Abstract
In this paper I argue that the church in Acts is the narrative incarnation of Luke's prophetic Christology, providing often-overlooked Christological material in Acts. Within the functional definition of identity assumed by Luke's audience, this portrayal of the church would have been understood as Christ's ongoing presence in Acts. After establishing the prophetic cast of Lukan Christology, I demonstrate how the apostles imitate Christ in word and deed, continuing Jesus’ teaching of repentance as well as his prophetic “signs and wonders.” Moreover, the church shares Jesus’ fate of rejection and persecution, seen most prominently in the narrative parallels between Jesus and Paul. Theologically, Luke-Acts insists that a prophetically configured ecclesiology is an essential component of Christology, and that no portrait of Jesus is complete without images of those followers who continue “those things that Jesus had begun to do and teach” (Acts 1:1).
Keywords
The book of Acts opens with the reminder that the earlier Gospel was just the beginning of Jesus’ story, implying that what follows will be the continuation of “those things that Jesus had begun (erxato) both to do and to teach” (Acts 1:1). Jesus’ subsequent assumption into heaven just eight verses later complicates this notion, to say the least. If “Jesus in his glorified state belongs essentially to another world” (MacRae: 157), in what sense does the author mean that Jesus continues in the world of Acts the “doings” and “teachings” begun in Luke? Put conversely, how do the acts of the apostles in Luke's second volume relate to Jesus? Theologically speaking, what has Christology to do with ecclesiology in Luke-Acts?
C. F. D. Moule argues that in fact Jesus acts not in Acts; rather, Luke's second volume exhibits an “absentee christology” (179). Hans Conzelmann likewise insists that after Jesus’ ascension, Acts lacks Jesus’ “real presence” (204). More recently Arie Zwiep draws a similar conclusion, stating that Luke's “rapture Christology” is one “dominated by the physical absence and present inactivity of the exalted Lord” (182), a viewpoint shared by C. M. Tuckett (144). Comparison with Paul's “robustly ‘inclusive’ Christology” seems to confirm this hypothesis. Whereas Paul emphasizes the individual's spiritual union “in Christ” and characterizes the church as “the body of Christ,” Luke merely portrays the shared fate of followers in their imitation of Christ (MacRae: 158; Moule: 180).
While Conzelmann and others do qualify their claim of an “absentee Christology” by acknowledging some sense of Jesus’ “presence” in Acts via the Holy Spirit, the multiple speeches referring to him, the visions of Jesus, and the historical example of his life (Conzelmann: 185–86; MacRae: 160–65), the narrative imitation of Jesus by the apostles and the community—and the ontological implications of this replication—remain underexplored. For example, Buckwalter's section refuting an absentee Christology in Acts makes no reference to the parallels between Jesus and the church (173–86). This issue goes beyond the narrow question of absentee Christology; broader studies of Christology in Acts similarly disregard reference to the replication of Jesus’ life in Acts, implying it offers no Christological importance. Matera limits the Christology in Acts to the speeches (64), insisting that the narrative of Acts is not the story of Jesus, but of the church. Hurtado likewise overlooks the narrative patterns in Acts, focusing on Christological titles, tensions, and devotional practices (217–37), an approach similar to Tuckett's emphasis on titles and events (133–50).
Conversely, studies that have explored the narrative parallels between Jesus and the apostles have focused primarily on questions of methodology (Praeder: 23–39), Lukan purpose (Mattill; Jacobson: 146), historiography (Green 1996: 283–99), genre (Talbert), prophetic framework (Moessner 1986) and soteriology (Moessner 1990), leaving the Christological aspect of this material less than fully examined and developed. Moreover, none have interpreted this material in light of social-scientific insights into the social construction of identity in antiquity. If indeed Christ is absent in Acts and the narrative parallels between Jesus and the apostolic community have no Christological significance, then how can Jesus accuse Paul of persecuting him when the narrative has portrayed Paul persecuting the church (Acts 9:4; 22:8; 26:15)? This paper addresses these gaps in the study of the Christology of Acts and opens up new material in Acts for Christological analysis, accounting for Luke's claim that Acts continues Jesus’ prophetic teachings, doings, and even suffering.
Following Gaventa's insistence on the linkage between theology and narrative (Gaventa 1988: 150), I will argue that close attention to the narrative development of characters in Luke-Acts, coupled with a sensitivity toward the functional and relational construction of identity in the ancient world (cf. Robbins), will shed light on often overlooked dimensions of Christological “presence” in Acts. Within its historical and literary contexts, the apostolic and ecclesiastical “imitation” of Christ in Luke-Acts points toward an “incarnational ecclesiology,” recapitulating individually and corporately the anointed, prophetic life of Christ. Viewed through the lens of a first-century understanding of the human person that defines identity functionally and relationally, I suggest that Luke's narrative presents us with a model of christosis, of becoming the likeness of Christ, exemplified in the way Luke stylizes the witnesses in Luke-Acts as imitators of Christ. I will begin by establishing the prophetic mold of Lukan Christology, and then I will trace the replication of Jesus’ “teachings” and “doings” by the apostles and community in Luke and Acts. Finally, I will argue that this replication has ontological implications within the context of ancient constructions of identity (and modern constructions as well; cf. Esler: 38–66), such that understanding Luke's portrait of Christ requires attentiveness to the portrayal of the community in Acts, and vice versa. This explicit interweaving of ecclesiology within Luke's Christological tapestry makes a distinctive contribution to the diverse Christologies within the New Testament.
