Christoph W. Stenschke Lukes Portrait of Gentiles Prior To Their Coming To Faith 1999 PDF

CHRISTOPH W.
STENSCHKE
Luke's Portrait of Gentiles

Prior to Their Coming
to Faith
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen
zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe
108
Mohr Siebeck
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen
zum N euen Testament . 2. Reihe
Herausgegeben von
Martin Hengel und Otfried Hofius
108
~RTlBUS
m
UI$
.I'
c:
1801
Christoph W. Stenschke
Luke's Portrait of Gentiles

Prior to Their Coming to Faith
Mohr Siebeck
CHRISTOPH W. STIlNSCHKE, born 1966; 1987-92 studied theology in GieBen (FTA); 199397 Ph.D. in Aberdeen/Scotland; 1997 Guest Professor at the International Baptist
Theological Seminary in Prague; since 1998 minister of the Evangelisch-Freikirchliche
Gemeinde in Stralsund, Germany.
Die Deutschen Bibliothek - CIP-Einheilsarifnahme

Stenschke. Chrisloph w.:
Luke's portrait of Gentiles prior to their coming to faith /
Christoph W. Stenschke. - Tilbingen : Mohr Siebeck, 1999
(Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament: Reihe 2; 108)
ISBN 3-16-147139-3
1999 by J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), P.O. Box 2040, D-72010 Tilbingen.
This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted
by copyright law) without the publisher's written permission. This applies particularly to
reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems.
The book was printed by Druck Partner RObelmann GmbH in Hemsbach on non-aging
paper from Papierfabrik Niefern and bound by Buchbindcrei Schaumann in Darmstadt.
Printed in Germany.
ISSN 0340-9570
To My Wife
Pauline
Preface
This study is a revised version of a Ph.D. thesis with the same title presented to the University of Aberdeen, Scotland, in 1997. The original thesis
was accepted by the University's Academic Senate and the degree awarded
in May 1998.
Luke's portrayal of the Jews and the relationship between Jews and Gentiles has recently received much attention, while his portrayal of Gentiles
has been rather neglected. This book examines Luke's view of the Gentiles
and concentrates on his portrayal of their state prior to Christian faith. Following the introduction and survey of research (Part I) this is undertaken
in three parts. We commence in Part II with Luke's direct references to
Gentiles prior to faith. Here, as in the following sections, we study and give
equal weight to Luke's statements about Gentiles and to the way they are
presented in the narrative. In Part IH we gather conclusions from the Gentile encounter with salvation as to their state prior to faith. Most of our material comes from this area. A first section treats encounters between Jesus
and Gentiles in the Gospel of Luke (including the passion narrative). A
second section studies Luke's accounts of the Gentile response to the
Christian missionaries. A final section scrutinises Luke's notes on the state
of Gentiles prior to faith and on their appropriation of salvation. In Part IV
we gather some indirect clues regarding the situation of Gentiles prior to
faith based upon Luke's portrayal of Gentiles who had become Christians.
Such a comprehensive study of this aspect of Luke's anthropology, itself
a neglected field, has not been undertaken previously and constitutes a major contribution. This comprehensive approach is necessary to challenge
some previous contributions to Lukan anthropology. The main study in the
field (Taeger, Mensch), building on Conzelmann, suggests that for Luke,
people do not need salvation but rather correction. We argue that Taeger's
study and far-reaching conclusions do not sufficiently consider all the relevant evidence. By concentrating on the Gentiles in Luke-Acts (including
Samaritans and God-fearers) we are able to provide a comprehensive
study of all the relevant material. We conclude that Luke portrays Gentiles
prior to faith as being in a state requiring God's saving intervention. Thorough correction has to accompany and follow this salvation. This proposal
suggests that - at least for the Gentiles - Taeger's thesis should be modified
to read: Gentiles need both salvation and correction. The latter cannot re-
VIII
Preface
place the former. Though allowing for distinct Lukan emphases, this portrait is not essentially at odds with that of other NT authors.
Our examination also has a wider bearing on Lukan studies. It questions
Conzelmann's suggestion of Luke's moral-ethical understanding of sin. It
undermines a recent case against the theological unity of Luke-Acts by
showing its anthropological unity. It further shows that the Areopagus
speech needs to be and can be satisfactorily interpreted in its context and in
conjunction with Luke's other statements on Gentiles prior to faith. Our interpretation of the speech challenges the interpretive tradition of M. Dibelius and affums the proposals of B. Gartner. This also bears on the question
of whether the author of Luke-Acts knew and understood Paul. We further
argue that Luke's narrative sections should no longer be neglected in
favour of the speeches. Luke's portrait of Gentiles prior to faith provides
additional justification for the Gentile mission. Our study challenges proposals of Luke's alleged anti-Jewish stance and provides some hitherto little-noticed correctives.
Acknowledgements
I thank my wife Pauline for her support and the many hours of our young
marriage which she let me spend with Luke and the Gentiles. I came to Aberdeen to obtain an academic degree; I left with a loving wife as well.
I thank my parents, York Christian and Helga Stenschke, who generously
supported me. Without them the present work would not have come into
being.
During the time under Prof IH. Marshall's supervision I came to appreciate his vast knowledge of the field, scholarly acumen, clarity of thinking,
stimulating questions, careful criticism, his kindness, modesty and friendship.
In October 1992 Prof Marshall suggested that Lukan anthropology deserves more attention and mentioned the study of I-W. Taeger. I had met
Prof Taeger previously and had pleasant recollections of his kindness. Before leaving for Aberdeen I met him again. Taeger said that it is crucial for
any scholarly thesis to be discussed and gave me his last copy of Der
Mensch und sein Reil. Though only discussing part of the material he covered and challenging his conclusions, I look forward to his response.
I am grateful to the Arbeitskreis fUr evangelikale Theologie for having
granted me a scholarship for two years. With their financial support also
came interest and friendship.
I thank those who made my stay in Scotland a pleasant experience inside
and outside its vibrant academic life. These include members of staff, in particular Dr B. Rosner, fellow students at the Department of Divinity with
Religious Studies and the Ciampa, Wieland, Ho and McIntyre families. I am
thankful for the fellowship extended to me by Union Grove Baptist
Church and other churches in Aberdeen and on Shetland who invited me
to preach and shared their lives and homes with me. Last, but not least, my
wife's family warmly accepted me and made me feel part of the Donaldson
and Henderson clans.
Mr M.A.E. Gauld, Honorary Teaching Fellow of the Department, kindly
offered his proof-reading skills. With great care he ensured that what I
wrote - at least language wise - would make sense to English-speaking
readers. Needless to say, all remaining mistakes in language and content go
entirely on my account.
My gratitude is due to and for all the people mentioned here. Beyond
human confines, I am thankful for the opportunity and health to pursue
Acknowledgements
studies and for the privilege to do so at a time when others lacked the opportunity to pursue their interests in peace or under the circumstances and
in the surroundings which I enjoyed.
Mr Olaf Lange of Neckarsteinach produced the camara ready copy with
great skill. Mr Lange and the staff at Mohr Siebeck, Tiibingen, have been
helpful and a pleasure to work with.
I thank the Gerhard-Claas Studienfond of the German Baptist Union
for the substantial contribution they made toward the cost of preparing the
manuscript for pUblication. I am also grateful for the interest and encouragement which I received from the staff of the Theological Seminary of
the German Baptist Union in Elstal, Berlin, and from many friends far and
near during the revision of the original thesis.
June 1999
Christoph W. Stenschke
Hansestadt Stralsund, Germany
Table of Contents
L Introduction . .......................................... .
1. Introduction . ...................... '" ........... '" ..... .
2. Survey o/research . ................. " .................... .
2.1.
2.1.1.
2.1.2.
2.1.2.1.
2
2
3
The Gentiles in Luke-Acts ........................... .

Historicalissues and studies ......................... .
Theological issues and studies ........................ .
The 'Gentile problem' and the justification of the Gentile
mission ........................................... .
2.1.2.2. Neglect of the Gentiles - Focus on the Jews ............ .
Conclusion................................................ .
2.2.
The anthropology of Luke-Acts ...................... .
2.2.1. Varying approaches ................... " ., .......... .
2.2.2. The Areopagus speech and Lukan anthropology ........ .
2.2.2.1. M. Dibelius ........................................ .
2.2.2.2. B. Gartner ... -...................................... .
2.2.3. The quest for Luke's anthropology and related issues .... .
2.2.3.1. Ph. Vielhauer ...................................... .
2.2.3.2. H. Conzelrnann .................................... .
2.2.3.3. S.G. Wilson ........................................ .
2.2.3.4. J.-W. Taeger ............. , .......................... .
2.2.3.5. Recent Neglect .................................... .
2.2.3.6. M.C. Parsons and R.1. Pervo ......................... .
Conclusion................................................ .
9
14
14
20
24
25
28
34
36
42
44
50
3. Conclusion . ............................................. .
51
Il. Gentiles prior to faith . ................................ .
55
1. Introduction .. ........................................... .
55
2. The Gospel 0/ Luke . ..................................... .
55
Luke 4.26f. ........................................ .

Luke 10.12-14; 11.30,32 .............................. .
55
2.1.
2.2.
3
6
9
56
XIT
Table of Contents
2.3.
Luke 11.31 ......................................... .
2.4.
Luke 11.50f ............ " .......................... .
25.
Luke 12.29f ..................... " ................ "
2.6.
Luke 17.26-29 ...................................... .
2.7.
Luke 21.24-28 ...................................... .
2.8.
General references to human existence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
57
57
57
58
59
59
60
3. The Acts of the Apostles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
60
3.1.
3.2.
3.3.
3.4.
3.5.
3.6.
3.7.
3.8.
3.9.
3.10.
3.11.
Acts 2.23 ...........................................

Acts 4.25f. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acts 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acts 8.9-11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acts 12.20-23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acts 15.20,29; 21.25 ..................................
Acts 16.20-24; 18.2,14-17; 19.33f. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acts 19.23-41. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acts 24.6,14-16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acts 27.29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acts 28.4-6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
60
61
62
64
71
74
77
80
88
91
94
4. Conclusion . ....................................... , . .. . . .
97
Ill. The Gentile encounter with salvation ..................
103
1. Introduction . ......................................... , . "
103
2. The Gentile encounter with salvation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
104
2.1.
Luke's Gospel: contacts between Jesus and Gentiles. . . . . .
2.1.1. Gentiles and the ministry of Jesus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.1.1. Luke 6.17-19........................................
2.1.1.2. Luke 7.1-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.1.3. Luke 8.26-39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.1.4. Luke 9.52-56 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.1.5. Luke 10.1 ..... " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.1.6. Luke 17.11-19 .. . .. .. .. . .. .. . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.2. Gentiles and the death of Jesus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.2.1. The third passion prediction and its fulfilment
(Luke 18.32f; 23.26,33f,36-38) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.2.2. Pontius Pilate (Luke 3.lf; 13.1; 23.1-7,12-25,52) . . . . . . . . . . .
104
104
104
104
106
109
110
111
112
113
113
117
Table of Contents
XIII
Herod Antipas (Luke 3.19f; 9.7-9; 13.3lf;23.7-12) . . . . . . .

The Roman centurion (Luke 23.47). . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . .
The death of Jesus in retrospect (Luke 24.7,20;
Acts 2.23; 4.25-27) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.
Acts: The Christian Mission and the Gentiles. . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.1.
Introduction ...................................... .
2.2.2.
Philip's ministry in Samaria (Acts 8.4-13) ............. .
2.2.3.
The Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8.26-40) ................ .
2.2.4.
The conversion of Cornelius (Acts 10.1-11.18) ......... .
2.2.5.
The mission in Antioch (Acts 11.19-26) ............... .
2.2.6.
Sergius Paulus (Acts 13.6-12) ....................... .
2.2.7.
Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13.14-52) .................... .
2.2.8.
Iconium (Acts 14.1-6) .............................. .
2.2.9.
The events and speech at Lystra (Acts 14.7-20) ........ .
2.2.10.
Paul's ministry in Philippi (Acts 16.11-40) ............ .
2.2.11.
Paul's ministry in Athens (Acts 17.16-34) .. " ......... .
2.2.12. Paul's ministry in Ephesus (Acts 19.9-20) ............. .
Paul before Felix (Acts 24.22-27) .................... .
2.2.13.
2.2.14. Paul and his God - his fellow-travellers and their gods
(Acts 27.9-44;28.11) ............................... .
2.2.15. Paul's ministry on Malta (Acts 28.7-10) ............... .
2.2.16. Paul's ministry in Rome (Acts 28.30f) ................ .
Luke's portrait of Gentiles prior to faith .............. .
2.2.17.
2.2.17.1. The Gentile encounter with salvation ................ .
2.2.17.2. Gentiles and the devil. ............................. .
126
136
3. The state and salvation of Gentiles prior to faith. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
243
3.1.
3.2.
3.2.1.
243
244
2.1.2.3.
2.1.2.4.
2.1.2.5.
3.2.1.1.
3.2.1.2.
3.2.1.2.1.
3.2.1.2.2.
3.2.1.2.3.
3.2.1.2.4.
3.2.1.2.5.
3.2.1.2.6.
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The state of Gentiles prior to faith. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The state of Gentiles prior to faith in direct address
(Acts 26.16-29) ................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The preceding context (Acts 26.16f) . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Paul's message and ministry to the Gentiles
(Acts 26.18) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Closed eyes .................... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In darkness. . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Under the power of Satan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Away from God ........... , . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In need of forgiveness ................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Unholy and unbelieving. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
139
143
144
144
145
147
148
164
166
171
173
178
193
203
224
227
230
235
237
238
238
240
244
244
245
245
246
248
251
253
255
AtV
Table of Contents
3.2.1.3.
3.2.1.4.
3.2.2.
3.2.2.1.
3.2.2.2.
3.2.2.3.
3.2.2.4.
3.2.2.5.
3.2.2.6.
3.2.3.
3.3.
The subsequent context (Acts 26.19-29) ............. .

The conceptual background of Luke's description .... .
Other references to the state of Gentiles prior to faith ..
Under judgement ................................ .
Devoid of revelation ............................. .
In need of divine restoration (Acts 3.21) ............ .
Enmity (Acts 10.36) .............................. .
Spiritually dead (Acts 11.18; 13.46.48) ............... .
Unclean hearts (Acts 15.8f) ....................... .
Conclusion: The Gentile need of salvation ........... .
The appropriation of salvation by Gentiles: the
implications of Luke's statements about how
Gentiles are saved ............................... .
3.3.1.
Introduction ..................................... .
3.3.2.
God's activity in the Gentile appropriation of
salvation ........................................ .
3.3.2.1.
The background to God's salvation of the Gentiles ... .
3.3.2.2.
Indications of God's activity in the Gentiles' salvation ..
3.3.2.2.1. Luke 2.14; 10.21. ................................. .
3.3.2.2.2. Acts 11.18,21,23f.. ............................... .
3.3.2.2.3. Acts 13.48....................................... .
3.3.2.2.4. Acts 14.27; 15.3f; 21.19 ............................ .
3.3.2.2.5. Acts 15.8f,14,17 .................................. .
3.3.2.2.6. Acts 16.14............................... , ....... .
3.3.2.2.7. Acts 18.10... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.2.2.8. Acts 18.27. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.2.2.9. Acts 20.28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.2.2.10. Divine gifts .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.2.2.11. The grace of God ........ , . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.2.2.12. God's activity in the Gentile appropriation of salvation. . .
3.3.2.3.
1\vo Lukan themes and the indications of divine
activity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.2.4.
The devil and the Gentile appropriation of salvation. . .
3.3.2.5.
Absence of divine activity? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.3.
The Gentiles' activity in the appropriation of salvation. . .
3.3.3.1.
The Gentile appropriation of God's salvation. . . . . . . . .
3.3.3.2.
The Gentile rejection of God's salvation .............
3.3.3.3.
The God-fearing Gentiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.4.
The Gentile appropriation of salvation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
255
261
265
265
267
269
270
272
273
274
275
275
276
277
280
280
282
283
288
289
291
293
294
295
296
298
300
302
303
305
305
306
309
310
314
315
317
Table of Contents
XV
Iv. Clues from Luke's portrait of Gentile Christians to

Gentiles prior to faith. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
319
1. Introduction, .......................... , . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ..
319
2. Luke's Gospel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
320
3. Acts
322
3.1.
Luke's designations for Gentile Christians ............ .
3.1.1.
Saints .... ',' ................................... , ..
3.1.2,
Believers ..... , .................. , ................ .
3.1.3.
Disciples and wayfarers .............. , , ............ .
3.1.4.
Brothers ..... , ................................... .
3.1.5.
Christians .............. , .... , ................... , .
3.1.6.
The church .................. , .... , .... , .......... .
Conclusion ................... , .. , ......... , .. , , ........... .
3.2.
The difference made by the Spirit . , ............ , .... .
3.3.
The ministry to Gentile Christians ................... .
3.3.1.
Luke's emphasis on catechesis: Gentile Christians in
need of correction and instruction ........... , , , ..... .
3.3.1.1. Teaching Gentiles prior to faith .... , , ......... , ..... .
3.3.1.2. Teaching Gentile Christians .. , ........ , . , , , ........ .
3.3.1.2.1. Catechesis in the Antiochene church, . , . , , ..... , .. , .. .
3.3.1.2.2. Extended catechesis by the Antiochene church, , . , , ... .
3.3.1.3. Luke's own catechetical contribution ..... , . , , , . , .... .
3.3.2.
Luke's emphasis on pastoral care: Gentile Christians
in need of exhortation and encouragement ........ , .. .
The pitfalls and perseverance of Gentile Christians , ... .
3.3.3.
3.3.3,1. Luke 8.13-15 , ... , .. , ...... , ...... , ..... , ...... " ..
3,3.3.2. Acts 11.23. , .. , .. , ........ , .......... , , ......... , ..
3.3.3.3. Acts 13.43. ',' , ... , ....... , ............ , , ..... , , , .. .
3.3.3.4. Acts 14.22 .. , ... , ... , .. , ............ , ............. .
Structuring Gentile churches: ensuring continuous
3.3.4.
catechesis and pastoral care ......... , ......... , , ... .
Paul's legacy to the Ephesian elders (Acts 20.17-35) .... .
3.3.5.
Luke's sketches of Gentile Christians ................ .
3.4.
A non-Jewish Christian and sin (Acts 8.18-24) ........ , ,
3.4.1.
Antioch (Acts 11.28f) ................. , .......... , ..
3.4.2.
3,4.3.
Ephesus (Acts 19.18f) .............................. .
The hallmark of joy................................ .
3.4.4.
Worship of the Lord Jesus .......................... .
3.4.5.
Hospitality ....... , .. , ...... , , .. , ........ , . , ...... .
3.4.6.
322
322
323
325
328
330
331
332
333
335
335
336
337
338
340
343
344
347
347
349
350
351
352
354
361
361
366
367
369
371
372
XVI
Table of Contents
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
374
4. Conclusion . ...... , ............. '" .... , . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. .
375
V. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
377
1. Luke's comprehensive portrait of Gentiles prior to faith. . . . . . . . .
378
Ignorance .............................................
Rejection of God's purpose and revelation in history .. . . . . . .
Idolatry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Materialism............................................
Moral-ethical sins.. .. .. ...... . .. . .. . ... .. . .. . .. . . . . .. .. .
Under the power of Satan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Under judgement. .. . .. . .. . .. .. . . .. . .. . . . . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .
The God-fearers: Exceptional Gentiles? ...................
379
379
380
380
381
381
382
382
2. The theological significance of Luke's comprehensive portrait

of Gentiles prior to faith. ...................................
383
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
1.4.
1.5.
1.6.
1.7.
1.8.
2.1. The Gentile need of salvation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.2. Luke's understanding of sin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3. The state of Gentiles prior to faith - further justification for
the Gentile mission and admission to the church. . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4. Correction rather than salvation? Rather salvation and
correction? ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
383
384
385
385
3. Some methodological implications of Luke's comprehensive

portrait of Gentiles prior to faith. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
388
3.1. The vindication of a comprehensive approach: Luke's

'rhetoric' and narrative anthropology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2. The significance of Luke's anthropology ... , . .. .. . . .. . . . . ..
3.3. The Areopagus speech ..................................
3.4. On the 'Paulinism' of Acts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.5. Gentiles prior to faith and Luke's alleged anti-Judaism.. .....
388
389
389
390
391
Appendix: The portrayal of Gentiles prior to faith in Luke-Acts and

in the pseudo-Philonic sermons De Iona and De Sampsone. . . . . . . .
394
Table of Conlents
XVII
VI. Bibliography . .. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
405
1. Commentaries on Luke's Gospel and the Book of Acts.. . .. . . . . .
405
2. Other commentaries, monographs and articles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
407
Index of References .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
426
Index ofAuthors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
443
Index of Subjects . .... : .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . .. .. . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . .
450
Abbreviations
Abbreviations follow the Abkurzungsverzeichnis - supplement volume of
the Theologische Realenzyklopiidie (= Intemationales Abkarzungsverzeichnis fUr Theologie und Grenzgebiete: Zeitschriften, Serien, Lexika, Quellenwerke mit bibliographischen Angaben), ed. S.M. Schwertner, 2. ed. (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1994). I have used the following additional or divergent
abbreviations (full references in the bibliography, VI.):
A1CS I-VI
AlCSI
A1CS 11
AlCS III
AlCS IV
AncBD
AncBRL
BC //-V
Bell
BCIV
BeV
BDR
CRINT
DDD
DJG
DPL
EDNT
EVA
GNT
JETh
LN
LSJ
NEB
NRSV
NTG
NTIh
The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting

see Winter, B.W.
see Gill,D.W.l
see Rapske, B.M.
see Bauckham, R.
The Anchor Bible Dictionary, see Freedman, D.N.
Anchor Bible Reference Library
The Beginnings of Christianity
see Foakes Jackson, El
see Lake,K.
see Lake,K.
Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch,
see Blass, E
Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum
Testamentum
Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible,
see Toom, K. van der
Dictionary ofJesus and the Gospels, see Green, lB.
Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, see Hawthome, G.E
Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, see Balz, H.
Evangelische Verlagsanstalt
The Greek New Testament, see Aland, K.
Jahrbuch fUr evangelikale Theologie
s~e Louw, JP.
see Liddell, H.G.
New English Bible
New Revised Standard Version (1989)
Novum Testamentum Graece, see Aland, B.
New Testament Theology
xx
REI-XXIV
REIA-XA
RES I-XV
REB
Spicq I-Ill
WE
WEe
Abbreviations
Paulys Real-Encyclopiidie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, G. Wissowa, W. Kroll, K. Mittelhaus,

K. Ziegler (eds.) (StuttgartlMunich: IB. Metzlerl
A. Druckenmtlller, I, 1894 - XXIv, 1963)
Zweit~ Reihe (R-Z) of RE, (I, 1914 - X, 1972)
Supplementband of RE (I, 1903 -:xv, 1978)1
Revised English Bible
see Spicq, C.
Griechisch-deutsches Worterbuch etc., see Bauer, W.
Word Biblical Commentary
1 For the contents and dates of appearance of the individual volumes of all three series
cf. H. Glirtner, A. WUnsch, Real-Encyclopiidie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft:
Register der NachtriJge und Supplemente (Munich: A. Druckenmiiller, 1980),236. In quotations from the older volumes I have occasionally adapted the spelling to the conventions of modern German.
1. Introduction
1. Introduction
W.G. KUmmel defined one important question in New Testament anthropology as: 'How does the NT see the man to whom the message of Jesus
Christ comes?'.! Our more limited quest is for Luke's estimate of the Gentiles prior to Christian faith. 2 To use C. Burchard's words, we want to ask
'Was nach Lukas am unbekehrten Menschen eigentlich falsch ist'. 3 Though
other topics will be touched, this study is not about the Gentile mission or
questions of the relationship of Jews and Gentiles.
In this quest it has to be borne in mind that Luke's main topic is salvation. He indicates in the prologue to Acts (1.1-3) that the development of
an extensive anthropology is not his interest, rather his focus is on Jesus, on
'all that he did and taught from the beginning until the day when he was
taken up to heaven .. .'. Luke's own summary of the Gospel and his emphasis in Acts indicate that he does not provide systematic development and
presentation of anthropology. Much of the material relevant for his anthropology has incidental character.
We start with a survey and preliminary critique of some research done
on Luke's view of the Gentiles and of his anthropology as a point of departure for our investigation. This acknowledges our indebtedness to past
scholarship, paves the way for appropriating its pertinent questions and results and reveals some of the problems and notions which need to be considered or, perhaps, reconsidered.
1 Man, 16.
1 With 'Gentiles' we refer to the non-Jewish part of humanity, including Samaritans
and Gentile associates of Judaism. Luke's indications to the state of the Samaritans are
discussed in 11.3.4.1.; for the God-fearers cf. III.3.3.3.3., y'l.8. For the recent discussion of
terminology etc. cf. H.-W. Gensichen, 'Heidentum.1. BiblischlKirchenmissionsgeschichtlich', TRE XIV, (590-601) 590f. Even where not made explicit the words 'faith' and 'salvation' mean, unless otherwise indicated, Christian faith and Christian salvation. With
'Luke' we refer to the author of Luke-Acts; cf. the discussions of Fitzmyer, 35-53 and Aspects, 1-26; Thornton, Zl!uge.
3 'Review',38.
1. Introduction
2. Survey of Research
2.1. The Gentiles in Luke-Acts
Before we turn to research devoted to or touching upon Luke's anthropology and his portrait of Gentiles prior to faith, other issues concerning these
Gentiles and the research they attracted need brief consideration.
2.1.1. Historical issues and studies
Since the rise of modern scholarship there has been a continuous flow of
studies of Luke's report of the Gentile mission. 4 Also studies of the life and
letters of Paul examined this topic and the people whom this mission
sought to reach and did reach. Historical and often archaeological studies
dealt with the places visited, the missionaries and audiences involved, the
results, etc. While interest in these matters abated when the focus in Lukan
studies shifted to Luke's theology, it has never completely ceased, was often
combined with theological enquiry and currently experiences a resurgence. 5 In these studies the question of why the Gentiles were or had to be
evangelised and that of their previous state was usually not discussed at
great length.
Similarly, studies of mission in the NT often fail to address the state of
Gentiles prior to this encounter. In Mission in the New Testament F. Hahn
simply asserts: 'For the early church it was a matter of course that the gospel had to be proclaimed, and that therefore mission was necessary'.6
Hahn's section on Luke-Acts only summarises the relevant events. 7 No effort is made to gather and examine material indicating the condition of
people prior to that proclamation.8 Hahn suggests only in passing the need
4 Cf. e.g. Gasque, History, 107-200.

S Cf. Marshall, NT Guide, 83-99, with reference to the work of M. Hengel, G. Ltldemann and C.!. Hemer (pp. 86-91); cf. also e.g. Riesner, Frahzeit; Breytenbach, 'Zeus' and
Paulus and the new series AICS II-V.
6 Mission, 16.
7 Mission, 128-36; cf. the section on mission in early Christianity, pp. 47-68.
B E.g. Acts 26.18, a key statement on the condition of Gentiles prior to faith, is only
listed in a footnote; Mission, 131, n. 6. A similar picture arises in the recent entry by O.
Betz, 'Mission.III. NT', TRE XXIII,23-31 (pp. 31f for literature up to 1993). Cf. the recent article of EJ. Schnabel, 'Mission, Early Non-Pauline', Dictionary of/he Later New
Testament and Its Developments: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship,
eds. R.P. Martin, P.H. Davids (Downers Grove, Leicester: IVP, 1997), 752-75. This lack
also applies to P. Beyerhaus' exhaustive Er sandte sein Wort: Theologie der christlichen
Mission. Bd 1. Die Bibel in der Mission (Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus; Bad Liebenzell: VLM,
1996).
for this mission: ' ... all men in the same way are under sin and need redemption .. .'.9 A comprehensive picture ofthe Gentile state prior to faith
would enhance understanding of the necessity and nature of the mission
which seeks to address and redress it.
2.1.2. Theological issues and studies
In the study of Luke's theology the Gentiles as such have received little direct attention. However, a number of works address the theological aspects
of the Gentile mission, of the admission of Gentiles into the church and the
consequences for the relationship between 'Jews, Gentiles and Christians'.IO It has been suggested that clarification of these issues was among
the purposes of Acts. Says Marshall:
... a particular theme in Acts is to show that the church, composed of Jews and Gentiles, stands in continuity with the saving plan of God, as revealed in the Jewish Scriptures, that the church is the legitimate fulfilment of the hopes of Israel, and that the
principle that the Gentiles do not need to be circumcised is divinely willed and should
cause no problems for Jewish believers."
Several studies address what has been called 'the Gentile problem'l2 and
what was doubtless a Lukan concern. The inclusion of Gentiles raised crucial theological and practical issues, e.g. questions like 'Who are the people
of God, who belongs to them, why and hoW?' and that of table fellowship.13
Acts 15 reports the solution to a number of these questions and tensions:
' ... God saves Jews and Gentiles by faith in Christ, precisely as Jews and
Gentiles'.14
2.1.2.1. The 'Gentile problem' and the justification of the Gentile mission
We shall survey some suggestions of strategies employed by Luke to address and solve problems raised by the Gentile mission and their admission
to the church. Studies of these strategies contribute to our quest, though
9 Mission, 165. Hahn's definition of mission in the NT does not include reference to
the recipients' needs (Mission, 173), though he includes 'salvation' and 'God's redemptive deed', which both imply a plight to which they are the solution.
10 So the chapter heading of Maddox, Purpose, 31-65.
11 NT-Guide, 45; cf. Buckwalter, Character, (41-57) 51-53 for survey and criticism of
various positions.
12 So Green, Theology, 125. Green defines it as 'The possibility andlor conditions of
God's full acceptance of persons from all nations, whether Jew or Gentile'; cl. Marshall's
survey in NT-Guide, 74-76; Conzelmann, Mitle, 1981.
13 Cf. Marshall, NT-Guide, 7lf; Green, Theology, 88; Esler, Community, 71-109 (for
Marshall's summary see NT-Guide, 41f).
I~ Marshall, NT-Guide, 73.
1. Introduction
Gentiles as such are not their main concern. What questions concerning
Gentiles are raised which we could carry further? As several surveys of research are available a selection suffices.
1. It has been observed repeatedly that 'salvation is now extended to the
Gentiles and Samaritans; this is so because the extension is envisaged by
Luke as having been part of God's promises to Israel from the beginning'.15
1. Dupont noted the significance of the OT for the Gentile mission and its
legitimacy:
Thus if it is true, that the evangelization of the Gentiles fulfils messianic prophecies, it
is equally true to say that the messianic prophecies guarantee the legitimacy of such
evangelization .... the Scriptures themselves justify the Christian mission among the
pagans, for they require this mission as the continuation of the salvific work of Jesus,
the Christ.!
From a different point of departure D.L. Bock concludes that

a major portion of Luke's purpose ... is related to a christological justification of the
Gentile mission .... Because Jesus was Lord of all, any Gentile rightfully belonged to
what was no longer just a Jewish religious group, but a new stage in God's work of salvation extending to all men.17
This universal lordship, established through the Scriptures is the cause and
theological justification for the Gentile mission. Jesus' position, 'proclaimed in the Scriptures as well as being verified both by event and his
own teaching ... as Lord of all men makes it clear that the offer to Gentiles
is part of the salvation that Jesus brings'.la Bock fails to note why what had
been so clearly foretold was necessary or to consider the state of the Gentiles implied by these assertions.
Bock identifies Luke's use of the aT in relation to the Gentile mission as a fruitful field
for further research.!' We shall examine how the aT contributes to Luke's portrayal of
Gentiles prior to faith and to establishing the need for the Gentile mission. aT quotations and allusions make a significant contribution to Luke's portraya!.'"
15 Fitzmyer, 188 and Aspects, 175-202; cf. the above quotation from Marshall, NTGuide, 45; Squires, Plan, (121-54) 146-53; Dupont, 'Salvation' , 13.
16 Dupont, 'Salvation', 32f.
17 Proclamation, (231-40) 238 (cf. pp. 277-79); cf. Buckwalter, Character, 20f. Bock,
Proclamation, 237f argues that after Acts 10.34-43 'all the remaining block quotations
from the aT in Acts, with the exception of Paul's christological proclamation in Acts 13,
relate either to the justification of the Gentile mission or to the threat of Israelite rejection by God as a basis for moving on directly to the Gentiles'.
18 Proclamiztion, 277 (italics mine); cf. pp. 235, 274.
19 Proc/amation,278.
20 Cf. e.g. Acts 4.25f; 13.47; 26.18. In several instances Bock's Lukan aT christology is
paralleled by an anthropology of the same origin.
2. The significance of the OT for this issue has been set within a larger
theme. I. Squires argues that the 'theme of the plan of God is used in a con-
sistent manner to justify' the Gentile mission:

... the mission to the Gentiles is consistently presented as a part of the divine plan. It
was foretold by Jesus ... and is further undergirded by the signs and wonders performed by those engaged in mission. The necessity of Paul's call to mission amongst
the Gentiles and the necessity of his journeys strengthen the claim that God has been
at work in the Gentile mission.l1
The necessity and legitimacy of the Gentile mission is established through

various epiphanies, interspersed in Luke's account, which demand and legitimise the Gentile mission. 22 Luke also shows through fulfilled prophecy
that the Gentiles' salvation and inclusion is according to the plan of God:
The two crucial events of Luke's history, namely the passion of Jesus and the mission
to the Gentiles, are each authorised and guided by prophecies given in both written
and oral form .... Thus any claim that these central components of the Christian faith
... are notfounded in antiquity and are therefore not part of the divine plan, is to be
finnly repudiated.23
This is achieved through Jesus' predictions concerning the mission to the

Gentiles, through the prophecies of the Scriptures and the predictions spoken by Plml.24 The events which Luke reports 'are indeed willed by God'.25
Luke went to great lengths to establish the legitimacy and even necessity
of the Gentile mission. Yet, why was this mission part of God's ancient plan,
and what state of the Gentiles does it seek to address? The same Scriptural
prophecies of Scripture and epiphanies that indicate the plan of God also
provide some answers to these questions.
3. I. Jervell focuses on the relation of Israel and the Gentiles in his essay
'The Divided People of God: the Restoration ofIsrael and Salvation for the
Gentiles'. Obedient Jews have accepted the gospel and can now bring it to
the Gentiles and fulfil God's promises to Israel that Gentiles would join
them in the end-time. The motivation is the previous acceptance by Jews
and fulfilment of prophecies for Jews: 'Gentiles do not appear until the restoration of Israel and the fulfilment of the promises to the people of God
have occurred'.26 The new element in the salvation which Luke describes is
21
Plan, 187; cf the examples provided there. Previous quotation from Plan, 188.
Plan, (103-20) 116-20.

