Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Chapter 1
Introduction
The Need for the Study
The study of Luke-Acts has received considerable attention over the last thirty or more years. Studies have
brought to light questions regarding redaction criticism and Luke’s use of sources,1 the reliability of Luke as a histo-
rian and the relation of Acts to Paul’s letters and travels,2 the textual problems in this two-volume work as well as
the theology of Luke-Acts. Commenting on these issues, W. C. Van Unnik says, that “in 1950 no one could have
foretold that in the next decade Luke-Acts would become one of the great storm centers of New Testament scholar-
ship, second only to that of the historical Jesus.”3
With the increasing volume of work being produced on these important documents it has become difficult
to keep up with the flow of information. This is true not only as it relates to Lucan studies as a whole, but also as it
relates to just one aspect of Lucan studies, namely, his theology of the atonement. There is no work, as far as the
author knows, that surveys the last 40 years or so of this discussion and yet there is the great advantage to the exe-
gete to be aware of the state of the current debate on this topic. Therein lies the rational and need for this work.
1On the question of sources underlying Luke’s passion narrative, see Frank J. Matera, “The Death of Jesus
according to Luke: A Question of Sources,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 47 (1985): 469-85.
2One need only consider, as an example of this problem, the difficulty in relating Paul’s travels as
described in the book of Galatians to those set forth by Luke in Acts. For example, cf. Robert G. Hoerber, “Galatians
2:1-10 and the Acts of the Apostles,” Concordia Theological Monthly 31 (August 1960): 482-91. John B. Polhill,
“Galatia Revisited, The Life Setting of the Epistle,” Review and Expositor 69 (Fall 1972): 437-48. Robert H. Stein,
“The Relationship of Galatians 2:1-10 and Acts 15:1-35: Two Neglected Arguments,” Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 17 (Fall 1974): 239-42. Charles H. Talbert, “Again: Paul’s Visits to Jerusalem,” Novum
Testamentum 9 (January 1967): 26-40. Stanley D. Toussaint, “The Chronological Problem of Galatians 2:1-10,”
Bibliotheca Sacra 120 (October-December 1963): 334-40.
3W. C. Van Unnik, “Luke-Acts, A Storm Center in Contemporary Scholarship,” in Studies in Luke-Acts,
ed. Leander E. Keck and J. Louis Martyn, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 15-32. See also Charles H. Talbert,
“Shifting Sands: The Recent Study of the Gospel of Luke,” Interpretation 30 (1976): 384, who quotes W. W.
Gasque, A History of the Criticism of the Acts of the Apostles, (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1975), 305,
as saying that “there is no general agreement among scholars on even the most basic issues of Lukan research.”
Chapter 2
The Atonement in Lucan Theology in Recent Discussion
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to survey recent discussion on the issue of Luke’s theology of the atonement
with an attempt to enumerate the various positions of several authors and their relation to one another in the stream
of ideas. The discussion will essentially begin with Hans Conzelmann in 1960, with brief reference being made to
the antecedents of his thought in earlier writers such as Henry J. Cadbury and C. H. Dodd, and will continue up to
the present day.
While every author agrees that the death of Jesus in Luke-Acts is important, they are not at all agreed on
the particular significance Luke maintains for it.4 Thus there is no lack of suggestions as to how Luke frames the
death of Christ in his gospel and therefore how he desires that his readers understand this event. Once the traditional
view had in large measure been set aside,5 several models were developed which have attempted to define Luke’s
soteriology. Some have suggested that Luke simply sees Jesus dying according to a divine plan and that he gives no
more thought to it than that. Others understand Jesus’ death in Luke-Acts to be a demonstration of divine favor in
which His death sufferings form only part of His atoning work. Still others, by placing the Lucan writings in their
first century literary milieu, and paralleling Luke’s passion narrative with what appear to be conceptually similar
materials, advance the idea that Luke’s Christ died as an innocent martyr. Still others maintain that Christ’s death in
Luke was as the Isaianic Suffering Servant and was indeed vicarious. Finally, others see the death of Christ in Luke-
Acts as either a demonstration of God’s righteousness, a prelude to glorification, the representative death of the
4Perhaps the major cause for the current dilemma is the textual uncertainty of the only two texts in Luke-
Acts that seem to explicate a doctrine of the atonement, namely, Luke 22:19b, 20 and Acts 20:28. The issue of the
their authenticity will be taken up in the next chapter. However, one cannot totally put the blame here for there are
many commentators, due to the problem of Luke’s use of sources, who nonetheless regard the theology of these two
texts (if original) as characteristically nonLucan. Therefore, solving the textual problem does not put the debate to
rest; there are several others factors, including ‘Pauline intrusionisms’ in Acts and Luke’s use of apparently
unaltered early church tradition.
5By traditional I mean the interpretation of the death of Christ in Luke as vicarious atonement. It must be
said at the outset that many still regard the traditional view as essentially correct, but most scholars appear to have
opted for another model for understanding Christ’s death on the cross.
The Death of Jesus to Fulfill Scripture: A Divine Necessity with No Explicit Theology of
the Atonement
Hans Conzelmann
Hans Conzelmann’s work, The Theology of St. Luke,7 was one of the first to explain the overall structure of
Luke-Acts as “redemptive history.”8 Working on premises laid down by his mentor, Rudolph Bultmann,9 Conzel-
mann carried on his literary studies in Luke-Acts, outlining the work and ‘plan’ of God in three distinct phases,
which are themselves hemmed in by Creation at one extreme and the Parousia at the other. Conzelmann delineates
the three phases or time periods as the period of Israel, the period of Christ’s earthly life, and the period of the
church which culminates in the Parousia.10
The focus for our discussion concerns Conzelmann’s understanding of the significance Luke accords the
death of Christ. Working within his threefold framework, Conzelmann agrees with the idea that Luke’s Jesus suf-
fered as a ‘martyr’,11 but does not feel that this is at all the essential idea in the Lucan account. For him, Luke’s pas-
sion account portrays Jesus as one who ‘must’ suffer, albeit willingly, because this is indeed the divine plan and
according to Scripture.12 The emphasis is therefore upon the necessity of the suffering of Jesus to fulfill Scripture. In
this regard Conzelmann argues from the use of the verb dei‘ and its relation to the fulfillment theme in Luke:
6For a brief statement of the problem and a summary of some of the suggested solutions, see William J.
Larkin, Jr. “Luke’s Use of the Old Testament as a Key to His Soteriology,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 19, 20 (1977): 326. Cf. also A. George, “Le Sens de la Mort de Jésus pour Luc,” Revue Biblique 80 (1973):
186, 87.
7Hans Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke, Translated by Geoffrey Buswell, (New York: Harper &
Row, Publishers, 1960), 200, 201.
8Ibid.,137. Cf. also I. Howard Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1970), 77. He says, “The key word in Conzelmann’s approach is Heilsgeschichte, variously
rendered into English as ‘the history of salvation,’ ‘redemptive history’ or ‘salvation-history.’”