Christology as Prophetic Anointing in Luke-Acts
A full appreciation of the apostolic imitation in Acts requires a close examination of how Luke fashions Jesus as the prophet par excellence. Luke's movement of Mark's episode of conflict in the synagogue (Mark 6:1–6) to the beginning of Jesus’ ministry establishes its significance as the lens through which subsequent episodes are to be viewed (Tiede: 19–55), and Luke's transformation of this Markan scene highlights the prophetic mold in which Luke casts Jesus. Luke introduces Jesus as reading Isaiah 61 in the synagogue:
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed (echrisen) me to bring good news (euangelisasthai) to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor [Luke 4:18–19].
Jesus goes on to apply the Spirit's prophetic anointing to himself, stating “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing” (Luke 4:21). He further establishes a prophetic framework for his ministry by comparing it to the healings and works of the earlier prophets Elijah and Elisha (4:25–28), and by characterizing his upcoming opposition as the typical rejection of a prophet within his own hometown (4:24). Even the content of the “kingdom of God” message is configured around the prophetic proclamation of Isaiah's “good news,” as Jesus states in Luke 4:43: “It is necessary for me to proclaim the good news (euangelisasthai) of the kingdom of God” (cf. Luke 8:1, 9:2, 9:11, 9:60, 16:16; Acts 1:3, 8:12, 19:8, 28:23, 28:31).
In terms of Lukan Christology, Jesus’ identity as the Christ (
This prophetic configuration receives narrative illustration via comparison to specific “prophets of old” (cf. Luke 9:8). Jesus’ raising of the widow's son at Nain (Luke 7:11–17) recapitulates Elijah's raising of the widow's son at Zarephath in Sidon (1 Kgs 17:8–24), an episode already brought to the reader's attention in Jesus’ programmatic sermon in Nazareth (Luke 4:26). The audience witnessing the revivification confirms this role in its response, “A great prophet has risen among us!” (7:16). The Elijah figuration continues into Luke 9:51–56, with Jesus’ departure to Jerusalem paralleling Elijah's journey to the Jordan (2 Kings 2:6–8; Brodie: 96–109). Even Jesus’ assumption into heaven—the episode rendering Christology in Acts so problematic—can be seen as an imitation of Elijah's assumption in 2 Kings 2, with the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2:1–11) a corollary to Elijah's passing on of a double share of his spirit to Elisha (2 Kgs 2:9–12) (Croatto: 456–58).
Jesus is also portrayed as a “prophet like Moses,” in line with the predominant portrayal of Moses as a prophet in Second Temple literature (Meeks: 100–285). The comparison is most explicit in the transfiguration episode (Luke 9:28–36). In this scene, which includes both the prophets Elijah and Moses, Jesus’ mission is described in 9:31 as his “exodus” (exodus), clearly evoking the liberation from Egypt led by Moses, but reconfigured in this narrative to foreshadow Jesus’ death, resurrection and ascension. The cloud on the mountain and glorious transformation of Jesus’ face in the encounter with God likewise reflect key elements of Moses’ theophanies on Sinai (Exod 24:15–18; 34:1–9, 29–35). The exhortation to “Listen to him” (Luke 9:35) establishes the prophetic focus of this episode, echoing the admonition Moses himself gives to the people regarding the prophet like him that God will raise up (Deut 18:15–18).
The proclamation of the apostles in Acts furthers this Mosaic coloring of Jesus’ prophetic ministry. In his first speech, Peter applies the language describing Moses as a prophet unequalled in signs and wonders (Deut 34:10–12) to Jesus, who likewise was commended by God with mighty deeds, wonders and signs (Acts 2:22). Peter's second speech (Acts 3:12–26) quotes Moses’ prediction that God will raise up a prophet like him (Deut 18:15–18) and applies it to the resurrected Jesus, reiterating the Mosaic command to “Listen to him” (Acts 3:22). The speech Luke assigns to Stephen (Acts 7:2–53) continues and deepens the Mosaic parallel. He characterizes both Jesus and Moses as fulfilling God's promise to Abraham (7:17; cf. Luke 1:55, 73), as exhibiting wisdom and powerful deeds (Acts 7:22; cf. Luke 2:47, 52), and as encountering rejection by the people but vindication by God (Acts 7:35–36; cf. Acts 2:22–36; 3:13–15; Johnson: 32–35). The prophetic parallel ultimately extends to Stephen, who himself embodies the prophetic rejection experienced by Moses and the execution experienced by Jesus.
Hence, we see throughout Luke-Acts that Luke portrays Jesus as the Christ, the “anointed one,” predominantly in terms of a prophet anointed by the Spirit, one standing in the long line of Israel's prophets of old. This “christological” understanding of the Spirit's prophetic anointing is significant for Acts, for there the witnesses and disciples receive their own bestowal of the Spirit for prophetic engagement. However, in Acts the Spirit is explicitly characterized by reference to Jesus, for he is the one through whom the Spirit is poured out (Acts 2:33). Luke even gives the Spirit the moniker “Spirit of Jesus” (Acts 16:7), a title found nowhere else in the NT (cf. Gal 4:6, Phil 1:19, Rom 8:9, 1 Pet 1:11). To the extent that the Spirit-empowered words and deeds of the church and its witnesses imitate the Spirit-filled words and deeds of Jesus, they are inherently “christological,” inasmuch as they are rooted in the Spirit that Jesus pours out. While Jesus’ identification in Luke as “the Anointed One” (christos) remains unique (contra 2 Cor 1:21, 1 John 2:20, 27), he is not incomparable, for he nonetheless represents the paradigm of “teaching” and “doing” which those who trust in him are to “embody.”
