^{page 121 note 1} For example, Barrett, C. K., The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition, London, 1954, pp. 138ff.Google Scholar

^{page 121 note 2} Whether or not we should speak of Jesus founding the Church has often been debated. In favour see Flew, R. N., Jesus and His Church, London, 1945, pp. 35ffGoogle Scholar; Manson, T. W., ‘The New Testament Basis for the Doctrine of the Church’, The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, I, 1950, pp. 11ff.Google Scholar Against see C. K. Barrett, ibid; Dunn, J. D. G., Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, London, 1977, pp. 105–106.Google Scholar Our study is not concerned with what Jesus may or may not have intended or said but with the intent of the third evangelist.

^{page 121 note 3} No other ‘church idea’ finds prominence in the third Gospel. The community around Jesus is not called Israel or the new Israel. Just once, in a traditional phrase the word appears (18:7) and just once the disciples are called ‘little flock’ (12: 32). The title is restricted to Israel. Luke 2: 10 is not an exception. See Wilson, S. G., The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts, Cambridge, 1973, pp. 34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarDegenhardt, D. J., Lukas — Evangelist der Armen, Stuttgart. 1965Google Scholar, however, argues that represents church members while are church leaders, pp. 27–41. This will be answered as we proceed.

^{page 121 note 4} This study therefore stands in contrast to the argument set out by G. Lohfink, Die Sammlung Israels: Eine Untersuchung tur lukanischen Ekklesiologie, Munich, 1975, passim. For Lohfink the disciples in the Gospel of Luke are not the Church. It is his case that for Luke the Church only comes into existence after the true Israel has been gathered. This occurs in the period immediately following Pentecost.

^{page 122 note 5} The Theology of St. Luke, London. 1961, pp. 16, 150.Google Scholar

^{page 122 note 6} Ibid., p. 151.

^{page 122 note 7} Ibid., p. 208.

^{page 122 note 8} Ibid., pp. 185ff. The same idea is also argued by U.Wilckens, Die Missionsreden in der Aposlelgeschichte, Neukirchen, 1961, pp. 197–8; Marxsen, W., Introduction to the New Testament, Oxford, 1968, p. 156.Google Scholar Marxsen says that Luke's Gospel unlike the other three Gospels ‘is meant to be part of an historical account. The story of Jesus is now told as something belonging to the past.’

^{page 122 note 9} It is clear that Conzelmann's main emphasis is on the distinctiveness of the epochs but he does mention ‘continuity’. See pp. 16, 150. Luke's ideas on continuity are shown by his refusal to make a clear theological break with Israel (note his use of ), by the way John prepares for Jesus' ministry, and in that no epochal points of transition can be identified. On this last point see Marshall, I. H., Luke: Historian and Theologian, Exeter, pp. 145–147, pp. 120–1.Google Scholar

^{page 122 note 10} The most recent case for this point, which is still disputed, is Marshall, I. H., The Gospel of Luke, Exeter, 1978, pp. 553ff, 677, 754.Google Scholar But see also Kümmel, W. G., ‘Das Gesetz and die Propheten gehen bis Johannes: Lukas 16:16 im Zusammenhang der heilsgeschichtlichen Theologie der Lukasschriften’ Verborum Veritas: Festschrift für G. Stählin, ed. Bocker, D. and Haacher, K., Wuppertal, 1970. pp. 89–102.Google Scholar

^{page 122 note 11} So Marshall, I. H., Luke: Historian, pp. 93ffGoogle Scholar; Kümmel, W. G., Introduction to the New Testament, London, 1966, p. 31Google Scholar; Bruce, F. F., When is a Gospel not a Gospel? BJRL, 1962–1963, pp. 319ffGoogle Scholar; Moule, C. F. D., The Phenomenon of the New Testament, London, 1967, p. 103.Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 12} So. Johnston, G., The Doctrine of the Church in the New Testament, London, 1943, pp 56fGoogle Scholar; Barrett, C. K., The Holy Spirit in the Gospel Tradition, London, pp. 138ff.Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 13} Thus Pentecost is often called ‘The Birthday of the Church’. So Neil, W., The Acts of the Apostles, London, 1973, p. 71et al.Google ScholarBrown, S., Apostasy and Perseverance in the Theology of Luke, Rome, 1969, p. 12Google Scholar accepts Conzelmann's epochal view of Lukan theology but argues that the period of the Church begins at Pentecost and that its ‘characteristic is the presence of the Spirit’.

