JCTR Bulletin 47 - The True Israel according to Luke

THE TRUE ISRAEL ACCORDING TO LUKE-ACTS

Scholarly studies of scripture open up to us not only deeper insights into the times of the writers but also clearer understandings of the relevance of the message to our day. Peter Bwanali, a Malawian Jesuit priest doing graduate studies in the United States of America, opens up the question of who belongs to the true Church and by what right, tracing the debate found in Luke’s Acts of the Apostles.

"So when they had come together, they asked him, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel? (Acts 1:6)". According to Luke, the metamorphosis of Israel into "Church" coincided with the relaxation of some Jewish laws, notably circumcision and food laws. The Lukan community was a key factor in the growth of Israel as Church. And the community was what was at stake when Luke wrote his Gospel and Acts. The term Church means a “community of believers and followers of Jesus Christ.” Luke also called them the People of God. On the other hand, the word Israel refers to the “Jews who followed Judaism as a religion.” But Luke also called them the People of God. So here arises the problem. Are there two “peoples of God”? No, because strictly speaking, for Luke, Church is Israel in its final act of its history.

“GOD-FEARERS”

The role of the Messiah was to restore the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:16; 15:14ff). The history of Israel is characterised by the people's constant opposition to God's actions. The climax of this is the rejection and murder of Jesus (Acts 2:23; 3:15; 4:10; 5:30 etc.). Apparently the death of Jesus did not signal the end of Israel, for otherwise there would have been no Church. And so in Acts, Luke is at pains to show how Jews were being converted to Christianity en masse. He gives numbers (Acts 2:41; 4:4).

In a sense one can say that Luke doesn't see a complete rejection of the Gospel by the Jews, rather a division over it. In the second section of Acts, Luke attempts to demonstrate that even Gentiles were being converted to the Christian faith. In this way Luke justifies not only the universal efficacy of the Christ event but also the importance of missionary activities by Christians. The prototype of these Gentile Converts is Cornelius (Acts 10-11).

For Luke these Gentile Converts were “God-fearers” who were related to Israel via the synagogue (Acts 13:43; 14:1; 17:4). The God-fearers already had the idea of a monotheistic faith and were generally pious people. Judith M. Lieu suggests that "there is no single definition of the God-fearer, no single set of criteria by which either we or contemporary society might classify them." Therefore the synagogue connection should not be stressed as a necessary part of being a God-fearer.

Further it is logical to assume that Christianity spread rapidly because the ground had already been prepared for it not simply by the existence of Judaism but by the possibility of partial assimilation to it. Lieu sees this assimilation from the point of view of morality rather than religion. Christianity stands in continuity with the revelation of God in the past history of Israel. This means that the experience of the Jewish people did not demand a radical reconstruction of its message in the Gentile mission, since the audience was already familiar or at least sympathetic to such ethics.

But such an explanation is not sufficient. What about the likes of converts such as Cornelius who certainly were not Jews? I think there is need for us to look for another explanation. The God-fearers in whose direction Israel developed were not necessarily attached to the synagogue as a religious institution. Lieu admits that there is little trace that these God-fearers were to be found hanging around the doors of the synagogue listening to the debates or preaching going on within.

In other words, I am arguing that if the incident of Cornelius came up in the Council of Jerusalem with the relaxation of circumcision and food laws as a result, then there is every reason to believe that the term God-fearer meant something different from the usual understanding. God-fearer may in part be Luke's literary portrait of what the ideal Gentile converts looked like. Thus Israel could in fact develop into Church well beyond the bounds of recognised Jewish influence.

CORNELIUS EPISODE

The conversion of Cornelius and his household (Acts 10:1-11:8) provides an interesting illustration of how Luke understood the development of Israel into Church. The story can be divided into two parts. First there is the account of how Peter was contacted and how he dared to enter the house of the Gentile Cornelius, and how the people received the Spirit even before he had finished talking (Acts 10). In this part we notice how the messengers describe Cornelius as "a centurion, an upright and God-fearing man, who is well spoken of by the Jewish nation…"

The messengers are obviously trying to win Peter over to their side. In other words they portray Cornelius as one who already has Israelite tendencies.

The second part is Peter's self-defence. He is accused of entering the house of a Gentile and eating with Gentiles. The first part of the story is indeed a preparation for the second part which is really what Luke wanted to say all along, namely, Peter's position vis-à-vis the Church of Jerusalem. This story leads us to ask in what way and at what time the Gentiles received a share in Yahweh's promises to Israel. The idea of the Gentile mission does not come from Peter. Instead it comes from God and the coming of the Holy Spirit is the proof.