Prophetic “Teaching” and “Doing” in Luke-Acts
This imitation of Christ begins quite early in the Gospel. Nearly at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, the disciples/apostles are empowered by the Spirit to re-enact the life of their teacher; this aspect becomes clear in comparison to how Mark emphasizes the inadequacy of the disciples (Juel: 74–76). Programmatic in this regard is the statement from the Sermon on the Plain: “A disciple is not above the teacher, but everyone who is fully qualified will be like the teacher” (Luke 6:40). Whereas Matthew's version of this statement simply mentions that it is “enough” (arketon) for the disciple to be like the teacher, Luke's expression of being “fully qualified” (katērtismenos pas) in likeness to the teacher draws the instructor and disciple much more closely together. The qualifying empowerment is depicted in Luke 9:1–2, when the disciples are commissioned to replicate Jesus’ own itinerant ministry of proclaiming the Kingdom of God and healing: “Then Jesus called the Twelve together and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases, and he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal.”
Given Jesus’ assertion in his sermon in Luke 4:16–30 that the Spirit had anointed him for a ministry of proclamation and healing (quoting Isaiah 61), we should view the sending of the apostles here in a similar light. As Tannehill (1:215) notes, “The apostles’ mission conforms to Jesus’ mission and is an extension of it. As Jesus’ commanding word shows ‘authority and power’ (4:36), so the apostles are given ‘power and authority’ (9:1).” This proleptic endowment in the Gospel foreshadows the spiritual empowerment that occurs at Pentecost in Acts 2.
Functionally speaking, the apostles embody the person of Jesus in proclamation and healing throughout the narrative of Acts. Like Jesus, the apostles receive a baptismal anointing of the Holy Spirit, signifying their common instrumentality in the overall plan of God. Indeed, God's work through the Holy Spirit predates both Jesus and the church, including John (Luke 1:15), Mary (Luke 1:35), Elizabeth (Luke 1:41), Zechariah (Luke 1:67), Simeon (Luke 2:25), Samuel (Acts 3:24) and even the prophet (!) David (Acts 1:16). That which was begun before Jesus carries on in Jesus’ name after his ascension as well, propelled by the Spirit.
Prophetic “Teaching” in Luke-Acts
A major role of the Spirit in Luke-Acts is for prophetic empowerment of the apostles carrying on the ministry of Jesus (Cho: 173–97). This is dramatically portrayed in Acts 2:1–4, where the Spirit is poured out upon them, empowering them to speak in other languages. The quotation from Joel 2:28 in Acts 2:17–21 makes the prophecy element explicit, adding the phrase “and they shall prophecy” to the LXX text. This outpouring of the Spirit also connects to the risen Lord's command in Acts 1:8, which states that when they have received power from the Holy Spirit's descent, they will be his witnesses to the end of the earth. This task inherently requires verbal proclamation.
As the narrative reveals, this witness is christomorphic. The decision that Judas’ replacement must have been a witness of the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus emphasizes the paradigmatic character of Jesus and gives a christological continuity to the twelve. That is, the first-hand imitation of Jesus begun by the apostles in the Gospel becomes the essential quality for membership into the highly symbolic group of the twelve. Corporately, the unified church (Acts 2:42–47, 4:32–35) likewise exhibits an essentially prophetic character, as its titles “the Word of God” (Acts 6:7; 12:24) and “the Word of the Lord” (Acts 13:49; 19:20) indicate. In a sense, the very life of the community, especially its embodied witness to Jesus’ (and Isaiah's) message of “good news to the poor” (Luke 4:17–19), constitutes prophetic proclamation.
The specific content of the prophetic message itself is also united throughout Luke and Acts, beginning with John the Baptist (Tannehill: 1.48). The core of John's message is summarized in Luke 3:3: “He went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” Jesus echoes this message in 5:32, stating “I have come to call not the righteous but sinners to repentance.” Both Luke 5:20–24 and 7:47–49 illustrate Jesus’ forgiveness of sins, again in line with John's proclamation. Significantly, the risen Jesus in Luke 24:47 gives his followers the same commission, exhorting that repentance for the release of sins is to be preached in his name. Not surprisingly, Peter's first sermon in Acts draws the same response as John's (“What should we do?”), and he gives the expected answer, “Repent and be baptized … for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38; cf. 3:19; 5:31; 10:43). Even Paul, who was not involved in John's or Jesus’ ministry in Luke, characterizes his own (past) preaching as exhortation “to repent … doing works worthy of repentance” (Acts 26:20; cf. 13:38; 22:16), echoing John's message of “Make fruits worthy of repentance.” (Luke 3:8; Tannehill: 1.47–53). Clearly, everybody is “on message” throughout this two volume work. The major contribution of the preaching in Acts is the association of this forgiveness with the name of Jesus (2:38; 8:12; 10:43; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16), further highlighting the christological shaping of the prophetic message in Acts.
Prophetic “Doing” in Luke-Acts: Signs and Wonders
The prophetic ministry of both Jesus and the apostles is not limited to proclamation, but also includes the intimately related activities of healing, exorcism of demons, and even the raising of the dead. Serving as visual enactments of the message of salvation, a “verbum visibile” that complements proclamation (O'Reilly: 217), “wonders” have a much higher status and prominence in Luke-Acts than in the other Gospels. This feature in Luke is sometimes disparaged, as J. D. G. Dunn's statement (167–68) illustrates:
In contrast to the caution of other NT writers, not to mention Jesus and some OT writings, Luke's uncritical parading of “wonders and signs” as an advertisement for the early church seems to pander more to pagan superstitious veneration of omens and portents. … He does not appear to recognize that there is a problem here—the problem of distinguishing the power of God from its counterfeits, the problem of weaning faith away from a diet of the miraculous.