Plan, 154. For the predictions concerning the passion of Jesus see pp. 139-46.
24 Plan, 146-53. Of the predictions of Jesus which Squires treats, only Luke 24.44-47 addresses the Gentiles to be evangelised.
2S Plan, 153.
.
26 'Divided People', 56; cf. also Jervell's essay 'Law' (summary in Marshall, NT-Guide,
75; Fitzmyer, 191; Maddox, Purpose, 36) his Theology and his commentary Die Apostelgeschichte, 17. ed.,KEK III (GlIttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998).
22
23
I. Introduction
not that Gentiles can be saved but that they are saved as Gentiles. However, why this salvation is necessary, why Gentiles were excluded previously and had to enter the people of God, why their previous lives were
not acceptable or what it implies for Gentiles that the Jews are the people
of God is not considered.
4. R. Maddox argues that Luke's aim was to show
that the breach between Judaism and Christianity is not due to the Christians. He
wants to emphasise that the Christians ... cannot resist God when he so clearly intervenes to show them that a new era has arrived, in which the Gentiles have fuIl access
to his grace.17
But why would Gentiles need access to God's grace? What does Luke say
about their 'old' era? Why was salvation offered to them? Does its offerimply its necessity? What does it imply about their previous state that now
Gentiles are indeed 'welcome within the fellowship of God's grace'?28
Maddox does not raise these questions. He suggests that Luke addresses
the uncertainties of his readers to confirm them, but the obvious theological problem of the Gentiles presumably did not include uncertainties about
the Gentiles' state prior to faith or their need of salvation.
This brief survey confirms Jervell's observation that where the Gentiles
appear in current research, it is usually in the context of 'how Luke deals
with ecclesiology, the question of the identity of a church which is heir to
the promises given to Israel, a church which claims to be Israel and yet still
included uncircumcised Gentiles within its membership.'.29 It is beyond our
scope fully to present and assess these and other valuable studies and the
issues they do address. Rather, the neglected and yet significant questions
which we have repeatedly identified, indicate the issues we seek to pursue.
2.1.2.2. Neglect o/the Gentiles - Focus on the Jews
To conclude our survey of studies touching on Luke's references to the

Gentiles, it is worth noting that the Gentiles have generally received little,
let alone comprehensive attention in NT Studies.3o
27 Purpose, 39; cf. Buckwalter, Character, 51-53. For Luke's demonstration of God's initiative in the Gentiles' salvation cf. Marshall, NT-Guide, 70-72.
2lI Purpose, 56; cf. pp. 181,186.
29 Luke 17
30 An e~ce~tion is R. Dabelstein, Die Beurteilung der 'Heiden' bei Paulus, BET 14
(Frankfurt am Main, Berne, Cirencester: P.D. Lang, 1981). T.L. Donaldson, Paul and the
Gentiles describes the development of Paul's convictions concerning the law-free mission to the Gentiles rather than Paul's view of the Gentiles; cf. my forthcoming review in
CBQ.
H.-W. Gensichen's entry 'Heidentum. 1. BiblischlKirchenmissionsgeschichtlich' in the

Theologische Realenzyklopildie seems representative of a general trend.'! While other
entries of biblical origin in this exhaustive work usually contain extensive sub-sections
on OT, Judaism, NT, etc. 31, treatment of the Gentiles is limited to twelve pages. This includes about one page on 'Biblische Perspektiven', a few lines of which are devoted to
Jesus' view on the Gentiles.33 Most space is given to Paul's perspective." Acts is not mentioned at all despite its significant contribution to the Biblical estimate of Gentiles.'S
Apart from the issues mentioned above, only a few of the passages of LukeActs concerning Gentiles or relevant for their assessment are usually examined for their theological contribution. Their study is often not directly
concerned with the portrayal of the Gentiles as such and rarely are the respective selections related to a more comprehensive picture of Gentiles
prior to faith. 36 In view of such general neglect or of only limited attention,
further research in this significant subject is justified.
A notable exception to this common lack of attention is H.-I Klauck's
recent study of Magie und Heidentum in der Apostelgeschichte des Lukas.
In this popular and brief volume (141 pp.), Klauck examines Luke's reports
of the encounters of the Christian mission with Gentiles. The scope is similar to our section llI.2.2. Klauck offers excellent treatment and fresh in-
31 TRE XW (1985), 590-601; cf. 1. Sievers, 'Heidentum. n. JUdentum', pp. 601-05. I-C.
Fredouille, 'Heiden', RAC XIll, 1113-49 is more versatile (cf. outline cols. 1113f), though
'A.III.NT' (1117-19) and 'B.I1I.NT' (1131-33) are still brief. The latter contains a subsection entitled 'c. Der "Volkerapostel" Paulus', which includes 30 lines on the 'Theologie
des Heidentums', col. 1132. Acts 14.15-17 and 17.22-31 are treated here with the Pauline
evidence. Whether Luke has a contribution of his own and beyond these obvious passages is not considered ('a. Jesus und die "Volker'" mentions Luke 12.30, 'b. Die Urgemeinde und die "Volker'" summarises the development of Acts 8-15 in 16 lines). Cf. the
entries of A. Vogel, 'Heiden'; E. Neuhllusler, 'Heidenbekehrung', 'Heidenchristen'; K.
Rahner, 'Heidentum' in LThf<2 V,67-76 and H.-1. Findeis, 'Heiden. 11. NT', 'Heidenchristen', LThK WJ (1995),l253f,1256f.
32 Cf. e.g. the entries 'Gebet' (vol. Xll. 31-103); 'Ehe, Eherecht, Ehescheidung' (IX,
308-62); 'Eid' (IX,379-99) and 'Eigentum' (IX, 404-60).
33 P. 591.48-592.3.
.
)4 P. 592.4-19.
35 We shall find similar neglect of Luke-Acts in the entry 'Mensch.IV.NT' of the same
work; cf. 1.2.2.3.5.
36 An instructive example is the treatment of Acts 4.12 or 10.35 in discussions of the relationship of Christianity to other religions. Compare e.g. the references to Acts in the
papal encyclical letter Redemptoris Missio and in Christianity and Other Faiths: An Evangelical Contribution to our Multi-Faith Society, ed. Evangelical Alliance of Great Britain
(Exeter: Paternoster, 1983) or the discussions of Pinnock, 'Acts 4.12' and Bock, 'Atheni-
ans'~
1. Introduction
sights, often deriving from his thorough grasp of background knowledge. 37

For the material he covers, the author provides a significant and exemplary
study. As far as we know, Klauck takes the prize for writing the first monograph-length study of the Gentiles in Acts. 38 However, a glance at our own
outline indicates that Klauck did not consider the Lukan portrait of Gentiles comprehensively, neither does he specifically analyse Luke's portrait
of Gentiles prior to faith. Where Klauck's work overlaps with ours, we shall
often confirm his conclusions; yet because of our more comprehensive perspective and a more narrow focus we shaII also want to supplement his
study and venture beyond it. We shall later discuss S.G. Wllson's The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Acts (ct. 1.2.2.3.3).
Hand in hand with this general neglect of Gentiles, and specificaIIy with
the dearth of comprehensive studies of the Gentiles in Luke-Acts, comes a
recent interest in the stance of the NT on Judaism. This development reflects the increasing wider discussion of the relationships between Jews and
Christians. 39 As a consequence, Luke's portrayal of the Jews also receives
more attention. Accusations of anti-Judaism are leveIIed at Luke4o, while
other scholars clear Luke of this accusation. 41 Though we confine our study
to Luke's Gentiles, so that a full comparison of his portraits of both groups
is not possible within the present framework, our quest contributes significantly to this current discussion of Luke's stance on Judaism. Not only do
we address a neglected Lukan field, but Luke's portrayal of the Gentiles
can be compared to that of the Jews. The Gentiles on Luke's pages form far
too convenient a 'test-group' to neglect. Is Luke possibly as much anti'Gentile' as he is accused of being anti-'Jewish'? Does his portrayal of the
Gentiles indirectly commend the Jews (ct. III.3.3.3.3.3.)? Had Luke's Gentiles received more attention and been kept in mind, some hasty conclusions could have been avoided.
37 Cf. Klauck's recent study Umwelt; cf. the review by H.D. Betz,JBL 116,1997,357-59
and my review in European Journal of Theology 7, 1998, 134-37.
38 Cf. the detailed summary and evaluation in my review in NT 40,1998, 395f. Klauck's
volume came to my notice too late to interact consistently with it in section II.3. and
III.2.2.
39 For a survey see e.g. Fisher, Destinies.
oW E.g. Sanders, Jews (cf. Marshall, NT-Guide, 74f; Maddox, Purpose, 32f); for a summary see Rese, 'Juden'; Weatherly, 'Anti-Semitism', DJG, 13-17; Stenschke, 'Bedeutung',
142-46.
41 E.g. Weatherly, Responsibility; cf. also Fitzmyer's summary of Luke's 'partiality for
Israel' and her 'priority in the plan of God's salvation-history' (pp. l8Sf) and the balanced survey of Luke-Acts in Schreckenberg, Texte, 93f; compare his extensive, though
somewhat jumbled bibliography of the debate in NT Studies (1995), pp. 750-56.
Conclusion
We have identified a lack of attention to the reason and need for the Gentile mission and their admission to the church and to the view of Gentiles
prior to these events. Significant questions have not been sufficiently dealt
with in previous research. The study of Luke's interest in the Gentile mission and admission would be enriched by a clear apprehension of the Gentiles' state prior to faith. Answers in this area would also throw light on
some problems arising once Gentiles come under faith.
Study of the Gentiles in Luke-Acts has either been neglected or confined to certain current issues and/or a limited number of passages. A comprehensive investigation of Luke's view of Gentiles prior to faith is not
available. The need and value of such a study has become apparent. Luke
offers unique features for such study. Though his gospel does not contain
some encounters of Jesus with Gentiles found in other gospels (e.g. Mark
7.24-30), in Acts Luke offers material without equal elsewhere in the NT.
Though Luke does not present systematic reflections like Paul's42, his narrative portrayal of Gentiles prior to faith and otherwise is unique.
2.2. The anthropology of Luke-Acts
We now turn to some studies of NT and Lukan anthropology. This is the

other main area of Luke's theology to which our quest belongs and under
whose auspices some of the relevant material from Luke-Acts has been
studied previously. This will include contributions on Luke's natural theology and some studies which, while pursuing different questions, touch on or
influence the discussion of Luke's anthropology. A careful look at the respective methodological approaches will help us to develop our own procedure and avoid some pitfalls of the past.
2.2.1. Varying approaches
1. In the discipline of New Testament theology Luke-Acts used to receive
little attention. 43 In the traditional approach Luke was primarily seen as
the recorder and source of the teaching of Jesus, and of the theology of the
early Jerusalem community (indicated mainly by the Petrine speeches if
these were not included with the epistles of Petef"4) and of Paul's theology.
Thus, strictly speaking, there was little, if any 'Lukan theology' acknowledged or left to be treated in a category of its own.
Cf. n.R. de Lacey, 'Gentiles', DPL, 335-39; Stuhlmacher, Theologie I, 268-83.
Compare the surveys of WeiB, Lehrbuch, 15-30 and Goppelt, Theologie, 19-51.
44 Cf. WeiJ3,Lehrbuch,l1S.
4Z
43
10
I. Introduction
This approach can be observed e.g. in B. WeifJ' Lehrbuch der Biblischen Theologie des
':!euen Testaments. Luke's contribution appears in 'Die Lehre Jesu nach der 1Iltesten
Uberlieferung' and 'Der urapostolische Lehrtopos in der vorpaulinischen Zeit', containing a section on the speeches of Acts ( 38-43). Paul's speeches to Gentile audiences appear under the heading 'Der Paulinismus' ( 69f). 'Der urapostolische Lehrtopos in der
nachpaulinischen Zeit' contains a paragraph on 'Die Lucasschriften' and 'Der Paulinismus des Lucas' ( 137_39).4s
2. Later students did not share the convictions of Weill and others on
sources and the authenticity of the speeches of Acts. As many scholars
studied what came to be called the Hauptzeugen of NT theology 46, more
of Luke vanished. The Gospel was usually included (with Matthew and
Mark) in the sections on Jesus. References to Acts were limited, as separate sections on the theology of the early church were mostly brief and
narrowly focused on its early chapters. The later speeches of Acts - now
usually evaluated as Lukan creations - no longer appear in the Pauline
section. Though in general NT theology this trend towards neglect of
Luke has been checked by the post-war re-discovery of Luke the theologian (cf. the surveys of Bovon, Gasque and Rese), examples for NT anthropology are available. 47
3. An example of this selective approach is H Wheeler Robinson's study
The Christian Doctrine of Man. Robinson devotes 82 pages to the 'New
Testament Doctrine of Man' (68-150). Subsections treat the Synoptic
teaching of Jesus (containing all the references to Luke's Gospel), Pauline
and 10hannine anthropology. Of Luke's second volume only Acts 2.16 appears in the index. 48 Explaining his restriction Wheeler Robinson writes
'Besides these principal conceptions, there are anthropological references
in the rest of the NT literature of great interest and raising great issues, but
too isolated in their setting to have had much historical influence' and lists
as examples Jas 1.13-15; Heb 6.4-6; 2.14f; 1 Pet 3.19[49 Apparently passages
4S Apparently WeiB saw no contradiction between the material contained in LukeActs and the various writings in combination with which he treats it.
46 E.g. KlImmel's Theologie des Neuen Testaments has the subtitle noch seinen Hauptzeugen Jesus - Paulus - Johannes. Despite this limitation Kllmmel includes a section on
'Der Glaube der Urgemeinde' (pp. 85-121) in which - with few exceptions - the references to Acts appear.
47 For examples cf. Schnelle, Anthropologie and 'Forschungsbericht', Literaturverzeichnis IV.;H. Hegermann, 'Mensch.IVNT', TRE XXll,49lf;Kllmmel,Man, 13f, n. 5.
48 P.378.
49 P. 76. Historical influence does not necessarily indicate significance. Wheeler Robinson's entry 'Man', DAC ll, 3-7, contains subsections on Pauline and 10hannine anthropology and on 'non-mystical anthropology' (containing James, Hebrews and 1 Peter). The
introduction contains some general remarks on Jesus' view of people; not a single reference to Acts is found.
11
from Luke-Acts are not considered to be of great interest or to raise great

issues in anthropology.so Yet Robinson's assessment of the significance of
Luke's contribution to NT anthropology did not remain unchallenged.
4. W. G. Kilmmel's study Man in the New Testament deserves more attention
as he assesses Luke's contribution more carefully and also as its approach
and underlying assumptions reflect the agenda of other research. Kiimmel's main headings are 'Jesus in the Synoptic kerygma' (18-37), Paul (3871), Johannine theology (72-82) and a final section on 'The other writings
of the New Testament' (83-96). Luke's Gospel is included in the section on
Jesus. All the references to Acts appear on two pages of the final section. 51
The manner in which conclusions are drawn indicates that Luke's anthropology does not differ from that of other NT authors:
The few references to man in the remaining writings of the New Testament accord
with this general picture. The presupposition of every form of proclamation is the fact
that all men are sinners, and therefore in need of forgiveness from God. This common
sinfulness of man does not depend upon man's entanglement by material things as inner and outer man are equally sinful: 'We all once walked in the passions of our flesh,
following the desires of body and mind' (Eph 2.3; cf. Eph 4.17f; Tit 1.15; Heb 10.22; 1
Pet 3.21). Rather do all men belong to this present evil age (2 TIm 4.10; Tit 2.12) in the
service of tbe Ruler of this age (Eph 2.1; 6.12; Heb 2.14), and are thereby liable to
death (Acts 11.18; Eph 2.1,5; Heb 2.l4f). Man, immersed in the present world, is in
every way different from and separate from God {Acts 5.4; 14.15; Heb 6.16f; 7.8; 8.2; 1
Pet 4.2; 2 Pet 1.21}, and is rusbing hopelessly toward the imminent judgement of God
(Heb 6.2; Jas 5.9; 2 Pet 2.9; 3.7; Acts 20. I I!) . ... Thus we may say that there is a homogeneous conception of man in the NT underlying all the differences in detail.S2
As in Wheeler Robinson's treatment Luke's anthropology is either not

considered distinctive at all or not distinctive enough to deserve treatment
on its own. 53 Yet immediately following the above statement, Kiimmel singles out two passages which diverge from his general picture. One of them
is Lukan and concerns Gentiles prior to faith, the other passage is 2 Pet 1.4.
In Acts 17.27-29, Kiimmel sees 'the idea of every man's kinship with God
which works itself out within his natura/life in God'.54 He concludes that
this is 'completely strange within the context of the other expressions of the
NT concerning man'.
so With Schnelle's recent Neutestamentliche Anthropologie we shall return to this approach.
Si Man, 84f; according to the index, p. 98.
52 Man, 83-85,87 (italics mine). This conclusion is not due to a failure on KUmmel's part
to recognise a distinct Lukan theological contribution. In the foreword to the English
edition of 1963 KUmmel states tbat 'the statement of the matter as it stands in the first
edition (1948) is still valid, and I would not wish to alter it', thus confirming his earlier results when the debate on Lukan theology was well under way.
n Cf. Wheeler Robinson, Doctrine, 76.
54 Man, 88 (italics mine); for 2 Pet 1.4 see pp.92f.
12
I. Introduction
Kummel's reasons for this conclusion are instructive. Obviously, they depend on the exegesis of these verses and a presupposition as to their origin.
Says Kummel:
The thought of God's kinship to man is in Acts 17.28 another expression of the fact
that man leads his life 'inside' the Godhead. Both ideas, that of the nature and existence of the world and thus of man in God, and that of man's kinship to God are of
Stoic origin, and there is nothing to correspond to them in the NT.SS
Other interpretations of the expression are dismissed. 56 For Ktimmel the

strangeness of these verses to the NT is hardly surprising:
It is only natural that the Areopagus speech should contain a Hellenistic understanding of man in relation to God. For the Areopagus speech is, as M. Dibelius has
conclusively shown, 'a Hellenistic speech concerning the true knowledge of God',
which stands alone within the NT in its whole tone and in many of its expressions, and
which can only be seen as the precursor of the philosophical theology of the secondcentury Apologists.S7
Kummel concludes: 'The stoic-pantheistic understanding of man in Acts

17.28 cannot be brought into harmony with the rest of the NT' .58 What conclusions does Kummel draw from his observation?
55 Man, 89; with further reference to the studies listed in KUmmel's n. 99. Almost identical to KUmmel is K.H. ScheIkle's treatment of NT anthropology. He discusses the
Synoptics (Theology I, 98-110), Paul (111-41), John '(141-55) and 'The Rest of the Scriptures' (155-61). This sections contains a page on the Areopagus speech (157f). However,
Schelkle's conclusions are radically different: The speech 'also puts a special emphasis on
biblical doctrine about mankind .... It brings no alien concept into the NT (italics mine).
Other references to Acts appear on p. 156:' ... the late Apostolic writings state that man,
as he actually is, is a sinner; and that all men are sinners not merely through predetermined impersonal destiny" but through their own culpable guilt. ... In the Acts ... the
constant exhortation in preaching is 'Thrn from your sins' (Acts 2.38; 3.19). Israel (Acts
5.31) and the Gentiles (Acts 26.18) as well are in need of forgiveness. It has been granted
through the works of Christ, and now is to be announced (Acts 10.43; 13.38; ... )'.
The NT section of Fascher's brief Das Menschenbild in biblischer Sicht (24 pp), pp. 1621, contains no relevant anthropological reference to Acts and is also otherwise irrelevant for our study. Spicq's little known study Dieu et r homme selon le Nouveau Testament contains a section 'Anthropologie evangelique' which includes references from
Luke and Acts (pp. 111-47; mention of Acts is almost exclusively limited to footnotes; cf.
p.222).
S6 Man, 90f with further reference to the studies listed in KUmmel's n. 100 (Bauernfeind, Beyer, Hanson, Stonehouse, Gllrtner, Owen, Nauck).
57 Man, 90f. In n. 101 KUmmel briefly summarises the argument of Dibelius who concluded that 'the Areopagus speech is absolutely foreign to Paul's own theology, that it is,
in fact, foreign to the entire NT', 'Areopagus', 71. Ktimmel then surveys and critiques the
proposal of Schmid, 'Rede'; Liechtenhan, Mission and Glirtner, Areopagus. For KUmmel's statement on Dibelius cf. Gasque, History, 235. KUmmel does not draw conclusions
to the author of Acts and his possible relationship to Paul; cf. 1.2.2.3.1.
S8 Man, 9lf; cf. KUlIing, Geheimnis, 1-12.
13
If one is to combine the concepts of man in Acts 17.28 and 2 Pet 1.4 with the expressions used elsewhere in the NT, one must simply either be content with this contradictory and divisive picture or else spoil the otherwise uniform picture of man in the NT
by giving equal weight to these two texts, which, in any case, do not agree with one another. The only other possibility would be to reinterpret these two texts in light of all
the other texts, which would indeed be absurd.so
Kiimmel rejects this reinterpretation of the exceptional texts in the light of

all the other texts. 60 If that means doing violence to these texts, Kiimmel's
judgement is fully justified. However, should there be a valid interpretation
of this Lukan text that agrees with the other Lukan texts that Kiimrnel adduces and those of significance that he neglects, this interpretation would
deserve serious consideration_61 What if Dibelius' claims are not as conclusive as Kilmmel took them to be? What picture emerges from Luke's other
references to Gentiles prior to faith?
In addition to finding a Lukan passage 'of great interest and raising great
issues'62, Kiimmel uses more references from Acts than Wheeler Robinson.
Various passages from Luke-Acts have anthropological relevance. 63 A brief
look at these seventeen references from Acts is instructive and indicative of
a larger trend. Except for Acts 11.18 and 20.11f, all derive from the
speeches of the book. The narrative sections of Luke's account are hardly
considered. Would Luke's narrative portrayal of Gentiles, before and following Kllinmel's exceptional verses, encourage different conclusions? In
our more specific quest for Luke's view of Gentiles prior to faith further
references from both narrative and speeches need to be examined.
Kilmmel claims that apart from one passage, Luke presents a unified picture Which is also in agreement with NT anthropology in general. If Dibelius, his predecessors and those appropriating their conclusions were mistaken, and this exception not an exception, Luke would present a harmonious picture which would not be surprising for an author who has proved his
literary skill in other areas. According to this picture people need salvation.
Man,93f.
Man, 94.
This would render unnecessary Kllmmel's far-reaching conclusions as to the boundary and significance of the NT canon (Man, 93f). With the responses to Vielhauer we
shall return to over-hasty conclusions partly drawn from Lukan anthropology regarding
questions of the canon; cf. Rese, 'Lukas-Evangelium', 2301.
62 Wheeler Robinson, Doctrine, 76.
63 Cf. Man, 97f. Compare in contrast Vielhauer's almost exclusive focus on what Kllmme! deemed to be an exception (see below).
59
60
6]
14
I. Introduction
2.2.2. The Areopagus speech afld Lukan anthropology
KtimmeI's study indicates the significance of the Areopagus speech and of its
interpretation for Lukan anthropology. What further criticism has been
raised against the supposed 'intrusion of Hellenistic ideas'?64 How would it
modify Ktimmel's conclusions? In modern scholarship two main positions
have been taken. We begin with the position already familiar from Ktimmel.
2.2.2.1. M. Dibelius
In his influential essay 'Paul on the Areopagus', M. Dibelius summed up

certain strands of previous research. 65 His extensive study was seen by
some as closing the debate and affirmed a tradition of interpreting the Areopagus speech and of conclusions drawn from it. 66 It is worthwhile to follow his investigation in some detail.
Dibelius demands that interpretation of the speech begin with its second
theme (Acts 17.26f; p. 27) and points out that 'underlying the problem of
exegesis is ... the decisive question of the principles which the speech presupposes': is the author thinking 'historically in the sense of the OT ... or is
he thinking hellenistically in the sense of the philosophy of the Enlightenment' (28)? Dibelius discusses both positions, clearly showing his preference through his procedure, and then asks:
But which is the correct explanation? The answer to this question determines our understanding of the whole second theme and, to some extent, the Areopagus speech
generally. For the point at issue is whether it is the OT view of history or the philosophical, particularly the Stoic view of the world which prevails in the speech on the
Areopagus (32).
of
64 Man, 95; i.e. criticism beyond that mentioned by KUmmel in n.l00.

6S For summaries of research prior to Dibelius cf. Clemen, Erkliirung, 290-305; Norden,
Theos; Gartner, Areopagus, 37-41; KI111ing, Geheimnis, 1-12. Gasque, History, 211, n. 29
suggests that A. Schweitzer 'seems to be the ultimate source of the view which Dibelius
defends at length in his essay'; cf. Schweitzer, Geschichte,74 and Mystik, 6-9. For the view
of the speech as a creation of the author of Acts, Schweitzer, Mysticism, 6, n. 2 himself refers to E. Norden, E. Reuss, H.J. Holtzmann 'and the representatives of the older criticism generally'.
66 Cf. KtlmmeJ's verdict above (Man, 90) and Gartner,Areopagus, 41. G!lrtner summarises and criticises Dibelius on pp. 4lf and mentions scholars who accepted or developed
Dibelius' proposal (Vielhauer, 'Paulinismus'; Eltester, 'Gott'; Kiimmel). Pohlenz's 'PauIus' is briefly discussed on pp. 43f. Cf. the summary and criticism by Gasque, 'Speeches',
233-35,237,249 and History, 210-13. Cadbury, 'Review', 70 enthusiastically endorsed
Dibelius' study: 'The present reviewer concurs so fully with the viewpoint of this excellent monograph that he fmds it as difficult to select special excellencies to praise as to
discover faults'. For discussion of the 'Dibelius-Haenchen-Conzelmann point of view' cf.
Pll1macher, 'Acta-Forschung', 7f.
15
Dibelius answers his question by contrasting the significance of ~'l"tEtV

(Acts 17.27) in the aT and in Greek thought and concludes for the latter:
'Thus there can be no doubt what kind of seeking is meant in the Areopagus speech' (33). Dibelius summarises:
Here, then we reach a decision between the two interpretations of this portion of the
speech, the historical and the philosophical. The philosophical prevails: it is not a case
of nations, national epochs and boundaries, but of the cosmopolitan human race, the
ordering of its life according to seasons and to its appropriate habitations and of
man's search after God which this ordering of his life inspires.67
Dibelius only then turns to the first theme (Acts 17.24f) and the altar inscription of the unknown god and Paul's use of it. He recognises that
the consecration to unknown gods may have been occasioned by the fear that,
through ignorance, a god might be denied the homage which was due to him; this fear
... seems not entirely unjustified a:nd may even have been kept alive by stories of gods
which had become maleficent (39, nos. 33f).
Despite this initial negative estimate, Dibelius later claims that the speaker
'regarded the inscription as evidence of the Athenians' subconscious
awareness of the true God' (41). Is this appraisal ofthe inscription likely to
be applicable to someone who was previously pictured as provoked by the
expressions of Athenian piety (:nug(J)SVVE"tO, 17.16)? Dibelius concludes
that 'the first motif of the speech (24f) rests upon aT ideas, expressed in
modernised Hellenistic language' (42). On the basis of his above observation, Dibelius argues 'As the speech continues, we see a departure from aT
ways of thought' (42; this departure is then traced, pp. 42-46).
Dibelius then turns with his conclusion from the second theme to the
third dealing with God's relation to humanity. The treatment is surprisingly
brief: 'So much material on this subject has been collected in the discussion
of the last twenty-five years that the purely Hellenistic character of the
theme is obvious. God is not far from us ... by virtue of his nature, regardless of human behaviour, he is very near to each of us' (47, italics mine).
That the expression Ev ulmp could mean 'through him' is dismissed, rather
it is 'at least to be taken as implying a certain panentheism' (47). This crucial issue for anthropology is elaborated when Dibelius argues that Paul
67 P. 37. For detailed discussion cf. Kiilling, Geheimnis, 86-110. Nock, 'Book', (829-31)
831 criticises precisely this point which is crucial in determining the conceptual framework of the speech: ' ... Dibelius, while recognizing the phrases taken from the Septuagint, calls the ideas of the speech Hellenistic. There is a strong element of this but it is in
a framework of Jewish belief ... Certainly the Biblical element in the speech is not a veneer; what is unique in it is the pregnant brevity' (italics mine).
16
I. Introduction
could not have said this, at least not in his own interpretation (59-61). In
Dibelius' interpretation, people
honour him (God) without knowing him by actual revelation (0 ouv a.YVOiivtE~ EVOE~Ei:"te, Acts 17.23), and this is demonstrated by the altar with the inscription 'to the unknown god' .... according to the speech, this knowledge leads to man's 'feeling after'
and honouring the God he believes must exist ... (60; cf. the previous assessment of
the altar).
In contrast to Paul, 'the speaker on the Areopagus turns to non-Christians

and he calls them also the family of God'.68
Dibelius then deals with the origin and significance of the quotations and
concludes:
It is clear, however, how familiar the idea of God's relationship with men was in Hel-
lenistic poetry and philosophy; from them the idea reached the composer of the Areopagus speech. The OT cannot even be considered as the place of origin of this motif.
... Thus the strangeness of the Areopagus speech in relation to the piety of the Bible
and its familiarity with .philosophy became especially evident in this theme, not one
sentence of which accords with what we are accustomed to find elsewhere in the Old
or New Testament (52).
This conclusion is followed by further material on people's relationship

with God in philosophy (53f). In view of his approach it is not surprising
that Dibelius thinks that 'the writer does not wish to speak in the tone of
one accusing the heathen world of their sin, but as one who is enlightening
them in their ignorance' (55). Only the concluding sentence of the speech is
Christian (56). Yet Dibelius adds 'The repentance, to w~ch the hearers are
called at the end, is naturally to be understood in its Christian sense. It is
suggested, however, that repentance consists ultimately of recalling that
knowledge of God Which, by virtue of his nature, belongs to man' (58).69 In
the end he suggests that the Areopagus speech is 'a Hellenistic speech
about the true knowledge of God' (57, conclusions 57f).
Dibelius then addresses the historical problem of 'whether the apostle Paul could have
made this speech' (59) and points to the differences from the Paul of the genuine letters:
Paul would never have written in this way. He is too deeply convinced that man is estranged from God' (61). 'The speech is as alien to the NT (apart from Acts 14.15-17),
as it is familiar to Hellenistic, particularly Stoic, philosophy' (63).
After these conclusions Dibelius turns to the literary problem. After a brief
look at the preceding verses (64-67,see below) and the exactlocation of the
speech (67-69), Dibelius refers to his earlier work on Luke's literary
68
69
P. 60f; cf. Gasque, History, 211 also n. 28.