^{page 123 note 14} On this see especially Pilgrim, W. E., The Death of Christ in Lukan Soteriology, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1971, passim.Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 15} So G. Johnston, op. cit., p. 51.

^{page 123 note 16} Die Sammlung Israels, op. cit.. p. 56.

^{page 124 note 17} Haenchen, E., The Acts of the Apostles, London, 1970, p. 93Google Scholar; Barrett, C. K., Luke the Historian in Recent Study, London, 1961, p. 74Google Scholar; Jervell, J., Luke and the People of Cod, Minneapolis, 1972, p. III, n. 78.Google Scholar

^{page 124 note 18} So Bultmann, R., The History of the Synoptic Tradition, Oxford, 1963, p. 334Google Scholar; Meye, R. P., Jesus and the Twelve: Discipleship and Revelation in Mark's Gospel, Grand Rapids, 1968, passimGoogle Scholar; Freyne, S., The Twelve Disciples and Apostles, London, 1968, pp. 167ff.Google Scholar

^{page 124 note 19} Mark normally includes the pronoun. Turner, C. H., ‘Marcan Usage’, JTS, 26, 1925, pp. 236fGoogle Scholar, took this as supporting evidence for the case that Mark was the earliest Gospel. However, see Sanders, E. P., The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition, Cambridge, 1969, pp. 267fGoogle Scholar where he shows that Mark often has a genitive pronoun which Luke and Matthew omit.

^{page 124 note 20} Op cit., p. 125.

^{page 125 note 21} Rawlinson, A. E. J., St. Mark, London, 1925, p. XXVIII.Google Scholar

^{page 125 note 22} Tyson, J. B., ‘The Blindness of the Disciples’, JBL, 80, 1961, pp. 261–268.Google Scholar

^{page 125 note 23} Weedon, T. J., ‘The Heresy that Necessitated Mark's Gospel’ ZNW, 59, 1968, pp. 145ffGoogle Scholar, and his book, Mark, Traditions in Conflict, Philadelphia, 1971, pp. 20–51.Google Scholar

^{page 125 note 24} A conclusion quite contrary to this is reached by Kee, H. K., Community of the New Age: Studies in Mark's Gospel, Philadelphia, 1977, passim.Google Scholar This book came to hand after this study was completed. It is Professor Kee's case that Mark also presents the disciples as the Church. If this is accepted, it in no way invalidates our argument in relation to Luke. It simply shows that Luke took this process one step further.

^{page 125 note 25} The Lukan redaction of Mk. 3: 13–19 is discussed by Klein, G., Die Zwölf Apostel, Göttingen, 1961, p. 203Google Scholar; S. Freyne, op. cit., pp. 90–9; Marshall, I. H., The Gospel of Luke, op. cit., pp. 237–241.Google Scholar

^{page 126 note 26} The one hundred and twenty are obviously meant to be understood as disciples and they are called this in the textual readings given by DE614 pm it sy Aug. However ϰ A B C al vg read .

^{page 127 note 27} This statement is found only in Luke. On the communal significance of the term ‘flock’ See H. Kee, op. cil., pp. 110–1.

^{page 127 note 28} Only Luke records a mission of a large group of disciples. Me also uses Lhe same terminology to designate the message in both the Gospel and Acts. The phrase ‘preaching the Kingdom of God’ is used in Luke 4:43, 8:1, 16: 16; Acts 8: 12, 20:25, 28:23.

^{page 127 note 29} The significant detail in all these references is that only Luke speaks of a large group of disciples in this way.

^{page 127 note 30} Which number should be read and what the number symbolises is disputed. Many scholars argue that the allusion is to Gen. 10 where it is said that there are 70 nations of the world (the LXX has a textual variant which reads 72). Others think the primary reference is to Num. 11: 16–17, 24–5 where 70 elders are appointed to assist Moses. See Metzger, B., ‘Seventy or Seventy Two Disciples?’ NTS, 5, 1958–1959, pp. 199fGoogle Scholar; S. Wilson, op. cit., pp. 45–7; Marshall, I. H., The Gospel of Luke, pp. 414–415.Google Scholar

^{page 127 note 31} Marshall, Ibid., p. 415.

^{page 128 note 32} In Luke 10:21f Jesus does speak of a special disclosure of the Son but this he insists is to all disciples.