9cf.Charles H. Talbert, “Shifting Sands: The Recent Study of the Gospel of Luke,” Interpretation 30
(1976): 381. Talbert says that before the 1950’s Luke was viewed primarily as an historian, one who had researched
information on the Jesus tradition and subsequently assembled his findings, according to their historical outworking,
in a two-volume work. But by the mid sixties, Luke-Acts had become a hotbed of study focusing on several issues,
especially Luke as a theologian. The locus for the change according to Talbert lay in Rudolph Bultmann’s, Theology
of the New Testament (1951, 55). Out of his work grew the work of his students; men like Ernst Käsemann and Hans
Conzelmann. Conzelmann is dealt with here while E. Käsemann is not. However, it should be noted that while
Käsemann saw the death of Jesus in Luke in a slightly different light than his colleague, namely, as ‘a
misunderstanding of the Jews which had to be corrected by God’s intervention in the resurrection,’ he nonetheless
stands in the same line with Conzelmann in affirming that Luke communicates no positive doctrine of the
atonement; cf. Richard Zehnle, “The Salvific Character of Jesus’ Death in Lucan Soteriology,” Theological Studies
30 (1969): 420.
10Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke, 149, 150. According to Kevin Giles, “Salvation in Lucan
Theology (1),” The Reformed Theological Review 42 (1983): 12,13, the basic idea in Conzelmann’s view is that
Luke is primarily a historian, not a theologian and thus has abandoned any hope of the imminent return of Christ.
Giles attempts to refute this position by affirming the theological character of Luke’s work as proclamation.
11Ibid., 200, n. 2. Conzelmann says that he agrees with H. W. Surkau, Martyrien in judischer und
frühchristlicher Zeit, 1938 and M. Dibelius, Die Formgeschichte der Evangelien, 2nd ed., 1933, that the martyr-
motif is present in the Lucan account of the Passion, but says also that the fact that Luke presents Jesus’ death as
according to divine plan substantially differentiates it form a pure martyrdom. Cf. also p. 80 where Conzelmann
speaks about the martyr idea.
12Ibid., 200.
H. J. Cadbury
Henry J. Cadbury’s work, The Making of Luke-Acts17 has been considered “a seminal redaction-critical
work before the rise of redaction criticism. . . [which would] influence Lucan studies from that time onward.”18
Conzelmann’s conclusions can be seen in Cadbury’s remarks on the Lucan presentation of the death of Jesus. Cad-
bury understood the death of Jesus to be of little evidential value to Luke in comparison with the emphasis placed
upon the resurrection of Christ. He says,
13Ibid., 153. See also p. 153, n. 3: “cf. Luke 17:25. Although the context is eschatological, the word dei~
is used not in connection with the future, but with the Passion. In xxiv, 7 it is a question of a subsequent proof that
the Passion was part of God’s plan, by means of a reference back to one of Jesus’ own statements. A comparison
with xxii, 37 shows the harmony between Scripture and Jesus’ own statement. In Luke xxiv, 26 the demonstration of
the necessity of the Passion is made the climax of the resurrection story; cf. v. 27 and v. 44 where the circle is
completed by the fact that Jesus quotes the Scriptural proof and refers to his earlier sayings.” Cf. also p. 57.
14Ibid., 201.
15Ibid., 201, 202. This is difficult to fathom since Luke traveled with Paul and was undoubtedly affected by
his ministry and message (notice the large place he gives him in the Gentile mission in Acts 13-28). But perhaps this
is trying to read Luke’s soteriology through Pauline eyes, with Paul placed consciously or perhaps unwittingly
superior to Luke. Cf. also Paul Feine and Johannes Behm, Introduction to the New Testament, 14th ed., Translated
by A, J. Mattill, Jr., ed. Werner Georg Kümmel, (Abingdon Press: New York, 1965), 104. Following Bleiben, Feine
et. al. claim that Luke is altogether unfamiliar with the Pauline theology. “This unfamiliarity can most clearly be
recognized in the author’s conception of Jesus’ death. Although he understands it as corresponding to the divine
necessity (9:22; 24:26), he makes no clear reference to an expiatory death. Mark 10:45 is wanting. Luke 22:19f is
carried out no further.”
16Ibid., 201.
17Henry J. Cadbury, The Making of Luke-Acts, (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1927), 280.
18Darrell L. Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology, Journal
for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 12, (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987), 27.
C. H. Dodd
C. H. Dodd, in his work, The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments, also espoused the same basic
view of the death of Jesus in Luke. According to Dodd,
The Jerusalem kerygma does not assert that Christ died for our sins. The result of the life, death
and resurrection of Christ is the forgiveness of sins, but this forgiveness is not specifically con-
nected with His death.21
Dodd claimed that Paul received his doctrine of Christ’s death from the school of Stephen and Philip who
had taken the step to interpret the death of Jesus vicariously along the lines of Isaiah 53. Thus it can be seen that
Conzelmann’s view, according to his own admission, has its antecedents in Cadbury, Dodd and others. They under-
stand Jesus’ death in Luke to be a necessity according to the divine plan, but not in anyway connected with forgive-
ness.
Vincent Taylor
Vincent Taylor is a more recent advocate of this view.22 He wishes to see a distinction between Luke’s the-
ology and the theology of his sources. He understands Luke to be conveying that Christ’s work was pre-eminently
an act of obedience to his father’s will, with no thought given to suffering vicariously. He notes, as did Conzelmann,
the omission of Mark 10:45. Then, as regards Luke 22:19, 20 Taylor suggests that these verses belong to a pre-
23Ibid., 57. Taylor suggests the possibility that v. 19a may be a Marcan insertion.
24cf.Joseph B. Tyson, The Death of Jesus in Luke-Acts, (Columbia, SC: The University of South Carolina,
1986), 172, n. 1. Concerning Lucan soteriology he writes, “The conviction of divine necessity constitutes Luke’s
main contribution to the theological discussion of Jesus’ death. But he seems uninterested in piercing through to an
understanding of the theological reason for the death or in analyzing what it was intended to accomplish.”
25Zehnle, “Salvific Character,” 420-44.
26Ibid., 420.
27Ibid., 420-23, 44; Zehnle argues that just because Luke disagrees with Paul on a particular point, that fact
in and of itself, should not render ipso facto his opinion as invalid or inferior. “Whatever position we may adopt on
the much-debated question of the relationship of Paul to the author of Luke-Acts, we are bound to misunderstand it
unless we admit that we are dealing with two creative theological geniuses.” Several authors have sounded this
warning, including Joel B. Green, “The Death of Jesus, God’s Servant,” in Reimaging the Death of the Lukan Jesus,
ed. Dennis D. Sylva, (Frankfurt am Main: Anton Hain, 1990), 6; Jerome Kodell, “Luke’s Theology of the Death of
Jesus,” in Sin, Salvation and the Spirit, ed. D. Durkin, (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1979,) 223 and Werner
Georg Kümmel, “Current Theological Accusations Against Luke,” Andover Newton Quarterly 16 (1975): 132.
28Zehnle, “Salvific Character,” 425.
29Ibid.
30Ibid., 432.
31Ibid., 436. He further tries to reinforce this interpretation of the death of Christ by arguing that the phrase
“the forgiveness of sins” (ajfevsi" aJmartiw`n) in Luke-Acts really equates to divine favor. And the parable of
the prodigal son, as a picture of salvation, is further indication that this is so. The son who knows he has sinned
against his father receives special favor from his father when he returns home.
32At this point Zehnle’s appears to present Christ’s death in Luke as a moral appeal to cause people to turn
to him, that is, Luke frames it in such a way so as to reveal its emotional power to motivate lost sinners to turn to
Christ in faith.
33Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, (New York: Charles Scriber’s Sons, 1966): 220-31. It
is true that Jeremias is writing largely to refute those who say that while the Eucharistic words of Jesus in the
gospels (in particular Luke for our purposes) do assert a vicarious theology, it is nonetheless the dogma of the early
church read back into Jesus and not his own interpretation. This situation, however, does not change the fact that
Jeremias affirms that Luke 22:19, 20 teaches vicarious atonement. Cf. also, Joachim Jeremias, New Testament
Theology, Translated by John Bowden, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1971), 291.
34Ibid., 139-59. Jeremias regards the longer text as authentic primarily on the basis of the overwhelming
manuscript evidence in its favor. Also, he focuses on the “for you” aspect of the Eucharistic words of Jesus which
are proof for him that the idea of vicarious suffering is present in these verses. But cf. Frederick W. Danker, Jesus
and the New Age: A Commentary on St. Luke’s Gospel. Revised and Expanded, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988):
346, who believes that the idea of vicarious death indicates a substitution which would go well beyond Luke’s words
here. Cf. also Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1954), 555; “The sacrificial death of the Saviour was not the outcome of a fortuitous
combination of circumstances, but was in accord with the divine plan of salvation, which had already been
foreshadowed in the Old Testament, especially in the sacrifice of the paschal lamb, centuries before. Moreover, the
Saviour allowed Himself knowingly and voluntarily to be sacrificed as the perfect paschal lamb. For this reason his
sacrificial death possesses an eternal, all-sufficient, divine value.”
I. H. Marshall
I. H. Marshall, in Luke: Historian and Theologian, begins by pointing out, as others have done, that Luke is
not so out of place as might be imagined regarding explanations relating to the death of Christ.37 He says,
As compared with Mark and Matthew, therefore, Luke’s silence about the death of Jesus in the Gospel is
not in any way remarkable. It is more significant that there is little about it in Acts. But the rather scanty evidence
must be carefully scrutinized lest we take too superficial a view of Luke’s teaching on this theme.38
Having made the point, he nonetheless recognizes that Luke’s emphasis is to link salvation with the exalta-
tion of Jesus and with His name and not so much with the cross.39 But, he says, this does not justify claiming that
the cross has no direct soteriological value in Luke. He argues that there is the possibility of a Servant soteriology in
Luke.40
Marshall emphasizes the fact that Luke describes Jesus in terms of the Suffering Servant. He bases this on
the use of Isaiah 53 in Acts 8:32; that pai‘” (Acts 3:13, 26; 4:27, 30) in the light of 8:32 must mean Servant and not
son, and the term divkaio” (Acts 3:14, 7:52; 22:14) associates Christ with Is. 53:11. He acknowledges that the New
Testament does not develop at length a Servant christology but maintains nonetheless that a Servant soteriology is
not precluded by this fact. He refers to 1 Peter as support for his thesis. The use of the traditions referring to Christ
as Servant show that Luke has at least incorporated traditions about the atoning work of the Servant though he him-
self has not positively interpreted the Servant idea as vicarious, redemptive suffering.
There is, according to Marshall, another way in which Luke has (at least implicitly) affirmed vicarious
atonement, namely, through the borrowing of the oldest tradition of “hanging on a tree” (Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29)
from Deut 21:22. The oldest form of the tradition seems to be related to the bearing of sin and its curse, as its use in
Paul and Peter seem to make clear. What is different in Luke is that he has not explicitly made known its sote-
35Ibid., 231.
36Ibid., 227; Jeremias links the Eucharistic words of Jesus in Mark and Matthew with Isaiah 53
predominantly through the association of polloiv yBr. He refers to it as a leit motiv. In this way he supports the
idea of the ‘suffering servant’ standing behind Jesus’ interpretation of the bread and the cup. However, the Lucan
text has uJmw`n so this is not valid for our purposes. But, Jeremias does indicate that the Lucan Jesus stands as the
suffering servant as well, due to the presence of Luke 22:37, but he [i.e., Jeremias] does not develop it at any length.
This has been done by Marshall, Bock and others though Bock affirms that Markan usage is more clearly linked to
the Old Testament than is Lucan. Cf. Darrell L. Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy, 338, n. 204 .
37cf. Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke, 201.
38Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian, 171.
39Ibid., 169.
40The idea of a Servant christology is admitted by Marshall to be doubtful, but cf. Green, “The Death of
Jesus,” 24.
Darrell L. Bock
Darrell Bock is another who is unwilling to claim as did Conzelmann and others that there is no doctrine of
the atonement in Luke-Acts. He links the idea of forgiveness in Acts 10:43; 13:38 with the idea of the Servant in
Luke 22:37 and the idea of the necessity of Christ’s sufferings in Luke 24:46, 47. From these references he con-
cludes that Luke does indeed present Christ as the Suffering Servant whose death is vicarious.44
He also mentions Luke 22:19, 20 and refers to it as having “undoubted substitutionary significance” and
Acts 20:28 as setting forth the purchasing value of the blood, a reference with clear expiatory overtones. But it ap-
pears that he has laid less stress on Luke 22:19, 20 and Acts 20:28 in his argument, perhaps due to their textual un-
certainty and unusual grammatical problems.
In summary, Bock affirms with Marshall and others that Luke does indeed have a positive theology of the
atonement, but has chosen to place greater emphases on other aspects of Christ’s work. Nonetheless, he claims that
it is incorrect to think that Luke has no theology of the cross.45
41Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian, 173. According to Marshall, Acts 20:28 was another
traditional expression in the church, but Luke does not develop its theology.
42Ibid., 174.
43Ibid., 175
44For a slightly different emphasis in the development of the “Servant” motif in Luke-Acts see Green, “The
Death of Jesus,” 1-29. Green relates the whole of the life and passion of Jesus to the Servant idea throughout Isaiah.
45Bock,Proclamation from Prophecy, p. 338, n. 204 . Cf. also Kümmel, “Current Theological Accusations
Against Luke,” 138, for a similar view and the caution that we not too quickly dismiss Luke as having no
redemptive understanding of the cross.
46Larkin, “Luke’s Use of the Old Testament,” 325-35. Larkin argues similarly to Bock, et. al. and says that
Luke’s use of Is. 53:12 sets the historical basis for the doctrine of vicarious atonement and the offer of the
forgiveness of sins in Luke-Acts.
47One might remember that Conzelmann, Dodd, Cadbury and virtually every other commentator who
denies a vicarious atonement in Luke-Acts points to this omission in support of their hypothesis.
48Larkin, “Luke’s Use of the Old Testament,” 326. Larkin attempts to demonstrate his thesis regarding the
omission of the ‘Mark 10:45 saying by presenting similar editorial activity, etc. in other places in Luke when
compared to Mark.
49Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, NT Library trans. from 3rd German ed., (London: SCM,
1966), 139-59.
50H. Schürmann, “Lk 22, 19b-20 als ursprungliche Textüberlieferung,” Traditionsgeschichtliche
Untersuchungen zu den synoptischen Evangelien (Kommentar und Beiträge ZANT; Düsseldorf: Patmos-Verlag,
1968), 159-97.
51For
a brief discussion of disiplina arcani see Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek
New Testament, (New York: United Bible Societies, 1971), 176.
52Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, 328.
53Ibid. For an example of this oversight see Green, “The Death of Jesus,” 10.