Underappreciated here is the specific way in which these wondrous works function to recapitulate the life of Jesus in the ministry of the apostles; indeed, they are Jesus’ works. Jesus’ exorcisms (Luke 4:33–35, 40–41; 8:26–37; 9:37–43) and healings (Luke 4:38–39; 5:12–25; 6:6–10; 7:2–10; 8:43–48; 13:10–13; 14:1–4) are paralleled in Acts, where the apostles (5:16), Philip (8:7) and Paul (16:18) all cast out demons, and likewise Peter (Acts 3:1–8; 9:32–34), Philip (8:7) and Paul (14:8–10) all engage in healing. Perhaps more spectacularly, Jesus’ Elijah-esque revivifications of the widow's son at Nain (Luke 7:11–17) and Jairus’ daughter (Luke 8:41–56) have remarkable parallels in Peter's revivification of the disciple Tabitha (Acts 9:32–42) and in Paul's similar feat with Eutychus in Troas (Acts 20:7–12).
In fact, performing “signs and wonders” characterizes the prophetic ministry in Acts (2:43; 4:30; 5:12; 6:8; 8:6; 14:3; 15:12), uniting it with earlier prophetic ministry. The acclamation of Jesus as “a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people” links him, not only with Stephen in Acts 6:8 (“Stephen, full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs among the people”), but also with the prophet Moses, who himself was “powerful in his words and deeds” (Acts 7:22) and “performed wonders and signs in Egypt” (Acts 7:36), as we noted above. Luke's prophetic line extending from Moses to Stephen through Jesus highlights Luke's view of their essential unity of praxis.
This unity is possible because all are agents through whom God, the ultimate agent in the narrative, is working. “Deeds” and “signs” thus confirm God's work through them, as Peter says of Jesus in Acts 2:22 (“Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him among you”), and the narrator says of Paul and Barnabas in Acts 14:3 (“So they remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord, who testified to the word of his grace by granting signs and wonders to be done through them.”) Far from being problematic to Luke, these deeds establish and credential the prophetically christological character (and “characters”) of the church's ministry in Acts (O'Reilly: 216). Thus, in terms of imitating Jesus’ overall prophetic ministry of bold proclamation and miraculous works, the prophets in Acts demonstrate that they can “talk the talk and walk the walk.” Within a context whereby human identity is predominantly defined by one's social function (to be examined shortly), these Spirit-empowered prophets in Acts can be seen to share much of the functional identity of their Spirit-anointed leader, Jesus the Christ.
Acts 20:7–12: The Ongoing “Teaching” and “Doing” of Christ
We can see the impact of this line of analysis distilled in Acts 20:7–12. The preaching, meal, and revivification narrated in Acts 20:7–12 succinctly illustrate the multiple modes of Christ's presence in the “teachings” and “doings” of the community. This brief episode also highlights the role that the fellowship meal, or “breaking of the bread,” plays in portraying Christ's presence in Acts by continuing a central feature of Jesus’ ministry in the Gospel (cf. Heil). Jesus’ fellowship meals embody his teaching about the kingdom of God, setting his ministry apart from John's (Luke 7:33–34). These meals are so characteristic of Jesus’ identity that in the post-resurrection scene of Luke 24:30, it is only after Jesus breaks the bread and blesses it that the disciples recognize who he is. It is also how the disciples convey to others whom they have encountered: “Then they told what had happened on the road, and how [Jesus] had been made known to them in the breaking of the bread” (Luke 24:35). Likewise, Acts 10:41 reminds us that God allowed the risen Jesus to appear to those “who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.” Furthermore, Acts 2:41–47 makes the breaking of the bread and the devotion to the apostles’ teaching to be the hallmark of the newly established, Spirit-filled community.
The setting of Acts 20:7–12 brings together many of details associated with previous meals in Luke-Acts. The location in a sufficiently-furnished upper-room (Acts 20:8) where they had been gathered to break bread (Acts 20:7) evokes the already-furnished upper room of Luke 22:12, which provided the setting for the breaking of the bread (“in remembrance” of Jesus; cf. Luke 22:19) in their earlier Passover meal with Jesus. The chronological specification of the first day of the week (Acts 20:7) and daybreak (20:11) hearkens back to the resurrection (Luke 24:1) and the fellowship meals where they recognized the risen Christ (Luke 24:28–43). More broadly, the setting of this episode where Paul begins his final journey to Jerusalem after the Days of Unleavened Bread (Acts 20:6) recalls the beginning of Jesus’ passion narrative, which occurred at the same point in the festival calendar (Luke 22:1, 7–8, 15; Spencer: 190). Thus, narrative cues imbue the episode with the overtones of Christ's presence and replication of his life.
The raising of Eutychus in this episode also provides an apt example of how sensitivity to this association between meal fellowship and Jesus’ presence radically affects interpretation. Martin Dibelius's comments are telling: “The mood of the story is as secular as possible; this is seen in the rationalized description of the miracle” (17). However, closer attention to Luke's narrative structure yields quite a different understanding. We have already noted the prophetic connections between Jesus and Paul, a similarity that recurs in this passage. The fact that Paul is dialoguing with the community until midnight parallels the risen Jesus’ nighttime discussion with the disciples in Luke 24:29, a connection that is further reinforced by the abrupt departure that both of them make after the breaking of bread (Luke 24:31, 35; Acts 20:11; Heil: 288). Thus contextualized, the revivification of Eutychus can be seen as a visible act of prophetic kingdom proclamation, demonstrating the “light-giving power of the gospel” (cf. 20:8; Gaventa 2003: 280) via the narrative fulfillment of the crippled eating bread in the Kingdom of God (Luke 14:15–24). Likewise, the successful revivification is itself a “sign and wonder” providing divine attestation to the power of God's salvation in the midst of this community. The failed attempts by others to work mighty deeds in the name of Jesus (e.g., the seven sons of Sceva [Acts 19:11–16]) make Paul's successful revivification all the more noticeable—and Christlike. It is Christ's presence in Paul—or Paul's presence as Christ—that sets this successful healing of Eutychus apart from the failed exorcism of Acts 19:15.
