jerusalem. This culminates in the council of Acts 15, where the various leaders of the church gathered to make decisions pertinent and binding to the entire catholic church. That the Jerusalem church handed down a ruling as a judge does to petitioners cannot be in doubt; the rule of Jerusalem over the church was absolute. Half way through the book of Acts, the narrative is still centered on Jerusalem even though the program of Acts laid down in 1:8 was for the story to move elsewhere.

Paul’s Travels and Trials

From the Jerusalem council on, the book of Acts is concerned mainly with the character of Paul and nobody else. Paul’s first journey, encompassing from 13:4 to 14:28, ends with Paul in Antioch, but quickly the story pushes Paul to Jerusalem. His next trip extends from 15:40 through 21:16, ending with his arrival in Jerusalem, 21:17. His two major trips both start from Antioch, but both end up with him in Jerusalem. Acts 19:20-21 is a turning point in the narrative, as 19:20 summarizes the conquest of the word of God. After 19:20, the only mention of the word of God occurs in Paul’s speech to the Ephesian elders. The reason 19:20-21 is a turning point is that the word of God has finished “conquering,” so Paul is looking to head back to the main stage of this drama, Jerusalem. From this point on, the feeling of the book changes and one is easily reminded of Luke 9-19 where Jesus is the one traveling to Jerusalem. Just as Jesus went to Jerusalem knowing what was coming, so does Paul journey there with ample warning of his coming fate. Jerusalem then becomes the narrative downfall of Paul, as he is arrested there. The city is then mentioned continuously in his defenses, and much of the action (such as the plot on Paul’s life in 25:1-7) is based around Jerusalem being the crux of events. The trials before Festus, Felix, and Agrippa all include mentions of Jerusalem. Finally, the last chapter of the book also mentions how Paul was arrested in Jerusalem. Even though it is not the setting for the story, Jerusalem is able to function as a place around which the narrative takes place.

Summary of Findings

It is clear now that Acts hinges on the use of Jerusalem. The book begins in Jerusalem, and the first half of the book stays there. The apostles feel no need to leave the city and continue to meet inside Jerusalem. It is not until the persecution comes from Saul and the Jewish leaders that the believers begin to spread out from the city. Even still, the leadership of the fledgling church is maintained in the city proper, with its rulings being sent out to the Christian Diaspora. Paul, now a missionary, continues his journeys, though he constantly ends up back in Jerusalem at the end of them. Paul is then arrested in the city and taken to trial, but even then Jerusalem is in the center of the conflict which moves the story along. Jerusalem is the center point of Acts, with all of the different actions either moving away from or drawing back to Israel’s chief city.


Is the Temple or Jerusalem the Fulcrum?

It has been claimed that the temple is the fulcrum of the narrative of Luke-Acts, but is this really the case? The data gives some evidence leaning that way, but even more evidence points toward Jerusalem being the true central hinge of the story. While this does seem to be the case, the next step is to decide how closely linked the temple and Jerusalem are. Obviously the temple is inside of the city of Jerusalem, but each of the two locations often carries a unique significance quite apart from geography. The temple is the hub of the cultus, the center point of God’s presence on earth. Jerusalem is the seat of the Davidic dynasty, the place where Jewish kings once ruled. There are strongly differing answers on this question, with some scholars leaning toward Jerusalem and the temple being completely separated in Luke-Acts and others arguing that the two are in fact synonymous. Since scholars are so strongly separated over this issue, it makes sense to draw together the material in Luke-Acts where they tend to overlap and see if the two are in fact used interchangeably. The first place to look is the beginning of Luke, where Jerusalem was so central to the early life of Jesus. When Jesus goes to the temple to be dedicated, Jerusalem and the temple are held very closely together. Luke 2:22 shows Jerusalem as the goal of the journey, but in truth the temple itself must be the focus for that is where the young Jesus was going to be presented. The repetition used in 2:41-45 strengthens the idea that the temple and Jerusalem are strongly linked, for once again the goal of the trip was to go to the temple. Many scholars have noted the parallel between Jesus and John according to Luke’s gospel, but what is interesting about this is how Jesus comes off as the greater of the two not because of His teaching, but because the temple is His true home. John is dedicated to the Lord at the temple, but Jesus is coming home when at the temple.