^{page 128 note 33} Mosley, A. W. ‘Jesus' Audiences in the Gospel of St Mark and St Luke’, NTS, 10, 1963, pp. 139–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Flender, H., St Luke: Theologian of Redemptive History, London, pp. 23f.Google Scholar

^{page 128 note 34} Minear, P. S., ‘Jesus' Audiences, According to Luke’, Nov. Test., 16, 1974, p. 87.Google Scholar

^{page 129 note 35} Ibid., p. 87.

^{page 129 note 36} Ibid., p. 82.

^{page 129 note 37} Ibid., p. 83.

^{page 129 note 38} Luke 7:29, 8:47, 9:33, 19:48, 20:6, 19, 45. 23: 13. 14.

^{page 129 note 39} 7: 1,29,8:47,9: 13,18:43,20: 1,9,26,21:38,23:27,35.So G. Lohfink, op. cit., P. 34.

^{page 129 note 40} H. Conzelmann, op. cit., p. 16 n. 3, p. 172, argued that the birth stories did not reflect Luke's theology and thus he virtually ignored them. Subsequent discussion has rejected this case. See Marshall, I. H., Luke: Historian, pp. 97–102.Google Scholar G. Lohfink, op. cit., pp. 17–32 has also shown that Luke 1–2 reflects a concept of Israel coherent with the rest of Luke-Acts.

^{page 129 note 41} op. cit., pp. 27–41.

^{page 129 note 42} Kodell, J., ‘Luke's use of Laos, “People”. Especially in the Jerusalem Narrative’, (Luke 19:28–24:53), CBQ 31, 1969, pp. 327–343Google Scholar; P. S. Minear, op. cit., p. 85.

^{page 129 note 43} J. Kodell, Ibid., p. 338.

^{page 129 note 44} op. cit.. pp. 33ff.

^{page 131 note 45} Plummer, A., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St Luke, Edinburgh, 1901, p. 256Google Scholar, writes, ‘Luke alone states that this ignorance of the disciples was specially ordered for them. The here has its full telic force.’

^{page 131 note 46} Ibid., p. 429. The story appears, in a modified form, at 22:24–30.

^{page 131 note 47} In Mark 8:27–30 the disciples see the light even as the blind man in the preceding story did (vv. 22–26).

^{page 131 note 48} The phase is uniquely Lukan (Luke 24:26f, 45f; Acts 3: 18,18: 2f, 26: 22f). See Robinson, J. A. T., Twelve New Testament Studies, London, 1962, p. 146Google Scholar; Schutz, F., Der leidende Christus: Die angefochlene Cemeinde und das Christus Kerygtna der Lukanischen Schriften, Stuttgart, pp. 97f.Google Scholar But Fuller, R. H., The Foundations of New Testament Christology, London, 1965, pp. 211ffGoogle Scholar, argues that the suffering of the Christ is basic to primitive Christology.

^{page 131 note 49} So S. Brown, op. cit., pp. 66ff.

^{page 132 note 50} Ibid., p. 71.

^{page 132 note 51} E. Haenchen, op. cit., p. 159, n. 8, writes that, ‘Even the betrayal is encompassed in this almighty will; it loses, in Luke's eyes, all character of scandalous outrage.’

^{page 132 note 52} This may be possible, for Matthew also draws the disciples in a much more positive light than does Mark. So Barth, G., ‘Matthew's Understanding of the Law’, in Bornkamm, G., Barth, G. and Held, H. J., Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, London, 1960, pp. 118ff.Google Scholar

^{page 132 note 53} See note 48.

^{page 132 note 54} F. Schutz, op. cit., p. 24 says: ‘Damit bestünde in der Tat eine Analogic zum Unverständnis der Jünger.Gleichzeitig wird durch das Unverständnis der Jünger der Kirche ihre Einstellung in der gegenwärtigen Situation ebenfalls als Unverständnis bewusst gemacht.’

^{page 132 note 55} H. Flender, op. cit., p. 159; S. Brown, op. cit., p. 159.

^{page 133 note 56} So Cullmann, O., The Christology of the New Testament, London, 1959, p. 195.Google Scholar

^{page 133 note 57} So Cullmann, Ibid., p. 206. However, G. Bornkamm, op. cit., pp. 41–2, argues that Matthew's use of carries the meaning of ‘a divine name’.

^{page 133 note 58} In the R.S.V. this is translated ‘Christ the Lord’, but it could be translated ‘Christ, Lord’ or ‘the Annointed Lord’. See Marshall, I. H., Luke: Historian, p. 101 and n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 133 note 59} 7: 13, 10: 1, 39, 11:39, 13:15, 17:5, 18:6, 19:8, 22:61, 24:34.

