The Kingdom according to Luke and Acts

A Social, Literary, and Theological Introduction

Karl Allen Kuhn

• Publisher: Baker Academic
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN:
  9780801048876
• eBook ISBN:
  9781441222459
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Studies

This substantial, reliable introduction examines the character and purpose of Luke and Acts and provides a thorough yet economical treatment of Luke's social, historical, and literary context. Karl Allen Kuhn presents Luke's narrative as a "kingdom story" that both announces the arrival of God's reign in Jesus and describes the ministry of the early church, revealing the character of the kingdom as dramatically at odds with the kingdom of Rome. Kuhn explores the background, literary features, plotting, and themes of Luke and Acts but also offers significant, fresh insights into the persuasive force of Luke's impressively crafted and rhetorically charged narrative.

Part 1
Luke and His World

Part 1 invites readers into the political, social, economic, and religious character of the first-century Mediterranean. Chapter 1 sketches distinctive features of the Roman world, including their manifestation in Palestine, drawing from the insights of social-scientific analysis. Chapter 2 then focuses in on Israelite hopes for rescue from the evils of this age and deliverance to God’s realm of blessing. Chapter 3 presents my understanding of Luke’s social location as a member of the elite and the insight this realization yields for better appreciating the rhetorical edge of Luke’s narrative.

1
Imperium Romanum

An Empire of Disparity and Want

As proposed in the introduction, the primary aim of Luke-Acts is to challenge Theophilus and others to abandon their allegiance to the life they know and to some extent still cherish. The world of Luke and his audience was that of the Roman Empire. While cultural patterns and conditions in the vast territory controlled by Rome surely varied from region to region or even from year to year, the survey to follow provides a baseline of what life was generally like for most in the Roman world in the first century of the Common Era. It was a realm characterized by the grossly inequitable distribution of power and resources, leaving the vast majority wanting for life’s basic necessities. However, I should also note at the outset that the survey to follow focuses on those dimensions of the Roman hegemony that I believe Luke was most interested in confronting—namely, its distribution of power and resources and the belief system that legitimated those modes of distribution. But, of course, the Roman world—though dependent upon and fueled by this exploitative system—was also more than this. Rome’s legacy also includes impressive works of literature, philosophy, politics, art, and architecture that remain influential to the present day. To be fair, we should keep this in mind as we attend to what many would consider the darker sides of Roman rule.

The Rise of the Roman Empire

Power changed hands several times throughout the Mediterranean region in the centuries leading up to the Common Era. Under Alexander the Great in the fourth century BCE, the Greeks wrested control of this part of the world from the Persians, who had themselves overtaken the Babylonians in the sixth century BCE. After Alexander died in 323 BCE, his vast empire was first divided between his generals and eventually became three dynastic realms that would continue for more than another hundred years: the Antiochid in Macedonia; the Ptolemaic in Egypt; and the Seleucid, from Persia across Syria to Asia. But in the latter half of the third century BCE, Greek power was seriously eroding, and much of the region was slipping from its grasp. This was largely due to the rise of Rome, which conquered the Italian peninsula, the western Mediterranean including Spain, eventually Carthage in northern Africa to the south, and Macedonia to the east. At the beginning of the second century BCE, the Seleucids were in control of Palestine and Asia Minor. However, they suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of Rome in the battle of Magnesia (Manisa in modern-day Turkey) in 190, thus losing Asia Minor, and they were also required to pay a hefty tribute to their conquerors.

The Seleucids sought to reestablish their grip on their remaining realm and initially gained some measure of stability. In 169–168, the Seleucid king Antiochus IV led semisuccessful campaigns against Egypt, acquiring significant plunder. During this time, Rome also reaffirmed its support of Antiochus’ claim over Syria and Phoenicia. But then Antiochus engaged in a series of actions against Jerusalem that would galvanize the Israelite people into a protracted struggle for freedom and eventually contribute to the demise of the Seleucid dynasty. While Antiochus was preoccupied with his campaigns in Egypt, a false rumor of his death circulated in Judea. The former and disaffected high priest, Jason, sought to take advantage of the apparent vacuum of power and revolted, briefly retaking Jerusalem in 169. Before Antiochus could return, Jason was expelled from the city. However, the Seleucid ruler used the turmoil as an opportunity to reconquer Jerusalem, resulting in a series of extraordinary insults against the Israelite people. In addition to already controlling the office of the high priest and leveling burdensome taxes, Antiochus invaded Jerusalem, killing and enslaving tens of thousands, leveled its walls, stole from the temple treasury, banned the worship of Yahweh, mandated the worship of Greek gods and goddesses, turned the Jerusalem temple into a temple of Zeus, and viciously persecuted those who resisted. His attack on Jerusalem was a “reenactment of conquest” designed to legitimate his attempts to order a widespread transformation of Judean culture and to establish himself as its inhabitants’ sole master and sovereign. As Anathea Portier-Young states: “Antiochus’ methods of conquest were thus calculated to shatter the people’s sense of autonomy and will to resist, so that all will and all freedom would derive from his own regime and own person.”1

The Israelites revolted in 167 under the leadership of the Hasmonean family, leading to an extended rebellion known as the Maccabean Revolt. As recorded in 1 Maccabees, one of our primary sources for this period, the rebels used guerrilla tactics in a lengthy war of attrition and made slow progress toward independence. The Seleucids rescinded the ban on the worship of Yahweh in 164, shortly before Antiochus’ death. Rome recognized Israelite independence in 161, making a treaty with the newly restored nation, and Israel eventually won its full freedom from the Seleucids in 142. Under the leadership of John Hyrcanus, who ruled as high priest from 134 to 104, Israel attained a significant measure of religious, political, and economic stability and regained most of the territory that it once held under David and Solomon. This political expansion continued under Hyrcanus’ son, Alexander Jannaeus, and Alexander’s wife, Salome (103–76). Yet the latter part of their reign and the years following it were marred by internal strife, culminating in the outbreak of civil war from 67 to 63 as the brothers Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II vied for the rule of Israel. The Roman general Pompey intervened in 63 to settle the dispute. He seized Jerusalem from Aristobulus’ partisans and named Hyrcanus II high priest, but stripped him of much of his political power and placed Judea under Roman tribute.