The central section of Luke is filled with teachings and miracles, but the narrative is pointed directly at Jerusalem. After a few pericopes of teachings or events, a statement about heading toward Jerusalem appears. This may look like it refers to Jerusalem only, but the ultimate destination of Jesus is not the city proper but rather the temple. In fact, Luke seems to go out of his way to not mention the city during the triumphal entrance pericope. In fact, 13:33-35 predict that people will declare “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord,” but Luke omits that from his account in order to keep the temple more central. Therefore it seems likely, since Jesus’ first act upon arriving in Jerusalem is the cleansing of the temple, that when He turned toward Jerusalem, His thoughts were not just of the city but of His “father’s house.”
In the opening quarter of Acts, it is quite clear that Jerusalem and the temple are synonymous for a while. The believers met in the temple courts. The apostles did much of their preaching and teaching there. The people saw them in the temple and had no problem with it. Acts 1:8 declares the mission to be to Jerusalem first, but the missionaries never seem to leave the temple. Knowing the early believers based their gatherings in the temple courts, it is no far stretch to believe this is where much of the guidance for the church universal came from as well. In fact, due to the conversion of many priests (6:7), it makes ties with the temple more likely. Paul’s trips always circle back to Jerusalem in general, as the reader learns from Paul’s trial (22:17) that he began his career in part in the temple, then at the end of his first journey he met with the leaders of the church (Acts 15:2), and at the end of his second trip he went to the temple courts (Acts 21:26). Throughout Acts, Jerusalem and the temple are closely linked.
Not all mentions of Jerusalem, however, refer to the temple. For example, Luke 21:20-24 is a prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem, but there is nothing within the content of those verses to link it with the temple. In fact, the alteration of the Markan passage makes it more likely to not refer to the temple and instead be only about the city. Luke 23:28 is building on the passages where Jesus weeps over Jerusalem, a reference more to the people than to the temple, thus making 23:28 be about Jerusalem the place. The setting of Jesus’ death was Jerusalem and, by geographical necessity, not the temple. In Acts there are several mentions of Jerusalem referring to the people and not the place, such as in 13:27, 31. Jerusalem is not always linked to the temple.
From this investigation, one can now conclude that the temple is indeed the narrative fulcrum of Luke-Acts. Jerusalem is mentioned more often, but the temple should be closely associated with the city. At the same time, one must remain cautious and not link the city with the temple at every occurrence. The most telling factor is when the people of Jerusalem are meant even though it is only the city that is mentioned. This being said, the book of Luke begins in the temple and is overall about Jesus’ movement back toward the temple. Luke 9-24 is focused on the temple and what is happening around it. Acts then begins at the temple and slowly moves away from it, though never leaving it for long. In some respect, Luke is movement toward the temple and Acts is away from the temple. This is an overly simplified answer, though, and should be modeled as Luke is movement toward the temple and Acts is movement centered on the temple, due to the back and forth movements of the book sending characters away and then bringing them back. This makes the temple the fulcrum of Luke-Acts in terms of narrative, since the stories hinge on the temple and swing around it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think by showing this focus on the temple within Luke-Acts and the fact that Christianity is seen as the true inheritor of the temple, it becomes very clear that Israel as a nation is being replaced by Christianity. The temple is now the property of Christ, making it the property of the church.

Hopefully this argument was not too technical, although it is obviously a very sustained argument with a lot of nuanced text work.

Tell me what you think, and feel free to take your time.

[Solly]

*cough* back to back posting *cough*


For example, Luke 21:20-24 is a prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem, but there is nothing within the content of those verses to link it with the temple.

Although you link these verses from the Olivet Discourse to the Fall of Jerusalem; yet you don't mention 21.5,6 which specifically mentions the Temple.

There is also the case that Paul's going to the Temple to fulfill a vow was not necessarily a good thing; look at the trouble that came of it.

[Jaltus]

Solly,

But Paul knew the trouble was coming. The prophecy of Agabus, if nothing else, would have made that explicit.