54But cf. Ralph P. Martin, “Salvation and Discipleship in Luke’s Gospel,” Interpretation 30 (1976): 377-
378. He feels that the Servant passages are more closely tied to Isaiah 49:6-8 than Isaiah 53.
55Larkin, “Luke’s Use of the Old Testament,” 329, 30. He suggests that there have been at least four
traditional places to place the fulfillment of Jesus’ words (i.e. levgw gaVr uJmi'n o{ti tou'to toV
gegrammevnon dei' telesqh'nai ejn ejmoiv, toV kaiV metaV ajnovmwn ejlogivsqh: kaiV gaVr
toV periV ejmou' tevlo" e[cei.); 1) when the disciples took up swords and acted like rebelling criminals; 2)
when Christ was arrested; 3) when Jesus’ life was given over and Barabbas released in his place or 4) the crucifixion
between two criminals. As far as Larkin is concerned all these are wanting on the basis of the lack of verbal and
material parallelisms.
Robert J. Karris, “Luke 23:47 and the Lucan View of Jesus’ Death,” Journal of Biblical Literature 105 (January
1986): 68-70, where he strongly denies the idea of the Lucan Jesus as a martyr. He brings into question the material
essence of the so-called parallels from extant non-biblical literature that are often cited as corroboration for such an
argument.
64Talbert, “Martyrdom in Luke -Acts,” 109, n. 2.
65Ibid., 99.
66Ibid.
67Talbert sees Luke as more favorably disposed toward the Pharisees, but not everyone is in agreement
with this. Cf. Robert J. Karris, “Luke 23:47,” 189, n. 28.
68Basic to the idea of legitimating the Christian cause is Talbert’s insistence that Luke wrote with a
polemical mindset. One can understand the possibility of this in light of Luke’s second volume which in large
measure records the advance of the gospel into unevangelized territory. There would be a need to legitimate the
Christian cause.
69This point involves circular reasoning, assuming the idea of martyrdom to be true.
70John Reumann, “Righteousness” in the New Testament: “Justification” in the United States Lutheran-
Roman Catholic Dialogue, with Responses by Joseph A. Fitzmyer and Jerome D. Quinn, (Philadelphia: Fortress;
New York and Ramsey, NJ: Paulist, 1982): 135.
71Norman Perrin, Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom: Symbol and Metaphor in New Testament
Interpretation, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976): 15-32.
72Ibid., 78.
73E.
Franklin, Christ the Lord: A Study in the Purpose and Theology of Luke-Acts, (Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press, 1975), 67.
74Ibid., 66, 67.
75For a similar view of the relation of the cross to Christ’s glorification in Luke see Hultgren, “Interpreting
the Gospel of Luke,” 361.
Summary
Since the time of Conzelmann’s work, The Theology of St. Luke (1960), in which he claimed that Luke de-
lineates no clear theology of the atonement, there have arisen several models to account for the Lucan presentation
of the death of Jesus. These models have several things in common: 1) they all recognize Luke’s underscoring of the
necessity of the death of Jesus; 2) they all recognize that Luke-Acts focuses more on the exalted, glorified Lord and
3) they all tend to see the mixture of motifs Luke uses, including, justice, innocence, betrayal and martyrological
ideas. It is this last point, however, that gives rise to the different models advanced, depending on what a commenta-
tor thinks should be stressed.
Some commentators stress the justice motif and therefore cast his death in the light of God’s vindication of
a righteous man.80 Others stress the innocent martyr idea.81 Some feel that the death of Christ in Luke-Acts is that
Chapter 3
An Examination of Key Texts in the Disucussion
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to survey the textual critical and exegetical work done on the significant texts
in the discussion of the atonement in Luke’s theology, namely, Luke 22:19b and Acts 20:28. There has been, over
the last 40 years or so, no lack of discussion surrounding these texts. Regarding critical study of Luke 22:15-20, one
author says,
The Lucan account of the Last Supper is a scholar’s paradise and a beginner’s nightmare; for it
raises problems in almost every department of New Testament study and has provided a basis for
a welter of conflicting theories.83
As concerns the text-critical problem of Luke 22:19b, 20 it was commonplace up until the 1950’s to regard
the shorter version as original and to dismiss 19b, 20 as the result of later scribal additions.84 Such is not the case
presently and the debate surrounding the authenticity of these texts is still ongoing.85
Similar conditions prevail in the study of Acts 20:28. The textual problem is not as grave, but the interpre-
tation of the words and whose theology they actually represent (i. e. Luke’s or Paul’s) continues to be an open dis-
cussion. In this chapter we will first look at Luke 22:19b, 20 and then Acts 20:28 in the light of these questions and
their bearing on Luke’s theology of the atonement.
82cf. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words, 220-31; Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian, 171; Bock,
Proclamation from Prophecy, 338, n. 204.
83G. B. Caird, Saint Luke, Westminster Pelican Series (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1963): 237.
84I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke,(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1978), 799. The various suggested reasons for the inclusion of the two verses are stated below. Regarding the
apparent consensus on the shorter reading priori to 1950 cf. Klyne Snodgrass, “Western Non-interpolations,”
Journal of Biblical Literature 91 (1972): 372-74. He argues that the consensus appears to go back to the work of B.
F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort who, in their critical edition of the Greek New Testament, referred to Luke 22:19b, 20
as “Western Non-interpolations; “ that is, not original. Cf. B. F. Westcott and F. J. A Hort, The New Testament in
the Original Greek, Cambridge-London, I, 1881, 177 (text); II, 1882, Appendix, 63f. It has not been until recently
(i.e. 1950’s-1990’s) that their theory has been sharply criticized by the work of men such as Joachim Jeremias, The
Eucharistic Words of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1966): 139-159; see our discussion below; Kurt Aland, “Neue
neutestamentliche Papyri II” New Testament Studies 12 (1965, 66): 193-210 and Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Papyrus
Bodmer XIV: Some Features of Our Oldest Text of Luke,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 24 (1962): 170-79.
85This is despite what Arthur Vööbus has claimed: “It is certain that the longer text could not have been
Luke’s version of the words of the institution. The evidence is strong enough for us to say that this is a firm
conclusion.” Cf. Arthur Vööbus, “A New Approach to the Problem of the Shorter and Longer Text in Luke,” New
Testament Studies 15 (1968, 1969), 462. Such a statement which is based primarily, if not completely, on literary
grounds without an adequate treatment of the extant textual witness, is perhaps unwarranted.
86cf. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible
Societies, 1971): 173-177. Metzger puts forth the arguments on both sides of the issue in a fairly balanced way. But
cf. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke, X-XXIV, vol. 28a, The Anchor Bible, ed. William Foxwell
Albright and David Noel Freedman (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, 1985), 1388, who says that “the
rating of “C” given in the UBSGNT3 302 is decidedly too low; it should be a “B” at least.” Cf. also E. Earle Ellis,
The Gospel of Luke, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), 254, who says “this
passage is the most discussed textual problem in Luke” and Bart D. Erhman, “The Cup, the Bread and the Salvific
Effect of Jesus’ Death in Luke-Acts,” in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Paper Series. ed. Eugene H.
Lovering, Jr. (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 576-591. For a very brief overview of the textual history of the gospel
of Luke and its possible bearing on the text of 22:19b, 20 see, Caird, Saint Luke, 32, 33, 237-38.
87It is hoped that the presentation of this information here will help the reader better understand the
discussion to follow. It must also be said that in reality there are more than two possible texts here according to the
witnesses. There are four intermediate forms of text which seem to be mixtures of the two principal forms. They are
definitely secondary and the reader is asked to consult Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 174, for a
presentation of the texts and explanation as to how they are secondary.