With reference to Birt, 'Areopagrede', 372.
17
method. 70 The author inserted speeches into an existing itinerary (70) to

'answer the question: how is one to speak? and not the question: how did
that man speak at that time'. Dibelius concludes: 'Thus, for literary reasons,
the Areopagus speech must be regarded as a composition of the author of
Acts. ... Now, as new evidence in support of this conclusion, we have the results of our analysis of its doctrine' (71). Thus the speech is absolutely foreign to Paul's own theology and foreign to the entire NT. The speech is a
'typical sermon to Gentiles and put in the setting of Acts' (73); the author
wanted to give 'a classical pulpit to the classical sermon' (75). On literary
questions Dibelius concludes:
Paul's appearance in Athens is, for the author, the focal point of this great event in the
history of evangelism and religion (paul's entry into Greece). Therefore Luke conjures
up in a few sentences the whole individuality of Athens as it was at that time, in order
to give the right background to the apostle's sermon,for this reason he brings the apostle to an illustrious place,sanctified by a great tradition, and for this reason he lets Paul
speak more of the Gentile way of recognising God than of the Christian way (76).
As we shall be turning next to a study which challenged Dibelius' thesis of

the Hellenistic character of this speech in great detail, a few critical observations suffice here:
1. Dibelius asserts: 'The speech can be isolated ... (as done by scholars who
treat it as an insertion), since it is self-evident' (27). Consequently he treats
vs. 22ff without reference to similar material in Acts. Within the speech
Dibelius starts with vs. 26f and favours their philosophical interpretation
(27,29-31):
The motifs have become intelligible to us by analogy With Hellenistic philosophy. If
our interpretation of it follows only the indications which are to be found in the motifs themselves ... then we can only conclude that the Areopagus speech is a Hellenistic speech with a Christian ending .. .' (58).
However, the readers' understanding does not depend on or take its clues
only from these indications. Arriving at Acts 17.26, readers had ample occasion to appreciate Luke's indebtedness to the OT. Quotations and allusions
have sensitised readers to apply this frame of reference to understand
events and their Lukan interpretation. Paul's anger over the city teeming
with idols71 and the fIrst theme of the speech, the OT character of which
Dibelius himself argues, affirm this very frame. The sudden and complete
'switch' suggested by Dibelius comes unexpectedly. Readers are more
likely to look for evidence along the lines described by Dibelius as 'histori70 'Style-criticism'.
71 Paul's anger is reminiscent of OT divine wrath against idolatry, e.g. Exod 32.10; Deut
9.14,19f;Ps 106.19-23;Ezek 20.l3;c[ the negative evaluation of the wilderness generation
in Acts 7.3943.
18
I. Introduction
cally in the sense of the aT' (28). The same applies to the following theme.
Further quotations and allusions to the aT in subsequent chapters of the
book of Acts affirm Luke's basic orientation.
In addition, Dibelius' interpretation of the .second theme does not follow
the clues provided by the first. The natural sequence of reading should not be
disregarded. This decision bears on his following analysis and conclusions. 72
2. Only after his exegesis and conclusions does Dibelius pay some attention
to Acts 14.15-17, the dosest parallel within Luke-Acts. 73 While claiming
that 'Both speeches are the work of the author of Acts' (72), Dibelius notes
that this former speech is 'nearer to the Septuagint than is the Areopagus
speech' and identifies a contrast between its argument and the alleged
Stoic proof of God. Yet, if the first speech is in contrast to such philosophic
ideas, is the same author likely to freely employ and propagate them in the
second? Would the former speech and its conceptual background not indicate the author's world of thought and guide the reader in understanding
the latter speech?
Dibelius completely neglects the narrative setting of this first speech74
and all other previous references to Gentiles prior to faith that testify to
Luke's estiinate and guide his readers. Treatment of these speeches, needlessly isolated from their immediate contexts and without reference to
Luke's substantial amount of similar material, is hardly commendable.
3. Dibelius refers to the immediate context (Acts 17.16-21; 64-69) only after
his exegesis of the speech, though he acknowledges that 'the description of
Athens and the Athenians has obviously been composed as a preface to the
speech' (65, italics mine). He notes that this introduction is 'unique, particularly on account of its portrayal of the Athenians. At none of Paul's mission
centres has the author given such a colourful picture of those to whom Paul
preached' (64). Howeyer, this overture does not receive due attention because for Dibelius these verses are part of the literary problem (64), not indicative of Luke's view or setting the agenda for the speech and its interpretation.
72 Dibelius thinks it 'impossible to interpret individual expressions eclectically, that is

sometimes historically and sometimes philosophically', p. 29. Ktilling's study Geheimnis,
which follows Dibelius in the philosophical interpretation of vs. 26f, while otherwise confirming the results of Gartner shows that this is not necessarily the case.
73 Cf. p. 26; brief treatment of Acts 14.15-17 on p. 71.
74 Pp. 7lf, n. 23; cf. III.2.2.9. Dibelius' index is revealing (Studies, 218): While there are
five entries for Acts 14.15-17 for this essay (pp. 26-77; pp. 51,63,71,71, nos. 23,73), one for
14.16 (55) and one for 14.17 (29f.), there is only one for Acts 14.8-18 (72). After the exegesis of Acts 17, the actual setting and occasion of the Lystran speech are briefly alluded
to, yet not for their content but merely as an indication of the author's literary technique.
19
This procedure is unfortunate because Dibelius notes that

a difference of judgement seems to be evident here: the narrative does not speak with
approval of the Athenians, as does the speech [Le. according to Dibelius' prior and
isolated interpretation!] .... the difference in tone between 17.16 and 17.22 is bound to
strike the reader ... 7S
While Dibelius argues that the difference should not be exaggerated,16 he

demonstrates the preparatory character of the introduction. Many items of it
reappear in the speech itself: Paul's perturbation prepares 'for the introduction and the third theme of the speech: for the Athenians' acknowledgement
of the cSElO1.cSEI.J.L0vLa and the warning against serving idols' (66). Dibelius'
procedure invites several questions: how would prior and comprehensive appreciation of the apparently very significant introduction, following the natural reading sequence, let alone of other previous references to Gentiles, influence the interpretation of the speech itself? Is there really a difference in
judgement? Are these differences rather due to Dibelius' approach? Is Dibelius' own solution to the differences he senses satisfactory?
4. Similar to the overture to the speech, Dibelius notes tension with its
postlude (Acts 17.32-34):
Luke wrote this speech as an example of a typical sermon to Gentiles and put it in the
setting of Athens ['giving a classical pulpit to the classical sermon', 75]; in doing so he
did not allow himself to be influenced by the poor results which Paul actually
achieved in Athens (73).
Thus the classical sermon at the classical place produces little result. Luke
did not provide a more realistic sermon to this conclusion. However the
question of sources be determined, this discrepancy between the conclusion and Dibelius' interpretation of the speech invites reconsideration in
view of this postlude. Is the tension felt by Dibelius caused by his interpretation of the speech? What conclusions concerning the speech and its audience can be drawn from the response?77
75 P. 66. Dibelius addresses this issue again in 'Speeches', 176: the speeches 'do not
agree with the narrative part of the text in all points, but rather add to it, occasionally correcting u.... The explanation lies rather in the comparative independence of the speech'
(italics mine). Compare the discussion and criticism by Gasque, 'Speeches', 240. In n. 47
Gasque notes how 'In his essay on the Areopagus speech, Dibelius had emphasised quite
the opposite, viz. the close relationship between the narrative and the speech, which fact
he regarded as evidence that both narrative ... and speech were compositions of the
author'.
76 p. 66, listing other examples and arguments. Compare the comprehensive criticism of
Dibelius' approach by Pesch I,42-45 and his n. 28 for further studies critical of Dibelius.
77 The audience mostly failed to understand or accept Paul's very basic proclamation.
What spiritual state of the audience do these results indicate? Do they support Dibelius'
positive assessment of the Gentile world in the speech? Dibelius doubts the actual con-
20
1. Introduction
A coherent, sequential interpretation of introduction, speech and conclusion would be preferable to an interpretation of only the speech that
starts with its second theme and is in contrast both to its stage setting and
its consequences. In addition, adequate interpretation of Acts 17 can only
be reached once the speech is read in the light of the Gospel and the preceding chapters of Acts. To which understanding does Luke lead readers
through previous references to the Gentiles and the issues addressed at
Athens?
Dibelius' manner of treatment and conclusions for this crucial passage
for Luke's perspective on Gentiles prior to faith found many followers to
whom we shall turn later. They draw consequences for all of Luke-Acts and
its theology from Dibelius' point of departure and conclusions. Says
Gasque: 'What Dibelius says in regard to the Areopagus address in particular is later applied (by Haenchen and Conzelmann, among others) to the
theology of Luke in general'78 - we might add 'including its anthropology'.
While previous research did not recognise a Lukan anthropology, Kfunme I, following Dibelius, took Athens, however exceptional, to be the only
noteworthy Lukan contribution. Some later research took Athens in Dibelius' perspective to be the key to unlock Lukan anthropology. Before we
trace this development, it needs to be noted that Dibelius did not remain
unchallenged.
2.2.2.2. B. Gartner
Already before Giirtner, some scholars had scrutinised and partly criticised
Dibelius' proposaP9 In the wake of Dibelius' challenging interpretation, B.
Giirtner wrote an original and thorough study called The Areopagus
Speech and Natural Revelation.8o As Dibelius and Giirtner are the main and
version of some in the audience (p.74) and sees 'simply a readiness, perhaps, to agree
with the sermon'. This makes the picture even bleaker.
.
78 Gasque, History, 212, n. 33; cf. pp. 235-50 and 'Speeches', 24lf,249f, n. 98.
79 cr. Gartner's survey of research: pp. 37-41: research before Dibelius, 42-44: after
Dibelius. GlIrtner discusses or mentions Schmid, 'Rede'; Liechtenhan, Mission; Schrenk,
Missionspredigt. GlIrtner does not mention Nock's review of Dibelius' Aufslltze in
'Book', 829-32; Stonehouse, 'Areopagus' and Dupont, 'Problemes', 50-54; cf. the bibliographies in Pesch 11, 127 and Schneider 11,227-29.
so cr. the summaries in Gasque, History, 213f and 'Speeches', 249f, n. 98 and Hanson,
177-83 for succinct discussion and contrast of Dibelius' and GlIrtner's positions. Hanson
comes down on GlIrtner's side. After initially discussing DibeIius he writes: 'But in a special study devoted to this speech B. Gartner has succeeded in making an even stronger
case for another view ... " p.l77; cf. also the summary and criticism of Dibelius and Glirtner by Dupont, 'VAreopage'.
21
most prolific exponents of two opposing approaches and methods, it is

worthwhile to compare and contrast their works.
Before Gartner looks at the speech.itself, he studies the narrative framework of the speech, both its opening and concluding scene (45-52). After
some general considerations on the relationship between Judaism and Hellenism (,Assimilation or Adaptation' ,66-72), Gartner offers a survey of views
on natural revelation. His study of Romans 1 (133-44) shows that this chapter
follows the OT-Jewish tradition as regards its theological conception of the knowledge of God gained from creation and from His universal works, even if certain terms
in the Epistle may have a Hellenistic-Stoic flavour, i.e. are such as are also found in
Hellenistic literature that has been particularly influenced by Stoic philosophy (144).
He asks: 'Can we, then, assume the same comparative relation in the Areopagus speech?' (144). On this foundation and with this question to answer
Gartner studies the ~reopagus speech, Stoic theology and the OT' (14469). He examines the statements on natural theology which allegedly reflect the 'speaker's espousal of Stoic theology' (145), namely the arguments
for God's existence (145-54, conclusions on pp. 152, 158, 161) and the kinship of people with God (on Acts 17.28; 164-67). Gartner concludes:
There is therefore no question of a pantheistic kinship with God: Paul is not using
Aratus' conception of God and man; the words have a different application here ... To
a Jew, there would be nothing out of the way in thus appropriating a quotation without binding oneself to its literal meaning. Again we see that the speaker's topic is not
the natural theology but an attack on idolatry ... (167).
On all these points Gartner refutes the Stoic-Hellenistic interpretation and

argues for the OT-Jewish conceptual background of the speech (167-69).
Concerning anthropology Gartner concludes:
Left to himself, man falls into ignorance of God, and this leads to idolatry.sl The purpose of the missionary preaching as exemplified in Acts 17 is not to reinstate the natural knowledge of God by enlightening the misapprehensions of man's voii~, but to
show the uselessness and the vanity in the Gentiles' conception of God and worship
of God. This is followed by a proclamation of the salvation in Christ (169).
Next Gartner turns to the conception of God, namely God as creator (17174), as the preserver of his creation and God of history and to the pronouncements of the speech on the relation between God and humanity (on
Acts 17.27f; 177-202). Concerning the expression EV a,,,;<p t;WI-IEV Gartner
concludes that 'the theological meaning centres around man's absolute dependence on God for his existence' (188, full argument on pp. 179-93). Despite similarities, the function of this assertion is different in the speech
from what it is in the philosophical texts. Acts 17.28 needs to be and can be
81
Cf. 11.3.3.2.
22
I. Introduction
understood in a way that explains the conclusions drawn from it in Acts

17.29 (193; cf. p. 222).
Surveying its attack on the temple services, sacrifices (17.24f; 203-18) and
idols (17.28f; 219-28) Gartner demonstrates that the thrust of the speech is
polemic against idolatry. He examines the universalism of the speech and
its comparison of two ages and the meaning of ayvota (229f), which 'is a
condemnation of the Gentile religion as a lapse from God' (237). This discussion includes remarks on the altar inscription and Paul's reference to it.
Gartner notes that 'these words have as a rule been interpreted as an unusually positive assessment of the idolatry of the Gentiles, unique in the
NT' (236). However, this interpretation is unlikely in view of his examination of ayvoul and the occurrence of J.l.E-CUVOELV in Acts 17.31:
ME"tUVOELV always implies a radical conversion, which involves condemnation of what
is being discarded, and a total adoption of something new. To interpret !l"tUVOELV as an
exhorta1ion to men to correct their mental conception of God seems to me a forlorn effort to rescue a philosophical line of reasoning. ME"tuvoetv and ltQ[VEW show clearly
the spirit in which ayvoLu should be read (237,italics mine).
Gartner quotes some scholars who have argued precisely the point he challenges. 82 Because more recent research also adopts the line here refuted,
Gartner's references are worth quoting. Their relevance for Lukan anthropology is evident.
Dass f.lE"tUVOELV hier nicltt das jUdisclt-christliche Bereuen und Bussfertigsein, sondern
das blosse Korrigieren und Andern der Lebensauffassung bedeutet, das natiirlich stets
mit dem Bedauern lIber den bisherigen Irrtum verbunden ist, lehrt der Zusammenhang der Rede selbst (Birt).83
Nach den Andeutungen der Rede aber besteht die Busse letztlich in der Besinnung
aUf jene Gotteserkenntnis, die dem Menschen von Natur eigen ist (Dibelius) ....
(Pohlenz) speaks of 'die Aufforderung, sich von der Agnoia zu befreien und eine
geistige Umstel1ung (f.lE"ta-vmu) zu vollziehen'."S
Gartner observes that 'there is a further feature suggesting that the speech
does not regard the religiosity of the Athenians as anything other than
idolatry, and this is the word SELOLSaL!.J.OvE(ftEQO~ in the introduction' (237).
However the audience took it, 'in Paul's mouth, it patently stamps the
P. 237, n. 2.
'Theoi',372 (italics mine).
'Areopag', 55 (English: 'Areopagus', 58).
85 'Pauius', 89. Gilrtner also refers to Clemen, Erklilrung, 304 who argues that f.lE"tUvOElv 'dem Zusammenhang nach von der Sinnesilnderung im intellektualistischen Sinne
zu verstehen. DaB das aber die hellenistische Auffassung des Begriffs war, sahen wir
schon oben (S. 213); die Areopagrede erweist sich also auch hier als von der griechischen Philosophie beeinfluBt'. Garlner,Areopagus, 237, n. 2 adds: 'The content, so typical
of the NT and also of the Areopagus speech, emerges from Behm' (cf. 1. Behm, Th WNT
IV, 994ff).
82
83
84
23
Athenians' religion as idolatry' (238). Finally Glirtner addresses the inscription quoted by Paul (242-47) and concludes:
There is no doubt that the altar in Athens is the patent symbol of a polytheistic attitude which would be incongruous save in a cult whose devotees seek to embrace as
many gods as possible, or at all events to safeguard themselves against forgetfulness
of any in the long ranks of the deities (246).
In his epilogue Giirtner compares the speech and the Pauline epistles and
argues for their compatibility (248-52).
Giirtner is the more convincing because of his sequential and thorough
approach and because in his interpretation the speech and its immediate
narrative context form a unity, whereas in Dibelius' proposal they are in
tension. Since these two studies, with their different presuppositions and
approaches, scholarship has been in a deadlock and divided between the
mainly German following of Dibelius and his conclusions86 and the mostly
English speaking following of Giirtner.87
Therefore this passage, even less portions of it, should not be the point of
departure for our quest. The diametrically opposite assessment of it by
Klimrnel (see above) and by K.H. Schelkle (ct. our n. 55) underscore this.
Neither should it be overestimated. Luke's view of the Gentiles and other
aspects of his theology were often closely and almost exclusively linked by
later research to one passage of 192 words out of a total of 37.951 words for
Luke/Acts (see below).88 Due to their limited scope, the approaches of
both Dibelius and Giirtner have not taken account of Luke's other references to Gentiles prior to faith. Nor would viewing these references
through previously determined 'Athenian' spectacles be wise. Pursuit of
these other references constitutes a promising venue for verifying both sets
of results and perhaps helping to resolve the 'Athenian' deadlock. If these
references present a unified portrait that would support one of the above
interpretations, it should be given preference (ct: V.3.3.).89
86 The weight of Dibelius in the study of Lukan theology is common place; cf. Gasque,
liistory, 201-52 and SchilIe's survey ofresearch,ppA-15. Says Schneider I, 185: 'Erst nach
dem Zweiten Weltkrieg (und nicht zuletzt durch die Publikation der gesammelten Aufsiltze van Dibelius 1951) kam die 'redaktionsgeschichtliche' Acta-Forschung zum Durchbruch. Sie machte mit dem Ertrag der Forschungen van Dibelius ernst, daB "Lukas" als
SchriftsteJler und Theologe zu werten seL' The influence of Dibelius' conclusions on Acts
17 in the assessment of Lukan anthropology is particularly striking.
87 More recent proponents of the position of Giirtner are Bruce, 378-87; Gempf, Appropriateness and 'Athens, Paul at', DPL 51-54; Hemer, 'Speeches 11'; Kiilling, Geheimnis; Marshall, 281-91; ef. Gasque, History, 25lf.
88 Cf. Green,Theology, 2, n. 5.
89 This suggestion is based on the assumption that Luke presents a unified picture.
This is likely in view of Luke's choice of genre. The theological unity of Luke and Acts
has been argued in the works of R.c. Tannehill and 1. Rius-Camps. For a recent chal-
24
l. Introduction
Probably little of great significance can be added on either side to the debate over the adequate interpretation of the speech. Our treatment of context and speech in its narrative sequence concentrates on some issues which
have not attracted sufficient attention (ct. III.2.2.11.). Presentation of the
comprehensive Lukan portrait will be our contribution to this debate.
Therefore we concentrate on Luke's neglected other references to Gentiles
prior to faith.
2.2.3. The quest/or Luke's anthropology and related issues
Throughout the upsurge of interest in Luke's theology in the wake of redaction criticism, anthropology remained in the background. 9o C. Burchard
observes in his review of Bovon's Luc le theologien: Vingt-cinq ans de recherches (1950-1975):
Nicht aus Versehen fehlt 'SUnde' im Sachregister und hat 'Vergebung' nur wenige SeitenzahIen. Was nach Lukas am unbekehrten Menschen eigentlich falsch is!, ist offensichtlich wenig untersucht, obwohl das Thema nicht unwichtiger und unergiebiger ist
als andere, die auffallend haufiger traktiert warden sind.Ol
However, some aspects of Luke's anthropology including his view of Gentiles prior to faith were included in the study of his theology. In this discussion of Luke's anthropology two trends are discernible. 1. There is the continued assumption that anthropology, sometimes with the exception of Acts
17, is not a distinctive feature of Luke's theology.1bis explains the lack of
attention it has received in Lukan studies and in NT anthropology (cf.
1.2.2.3.5.).2. Where Luke's anthropology was mentioned or even studied
for its own sake, the discussion was often focused on needlessly limited evidence, the interpretation of which was controversial.
lenge see 1.2.2.3.6.; cf. also Dawsey, Voice. If there is agreement in the description of
Gentiles before and after Acts 17,it is unlikely that the Areopagus speech is a deliberate 'status reversal' (cf. the instances of status reversal identified by Green, Theology,
170).
90 Compare the various surveys of postwar research on Lukan theology, e.g. Barrett,
Historian; Bovon, Luc; Gasque, History, 201-305 and 'Field'; Grasser, 'Apostelgeschicbte'
and 'Acta-Forscbung'; Halm, 'Stand'; PIUmacher, 'Actaforscbung' and 'Apostelgeschichte', TRE III (483-528) 522; RadI, Lukas (further literature on pp. XIIIf); Rasco, Theologia; Rese, 'Arbeiten' and 'Lukas-Evangelium' (further literature in nos. 165f, pp. 299f);
Scbnelle, Einleitung, 299-301, 32lf; Schneider 1,65-186 (further literature on pp. 26f);
Schulz, Herkunft, 243-90; van Unnik, 'Storm-Centre'.
91 'Review' ,38. Taeger, Mensch, 9 uses this quotation to describe his own agenda: 'Mein
Versuch ist in weiten Teilen diesem Thema gewidmet ... '.
25
2.2.3.1. P. Vielhauer
An instructive example of this new interest and approach and of the influence of Dibelius is P. Vielhauer, who was among those opening the quest for
Luke's theology with his renowned contribution 'On the "Paulinism" of

Acts'. Vielhauer proposes four major discrepancies between the speeches
of Paul in Acts and Pauline theology as deducted from four Pauline letters.
Our concern is with Luke's first alleged misrepresentation, namely natural
theology, which directly bears on anthropology.92
Vielhauer concludes that Paul's Areopagus speech
... does not mention the saving significance of his [Jesus] death. Indeed, due to the
natural kinship to God and the fact that the knowledge of God is vitiated only through
ignorance, this is not necessary. The repentance which is called for consists entirely in
the self-consciousness of one's natural kinship to God." ... the speech presupposes on
the part of its Gentile hearers a presentiment of the true God and seeks by enlightenment to advance this presentiment to a monotheistic idea of God and to a worship of
God without images (34f, italics mine).
Vielhauer rightly explains some of the alleged differences as due to 'the utterly different function' that natural theology has in Romans 1 and in Acts
17 as he interprets the passage:
in the former passage it functions as an aid to the demonstration of human responsibility and is thereafter dropped; in the latter passage it is evaluated positively and employed in missionary pedagogy as a forerunner of faith: the natural knowledge of God
needs only to be purified, corrected, and enlarged, but its basic significance is not questioned."
Vielhauer concludes:
Due to its kinship to God the human race is capable of a natural knowledge of God
and of ethics (Acts 10.35) and has immediate access to God. The 'word of the cross'
has no place in the Areopagus speech because it would make no sense there; it would
be 'folIy'. The author of this speech has eliminated christology from Paul's sermon to
the Gentiles ... When the Areopagus speaker refers to the unity of the human race in
its natural kinship to God and to its natural knowledge of God, and when he refers to
the altar inscription and to the statements of pagan poets to make his point, he
92 The other discrepancies (law, pp. 37-43; christology, 43-45; and eschatology, 45-48)
are summarised and challenged by MarshaU, 'View', 47-50 (similarly Gasque, History,
284-91); cl. p. 48 for criticism of Vielhauer's conclusions regarding natural theology. Cf.
Rese, 'Lukas-Evangelium', 2300f.
!IJ P. 36 (italics mine). Vielhauer neglects the preceding verses which report that Paul
eiJ1JYYEAt~'tO Jesus and the resurrection,Acts 17.18. Luke's readers appreciate what message is thus summarised; they know from the early chapters of Acts that the resurrection
of Jesus is closely related to salvation, forgiveness of sins and repentance.
94 p. 36 (italics mine); cf. Marshall, 'View', 48. Romans 1 is the one Pauline passage adduced for a comparison with Luke's theology, which is thus likewise exclusively derived
from one passage; cl. Gasque, History, 289.
26
1. Introduction
thereby lays claim to pagan history, culture, and religion as the prehistory of Christianity (37).
Some observations are in order. Vielhauer follows Dibelius with regard to

the speeches of Acts and the exposition of this speech.95 His presupposition
is therefore controversial. Vielhauer ventures to assess the 'distinctive
theological viewpoint' (48) of the author of the whole book after studying
only the speeches of Paul it contains (ct. p. 34): This restriction follows from
his presuppositions:
... [Luke's] speeches, which are generally acknowledged to be compositions of the
author and which, according to ancient literary custom, had deliberate and paradigmatic significance. ... Acts is a richer field for such inquiry than the Gospel, because in
the composition of Acts Luke had to master material which was much less formed
and arranged than was the Gospel material; in Acts therefore he was much more
deeply involved as an author than in the composition of the GospeJ.""
Vielhauer's understanding and assessment of Luke's natural theology is exclusively derived from the Areopagus speech:97
95 Vielhauer relies heavily on the interpretation of Dibelius and his 'convincing conclusions', p. 34; cf. Gasque, History, 284f. A quick glance over Vielhauer's notes (nos. 4-21,
pp. 49f) is instructive: Of eighteen references within the essay's section on natural theology (pp. 34-37) eleven are to Dibelius. Other studies of the speech referred to are Pohlenz, 'Paulus'; Schmid, 'Rede' is only adduced to mention that Schrnid failed to notice
that the speech has to be taken as a 'self-contained whole' (p. 37, italics mine). We are left
with three references to R. BuItmann (nos. 16 and 18). As far as we were able to ascertain
Vielhauer never took note of or interacted with Gll.rtner in writing. His original essay
was reprinted without alterations, his Geschichte does not mention Giirtner, neither does
his name appear in the index to the two volumes of his collected essays, cf. Oikodome,
241.
96 P. 33 (italics mine). Vielhauer goes on to argue that 'In Acts it was precisely the
Pauline section to which he was most required to give form .. .'. On the speeches see E.
PIUmacher, 'Apostelgeschichte', TRE Ill, (483-528), 502-06; Bruce, 'Speeches 30'.
Another example of this 'speech - restricted' approach occurs in HJ. Cadbury's The
Making of Luke-Acts, a work which in many ways anticipated post-war redaction critical
approaches and which was among the first to devote attention to Luke's theology. Peevo,
'Response', 4lf calls him the 'Forerunner of Redaction Criticism'. Cadbury, Making, 255
argues with reference to Acts 10.34f and 17.25-29 that Acts contains a 'splendid expression of universal religion and human-divine kinship'. Both references derive from
speeches. What B.R. Gaventa, 'Peril', 25 observes on the sources of Cadbury's conclusions concerning Luke's theology holds true for much subsequent research: ' ... the
speeches in Acts are the primary place in which its theology may be located. Cadbury
would have found very peculiar the notion that the shape of Luke's story itself reveals
something about his theology. For him the speeches reveal Lukan theology' (italics
mine). Cf. Cadbury, Making, 184-93 and 'Speeches' and lones' summary of Cadbury's
conception of the speeches in 'Legacy', 30E
97 The Areopagus speech is 'the only sermon to Gentiles by the missionary to the Gentiles to be found in Acts' (p. 34), echoing Dibelius, 'Areopagus', 26. There is one brief reference to Acts 14.16 (p. 35), none to Acts 26; cf. the pertinent criticism of Vielhauer's
method by Gasque, History, 278-90. Siegert's observation and caution for the whole
27
It is a theology of history which combines the OT belief in the action of God with his
people and the Hellenistic idea of all men's kinship to God in such a fashion that
though the former provided the basis it was essentially modified by the latter. The absolute claim of the Jews to be the people of God is replaced by the idea of natural
man's immediacy to God .... (49).
From these premises Vielhauer also argues: 'To be sure this speech functions
only as preliminary instruction, but at this place in Acts and in the function
which the author intends it to fulm it is a self-contained unit'.98 Vielhauer entirely neglects 1. the narrative contexts of this speech (Acts 17.16-22,32-34 including Paul's previous Athenian proclamation; cf. our n. 93); 2. the other
speeches before Gentile audiences, including Paul's other statements on people without special revelation and their relationship, lack of relationship or
distorted relationship with God (e.g. Acts 26.18) and 3. Luke's narrative reports of Paul's interaction with Gentiles and of their response.
To summarise: Vielhauer bases his conclusions on one speech which
Luke allegedly is freely producing as a creative theologian. With little original contribution of his own or evidence to justify such a step, Vielhauer extends the problematic conclusions of Dibelius to fabricate the total Lukan
picture. In comparison with previous research Vielhauer's study is the rockbottom in the relation between actual textual basis and far-reaching conclusions drawn for Luke's anthropology. While Kiimmel looked at more
Lukan evidence and excluded one passage from an otherwise harmonious
total picture, Vielhauer declares this very exception, exceptional in the interpretative tradition he embraces, to be the Lukan picture par excellence, a
basis and point of departure for assessing Luke's theology. Minear's verdict
on Conzelmann's use of Luke 16.16 could also apply to Vielhauer: 'it must
be said that rarely has a scholar placed so much weight on so dubious an interpretation of so difficult a passage'.99
These observations on Vielhauer's procedure demand investigation of
more or all of the material relevant to Luke's anthropology and his perspective on Gentiles prior to faith. Revisions of his estimate need to be made accordingly. This has not been done so far. Rather, scholars following Vielhauer's estimate have attempted to argue his case more comprehensively
pseudo-Philonic sermon De Iona also applies to the Areopagus speech, which is but a
fraction of Luke-Acts (Kommentar, 305): 'Die starke Hervorhebung dieser Lehre [natllrIiche Theologie, also einer Lehre von der Erkennbarkeit Gottes aus Strukturen und Vorgangen in der NaturJ auf Kosten von Wiirdigungen der Schriftoffenbarungen und des
gottlichen Gesetzgebers Mose ist motiviert durch die heidnischen "Niniviten" als Adressaten der Oberlegungen; wir dUrfen hier also nicht auf "die" Theologie des Aulors verallgemeinern' (italics mine).
98 p. 37. Vielhauer fails to consider Dibelius' observations ('Areopagus', 65) of the unity
of introduction and speech.
99 'Use', 122.
28
I. Introduction
and to account for passages which seem to question Vielhauer's reconstruction. Therefore not only Vielhauer's conclusions need investigation.
2.2.3.2. H. Conzelmann
Die Mitte de,. Zeit by H. Conzelmann was the first major and so far the most
influential monograph on Luke's theology.loo Other scholars followed with
studies of various aspects. lOl This development reflects the discovery of
Luke's 'theology' in wake of red action criticism.
Conzelmann studies a wide range of texts to establish Lukan theology.
He was rightly criticised, however, for excluding the infancy narratives and
for not paying enough attention to Acts. The latter is particularly noteworthy for our quest as Acts contains the bulk of Luke's material on Gentiles
prior to faith. Even in Luke 3-24, Conzelmann's emphasis varies.102
Of his extensive study Conzelmann devotes only a few pages of his chapter 'Der Mensch und das Heil (Die Kirche)' (193-219) directly to anthropological questions ('Der Mensch als Empfanger des Heils', 210-16).103
In his treatment of the Areopagus speech Conzelmann follows Dibelius
in referring to 'die stoische Theorie der Gottesverwandtschaft'. Yet Conzelmann concedes that 'Diese Aussage bleibt vereinzelt' and rightly distinguishes his position from Dibelius:
Die Areopagrede ist ja auch im Sinne des Lukas nicht eine Musterpredigt; sie charakterisiert eine einrnalige Situation des Zusammentreffens mit der griechischen Welt,
wobei deren Versagen an den Tag kommt. '04
In two areas Conzelmann proposes unique features also relevant for

Luke's anthropology in general and thus significant for our quest: Luke's
understanding of sin (1) and, related to this, his understanding of conversion
(2). For the sake of clarity it seems best to blend presentation and criticism.
la) Conzelmann's initial statement is not surprising: 'Die Botschaft an den