[Solly]

So would you say (and though he knew it was coming, he didn't know how) that this shows something of the way the Temple priveleges were being abused - in arresting a man while in the act of worship, while people like Paul (Christians) went about their lawful business?

[Jaltus]

I believe that there is a dichotomy between the leaders of the temple and the temple itself (in direct opposition to Davd Pao, my prof, whom I quoted in my first post). I think the leaders were corrupt, but that the temple itself was not, it was the precursor to Jesus. The temple is the natural home of the Christian community before the eschaton because it is supposed to be pointing us to Jesus. How could you enter the temple courts without thinking of the sacrifices offered therein? How could you then think of said sacrifices without thinking of the ultimate sacrifice?

Just as the temple is to remind all of Israel about who God is and how holy He is, in the same way it points Christians to the greatest paschal lamb that there ever was, and in turn to His Father.

[Solly]

gotchya.

How were they prepared for the end of the temple?
Do you see any links with Ezekiel, and the removal of God's glory, and then its return (albeit in a vision) at some future date - perhaps eschatological?

[Hitch]

07-31-2003 @ 01:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=163484#post163484)
Bill the Cat:

Hey Jaltus,

From what I know of the temple, that was where God's presence manifested. In Ezekial, God withdrew His presence from the temple, and it did not return until Ezekial's temple was built. The temple of Zerubabel did not meet the requirements of Ezekial's temple, so I am doubting God's presence ever returned after the exile.

This could mean 1 of 2 things IMO

1. That a lietral temple will be built, and God's presence will manifest there again (I believe after the Church is raptured)

2. It is metaphorical of the temple of our bodies, and God's presence manifests there (I do not proscribe to this at all)

But as always, I am not 100% settled on the issue.
Luke 2:46-49
46 And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.
47 And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.
48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
(KJV)

There is no reason for Christ to twice clear the Temple if it has no real significance at the time
. There is no reason for Christ to preach that a day is coming when true worshippers will not go to the Temple, unless at the time true worshippers are going to the Temple.
There is no reason for Christ to declare the Temple 'desolate' if it had been desolate for hundreds of years. And as in the passage above we see Jesus about the Father's business at the Temple, and his reference to my Father's house when clearing out the money changes, we see when he proclaims the desolation a starkly different term. 'Your house'.

God through Jesus claimed and maintaind ownership ,at least to the degree necccessary, until M23;38.

Take care

Hitch

[Hitch]

There is a theme that is all over the Scriptures.

God raises up a man. There is an obviously special relationship between this man and the Lord . The man is caught in a gross failure. In most cases there is forgiveness, Saul makes a likely excption, but the glory of the fellowship once so dear is lost in life. Moshe could not cross over with the people. Dave would always be a former murderer. Dave and Moshe are mediators of a type (likely types of a Mediator as well). They stand at the very place where the people as a whole meet God. They are also set in temporary offices of a temporary system .

I reckon the parallels the Temple are obvious.

take care

H

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 12:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=166488#post166488)
Hitch:


There is no reason for Christ to twice clear the Temple if it has no real significance at the time. There is no reason for Christ to preach that a day is coming when true worshippers will not go to the Temple, unless at the time true worshippers are going to the Temple.
There is no reason for Christ to declare the Temple 'desolate' if it had been desolate for hundreds of years. And as in the passage above we see Jesus about the Father's business at the Temple, and his reference to my Father's house when clearing out the money changes, we see when he proclaims the desolation a starkly different term. 'Your house'.

God through Jesus claimed and maintaind ownership ,at least to the degree necccessary, until M23;38.

Take care

Hitch

Interesting. Thanks Hitch...

[Jaltus]

How were they prepared for the end of the temple?
Do you see any links with Ezekiel, and the removal of God's glory, and then its return (albeit in a vision) at some future date - perhaps eschatological?

Solly,

I do not think they were truly prepared in and of themselves, I think what "prepared" them was the scattering of the Christians from Jerusalem in the 40s and 50s due to the persecution, especially the death of James the Just, which outraged the community, but told Christians what was coming. I believe that was the beginning of the break, but that is historical rather than biblical.

I do see some links with Ezekiel, but not in the presentation of Luke. He tended to stick closer to the concepts found in Isaiah.