88cf. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, 799. On the possibility of the omission being supported by c r2 and d
see Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words, 142, n. 6; “According to the careful investigation of G. D. Kilpatrick, ‘Luke
XXII. 19b-20,’ Journal of Theological Studies 47 (1946), 49-56, the archetype of c should be added (in the present
form of c vv. 19b-20 are added according to the Vulgate Text) and probably that of r2. According to Merx, Markus
and Lukas, 437, the same is true for q aur d.
89The textual evidence for the longer reading is taken principally from the work of Jeremias, The
Eucharistic Words, 139-142. As far as listing Tatian for the longer reading, Jeremias wants to assert that whenever
we have the combination of D it vet-syr Tatian, “we do not have the influence of Tatian upon the text read in the
West, but rather the text which Tatian in his stay at Rome found there and utilized” (p. 148).
90cf. Pierson Parker, “Three Variant Readings in Luke-Acts,” Journal of Biblical Literature 83 (1965):
165-170 who says “the textual evidence for rejecting vss. 19b, 20 is so scanty that it is hard to see why it should be
taken seriously. Against the [driblets of support for the shorter reading] is the overwhelming mass of evidence from
all the great uncials and cursives, Byzantine, Caesarean, and Alexandrian, that Luke 22 19b, 20 is authentic.”
91Cf. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary, xxiv-xxviii and 176, for a brief description of the
principles for doing textual criticism.
A. Vööbus
Arthur Vööbus, in his article, “A New Approach to the Problem of the Shorter and Longer Text in Luke,”
strongly contends that the shorter reading is to be preferred.95 He suggests that traditional lines96 of inquiry have
failed to produce a satisfactory footing for one side or the other, and that a new approach is needed in order to re-
solve this important issue.97 He refers to his new approach as motif-history and cult-tradition.98
This new approach is based upon the fact that Luke 22:19b, 20 is handled by the evangelist in the context
of a mosaic of traditions; traditions regarding Judas (Luke 22:21-23), personal greatness (22:24-27), the Messianic
banquet (22:28-30), Peter (22:31-34) and preparedness (22:35-38).
According to Vööbus the mosaic as a whole hinges on the account of Judas, who in contrast to the other
parallel accounts, is shown to stay with the 11 and Jesus, to partake of the Eucharistic meal and to be then singled
out. Why does Luke present the Judas episode in such a startling way?99
Vööbus answers,
Luke obviously had his eyes upon the contemporary congregation. His modifications produced a
version the purpose of which was the encouragement of self-examination. The congregation is
warned not to depend upon false security. The point to be grasped is precisely this, that anyone
participating in the Lord’s supper is not thereby exempted from backsliding, from lapsing, from a
failure to fidelity or from an act of treason.100
92Most commentators affirm that the shorter form is more difficult in this case due to its abrupt ending
which demands a smoother completion. But, cf. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke, 1388, who says that the
longer reading poses the problem of the “two cups” and is thus the lectio difficilior.
93cf. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, 800. Cf. also Eric Franklin, Christ the Lord: A Study in the Purpose
and Theology of Luke-Acts, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1975), 65; 199, n. 32 for arguments similar to the
first four mentioned in this list.
94Didache 9:2. Cf. Fitzmyer, The Gospel of Luke, 1397, who criticizes this association as invalid due to the
fact that the Didache is not referring to the Last Supper, but instead to the Eucharist.
95Arthur Vööbus, “A New Approach to the Problem of the Shorter and Longer Text in Luke,” New
Testament Studies 15, (1968, 1969), 457-463. See also Snodgrass, “Western Non-interpolations,” 369-79 and
Parker, “Three Variant Readings,” 165-170.
96Ibid., 457, 58. Vööbus feels that the contributions of the text-critical method, the literary-historical
method and the findings of the ‘stylistic approach’ all point to the reality of the need for a new approach. Even the
work of form critics and redaction-historical critics has done very little in aiding us in understanding Luke’s mosaic
of traditions, according to Vööbus.
97The importance of this issue, lest it be taken too lightly, has been aptly put by Jeremias, The Eucharistic
Words, 139. He says, “The question is not simply a subordinate text-critical problem; anyone who knows the history
of the investigation of the Lord’s Supper of the last eighty years is aware that the question of the Long Text or Short
Text of Luke has time and again been a crucial issue and that a basically different understanding of the Lord’s
Supper has repeatedly resulted according to the answer given to this.”
98Vööbus, “A New Approach,” 459.
99Ibid., n. 2. Vööbus points to the plhvn iJdouv as abruptive and attention grabbing.
100Ibid., 459.
Eric Franklin
Eric Franklin is another author who, following in the line of Vööbus, defends the shorter reading as origi-
nal. He argues the following points in his contention that the shorter reading is “the true vehicle of Luke’s theology.”
First, he says that the shorter reading is to be preferred and can most easily account for the others. Second, the
longer reading is too much like Paul’s language and therefore appears to be a scribal attempt to harmonize Paul and
Luke. Third, Franklin argues that the longer reading does not contain Lucan terminology. Although he is in agree-
ment with Vööbus he approaches the problem more from the traditional grounds of the textual details than from a
literary model.104
101Ibid.,According to Vööbus, there are several editorial facts that serve to strengthen this interpretation :
1) the dramatic introduction of the event (cf. the plhvn iJdouv); 2) “the drastic adumbration of the logion” is
designed to raise the immediacy of the situation in the minds of the readers as the historical dimension recedes into
the background; 3) the change of tense from Mark who records the Judas event in the past tense, but Luke in the
present; 4) some delicate retouching and 5) the use of travpeza to convey the Lord’s Supper. All these serve to
provide a feeling of immediacy.
102Ibid.,461. Vööbus also says that “Everything in the mosaic is designed with the greatest care to foster a
sense of actualization.” Cf. also, 460.
103Cf. Snodgrass, “Western Non-interpolations,” 374, n. 15. He strongly criticizes Vööbus’s conclusion
that the shorter reading is original by saying that “his assertion . . . is hardly more than a statement of his
presupposition.”
104Franklin, Christ the Lord, 65; 199, n. 32.
105Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words, 139-59.
106Ibid., 144.
107Ibid., 148-52. Jeremias cites Luke 5:39; 7:7a, 33; 10:41, 42; 11:35; 12:19, 21, 39; 19:25; 21:30; 24:6, 12,
21, 36, 40, 50, 51, 52.
108This is true due to the fact that he once advocated the shorter text as original. Cf. Jeremias, The
Eucharistic Words, 152.
109Ibid., 155. Jeremias argues that the nominative participial phrase toV uJpeVr uJmw`n
ejkcunnovmenon is clumsy and nonLucan in that it is in the nominative and not in the expected dative and it is
widely separated from pothvrion.
110In other words, Luke did not have to know 1 Corinthians to have written Luke 22:19b, 20.
111Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words, 156, 57. Jeremias dismisses the arguments that the short text
developed because 1) Luke knew nothing of the words of interpretation over the wine. This is not true for he had
Mark’s gospel in front of him (according to Marcan priority); 2) of communio sub una due to the fact that a great
majority of Christians did not have wine and 3) Luke 22:17-19a presuppose a Lord’s Supper in the order wine-
bread. He also thinks it outrageous and inadmissible to excise 22:19a, a text read by all the witnesses, in order to
smooth out the ending of the passage.