Menschen deckt ihm seine Situation aut, indem sie ihm das kommende
Gericht mitteilt und ihm aufdeckt, daB er Sander ist' (212). People prior to
100 FIrst edition in 1954. Some studies of particular aspects of Luke's theology appeared before Conzelmann, e.g. von Baer, Geist; Dodd, Preaching; Gewiess, HeilsverkUndigung; cf. Rese, 'Lukas-Evangelium', 2290f.
101 Cf. Rese, 'Lukas-Evangelium', 2303-12.
102 Compare the criticism of Minear, 'Use'. In addition Conzelmann distinguishes between various sources behind Luke's writings. Those identified as traditional in their
widest sense are of lesser importance than those where Conzelmann sees Luke at work
expressing his own theology.
103 This presentation reflects Conzelmann's previous conclusions on Luke's eschatology, concept of history and salvation (cf. p. 212).
104 P. 210, n. 2 (italics mine).
29
faith are sinners. Conzelmann then defines what kind of sin Luke had in
mind. Luke's concept of sin is 'stark ethisch bestimmt'.105 Sin is not a state
but rather a set of concrete acts. Conzelmann's proposal needs careful scrutiny as later research built on his claim.
For Conzelmann this moral-ethical character becomes evident in Luke 13.2,4; 15.7,18;
18.3. Do these passages prove Conzelmann's case? I cannot see any support for Conzelmann's claim in 18.3. Luke 15.7 should be seen in the context of Luke's 'sinners and
righteous' as a whole. 106 In 15.18 the culprit confesses to have sinned against God and his
father. The father refers to his son's condition as being dead and lost (15.26,32) not to his
individual deeds also mentioned in the parable. This tension demands caution (on 13.2,4
see below).
b) ConzeImann adduces Luke's only singular occurrence of UfLUQ'tLU as

proof for this understanding: 'Die konlcrete Tat bezeichnet das Wort act
7.60'.107 Conzelmann fails to appreciate the context: 't!l1hT)v 't~v clfLUQ'tLUV
refers to the konkrete Tat of murdering Stephen. This present singular action follows a pattern and particular mind-set characterising people of
which this clfLuQ'tLU is but the latest expression.l o8 Rejection of the proclaimer and proclamation is the outward expression of an attitude or state
addressed earlier (Luke 6.23; 11.47-52) and again extensively exposed by
Stephen's speech. Israel's sin was stubborn refusal of God's purposes and
persistent rebellion, expressing itself in the various individual sins mentioned in this speech.109 Acts 7.51 points to where clfLuQ'tLU as konkrete Tat
originates: the audience is characterised as stiff-necked, uncircumcised in
hearts and ears, forever opposing the Holy Spirit, persecuting the prophets
and failing to keep the law (7.51-53). With the possible exception of the last
item, it is difficult to see a moral-ethical understanding reflected in this list.
Stephen prays that this sin would not be held against them, like the other
sins which are already held against them (by God).
105 P. 213. '1st gegenUber Paulus die Slindenvorstellung stark ethisch bestimmt. . .'. This
conclusion is influenced by Paul's use of af.laQ'tLa; CL P. Fiedler, EWNT I, (65-69) 67.4.a.
For Conzelmann's approach the treatment of Luke 5.30-32 is revealing: Luke took this
material from Mark but added 'den bezeichnenden Zusatz E[~ f.lE'tO:votav ... Hier zeigt
sich die Wandlung. Das Marcinische Paradox ist beseitigt; BuBe ist die Bedingung geworden', p. 212, n. 4. This moral-ethical understanding of sin has been criticised by Dietrich,
Petrusbild, 50f and Wurm, Rechtfertigung, 60ft, 93ff (according to Taeger, Mensch, 17, n.
45). Glockner, VerkUndigung, (137-42) 137 suggests a different Lukan understanding:
'die lukanische Interpretation der SUnde als SelbsterhOhung des Menschen'. GlOckner
does not relate his discussion to Conzelmann.
106 This also applies to Conzelmann's comment on Luke 7.34: 'deutlich ist wieder, daB
das Slindersein nicht den Menschen als solchen charakterisiert' (p. 212, n. 4).
107 P. 212, n. 4. Being Luke's only singular occurrence of af.laQ"tLa, it is hardly representative.
108 Compare my treatment in 'Bedeutung', 132-39.
109 Vs. 9,25,27,35,39-41,47.
30
I. Introduction
c) Conzelmann further notes: 'Doch wird nicht in einem eigenen Topos

der Predigt eine Demonstration der Siindigkeit unternommen' (212, n. 4).
This may apply to moral-ethical sins (but cf. Luke 3.19f, Acts 8.20-23;
24.25!). Yet in addition to Acts 7, several other speeches expose and indict
the spiritual shortcoming of Jews and Gentiles alike and stress the decided
contrast between God's intention and deliberate human action and thus
demonstrate human sinfulness. While the word ullagtla may not occur,
failure before God is for example addressed in the Predigt at Athens.
Sundigkeit leading to judgement and condemnation and therefore requiring repentance is exposed. The various failures (moral-ethical and spiritual,
mostly inextricably intertwined) mentioned in the narrative material surrounding the speeches give further evidence for and describe this Sundhaftigkeit! Some of the speeches are triggered by sinful behaviour. We shall
return to these indicators in our investigation. In addition, Luke could simply be presupposing this topos.
d) Conzelmann observes: 'Der Begriff der SUnde findet sich in der AG
nur in Verbindung mit der Aussage von iluer Verge bung. Kosmologische,
spekulative Elemente fehlen dem Begriff vollig' (214, n. 4). Conzelmann
rightly notes that whatever the intended precise nature of sin, its removal is
exclusively linked to forgiveness (which in itself allows some conclusions to
the nature of these sins). However, these occurrences are not the whole
Lukan picture. Impaired by his agenda and point of departure, namely
comparison of Luke with Paul's understanding of ullag"tLallO , Conzelmann
fails to notice Luke's various other expressions to describe the natural state
of people (e.g. in Acts 26.18) and their moral-ethical and/or spiritual failure(s); cf. e.g. IV.3.4. 1. , V1.5. Is it advisable to assess Luke's thought by such
narrow comparison (use of a.llag"tLa) with other authors? Could Luke be
using his own, different expressions for what Paul might express with
ullag"tLa and thus mostly use ullag"tLa differently?
e) Continuing with the same word group Conzelmann claims: 'ullag"tooM\; ist nicht eine generelle Aussage liber die menschliche BefindIichkeit
liberhaupt. Es gibt Leute, die der BuBe und Vergebung nicht bedUrfen, Lc
15.3ff.111 ConzelmanIi refers to the conclusion to the first parable: ' ...
ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance'. No attention is
110 et p. Fiedler. EDNT 1,65-69. On such comparisons of Luke with Paul Ktimmel observes: 'Es ist daher fUr die redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der Theologie des
Lukas von Anfang an charakteristisch gewesen, daB sich mit der Darstellung dieser
Theologie eine vor allem an Paulus orientierte scharfe Kritik dieser Theologie verband',
'Anklage', 418t For a summary and refutation of KUmmel see Rese, Lukas-Evangelium,
2306, n.193. Wilckens, 'Interpreting', (6083) 77 argues that the Paul Luke was often compared to was the Paul of a certain interpretive tradition.
III P. 212, n. 4; cf. Taeger, Mensch, 17, n. 47.
31
given to Luke 15.lf which specify the situation and audience or to other
passages identifying the group of people Luke here refers to. No other support is adduced for this statement, contradicting Conzelmann's initial statement, than a reference to A. Schlatter. Though Schlatter argues that 'lhr
bedurft sie nicht' (15.7) is not ironical, his full treatment of the passage does
not support Conzelmann's statement. 1l2 Conzelmann does not consider
what other nouns or verbs Luke may use to describe what other NT authors
express with CtfluQ"tWA.O;.
f) Conzelmann argues that Luke's first occurrence of CtfluQ"tWA.O; (Luke
5.8) 'ilIustriert, was Le unter der Bekehrung eines Sunders versteht. Nicht
die Person wird idealisiert, aber der Vorgang typisiert im Sinn eines
Bekenntnisses, das jeder ablegen solI' (212, n. 4, italics mine). Conzelmann
seems to contradict himself (cf. preceding paragraph). I argued elsewhere
that Luke 5.8 hardly reflects Conzelmann's stark ethisch bestimmte Sii.ndenvorstellung. 1l3
g) According to Conzelmann, Luke 13.2 'ist an aUe gerichtet, aber nicht im paulinischen
Verstand einer Unentrinnbarkeit, sondern irn Gegenteil als Appell an die eigene Initiative' (212, n. 4). While Luke certainly urges repentance, there is more to 13.2-5. The correction of popular notion~ in vs. 2 and 4 (aflaQ"twAOL l'WQU :n;ciV"ta~) and the following
general call to repentance suggests that people do not need to be extraordinary sinners
to attract judgement (oflO[W~ WtOAEtU'6e). As all are urged to repentance to escape destruction (compare Conzelmann's contrasting conclusions for ch. 15), the stress is not on
the quality or quantifiable amount of morally objectionable actions. A common occasion
and common need for repentance seems to lie beneath quantifiable sins. The link between moral-ethical sins and the state of aflaQ"twA.6~ I O<PELAi"tT]~ is stronger than Conzelmann assumes. This raises questions of cause and effect: do individual moral-ethical sins
make a 'sinner', or is a person's sinfulness behind the visible manifestations in individual
acts?
Conzelmann claims that 'Das Lukanische Verstandnis zeigt sich klar im

Aufbau der Reden der Apg',114 Their last topos is not a call to repentance
(so Dibelius): 'Der Akzent liegt vielmehr auf dem Heilsangebot; erst aus
diesem ergibt sich der Ruf zur Buj3e als Bedingung des Heils')15
Lukas, (346-58) 349f.
Cf. 'Need'. In addition, the reader of Luke 5.8 knows Luke's infancy narratives.
There it became evident that outwardly impeccable people (like Sirneon; 2.25) rejoice
over the availability of salvation (2.30) and can die in peace once it appears. Salvation
consists in the forgiveness of these sins (1.77;3.3) but also addresses a state beyond these
manifestations, 1.79. The tax-collector of Luke 18.13 asks for God's mercy as he is a sinner.As with Peter in 5.8,sinful acts are not in the foreground. In contrast to the Pharisee
who points to individual meritorious deeds (18.12), the tax-collector rather betrays a
humble awareness of his sinful state.
114 p. 213. The speeches are studied and assigned theological weight while Luke's narrative material is not mentioned.
115 p. 213, n. 1 (italics mine). Conzelmann continues 'Das entspricht dem Lukanischen
flE"tCtvOLa-Begriff; cf. p. 214, n. 1 and pp. 90-92.
tU
113
32
l. Introduction
2. This observation takes us to the second area which is related to the first.
Conzelmann proposes that
... bei Lukas das objektive, durch Christus geschaffene Heil und seine subjektive Aneignung nicht mehr im selben MaBe eine Einheit bilden wie fTUher .... Auf seiten des
Einzelnen aber bemerkt man zunehmende Aufgliederung des Ganges der Bekehrung
in einzelne Vorgllnge mit fester Reihenfolge (193) .... Das 'Lukanische' fassen wir,
wenn wir nach der Begegnung des Einzelnen mit der Heilsbotschaft fragen (210f).
For this encounter Conzelmann suggests two factors: 'Glaube, Bekehrung

sind als Gottes Werk verstanden' (211), yet at the same time human activity
is stressed (192). For Conzelmann, Luke's moral-ethical understanding of
sin and the appropriation of salvation are linked:
1st gegeniiber Paulus die Stindenvorstellung stark ethisch bestimmt, so gilt Entsprechendes auch von der Befreiung von der SUnde. Der Begriff der 'Verge bung' ... Uberwiegt. Bedingung der Vergebung aber ist die BuJ3e (213).
Vielmehr ist durch [LE"tUVOLU allein das Heilsgut und der Heilsweg noeh nicht genUgend bestimmt. Das Heilsgut ist fUr Lukas die ~1Il1i, die OIll"tT]QLU. Und die Voraussetzung ist die Vergebung. Wiederum deren Bedingung ist die BuBe (214).
Repentance, the precondition for forgiveness, is not a Heilsgut, rather God

gives people an opportunity for repentance. 116 Conzelmann's identification
of several steps and his proposal for the appropriation of salvation implies
a certain assessment of the spiritual capacities of people prior to faith. For
Luke ' ... geht es urn den "Weg" zum Heil ... Ober diesen Weg teilt die
Verkilndigung das Notige mit. Sache des Menschen ist es dann, mit Gottes
Hilfe den Weg zu gehen' (212). People can respond to the opportunity and
information provided in the Christian proclamation and enter this way.
Committing 'only' moral-ethical sins which do not result in or are indicative of a sinful nature, they are not spiritually 'incapacitated'. Other 'impediments', which Luke expresses differently, are not considered. What
Conzelmann understands by 'mit Gottes Hilfe' is not clear. Another statement renounces supernatural assistance:
Saehe des Mensehen ist es nunmehr, die Konsequenzen zu ziehen, zu bereuen, sieh zu
'bekehren', sieh taufen zu lassen und - ehristlieh zu leben. DaB der Beitrag des Mensehen hier selbstandige Bedeutung gewonnen hat, ist handgreiflieh (192).
In section III.3.3. we return to the question of divine and human activity in
the Gentiles' appropriation of salvation in order to enquire what picture of

Gentiles prior to faith is implied. Then we shall have comprehensively examined Luke's portrait of them, including their moral-ethical and spiritual
116 P.
214, n. 1, see also p. 92: 'das Lukanische Verstlindnis des Ausdrueks 60iivm
die Gelegenheil dazu wird gegeben'. This notion will be discussed in section
III.2.2.4.3.3.
[LEta.VOLUV
33
failure, however expressed, which in turn bears on the possibility and extent of their contribution.
Conzelmann briefly notes aT influence: 'In der Aufnahme des BuJ3rufes
an die Juden zeigt sich die KontinuiUi.t mit der Botschaft des AT und des
Tiiufers. Gegenuber den Heiden ist derselbe Sachverhalt klarzustellen'
(213, n.1.). This proposed continuity between the aT and its instances of
such calls to Gentiles and Luke's cases may suggest that Luke's view of the
Gentiles is also influenced by the OT.1 17 Conzelmann notes that for Gentiles 'bedarf es hier anderer AnknUpfung und Begrundung'. The reason for
repentance is 'Es gibt (allgemein) Auferstehung und Gericht. DaB wir uns
davor zu ftirchten haben, ist vorausgesetzt' (213, n. 1). Of what Gentiles
need to repent or why this judgement is coming upon them is not clarified.
ConzeJmann's considerations suggest that further aspects, other than
those of Dibelius and his followers, point to a Lukan anthropological contribution worthy of attention. Conzelmann's proposals are based on a
wider selection of texts showing that there is more to Luke's anthropology
than Athens. Despite these differences, Conzelmann's conclusions are not
unlike those of Dibelius and his followers. Rather than being appreciated
on his own terms, Luke is far too much assessed with reference to Paul. llS
C.H. Talbert once claimed that the only agreement in Lukan studies is
'that Conzelmann's synthesis is inadequate'.1 19 It has become apparent in
our survey that Conzelmann's proposals for Luke's hamartiology and soteriology, both affecting Luke's anthropology, need reconsideration and that
caution is required with studies which heavily rely on Conzelmann in these
regards. More specific investigation of Luke's anthropology based on a
wider textual basis is required. Such study will allow more confident assessment of Conzelmann's proposals (cf. Y.2.2.).
117 Ellis, 'Funktion', 384 notes: 'Soweit erkennbar, sieht Lukas ... den Menschen in alttestamentlichen Kategorien'; cf. p. 387 and EIlis' criticism of the 'Dibelius' interpretation
of Acts 17.28 in n.16. An increasing number of studies points to the close link of Luke's
work with the aT or its reception in early !udaism. Parallels are seen in matters of genre,
type of historiography, christology, etc. Thus Luke's anthropological indebtedness to the
aT is plausible and this potential background has to be carefully considered in our discussions of individual passages.
118 Cf. K!immel, 'Anklage'; Wilckens, 'Interpreting'.
119 'Sands', 395; cf. Rese, 'Lukas-Evangelium', 2312f. Our examination of two of Conzelmann's proposals affirms van Unnik's conclusion to his analysis of research:' ... much
work is still ahead of us, particularly in the field of exegesis, I cannot help confessing that
the exegetical basis for many statements in the modern approach to LukeActs is often
far-from convincing, at least highly dubious in my judgement', 'Storm-Center', 28. For
Conzelmann and the ensuing discussion see Braumann, 'Einf1lhrung'.
34
I. Introduction
2.2.3.3. S.G. Wilson
Our survey of Luke's anthropology includes the only major study of the
Gentiles in Luke-Acts. However, in The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in
Acts S.G. Wilson claims that 'the most striking characteristic of Luke-Acts
is precisely the lack of any consistent theology of the Gentiles'PO
Like other studies of the Gentile mission and their admission to the
church, Wilson examines how both are explained and affirmed. His conclusions are familiar (cf. 1.2.1.2.1.): 'The role of the Spirit permeates the story
of the Gentile mission, guiding and prompting the Church at every stage
and confirming the most important turning points ... ' (241). Jesus and the
Spirit, the role of God and the risen Christ and the occurring miracles all
serve to justify the Gentile mission. The assertion that God is no partisan
(243) and the proof-from-prophecy theme support the same goaP21 On
this theme Wilson comments:
Of all the various methods Luke uses to justify the turning to the Gentiles, this appeal
to the aT and, by implication, to the eternal will of God is the most profound and fundamental. It is the closest Luke gets to constructing a 'theology' of the Gentiles and the
Gentile mission (244, italics mine).
Wilson concludes:
For a characteristic of Luke's writing at this and at other points is that Luke has no apparent logic. His account of the motivations for the Gentile mission is neither logical
nor theological. There is no single underlying theme, but rather a jumble o/miscellaneous themes, none of which is fully developed in itself or in relation to the others. Sometimes ideas are used which have the potential for forming the basis of a systematic and
more logical justification, but their potential is never realised (246, italics mine).
Rather than developing a consistent 'theology' of the Gentiles, Wilson proposes that Luke took a more pragmatic approach in line with his purpose.
Wilson sees this approach exemplified in Luke 7.1-10; Acts 10-11.18; 14.1517; 17.22-31: ' ... by his description of the centurion and Cornelius and by
his assessment of the religious status of the Gentiles in the Areopagus
speech [Luke] tries to show that the Gentiles are, in their own way, as devout
and as likeable as the Jews' (245, italics mine). Comparing Luke's depiction
of Jews and Gentiles 122, Wilson concludes: 'The Gentiles may not belong to
120 P. 239. In response to Wilson, Fitzmyer, 191 tried to show that' ... Luke's attitude toward them [the Gentiles] certainly fits into Lucan theology in a larger sense'; cf. his review ofWilson in TS 35,1974, 741-44 non vidi.
121 Pp.43f; cf. the statements on God's impartiality in Acts 10.34; 15.9 (cf. p. 243) and the
above discussion including Bock,Proclamation.
ill Wilson's brief comparison of both groups (p. 245, reflecting his previous treatment)
is problematic in that Luke's presumably positive statements about and occurrences of
Gentiles are contrasted to /legative statements about Jews. Obviously, such treatment
35
the chosen race and they may lack the religious insight of the Jews, but
within the limits set for them they prove to be neither more nor less responsive to God's revelation of his character and will .... (245). Wilson speculates on Luke's motivation for this apologetic portrayal of the Gentiles:
Luke seems to be saying that an unbiased look at the past and the present shows the
Gentiles to be in every way as good as the Jews. And if this is so, then there is no good
reason why the gospel should not be preached to them and the Church welcome
them. Apart from the Jew's temporal priority, the Gentile has as great a claim on the
gospel as the Jew; the response of the one is as valid as that of the other.m
In support of this 'equalising-pragmatic-approach' thesis some Lukan

statements on Gentiles prior to faith are included and discussed. Did Wilson reach this positive evaluation through his interpretation and choice of
the evidence? Wilson's procedure invites twofold reconsideration:
1. Are Wilson's references to Gentiles really as positive as he takes them?
The positive evaluation of Gentiles which Wilson suggests for Acts 14.15-17
and 17.22-31 follows an interpretative tradition which we have already had
reason to question.1 24 How is his treatment of Luke 7.1-10 and Acts 1011.18 to be evaluated?l25
fails to do justice to the many negative references to Gentiles and overlooks Luke's
many positive references to Jews (see below).
123 p. 245 (italics mine). Wilson affirmed these results in his later study on Luke and the
Law. There he claims that Acts 14 and 17 provide 'an interesting complement to Luke's
view of Jewish legal piety, since here Gentile piety is also viewed with a certain magnanimity and optimism, as something which provides a useful preparation for the gospel. even
though it is corrected and supplemented by it'. He concludes for Jews and Gentiles: 'The
piety of the one is as good as the piety of the other ... being a Jew or a Gentile brings no
advantage since both can be valuable preparation for reception of the gospel' Cp. 104, italics mine).
124 From his exegesis of Acts 14.15-17; 17.22-31 (pp. 196-218; speeches, not their contexts!) Wilson seeks to establish Luke's 'liberal assessment of the pre-Christian history of
the Gentiles', p. 243. This 'liberal and magnanimous assessment of the Gentiles' pre-Christian religiosity can be connected with his pragmatic justification of the Gentile mission ...
The Gentiles ... have a religious attitude which can be positively evaluated. The average
Gentile's response to God is no worse, though neither is it any better, than that of the average Jew.... the Gentiles' religiosity is the first stage on the way to salvation' (p.218).
125 For Wilson's exegesis of Acts 10.If cf. pp. 171-78. Luke's portrayal of Cornelius is
also motivated by his 'pragmatic approach to the JeW-Gentile problem' (p. 32), namely
'to show that the Gentiles were not such a bad crowd after all. By making Cornelius a typical example of a Gentile, Luke may be trying to say that, all things considered, there is not
much to choose between a Jew and a Gentile ... As in Luke 7.1-10, Luke seems to be introducing a thoroughly pragmatic justification of the Gentile mission alongside the more
"theological" justification found both here and elsewhere' (pp. 176f, italics mine; cf.
pp. 217, 245). However, do Luke's other comments on Gentiles and his description of
Cornelius really suggest that he is a 'typical example of a Gentile'? Cf. III.2.2.4.1.1. and
Taeger, Mensch, 60.
36
l. Introduction
2. Are these references representative? How would Luke's comprehensive

portrait of Gentiles prior to faith, which despite the promising title WiIson
does not examine, affect his proposal? Does Luke's portrayal, not only in
speeches but also in narrative sections, actually suggest that Gentiles are 'in
their own way, as devout and as likeable as the Jews' and that Luke commends their way (245)? How is pagan devotion portrayed and evaluated
(e.g. Acts 12.22; 14.11-13,18f; 19.23-41; 28.4-6)? What of their many other
appearances on Luke's stage? Does Luke's comprehensive portrait indicate more of a consistent 'theology of the Gentiles' than what Wilson
found, and if so, what does it look like?
Would this comprehensive portrait rather suggest a negative common
denominator between Jews and Gentiles? To play on Wilson's words: if the
Gentiles prove to be in every way as bad as the Jews (while allowing positive references for both groupS)126, there would be even more reason why
the gospel should be preached to them and why the Church should welcome Gentile converts. The Gentiles are in God's plan, not because they deserve salvation as much as the Jews, but because they need salvation and
God wishes to save them. However, only Luke's comprehensive portrait
will allow proper assessment of Wilson's proposal.
Even Wilson's extensive study does not fully discuss the reasons for or
the necessity of the Gentile mission and of the Gentiles' salvation (cf.
1.2.1.2.). What Wilson suggests we have reason to question. Though Wilson
covers themes related to the Gentiles (cf. pp. 239-44), other than through
his 'pragmatic approach' he does not relate Luke's p'ortrayal of Gentiles to
the Gentile mission and their salvation. We have to examine whether the
state of the Gentiles, could be another, or possibly even the underlying
theme to explain,justify and affirm the Gentile mission and their admission
to the church, to which other themes are closely related.
2.2.3.4. 1. -W Taeger
Despite the ongoing quest for Luke the theologian, his anthropology has so
far been the subject ofonly one monograph. I-W. Taeger's Der Mensch und
sein Reil: Studien zum Bild des Menschen und zur Sicht der Bekehrung bei
Lukas (1982) presents the most comprehensive attempt to date to understand and appreciate Luke's anthropology. Taeger argues for a unified
Lukan anthropology different from others found in the NT. He proposes
126 For the Jewish need of salvation rather than their deserving it cf. Stenschke, 'Bedeutung', 140-42.
37
that for Luke people do not need salvation but rather correction: 'Der
Mensch ist kein salvandus, sondem ein corrigendus'.127
Similar to our own observations Taeger notes: ' ... die Anthropologie, die
der lukanische Paulus in Athen vortragt '" wird oft als Fremdkorper nicht
nur im NT, sondem auch innerhaIb der lukanischen Theologie angesehen'
(13). Otherwise Luke's anthropology is thought to have little to offer: 'Die
VemachIassigung der Frage nach dem Menschenbild ... mag damit zusammenhiingen, daB Lukas sich hierin, wenn tiberhaupt, so doch nur unwesentlich von den anderen Synoptikem zu unterscheiden scheint'.l28
Adopting Dibelius' tradition of interpretation, which largely accounts
for the Athenian Fremdkorper l29 , Taeger raises a question decidedly different from that of previous scholars:
Doch bei einem so bewuBt und I1berlegt gestaltenden Autor wie Lukas wird man zu
fragen haben, warum sich gerade bei ihm solche 'fremdartigen' Gedanken finden, ob
sie irn Rahmen seines Werkes wirklich so fremd wirken und mehr oder weniger als
Kuriosum abgetan werden ktlnnen oder ob sie nicht integrierender Bestandteil seines
Menschenbildes sind, das in den eigenstandigen Entwurf des Autors ad Theophilum
einbezogen ist ... (13, italics mine).
Rather than being on~ exception, possibly this aUeged exception is representative and aU of Luke-Acts is an anthropological exception in the NT. To
pursue this possibility and to discover Luke's integrated view of humanity,
Taeger examines two closely related areas: 'welches Bild Lukas von dem
Menschen, auf den die Verktindigung trifft, zeichnet' and 'die Sicht der
Bekehrung' (17), thus Der Mensch und sein Heil. 130 Before the second
quest can be pursued adequately, Luke's view of the condition of people
prior to conversion needs clarification.
After introducing the subject and reviewing previous research (11-18),
Taeger begins with Luke's 'Charakterisierung des Menschen durch die anthropologischen Hauptbegriffe' (19-30) and concludes:
Es liegt ihm [Luke] fem,schon durch die anthropologischen Begriffe den Menschen
wesenhafi negativ zu qualiflZieren; '1j!1!XTJ, xaQSla, O'wlla und O'(iQ~ sind grundsiitzlich
neutrale GroBen. Der Mensch kommt nicht von vomherein hinsichtlich seiner Nich
tigkeit ... , Verfallenheit oder Sl1ndhafiigkeit in den Blick, sondem hinsichtlich seiner
MogIichkeiten. Die Wertungen betreffen ein vom Menschen zu verantwortendes und
zu korrigierendes Verhalten des Individuums, weshalb der Mensch urn die rechte Ausrichtung seiner 'IjIlJXTJ, die Befindlichkeit seiner xaQ/)la Sorge tragen soil. Darum ist
127 P.225 (italics mine).

128 P.13; with reference to Kl1mmel, Man and Spicq, Dieu.
1211Taeger's own treatment of the passage indicates that this tradition is disputed
(pp. 95-103).
.
130Taeger devotes the first half of his study to 'Der Adressat der Verktindigung'
(pp. 19-103), the second to conversion (pp. 105-228).
38
1. Introduction
auch die durch die Begriffe 'Ijluxli und xaQbla gesicherte Ansprechbarkeit und BeeinfluJ3barkeit des Menschen van entscheidender Bedeutung, besonders auch, was seine
SteUung zur christlichen VerkUndigung, die ihm den Weg zu seinem Heil weist, anbetrifft. In diesem Zusammenhang wird dann die dem Menschen bereits mit dem !;;ijv gegebene Beziehung zu Gatt wichtig;derjenige, der sich zu diesem Gatt wenden soli, kann
aUf seine nalilrliche Beziehung zu diesem Gott hin angesprochen und bei ihr behaftet
werden: Apg 17.22ff. (29f, italics mine; cf. p.227).
Taeger then turns to Luke's characterisation of people prior to faith to see

ob die sichtbar gewordenen Linien sich weiter ausziehen lassen. Bestimmt die an der
individuellen Lebensgestaltung orientierte Sicht des Menschen auch die ... Charakterisierung des VorgHiubigen? ... Entspricht der von anderen neutestamentlichen Autoren unterschiedenen Sicht der OelQ!; ... auch ein Siindenverstandnis, das nicht bei einer Grundverfallenheit des Menschen ansetzt? Und wie kommt der ansprechbare
und beeinfluBbare Mensch hinsichtlich seiner Verantwortlichkeit und seiner Moglichkeiten bei der Begegnung mit der christlichen VerkUndigung in den Blick? (30).
Taeger examines the following themes (31-84): 'Der Mensch als Sunder' (a
study of (l!.I.ugtLu and related words); 'Negative Aussagen uber die YEVEU';
'Die S6hne dieses Aons'; 'Gerechte, Ungerechte und Sunder'; 'Der Mensch
und die Exousia des Satans'; 'Der Mensch als Unwissender' and examines
'Die VerantwortIichkeit des Adressaten der Verkundigung und seine
M6gIichkeiten' (85-103; on Luke 11.33-36; 12.54-59; Acts 17.22-31). Taeger
concludes:
In Lk 12.54ff wurde der Mensch bei dem ihm konstitutiv eignenden Vermogen zur
rechten Erkenntnis behaftet. Apg 17 verhalt es sich nicht anders. Die Rede von der
Gottesnlihe und der Gottesverwandtschaft des Menschen.ist nur der starkste Ausdruck dafUr. Was als Zugestlindnis an die hellenistisch-philosophische lradition erscheinen mag, ist tatsachlich kaum Uberbietbarer Ausdruck der Hochschiitzung des natUrlichen Menschen durch Lukas.l3l
Taeger's second part is devoted to Luke's view of conversion. Again Taeger

pays close attention to terminology (cf. p.105). Following from his previous
conclusions, emphasis lies on the 'Entscheidung des Menschen' (106-55)
while conversion as 'Werk Gottes' is only briefly mentioned (155-60)1
Taeger then considers the 'Tat der Missionare'; '''Neutrale'' Wachtumsnotiz' and the 'sachliche Rahmen: Der Heilsplan Gottes'. These last three subjects do not add much to the discussion. Taeger concludes with a selection
of Luke's accounts of individual conversions (188-219). From this material
he gathers:
[Luke's] Hauptgewicht Iiegt eindeutig ... auf der Bekehrung als dem vom Menschen
geforderten, zu vollziehenden und zu verantwortenden Akt. Wrrd die Bekehrung
\31 Pp. 102f (italics mine). In III.2.2.11.2. (after Acts 17.31) we briefly examine Taeger's
interpretation of the meterological capacities ascribed to Jews in Luke 12.54-56. These
verses should be related only with great care to the spiritual capacities of Gentiles prior
to faith.
39
nicht als Tat des Menschen dargestellt, geschieht das, urn Ubergeordneten Gesichtspunkten Ausdruck zu verleihen (220).
The principle is 'daB man aus besserer Einsicht und in freier Entscheidung
Christ wird, nicht zum Christen "gemacht wird'" (221). From Luke's prologue it becomes
versUlndlich, daB die Bekehrung bei Lukas letztlich zu einer Frage der rechten
Erkenntnis wird und damit menschlicher Anstrengung Uberantwortet ist; diese ist
allerdings fUr einen interessierten und einsichtigen Menschen nicht allzu graB, denn der
christliche VerkUndigerredet nicht nur 'wahre' ,sondern auch 'vemUnftige Worte' (224).
Taeger concludes from his observations in both parts:

Der Mensch ist kein salvandus, sondern ein corrigendus. Die Charakterisierung des
vorgliiubigen Menschen durch Lukas ergab keinerlei Hinweise auf eine Sicht des
Menschen als salvandus, der durch eine Ubergreifende negative Macht bestimmt ist
und sein Subjektsein an diese verloren hat .... Der Mensch kommt in den Blick als
sein Leben individuell gestaltendes, verantwortliches Wesen. SUnder ist er sofern er
SUnden begangen hat, verwerfliche Einzeitaten, nicht aber, weil er als Mensch der
Macht der SUnde verfallen ist. ... Die an etbisch-moralischen Kriterien orientierte
Sicht des vorglliubigen Menschen gelangt keineswegs nur zu negativen Ergebnissen;
es gibt durchaus Menschen, an deren LebensfUhrung nichts auszusetzen ist.... [Satan]
ist auf der ganzen Linie der Verlierer und seiner Exousia kann sich der belehrte und
zur Einsicht gelangte Mensch entziehen. Das Fehlen dieser Einsicht ist neben dem
Lebenswandel der zweite Aspekt, unter dem der Vorgliiubige charakterisiert wird
(225) .... Ein corrigendus ist der Mensch also in zweifacher Hinsicht: Er soll zur besseren Moral und zur besseren Erkenntnis finden .... Der Lebenswandel- soweit ntitig
- und der Erkenntnisstand bedUrfen der Korrektur, die unterschiedlich ausfiillt, weil
sie van den individuellen Voraussetzungen aufseiten der Unbekehrten abhiingt.Liiuterung, nicht ErlOsung ist das Ziel. Solche Korrektur als Voraussetzung des Bestehens
im Gericht und der Erlangung des Heils kann vom Menschen gefordert werden, weil
dieser zur Selbsterkenntnis und Erkenntnis des wahren Gottes, der Bedeutsamkeit
Jesu und des zu tun Notwendigen fiihig ist.... SolchermaBen auf seine naturlichen
Moglichkeiten und seine Entscheidungsfreiheit verwiesen und dabei behaftet, muS
dem Menschen der Dbertritt zum Christen turn mit seiner Uberlegenen Moral und der
wahren Erkenntnis als eine in jeder Hinsicht einsichtige Sache erscheinen; eigentlich
konnen nur Inkonsequenz, Boswilligkeit oder Verstocktheit der Grund sein, wenn
Menschen sich dem Christentum verschlieSen (226f). Es entspricht dieser Einschlitzung des Menschen, wenn die VerkUndigung die MlIngel des Lebenswandels und des
Erkenntnisstandes der VorgUiubigen aufdeckt und sich die urn des Heils willen notwendige Bekebrung als Vollzug der jeweils erforderlichen Korrekturen darstellt, also
der Unterschied zwischen dem Unbekehrten und dem Glaubenden letztlich nur ein
gradueller ist, der Mensch eben nicht als ein salvandus, sondern als ein corrigendus
gesehen wird (227).
Despite these challenging proposals, Taeger's study has received little attention.1 32 As we shall engage with Taeger's proposals in sections n. and
IlI., some preliminary observations suffice.
132 Bovon, Luke, 417f devotes a mere 14 (mainly critical) lines to the study of J.-w.
laeger [sic]. Schnelle's 'Forschungsbericht' (8.3.) offers only a quick summary. Radl,
40
J. Introduction
Dibelius and Vielhauer concentrated on Acts 17 and concluded that