^{page 133 note 60} 5:8,6:46,9:54,10:17,40,11: 1,12:41,13:23,17:37,18:41,19:8,22:33,38,49.

^{page 133 note 61} ‘The Christology of Acts’, Studies in Luke-Acts, ed. Keck, L. and Martyn, J. L., Nashville. 1966. pp. 160–161.Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 62} Franklin, E., Christ the Lord: A Study in the Purpose and Theology of Luke-Acts, London, 1975, p. 51.Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 65} So O. Cullnann, op. cit., p. 220, Voss, P. G., Die Christologie der Lukanischen Schriften in Grundzügen, Paris, 1965, p. 57.Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 64} G. Lohfink, op. cit., pp. 23–5, discusses this reference and finds that it is consistent with Luke's theology that the Messiah has come to summon Israel.

^{page 134 note 65} cf. Mk. 8:29; Matt. 16:16. The title ‘the Christ’ is understood by Luke primarily in terms of the Davidic Messiah and is closely related to if not equated with the title (Lk. 2: 11, Acts 2:36).

^{page 134 note 66} Jeremias, J., The Parables of Jesus, London, 1963, pp. 59, 99, n. 40.Google Scholar

^{page 135 note 67} H. J. Degenhardt, op. cit., p. 31; Marshall, I. H., Luke: Historian, p. 203, etc.Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 68} The context in which Luke places this pericope is important. It comes right at the beginning of the ‘Travel Narrative’ and thus presents the demands laid upon all who would be with Jesus. In Matthew it comes immediately before the stilling of the storm (Matt. 8:18–22). H. J. Held, op. cit., pp. 201ff, takes this to mean that Matthew interprets ‘the story of the storm at sea as a story of discipleship’ (p. 202). See also Hengel, M., Nachfolge und Charisma, eine exegetisch — religions-geschichUiche Sludie zu Mat. 8:21f und Jesu Ruf in die Nachfolge, Berlin, 1968, passim.Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 69} Jeremias, J., New Testament Theology, London, 1971, 1, p. 224.Google Scholar F. Schutz, op. cit., pp. 7f, argues that Luke develops the motif that the disciples are men who are hated by others.

^{page 137 note 70} F. Schutz, Ibid., p. 17 argues that both Lk. 9:23 and 14:27 mean much the same but we have suggested a difference. For Schutz both mean to live everyday in ‘eine Grenzsituation des Lebens’ A more thorough and better discussion of cross-bearing is found in A. Schulz, Nachfolgen und Nachahmen: Studien über das Verhällnis der neutestamentlichen Jungerschafl zur urchristlichen Vorbildethik; Munich, 1962, pp. 82–5. He shows that the idea, not found in early Rabbinic literature (see S. & B., 1, p. 587), belongs to Roman Justice. It means for the disciple: ‘Mein Gefahrte kann nur sein, wer mit der Ubernahme von Leiden und Todeinverstanden ist. Das Kreuzauf sichnehmenheisstTodesbereit sein;es bedeutet das eigene Leben hassen.’ (p. 85)

^{page 137 note 71} Creed, J., The Gospel According to St Luke, London, 1930, p. 193.Google Scholar

^{page 137 note 72} See Marshall, I. H., Luke: Historian, pp. 141f.Google Scholar

^{page 137 note 73} Ibid., p. 141. P. S. Minear, op. cit., pp. 104–5, observes that Luke carefully divides the audience for the Sermon on the Plain into the disciples and the crowd (5:17). The first part is addressed specifically to the disciples who have ‘renounced everything and have become poor, hungry, deprived and reviled’ (p. 104) and the second half (5:27ff) to the crowd who have not yet met these stringent demands.

^{page 138 note 74} Strobel, A., ’Discipleship in the Light of the Easter Event’, The Beginnings of the Church, St Andrews, 1970, p. 73.Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 75} Ellis, E. E., The Gospel of Luke, London, 1966, p. 11.Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 76} Filson, F. V., ‘The Journey Motif in Luke-Acts’, Apostolic History and the Gospel, Ed. Casque, W. W. and Martin, R. P., Exeter, 1970, pp. 68ffGoogle Scholar; ‘The Journey theme in Luke-Acts’, Navone, J. J., The Bible To-day, 1972, pp. 616–619.Google Scholar

^{page 139 note 77} See Käsemann, E., Das wandernde Gollesvolk, Stuttgart, 1957, passim.Google Scholar

^{page 139 note 78} Bo Reicke. ‘Instruction and Discussion in the Travel Narrative’, S.E., 1, 1959. p. 211 suggests that in Lk. 9:51 may be understood by Luke as a counterpart to the Hebrew ‘pilgrimage’ which is used in the tides of Ps. 120–34 (LXX translates ).