Equally striking is the connection this story has with Jesus’ healing of the young girl in Luke 8:40–56. In both situations, a young person dies, and the one who revives her/him tells those around not to fear/be troubled, for the victim has its soul/spirit within it. Both episodes depict the agent touching the victim, either by taking the girl by the hand, or by falling upon and embracing the young man. Significantly, in light of our current emphasis on meal fellowship, both accounts also have a reference to eating which immediately follows the revivification. Close attention to the narrative details in this fairly brief little episode reveals that this passage is far from “secular,” but rather thematically distills nearly all the elements of the functional representation of Christ that we have examined: meal fellowship, prophetic exhortation, and mighty deeds.
As we have seen, the witnesses in Acts perform according to the pattern established by Jesus in Luke, representing and re-presenting Jesus's ministry and message throughout the narrative of Acts. As MacRae describes it, “We might call this Jesus’ presence as a model of discipleship, incorporated in the lives of his followers” (163). Thus, in terms of functional identity (and genre), the biography of Jesus in Luke extends into Acts, continuing with the apostles and the church. As Robert Brawley notes in responding to the ecclesiology of Conzelmann and Haenchen,
In the progressive discovery of what is true in the narrative world, ecclesiology cannot, like a black widow, consume biography because disciples will be like their teacher. And therefore, the ecclesiology of Luke-Acts is christological” [57].
Furthermore, the church itself, as a whole, not only mediates and embodies the presence of Jesus in its meal fellowship and communal praxis, but also in several interesting passages is identified specifically as “Jesus,” as we will see shortly. Thus, on the narrative level there is much evidence that not only refutes even a qualified notion of an “absentee christology” in Acts, but rather argues for sustained christological presence in Acts, as the witnesses themselves take on the character of Christ.
Prophetic “Doing” in Luke-Acts: “The Way of the Cross”
Ecclesiastic “embodiment” of the prophetic “life of Christ” is not limited to bold proclamation and wondrous deeds. In contrast to the occasional charge of Lucan triumphalism, Luke-Acts truly does portray a theology of the cross (Barrett), interpreted in the sense of an entire way of life that shares in the fate of Christ (rather than simply a detailed “doctrine of atonement”).
Again, the pattern for the apostles is first established in the Gospel. Almost immediately after sending out the twelve in Luke 9:1–2, Jesus further defines the nature of his ministry, associating his role as Son of Man with great suffering, rejection and death (Luke 9:18–22). Jesus then characterizes discipleship as following him to the point of death, by a “daily” taking-up of the cross (Luke 9:23–24). As Brawley notes (53), “Thereafter, every allusion to the identity of Jesus as the suffering one implies an analogous destiny for his disciples (9:44; 13:33; 17:25; 18:32–33).”
This united fate becomes explicit with the teaching in Luke 12:4–12. Here, the disciples are exhorted not to fear those who kill the body (12:4), and Luke adds mention of being brought before “synagogues, the rulers, and authorities” to connect this saying with the situations in Acts. Two other significant themes are foreshadowed in this passage. The Lukan teaching that everyone who acknowledges Jesus before others will be acknowledged by “the Son of Man” (cf. Matt 10:32) has its direct fulfillment in the trial and execution of Stephen in Acts 7:55–56, which culminates with Stephen proclaiming, “I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” (Tannehill: 1.245). Equally important is the promise of the Holy Spirit to teach them when they speak in defense (Luke 12:11–12; cf. 21:12–15), which is fulfilled both individually by Peter (Acts 4:8) and Stephen (Acts 7:55), and corporately by the whole church (Acts 4:31) (Tannehill: 1.246). As this last example shows, patterns of prophetic discipleship present already in the Gospel spill over into the presentation of the apostles and others in Acts.
Attention to narrative parallels between Luke and Acts reveals that Luke has carefully stylized his portraits of Stephen, Peter, and Paul in Acts to imitate Jesus’ own persecution, suffering, and rejection. Even the plight of the community as a whole (Acts 4:23–31) can be connected to the plight of Jesus (Gaventa 2003: 97–98). These christomorphic actions and events bind the narrative into an organic whole, pointing to the “messianic pattern inhering in the fabric of the narrative itself” (Moessner: 224).
Luke illustrates this pattern via the motif of the rejected prophet. Stephen, Jesus and Moses are united, not only as prophets mighty in word and deed, but also as prophets rejected by Israel. Stephen mentions the rejection of Moses (7:35, 39) and the rejection of Jesus, the prophet like Moses (7:52). After completing his speech, Luke narrates Stephen's rejection by the people (7:58), uniting the ancient and contemporary persecution of the prophets by characterizing it as repeated opposition to the Holy Spirit (7:51–52, 55).