Lukan anthropology was different from that of others.!33 Conzelmann
studied more evidence and also suggested a divergent picture.!34 Taeger
rightly argues for a unified Lukan anthropology, including the Areopagus
speech135 , whose worthwhile ingredients are not confined to these verses.
Taeger combines these previous approaches and their congruous results,
pursues Conzelmann's line and argues for the divergent anthropology of all
of Luke-Acts in accordance with the Areopagus speech.1 36 This dependence is also apparent in Taeger's focus:
Weil dem lukanischen Doppelwerk kein Entwurf einer theoretischen Anthropologie
zu entnehmen ist, dieses aber eine Fl111e von Szenen enth!ilt, die die Begegnung des
Menschen mit der Verkiindigung in der Zeit Jesu und der der Kirche schildem, ist an
H. Conzelmanns Einsicht, daB man das 'Lukanische' fasse, wenn man nach dieser Begegnung [rage, festzuhalten. Wie kommt der Mmsch als Adressat der VerkUndigung
und als aUf diese VerkUndigung Reagierender in den Blick?1:n
Despite this combined and far more comprehensive approach Taeger still
neglects material indicative of Luke's anthropology. Due to his adoption of
Conzelmann's emphasis on the encounter with the proclamation, Taeger
misses or underestimates Luke's references to the state of humanity, to the
actual Jews and Gentiles of the past, to both groups apart from and prior to
this Begegnung and what Luke says about people after this Begegnung.
Lukas-Evangelium, 108-10 sumarises and cautiously counterbalances some of Taeger's
proposals. Pliimacher's 120 page review of 'Acta-Forschung 1974-82' refers briefly (9
lines) to Taeger regarding the differences between Luke and Paul; cf. also Lindemann,
'Literaturbericht', 353f. Marshall's 'Luke: Luke as a Theologian', AncBD IV, (402f) 403,
contains a 14 line summary and criticism; MarshaU's 'Postscript: Lucan Studies since
1979' in Historian (1988), 223-35 and Gasque, 'Field' do not mention Taeger. Wiefel's
ThLZ review of Taeger only appeared seven years after publication (in volume 114,
1989). It is the only review of Taeger listed in eleven volumes of EBB (63, 1982 - NS 8,
1992).
133 Cf. Taeger's reference (Mensch, 14) to Vielhauer.
134 Though Taeger, Mensch, 4-15 summarises Conzelmann's relevant pages (Mitle, 193217) and acknowledges that Conzelmann has 'bereits wichtige Beobachtungen zur
lukanischen Sicht des Menschen zusammengestellt' (p.14), he does not sufficiently bring
out Conzelmann's suggestions of a divergent Lukan anthropology. Taeger is far more indebted to Conzelmann than what becomes apparent from his summary.
135 Cf. his convincing argument in the above quotation. Studies of other areas of Lukan
theology have supported Luke's theological unity; for a recent challenge cf. 1.2.2.3.6.
136 The point of departure is crucial: granted a unified Lukan picture, should disputed
verses, if they are not an exception, set the agenda for other anthropological references
or should the other references be studied on their own and, in case of doubt, even guide
the interpretation of the speech? As the interpretation of these verses is so controversial,
we want to attempt the latter. While Taeger does not start with Athens (pp. 94-103), his
position appears to be set early on (pp. 12f, foUowing Vielhauer and KUmmel).
mp.17 (italics mine); with reference to Conzelmann, Apostelgeschichte, 12 and Mute,
210f.
41
Other factors active in pre-Christian existence or in this very encounter, be

they demonic or divine, do not receive enough attentionP8 What Luke says
about people apart from, prior to and after this encounter bears on his portrayal of them and on the assessment of their spiritual capacities and thus
their contribution in this encounter. 139 Neglect of this setting fosters inadequate conclusions. While some of this material is included in Taeger's first
section, in particular Luke's na"ative descriptions of Gentiles prior to faith
have not been given sufficient weight. Taeger studies only four conversion
accounts of individual Gentiles (Acts 8.26-39; 13.7-12; 16.13-15,25-34).
Brief study of Luke's references to Jews prior to this encounter has led
us to challenge Taeger's conclusions.1 4o Here it remains to examine in
greater detail whether the same questions arise from Luke's references to
Gentiles prior to faith. What can be concluded from neglected aspects of the
Gentile encounter with salvation141 and from Luke's portrayal of Gentile
Christians to their state prior to faith? Taeger's scope requires expansion. It
remains to be seen whether a harmonious portrait emerges from the more
extensive material we consider. 142 In addition to these significant limitations, Taeger interprets the Areopagus speech in a fashion which continues
138 The role of the devil as the adversary of Jesus and the Christian mission is far more
significant than what is apparent from Taeger's treatment (ct. our n.183). Bovon, Luke,
418 notes: Taeger 'is right to insist on the responsibility of the human being, but I would
say the believers responsibility, for according to Luke, Satan holds non-believers under
his power more than Taeger is willing to admit. In a significant manner, the author is almost mute when it comes to Acts 10.38 ... '; ct. Taeger's n. 282, p. 72 and Bovon's n. 74,
p.490.
139 Neglect of these aspects is reflected in Schnelle's criticism of Taeger: ' ... Taeger in
seinen Analysen die Beteiligung des Menschen am HeilsprozefJ Uberbetont', 'Forschungsbericht', 8.3. (italics mine). Wiefel asks in the conclusion to his review of Taeger, col. 273:
'Das alte Lied vom "Synergismus" des Lukas? Jedenfalls sieht man die Akzente so gesetzt (oft schon durch die vom )'erfasser bevorzugten Vokabeln, etwa das haufige
"ethisch-moralisch"), daB diese ,?arstellung der Anthropologie des Lukas in der Anklage erscheinen dtlrfte.Aber ist es 'fVirklich der ganze Lukas?' (italics mine).
140 Cf. Stenschke, 'Bedeutung'. \
141 Taeger, Mensch, 188 and n. 77sf;following and with reference to Conzelmann,Mitte,
215, n.1, excludes the conversions of Paul and Comelius, though they are emphasised by
Luke through their threefold/twofold repetition. The latter deserves careful scrutiny; cf.
III.2.2.4. For the former cf. III.3.3.2.2.3.6.2. Both accounts report the conversion of men
who were beyond moral-ethical reproach and very devout, both stress God's saving activity in the encounter. Lindemann, 'Literaturbericht', 354 notes on Taeger's omission of
Paul's conversion: 'gerade diese scheint sich dem von Taeger gefundenen Schema doch
zu widersetzen'. Lindemann also criticises Taeger's treatment of Luke 7.36-50 and 15.20.
U2 We do not devote a separate section to anthropological terminology; cf. Taeger,
Mensch, 19-30. Many of these terms occur in the Jewish setting of the Gospel. Where referring to Gentiles these terms will be examined as integral parts of the passages under
consideration.
42
I. Introduction
to be controversiaL Acts 17 should not be overemphasised and be seen as

the interpretive key. Its position in Luke-Acts also forbids such use.
Rather than interacting with Taeger point by point, we want to re-examine Taeger's treatment of material regarding Gentiles143 and add material
that he and others have neglected in order to develop a fresh hypothesis for
Luke's view of Gentiles. Should Luke's portrait of Gentiles prior to, on their
way to and under faith indicate that they need salvation and correction,
Taeger's proposal would need major reconsideration.
2.2.3.5. Recent neglect
Taeger's study remains the only major contribution on this subject. Little
has changed since Taeger's survey and study.1 44
1. Luke's anthropology as a worthwhile subject of its own has remained unrecognised, be that through simple neglect, a shift of interest within NT
studies, or the continued assumption or recognition that the anthropology
of Luke's Gospel is similar to that of Matthew and Mark and can therefore
be subsumed under the anthropology ofthe Synoptic gospels and/or that of
Jesus.1 45 Such studies usually yield little for our quest. Other subjects are on
the forefront in the study of the theology of Acts.
2. Studies of other Lukan subjects or quests not limited to Luke's volumes

keep touching on issues regarding Luke's anthropology. We have already
mentioned the ongoing discussion of the Gentile mission. In addition to
Luke's soteriology, there is e.g. also the discussion of natural theology
which usually includes Lukan anthropological key passages 146 and other interest in the Areopagus speech.
H3 Cf. e.g. the description of Cornelius (Mensch, 60-63),Acts 26.18 (pp. 68-81),17.22-31
(94-103) and some conversion accounts (208-17).
\44 Mensch, 18; cf. Taeger's survey of Lukan studies bearing on anthropology,14-16.
14S Cf. e.g. Marshal!, 'Luke: Luke as a Theologian', AncBD IV, (402f) 403: 'But Luke's
understanding does not differ significantly from that of Mark and Matthew'. Taeger,
Mensch, 13f adduces further reasons of this continued lack of recognition and summarises several perspectives imd studies that touched on Luke's anthropology. They illustrate 'aus wie unterschiedlichen Richtungen man sich dabei dem lukanischen Menschenbild genahert hat' (14).
146 Cf. e.g. BaIT, Faith. BaIT, pp. 21-38, argues for the uniqueness of the Areopagus
speech and criticises K. Barth's use of the passage and what Barr calls the 'Barthian position'. In his own interpretation Barr mainly follows Conzelmann, Apostelgeschichte.
Still Barr concludes that Paul was not 'simply adapting Stoic or other Greek philosophy
to his needs. It is more likely that his arguments came from Jewish tradition and were familiar from a long time back in the Jewish self-statement against the Greek world', p. 36.
In contrast, Killling, Geheimnis, 172f and Torrance, 'Logos',13f affirm Barth's interpretation of the speech (cf. CD 1.2, 305ff; II.1, 121ff).
43
The contributions of H. Hegermann and U. Schnelle exemplify the

continued neglect of Luke's anthropology (cf. 1.2.2.3.6. for an example
illustrating the second observation). In the NT section of the entry
'Mensch' in the Theologische Realenzyklopiidie (1992)147, Hegermann
does not consider Luke's anthropology in its own right.l48 He discusses
'Alttestamentlich-friihjUdische Grundlagen' (1 page), followed by sections
on 'Das Menschenbild Jesu' (2), 'Die theologische AnthropoIogie des PauIus' (5), 'Das Menschenbild der johanneischen Schriften' (1.5) and on
Hebrews (0.5).
The Synoptics are taken to paint the same picture. Hegermann claims
that Jesus saw 'den Menschen durchweg rettungslos verschuldet' (482.31)
or mentions the 'unerloste Welt' (483.28; cl. also 483.37,46-48). Taeger's thesis for Luke's anthropology challenges these conclusion from the Synoptic
gospels, while other remarks would fit into Taeger's proposaI. 149 Surprisingly, neither Acts 17 nor any other passage of Acts appears in this entry. Do
Hegermann's conclusions also hold true for Luke and Acts?
The same restriction appears in Schnelle's Neutestamentliche Anthropologie: Jesus-Paulus-Johannes. What is questionable in a concise entry, is
more surprising in a study of almost two hundred pages. Luke's Gospel appears in the section 'Das Bild des Menschen in der Verklindigung Jesu' (1343). Reminiscent of Wheeler Robinson's work of 1911 (1. ed.; with one reference to Acts), not a single reference to Acts appears in the index (p.195),
despite e.g. Ktlmmel's claims and the attention that at least the Areopagus
speech continually receives elsewhere. Though Schnelle's introduction covers a wide range of topics, his restriction to 'Jesus', Paul and John is nowhere explained or defended.1 5o
147 'Mensch. IV. NT', TRE XXII, 481-93; cf. our notes 3lf above.
148 Taeger's studies (Mensch and 'Paulus'), devoted to books which comprise 27.5% of
the NT (based on the figures in Green, The%gy,2,n. 5), are not even mentioned in the
extensive bibliography (pp. 491-93), though Hegermann readily lists his own contributions on Hebrews.
H9 E.g. Hegermann claims (483.5-8; I fail to fully appreciate his argument): 'In der
!Craft und dem Licht der neuen G~esniihe sieht Jesus den Menschen befreit zu der ihm
bestimmten "Erkenntnis des Gpten u~posen"; auf die Frage "Was soLI ich tun?" antwortet Jesus sinngemlU3: "Du kennst den Willen Gottes". Die "Erkenntnis des Basen" im
Sinne der Selbsterkenntnis .. .' Hegermann neglects the context of these verses (Mark
10.17-19): this question does not concern ethics, the enquirer does not know what to do
to inherit eternal life. Jesus does not refer him to 'der ihm bestimmten Erkenntnis' but
first to the commandments and later adds his own radical command. Vs. 23-27 indicate
that though it is hard to enter the kingdom of God, salvation is possible with God; cf.
Luke 18.18-26.
l50The emphasis in Schnelle's 'Forschungsbericht' falls on studies of Pauline anthropology. A few pages are devoted to John. Schnelle notes: 'Nur sehr wenige Untersuchungen Iiegen zur Anthropologie cler Synoptiker vor'. Among the 'Weitere ntl. Schriften',
44
I. Introduction
This neglect is hardly due to failure to appreciate a distinct Lukan theology as it has received extensive attention since Kummel's study of 1948.151
These two authors demonstrate that much of the theological quest for anthropology is still limited to material or authors more obvious and easily
accessible or traditionally considered to be of theological relevance. 152
There is still room and need for attention to Luke's anthropology.
2.2.3.6. M.C Parsons and R.I Pervo
In Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts Parsons and Pervo employ Luke's
anthropology as a test case for challenging the theological unity of LukeActs.1 53 They chose anthropology because it is 'an important and pervasive
element of Lukan thought and literary expression that stresses general cultural views rather than particular concerns emerging from the Israelite religious tradition' (90, italics mine). While their recognition of Luke's anthropology is commendable, their assumption of background needs attention as
other scholars have claimed the contrary.
Unfortunately, their treatment fails to provide careful examination and
the compilIison of the anthropology of the Gospel with that of Acts, which
would be required to establish their case. Though they rightly draw attention to often neglected methodological issues in studying Luke's theology
(80-89), their own procedure, comparisons with other ancient literature and
results are too dependent on a particular identification of the genre of Acts
and on their selection of material of anthropological relevance in LukeActs. 154
The relevant chapter (90-113) is mostly a loose collection of ideas and
gleanings from other scholars, often uncritically accepted155 and occasionally self-contradictory;156 The authors discuss a number of issues only
vaguely related to anthropology and unnecessary for proving their thesis
while missing important issues and studies such as those of Giirtner and
Theger appears as the only study of relevance to Luke-Acts (8.3.; the only other NT book
considered is James).
151 Cf. Rese, 'Lukas-Evangelium', 2298-2319.
152 Cf. Taeger,Mensch, 13:' ... die Frage nach der "Anthropologie des Lukas" anders als
bei Paulus und Johannes wenig ertragreich zu sein verspricht'.
153 Pp. 89-114; cf. the summary and criticism of their proposal by Marshall, 'Treatise',
164,1'68-69. Reviews by C.R. Matthews,JBL 114,1995,333-35 and J.B. Green, CBQ 57,
1995,411-13. Cf. the recent survey on the unity of Luke-Acts by Buckwalter, Character,40f.
154 The anthropological chapter is dependent on Pervo's Profit; cf. Marshall, ''Ii"eatise',
178f.
155 The conclusions of Conzelmann are accepted as if they had not been challenged; cf.
only Talbert, 'Sands', 395.
156 Cf. the assessment of J.B. Green, CBQ 57, 1995 (411-13) 412.
45
Taeger! Still their treatment of some passages and themes, not often adduced in this context, and their methodological considerations raise issues
worth pondering. We follow the sequence of their chapter.
1. Characterisation. Following their assumption of genre, the authors refer
to Hellenistic novels and romances. 1S7 'These popular writings readily compare their heroes to divinities. Just as apostolic missionaries exhibited godlike characteristics .. .'.158 They compare Acts 14.6-18 to a passage from
Chariton's novel Chaereasand Callirhoe159 and ask: 'Is this simply a literary
convention in novels and a theological point in the acts? Or does there
hover behind such scenes a kind of anthropological understanding?' (91).
Unfortunately this interesting question is neither adequately discussed nor
answered. Further issues in Lukan anthropology are taken from Acts 14.618 (see 7. below).16o .
2. Acts 17.22-31 is briefly discussed in context of the unity of the human race
(98). The Athenians 'may be ignorant, but their ignorance is far from invincible. No blindness has utterly corrupted pagan hearts ... '. This interpretation is not related to the speech's meagre response or e.g. to Acts 26.18. The
claim of 'common descent from the one God' introduces an excursus on
157 Pp. 90f. That narrative parallels need to be considered in assessing a narrative has
often been neglected by other scholars.
158 p. 91. They overlook the f~6i that the characterisation of the missionaries as divine
(not divine men!) is ascribed t6 barbaric Gentiles. It is not a commendable recognition,
but rather indicative of their spiritual blindness and strongly refuted by the missionaries.
Luke does not portray the missioftaries as divine men; cf. WB, 719.2.; B.L. Blackburn, 'Divine ManfTheios Aner',DIG,189-92j differently H.D. Betz, 'Gottmensch.Il.Griechischrtimische Antike und Urchristentum', RAC XII, (234-312) 288-90,297-300,303,305: 'In
den Evangelien teilweise und stllrker in der Apostelgeschichte werden die JUnger und
Apostel als -&ELOL aVaQE~ dargestellt (Geistbesitz, Weissagung, Wundertaten); zugleich
aber wird eine Vergottung scharf abgelehnt (in Aufnahme hellenistischer Polemik s Act.
12,2113; 1O,26j 14,14)'j cf. also Acts 3.11-16j 9.34; 13.9-11; 16.18; 28.6.
1591.14 (cf. Reardon, Novelr,36)jcf. their p. 91, n. 30. F. Siegert's distinction between the
providence of God, stressed by the pseudo-PhiIonic sermons De Iona and De Sampsone,
and the popular theology of Hellenistic novels also applies to Luke-Acts (Kommentar,
299f): 'Zu dies er einfachen und eindeutigen theologischen Haltung kontrastiert die
Populllrtheologie der hellenistischen Romane. Dem Leser von Charitons Callirhoe z.B.
muB auffallen, wie belie big und ohne erkennbaren MaBstab mal von der "Vorsehung"
gesprochen wird, mal von "Gott", mal von "Gtittern", mal von "'JYche" ... Unser jiidischer Autor konnte hier viel klarer sprechen. I1QovoLa ist ihm der Name flir das Wirken
des aus der Geschichte und Tora bekannten Einen Gottes'.
160 Pp. 92-94. They conclude: 'The two words beginning with homoi- also indicate a relationship - in this case a relationship between the human and divine. If the healing
stands at the tip of God's gracious creation, the healers represent the zenith of human
achievement', p. 94. Both claims need reconsideration, the latter assumption is unlikely
in the light of e.g. Acts 3.12,16 and 14.3! Such healings are not expressions of human
achievement.
46
I. Introduction
ancient philosophical and biblical beliefs about 'Human beings as offspring

of the divine' (98-100). Luke 3.23-38 and Acts 17.26-28 are compared, the
former taken to pre-figure the latter 161: 'Luke 3.23-28 shows that Acts
17.26-28 is not anomalous' (100). The epithet of Adam as son of God (3.38)
becomes determinative for the application of this title to Jesus in 3.22.
Though they rightly caution that 'The conception through the Holy Spirit
... cannot be overlooked', they continue: 'but Luke 3 does proclaim Jesus
Son of God also by virtue of descent. This heritage is shared, needless to say,
with all humanity' (101, italics mine). The distinction of the infancy narratives between Jesus and other humans is disregarded. What is uniquely said
about Jesus in 3.22, is extended to all humanity. The authors fail to distinguish between all humans as God's creatures and as partaking of divine nature and neglect the sequence of the chapter. 162 The authors claim that
The Adam of Luke 3.38 and Acts 17.26-28 is ... a glorious figure. 16' Anthropologically this portrait of Adam not only proclaims the unity of the human race but also a
divine parent whose offspring can recognise their maker, a parent from whom they
are not wholly estranged, even if the inheritance has been squandered in a strange
land far away. Luke's theology ... does not take its departure from the assumption of
brokenness tl04).
This they see affirmed in Luke 15.11-32 which

... portrays the Lukan view of sin in narrative form. The prodigal does not require a
messenger to expose his condition nor adoption co reclaim his status. Self discovery
leads to change (Lk 15.17). His father did not see their relationship as broken ('dead
and alive' are softened by correlation with 'lost and fount:\', vv. 20-32). With repentance comes a restoration of the younger son's former Iife. I "
This interpretation is difficult to reconcile with Luke's references to the

ministry of the Jewish prophets of the past and the Gentile mission (cf. Acts
161 P. 100. This comparison, quite apart from its validity, links rather than severs both
books.
162 Even if the same kind of sonship were implied in Luke 3.22 and 38, 0 ayrutl,,:6~ and
EV oot EUOOXT]Oa certainly apply to Jesus only! Their reference (p. 101, n. 70) to SchUrmann I, 20lf does not support their claim: 'Die Gottessohnschaft Jesu (3.22) sieht Luk
gewiB nicht in solcher Verwurzelung der Menschheitsgeschichte in Gott begrUndet';
against Johnson, Purpose, 235-39. SchUrmann's exegesis, Inf, emphasising the uniqueness of Jesus, is completely different. Kurz, 'Genealogies', 175-79 provides a fine treatment of Luke's genealogy in relation to Acts 17.
163 The initial judgement was more cautious: 'Lukas [sic] presumably refers to Adam
not as a fallen sinner but as the glorified, immortal being fashioned by God and placed at
the head of creation. This splendid figure is worthy of the epithet "Son of God''', p. 101
(italics mine).
164 p. 104, n. 83 (italics mine). Ct. Conzelmann 's reference to Luke 15 in Mitle, 212, n.4.
47
13.1-3).1 65 Even if it is true for the Jewish prodigal who knew where to return to (Luke 15.17-20), would the same be true for Gentiles?
3. Hamartiology. As there is no reference to Adam's fall in Luke 3.38 166 , the
authors assert naively: 'Lukan theology does not include a theory of "Original Sin"'.167 They follow Conzelmann (102f): 'In Luke and Acts sin is always in the plural, referring to deeds rather than to character'.168 The significant singular occurrence of UJ.LUg"tLU in Acts 7.60 (deed expressing character) is missed. Acts 10.35 is taken to indicate that Cornelius and his associates were acceptable to God and did not need to repent. No defence of
this interpretation is put forward (Ill.2.2.4.2.). Whether Luke indicated the
fallen state of humanity other than through reference to Gen 3 (in the geneal,ogy of Jesus) is not considered.
4. Pneumatology. The universal availability ofthe Spirit to all of Adam's descendants is 'the basis for and means whereby one may reclaim the heritage
of God's children' (103f). That this Spirit is not inherent but needs to be received and that this reception is linked to conversion is overlooked (cf. Acts
2.38). For Luke, the Spirit is not 'the basis for and means' of reclamation,
but a divine gift following salvation.
5.In 'Adam and Christ' (104f) the authors affirm a Lukan 'Christology based
upon Jesus as a new, gforious Adam who reverses the events of the fall'. 169
have~uch
Adam and Jesus

in common. Both are 'Sons of God', but also human beings, for Luke regards Jeslls as truly human, not as preexistent or as endowed with
165 The people of Nineveh certainly required a messenger to expose their condition.
Luke stresses that they came to repentance through Jonah's message (IlZtEvOT]oaV E~"tO
xT]QuYfla 'IolVa, Luke 11.32), not through self-discovery (er. II.2.2.2. and our conclusions
there). The experience and the insights of the Iewish prodigal (cf. II.2.8., p. 59, n. 20)
should not be ascribed to humanity in general.
166 Ct. their claim quoted in our n. 163. Is such a reference really to be expected? Is this
expectation raised by some of Paul's references to Adam? The function of this genealogy
and genealogies in general is overlooked; et. D.S. Huffmann, 'Genealogy.2', DIG, (25359) 256f. The anthropology of the infancy narratives does not support their presumption.
Do many Western Christians really miss such a reference in this genealogy as the authors
claim?
167 p. 102, with reference to Conzelmann, MUte, 212, n. 4; cf. our treatment of Acts 3.21
in III.3.2.2.3. On their observations on xaQola cf. Theger, Mensch, 22-24.
168 P. 103, n. 77. They continue: 'The disputed category of "Godfearers" illustrates this
unity'. No unity was spoken of in the context. I fail to understand this reference to the
God-fearers.
169 P.1D4; also proposed e.g. by Neyrey, Passion, 165-74 et passim; cf. Buckwalter, Char
acter, 7f,18 and the criticism of Fitzmyer, 211. This reversal of the fall is surprising in view
of their previous assessmen t of the fall, p. 102.
48
I. Introduction
gifts unavailable to other persons.170 For Adam, Jesus, and every other person temptation can be resisted and the Devil thwarted. m The importance of this comparison,
then, is not the contrast between a Christ who restored what Adam lost, but in the
qualities not lost by Adam that Jesus and others share.172
6. The communalism of the Jerusalem community reflects a 'program of restoring the (primeval) unity of the human race through sharing.... In Jewish
terms it reflects the restoration of paradise. In pagan terms this life represents
achievement of an ancient philosophical goal ... ' (106). The authors conclude
promptly: 'Humanity can achieve the splendours of its original state'173, disregarding that this wonderful 'restored primitive unity' is limited to Jewish
Christians,follows their reception of the Spirit (Acts 2; 4.31f) and is all too
quickly marred by sin (5.1-11; 5.3 mentions demonic influence).
7. Background. For Luke's anthropology, the authors suggest that

behind the preceding sketch stands what is probably the most common (and fluid) of
Greco-Roman anthropological perspectives, in which humanity lies upon a spectrum
ranging from the ~QLw()e~ (beastly) to the 'frLov (divine), with a potential for ethical
improvement. To return to the original basis of comparison, just as ancient romantic
novels were fond of portraying their leading characters' appearances as divine, so
were their antagonists often described as savage (and barbaric) beasts.114
170 Jesus and the men mentioned in n. 89 (Peter,Paul,Moses, Elijah and Elisha) do not
perform similar deeds because they are realising their own human potential, but because
they are filled with the Spirit or associated with the purpose of God. They note that 'Acts
17.31 calls even the glorified Christ a "Man"', p.105, n. 89. Here and in their previous assessment of the speech they overlook the fact that this designation is necessary to combat false identification of Jesus with polytheistic deities, Acts 17.18. His deity was different from their deities.
171 The description of the Gerasene demoniac, other references to demonic possession
and human helplessness, exorcisms, Luke 8.12, Acts 26.18, etc. severely modify this claim.
On p. 109 they suggest: 'Exorcisms could be viewed as transformations of Satan's degraded victims into civilized children of God'. Unfortunately this is not related to these
previous statements.
172 p. 105. This view leads to a 'home-made' problem for Lukan christology: 'Lukas'
[sic] explication of this anthropology, in which divine origin is the basis for divinely endowed individuals, the presence of whom, in turn, demonstrates that humans are of divine origin, in terms of christology produces the theological unity (or disunity) of Luke
and Acts.... Lukas' [sic] challenge was the expression of a distinctive Christology in the
light of his anthropology' (p.112; their argument remains unclear to me; cf. also p. 113).
17Jp' 106 (italics mine). On their ensuing claim 'Once again, anthropology provides
Lukas [sic] with a basis for.integrating traditional Jewish and Greco-Roman concepts' cf.
Capper, 'Context'.
174 P. 107. They claim: 'Such a spectrum is implied in Acts 14.6-18, through the view of
miracles offered and the prefix homoi- ... The Lystrans complete the circle in vv. 19f by
revealing their beastly aspects'. While raiSing interesting issues, one passage where this
concept may be implied (though both the divine and beastly portrayal are dubious)
hardly establishes the case. The application to Acts 14.19f is unconvincing; cf. pp. 110-12.
A much more careful examination of Luke's portrayal of protagonists and antagonists
and that of Graeco-Roman narratives would be required. Cf. the beast references in the
49
The authors return to the alleged potential of Luke's humanity. The deeds
of Jesus and the missionaries 'are the tip of the iceberg revealing the fullness of human potentiality. The superhuman is within hUman grasp' (108,
italics mine). They neglect the fact that this 'superhuman' is due to the
Spirit and not inherent in the missionaries and that these glorious deeds are
not all that characterises them. They illegitimately generalise from Jesus and
Christians to humanity in general. Parsons and Pervo conclude:
Lukan anthropology deals with the totality of human potential, with the prospect of
the almost limitless possibilities available to those who claim their divine heritage. Such
an anthropology, with its confidence that all people can be righteous and therefore acceptable to God, is thoroughly optimistic and quite open to moralism . ... The desire to
reach for and achieve the divine potential available to everyone stands behind all of
the various Acts ... (HOf, italics mine).
While this may be true of some apocryphal acts and popular novels, the
Lukan picture is far more complex. Luke's portrayal of Gentile Christians
(IY.) indicates that such optimism is hardly warranted.
Though we have reason to disagree with almost all of their conclusions,
several positive features need recognition. In contrast to other recent studies, Lukan anthropology is taken seriously and its discussion is extended
beyond the 'classic' passages. The authors appreciate Luke's narrative as a
source for anthropqllogical insight175 , which is otherwise often thought of
no relevance for tlj~o~ogical questions. Though we question their conclusion and limitation, thei.vapproach is promising: 'Lukan anthropology and
literary method are thoroughly congruent. The narrator of Luke and Acts
found stories of those who exemplify the divine in their lives as the preferred medium for theological expression' .176
pseudo-Philonic sermon De Jona (in Siegert, Predigten): 'Zuniichst und vor allem haben
wir dieses Geschenk von Gott empfangen, daB wir Menschen sind. ledoch gieich nach der
Geburt haben wir den wiIden TIeren nachgeeifert und sind, vemUnftig erschaffen, auf die
Stufe des unvemUnftigen Viehs abgesunken'. The reason for this insight follows suit: 'Wie
dieses gerade nur sein Futter kennt und sich urn seinen Ernahrer nicht kllmmert, so
genieJ3en auch wir die FrUchte des Landes, ohne an den zu denken, der die FrUchte hervorbringt .. .' (120;cf.121-23;Acts 14.17;lsa 1.3;Jer 5.14;Siegert, 'Heiden', 55).
17SThey rightly observe (p. 89, italics mine): 'Despite the general moves in scholarship beyond redaction criticism, the call for study of Luke and Acts as a unity, and the
emergence of narrative criticism, Lukan theology is still largely engaged in questions
raised and shaped by these earlier questions.. ,. Lukan theology that gives due weight to
Acts as well as Luke, narrative no less than discourse ... '.
176 P. 113, italics mine; cf. their astute criticism of redaction criticism, pp. 84-86 and previous approaches (pp. 85f). cf. also pp. 9lf:' ... the speeches are often appropriate to their
narrative contexts. This observation should not only caution against generalizations from
individual addresses but also raise the question of narrative context. The speeches belong to the narrative and must be analyzed in this context rather than as detachable entities.... Some may regard any attempt to derive abstract ideologies from narratives as a
50
I. Introduction
We shall return to these issues only insofar as they concern Gentiles.