^{page 139 note 79} R. Bultmann, op. cit., p. 336. The notices of movement (Lk. 9: 57,10: 1,17,38, 11: 1, 13: 10, 14: I, 25) and destination (Lk. 9:15,13:22,33,17: 11,18: 35,19: 1,11) in the Lukan travel narrative are not part of the traditional units but part of the editor's framework.

^{page 139 note 80} E. E. Ellis, op. cit., p. 148.

^{page 139 note 81} There is some debate as to where this section ends but this is not a relevant issue to our study.

^{page 139 note 82} Much has been written on this central section of Luke's Gospel. See Schneider, J., ‘Zur Analyse des lukanischen Reiseberichts’, Synoplische Shuiian, Festschrift für A. Wilkenhauser, Stuttgart, 1953, pp. 207–229Google Scholar, who summarises the discussion up to 1953. More recent important discussions have come from Lampe, G. W. H., ‘The Holy Spirit in the Writings of St Luke’, Studies in the Gospels, ed. Nineham, D. E., London, 1955, pp. 159–200Google Scholar; Evans, C. F. ‘The Central Section of St Luke's Gospel’ in the same volume, pp. 37–53Google Scholar; Grundmann, W., ‘Fragen der Komposition des lukanischen “Reiseberichts”‘, ZNW, 1959, pp. 252ffGoogle Scholar; Robinson, W. C., ‘The Theological Context for Interpreting Luke's Travel Narrative, 9:51’, JBL, 79, 1969, pp. 20–31Google Scholar; Gill, D., ‘Some Observations on the Lukan Travel Narrative and Some Related Passages’, HTR, 63, 1970, pp. 199–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also H. Conzelmann, op. cit., pp. 60f; Marshall, I. H., Luke: Historian, pp. 148–153Google Scholar and B. Reicke, op. cit., pp. 164–9.

^{page 139 note 83} See B. Reicke, W. C. Robinson and especially D.Gill, op. cit., Conzelmann, H., Die Mille der Zeit, (5th ed. 1964), p. 59Google Scholar also accepts that teaching on discipleship is a basic theme in the travel narrative. Marshall, I. H., The Gospel of Luke, op. cit., p. 402Google Scholar, cautions against defining too precisely the theme or themes in the Travel Narrative but he says that there is ‘an alternation between teaching directed mainly to the disciples of Jesus and teaching meant for the crowds and for his opponents.’

^{page 140 note 84} Hamburg, 1964. See especially pp. 36–43 and also his article mentioned in note 82 above.

^{page 140 note 85} The actual language is not developed by Luke to the degree that Robinson implies but the idea of a journey is. D. Gill, op. cit., pp. 201f, points out that the dominant word to describe Jesus' and the disciples' journeys is . He shows that it ‘takes on the function of a terminus technicus for Jesus' progress toward Jerusalem’ (pp. 201).

^{page 140 note 86} This is the main point of Lk. 9: 57–62.

^{page 140 note 87} G. Kittel, TDNT, 1, p. 213, speaks of the custom of rabbinical students of ‘following behind at an appropriate distance’. See also Betz, H. D., Nachfolge und Nachahmung Jesu Christi im Neuen Testament, Berlin, 1967, p. 37.Google Scholar

^{page 141 note 88} W. Grundmann, TDNT, 8, pp. 706ff.

^{page 141 note 89} cf. Lk. 19:1–10.

^{page 141 note 90} op. cit., p. 82.

^{page 142 note 91} So Reicke, B., ‘The Risen Lord and His Church’, Interp. 13, 1959, pp. 161ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also McRae, G. W., ‘Whom Heaven Must Receive Until the Time’, Interp., 27, 1973, pp. 159ff.Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 92} S. Freyne, op. cit., pp. 151 ff.

^{page 142 note 93} R. P. Meye, op. cit., passim; S. Freyne, Ibid., pp. 106–50.