112According to Ellis, The Gospel of Luke, 254, 55, this argument was popularized by Hort and is highly
suspect for the reasons suggested by Jeremias.
I. H. Marshall
Marshall agrees with Jeremias in large measure.114 Nonetheless, he finds it difficult to see why, if the tradi-
tion of shortening texts to protect them from abuse by the uninitiated prevailed among Christians in the second cen-
tury, Matthew and Mark did not omit the text from their accounts. He offers no criticism of Jeremias’ theory of an
aposiopesis and out rightly rejects the idea that the shorter version is due to the redaction of Mark. Marshall thinks it
possible that the omission was simply do to a scribal accident or misunderstanding. Apparently, some among those
who made up the UBS (3rd edition) committee suggested the same.115
E. E. Ellis
E. E. Ellis does not readily agree with the idea that the deletion was due to scribal desire to preserve the sa-
cred formula found in 22:19b-20.116 Instead, he builds his case primarily on the work of H. Schürmann who ad-
vanced the following arguments for the longer text: 1) the words plhVn iJdouv (22:21) are strongly adversative
and refer back to uJpeVr uJmw‘n; 2) the idea of the kingdom (v. 29) relates back to the New Covenant (v. 20); 3)
the phrase tou‘to toV pothvrion (v. 42) refers back to pothvrion in 22:20; 4) verbal peculiarities make it
difficult to draw Luke 22:19b, 20 from 1 Corinthians 11 or Mark 14.
Like both Jeremias and Marshall, Ellis agrees that non-Lucan style is no argument against verses 19b, 20
since they are liturgical in nature and that the two cups can be accounted for if the meal is indeed a Passover meal.
But, says Ellis, a Gentile scribe who did not know the ritual of the Passover meal might excise 19b, 20 as a repeti-
tion of verses 15-18. This then is how one might account for the shorter reading arising from the longer.
There is also the possibility, according to Ellis, that Schürmann may be correct in postulating that the omis-
sion is due to liturgical usage. That is,
The omission occurred after the Lord’s supper had been detached from a preceding ‘Love Feast.’
Thus, the textual basis for the earlier rejected practice would be removed. . . The longer text is in
all probability what the evangelist wrote.117
Joseph A. Fitzmyer
Fitzmyer begins his discussion of Luke’s account of the Eucharistic Supper by noting the marked differ-
ences between it and the Johannine account of the same events.118 On this basis and its similarities to the Marcan
(and Matthean) account, he argues that Mark is the true ‘inspiration’ for the Lucan presentation of the Supper. He
113Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words, 159. Jeremias says that because D in Matthew and Mark leave it in;
this is no argument against his theory since the omission could have been made in the second century (not fifth or
sixth; compare the date for vet-syr; see note 2, 159) among the group of manuscripts (in particular the Luke
exemplar) that make up the D archetype. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke.,255, says that such a tradition is unlikely
because 19a was permitted to stand in the text.
114Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, 799-801.
115Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 176.
116Ellis, The Gospel of Luke, 254-56.
117Ibid., 256.
118Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke. 1385-1402.
119Ibid.,
1386, 1387. Cf. also 1387, 88 for a nice description of the text-critical problem in Luke 22:19b,
20. Fitzmyer argues similarly to Jeremias for the longer reading.
120Ibid., 1389, 90. Fitzmyer argues (along with Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words, 15-88) that Luke 22:15-
20 is describing a Passover meal in spite of several opinions to the contrary. According to Fitzmyer and Jeremias the
following suggestions have been proposed: 1) the Last Supper was a: 1) Qiddûs meal; 2) a haburah meal or 3) an
Essene meal. In the understanding of these two men, Fitzmyer and Jeremias, none of these satisfactorily define the
Last Supper as admirably as the Passover meal.
121Ibid., 1390. Fitzmyer contends that if one knows the nature of a first-century Passover meal in Palestine
one will understand that the so-called problem of the second cup is really no problem at all since there were at least
three cups during the meal and most likely four, two of which were considered more important according to the
Passover meal. But cf. John Nolland, Luke 18:35-24:53, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Ralph P. Martin, vol. 35c
(Dallas: Word Books, Publisher, 1993), 1056. Nolland says that one cannot take the cup in Luke’s account to
identify a particular cup in the Passover meal since Luke has associated it with the Eucharist and the lamb and cup
of 15-18 are set in parallel to the bread and cup in 19, 20.
122Ibid., 1399. Fitzmyer bases part of this argument on the work of Rudolph Bultmann, Theology, 1951,
1:194, who says that “man does not have a soma; he is soma.” As far as the knotty problem of what is meant by “is”
(ejstiVn), Fitzmyer admits that it is difficult to tell for sure whether it means: 1) “is really with” or 2) “is
symbolically with.” He cites from the New Testament support for both interpretations, but says that the first
interpretation held sway up until the Middle Ages (i.e. the eleventh century) and was again reaffirmed at the Council
of Trent. But cf. Leon Morris, Luke: An Introduction and Commentary. Rev. ed. Tyndale New Testament
Commentaries, ed. Leon Morris, vol. 3. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), 334,
who says that identity cannot be in mind (that is, the bread cannot literally be his body) for Jesus’ body was present
when the comment was made. He continues: “The statement is a strong one (i.e. as regards the idea of sacrifice) and
must not be watered down, but it must not be overpressed either.” Cf. also, Ellis, The Gospel of Luke, 256, who is in
agreement with the vicarious interpretation of Fitzmyer, but regarding the verb “is” he says that “the elements are
representative and are the preached word made visible. The point is not the substance of the elements, but their use
as a proclamation of a past event and of a Lord present in the Body of believers.”
123Ibid., 1400, 1401. The primary question with regards to the term “this” (tou`to) is to what does it
refer? Does it refer to the body of Christ or to the bread? Fitzmyer says that the most obvious referent is “my body”
(toV sw`mav mou) because “this” is neuter and agrees with “body” which is neuter as opposed to “bread”
(a[rton) which is masculine. The second question involves understanding the sense of the term “given”
(didovmenon). Due to the sacrificial context here, as well as ample New Testament evidence in addition to
support from several intertestamental sources, it is best to understand “given” as having sacrificial overtones.
124Ibid., 1401.