Covering the relevant material of both volumes, our study will also show
whether Luke's comprehensive portrait of Gentiles prior to faith does support the case for the anthropological disunity of Luke and Acts.
Conclusion
1. Often Luke's anthropology remained unrecognised for various reasons.
When noted, there often was a narrow focus on one passage. Yet it is hardly
wise to draw often far-reaching conclusions from one passage only (Acts
17.22-31), which appears in the second half of Luke's second volume, without taking into consideration how the reader is likely to understand this
passage in light of the pertinent material of the previous forty chapters. 1.
Darr's study On Character Building demonstrates the fruitfulness of an approach that respects the natural sequence of reading and follows the
author's building of character. 177 In addition, this passage has often been interpreted in a dubious fashion which has too often been uncritically accepted.
2. Even where such confinement was avoided, Luke's narrative presentation of anthropology, in particular his view of the Gentiles, has not been sufficiently recognised. Parsons and Pervo have addressed some of the restrictions inherent in earlier approaches and have shown Luke's narrative to be
a challenging field for anthropology.
3. Study of Luke's anthropology usually is part of other quests. It has hardly
been studied comprehensively for its own sake and been assessed on its own
terms. Comparison with Paul or other authors, before ascertaining Luke's
contribution on his own terms, is precarious.
misplaced enterprise from the outset, but when dealing with a partisan religious text presented by a reliable and omniscient narrator, it is possible to discover at least some features of that narrator's theology'.
l17For methodological considerations see pp. 11-59. The section 'Narrative sequence
and the accumulation of character' (pp. 42-44) is particularly relevant to Luke's characterisation of Gentiles prior to faith. The fact of two volumes and the sequence of reading
indicated in the preface of Acts questions the suggestion of Parsons and Pervo to 'identify the Lukan theological core in Acts and then to show how this is applied, even without complete success, to the Gospel', p. 114. Their defence of this approach on pp. 86f is
all too familiar: 'Since Acts represents most emphatically the particularity of Lukas' [sic]
contribution and is, presumably, the volume in which the narrator enjoyed greater freedom, there are strong grounds for the working hypothesis that Acts will reveal Lukan
theology in its full-fledged form'.
3. Conclusion
51
3. Conclusion
1. Our survey of theological studies of the Gentiles and of anthropology in
Luke-Acts indicates that the topic needs further attention. The perspective
of all of Luke's Gospel and all of Acts specifically on Gentiles prior to faith
has not yet been sufficiently examined. Some beginnings need to be re-ex
amined on their own grounds and/or in the light of Luke's larger portrait. A
specific and comprehensive attempt on the basis of a methodology less
bearing upon the results is needed. Though covering material previously
treated, our study attempts, like that of Taeger, 'einen wichtigen Teilbereich
erstmalig neu [zu] vermessen',118
2. Before we sketch the course of our investigation some methodological issues arising from the survey need to be addressed.
a) Some earlier research carefully differentiated between traditions that
Luke used and his own redaction, assuming that Luke's own views can better or only be ascertained from his redactional activity and from passages
where he was not 'bound' by traditions. This accounts for the attention
given only to the speeches of Acts as they were assumed to be Lukan creations. In ad?ition to the problems inherent in identifying the extent of
sources and! of redactional activity, this approach is in danger of overlooking the fact ~Luke's theological convictions may likewise be reflected in
the traditions lie Uses and in his use of them. As we found some studies employing this distinction wanting and as this redaction-critical approach has
increasingly come under criticism, it would be unwise to follow this approach and/or build on its resultsP9 We shall approach Luke-Acts as a
unity of traditions and redaction.
In response to some hasty reactions to Vielhauer's thesis180, O. Bauernfeind delineated a course for assessing Luke's theology. His plea fully applies to anthropology: 'Wer die Theologie des Lukas sucht, der wird sie aus
der Struktur seiner umfassenden ErZiihlung ablesen miissen, und nicht aus
178Wiefel 'Review' 273

179 ct. M~rshaII, H~torian, 13-20 and e.g. the contributions of E.V. McKnight, WA.
Beardslee and H.C. Kee in' The New Testament and Its Modem Interpreters, eds. El. Epp,
G.W MacRae, The Bible and Its Modern Interpreters (Philadelphia: Fortress; Altanta:
Scholars, 1989),149-98,245-69. The major commentaries we interacted with offer ample
discussion of sources, traditions and Lukan redaction.
II1l Cf. Rese's summary of the debate, 'Lukas-EvangeIium', 2301; Bovon, Luke, 15. The
immediate rise of this discussion testifies to the impact that Vielhauer's proposals, un
critically accepted, made on some.
52
I. Introduction
dem Niederschlag einzelner theologischer Konzeptionen .. , in seiner Erzahlung'.181

This procedure is also required as due to the size and subject matter of
Luke's work, the evidence available for our quest is limited. We cannot afford to limit ourselves through the traditional methods of analysing Luke's
theology.
b) Therefore, material often discussed or adduced and mostly neglected,
more implicit, passing remarks, in short all material relevant for Luke's assessment of Gentiles prior to faith, has to be taken into account to reach
adequate conclusions. Partial use of the evidence available, based on literary assumptions, or other needless restrictions, has had a distorting effect
on some previous research. In addition, disputed passages should not become points of departure which then determine the understanding of other
material, rather they should be interpreted with reference to the comprehensive picture, not in isolation.
c) Much of the evidence for our study is incidental. Luke's limited
number of references to Gentiles prior to faith is due to his choice of topic.
Luke is primarily recording God's saving intervention.182 Because of this
focus, the material shedding light on people prior to faith, fueir relation to
God or the devil, (moral-ethical) dealings with one another, etc. is related
to salvation and not reported for its own sake. Even when the condition of
people prior to faith is directly addressed, the reference is often closely
linked to salvation. Luke is not interested in fue Gentiles and their religious
convictions and practices as such. His emphasis is on the availability of salvation for them (its pre-history, reasons and legitimacy) and once confronted with it, their reaction in acceptance or rejection and the change it
evokes within and among them. The material we study forms the backdrop
for understanding salvation and often explains the particular shape of the
Christian proclamation (e.g. the description of the setting of the Areopagus
181 'Frage', 88 (= Apostelgeschichte, 382, italics mine); cf. Wilckens, 'Interpreting', 81,
n.56.
182 Marshall, Historian, 77-215. In 'Die tbeologische Bewertung heidnischer Religion
und Kultur', K. Uining, 'EvangeJium', (2627-37) 2628 suggests a complementary reason
why 'im lukanischen Doppelwerk die reJigiilsen Verhliltnisse in der hellenistisch-romischen Welt Uberhaupt nur selten zur Sprache kommen': 'Del Grund daftir liegt darin,
daB Lukas einen missionarischen Neuansatz im au8erpaliistinischen Raum in der Regel
in der jtidischen Synagoge lokalisiert, dem heilsilkonomischen Prinzip entsprechend, daB
den Juden (und Proselyten) das Wort Gottes "zuerst" verktlndigt werden "muB"; demselben Prinzip entsprechend erscheint dann die Heidenmission als ein zweiter Schritt,
der den ersten zur Voraussetzung hat. Auf diese Weise kann gar nicht auf die Frage nach
der mBglichen Relevanz nichtjUdischer Religionen und religiBser Phiinomene ... eingegangen werden'. Loning lists the following exceptions: Acts 13.6-12; 16.16-18; 19.23-40;
14.8-18; 17.16-34.
3. Conclusion
53
speech and its content) and shows indirectly from what and why people actually needed to be saved.
Having sketched the scope of our contribution within the wider study of
Luke's Gentiles and his anthropology and some of the inherent problems, it
remains to survey and explain our procedure.
3. We shall approach Luke's portrayal of Gentiles prior to faith from three
different angles which yield results of different character.
The first perspective (part II) deals directly with Gentiles prior to faith.
What has Luke to say on Gentiles before they encounter salvation or apart
from that encounter? We shall follow the sequence of the occurrences in
Luke and Acts.
The second perspective (part Ill) examines the clues from the Gentile
encounter with Jesus and the mission to Gentiles prior to faith. This will include all the Gentile encounters with Jesus, including the passion narrative.
The second section examines all the encounters of Gentiles with the Christian mission. The third section examines references to the state of Gentiles
addressed or apparent in this encounter and the Gentile appropriation of
salvation. Due to Luke's own emphasis a large percentage of our material
falls in this c~tegory.
The third p~ct{ve (part IV) is likewise indirect. It examines Luke's
portrayal of Gentile Christians to draw conclusions to Gentiles prior to
faith. What can be learned by way of contrast or analogy? Just as the second section cannot offer a full discussion of Lukan soteriology, so we have
to limit ourselves to aspects relevant to our quest when gleaning from
Luke's ecclesiology, pneumatology, practical theology and portrayal of
Gentile Christians.
The conclusion (part V) combines the clues from these three angles into
Luke's comprehensive portrait of Gentiles prior to faith and relates this
portrait to some of th~ issues raised by our previous survey.
A satisfactory systematic arrangement of Luke's various and varying references to Gentiles prior to faith, to their encounter with salvation and to Gentile Christians, proved
complicated. These difficulties are reflected in our outline: Some passages are divided up
and treated in different sections (e.g. references to Acts 8.5-25 appear in all three main
sections; cf. II.3.S., IIl.2.2.2., IY.3.4.1.). In keeping other passages together some inconsistencies were introduced in the outline (e.g. Festus' response to Paul's testimony, Acts
26.24-29, is not included with the treatments of the encounters of Gentiles with salvation
(e.g. between III.2.2.13.and 14.), but with the Lukan descriptions of the state of the Gentiles (in III.3.2.1.3.) as the subsequent context to Acts 26.16-23. Despite these imperfections, the present arrangement is sufficient for our investigation. A fair amount of crossreferencing and the detailed outline provides orientation.'S>
183 Passages and observations concerning Gentiles prior 10 faith and the devil appear in
the following sections: 11.3.4., 1II.2.1.1.3., IIl.2.2.6.2., III.2.2.10.2., 111.2.2.17.2., III.3.2.1.
54
I. Introduction
To follow Luke's narrative sequence consistently would be the best way to

trace his building of the character of the Gentiles (narrative characterisation) and the readers' perception of them. l84 We shall do so in section
H., 1lI.2.1. and HI.2.2. and wherever possible elsewhere in the discussion of
smaller units. Unfortunately, consistent application of this insight would
have rendered thematic treatment unfeasible.
Some technical notes remain. Italics within a quotation are those of the original author,
unless identified by '(italics mine)'. I refer to a work by its author, usually followed by
the first or otherwise most representative noun of the title. Commentaries have been
cited by the author's name and page number only. Multi-volume commentaries with running pagination follow the same principle (Brown, Fitzmyer, Nolland, Zahn). The bibliography indicates the pages contained in each volume. When each volume has its own
pagination, the number of the volume follows the name, e.g. SchUrmann I (so also for
Barrett, Calvin, Pesch, Schneider). I have not listed in the bibliography the many entries
of well-known reference tools like AncBD, DB(H), EDNT, EWNT, KP, RAC, RE,
ThWNT, TRE to which I referred in footnotes. Biblical books, the Apocrypha, pseudepigraphical and early patristic works are abbreviated according to the Journal of Biblical
Literature - 'Instructions for Contributors'. For the sake of consistency these abbreviations were extended to English quotations. Graeco-Roman literature is cited according
to KP I, XXI-XXVI where applicable; translations are usually taken or adapted from the
Loeb Classical Library series. m
As we embark on discovering Luke's view of Gentiles prior to faith, it will

be wise to remember 0. Luschnat's conclusion to his analysis of the
Geschichtsdenken of Thucydides, an ancient author whose work is of a similar genre and many times more voluminous than Luke's: 'Der Rekurs auf
die personliche Uberzeugung eines antiken Autors kann ... nie voU gelingen .. .'.186
2.3., 1II.3.3.2.4. and y'1.6. They can be read in this sequence to give Luke's picture; cf. the
relevant sections of Garrett, Demise; Baumbach, Versttindnis, 122-207. This arrangement
is explained in IIl.2.2.1.
184 For methodology cf. Darr, Character, 11-59. The study of Blomberg, 'Law' shows
how such following of the narrative sequence can be applied not only to the characterisation of individuals or groups but also to theological issues.
18Suanslations from the works of Philo are usually taken or adapted from The Works
of Philo: New Updated Edition (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993; trad. C.D. Yonge). I was unable to consult the Revised Supplement to LSJ (revision of the 1968 Supplement), eds.
P.G.w. Glare,A.A. Thompson (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996).
186 'Thukydides', RE S XII, (1085-1354) 1224,1231-36,1241,1251-57; quot.1257.59-63.
H. Gentiles prior to faith

1. Introduction
We begin our quest for Luke's view of Gentiles prior to Christian faith by
studying his direct references to them. These occurrences are mostly incidental remarks on the Gentiles' behaviour and convictions (cf. 1.3.2.3.). We
shall simply follow the sequence of the narrative. What picture of the Gentiles does Luke convey to his readers apart from his reports of the encounters of the Christian mission with Gentiles?
This second part is relatively slim, as other direct material on Gentiles
prior to faith is included in the third part to avoid excessive fragmentation.
Direct references to the Gentile state prior to faith appearing in the context of the e~counter of Gentiles with Christian salvation, in the message
proclaimed t(\ them, and in their reactions, appear there.
'-----.-/
2. The Gospel of Luke
Because of its Jewish setting Luke's gospel contributes only a limited

number of references to Gentiles, mainly to Gentiles of the past or in general statements on the Gentiles.
2.1. Luke 4.26f
Beyond God's general providential care (cf. Acts 14.17), in past times some
Gentiles benefited from special divine intervention through [srael's prophets'! A Gentile widow received God's providential care through the
prophet Elijah while widows in Israel went away empty handed. 2 Leprous
1 Divine deliverance was not accomplished through any pagan agent or agency. These
are systematically discredited in 1-2 Kgs and by Luke. Divine help is exclusively mediated
through Israel's prophets (cf. 11.2.2., IV.2.). The pagan gods mentioned in the OT contexts
(BaaJ,2 Kgs 5.18) and their cult personnel proved to be helpless against drought and disease; such indirect discrediting also appears behind Acts 8.7-11;14.8-13; 19.11(,28-35.
2 I have not seen R.M. Price, The Widow Tradition in Luke-Acts, SBL.DS 155 (SBL:
Scholars Press, 1997).
56
IL Gentiles prior to faith
Naaman the Syrian was cleansed in the time of the prophet Elisha when Israel's lepers were not healed. Luke does not expand on the OT narrative.
Apart from the ministries of the prophets, both of these Gentiles were
hopeless and helpless. Neither they themselves nor other Gentiles could accomplish what was done for them. Gentiles in general lacked the divine
help and revelation associated with these prophets, who were the mouth of
God from of 01d. 3
2.2. Luke 10.12-14; 11.30,32
1. In addition to temporal judgement several Gentile cities of the past are

also subject to further eschatological judgement. Without presenting a detailed list of their vices or failures 4, Luke adopts the OT rating of Sodom,
'lYre and Sidon and presupposes their depravity and candidacy for judgement on the 'fixed day on which God will judge the world in righteousness'
(Acts 17.30f).
Gentiles prior to faith of various places and times are far from acceptable but in a state that requires repentance. They come under temporal and
eschatological judgement for their failures and refusal to align themselves
with God's purpose through repentance (Luke 10.13). The general resurrection and this judgement (11.32) indicate God's claim upon and the Gentiles' responsibility to him.
2. Luke's 'tale of cities' is not all negative. It was .profitable to send a
prophet to warn the Ninevites (cf. Jonah 1.2; 3.1-4), who responded to the
sign and preaching of Jonah in repentance (Luke 11.30,32). This response,
not mentioned or commended for its own sake, is only reported to emphasise Israel's lack of repentance. It is a reference to an exceptional, surprising
event. s Due to its context and function the mention of Nineveh's repentance is one of Luke's cases where a whole community followed this summons. 6 Context and fu"nction also explain why the extent of, reason for, or
forces behind this repentance are not indicated.
3 Cf. Luke 1.70; 3.4; 4.17,24,27; G. Friedrich, ThWNT VI, 831-33. Ct. 11.2.4. on Luke
11.50.
4 Such information could have been gathered from Gen 18.20; 19.4-9,14 and from various prophetic oracles against these cities (ct. III.3.2.2.1.2.c.). Luke misses this and many
other good opportunities to exhibit a moral-ethical understanding of sin.
S The argument runs thus: If even Nineveh repented upon the inferior sign of Jonah,
how much more should Israel repent in light of the far greater sign.
6 Luke mostly reports a divided, at times even violent response to the preaching of repentance. Another exceptional community is Samaria (Acts 8.5-14). For the widely divergent assessment of Nineveh's repentance in Judaism see Ego, 'Heiden'.
57
Jonah's mission and the Ninevites' repentance implies that their life before and apart from such a change was contrary to God's demands.1 Their
response, necessary to escape judgement, was not generated through their
own recognition of their state, but was provoked by the messenger of Israel's God (cf. III.3.2.2.1.2.).
2.3. Luke 11.31
The queen of the South came from afar to hear Solomon's wisdom. This
suggests that her own realm or other contemporary Gentiles could offer
nothing comparable to this God-given wisdom, despite the proverbial 'wisdom of Egypt' (Acts 7.22). She 'responded to what God had to offer'.s For
Luke, wisdom is either an attribute of God or characteristic of people
closely related to him.9 Apart from and prior to such encounters the Gentiles had no access to divine wisdom.1
2.4. Luke 11.50f
I
God spok~ through prophets since the foundation of the world. Even before
Abraham *as.alIed or Israel established as a people (cf. Acts 7.2; 13.17),
God called prophets to reveal his will to humanity.ll Abel was the ftrst in a
long line of prophets. Though the charge of rejecting God's prophets is usually directed against Jews12, Luke mentions the blood of Abel at the beginning of human history (Gen 4.8-1O).The rejection of those who represent
God, his will and word was not limited to the people later chosen. 13
2.5. Luke 12.29f
The nations of this world are portrayed as anxiously striving after what
they are to eat, to drink and to wear (12.22), 'because they know nothing of
7 Luke does not provide material like Jonah 3.5,8,10 which would allow further conclusions.
8 Nolland, 654; cf. Fitzmyer, 936f.
9 Ct. Luke 2.40,52; 735; 11.49; 21.15; Acts 6.3,10; 7.10; Brown, BiTth, 469; SchUrmann I,
427.
10 This cautions against over-estimating Luke's view of the natural abilities of Gentiles;
ct. the failure of the wisdom-loving Athenians to understand the gospel ,Acts 17.18.
11 For the NT occurrences and definitions of the OT prophets see ThWNTVI,829-36.
On 4 Ezra 7.72 (all the inhabitants of the earth are recipients of the law) cf. Donaldson,
Paul,53.
U Cf. the listing and conclusions in Stenschke, 'Bedeutung', 125-42.
13 That mainly Jews are accused and guilty of this offence is obvious, as only they continually had prophets among them. Jesus and the Christian missionaries were rejected by
Jews and Gentiles alike (cf.III.2.1.,III.2.2.).
58
lI. Gentiles prior 10 faith
God's providential care'.t 4 Their constant and worried preoccupation with

the material necessities of human existence derives from and is indicative
of their lack of recognition of GOd:15 They did not know God as the Father
who knows and meets their needs. The providential care they did experience (et Acts 14.17) was not perceived as testimony to the true God but
was ascribed to idols (14.11-13). This preoccupation had serious spiritual
consequences, as it blinded some Gentiles to approaching judgement.
The gravity of this failure and the ensuing behaviour becomes apparent
in that it serves as the contrasting backdrop to the attitude and lifestyle required of disciples. They are to strive for God's kingdom and trust in his
provision.
2.6. Luke 17.26-29
The characteristics mentioned of Noah's contemporaries or of the inhabitants of Sod om, are not idolatry or moral-ethical sins 16, but a preoccupation
which produces and indicates spiritual carelessness and insensitivity: They
ate and drank, married and were being given in marriage, bought and sold
and planted and built, when divine judgement surprised and destroyed
people too preoccupied to recognise or care about the impending doomP
In view of Luke 12.29f their activities also appear as attempts to secure
life through their own efforts and illustrate that those trying to do so will
Plummer, 328. This statement becomes even stronger when rcavta is taken with 1:0.
instead of with -caiha: 'For after these things all the nations strive .. .'. The plural
form of the verb m~T]1:OiiOLV with the neuter plural form -ca e-frvT] is to be preferred to
the reading E1tL~"1:Ei: (textual witnesses in NTG, 202; see BDR 133.1). Says Plummer,
328: 'The plural verb shows that the different nations are considered distributively; and
the compound expresses the anxiety with which they seek. Each nation seeks laboriously
after the sum-total of these things'.
15 Evans, Luke, 529. References in Acts illustrate this Gentile preoccupation. The census and decree of Luke 2.lf for improved Roman taxation of their Jewish subjects is indirect witness to this Gentile concern; cf. the discussion in Brown, Birlh, 394f, 412-18, 547556,666f.
16 So also MarshaIl, 664. Some sins are mentioned in Gen 6.5f,1l-13;19.4-9,14; cf. 18.20.
See Schlosser, 'Jours', 19-25 for 'La specification des peches' in Jewish texts.
17 Also other authors charge the Gentiles with not knowing the judgement of God, e.g.
Pol. PhU. 11: 'gentes ... qui ignorant iudicium domini'. In a similar enumeration of activities in the pseudo-Philonic sermon De Jona (cf. Siegert, Predigten) the Ninevites deplore
their previous lack of gratitude to God: 'Welche HochzeitsgeselIschaft hat am Hochzeitstag eine Danksagung abgehalten? Bei welcher Geburt wurde dem Schopfer dafilr
gedankt, daB das Kind wohlgestaltet ist? Und Uber welchem lisch wurde Gott gedankt?'
(124; cf. Siegert, 'Heiden', 56). Gratitude towards God is emphasised in 153 (cf. Appendix 3.6.; 4.3.). Jonah's proclamation in Nineveh starts accordingly: 'Ihr Einwohner dieses
Ortes, offnet die Vorhange eurer Hochzeitsgemacher! Zieht den Br!lutigamen ihren
Feststaat aus, werft alIen Schmuck weg!' (103).
14
f{h/T]
59
lose their lives (17.33). The example of these generations again serves as a
negative backdrop for discipleship. Disciples have to guard against a frame
of mind which seems very natural (ct. 21.34). This fatal preoccupation and
the many parenetic pieces addressing the proper use and dangers of possessions indicate that Luke sees people and their spiritual perception as being
endangered by material concerns.
2.7. Luke 21.24-28
1. The nations will 'trample' upon Jerusalem. I1a"tec.o is used 'v on dem
zugellosen Hausen der Sieger in einer eroberten Stadt. Mit der Rucksichtslosigkeit verbinden sich dabei die Begriffe des "miBhandeln" und des
"verachtlich mit FuBen treten"'.1 8 It indicates the Gentiles' cruelty and failure to appreciate their status as mere agents in God's plan and their responsibility to him (ct. Luke 19.42-44). Even though they are only agents of
God's judgement, perhaps Luke also understands their attack on Jerusalem
as an act of hostility against God and his people (cf. II.3.7.).1 9
2. ~e eschatological signs and events will be perceived by and apply to all
nati~-rhey will cause great distress, fear and confusion among them as
God's intervention in history will not be understood. Only for disciples is
redemption drawing near; all others have to fear and face this day of reckoning tin-redeemed.
2.8. General references to human existence
Luke's Gospel contains material which addresses human existence prior to

faith in general terms beyond the Jew-Gentile distinction or identification
(e.g. Luke 4.4; 8.4-8,12-15; 12.13-21; 16.1-9). We have not included this material because a) all of these references appear in a Jewish context, are intended to conveyor iilustrate something for Jews, and often reflect their
Jewish setting (as e.g. Luke 10.29-37; 16.19-31; 18.9-14).20 b) In addition,
18
Cf. WB, 1281.1.y.
19 C[ Radl, Lukas-Evangelium, 102-05 and Walker,Jesus, 57-112 for Luke's view of Je

rusalem and the temple.
20 E.g. Luke 15.11-32 applied to the relationship between God and people refers to a
Jew who rebelled against God, left his privileged position, hit rockbottom and then
came to himself. In its context this parable does not portray a representative or exemplary Gentile who recognises his dire state before God, thinks of the privileges which
those 'at home' continually enjoyed and which were left behind long ago and then returns to God's father house. In addition, the point of the parable is not the spiritual development of individuals or types representative of larger groups, but the older brother's
reaction to this return. The situation and treatment of the prodigal in the Gentile country
is discussed in II.3.1. and IY.3.4.2.
60
Il. Genliles prior 10 faith
some of this material is addressed to Jewish disciples and deals with their
relationship with God and should therefore not be adduced for people
prior to faith.
Conclusion21
Gentiles prior to faith come under temporary and future divine judgement,
which implies their accountability to God and state in need of repentance
and redemption. Only through God's initiative and servants can Gentiles
receive divine provision, healing, wisdom, words, exposure of their own
state and its consequence, all benefits they could not obtain otherwise.
Gentiles fail to recognise God's providential care and try anxiously to ensure their own existence. Their attachment to this life leads to and expresses spiritual carelessness and insensitivity. They do not understand
their responsibility and role in God's plan and act correspondingly.
3. The Acts of the Apostles

3.1. Acts 2.23
The Pentecost speech stresses the Jewish character of the audience. In

contrast to this identification the adjective aVO!!O~ occurs.22 Jesus was
killed btu XEtQO~ av6!!OJv. Acts 13.28 mentions 'Pilate as the representative of btu XEtQO~ av6!!OJv. This designation refers to and defines
Gentiles as 'lawless' in the strictly privative sense of not having the law,
rather than not obeying the law. Bauer/Aland define: 'mit Bezug auf das
Mosaische Gesetz von den Heiden gebraucht als solchen. die es nicht
kennen, ohne daB ihnen daraus ein Vorwurf erwuchse'.23 Being devoid of
special revelation serves as the characteristic to distinguish Gentiles from
21 On the presentation and arrangement of our preliminary conclusions compare the
,
introductory remarks to Y.I.
22 Against Sanders, Jews, 10 for whom the Roman reference of UVOf.Lwv is 'by no means
certain in view of the similar phrase in Luke 24.7 ... which seems to refer to the Jewish
authorities'. Similarly Wilckens, Missionsreden, 125 equates this expression with that of
Luke 24.7. Both miss the preceding direct address of Peter's Jewish audience in Acts 2.22;
cf.2.14.
23 WB, 142.2.a. They list Acts 2.23 under 2.b: 'Doch auch mit dem Unterton der
Gottlosigkeit, so daB eine Annaherung an die Bedeutung 3 stattfindet'. Construction
with an a - privalivum, Vof.LO~ as 'im weiteren Sinn die HI. Schrift tlberhaupt', WB,
1099.4.b. W. Gutbrod, ThWNT N, 1079 defines aVOf.LLa as the 'objektive Tatsache des
Nichtvorhandenseins eines oder des Gesetzes ... rein feststellender Gebrauch'; et. Barrett I, 142. Delling, 'Jesusgeschichte', 381 aptly translates avof.LOL as 'Torafremde'.
61
the Jews who had the law and the prophets to instruct them (ct. Acts 1.16;
2.28,30f; 7.38,53 and III.3.2.2.2.).
In addition to their images and idolatry, the Gentiles' 'lawlessness' also shows in their
impurity (Luke 8.32f). The presence of the swine herd identifies the Gerasenes as Gentiles. Not having the law, these Gentiles kept unclean animals.
The same is true for Luke 15.13-20. The prodigal left for a distant country (EI~ XWQav
J.LaxQav) where he attached himself to EvL1:00V 3tOAL1:00V "tiit;xwQat; ExeiVTJt; not to a Diaspora Jew). In addition, the fact that this 3tOAL1:T]t; keeps swine identifies him as a Gentile
(~6oxeLv XOLQOlJt;). However, not only dietary/purity regulations were unknown. The
treatment that the prodigal receives in this Gentile environment is in marked contrast to
the Mosaic stipulations concerning impoverished Israelites or foreigners. 14 The Jewish
father back home appears to know and follow the Law concerning treatment of his hired
workers. The prodigal remembers their 3tEQLOOEUOV1:aL aQ1:lIlv, which implies good treatment or regular payment. On the prodigal's return, a fattened calf was prepared
(15.23).25
3.2. Acts-4:~
Luke's application of Ps 2.lf to the rejection of Jesus indicates that he saw

nothing novel in the Gentile component of this event. 26 The Gentiles only
followed a pattern of behaviour according to which in the past and the present they raged and imagined vain things and Gentile kings took their stand
and their rulers gathered together against the Lord and against his Messiah.271his is God's assessment, as revealed by the Holy Spirit through David
(v. 25a). Gentiles are characterised by their raging pride (qJQuacroro)28, their
vain imaginations29 and their overt hostility towards and rebellion against
24 Cf. Iy'3.4.2.;Lev 19.12;Deut 24.15; Ruth 2;2 Kgs 12.14f;Jer 22.l2;Mal 3.5; Matt 20.115; Luke 10.7; Nolland, 783f; D.G. BUrke, 'Hire', 'Hireling', ISBE 1/, 718f; R.E. Youngblood, 'Work' ,ISBE Ill, 54f; C.L. Blomberg, 'Wages',ISBE IV, 1001t:
IS Presumably the father divided his inheritance (Luke 15.12; ~1.atQEIIl allows such an
understanding) according to the Law (Deut 21.17); cf.J. Becker,Jesus von Nazareth (Berlin, New York: W. de Gruyter, 1996), 325. As the older brother probably received a 'double portion',Le. two thirds of the family estate,he and the father were able to carry on.
26 Cf. III.2.1.2. and Bock, ProclamoJion, 201-08.
27 Says Kraus, Psalmen I, 16: 'Die feindlichen Machte wo lien "autonom" sein, unabhll.ngig von Jahwe und dem Reprasentanten seiner Herrschaft. Die "Bande" und "Stricke"
sind ein Bild filr die Unterordnung und Unterwerfung. Die fremden Machte wollen frei
und selbstll.ndig sein'. Cf. also Briggs, Psalms I, 14; Craigie, Psalms I-50, 65f, 69.
2B WB, 1729 translates 'UbermUtig sein, sich stolz gebarden', indicating that these Gentiles fail to appreciate their own position in relation to God; ct: LSJ, 1958: 'to be wanton,
haughty, insolent'.
29 Their xeva J.lEAe1:dv (WB, 870: 'Erfolgloses sinnen') indicates the limitations of their
natural capacities. They fail to recognise that 'all planning and effort to overthrow the divine purpose must be fruitless' (Bruce, 157). Ps 2.10 calls on these opponents aVvE1:E
3taL~e1ifrr]1:E; et: IY.3.3.1.
62
II. Gentiles prior to faith
God, his purpose and Christ. God's character and universal rule remains not
only unrecognised or unacknowledged, but is rejected in extenso.
3.3. Acts 7
Stephen's account of Israel's history contains several references to Gentiles

prior to faith.
1. Acts 7.6J,24,34[ a) Though their resistance to God's purpose is not stressed,
it nevertheless becomes apparent that the Egyptians - despite their wisdom
(7.22) - completely failed to understand and/or cooperate with God's intention to deliver his people. Gentile wisdom was inadequate to understand or
to fulfil 30 the purpose of God. 31 b) In addition to this spiritual failure, Luke
mentions the Egyptians' moral-ethical failures in oppressing the Israelites:
7.6,34: enslavement, mistreatment (OOUAQW, xux6w, xaxwa~); 19: deceit
(xm;uaoc:pttolJ.m) and enforced infanticide through exposure (cf. Luke
18.15f!); 24: injustice, exploitative oppression (clOLXEW, xu'tunoVEW ).32 These
moral-ethical failures are expressions of their spiritual failure, both categories are inextricably intertwined. Their behaviour is indicative of the Gentile
attempt to secure their own existence (cf. 11.2.5.). The Jewish response was
UtEVUYIJ.0, Moses was their AUtQWtTJ.33 For this oppression God will hold
the Egyptians accountable and judge them (XQLVW EyW).
2. Acts Z39-43. Once the Israelites had returned in their hearts to Egypt,
they immediately formed an idoP4, worshipped and 'revelled in the works