The whole scene evokes details of Jesus’ trial and crucifixion. Proclamation regarding the Son of Man seated at the right hand of God (Luke 22:69; Acts 7:55–56) incites opposition in both episodes. Stephen's description in Acts 7:52 of Jesus as “The Righteous One” (tou dikaiou) whom the council has murdered reminds the reader of Luke's reconfiguration of the centurion's cry in Luke 23:47: “Certainly this man was righteous (dikaios)” (cf. Matt 27:54; Mark 15:39). Finally, Stephen's last two utterances recapitulate Luke's distinctive presentation of Jesus’ words from the cross. Stephen's prayer of “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts 7:59) echoes Jesus’ words of “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit” (Luke 23:46). Likewise, Stephen's plea for mercy for his persecutors (“Lord, do not hold this sin against them” [Acts 7:60]) restates Jesus’ plea for forgiveness of his adversaries in Luke 23:34 (“Father, forgive them”). The portrayal of Stephen in the image of Christ even extends to his appearance, his angelic face (Acts 6:15) evoking the transfigured visages of Jesus (Luke 9:29) and Moses (Exod 34:29) that reflect God's empowering presence amidst God's prophets. Inasmuch as ancient audiences often understood outward appearances as displays of inner character (Parsons), the similarity of description conveys significant information about the shared identity of Stephen and Jesus.
While Peter also experiences suffering and rejection (Acts 4:5–31; 5:17–41; 12:1–17), and even a deliverance that is in some ways evocative of Jesus’ resurrection (Luke 22:54–62; 24:11, 41) (Gaventa 2003: 185), it is Paul's final journey, arrest and trials that display the fullest embodiment of Christ in Acts (cf. Jacobson). Both Jesus and Paul undertake a final journey to Jerusalem, punctuated by predictions of suffering and death awaiting them there. Before their final journeys begin, they both take twelve disciples with them while they proclaim the kingdom of God (Luke 8:1; Acts 19:7–9). Just as the warning of Jesus’ impending death does not deter him from heading to Jerusalem (Luke 13:31–35) where he will be handed over to the Gentiles (18:31–34), neither does the prediction by Agabus (Acts 21:10–14) of the same fate for Paul lessen Paul's readiness to complete his journey. Along the way, both Jesus and Paul encounter significant opposition, which eventually leads to their arrest. Finally, just as Jesus’ example was paradigmatic for his followers, so too is Paul's praxis the model for the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:35) (Gaventa 2003: 291).
More striking is Luke's recasting of Jesus’ trials to fit the pattern of Paul's (Brown: 1.70, 74). In contrast to the three trials of Jesus in Mark and Matthew, Luke has four, which correspond to Paul's four trials. Both of the characters appear before the same kinds of officials, and in the same order: High Priest and Sanhedrin; Roman governor(s); Herodian King (Mattill: 33; O'Toole):
Several other aspects stand out. Both Jesus (Luke 22:66; contra Mark 14:17, 53) and Paul (Acts 22:30) appear before the Sanhedrin in the morning. The Sanhedrin brings three charges against Jesus, and likewise against Paul (Luke 23:2; Acts 24:5–6). Through the course of these trials, Jesus and Paul have their innocence affirmed by both a Roman official and a Herodian king, and both episodes conclude with a crowd shouting for the accused to be taken away (aire touton [Luke 23:18]; aire … ton toiouton [Acts 22:22]) to be killed (Brown: 70). Finally, despite their innocence, they are both sent off to their deaths, a reminder of the divine necessity that the Son of Man (dei … pathein [Luke 9:22; 17:25]) and Paul suffer (dei auton huper tou onamatos mou pathein [Acts 9:16]) (Jacobson: 135). Narratively speaking, these detailed parallels suggest that Paul's example is the faithful “re-incarnation” of Jesus’ prophetic ministry and obedience unto death, the consummation of Jesus’ “doings” in the Gospel. Taking the prophetic imitation of Christ in word and deed as a whole, François Bovon (222) concludes, “The flesh becomes Word: Jesus, the messenger, becomes the message. The flesh does not, however, disappear. It is the apostles who henceforth become the human and suffering bearers of what God wants to say to the world.”
Incarnational Ecclesiology in Acts
In light of this multi-layered, christomorphic presentation of the apostles and prophets in Acts, there are several additional features that suggest the embodiment of Jesus among the community in Acts. The repetition of summarizing growth statements connects John, Jesus and the corporate church. In Luke 1:80, regarding John it is said, “The child grew and became strong (ēuxanen kai ekrataiouto) in spirit.” Luke characterizes Jesus with the same language. Luke 2:40 states that Jesus “grew and became strong (ēuxanen kai ekrataiouto), filled with wisdom (sophia) and the favor of God (charis theo) was upon him.” Luke 2:52 reiterates the theme: “And Jesus increased in wisdom (sophia) and in years, and in divine and human favor (chariti para theō kai anthrōpois).” Luke also narrates similar statements regarding the church. Like Jesus, the first converts in Jerusalem have the favor (charin) of the people, while simultaneously experiencing growth (Acts 2:47). The second major summary of the early community in Acts 4:31–35 emphasizes the “great favor (charis te megalē) that was upon them all,” and Acts 6:7 highlights the growth (ēuxanen) of the word of God and the disciples (replicated in Acts 12:24). Acts 19:20 brings together elements of both growth and strength: “So the word of the Lord grew (ēuxanen) mightily and became strong.” These latter statements in particular resonate with those applied to John and Jesus. While this emphasizes the prophetic continuity between John, Jesus, and the church, it also suggests that in an essential way the church's growth parallels Jesus’ growth.
This idea that the church “is” Jesus occurs in episodes of conflict as well. Sapphira's offense against the apostolic community is characterized as “putting the Spirit of the Lord to the test,” highlighting the church's identity as the embodiment of the Lord's Spirit. Most significantly, in Paul's vision on the Damascus road, Jesus insists that Paul's persecution of the apostles and the church is actually a persecution of Jesus (Acts 9:4; 22:8; 26:15): “[Saul] fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?’ He asked, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ The reply came, ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.’” As we will see in the next section, it is difficult to underestimate the narrative importance of this threefold identification with the church from the risen Lord, not only in its repetition, but also in terms of the various audiences before whom this identification is made in the narrative.