The point is that salvation has come to the uncircumcised. The Gentiles are not Israel although they have been associated with Israel, for which reason circumcision remains for the Jews. A little clarification is due here. When Luke wrote Acts, it seems there was no proper mission to the Jews. So he had in some way to justify the Church's neglect of a Jewish mission while it still preached the Messiah of Israel.

Let me clarify this further. Luke believed that the Apostles had finished gathering the repentant Israel since according to him the missionary proclamation of the Gospel divided Israel into two groups: the repentant and the unrepentant, Christian and obdurate Jews (although the term "Christian" may not have been in use yet). In other words, the mission started with the necessary process of salvation, which is the exclusion of the unrepentant Jews from Israel. The Jews, who repented and believed in the Messiah became the purified, restored, Israel, the true Israel. The unrepentant portion of the "people of God" forfeited its membership to Israel.

“SUBSTITUTE” MISSION?

The Cornelius story is alluded to during the deliberations at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15: 7 and 14). At that Council, according to Luke, James concluded that the conversion of the Gentiles is the fulfillment of the promises to Israel. And so the Gentiles gained a share in the promises to Israel.

It is not an unsuccessful mission to the Jews that led to the proclamation of the Gospel to the Gentiles. The Gentiles were not a substitute for the lost people of God. Salvation history continues not only in the history of Jesus but also in the history of the people who represent Israel. Through the conversion of Cornelius and especially through the conclusion of James at the Council, Luke is able to describe how the preaching of the Word to Jews necessarily includes the Gentiles' share of salvation and that this is indeed a fulfillment of the promises to Israel.

Now let me draw a preliminary conclusion pertinent to the rest of the essay. It seems to me that Luke admits that the conversion and restoration of Israel is the basis for the Gentiles' seeking the Lord. Only when Israel has accepted the Gospel can the way to the Gentiles be opened. The fact that there is a section of unrepentant Jews is not a hindrance to the renewal of Israel. And so Peter represents Israel when he speaks to Cornelius. Since the Jews that came to believe in Jesus as the Messiah were those that were already zealous for the Law, they provided an empirical continuation of Israel in the Church. The Cornelius episode points to the fact that the restoration of the lost house of David has begun. For Luke, those who rejected the gospel are excluded from the people of God and have no right to the name "Israel".

Thus Luke is able to maintain that the Jewish people who repented are the true Israel. These are the Jewish Christians who formed the nucleus of the apostolic church. This nucleus was a historical necessity to provide a transition to what became predominantly a Gentile Christian Church. This group was evidence for the unity and continuity of salvation history. This is the "Israel" that shared its promises with Gentiles. Salvation became possible for the Gentiles thanks to some "practising" Jews who received the Gospel.

LUKE AND THE JEWISH PEOPLE

So far I have maintained that the few Jews that converted to Christianity provided an empirical link between the old Israel and the new one. Therefore it is safe to say that the successful mission among the Jews is in fact responsible for the conversion of the Gentiles. However it is important to recognize that there are as many diverse opinions about Luke's position on Jews as there are authors. For example L. M. Wills agrees with my position above. He thinks that Luke does not emphasize the failure of the Jews to convert but instead he stresses the success of the mission among the Jews thanks to which the opening of the mission to the Gentiles triumphs.

However, Wills acknowledges that the image of the Jews that Luke has painted is not always favourable. He observes that in Acts 6:8-15; 13; 14: 1-7, 19-20; 17:10-15; 18:5-17; 21 and 22 the Jews are depicted as disrupting the community. But in the same incidents Paul comes out as clean as a whistle, a peace loving, solid citizen unlike the Jews. This, says Wills, is due to the fact that Luke wants to exonerate the Romans and cast on the Jews the onus of guilt not only for killing Jesus but also for causing riots in the city.

To this extent Luke seems to have the same agenda as Josephus who constantly blames the Zealots for the riots in town. In effect, Wills is saying that despite this negative image, our focus should be on Luke's ultimate intention, which was to spread the Gospel. The Gospel spread among the Gentiles because the Jews were the primary recipients. However, another author, Robert Tannenhill, sees things in a in a different way. He says that the so-called "success" of the Jewish mission was in fact a failure seen as a tragic situation for Luke. In the Gospel Luke started out optimistically, but in Acts he realises that the Gospel is not successful among the Jews after all. Therefore the Lukan negative approach to Jews is out of pity for them. Luke is sad and sympathetic.

Wills and Tannenhill bring a problem into this essay. Did Luke really see the mission to the Gentiles as different from the one to the Jews? As I see it, Luke had a take-it-or-leave-it attitude. The Jews have heard the Gospel. They can take it and become members of the new Israel or they can leave it and thereby opt out of the People of God. It is in this light that the mission to the Jews is complete. Now is the time for another clarification. When it comes to the spreading of the Gospel, the words Jew and Gentile are not of primary concern for Luke. He would rather hang on to the word Israel. The mission of Jesus was a mission to Israel via repentant Jews.