of their hands', an expression stressing the irony and foolishness of such
idolatry. Proclivity for idolatry was deeply rooted even in Israel and only
temporarily suppressed by the events reported in 7.36-38. When Israel
abandoned her special relationship with God and her favoured position of
special revelation, she 'automatically' became as idolatrous as other na-
30 Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians (7.22). When Moses employed these assets, his mission failed completely (7.24-28). These Gentile qualifications
were not what God required (7.30-34). Only once commissioned and equipped by God,
did Moses set out successfully.
31 Cf. 11.2.3. Luke later reports the failure of the wisdom of Greece to understand the
Christian proclamation (Acts 17.18).
32 Compare the Gentile treatment of the Jewish prodigal in Luke 15.15f; II.3.1.,
IV.3.4.2.
33 Cf . Zmijewski, 320; Schneider 11, 454f,460,462; Barrett 1,345.
34 Israel's idolatry and Egypt are closely linked. Israel's service of gods in Egypt is explicitly stated in Josh 24.14 and Ezek 23.3. The fL6oxo~ (Acts 7.41: fLOOXo:n;olTjoav) is related to the Egyptian worship of bulls, etc. (e.g. Apis, Rathor); cf. Gispen, Exodus, 96, who
suggests that 'The golden calf in the wilderness (ch. 32) was made perhaps under the influence of the bull worship in Egypt' (cf. also p. 293).
3. The Acts oflheApostles
63
tions. In punishment for turning away from God, he gave the Israelites over
to worship the host of heaven (ct. II.3.10.). Israel took along the shrine of
the Ammonite god Moloch, venerated Saturn like the Assyrians 35 and worshipped images like other Gentiles. Conclusions need to be cautious as
Stephen does not mention that or the Gentile nations who venerated these
idols originally. Apart from identification through their proper names, they
appear as Jewish deities.
2.1. Different types of idolatry characterise the Gentiles of different
times in Israel's,history. Worship of the created rather than of the creator
was a corniiiCm'~denominator and continuous practice among nations not
participating in salvation history. The fact that divine punishment can entail
surrender and assimilation to idolatrous worship indicates that these Gentiles were severely mistaken in their understanding of God and his proper
worship.
2.2. Dedicated idolatry appears as a consequence of divine judgement.
Possibly the idolatry of Gentiles past and present is also related to divine
punishment 36 for their prior turning away from God. Though this account
fails to explain the origin of idolatry37, it links idolatry with rejection of
God and revelation received so far and ensuing divine punishment.
3. Acts 7.48. The reason for Stephen's criticism of Solomon's temple lies in
its underlying assumptions, which are exposed and corrected: 'Yet it is not
the Highest who dwells in hand-made buildings' .38 Stephen (possibly) implied and/or ironically conceded that pagan gods do so. Zahn comments on
Stephen's argument:
daB man dies nicht von dem Gott sagen konne, der sich dem Yolk Israel offenbart hat,
sondem nur von den angeblichen oder auch wirklich existierenden Gottern der Heiden ... und von den Bildern, in welchen sie ihre Vorstellungen von diesen Gottern
verk6rpert haben. Damit ist auch gesagt, daB diejenigen Juden, die sich dem Aber-
3S Cf. G.c. Heider, 'Molech', DDD, 1090-97; M. Stol, 'Kaiwan', DDD, 899 and Borger,
'Amos 5.26'. This idolatrous (JX1JV~ is in contrast to the (JxT]~ of divine pattern and intention. God only has one axT]'Vi] "tau ftaQ"tuQL01Jj whatever else is built in addition is idolatrous.
36 Pesch 1,255:' ... nach dem Grundsatz "Wodurch sich jemand verge ht, damit wird er
gezfichtigt'''.
37 In Acts 14.15-17 worship of gods and humans is related to failure to recognise and
worship God as the true provider of everything and to the ascription of his provisions to
deities. Failure to recognise God as the creator explains the origin and expression of
Gentile idolatry in Acts 17.24f,29.
38 So BC IV, 81 (italics mine). NRSV and REB follow Dj cf. BC lV, 81;Zahn, 257, n. 69.
Our reading is required to make sense of the otherwise incomprehensible plural l(ELQOltOL~"tO~, which D failed to change to the singular.
64
IL Gentiles prior to faith
glauben an die Unverletzlichkeit des Tempels zu Jerusalem hingeben, auf die Stufe
des heidnischen Gotterdienstes herabgesunken sind.'"
This suggestion is probable in light of Luke's other references and his estimate of the Gentiles' spiritual perceptiveness. The following verses explain
why God does not inhabit such a dwelling. Gentiles failed to recognise God
the creator and his ensuing greatness and unconfinable existence, and at the
same time they are portrayed as believing that their gods live in such handmade buildings which need to be raised for them. Acts 19.24-37 indicates that
more than provision of a building is involved in Gentile worship (ct. ll.3.8.).
Every pagan shrine is indicative of their ignorance of God and of their mistaken pagan concepts of deity and its veneration. Luke's choice of word also
contains criticism of such fabrications: They are neither simply 'houses' nor
reverently 'temples' but rather XELQOltoL1'P:Otl;, which 'is used most frequently
of idolatrous temples, and has a clearly idolatrous implication' .40
3.4. Acts 8.9-11
1. While it usually is clear on which side of the Jew-Gentile divide the people on the
Lukan stage stand, for two groups of people, namely the Samaritans and the Herods, it is
difficult to assess'whether Luke saw them as Jews or Gentiles. Thus before we examine
Luke's description of Simon Magus, his demeanour and claims and the response of the
Samaritan population", we need to examine Luke's view of the status of the Samaritans
to see whether his references to them are relevant for our study. The assessment of the
Herods will be discussed in 11.3.5. and 111.2.1.2.3. Both questions are part of the larger issue of defining the boundaries of first century Judaism. The.problems involved in such
definition are well surveyed by E. Ferguson.42
1.1. Before we gather evidence for Luke's view, the Samaritan understanding of their
own identity and the general Jewish perception need to be examined.'3
a) H.G.M. Williamson concludes that 'The Samaritans have always believed that they
are the direct descendants of a faithful nucleus of ancient Israel'."
b) This is in contrast to the Jewish perception which frequently follows the tracks laid
by the account of 2 Kgs 17.45 Despite geographical proximity references to the Samaritans are relatively scarce. Sir 50.25f is perhaps the strongest statement: 'Tho nations my
soul detests, and the third is not even a people: Those who live in Seir, and the Philistines,
39
P. 258. BC W, 81 consider this possible.
BCW,81.
41 We shall briefly return to this episode in III.2.2.2., observing the overwhelmingly
positive response of the Samaritans to Philip's proclamation (Acts 8.6-8,12f). In IY.3.4.1.
we will scrutinise Simon's request for an underlying pagan religious understanding that
is still with the man who responded so positively (8.13).
42 Backgrounds, 403-06.
43 Cf. Grabbe, Judaism, 502-07 and passim; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 499-502; Koster,
Ein!ahrung, 257-59; H.G.M. Williamson, 'Samaritans', DJG, 724-28 (further bibliography).
44 p. 725; cf. Grabbe,Judaism, 503, 506.
4S er. Williamson, 725f; Grabbe, Judaism, 503f; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 378t, 499.
40
3. The Acts of Ihe Apostles
65
and Ihe foolish people that live in Shechem'.46 2 Macc 6.lf claims that the temple on Gerizim was also called the temple of Zeus Xenios by the people who lived there. In the context of rewriting OT history (Gen 34) occur strong polemics against the inhabitants of
Shechem, including warnings against intermarriage (T.12 PaIr. Levi 5-7; Jub. 30).41
c) Josephus betrays an 'evident anti-Samaritan stance'4' which appears in a variety of
references to the Samaritans. Josephus follows the account of 2 Kgs 17 concerning the
Samaritans' origin and religious orientation (ant ludo IX.14.3 288-91). Ant. XI.2
19-29; XI.4.3-6,9 84-103,114-19; X1.5.8 174f closely follow the account of Ezra
and Ne)lemiah elaborating on the Samaritans' malicious opposition. They are of a different rac (descendants of the Cutheans, ant. XI.7.2 302) and opposed to Judaism.
AnI. 1.7.2 306-12 reports the origin of the priesthood (through Manasses, a member of t e high priestly family of Jerusalem married to a foreigner and others in similar
liaisons) an of the temple on Gerizim.Ant. XII.l.1 10;XIII.3.4 74-79 note quarrels
between Jews and Samaritans as to whether the temple in Jerusalem or on Gerizim was
legitimate. This issue seems to have been the major disagreement.4'
The Samaritans courted the victorious Alexander the Great (anI. XI.7.3f 318-24).50
In this context Josephus calls the Samaritans 'apostates from the Jewish nation' and
claims of them: 'When the Jews are in difficulties, they deny that they have any kinship
with them, thereby indeed admitting the truth, but whenever they see some splendid bit
of good fortune come to them, they suddenly grasp at the connexion with them ... ' (anI.
XI.7.6 340-47). Josephus has the Shechemites deny before Alexander that they are
Jews ( 344); they rather identify themselves as Sidonians of Shechem. In anI. XII 5.5
257-64 they claim to have been colonists from the Medes and Persians, which Josephus
confirms: xat yaQ ELULV "to-U"tlOV ChtOLXOL. They claim to be 'Sidonians by origin' ( 260)
and to be distinct from the Jews both in race and customs ( 261). They explain the origin of their Jewish customs ( 259) in order then to denounce them and to request their
temple to be known as that of Zeus Hellenios.51 They choose to live in accordance with
Greek customs.
46 On the significance of Shechem and its association with the Samaritans cf. 105. ant.
ludo XI.7.6 340,342 and Williamson, 726.
47 On Jub. 30 cf. Grabbe,Judaism, 235.
48 Williamson, 725; cf. also Grabbe, Judaism, 504; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 500. I have
not seen R. Egger, JosepJrus Flavius und die Samaritaner: Eine terminologische Untersuchung zur ldentililtskliirung der Samaritaner, NTOA 4 (Freiburg, CH: Universitatsverlag; GBttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986) and F. Dexinger, 'Limits of Tolerance in
JUdaism: The Samaritan Example', eds. E.P. Sanders et al.,Jewish and Christian Self-Definition II (London, 1981), 88-114, 327-38 (both references from Professor W. Popkes, Elstal).
4' Cf. Ferguson, Backgrounds, 500.
50 Cf. R. Marcus, 'Appendix C: Alexander the Great and the Jews', Josephus in Nine
Volumes VI, Jewish Antiquities, Books IX-XI with an English Translalion by Ralph Marcus, LCL 326 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP; London: W. Heinemann, 1937),512-32;
also containing the Graeco-Roman sources on Alexander's relationship with Jews and
Samaritans, pp. 520-23 (on Quintus Curtius, De Rebus Gestis Aiexandri Magni 4.8.9-11 cf.
Grabbe,Judaism, 504). All quotations are taken from the Loeb edition.
51 Different from 2 Macc 6.2; cf. LCL 365, note c on pp. 134f.
66
/l. Gentiles prior 10 faith
However, even Josephus does not seem to be fully consistent." He fails to refute the
Samaritans' claim to kinship with the Jews 'on the ground that they are descended from
Joseph and are related to them through their origin from him' (anI. IX.14.3 291).
Shortly after referring to them as Jewish apostates (cf. ant XI.8.6f 340-46, see also
above), he claims that they rightly deny their kinship with the Jews.
Josephus mentions two contemporary incidents of conflict between Jews and Samaritans.S3 During Coponius' administration some Samaritans defiled the temple in Jerusalem by scattering human bones in it (anI. XVIII.2.2 30). Later, Samaritan villagers murdered a Galilean pilgrim to Jerusalem (bell. ludo 11.12.3-6 232-44).54 When Cumanus,
bribed by the Samaritans (different in bell. II.12.3 233), failed to avenge the dead, the
Jews took revenge themselves, sacking and firing certain Samaritan villages, which led to
further bitter violence (ant. XX.6.1 121; for the aftermath ct: 122-36 and also bell.
11.12.4-7 234-46).
The destruction of the temple on Gerizim through John Hyrcanus in 128 RC. and the
later enforcement of religious supremacy is also indicative of the Jewish assessment. ss
If representative, these references indicate the Jewish perception of the Samaritans as a
distinct group outwith Judaism.
d) The NT references to the Samaritans occur in books 'told from a predominantly
Jewish standpoint'.56 Thus it is not surprising that Matt 10.5 differentiates between the
house of Israel and the towns of the Samaritans. However, the Samaritans are mentioned
on their own next to the Gentiles. While not belonging to Israel, they are neither included among the Gentiles.
The explanatory comment of John 4.9 notes that Jews do not share things in common
with Samaritans (as they considered them unclean).S1 The Jerusalemites charge Jesus
with being a Samaritan and having a demon (John 8.48). This charge costitutes an insult
and the combination with possession which is hardly flattering. Barrett observes that Jesus' mere denial of demon possession in v.49 could mean 'daB der Vorwurf, ein Samaritaner zu sein, mit der Anklage gleichzusetzen ist, er sei besessen'.58
s2 Cf. Ferguson, Backgrounds, 403. Cf. also Josephus' report of Hyrcanus' subjection of
the Samaritans and Idumeans (anI. XIII.9.1 255-57): while the former had their temple destroyed (nothing more reported), the Idumeans were forced to circumcision and
observance of the laws of the Jews. Were these requirements not possible or needed for
the Samaritans as they already observed both?
S3 R. Marcus, LCL 456, note b on p. 62 (on ant. XX.6.1 118) notes that 'Tacitus, Ann
xii.54, mentions the longstanding feud between the Jews and the Samaritans which, he
says, because of the contempt of both people for the procurators Cum anus and Felix,
now erupted in plunder and occasional battle'. Apparently Tadtus saw both people as
distinct groups.
54 Ant XX.6.l 118 reports several slain Galilean pilgrims; cf. LCL 456, note e on p. 63.
ss los. ant. fud. XIII.9.1 255-57 (,Shechem and Gerizim and the Cuthean natioll'); cf.
Koster, Einfilhrung, 258.
56 Williarnson, 727; et: Ferguson, Backgrounds, 499. While generally following the Jewish assessment of the Samaritans' identity as outwith Judaism, it is noteworthy that the
polemics and bitterness found in other Jewish references are absent from the NT (cf.
Koster, Einfilhrung, 259).
57 Cf. Barrett, Johannes, 250f; WilIiamson, 728; for the textual status cf. Metzger, Commentary, 206.
58 Cf. Barrett, Johannes, 353.
67
1.2. For Luke's assessment of the Samaritans regarding their identity all three possible
views have been proposed.
Samarilans are Jews
1. Jervell argues for the Samaritans' Jewish identity5', stressing that the great turningpoint for the Gentile mission in Acts comes in chapter 10, and that the mission to
Samaria is still on the Jewish side, so that the specific links of ch. 8 are all with the earlier
part of the book.'"
Between Jews and Gentiles
For RJ. Coggins and others the status of the Samaritans cannot be decided: 'the placing of
Samaritanism by Luke-Acts in relation to the Jew-Gentile division is imprecise'.61 There
are indicators-that1hey are distinct from the Jews and at the same time not Gentiles:
')
Samaritans are nolto be regarded simply as Gentiles, and much of what Luke has to
say about them is only meaningful if seen within a Jewish context. But the distinction
between Samaritans and Gentiles is pressed too far if it leads to an obliteration of the
real difference between Samaritans and Jews. Of such a difference there is ample evidence from other sources relating to this period, and there is no need to suppose that
Luke was unaware of such differences.... It is no surprise, therefore, to discover that
in Acts it is recorded that the Spirit is given to them (8.17), as well as to the Jews (2.4)
and to the Gentiles (10.44). The unique situation of the Samaritans as understood by
Acts is well i1Iustrated.62
Samaritans are Genliles
J. Bowman and others propose that the Samaritans are Gentiles: 'In Acts the mission to
the Samaritans is the first step in the mission of the church to the Gentiles'. For Luke
'the Samaritans, who indeed do not belong to the rabbinic-Jewish community and who
according to their own self-understanding do not belong to Israel,represent an essential
part of the Gentile world .. .'.63
59 'Sheep', 117-32; cf. Coggins, 'Samaritans',43lf. Space does not permit full interaction
with Jervell's challenging proposal. I have not seen D. Ravens, Luke and the Restoration
of Israel, JSNT.S 119 (Sheffield: SAp, 1995), whose second chapter treats Stephen's
speech and whose third chapter examines Luke's stance toward the Samaritans; cf. the
review of K. Pfaffenroth in JBL 116,1997,366-68.
60 Coggins, 'Samaritans', 431. Coggins summarises Jervell's observations on Acts 9.31
where 'in a summarising statement ... Samaria is listed with Judaea and Galilee in a context which makes it very difficult to suppose that its inhabitants, least of all the Samaritans in the strict sense, could be regarded as Gentiles' (431). But the precise wording of
the verse, namely 'the church throughout Judaea, GaIiIee and Samaria .. .', does not necessarily support Jervell's case.
61 'Samaritans', 433; also his Samaritans,passim; cf. the conclusion on p.100. Similarly
Barrett 1,402: 'The NT regularly takes them as occupying a middle position, neither full
Jews nor mere Gentiles' and Wilson, Gentiles, 41: The Samaritan mission is 'the stepping
stone between the Jewish and Gentile missions'; on p.44 he refers to them as 'non-Jews'.
62 Coggins, 'Samaritans', 432f. Ferguson, Backgrounds, 501 speaks of the Samaritans'
'position of religious proximity to but alienation from Jews who looked to Jerusalem'.
63 Problem, 69f. Other proponents of this view (Jeremias, EIlis, Hahn, Cadbury) are
listed by Jervell, 'Sheep', 129, n.18. ElIis, 208 comments on Luke 17.11-19: 'the "Samaritan" is prophetic of the future response of "non-Jews" to the gospel .. .'. 1. Jeremias,
Th WNTVII, 94 notes that Acts 8 ' ... diese erste Uberschreitung der Grenzen Israels den
Ubergang zur Heidenmission darstellt'; similarly Cullmann, 'Samarien'.
68
ll. Gentiles prior to faith
In view of these divergent proposals, a careful look at Luke's references is necessary:

a) Luke apparently does not consider Samaritans to be of the same stock as Jews. Otherwise the story told in Luke 10.25-35 which positively features a Samaritan would lose
its force.1So! This also applies to the account of Luke 17.11-19, where the only one responding adequately is the Samaritan aA).0YVi]; (17.16).65 In both cases the Samaritan is distinguished from the Jewish protagonists.
b) Luke gives no indications of religious affinities between Jews and Samaritans. The
Samaritan reserve towards Jerusalem as an appropriate destination for Galilean Jews for
pilgrimage and worship which surfaces in Luke 9.53 suggests the opposite (cf. the above
reports of Josephus). Samaria is specifically mentioned as a distinct area alongside Jerusalem and all Judaea in Acts 1.8.66
c) This estimate is confirmed by the position of Acts 8.4-25 in the overall outline of
Acts. Following the geographical scope of Acts 1.B, the Samaritans appear between Jerusalem and Judaea and the ends of the world.
Against Jervell's argument that the turning point is in Acts 10, the account of Acts 8.2640 suggests that things are not that clearly cut. Also, the deliberate and systematic Gentile mission does not start until ch. 13. The prior turning of others to the Greeks in Acts
11.20 and its results (including the authenticating visit from Jerusalem) are comparable
to Acts 8.
Philip the evangelist's going to the Samaritans is apparently not as important a new
step in comparison to Peter the apostle's mission to the Gentiles (Acts 10f and its reflection in ch. 15), which required divine intervention and particular preparation of the missionary.
d) Indicators which otherwise identify Jews outside a strictly Jewish geographical setting, are missing. 67 This applies to Simon and the popUlation of Samaria. Simon's own
identity is not disclosed. This is in contrast to similar figures: Bar-Jesus on Cyprus is explicitly described as 'a Jewish false prophet' (Acts 13.6). Luke mentions 'itinerant Jewish
601 For Jervell, 'Sheep', 12B, n.11 the contrast to the priest and Levite is 'an unacceptable Jew, an individual from those despised, the sinners, within Israel'. However, otherwise Samaritans are not included among the 'sinners'. Why then didn't a tax-collector or
'sinner' appear?
6S In addition to this incident being located in the perhaps less strict 'region between
Samaria and GaJilee', their disease and the ensuing loss of ritual purity may have blurred
a separation otherwise rigidly enforced. This adjective also appears in the inscription
which forbade non-Jews to enter the Jerusalem temple: 'fLTl-!tEva [sic] eXAAOyEvfj tCJ:n:oQucr-!tm ... ' (OGIS 59B, according to Ehrenberg, Documents, No. 13B; cf. also los. bell.
ludo 11.17.4 417). That this was very much an issue in Luke's day is apparent from Acts
21.28f ("EAATlva; ... 'tOV'EcpECJLOV).
66 This probably refers not only to the Roman province of Judaea in a strict sense,
namely the countryside surrounding Jerusalem, but to all Jewish-inhabited parts of Palestine; cf. SchUrmann 1,29, n.12.
67 That areas of Palestine inhabited by Samaritans are different from Jewish regions
becomes apparent in Luke 9.52. Luke 17.11 on its own could suggest that Samaria is a
Jewish region similar to Galilee; such an impression is prevented by eXAAOYevi]; in Luke
17.17. So far in Acts the venue for preaching was the temple. Philip does not start out
with a local synagogue (cf. Acts 9.2,20) which will become the pattern of the later missionary journeys. This may allow the conclusion that there were no Jews in Samaria as
there were Jews in other cities or that this lack indicates that the Samaritans were not
Jews; but cf. Acts 11.19-26.
69
exorcists' (19.13f), among them 'sons ofa Jewis"h high priest'. Any origin could be implied
by Simon's name as it 'was popular both among Greeks and Jews'."
e) Luke's portrayal of the Samaritans prior to faith in Acts 8 agrees with that of Gentiles prior to faith. Magic, except that practised by Jews elsewhere (Acts 13.6), occurs nowhere in a Jewish setting. Cheering acceptance of claims similar to or such as that made
by Simon occurs elsewhere in a Gentile setting (cf. Acts 12.22; 11.3.5.), yet would be unlikely in a Jewish environment (ct. the Jewish suppositions in Luke 9.8,19). The way
Philip approached the situation resembles later incidents (cf. Acts 14.8-10; 19.1lf). In
these matters there are links with the latter part of Acts (against Jervell).
'~ese
observations speak against Jervell's proposal for Luke's view. Neithpr does the evidence fully support Bowman's assessment of the Samaritaps as genuine Gentiles. For our present purpose it is sufficient to note that
oil several occasions Luke identifies the Samaritans as non-Jews or at least
indicates that they are not Jewish in the sense of other Jews. While Luke
may not have seen the Samaritans as Gentiles to the extent he considered
other non-Jews to be Gentiles, they appear to be outwith Judaism. It seems
that Coggins' suggestion of the Samaritans as somewhere between Jews
and Gentiles captures Luke's view best. 69
Due to this 'intermediate' position, we include the Samaritans in our attempt to study Luke's portrayal of non-Jews as comprehensively as possible. It needs to be remembered that due to the nature of this evidence, conclusions drawn only from this material are not ofthe same quality as others.
However, while some valuable facets would be lost, exclusion of the Samaritans from this study would not essentially affect our results.
2. Simon was practising magic70, thereby 'amazing the people of Samaria'71

and claiming that he was someone great. In response all the Samaritans,
'from the least to the greatest', eagerly listened to Simon (and his claims)
and acclaimed him as 'the power of God, that is called Great'.72 The reason
68 Cf. G. Schneider, ED NT Ill, 244.

69 Compare the detailed analysis of Luke's stance towards the Samaritans by M.
Btlhm, Samarien und die Samaritai bei Lukas: Eine Studie zum religionshis"loris"chen und
Iraditionsgeschichllichen Hinlergrund der lukanis"chen Samarientexte und zu deren IOpOgraphis"cher Verhaftung (Diss. Leipzig, 1997; to appear in WUNT).
70 See Nock, 'Paul'; G. Delling, Th WNT V, 360-63; Barrett, 'Light', 286-90. Hull, Magic,
5-72 offers a fine survey of Hellenistic magic. Cf. also the comprehensive survey of the
range, methods and material of ancient magic by T.H. Hopfner, 'Mageia', RE XIV, 30193, including various methods of forgery and tricks (cols. 391-93).
n The meaning of 3tOALV 1:fj~ !af4aQELa~ is uncertain; cf. 1. Jeremias, Th WNT VII, 92, n.
29 and Barrett I, 402f.
72 Barrett 1,407 suggests that 'it is probable that popular opinion accepted what Simon
claimed for himself'; cf. the discussion of the expression in Coggins, 'Samaritans',430f ('a
distinctively Samaritan title') and Acts 5.36.
70
ll. Gentiles prior la faith
for their overwhelming response and Simon's considerable influence is repeated in v.U: for a long time Simon had amazed them with his magic.73
3. While others on Luke's pages are acclaimed as divine, Simon made such
claims for himself and employed his magic for attaining and promoting his
own person and status (ct IV.3.4.1.). The cases of disease and possession
(Acts 8.6f), despite his otherwise self-confident claim and pretension, Si- (
mon - or anybody else - was unable to address. Simon exemplifies deceit
and exploitation of credulous people prior to faith.74
Simon is presented as a successful magician." The nature of his magic is not mentioned.
Though Luke's account is open to seeing 'den Gebrauch auBergottlicher Krafte; deren
Wirklichkeit wird keineswegs geleugnet'76, he does not ascribe demonic association or
power to Simon.77 In other cases of 'illicit dealings with the supernatural'7S Luke is more
specific in this regard (Acts 16.16; 19.14).
Barrett argues that the magic Luke had in mind (the second type of Philo's definition
in Spec Leg III.100f) was always closely related to fmancial profit: These magicians 'practised their art for what they could make out of it' .79 This suggested link between Gentile
religiosity and material interests will surface elsewhere more clearly. With Barrett's definition of Simon as a typical quack of the day, it is difficult to understand how he succeeded in attaining such influence with the whole population. His success is indicated by
reference to his 'spiritual' position rather than his material status. Luke does not hesitate
elsewhere to mention the combination of pagan religiosity and money.
G. Delling suggests that Simon's success
weist darauf hin, daB er seine Wirksamkeit zum mindesten mit samaritanischen religiosen Ideen in Verbindung zu setzen wuBte, wenn er nicht sogar sich fUr den Wegbereiter des Messias hielt. Wie vom Messias kilnnen ja besondere,sichtbare Erweise seiner Sendung auch von seinem Vorliiufer erwartet werden. so
73 According to Bauernfeind, 125 v. 11 functions as 'das kritiklose Verhalten der angehenden Christen soIl begreiflich gemacht, gewissermaJ3en entschuldigt werden' (italics
mine).
74 Barrett, 'Light', 289-91 shows how the description of Simon and other Gentiles
serves as a negative backdrop for and contrast to the Christian missionaries (summary
on p.291).
75 An instructive parallel for the nature and variety of magic, various tricks and forgery,
the fascination, credulity and adherence of the audiences and the critical stance of the
author is Lucian's description of Alexander the False Prophet; cf. Klauck, Umwelt I, 160-63.
76 G. Delling, Th WNT IV, 363.
77 Contrary to Justin Martyr, 1 Apo!. 26; cf. B arrett 1,405. Bauernfeind, 126 suggests: 'Man
wird hier nicht an einen Magier im gewohnlichen Sinne denken ... die Magie steht in engster Verbindung mit einem theologischen System und einem besonderen Selbstbewul3t-
sein',
Barrett 1,406.
'Light' ,287, drawing on Nock,'Paul'. Barrett presents a selection of passages to illustrate the ties between magic and money (pp. 287f; for further evidence see Nock, 'Paul',
165-71).
80 ThWNT IV, 363. Note Delling's own caution: 'Dagegen, daB er selbst sich fUr den
Taeb hielt, sprllche seine rasche Hinwendung zum Glauben an den Messias Jesus ... doch
kann es sich auch urn eine sprunghafte Natur handeln' (363.12-14).
78
79
3. The Acts of/he Apostles
71
Luke - also mentioning other magicians without the claims of Simon (Acts 13.6,8"';
19.19) - hints at this by citing the acclamation Simon received without elaborating on it.
If this be the case Simon deliberately exploited this expectation for his own benefit.
4. The Samaritans readily acclaimed 'a very ordinary magician upgraded so

as to appear as a divine man'82 as the great divine power and gave a position of preeminence to a man impressing them with his magic. 1. This lack
of distinction or of ability to distinguish between human and divine is a recurrent characteristic of Gentiles prior to faith (cl. Acts 14.11f; 28.6). 2. At
the same time these credulous Samaritans did not realise the true state of
affairs, namely a) the falsity and pretentiousness of Simon's magic and
claims; and b) the discrepancy between his actions andlor claims and the
continuous presence of disease and possession. This apparent contradiction
of his ability and pretension was either not recognised or did not hinder the
Samaritans' continuous fascination and acceptance of his claims (similarly
in Acts 14.8-13; 19.11-13,15f,27,35). This lack of discernment - be it due to
their own blindness or credulity or to demonic influence - bears upon our
assessment of their natural faculties.
3.5. Acts 12.20-23
Herod Agrippa I addressed the embassies of 'lYre and Sidon83 and the assembled crowds. The king's appearance and discourse was enthusiastically
received by the Caesarean ~fjllo;84, who kept shouting: 'The voice of a god,
and not of a mortal'. The ~fjllo; acclaimed the king, not the embassies who
- depending on the king for food - were directly concerned and as such
more likely to try to please or flatter the king.
Were these Gentiles merely flattering the king, perhaps hoping that they would receive a
similar favour?8S How did Herod react to this acknowledgement? V. 23 gives some clues.
81 Possibly dependent on the respective audiences, Elymas' success and influence was
.
less than that of Simon.
82 Barrett 1,407.
It! Whether their approach and persuasion (ltE[oaVtE~) of Blastus involved moral
wrong (as says ego Rackham, 181: 'in plain words they had bribed him'; Schneider 11,108,
u. 76; Haenchen, 386) is not clear; et. Barrett 1,589. If it was a case of bribery, this note constitutes a further incident of the moral-ethical failure of Gentiles; for an assessment of bribery in the ancient world ct Polybius, Histories VJ.56. On the whole incident cf. Klauck,
Magie, 51-57. I have not seen O.w. AlIen, The Death of Herod: The Narrative and Theological Function of Retribution in Luke-Acts, SBL.DS 158 (SBL: Scholars Press, J 997).
84 ct Bruce, 288 and Barrett 1,590 for the variant of D in v. 22. The majority of the inhabitants of Caesarea was Gentile (cf.l. Benzinger, 'Caesarea 10. Stratonis oder Palaestinae', RE Ill, 291-94), these Luke must have in mind with lIfi!lO~.
as Josephus and Rabbinic tradition mention the king's flatterers (cf. Bruce, 289; for
comparison with 10sephus' account see Barrett I, 589-91), Luke does not. Schille, 278
sees in v.22 'die Ubertriebene Huldigung der schmeichlerischen Menge'.
72
IT. Gentiles prior to faith
Failing to give the glory to God by accepting such honour for himself86 Herod died immediately.1l7 This dire consequence indicates that Luke does not treat the acclamation as
a mere formality which Herod courteously accepted.8" This understanding is supported
by other incidents of Gentiles ascribing divine characteristics to humans where flattery is
clearly absent (cC. Acts 14.11; 28.4-6).
.
At this point we also need to consider Luke's view of the ident;tYofHerod Agrippa I
(cC. our discussion of Luke's view of the identity of the Samaritans in Il.3.4. and that of
Herod Antipas in III.2.1.2.3.L)." While Luke's account of ActJ 26 suggests that Herod
Agrippa n (called ~YQ[;cTtas 0 ~aaIAE-us) was Jewish (26.3,26-~8)">' Luke's view of the
identity of his father, Herod Agrippa I (called "HQ~BT]S {) ~aolAE-US;) is less clear. Luke
does not note their relationship.
While the ethnic identity of Herod Agrippa I seems clear from available sources (ct
los. ant. lud. XIX.6.1-3; 7.3 293-97, 301, 331), his behaviour is difficult to assess.
Koster's summary captures both sides of the king:
'" ein legitimer Nachfahre des aiten hasmonllischen Hauses war. In Jerusalem gab
sich der Konig die groBte Mtihe, als frommer und gesetzestreuer Jude aufzutreten,
forderte die jtidische Religion nach Kraften und ging gegen ihre Feinde nach dem
Willen der religiosen Ftihrer Jerusalems vor. '" In seiner politischen Hauptstadt
Caesarea freilich spielte Agrippa den orientalischen Kleinkonig.'l
86 Nothing in Luke's account indicates that Herod intended to make a supernatural

impression on his audience, see the discussion in Barrett 1,590. Herod died for accepting
this acclamation, not for demanding or inviting it. In contrast, Christians give the glory to
God (Acts 11.18) and after a miracle do everything to prevent distraction from his glory
(Acts 3.6,12-16; 14.14-18).
Il7 The description of Herod's end, similar to the detailed description of Judas' death
(Acts 1.18) underscores the punishment involved; ct 2 Macc 95,7-11,28; Wis 4.18f; Ps 37.
For other incidents of this type of death et Bruce, 289; Schille, 276.
II.! Against Schille, 267: 'Die HUldigung entsprach also keineswegs der tatslichlichen
Einschlltzung des Kllnigs.... Die Huldigung gehorte zum Hofstil'.
89 Cf. Ferguson, Backgrounds, 394f; Grabbe, Judaism, 430-34; HengeVSchwemer, Paul,
1295; H. W. Hoehner, 'Herod', ISBE Il, (688-98) 697f and 'Herodian Dynasty', DJG, 31726; Koster, EinfUltrung, 409-11; SchUrer, History I, 442-54; Stern, 'Reign', 288-300.
90 On Herod Agrippa n et Ferguson, Backgrounds, 395; Grabbe,Judaism,435-37; H.w.
Hoehner, 'Herod', ISBE 11 (688-98) 696f; Kllster, EinfUltrung, 410f; SchUrer, History I,
471-83; Stern, 'Reign', 300-04. That Festus, shortly after taking office, consulted with a
ruler more experienced and more knowledgeable in these matters than himself (Acts
25.23-27) does not necessarily make Agrippa a Jew, though the distinction between
Agrippa and Bernice and the other guests (Gentile military tribunes and the prominent
men of Caesarea) at the beginning and in Festus' address might suggests this (v. 26: ecp'
uflwV xal flaAUTta ETtt ooli, ~aOIAE-(j 'AYQUtrta). The claim in Acts 26.26 that Agrippa
knows TtEQL 'to-U'tIllV (vs. 22f: the prophets, Moses, the Messiah and the resurrection) only
indicates thorough acquaintance with Judaism. However, PaUl's claim that the king believes the prophets (oLBa otL rtLOtE-UELS), which is not refuted in v. 28, suggest that he was
Jewish despite the fact that in Luke's brief sketch there is also a touch of the Hellenistic
monarch who substitutes outward impression for lack of real greatness (Acts 25.23: flE'tcl
TtOAA:fj<; qlaV'taoLas; cf. Pesch n, 275; Roloff, 350; Schille, 445; WB, 1701; Zahn, 793f; Zmijewski, 843). This characterisation is more developed in Luke's portraits of Herod Antipas and Herod Agrippa I. .
91 Einfilltrung, 410. HengellSchwemer, Paul, n. 1295 and Ferguson, Backgrounds, 394f
note further contradictions. Ct the detailed description by los. ant. lud. XIX.5.1-9.1
73
This ambiguity or tension is also reflected in Acts 12. Vs. 1-4 report that in mistreating
some of the church92 and in killing James and arresting Peter, Herod wanted to curry favour with the Jews (agECTtOV ECTtLV TOr~ 'Iou1\atou:;}.93 This suggests either that a Jew (so
e.g. KBster) or a Gentile wanted to please his subjects.94 Whatever identity is implied,
Herod's procedure is indicative of arbitrariness, partiality and lack of concern for the administration of justice. He -was ready to execute innocent people to promote his own interests."
Herod's measures in v. 4 recall that of the Philippian magistrates and jailer (Acts
16.23f}; his harsh punishment of the 'innocent' guards furnishes an illustration of Luke
22.25.96 In Acts 12.11 Peter mentions Herod and the Jewish people (Ex XELgo~ 'Hg~1\ou
xat 1taO'l]C;; Tiic;; 1tgo(J1\oxLac;; TOU Aaou 1:WV 'Iou1\aLwv; cf. v. 3). While the emphasis may
simply lie on ruler and people, the position TG'JV 'Iou1iaLwv could also imply that the ruler
was not included in the Jewish Aa6c;;.
However, while portraying Herod very much like a Gentile orientalischer Kleinkonig
in Acts 12.1f,19-21 97, Luke's note that Herod did not give glory to God may imply that he
should have known the appropriate response to the acclamation, which would identify
him as Jewish or at least as acquainted with Judaism. In contrast to Simon (Acts 8.9),
Herod was immediately punished, while the Gentile crowd went free.
Due to this Lukan ambiguity regarding Herod we concentrate on Luke's portrait of
the Caesarean crowds. Their response unequivocally identifies them as Gentiles.
Though in 'allowing himself to be put in the place of God Herod ... committed the most fundamental of sins'98, the Caesareans readily ascribed di 274-356; SchUrer, History 1,446-52 (sources on p. 442, Agrippa's coinage on p. 451, n.
40); Stem, 'Reign', 293-97. While noting Herod's Syrian birth (Flacc 39), Philo clearly understands Herod to be Jewish (LegGai 261-80; cf. HengellSch wemer, Paul, n. 943).
92 Cf. HengellSchwemer, Paul, n.1283.
93 On the procedure and motivation of Agrippa's action against Christians cr. the instructive discussion of HengellSchwemer, Paul, 246-50 and n.1279.
94 This is stressed by Pesch I, 363f and Roloff, 18Sf, however without conclusions as to
Herod's identity. On Luke's pages 'pleasing the Jews' is a Gentile trait: Pilate, Felix and
Festus were more concerned with the promotion of their own interests than with the administration of justice; cf. Luke 23.23-25; Acts 24.27: {tiAWV 1:1l xagLTa xa1:at}(J~aL TOr~
'Iou1iaiOLC;;; 25.9: {tiAWV 1:0~ 'Iou1ia[oLc;; XaQtv xaTa{ti~aL. Yet unless their financial interests are at risk, Gentiles on Luke's pages appear reluctant to intervene against Christians
on their own initiative. The verb xaxow of v.I is used in Acts 7.6,19 of the Egyptian treatment of Israel. However, Barrett 1,474 notes that 'His actions in regard to James and Peter may be regarded as part of his role as the "good Jew" who would naturally be concerned to put down a heretical sect'. Cr. also Rapske,Paul, 399.
~5 Cf. Pesch I, 363f: ' ... gesetzlos-willkUrliches Vorgehen ... Der Aspekt der Willkiir
wird nun auch ausdriicklich thematisiert .. .'.
96 On Acts 12.1-4 cr. Bauernfeind, 159-65; Barrett 1,567-78; Zmijewski, 460f; on 12.19
Barrett 1,588; Zmijewski, 465. Acts 5.22-25 mentions no punishment in a similar situation
in Jerusalem.
97 Luke also portrays Herod Antipas like a Gentile ruler (cf. 1II.2.1.2.3.1.). This assessment could extend to his nephew Herod Agrippa I. Yet Luke does not note their kinship.
We include Herod Antipas in our study as a pointer similar to the one Luke provides for
Herod Agrippa I is lacking for him. Cf. H.W. Hoehner, 'Herod. VII. Herod Agrippa 1',
1SBE II, 696f.Barrett 1,575 writes: 'Luke probably thought of him as the first Gentile adversary of the church .. .'; cf. p. 573.
98 Barrett 1,591.
74
1I. Gentiles prior to faith
vine prerogatives to Herod, placed a human in a deity's position and acclaimed Herod accordingly. This spontaneous response indicates their familiar and natural pagan frame of reference, lack of spiritual perception
and inability and/or failure to distinguish between human and truly superhuman. Humans could be identified witlrur-mistaken for the gods these
Gentiles knew and venerated. For th! Gentiles on Luke's pages humans
quickly become deities and deities huthans.
The wording of the acclamation possibly indicates their polytheistic
frame of mind. Herod was identified with the appearance of a god in human form or as a god. 99 Their understanding or number of deities is variable and open to expansion.
3.6. Acts 15.20,29; 21.25