The embodiment extends beyond persecution to include the essential actions of Jesus, including healing and salvation. For example, Peter says directly, “Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals you” (Acts 9:34), as if Peter himself were Jesus. Even salvation is mediated in part through the prophetic community. Through his editing of Mark and construction of Acts, Luke also creates space for the blood of those martyrs following Jesus to participate in God's redemptive activity. With respect to Jesus, Luke's omission of Mark's ransom statement (Luke 22:19; cf. Mark 10:45) diminishes the substitutionary character of Jesus death (Green 1995: 64), opening the door for others to imitate Jesus, to the same effect. Thus, Paul remarkably proclaims that the Lord has set him, Paul, as a light for the Gentiles (cf. Luke 2:32), in order that he may bring salvation to the ends of the earth (Acts 13:47). As we have seen, Luke illustrates this by having Paul's life imitate Jesus’—and vice versa. Similarly, Paul states in Acts 20:28 that God has purchased the church “through the blood of his own” (dia tou haimatos tou idiou). The phrasing leaves the referent open enough to include Jesus’ death and those who suffer in witness to him (Gaventa 2003: 291). These last examples provide perhaps the most suggestive evidence that ecclesiology has become Christology, that in a fundamental way the witnessing community has become the incarnation of the face of Christ and the vehicle of salvation for its generation.
Incarnational Ecclesiology and the Social Construction of Identity
Ultimately, the assertion that ecclesiology “is” Christology hinges on what the meaning of “is” is. That is, the sense in which “ecclesiology is Christology” is thoroughly conditioned by our understanding of how we define identity. As we noted earlier, the charge that Acts employs an “absentee christology” is also based in part upon the observation that Luke's ecclestiastical Christology is not presented in the radically internal, “mystical” way that Paul describes the indwelling Spirit and life “in Christ.” What has not been recognized, however, is the way in which this judgment assumes and privileges psychological and individualistic notions of identity (over against functional and relational ones). That is, because Luke does not describe the believer's spiritual union with God in Christ in an internal, individualistic (or modernistic) sort of way, interpreters have drawn the conclusion that there is a “gap” between the risen Lord and the believer, such that a substitute or locum tenens is required to be present in the Lord's exalted absence (e.g., Moule: 179–80).
On the one hand, this assessment is not entirely accurate, for the witnesses are repeatedly described as having been “filled” (eplēsthē) with the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:15; 1:41; 1:67; Acts 2:4; 4:8; 4:31; 7:55; 9:17; 13:9; 13:52). While this description is not accompanied by an articulation of the internal, psychological effects of this “filling,” we cannot say that there is a significant “gap” between the Spirit of Jesus and the believer. On the other hand, the general framework itself is problematic, for it seems to privilege conceptions of identity that are largely foreign to first-century readers. Malina and Neyrey's comments (1991a: 72) here are direct and telling: “The personal, individualistic, self-centered focus of contemporary American experience was simply not a concern to first-century Mediterraneans.” If indeed there is an “absentee christology” in Luke, it likely would not have been recognized by his first audience. Malina and Neyrey's “dyadic,” group-oriented model, although applied from the social sciences for historical rather than literary purposes, is much better suited for discerning the narrative characteristics of Jesus and the witnesses in Luke and Acts, especially as they may have been perceived by Luke's implied reader. This model defines a person relationally, especially in terms of connections with various social units. Hence, modern questions of individual “consciousness” as a self-determined construct separate from an individual's embeddedness in a particular social structure “make no sense in terms of dyadic personalities, who depend on others to tell them who they are, what is expected of them, and where they fit” (Malina & Neyrey 1991a: 73). In this model of a “collectivistic self” in which personal identity overlaps with a group (Malina 1996: 44–49), selfhood is defined much more by what one does and how one acts in social settings, and not by psychological, introspective reflections. Indeed, “biography is a description of a person's having fulfilled stereotypical roles that cluster to form a sort of typical prominent or deviant status” (Malina & Neyrey 1991a: 78). Viewed in this light, the “biography” of the church and its witnesses in Acts has tremendous overlap with the “biography” of Jesus in Luke (cf. Acts 1:1), again suggesting a type of incarnational ecclesiology.
Another important component of this socially-constructed identity is what Malina and Neyrey term “Labeling and Deviance Theory” (1991b). They focus on the social function that “naming” plays in defining identity, both positively and negatively. Significantly, “[i]f the labeling process succeeds, the alleged deviant will be caught up in the role indicated by the label and increasingly live out the demands of the new role. The new label comes to define the person … engulfing all other roles and labels” (Malina & Neyrey 1991b: 101). While Malina and Neyrey go on to explore the negative dimension of this dynamic, the positive functions are important as well. When applied to a narrative setting, we see many examples of “labeling” throughout Luke-Acts. In light of this dynamic, those instances where actions against the church are relabeled as being actions against Jesus (e.g, Acts 9:4–5; 22:8; 26:15) gain much greater significance, particularly when the speaker himself has supreme status in the eyes of the ideal implied reader, such as Jesus does (Acts 9:4–5). Again, applying this theory to the narrative of Luke-Acts, the witnesses and the church are portrayed as “living out” the prophetic role of Christ, in effect largely becoming defined by that role and label.
