Restoring the Kingdom

The Role of God as the “Ordainer of Times and Seasons” in the Acts of the Apostles

Michael A. Salmeier

• Publisher: Pickwick Publications
• Year: 2011
• Print ISBN:
  9781610970983
  9781498259101
• eBook ISBN:
  9781498270885
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Criticism & Interpretation

In the book of Acts divine involvement is everywhere. From the beginning God is responsible for promised action, including the geographic expansion--"in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth" (1:7)--referenced in Jesus' response to the disciples, clearly related to Luke's purpose in writing the book. Geographic expansion, however, is only the second part of Jesus' reply. Is it possible that the first half of Jesus' reply--"It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority"--has even greater bearing on the actions that follow and on Luke's purpose? Is the Father setting times and seasons related to the kingdom's establishment? Does this phrase explain the conspicuous divine involvement throughout the plot? In Restoring the Kingdom, Michael Salmeier answers these questions in the affirmative by exploring Luke's characterization of God in three strands: God as the King who establishes and restores Israel's king, who establishes his people, and who directs events. This unfolds Luke's purpose in assuring the reader concerning the events that have taken place, helping to more fully illuminate Luke's theology concerning God and his kingdom.

1

Portrait Characteristics and Method

As the Book of Acts opens, Luke1 relates Jesus speaking about the things concerning the “kingdom of God” (1:3), the promise of the Father (1:4), and explains that it is this Father who has established “times or periods [seasons] . . . by his own authority” (1:7). Further, three passive constructions implicate God in Jesus’ ascension (1:2—ἀνελήμφθη; 1:9—ἐπήρθη; 1:11—ὁ ἀναλημφθεἶς). This divine involvement continues throughout Acts as “the narrator constantly has God intervening, saving or consoling his people.”2 From the first chapter on, the narrative unfolds in a way that demonstrates the principal agent is “the powerful arm of God,”3 and Acts, therefore, is “a discourse about God.”4 Luke emphasizes that events unfold at God’s “behest” and “in accordance with His plan.”5

While most commentators have noted this ubiquitous divine involvement, scholarly attempts at analyzing Luke’s portrayal of God have been surprisingly few. Haenchen’s comments, typical in their brevity, begin with, “[I]t is God (the Father) who occupies the dominant place” and end some ninety (English) words later after short statements about God being “placed over” Christ, the Creator, the one who designed the plan of salvation, the worker of miracles, and the one who raised Jesus.6 For a character who “occupies the dominant place” such limited discussion does not seem sufficient. Bovon, in surveying thirty years of Luke-Acts research, notes that the divine role in the Acts narrative was “strangely overlooked in numerous works.”7 This lacuna confirms (at least for Lukan studies) Dahl’s lament that God is the neglected topic in New Testament theology.8 Since this theme is neglected in NT theology and because it is recognized as being central to the Acts narrative, analyzing Luke’s presentation of God seems an important endeavor.

Portrait Characteristics

Given the limited discussions of how Luke portrays God in Acts, no standard method for analyzing such portrayals has developed in the literature. This chapter begins, therefore, by outlining what such an analysis should look like. Ten criteria, which will need to be met by the current study, will be examined, demonstrating how the failure to meet these criteria weakens the other studies.9 It will then be argued that by employing what literary theorists call characterization these desiderata can be achieved. In keeping with this, it will be demonstrated that the initial statements about God in Acts 1:1–8 suggest that God will be portrayed as controlling the narrative events, including the kingdom’s possible restoration to Israel. Thus, examining the characterization of God in Acts should prove fruitful for understanding Luke’s narrative.

Ten Characteristics for a Proper Portrait of God in Acts

It is important to define what an effective presentation of Luke’s portrayal of God might look like. The ten features discussed below emerge from analyzing scholarly discussion on God in Acts and from principles seen as important in literary characterization study. These characteristics provide criteria for the model developed here.

An appropriate study should attend to the narrative figure “God.” To see this factor’s importance it is helpful to explore the focus found in a few analyses. For Cadbury,10 Luke’s emphasis on divine intervention was probably the author’s “conscious intention.” Everyone and everything is under God’s guiding hand. Accordingly, Acts emphasizes how the author understands history including its completion, for it is apparent that: “God has set a day, he has elected the witnesses, he has fixed upon the judge, he has appointed the way.”11 This divine guidance is detailed and immediate as evidenced in how God initiated the mission to Macedonia (Acts 16:6–10).

Marshall12 sees Luke portraying God as the source for salvation. He traces how Luke uses several titles for God, beginning with Luke characterizing God as Savior (Luke 1:47). For Marshall, God, in line with OT13 rather than Greek influences, is the Creator who causes all the narrative events to unfold according to plan. This plan is expressed in salvation-history, presenting Luke’s God as the God over salvation-history.

For Squires, Luke understands the divine plan as showing that: 1) God is the primary actor throughout Luke-Acts. 2) God directs the life of Jesus and the church by performing signs, wonders, healings, and exorcisms. 3) Epiphanies function to declare the divine will and divine guidance of history. 4) Divine purpose is emphasized through prophetic fulfillment (especially important in the passion narrative and the mission to the gentiles). Finally, 5) divine necessity is inherent to Jesus’ life, death, and the apostolic mission.14 Squires then demonstrates these conclusions, showing how such themes agree with the way divine providence was conceived by contemporary historians such as Josephus, Diodorus Siculus, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus.

Together these studies concentrate on divine guidance, God’s plan, God’s effect, or salvation. They do not focus specifically on God. It seems true that Luke’s work emphasizes divine guidance, but this theme does not represent a comprehensive picture of God. Regarding Marshall, while the Lukan God does control salvation-history, it does not follow that savior is Luke’s primary designation for God, since this may leave out too much characterizing data. Squires details how the divine plan is described and developed but not how God is portrayed. His focus is impersonal rather than personal. Despite many helpful insights, these writers do not appear to present Luke’s portrayal of God completely, failing to consider God directly.

A clear account of the literary and theological predecessors (the possible sources for the author’s literary, theological or philosophical model—i.e., Greek or Jewish) for the portrayal should be stated. Cadbury’s work gives the outline for a Lukan theme (divine control), but does not illuminate how the author nuances this divine control. Does it come from a Greek or Jewish background? Squires concentrates on Hellenistic influences over Jewish ones for understanding how Luke presents the divine plan. He notes that the Septuagint is influential,15 and that the themes he discusses in relation to Hellenistic sources already appear there (particularly in the Deuteronomist’s perspective). However, providence and divine intervention (themes Squires traces in Josephus and Josephus’ influences—Diodorus Siculus, and Dionysius) are particularly evident in Second-Temple Jewish works like 2 Maccabees.16 Unlike Josephus but like Luke, that work’s author does not de-emphasize divine intervention.17 Again, dissimilar to Josephus, Luke seems to reject notions about Justice and Fate (compare how the Maltans misunderstand Paul’s deliverance in Acts 28:1–10). Thus, Squires’ concentration on non-Jewish influences...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Preface
• Abbreviations
• Chapter 1: Portrait Characteristics and Method
• Chapter 2: The Reader’s Background Conceptions
• Chapter 3: Who Acts For God?
• Chapter 4: The King Who Establishes and Restores Israel’s King
• Chapter 5: The King Who Establishes His People
• Chapter 6: The God Who Directs Everything
• Chapter 7: Conclusion
• Bibliography