Pompey’s intervention marked the start of Rome’s interest in and control over the region of Palestine. It also marked the beginning of Israelite antipathy toward Rome. Following the treaty of 161, Israelite views of Rome were generally positive. But Pompey’s siege of Jerusalem in 63 resulted in much suffering and death. Once the city was in his control, Pompey led a retinue into the temple, violating the Holy of Holies. As Josephus records, “Of all the calamities of that time none so deeply affected the nation as the exposure to alien eyes of the Holy Place, hitherto screened from view” (War 1.152).2 From now on, “the damage that Pompey had caused would remain irreparable: henceforward the name of Rome became associated with the notion of sacrilege, and that notion began to be felt in the writings of that period.”3

During its years of expansion in the first century BCE, Rome itself was plagued by internal strife and fought its own civil wars. As a republic for the better part of five hundred years, Rome had been ruled by the Senate, made up of elite landowners of leading families, in conjunction with magistrates (or consuls) who were elected by the citizenry. As Roman dominance expanded through military conquest leading up to the Common Era, powerful generals began to vie for control over the republic’s affairs. At times, this control was pursued and practiced through alliances. The First Triumvirate included Pompey, Marcus Licinius Crassus, and Gaius Julius Caesar. But after Crassus died in battle, the triumvirate dissolved, and Pompey and Caesar fought each other for control of Rome. Caesar won control by defeating Pompey in 45 BCE. He was named dictator for life in 44, and his rule threatened to overshadow the influence of the Senate. Some senators, however, would not be so easily marginalized. Marcus Brutus and Gaius Cassius, former allies to Pompey, murdered Caesar in the Senate meeting hall. In the resulting struggle for power, consul Mark Antony, Octavian (Caesar’s adopted heir), and exconsul Lepidus formed what was known as the Second Triumvirate. This triumvirate was also short-lived, leading to another bloody struggle. By 31, Octavian emerged from the fray victorious, assumed the name Caesar and the title “Augustus” (great, or worthy of honor), and became the first emperor of Rome. The office of emperor would continue to evolve over the ensuing decades, and the Senate would still hold some of its previous power, but with Octavian the transition to imperial rule in the form of an absolute monarch, or emperor, became complete. Octavian’s victory marks Rome’s transition from republic to empire.

The Pax Romana and Rule of Rome

Octavian’s rule also ushered in the era known as the pax Romana (Roman peace), often described as a centuries-long period of relative stability and prosperity due to the strength of Roman rule. The pax Romana did indeed have many benefits. Warfare and regime change were destructive events, impacting all levels of society, and the economic prosperity enjoyed during this period facilitated better nutrition, increased life expectancy, higher population levels, and access to education. But the benefits of the pax Romana were not evenly distributed among Rome’s subjects. Far from it. Most struggled under the burden of stifling economic oppression. Moreover, Rome’s conquests continued, spreading north into Europe and reaching all the way to Britain and as far east as modern-day Iraq. Even into the Common Era, many lands came under the Roman peace only after the vanguard of Roman swords. Within Rome’s provinces, including Palestine, challenges to Rome’s power were effectively yet brutally suppressed by local elite loyal to the emperor.4 When situations threatened to spin out of control, the response of the Roman military was inevitable and characteristically devastating for the rebels and many innocent bystanders alike.5 In the case of the Israelite Revolt in Judea (67–70 CE), Roman fury resulted in the death or enslavement of thousands of Israelites, the sacking of Jerusalem, and the destruction of the temple.

The Many Heads of Roman Rule

Key to the maintenance of Roman control before, during, and after this period (as was true for the Greeks and Persians before them) was the use of client kings, governors, and other officials to rule the increasingly vast regions conquered by Rome. These rulers in turn appointed others to positions of authority, cultivating “a loyal clientele among local aristocrats by dispensing certain favors or benefits for them or their cities.”6 In exchange for the political and economic benefits attached to their positions, these client leaders were to assist in “keeping the peace,” providing police support when needed, collecting taxes, maintaining important civic celebrations, offering sacrifices on behalf of the emperor and Rome, and encouraging allegiance to the empire. While many of these rulers were native to the areas under their charge, “these local elites, whose cooperation with the central power was so crucial to the smooth functioning of the empire, tended to adopt many Roman ways themselves.”7 Thus, along with the incursion of Roman power throughout the Mediterranean world and beyond, there arrived a second influx of Hellenistic culture, a reinforcing tide of Greco-Roman politics, religion, social structure, art, and architecture that profoundly shaped this region. For this era at least, the proverb...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Abbreviations
• Introduction
• Part 1: Luke and His World
• Part 2: Luke's Narrative Artistry
• Part 3: Luke's Kingdom Story
• Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Index of Subjects
• Index of Authors
• Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Sources
• Back Cover