Thoughts on Luke-Acts: Conzelmann (Part II)

April 6, 2008 at 1:25 pm · Filed under Eschatology, Gospel of Luke, Holy Spirit, Luke-Acts, New Testament, Spirit of God

In his momentous work, The Theology of St. Luke, Hans Conzelmann endeavored to set Luke in context. Conzelmann was one of the earlier pioneers (around 1960) to come up with a Theology of Luke and Acts. To understand Conzelmann is to define what theology is and not, especially from Luke’s perspective. Theology is faith seeking understanding. It is the immediate positive response to God’s revelation (Anselm). The theology student is driven to seek understanding of his/her faith. That understanding is what constitutes theology. Bultmann, however, reminds us that the “kerygma” is evangelism. The kerygma has no theology about it, it is simply a response to God’s call, said Bultmann. Evangelism calls for a decision which is timeless. There’s an obvious split between a narrative and kerygma. Conzelmann draws theological conclusions from the narrative. That is what Luke had recorded for us. He could say that all theology of Acts is in the speeches (recorded, edited, and modified by Luke).

Conzelmann argues that we must analyze the context with Luke’s own historical position had emerged. That is the context of the development of the church. It is only in this setting “can we understand how on the one hand he (Luke) looks back to the “arche” of the Church as something unique and unrepeatable, which presupposes a certain distance in time, and how on the other hand he looks forward to the eschatological events” (13). Luke’s work represents “ the immediate position between the beginning of the new age in the ministry of Jesus, and the final events of the messianic realm.”So Luke draws a picture of the course of saving history (Heilsgeschichte) orchestrated by God in Jesus Messiah. Conzelmann understands salvation history as represented by Luke in three various stages respectively:

1.The period of Israel ( Luke 16:16)
2.The period of Jesus’ ministry (not of his ‘life’), characterized passages such as Luke 4.16ff., and Acts 10:38.
3.The period since the Ascension, on earth the period of the ecclesia pressa, during which the virtue of patience is required and it is possible, by virtue of looking back the period of Jesus, also to look forward to the Parousia (16-17).

It is in this context, Conzelmann proposed, that Luke wrote his two volume work. He also reminds us that “The Parousia itself does not represent a stage within the course of saving history, but the end of it. It corresponds to the other extreme, the Creation (17).

Luke’s eschatology

Conzelmann proposes that if one wishes to see the peculiar features of Luke’s conception concerning eschatology, one has to reckon (evidently) with discrepancies between “the ideas in his sources and his own ideas.” (95)

The Spirit in Luke

In the quotation from Joel in the story of Pentecost (Acts 2:17ff), the Spirit is thought as a sign of the End, in the source and also in Luke, but the interpretation is different in each case. In their original sense the last days have not yet been expanded into a longer epoch, which is what happens in Luke’s conception of the Spirit and of the Church, according to which the outpouring of the Spirit is no longer itself the start of the Eschaton, but the beginning of a longer epoch, the period of the Church.” Moreover, Conzelmann maintains that the Spirit Himself is no longer the eschatological gift, but the substitute in the meantime for the possession of ultimate salvation; He makes it possible for believers to exit in the coming life of the world and in persecution, and He gives the power for missionary endeavour and for endurance” (95-96).

In other words, the Spirit is not an indication of the end of time but that you are part of the church. That in itself carries ethical implication and responsibility. The Spirit is the substitute until the Parousia comes. He is the substitute for salvation for now. The Spirit dwells in the church – it is more of a cooperate dwelling than individual. Joel does not have the notion of the delay of the Parousia but Luke does.

Comments