^{page 142 note 94} Luke adds the word ‘apostle'at least six times: 6: 15,9: 10,11:49,17: 5,22: 14, 24: 10. G. Klein, op. cit., p. 203 calls this use of apostle an ‘epochale Neuerung’ for in his estimation Luke is the first to call the twelve the apostles; but this distorts the facts for in Mark the twelve are already called apostles (6:30) as they are in Matthew 10: 2. Mark's use (6:7) has been taken simply as a participial rendering of ⋯ποστ⋯λλειν. So Taylor, V., The Gospel According to St. Mark, London, 1973, p. 318.Google Scholar He translates it ‘the missionaries’. This is rejected by Cranfield, C. E. B., The Gospel according to St. Mark, Cambridge, 1963, p. 214Google Scholar and R. P. Meye, op. cit., pp. 177ff.

^{page 142 note 95} Here it is interesting to note each Synoptic author's special terminology which is seen in comparing the parallels, Mk. 14: 17 = Matt. 26:20 = Lk. 22: 14 which read in order . See Turner, C. H., ‘Marcan Usage’, JTS, 26, 1925, p. 233.Google Scholar Recently the widely accepted view that Luke equates the apostles with the twelve has been challenged. See Ellis, E. E., The Gospel of Luke, (Revised edition), London, 1974, pp. 133f and Interp.Google Scholar, 28, 1974, pp. 94f where he reviews J. Jervell's Luke and the People of God. Ellis argues that Luke does not limit apostleship to the twelve. This may be true from Acts 12 onwards, but this is not so in the third gospel or in the early chapters of Acts.

^{page 143 note 96} op. cit., p. 84.

^{page 143 note 97} So Nellessen, E., Zeugnis für Jesus und das Wort, Exegelische Untersuchungenzum Lukanischen Zeugtiisbegriff, Stuttgart, 1976, pp. 107ff.Google Scholar

^{page 143 note 98} op. cit., p. 204.

^{page 143 note 99} op. cit., pp. 75ff.

^{page 143 note 100} op. cit., pp. 66ff.

^{page 144 note 101} B. D. 157 read : I.alread ; AWΘ f13 sy' and Marcion read sy reads .

^{page 144 note 102} cf. Matt. 19:28. Both accounts of this saying reveal editorial alteration and most commentators agree that Luke has added ‘as my father appointed a kingdom for me so do I appoint for you that you may eat and drink at my table’ because of the awkward grammatical construction and the combination of two different images, the Messianic banquet and sitlingon thrones. So A. Schutz, op. cit., p. 120; S. Freyne, op. cit., p. 41; Tödt, H. E., The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition, London, 1965, p. 64Google Scholar; G. Lohfink, op. cit., pp. 81–2, et al. And most agree that Luke omits the words ‘twelve thrones’ from the tradition.

^{page 144 note 103} Contra J. Jervell, op. cit., p. 85 who finds the significance of the omission of the number twelve in the fact that the promise cannot be made to all twelve apostles at this point for Judas has been disclosed as a traitor. This text is basic to Jervell's argument that for Luke the twelve apostles are to be ‘regents in the eschatological Israel’. If, however, the promise is not to the twelve but to all disciples, as we believe it is, then Jervell's whole thesis is to be rejected. This view of the twelve apostles is found nowhere else in Luke-Acts.

^{page 145 note 104} Several forms are used viz. :2 Thes. 3:7–9; : I Cor. 4: 16, 11: 1; Eph. 5:1; I Thes. 1:6, 2: 14; : Phil. 3: 17.

^{page 145 note 105} A. Schulz, op. cit., p. 196, pp. 17f, pp. 201f; H. D. Betz, op. cit., pp. 5f, 137ff.

^{page 145 note 106} For Schulz, op. cit., p. 196, the nearest that these two ideas come together is in I Peter 2:21, Mk. 8: 34b and parallels, and Lk. 14:27. These texts, he argues, are written in the light of Golgotha but even here no real bridge between the two ideas is found.

^{page 146 note 107} Schweizer, E., Church Order in the New Testament, London, 1961, p. 21.Google Scholar Luke's contribution is best seen by comparison with Matthew's Gospel. In the first Gospel there is very marked ecclesiastical emphasis. The followers of Jesus form an (16: 18, 18: 17); Peter is given ‘the office of the keys’ (16: 18), as are the twelve (18:18). When Christians are assembled, Christ is mystically present (18:20). In the post-Easter period the command is to ‘make disciples … baptising them’ in the three-fold name (28:19).