¹ Hans Conzelmann's presentation of Luke's theology in terms of the “delay of the parousia” (The Theology of St. Luke [trans. Buswell, Geoffrey; London: Farber & Farber, 1960]Google Scholar) sharpened the sense of the “problem” in Luke's eschatology, and many subsequent studies have been preoccupied with this issue. But Henry J. Cadbury's description of Luke's “deferred eschatology” or “delayed apocalyptic” had already demonstrated that “delay” is not so much a problem for which apology must be offered as a sign of divine forebearance within an intact apocalyptic drama (The Making of Luke-Acts [London: SPCK, 1927] 292–96Google Scholar, and idem, “Acts and Eschatology,” in Davies, W. D. and Daube, D., eds., The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956] 300–21]Google Scholar). Eric Franklin even argues that the ascension of Jesus is the eschatological event which fulfills Israel's expectations: “The guarantee that this is so is the gift of the Spirit and the universal witness that it enables; its seal will be the parousia and the restoration of Israel. The story of Acts is told in order to justify this confidence” (Christ the Lord [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975] 41).Google ScholarPubMed

² See Nickelsburg, George W. E., Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981) 18.Google Scholar This paper was in its last recension when I received a copy of Sanders', E. P.Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985)Google Scholar. This remarkable study places Jesus within the context of “Jewish restoration eschatology,” documenting the depth and complexity of this hope. Although Sanders accepts the common view that the question about restoration in Acts “is turned aside by the risen Lord, and the general implication is negative” (p. 116), he has laid out the resources clearly for others to investigate the possibility that Luke's Jesus affirms the question. See also Wainwright, Arthur W., “Luke and the Restoration of the Kingdom to Israel,” ExpTim 89 (1977/1978) 76–79;Google ScholarTannehill, Robert C., “Israel in Luke-Acts: A Tragic Story,” JBL 104 (1985) 69–85.Google Scholar

³ See Tiede, David L., Prophecy and History in Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980);Google ScholarThompson, Alden Lloyd, Responsibility for Evil in the Theodicy of IV Ezra (SBLDS 29; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977);Google ScholarSayler, Gwendolyn B., Have the Promises Failed?: A Literary Analysis of 2 Baruch (SBLDS 72; Chico: Scholars Press, 1984).Google Scholar

⁴ See MacRae, George W., “Whom Heaven Must Receive Until the Time,” Int 27 (1973) 151–65;Google ScholarMoule, C. F. D., “The Christology of Acts,” in Keck, Leander E. and Martyn, J. Louis, eds., Studies in Luke-Acts (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966) 159–85.Google Scholar

⁵ Jervell, Jacob, “The Divided People of God,” Luke and the People of God (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972);Google ScholarJuel, Donald, Luke-Acts: The Promise of History (Atlanta: Knox, 1983).Google Scholar

⁶ See Theissen, Gerd, Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978) 65.Google Scholar

⁷ See Talbert, Charles H., “Prophecies of Future Greatness: The Contribution of Greco-Roman Biographies to an Understanding of Luke 1:5–4:15,” in Crenshaw, James L. and Sandmel, Samuel, eds., The Divine Helmsman: Studies on God's Control of Human Events (New York: KTAV, 1980) 129–41;Google ScholarDanker, Frederick W., Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic Field (St. Louis: Clayton, 1982).Google Scholar

⁸ Cassidy, Richard J. (Jesus, Politics and Society [New York: Orbis, 1978]) offers a helpful critique of Conzelmann but is more confident of Luke's implicit critique of the Roman order than may be credible. Nevertheless, Luke 22:25 with its disdain for the “kings of the Gentiles” and their “benefactors” would not have been lost on a first-century reader.Google Scholar

⁹ See Josephus's careful presentation of the death of Moses in contrast to the apotheosis of Aeneas and Romulus in Dionysius of Halicarnassus as discussed in Tiede, David L., The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker (SBLDS 1; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1972) 235.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Acts 18:2; 19:21; 22:25–29; 23:27; 25:10–12, 21, 25–27; 26:31–32.

¹¹ See Neyrey, Jerome, “The Forensic Defense Speech and Paul's Trial Speeches in Acts 22–26: Form and Function,” in Talbert, Charles H., ed., Luke-Acts: New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature (New York: Crossroad, 1984) 215.Google Scholar

¹² Petersen, Norman, Literary Criticism for New Testament Critics (Guides to Biblical Scholarship; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978) 83. See also Tiede, Prophecy and History.Google Scholar

¹³ Harrington, Daniel J., “Interpreting Israel's History: The Testament of Moses as a Rewriting of Deut. 31–34,” in Nickelsburg, George W. E. Jr, ed., Studies on the Testament of Moses (SBLSCS 4; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1973) 59–68.Google Scholar

¹⁴ See Sayler, Promises, 96: “It seems clear that the relationship of Baruch to his successors is modelled after that of Moses to Joshua. … Baruch announces his impending death (44:2), transfers leadership from himself to his successors (44:2–3, chap. 45), exorts them to preserve the people by teaching them the Torah (44:3, chap. 45), and delivers revelations about the immediate past (44:5) and the eschatological future (44:7–15).”.

¹⁵ See Jervell, “The Twelve of Israel's Thrones,” Luke, 75–112. Note the crucial context for defining Jesus' “kingdom”; here Luke speaks of the session of the twelve, indicating that their “kingdom” is a present reality which anticipates the eschatological “kingdom” of the age of the messianic banquet (Luke 22:24–30).