Thus, for Luke's implied ancient reader, what one does and how one acts, as well as how one is labeled by others, would all play a decisive role in defining one's identity. This construal significantly impacts the identification of Christological material in Acts. If we assume with the ancients that functional activity is interwoven with personal identity, then the imitation of Christ in prophetic speech and action by the disciples and the church speaks profoundly to its identity as Christ. Furthermore, if labeling also plays a constitutive role in identity definition, Jesus’ claim that Paul's persecution of the church is actually persecution of Jesus (Acts 9:4–5, et al.) likewise has strong implications for the church's “identity.” It is not surprising, then, that in Acts we find outsiders referring to the community with the term “Christian” (Acts 26:28; cf. 11:26), for in first-century terms this title is a clear identity marker, highlighting the functional similarities between Jesus and the church via their prophetic anointing. While a comprehensive and in-depth study of all the relevant passages is not possible in the space allotted here, the above analysis of the literary parallels showing how the church is identified in word and deed with the teachings and doings of Jesus gives ample supporting evidence relevant to ancient construction of identity. In the end, Luke does not allow us to make a rigid separation between resembling the person of Jesus and what we might call today “being filled with” the person of Jesus. Thus, “narrative Christology” becomes transformed into “incarnational ecclesiology,” such that for Luke the story of Jesus’ life is incomplete without the stories of those who embody him. Moreover, in light of the way that Luke shapes Jesus’ life to conform to Paul's, the story of Jesus’ life is likewise intertwined with and inseparable from those lives of his followers.
Neither Heroes nor Puppets: “Christian” Witnesses in Acts
To be sure, Luke does not completely erase the distinctions that remain between Jesus of Nazareth and his witnesses in Acts. The fallibility within the community, despite its Christological configuration, points to this fact. Thus, despite assertions of their unity, they are still susceptible to the type of duplicity represented by Ananias and Saphira in Acts 5:1–11. From this episode we also learn that Satan can penetrate and poison this Spirit-filled community. The dispute over the treatment of widows in Acts 6 is further acknowledgment of imperfection. They are not always clear about the direction they are being led, exemplified well by Peter's confusion and hesitation regarding the eating of unclean food in Acts 10. The church's resistance to the inclusion of the Gentiles is a pointed example of Christian resistance to God, in a manner not far removed from the story's other opponents to God (Gaventa 2003: 175). The council of Acts 15 confirms the presence of ongoing strife in the community, which continues with the separation of Paul and Barnabas in 15:36–41. Astonishingly, for the first time the Spirit of Jesus hinders and restrains the disciples, keeping them from their desired attempt to go into Bithynia (Acts 16:7). There are even conflicting interpretations regarding the counsel of the Spirit: Paul is convinced in the Spirit to go to Jerusalem (Acts 19:21), whereas the disciples in Tyre “through the Spirit” tell Paul not to go to Jerusalem (Acts 21:4), a sentiment shared by the narrator himself (Acts 21:12). Indeed, interpretations that proclaim unmitigated triumphalism in Luke-Acts must reckon with this substantial list of counterfactuals.
Given these ecclesial shortcomings, what then does it mean to claim that the church embodies Jesus in Acts? These examples reveal that the characters in Acts are neither heroes in their own right, nor simple puppets of God's sovereign instrumentality. Corporately and individually, they (like us) remain fallible, insuring that they themselves are never objects of celebration or worship in their own right, just as they are not relieved of the responsibility for aligning themselves with the pattern of Christ crucified. In fact, it is the very fallibility of the witnesses in Acts that reveals conformity to Christ's prophetic life and death as the norm of discipleship and ideal toward which followers of “The Way” press on—and at times perform. The very episodes of imperfection deflect light off of themselves onto the model they strive to follow, while highlighting the dialogical, open-ended character of the narrative and the yet-to-be consummated nature of God's kingdom. Like Luke's Jesus, faithful individuals and communities (in Acts and beyond) also must grow in wisdom (Luke 2:52), and like Jesus, they must strive to construct their identities with reference to Moses, Elijah, and other Hebrew prophets (especially Jesus). Ultimately, like Jesus they must commit their spirits to God (Luke 23:46; cf. Acts 20:32), and like Paul must live in the tension between current suffering and future hope.
Thus, “being Jesus” in Acts is not merely a “substance” individuals or communities possess infallibly or autonomously, but rather it consists of publicly embodying the fullness of Jesus’ prophetic ministry. Wherever this prophetic life is present, so too is Jesus (and vice-versa). Christologically speaking, while the fallibility of Jesus’ followers acknowledges that the fullness of the risen Lord transcends the boundaries of the community of faith, the narrative of Luke-Acts also insists that ecclesiology is an essential component of Christology, and that no portrait of Jesus is complete without images of those followers who continue the “teachings” and “doings” that Jesus had begun (Acts 1:1). Moreover, no study of Christology in Acts can focus solely on earlier traditions or apostolic speeches, but must also attend to the narrative Christology constructed via Luke's incarnational ecclesiology in Acts.
Conclusion
In both success and failure we see that Luke's incarnational ecclesiology is a dynamic process of becoming Christ in word and deed, especially in cruciform witness. Empowered by the Spirit, the “teaching” and “doings” of individual apostles and the community as a whole embody Christ in Acts, rendering him present in a diversity of persons and places. The shortcomings of the community remind the reader that this Christological presence, though real, remains partial. As such, Luke invites his readers as individuals and communities to make complete what has already begun (Kurz), to construct their own identities in the narrative pattern of Luke-Acts. As we have seen, this pattern extends before and beyond the boundaries of Luke-Acts, incarnating the “whole counsel of God” that began with the prophets of old, reached its paradigmatic completeness in the prophetic life and death of Jesus, and continues thereafter in those being conformed (and thereby transformed) into the likeness of Christ.