ANTI-SEMITIC?

An opinion worth adding to this essay is that of Jack T. Sanders who is convinced of the anti-Semitic attitude of Luke. He is convinced that Luke has two points of view regarding the Jews. The first is that the Jews are a divided people, a divided Israel. On the one hand, there are Christian and non-Christian Jews. On the other hand, we cannot deny that in Luke-Acts we come across a blanket condemnation of the Jews. They are by nature congenitally obstreperous and opposed to the will and purposes of God and have been as a group, and as a nation, excluded from God's salvation. The preceding description is drawn from Luke’s Gospel.

Sanders is convinced that more than anywhere else, we find a reflection of Luke's own thought in the speeches in Acts. For example, from the speech of Stephen we have bitter words directed towards all the Jewish people. Peter too, accuses the Jews indiscriminately:

· …all the house of Israel, you crucified Jesus (2:26)

· …you crucified Jesus (4:10)

· …you apprehended him and hang him on a tree (5:30)

· …they did away with him by crucifixion (10:39)

Sanders has also lifted material from Acts where, through the Pauline speeches, Luke blames the Jews for the death of Jesus even when Paul is supposedly speaking to Jews outside Jerusalem. Thus it is that with the death of Jesus, Luke builds up the image of general Jewish guilt. To answer Sanders, F.J. Matera thinks that Sanders is reading these passages out of context. These passages are "contrast formulas" which aim at summoning repentance rather than coming down hard on the Jews. Besides, the Jews who seem to take the hammering are Jerusalemites. These are Jewish leaders and not the whole population. Jerusalem is a city that kills prophets.

No individual should really be blamed. Jesus was killed out of ignorance. The real sin is to refuse repentance, now that the Jews know him to be the Messiah through these contrast formulas. Whether Luke has anti-Semitic sentiments or not is an important topic of discussion, but unfortunately it is not relevant to my thesis. However, if Matera's contrast formulas are anything to go by, then we see how the conversion of the Jews is essential for the fulfillment of Israel since these empirical Jews are the fruit of the "contrast formulas" -- the building blocks for the new Israel.

PAUL, THE TEACHER OF ISRAEL

From reading the letters of Paul, especially the letter to the Galatians, we realise that the Paul we encounter in the Acts of the Apostles is a complete invention of Luke. According to Luke, Paul's mission was to testify to the resurrection to the Jews and not to the Gentiles as is popularly believed. Luke depicts Paul as the missionary to the Jews in Damascus (Acts 9:19), the Greek speaking Jews in Jerusalem (Acts 9:28) and in Antioch (Acts 13:4, 14, 42, 14:1). The Pauline mission in the synagogues continues right up to Rome.

For Luke the conversion of the Gentiles, where Paul is involved, is always in addition to the Jews. It is never in exclusion of Jews. It would seem then that the intention of Luke was to write a defence of Paul. The accusations against Paul can be summed up in this way: Paul teaches apostasy from Moses to the Jews everywhere in the Dispersion; there is no need for circumcision, no reason to live according to the custom of the fathers and the law (Acts 21:21). He teaches everywhere against the People, the Law and the Temple. Consequently Paul has sinned against the Law and the People of God. He is a false teacher in Israel (Acts 21:28; 28:17).

Luke takes it upon himself to quiet rumours concerning Paul. He does this through the Pauline speeches, which he (Luke) has carefully composed. Indeed the speeches do not contain any kerygma: no call to repentance or conversion, no scriptural proof, no appeal to eye witnesses. The object of the speeches is the person and activity of Paul and not Christianity. In the speeches Luke presents Paul as a Pharisee and a Jew who is faithful to the Law (Acts 22:3; 23: 1,5,6; 24:14; 2: 4-5). Nothing in the teaching of Paul is against the Jews. He behaves according to the Law and the Prophets and he teaches only what Scripture says (Acts 24:14; 26:22). He is charged for preaching about the resurrection, which ironically is fidelity to the Scripture!

In this way Luke makes Paul appear as the true Israel who is faithful to the Law and the Scriptures and above all one who teaches the resurrection which is the true hope of Israel. Paul is therefore first and foremost a missionary to the Jews and a founder of the Churches with Gentile Christian God-fearers (Acts 9:15, 20). Luke takes up the challenge to defend the image of Paul because if it is proved that the greatest part of the Church has links with a Jewish apostate then the Church will never be the restored Israel. The True Israel then is the Restored Israel, which both Jew and Gentile must join.

Peter Bwanali, S.J.
Marquette University
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA

Table of Contents | Next Article