Fred B. Craddock
Craddock understands the meal referred to in Luke 22:15-20 as the Passover and says the passage breaks
down into two major sections, namely 15-18 and 19, 20. The first section describes both the fulfillment of the meal
and its eschatological orientation. The second section is composed of two sayings as well, but from a different tradi-
tion, according to Craddock.126
He argues according to the content of verses 19 and 20, that the phrases “this is my body which is given for
you” and “this cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood” do not speak of Christ’s death as
an atonement for sin. He recognizes that the words have come to be understood as referring to such, but maintains
that:
Luke’s account is governed by the Passover, and the Passover lamb was not a sin offering. The
lamb sacrificed for sin was another ritual; the Passover lamb was the seal of a covenant, and the
Passover meal commemorated that covenant offered to the faith community buy a God who sets
free. Jesus’ blood seals a new covenant. . . .127
In conjunction with this, Craddock states that the New Covenant is the means by which God offers freedom
from sin and death to those who believe. Further, those who believe, as shown by the use of a shared cup at the
meal, are intimately linked to Christ and to one another through this New Covenant.128
125Other commentators that essentially agree with Fitzmyer, especially as concerns the issue of Lucan
soteriology in this passage include: C. A. Evans, Luke, New International Biblical Commentary, vol. 3, (Peabody,
MA: Hendricksen, 1990), 316-18. David L. Thiede, Luke. Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament,
(Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1988), 380-82. William F. Arndt, Luke, Concordia Classic Commentary
Series, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1956), 438, 39. Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of
Luke, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1954), 555. David Gooding, According to Luke: A New Exposition of
the Third Gospel, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1987), 331-333 and J. Neyrey, The Passion according to
Luke: A Redaction Study of Luke’s Soteriology, (New York: Paulist Press, 1986), 15-17 who admits that Luke’s
words of interpretation concerning the bread and cup speak of an atoning sacrifice, but feels that Luke’s emphasis in
the passage is on the Eucharist as meal, not sacrifice. Cf. also Nolland, Luke 18:35-24:53, 1052, who says that
Luke’s imagery of “poured out blood” foretells the violent kind of death Jesus would undergo and the “for you”
phrase may speak of a “proleptic transmission of the benefit” of Jesus’ impending death to his disciples.
126FredB. Craddock, Luke, Interpretation: A Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, (Louisville: John
Knox Press, 1990), 256.
127Ibid.
128cf. also Frederick W. Danker, Jesus and the New Age: A Commentary on St. Luke’s Gospel, Revised and
Expanded, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), 346. He says that it is not correct to interpret the words, “which is
given for you” so as to indicate vicarious suffering. For him this goes beyond Luke’s ‘simple terminology.’ His view
of the passage is essentially summed up in chapter 2 of this thesis from his work, Imaged through Beneficence.
129The bulk of this discussion is taken from Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 480, 81. He lists another
reading, namely, kurivou kaiV qeou` and understands it to be obviously conflated and therefore, secondary.
Richard Longenecker, Acts, in The Expositors Bible Commentary, vol. 9, ed. Merrill C. Tenney, (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1981), 514, n. 28 cites another variant reading for this text: tou` kurivou JIhsou`. He lends no
credence to the reading, perhaps feeling that it too is conflated and therefore, secondary.
130Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 481. He says that the absolute use of oJ i[dio" is attested in the
papyri as a term of endearment referring to near relatives. L. T. Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles, Sacra Pagina, ed.
Daniel J. Harrington, S. J., vol. 5, (Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier, 1992), 363. Cf. also Hans Conzelmann, Acts
of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, Translated by James Limburg, A. Thomas Kraabel and
Donald H. Juel. ed. Eldon J. Epp with Christopher R. Matthews, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 175. He says
that such a patripassianistic statement in Luke is not suited to this period in time and is completely impossible for
Luke who maintains such a strong subordinationism between the Father and the Son. He comments on the
possibility that Luke borrowed the phrase as a whole and in its original context it referred to Christ.
131That is, the exegesis of the phrase: “which he purchased with his own blood.”
132Cf. Darrell Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy, 338; F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek
Text with Introduction and Commentary, Revised and Enlarged, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1990), 434; Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke, 201; Simon J. Kistemaker, Acts, New Testament
Commentary, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990), 733; I. Howard Marshall, The Acts
of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, ed. R. V. G. Tasker,
(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980. Reprint 1989), 333, 34; John B. Polhill, Acts, The
New American Commentary, ed. David S. Dockery, vol. 26, (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 427, 28; R. B.
Rackham, The Acts of the Apostles, Westminster Commentaries, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978), 392;
David J. Williams, Acts, The New International Biblical Commentary, ed. W. W. Gasque, (Peabody, MA:
Hendricksen Publishers, 1990), 355. All these writers, in one form or another, see the “purchasing “ idea in the
Greek verb periepoihvsato and feel that the idea of “obtained” is too weak. But Bart D. Erhman, “The Cup,”
582, 83 outrightly denies that such an interpretation is probable. Luke’s other reference to the blood of Christ in
Peter’s speech (Acts 5:39) is in the context of trying to arouse guilt on the part of the leaders who killed Jesus, to
bring them to repentance. Therefore, says Erhman, since the term periepoihvsato means “acquired,” not
“purchased,” the blood of Christ in Acts 20:28 is that which “produces the church because it brings the cognizance
of guilt that leads to repentance.”
133Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke, 201.
Summary
The purpose of this chapter was to set forth the recent discussion on the exegesis of two critical passages,
namely Luke 22:19, 20 and Acts 20:28. The originality of Luke 22:19, 20 is a much debated textual problem. Gen-
erally those who accept the shorter reading, for whatever reason, feel that the longer reading does not fit Lucan the-
ology in the first place. They deny that the passage teaches any kind of vicarious atonement.
There are those, however, who accept the longer reading as authentic, yet still maintain that it does not
teach a doctrine of the atonement, but is instead connected with the sealing of the New Covenant.
Finally, there are an increasing number of scholars today who accept the longer reading as authentic based
upon solid textual evidence and who affirm that the phrases, “given for you” and “poured out” explicate a doctrine
of the atonement.
Concerning Acts 20:28, most writers affirm both the originality of tou‘ qeou‘ and the idea of vicarious
atonement in the passage. Nonetheless, many still conclude that Luke in Acts presents no positive theology of the
atonement because the theology of Acts 20:28 does not belong to Luke, but to some other source such as Paul or
early church tradition.
Chapter 4
Conclusion
The purpose of this thesis, as stated in the introduction, is to enable the reader to understand the stream of
debate regarding the issue of the atonement in Luke-Acts from the time of the publication of Hans Conzelmann’s
The Theology of St. Luke (1960) to the present day. No attempt has been made to argue for one position over against
another, but instead to delineate from the time of Conzelmann to the present, the state of affairs surrounding this
issue. In this regard, we have seen that there have been several models developed to account for Luke’s presentation
of the death of Jesus, but nonetheless the problem remains a thorny issue with no satisfactory consensus reached.
While virtually every scholar recognizes Luke’s stress on the necessity of Christ’s sufferings,137 there have
been few who have organized the whole of their exegesis of Luke around this idea. Thus, the discussion continues as
to whether Luke presents Jesus’ death as 1) part of his atoning work; 2) the Isaianic Suffering Servant with expiatory
overtones; 3) an innocent martyr; 4) the death of a righteous man whom God later vindicated in the resurrection; 5)
necessary to make possible the resurrection, glorification and exaltation; 6) the death of the lowly and humble, the
benefits of which are passed on to others who walk in lowliness of life or 7) that of a great benefactor.
The reason for the scholarly movement away from a vicarious interpretation of the death of Christ in Luke-
Acts is due to the fact that apart from two passages Luke never appears to make that equation. That is, apart from
these two passages, he never explicitly links the death of Christ with forgiveness of sins. The problem is further
134C.F. D. Moule, “The Christology of Acts,” in Studies in Luke-Acts. ed. Leander E. Keck and J. Louis
Martyn, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980) 171, quoted in F. F. Bruce, “Acts,” 434.
135Marshall, Acts, 334.
136Franklin, Christ the Lord, 66.
137Scholars have tended to recognize Luke’s use of the Greek verb dei` in connection with Christ’s
sufferings.
Bibliography
Books
Aland, Kurt. Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum. 3rd. ed. Germany: Deutsche Biblegesellschaft Stuttgart, 1963 and
1985.
Arndt, William F. Luke. Concordia Classic Commentary Series. St Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1956.
Barrett, C. K. Luke the Historian in Recent Study. London: Epworth, 1961.
Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 2nd ed. rev.
and aug. Translated by William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker. Chicago/London:
The University of Chicago Press, 1979.
Blass, F. and A. Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Trans-
lated and edited by Robert W. Funk. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1961.
Bock, Darrell L. Luke. : Volume I: 1:1—9:50. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. vol. 3a. ed.
Moises Silva. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994.
________. Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology. Journal for the Study of
the New Testament Supplement Series, Supplement 12. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987.
Bovon, F. C. Luke the Theologian: Thirty-Three Years of Research, (1950-1983). Translated by Ken McKinney.
Allison Park: Pickwick, 1987.
Bruce, F. F. The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary. Revised and Enlarged.
Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990.
Bultmann, Rudolph. Theology of the New Testament. 2 volumes in 1. Translated by Kendrick Grobel. New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951 and 1955.
Cadbury, Henry J. The Making of Luke-Acts. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1927.
Caird, G. B. New Testament Theology. ed. L. L. Hurst. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.
________. Saint Luke. Westminster Pelican Commentaries. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1963.
Conzelmann, Hans. Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. Translated by James Limburg,
A. Thomas Kraabel and Donald H. Juel. ed. Eldon J. Epp with Christopher R. Matthews. Philadelphia: For-
tress Press, 1987.
George, Augustin. Etudes sur l’ oeuvre de Luc. Paris: Éditions Gabalda et Cie, 1978.
Gooding, David. According to Luke: A New Exposition of the Third Gospel. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans,
1987.
Guthrie, Donald. The Apostles. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975.
________. New Testament Introduction. Rev. ed. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1990.
________. New Testament Theology. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1981.
Haechen, E. The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1971.
Harrison, Everett F. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1964.
Hengel, M. The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981.
Jeremias, Joachim. New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus. Translated by John Bowden. New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1971.
Essays
Aland, Kurt. “The Significance of the Papyri for New Testament Research.” In The Bible in Modern Scholarship.
ed. J. Philip Hyatt, 325-46. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1965.
Beck, B. “‘Imitatio Christi’ and the Lucan Passion Narrative.” In Suffering and Martyrdom in the New Testament:
Studies Presented to G. M. Styler by the Cambridge New Testament Seminar, ed. W. Horbury and B.
McNeil, 28-47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
Bock, Darrell. “The Theology of Luke-Acts.” In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, ed. D. Bock and R. B.
Zuck, 87-166. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.
________. “Gospel of Luke.” In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight and I.
Howard Marshall, 495-510. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1992.
Erhman, Bart D. “The Cup, the Bread and the Salvific Effect of Jesus’ Death in Luke-Acts.” In Society of Biblical
Literature Seminar Paper Series. ed. Eugene H. Lovering, Jr., 576-91. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991.
Green, Joel B. “The Death of Jesus.” In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight and
I. Howard Marshall, 146-63. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1992.
________. “The Death of Jesus, God’s Servant.” In Reimaging the Death of the Lukan Jesus, ed. Dennis D. Sylva,
1-28. Frankfurt am Main: Anton Hain, 1990.
Karris, Robert J. “Luke 23:47 and the Lucan View of Jesus’ Death.” In Reimaging the Death of the Lukan Jesus, ed.
Dennis D. Sylva, 68-78. Frankfurt am Main: Anton Hain, 1990.
Kodell, J. “Luke’s Theology of the Death of Jesus.” In Sin, Salvation and the Spirit, ed. D. Durkin, 221-30. Col-
legeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1979.
Liefield, W. L. “The Theology of Luke.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 662-64.
Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984.
Longenecker, Richard N. “The Acts of the Apostles.” In The Expositors Bible Commentary. 207-573. Vol. 9. ed. J.
D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981.
Marshall, I. H. “The Resurrection in the Acts of the Apostles.” In Apostolic History and the Gospel. ed. W. W.
Gasque and R. P. Martin, 92-107. Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1971.
Moule, C. F. D. “The Christology of Acts.” In Studies in Luke-Acts. ed. Keck, Leander E. and J. Louis Martyn, 159-
85. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980.
Richard, Earl. “Jesus’ Passion and Death in Acts.” In Reimaging the Death of the Lukan Jesus, ed. Dennis D. Sylva,
125-52. Frankfurt am Main: Anton Hain, 1990.
Sylva, Dennis D. “Death and Life at the Center of the World.” In Reimaging the Death of the Lukan Jesus, ed. Den-
nis D. Sylva, 153-69. Frankfurt-am-main: Anton Hain, 1990.
Periodicals
Bleiben, T. “The Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Paul.” Journal of Theological Studies 45 (1944): 134-40.
Brown, R. “The Passion according to Luke.” Worship 60 (1986): 1-9.
Crawford, R. G. “A Parable of the Atonement.” Evangelical Quarterly 50 (Jan-Mar 1978): 2-7.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “Papyrus Bodmer XIV: Some Features of Our Oldest Text of Luke” Catholic Biblical Quar-
terly 24 (1962): 170-79.
George, Augustin. “Le sens de la mort de Jesus pour Luc.” Revue Biblique 80 (1973): 186-217.
Giles, Kevin. “Salvation in Lucan Theology.” Reformed Theological Review 42 (1983): 10-16.
Karris, Robert J. “Luke 23:47 and the Lucan View of Jesus’ Death.” Journal of Biblical Literature 105 (January
1986): 65-74.
Kiddle, M. “The Passion Narrative in St. Luke’s Gospel.” Journal of Theological Studies 36 (1935): 267-80.
Kilpatrick, G. D. “Luke XXII. 19b-20.” Journal of Theological Studies 47 (1946), 49-56.
Kümmel, W. G. “Current Theological Accusations Against Luke.” Andover Newton Quarterly 16 (1975): 131-44.
Larkin, W. “Luke’s Use of the Old Testament as a Key to His Soteriology.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 20 (1977): 325-35.
Martin, R. P. “Salvation and Discipleship in Luke’s Gospel.” Interpretation 30 (1976): 366-80.
Matera, Frank J. “The Death of Jesus according to Luke: A Question of Sources.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 47
(1985): 469-85.
Minear, P. S. “A Note on Luke 22. 36.” Novum Testamentum 7 (1965-66): 128-34.
Parker, P. “Three Variant Readings in Luke-Acts.” Journal of Biblical Literature 83 (1964):165-70.
Ravens, D. A. S. “St. Luke and Atonement.”Expository Times 97 (1985, 86): 291-94.
Snodgrass, K. “Western Non-interpolations.” Journal of Biblical Literature 91 (1972): 369-79.
Talbert, C. H. “Shifting Sands: The Recent Study of the Gospel of Luke.” Interpretation 30 (1976): 381-95.
Van Unnik, W. C. “The Book of Acts: The Confirmation of the Gospel.” Novum Testamentum 4 (1960): 26-59.
Vöobus, A. “A New Approach to the Shorter and Longer Text in Luke.” New Testament Studies 15 (1968, 69): 457-
63.
Zehnle, Richard. “The Salvific Character of Jesus’ Death in Lucan Soteriology.” Theological Studies 30 (1969):
420-44.
Unpublished Materials
Pilgrim, W. E. “The Death of Christ in Lucan Soteriology.” Th. D. Diss., Princeton University, 1971.