The decision in Jerusalem demanded that Gentiles 'sich ... dessen enthalten, was den Grundcharakter des Heidentums darstellte (Gotzenbeflekkung und Hurerei ... )'.1 00 The items adduced shed further light on Gentiles
prior to faith.
1. Gentiles are portrayed as worshipping idols. They not only failed to recognise and worship God, but gave the honour and veneration due to him to
their idols instead.
a) This Gentile worShip of idols (including the consumption of meat offered to them) is not seen as a neutral or harmless exercise but as an activity affecting the worshippers through incurring pollution(s) (UALayTlI.ta,
15.20). Gentiles were polluted with or through their idols and idolatry. Unfortunately there are no further indications how this pollution affects Gentiles or is related (e.g. in cause and effect) to other statements on the state
of the Gentiles.
b) 'What has been sacrificed to idols' (doooM'flvtoS; 15.29; 21.25) refers
to food offered to idols prior to consumption, a practice forming part of pagan worship of idols. 10I The food which God continually provided also for
the Gentile world (Acts 14.17) - among other provisions intended as a wit-
99 Cf. Barrett 1,590; Schneider Il, 108, n. 85; Pesch I, 367. No further identification is attempted; cf. Acts 14.12; 28.6.
100 Meyer, 278; see also Bruce, 342f and the extensive discussion, including textual variants, in Wilson, Law, 73-102.
101 Cf. WE, 446 for pagan procedures: 'Es handelt sich urn OpferfJeisch, das, nachdem
die Gotter ihr Teil erhalten hatten ... , teiIs bei feierlichem Mahl im Tempel verzehrt
wurde, teils auch auf den Markt kam ... , urn dem haus!ichen Gebrauch zu dienen' (italics
mine).
75
ness to himself - was not only not appreciated as such but used in the worship of idols 102 and only eaten in part and after such procedures. The Gentiles' spiritual failure can hardly be conveyed more strongly. The fact that
even Gentile Christians need to be thus instructed indicates how much
idolatry permeated the Gentile world.
c) Witherington argues that lbwA6{hn;o~ does not mean meat sacrificed to an idol- as
this term was distinguishable from lEQMhrt'ov (sacred food)l03 - rather it means 'meat
sacrificed to and eaten in the presence of an idol, or in the temple precincts'I"" which
would stand pars pro toto for participation in pagan worship. The decree commands
Gentiles to refrain from 'idol worship and its various related activities'.los If that be the
case, this expression is rather another reference to the actual Gentile idolatry, not necessarily excluding our observations in b).
2. The charge to abstain from 1toQveta has often been taken as addressing
irregular sexual relations.16 As such it would be among Luke's references
I02The essential misunderstanding behind this practice is addressed in Acts 17.25.
Gentile willingness to sacrifice animals to their gods was illustrated in Acts 14.13.
103Cf WB 756
[04 'Thoughts', 237, 240, 242, 248-50 (cf. the italics in our n. 101). For the religious character of meals eaten within a temple precinct ct. Witherington, Conflict, 222. MacMuIIen,
Paganism, 36-40 describes such meals and their religious overtones.
105 'Thoughts', 249; cf. also Conflict, 188-200. Luke himself offers some illustration in
Acts 14.13,18. Against Witherington one might ask why Luke did not employ a less specifi~ word like etbwAoAa'tQta (cf. WB,446) to express this. Witherington overlooked the
extensive discussion of Wilson, Luke, 88-99 (including earlier work suggesting this) who
argues the case at greater length, with more references to pagan religious practice (cf.
nos. 84-98, p.127f; primary and secondary sources) and in the overall setting of Acts.
106 SchiJIe, 321: 'zielt auf die vom Judentum dem Heidentum gern nachgesagte :n:OQveta'; cf. F. Hauck, S. Schulz, ThWNT VI, 582f (,Profaner auBerehelicher Geschlechtsumgang'; bibliography p. 579); H. Herter, 'Dirne. Griechisch-Rtlmisch " RAC lII,l154-87
(for later Christian assessments of Gentile immorality in private and religious contexts
see cols. 1202-04) and the sexual relations associated with Gentiles in Lev 18. The discussion is summarised by Bruce, 342.
Some examples of the non-cultic :n:oQvela which Jews ascribed to Gentiles suffice. The
Jewish Sibylline Oracles charge the Gentiles with idolatry (3.548-54,605f; 5.166), homosexuality (2.73;3.185,764),paedophilia (3.185,596-600;5.166,387,430), prostitution (5.388f),
intercourse between parents and children (5.390f; 7.43-45), bestiality (5.393; cunnilingus
in 5.392?), adultery (3.595,764; 5.430), abortion/infanticide (2.28lf; 3.765),licentiousness
(2.280f); cf. J.J. Collins, 'Sibylline Oracles', OTP IT, 323, 357. Ep. Arist. 152 likewise claims:
'The majority of other men defile themselves in their relationships, thereby committing a
serious offence, and lands and whole cities take pride in it: they not only procure the
males, they also defile mothers and daughters'; cf. also Philo's description of the Sodomites in Abr 133-36 (cf. also SpecLeg III.37-45); HengellSchwemer, Paul, 66f and commentaries on 1 Cor 5.1 ("t'OLQut'I] :n:oQveia ~'tL~ oUlli; Ev 'to{~ e-&veoLV).
Pseudo Philon's sermon De Iona contains a catalogue of vices: 'Wie das menschliche
Leben in verschiedene Lebensalter eingeteilt ist, ... so verteilen sich auf ihre [the Gentiles'] Lebensalter ihre Stinden. Ihre Jugend jagt nach den Freuden des Fleisches ... '
(16f). The author charges the Gentiles: 'Ihr jagt nach gesetzeswidriger Sinnenlust, zersHirt Ehen, macht die Schtlnheit der Madchen zu Schande, versucht Mllnnern das Ausse-
76
Il. Gentiles prior to faith
to the Gentiles' moral-ethical sins and indicative of their ignorance and/or

neglect of God's will (CL EYXQCl'tELU in Acts 24.25). Yet as such relations are
not limited to Gentiles and as they are specifically addressed, the reference
is also, or more likely, to fornication in the context of paganism.1 07 Such a
matter does not need to be mentioned to Jewish Christians and follows
from the prohibition of aALoyTJf.LCt'tU 'tWV EtbwAWV, ELowA61hJ'tu and everything related to it.
.
3. Gentiles consum~'what has been strangled' and blood (CL Gen 9.4). The
Noachian and Mosaic ietary legislation and requirements are unknown to
and/or neglected by ,entiles (CL Luke 8.32f; IS. 1St). Their slaughtering
practices and their diet' betray their lack of the revelation which the Jews
had received and followed, illustrating the estimation of the Gentiles as
avollO; (Acts 2.23; CL U.3.1.). As with fornication, in addition to this dietary
failure and its conclusionS; these last two items may also reflect the sacrificial practices and rituals of pagan sacrifice. Witherington mentions occa-
hen von Frauen zu geben, wechselt Verlobungen und raubt Braute anderer' (105); of the
men it is said with reference to their wives: 'denen sie leidenschaftlich ergeben waren'
(148).
The pseudo- Philonic sermon De Sampsone describes the seductive powers of Samson's Philistine wife: 'Eine Frau errichtete die Begierde wie einen Balken, urn daran die
lliebe als Riemen anzunageln und an ihnen den Gefangenen hochzuziehen. Wie sie ihn
so baumeln lieS und seinen Widerstand mit listigen, zarten, verft1hrerischen Worten
brach, drang sie mit den Zwangsmitteln der Triebe dem jungen Mann bis ins Innerste ... '
(1). Despite some general"misogynist statements (e.g. 34), her wickedness is ascribed to
her Gentile origin (clearly indicated e.g. in 22f): 'So ist die Fremde, Simson: Zur Gemeinschaft der Kilrper ist sie allemal bereit und gewahrt dir treuIich, was nach Liebe aussieht;
in ihrer Seele jedoch bekampft sie den, mit dem sie in ktirperlicher Gemeinschaft zusammenlebt, und verteilt bereits ihr Erbe unter die Heiden' (33). 35 speaks of the 'Zauber
der heidnischen Frau'; 40 charges the woman with dissolving the marriage during the
feast through her betrayal ('du hast die Ehe schon aufgelilst; ehe du die Krone abgesetzt
hast, hast Du den Mann schon verraten') and with adultery afterwards: 'Darum hast du
auch nach den sieben Tagen nicht, wie es sich fUr eine Verheiratete gehilrt, das Ehebett
gewahrt, sondern die Ehegemeinschaft aufgeltist und zersprengt'.
107 Cf. Witherington, Conflict, 190f, 221 for the close connection between worship in pagan temples and sexual immorality: 'This common association in the larger culture would
explain why sexual immorality and idol food are also always linked in the NT (cf. Acts
15.29; Rev 2.14,20)" see his 'Thoughts', 249, n. 27 and W. Fauth, M.-B. v. Stritzky, 'Hierodulie A. VII.c-B.III', RAC XV, 76-82. Others have argued that 'marriage or sexual union
within prohibited degrees' is intended, e.g. Bruce, 342f; Schneider H, 183f; HaucklSchulz,
ThWNT VI, 592.23-26. This is unlikely as Acts 15.10 requires that the yoke of the law is
not put on the Gentiles' necks. It would be strange for :7toQv[a to refer precisely to regulations of the law.
77
sional references to pagan priests tasting the blood of the animaLl08 Wilson
adduces much evidence and argues this case extensively.109
Thus the idolatry of the Gentiles indicates not only their spiritual failure
regarding the nature of God and of his worship. Their idolatry is also accompanied by, expressed through and linked with moral failure (fornication) and procedures in contrast to God's revealed will.1lO This link and its
possibility again indicates the Gentile ignorance of God and his nature:
While such activities may be acceptable to or required by their pagan deities, God cannot be worshipped this way. Luke not only exposes and criticises the actual idols, temples and sacrifices and the ideology behind them
(Acts 17.24f,29), but also the accompanying phenomena and manner of
such worship. Gentiles prior to faith are characterised by a fully inadequate
conception of the true God and his worship and by idolatry testifying to
their complete spiritual and moral-ethical failure.
3.7. Acts 16.20-24; 18.2,14-17; 19.33/
Acts contains several references to the anti-Judaism of the first century.l11

These references are noteworthy for Luke's portrait of Gentiles prior to
108 'Thoughts', 244, with reference to Ogilvie, Romans, 49 (cf. pp. 41-52 on pagan sacrifices and rituals); compare the vivid description of MacMuIlen, Paganism, 41, the extensive treatment in Stengel,Kultusaltertamer, 95-155 and Lucian DeSacrificiis 9,13,15.
On 'things strangled' see Witherington's note 28,p. 249.
109 Luke, 88-91, 97-99; et. IV.3.3.3.2.
110 Acts 15.21 has been taken to indicate why similar shortcomings did not occur
among Jews (e.g. Chrysostom, Homilies on Acts 33,208; cf. the different interpretation by
G.B.Stevens,following n. 4 on p.208; Roloff,233;Schneider H,l84). Through God's revelation in the law Jews knew of the appropriate worship of God.
111 Cf. Schtlrer, History Ill, 126-49 for civic status and religious practices of JUdaism in
the Diaspora. 1. Leipoldt, 'Antisemitismus', RAC I, (469-76) lists its various causes (47073); most relevant for our observations are the religious reasons (471), others are of political or economic nature (471-73); et. I. Heinemann, 'Antisemitismus', RE S V, (3-43)
13.43-14.53; 14.65-16.24, for Gentile perceptioD of and reproaches against Judaism 19.5822.68; 32.15-36.42; but see 18.37-19.20. 'Sind also die poIitischen MaBnahmen gegen die
Juden nur zu kleinem Teil aus besonderer Abneigung gegen die jlldische Religion zu erkUlreD ... ', col. 19.30-34. At grassroots level the Don-religious reasons may have been predominant, though religious and 'non'-religious causes caD hardly be separated. For religious and further reasons see also Schtlrer, History Ill, 152f (bibliography in D.1); N.R.M.
de Lange, C. Thoma, 'Antisemitismus. 1. BegrifflVorchristlicher Antisemitismus', TRE
Ill, 113-19, bibiography 118f; Rapske, Paul, 110, n. 213.
For the Egyptian oppression of Israel cf. H.3.3.1. On the Samaritan rejection of Jesus in
Luke 9.52-56 cf. III.2.1.1.4. Anti-Judaism is also apparent in the Gentile treatmeDt of Jesus and of his Jewish opponents; cf. HI.2.1.2. Does the Gentile stock farmer of Luke 15.15
deliberately assign the task of ~OOl(ELV J(oleou~ to his unwaDted Jewish appeDdage in order to get rid of him (cl. B ailey, Poet, 170)?
78
Jl. Gentiles prior 10 faith
faith. In addition to Gentile God-fearers (see III.3.3.3.3.), Luke also mentions Gentiles who despised and rejected the Jews, their faith and their God
and readily vented their disdain as opportunity arose to do so without fear
of reprisal.
1. In Philippi the missionaries were not officially charged for their Christian
activities (Acts 16.17) but were accused of being Jews advocating customs
unlawful for Romans to adopt or observe (16.20). This was enough to proceed against them. Their opponents operated 'mit ScWagwortem des romischen Nationalismus und des heidnischen Antijudaismus'.n2 Their procedure {gainst these men as Jews indicates a deep seated anti-Judaism.1l3
Th~i-Semitic
2.
policy of Claudius is alluded to in Acts 18.2. Luke's reference includes all Roman Jews. Though possibly only due to its brevity,
Claudius appears capricious. Luke does not mention the occasion of the expulsion given by Suetonius' Vita Claudii 25. 114
3. Corinth. a) Zmijewski identifies anti-Judaism in Gallio's treatment of the
Corinthian Jews (Acts 18.14-16):
So weist der die Angelegenheit van vornherein ab und erldart sich flir unzustandig.
Die Arc urid Weise freilieh, wie er dies tut - er liIBt den Juden Paulus erst gar nicht zu
Wort kommen (v. 14a) und erteilt den judo Anklllgern in hochfahrendem Ton eine
Rechtsbelehrung (v. 14b-15a) -liifJl die ganze Verachtung des romischen Aristokraten
gegenUber dem ludentum erkennen. Dazu paBt auch, daB er einen Einspruch der Juden Uberhaupt nicht erst aufkommen lilBt, sondern sie, wohl durch seine Liktoren, wie
lils/ige Slorenfriede vom Bema verjagen lilBt. l1S
b) Then 'all of them seized Sosthenes, the official of the synagogue, and
beat him in front of the tribunal' (Acts 18.17).116 Some manuscripts add
'the Jews' to btv..a/30f.lEVOL, which is unlikely as fellow Jews would hardly
112 Zmijewski, 609; cf. p. 607. Elliger, Paulus, 55-57 offers a good analysis of the events
against this background. Rapske, Paul, 120: 'Paul's Jewish credentials ... constituted a severe liability in this latently antiSemitic context'; cf. p. 133.
\13 The crowds immediately joined the cause of the upper class slave-owners. There
were no proper legal procedures, but public stripping, severe flogging and imprisonment
with further mistreatment; cf. our treatment in 111.2.2.10.4., Pesch lI, 114 and the detailed,
perhaps too positive, assessment of legal procedures by Rapske, Paul, 115-28. Walaskay,
Rome fails to deal adequately. with this hardly flattering portrayal of the Roman Empire
(only briefly mentioned on p.23).
\14 'Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidua tumultantes Roma expulit'; cf. Zmijewski, 656f;
Leipoldt, 470; Schneider 11,249, n. 17; Heinemann, 15; for the historical background see
Conzelmann, Heiden, 28-30; LUdemann, 'Judenedikt'. Compare the detailed treatment
by H. Botermann, Das ludenedikt des Kaisers Claudius: Romischer Staat und Christiani
im ersten lahrhundert, Hermes Einzelschriften 71 (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1996),15-49.
lIS Pp. 660f (italics mine); c[ Elliger, Paulus, 236f; Beyer, 112; Pesch lI, 151; Roloff, 273;
SchUrer, Hislory Ill, 153 and the instructive parallel in Philo, Flace 24.
116 On the background c[ Gill, 'Achaia', 448-53.
79
beat their official in public, even if they thought he had failed in presenting
their case well.l17 Others manuscripts add ot uEUTjVE(; after mivtE(;1l8,
which better catches the sense and agrees with the accusing note that Gallio himself paid no attention to this event. Some Gentiles responded to the
contemptuous attitude towards the Jews displayed by Gallio in his handling
of their case and 'taking advantage of the snub Gallio had administered to
the Jews'1l9, vented their anti-Jewish feelings by attacking one of the leading synagogue members: 'die auf der Agora versammeIte korinthische
Menge IllSt ihren antisemitischen Emotionen freien Lauf.120
4. Further popular anti-Judaism appears in Acts 19.33f. Only there is this
anti-Judaism religiously motivated. When the Ephesian crowds realised
that Alexander was a Jew, 'und somit auch seinerseits nichts als ein Feind
der Artemis'121, they immediately responded by a two hour long frantic acclamation of Artemis (see II.3.8.).122 Their response is not ridicule or contempt of Jews and their different life-style but - so much knowledge of Judaism Luke ascribes to them - fervent affirmation of their pagan goddess
against the Jews and their God.
The attitudes and actions of these Gentiles testify to their complete failure to recognise and appreciate the origin, nature and significance of these
people and their faith present in their midst (cf. Luke 17.26-29). This failure
was accompanied by contempt and/or rejection of the people God had chosen and privileged (e.g. Acts 7.3; 13.17) and their characteristics l23 which
117 CL
Pesch II 151
118 Cf . NTG, 3'77; Metzger,
Commentary, 463.
119 Bruce, 397.

120 Pesch
H,151; Zmijewski, 660f.

121 Bauernfeind, 233. Schneider n, 277 observes: 'Der Leser erkennt, wie unbeliebt die
Juden in der Stadt sind .... Er beftlrchtete antijildische Ausschreitungen der Stadtbevolkerung', also Wikenhauser, 227: 'da es den Anschein hatte, daB der Thmult in eine Judenhetze (Pogrom) ausgehen konnte'; BC IV, 249; Klauck, Magie, 123. Why Alexander was
there or why some in the crowd gave instructions to him is not clear. Possibly they saw
him as a potential ally against Paul as there had been a clear break between the synagogue and Paul (Acts 19.9). Alexander probably wanted to make a defence before the
people, trying to protect the Jewish community, threatened as it also was by this upsurge
of Gentile devotion and anti-Judaism, by publicly dissociating themselves from his fellow
Jew,Paul.
122 Though there was disorder and a certain perplexity as to the cause of the assembly
(Acts 19.32) - its instigators did not come forward - still the crowds would not even listen to a Jew proceeding according to custom (lla1:aaEt(Ja~ 't'i]v XLea, 19.33).
123 E.g. aniconic worship, dietary legislation, Sabba th observance. CL Leipoldt, 471 and
Heinemann,4lf for the deeper roots of Graeeo-Roman anti-Judaism. Heinemann asks:
'Es fragt sieh, ob der HaB neben diesen politischen Wurzeln auch geistige hatte, ob also
die jlidische Religion Merkmale hatte, die eine besondere Antipathie auslosen konnten'
(41.43-46). The causes then listed - refusal to participate in pagan cults (42.15-20,34-41),
80
God had revealed and commanded (cL Acts 7.38).124 The attitude resulting
from their spiritual failure and the moral-ethical sinful actions indicative of
it (e.g. ''':rC-tOO in Acts 18.17) are linked.
Instead of attraction to and appreciation of God's revelation and election, rejection of God's purpose, revelation and election characterised
these Gentiles. Against the backdrop of Luke's view of the position and significance of Israel l25 , this anti-Judaism amounts to an outright rejection of
salvation history and r~bellion against God (cf. Acts 4.25f).
This disposition renders response to the essentially Jewish Christian salvation and proclamation impossible. 126 Both instances of genuine Gentile resistance to the Christian mission are closely linked to this Gentile anti-Judaism (cL
Acts 16.20-24; 19.26,33f). As God's challenge arid correction of the Gentile
world through the poeple of Israel (its status, faith and revelation) was rejected
(cL Luke 17.26-29), more than correction is needed to alter its condition.
3.8. Acts 19.23-41
11le description of the Gentile majority response to Paul's Ephesian minis--_____tfy provides an extensive description of the religious conceptions, practices
and actions of Gentiles prior to faith.127 Several issues can be distinguished
in Luke's account of the events and vivid portrait of the Gentiles.
refusal of intermarriage (42.42-61), dietary legislation and Jewish separation (42.6243.22), and the Gentile perception of it (43.18-22) - are all directly related to the Law and
its faithful practice.
U4 Cf. Barrett I, 365f,631. God's choice of Israel and the divine origin of the Law appears throughout Luke-Acts. On Luke's view of the Law see Jervell, 'Law' and Theology,
54-75; Fittmyer, Aspects, 176-87 and Blomberg, 'Law' and 'The Christian and the Law of
Moses' in Marshall, Witness, 397-416.
125 For Israel's special position see Fitzmyer, IB8f and Aspects, 175-202; Jervell, Theology, 18-34.
126 Cf. Acts 11.26, IV.3.l.5.
127The episode is best treated in this part. Acts 19.11-20, describing the Gentile encounter with Christian salvation, is treated IlI.2.2.12. Our observations from the major
religious Gentile 'counter-attack' on Luke's pages for the Gentile encounter with Christian salVation are included here to avoid fragmentation and will be considered in the
conclusions to part Ill. aster, 'Artemis' offers good surveys of the religious background
of the episode; see also Trebilco, 'Asia', 302-57. Unfortunately, Strelan, Paul and P.A. Harland, 'Honours and Worship: Emperors, Imperial Cults and Associations at Ephesus
(First to Third Centuries C.E.)"SR 26, 1996,319-34 came to my notice too late to interact
with them (cf. my forthcoming review of the former in lBL). Cf. also M. GUnther, Die
Frilhgesdtichte des Christenturns in Ephesus, Arbeiten zu Religion und Geschichte des
Urchristentums 1 (FrankfurtJM: P. Lang, 1995) and W. Thiessen, Christen in Ephesus: Die
historische und Iheologische Situation in vorpaulinischer und paulinischer Zeit und ;z;ur Zeit
der Apostelgeschichte und der Pastoralbriefe, TANZ 12 (Ttlbingen, Basle: A. Francke,
1995).
3. The Acts of tlte Apostles
81
1. Acts' 19.23. The miniature silver shrines of Artemis, probably represented

'the goddess in a niche, with her lions beside her', were intended 'for votaries to dedicate in the temple'.1 28 Whatever their specific design and function in the cult, the market for these shrines flourished, bringing good business to the producers. A substantial trade was linked to idolatry.l29 Gentiles
were ready to acquire and use such costly items, indicating their devotion
and service to the goddess.
2. Acts 19.26j Demetrius summarised the part of Paul's proclamation
which concerned his own case: 'Hand-made gods are not gods at all'. In response to Paul's message and success Demetrius voiced a twofold concern:
a) Through Paul's claim 'this trade of ours may come into disrepute' (ct. v.
25) and b) the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be scorned and she
will be deprived of her majesty that brought all Asia and the world to worship her.130 The relation of both concerns has been understood differently.
Tho positions suffice:
See how, wherever there is idolatry, in every case we find money at the bottom of it ....
It was not for their religion, because they thought that in danger; no, it was for their
lucrative craft, that it would have nothing to work upon. m
Lukas hiltet sich, Demetrius als bloBen Rechner und seinen Glauben als bloBen
Mammonismus darzustellen.... kein Wort, das irgendwie auf mangelnde Ernsthaftigkeit deutete, seine Gottheit heiBt wirklich Artemis und nicht Mammon. Wenn es urn
die Ehre der Gottin geht, dann haben die Ktinstler, die in ihrem Dienste schaffen,
nicht als 'befangen' neutral zu bleiben, sondern in vorderster Reihe zu kilmpfen ...
Lukas weiB zu viel von dem Zauber und der Tragik der heidnischen Kunst, oder auch
von ihren metaphysischen Hintergrtlnden, um sie als 'Konjunkturkunst' abzutun.1J2
128 Bruce, 415 (further description); cf. O. Michel, ThWNT IV, 890.18-24. O. Jessen,
'Ephesia', RE V, (2753-71) 2764-66 describes little statues of the goddess. An inscription
from Tarentum reads: 'he gave a miniature shrine as a votive offering to Artemis' (from
Bruce, 415). Cf. also Guthrie, Greeks, 99-106. These shrines illustrate Paul's correction of
the pagan notions: the deity is not like gold, or silver, or stone, an image formed by the art
and imagination of mortals (Acts 17.29).
129 For egyaoia see D. Knibbe, 'Ephesos A.III.6.Ztlnfte und Vereine', RE S XII, (24897) 287.59-289.22. In addition to the silversmiths and their craftsmen (Acts 19.24,38),
.
Knibbe,288.13-25 lists four other Ephesian gUilds.
130 Bruce,417.K. Wernicke, 'Artemis Ephesia',RE I1,1385f (cf. Jessen, 2767-69), lists 33
places where the Ephesian Artemis was worshipped. For numismatic evidence CL D. Detschew, 'Artemis', RAC I, (714-18) 717 who concludes: 'Den glilnzendsten und machtigsten Kult genoB die Artemis von Ephesos ... Ihr Heiligtum zeichnete sich durch seine
Pracht und Gr6Be aus und gaIt als das erste oder zweite der Weltwunder';c( GilllWinter,
'Religion', 88f; aster, 'Ephesus'; G. Mussies, 'Artemis',DDD, 167-80.
131 Chrysostom, Homilies on Acts 42,258.
IJ2 Bauernfeind, 234.
82
Several observations can be made:

2.1. The artisans' wealth derived from this business (Acts 19.25); their resistance arose
precisely when these financial interests were endangered.ID Neither Demetrius nor other
Gentiles agitated against the missionaries (et. 19.9) before or apart from this threat. As
the venerated image was allegedly [)lOltETI)C; (19.35), Paul's claim concerning man-made
gods would not really apply to this image of the goddess but certainly concerned the
hand-made shrines. Demetrius also adduced the reputation and status of the trade endangered by the claim that their products are deceitful, pretentious or at best useless.
2.2. Demetrius may have presented the religious argument simply to gain stronger support than only financial or professional arguments might have achieved. Yet, in contrast
to the Philippian slave-owners, Demetrius was not addressing a public assembly or
crowds but his colleagues. Not expressing concern for their wealth or trade they responded with a decided acclamation of Artemis - as did the popular assembly later in the
theatre - which was simultaneously a declaration of their devotion, financial interests
and trade loyalty.'"
2.3. Demetrius and his colleagues are disqualified by their later lack of initiative at the
assembly. If present they failed to use the opportunity posed in Acts 19.32. What they affirmed among themselves they apparently had hesitation to propose in public. The confused assembly became a demonstration for Artemis only through Alexander's attempt
(cf.II.3.7.4.).
It seems best not to distinguish between these strands too much. Whatever devotion
there was, it was intermingled with and activated through threatened financial and professional interests. Confession and affirmation of the former was conducive for the latter.
Luke does not mention demonic intervention either in this agitation or in the ensuing
riot. Not the devil but practical concerns seem to guide Demetrlus.
a) Idolatry so permeated the Gentile world that some Gentiles were dependent for their livelihood on the worship of idols and whatever it entailed. While Gentile commitment to idolatry was notlimited to those professionally and financially involved, these appear as most committed.
b) The content of the Christian proclamation regarding idolatry and its
consequences for idol worship were understood. Nothing is said of its other
elements. Despite such understanding, not all Gentiles accepted this correction of their notions and drew consequences. It was rejected by those
materially and professionally involved in idolatry and by others. While the
success of this message among Gentiles is acknowledged (Acts 19.26) there
was no further discussion or refutation of Paul's claims in Demetrius'
speech,135 The opposite of Paul's claim (hand-made gods are/represent
gods) is not affirmed.
133 Cf. the events in Philippi, Acts 16.16-19.
134This cautions against Chrysostom's second statement (above), though he rightly
stresses the close association between idolatry and economic interests. The only other incident of genuine Gentile resistance is clearly linked to loss of income (Acts 16.16). Also
in Luke's Gospel money-mindedness and spiritual insellsitivity are linked; cf. Barrett,
'Light',286-91.
l3S Cf. Acts 6.10-7.58; 17.18-34. Bauernfeind, 234: 'Demetrius verzichtet yon yornherein
auf den sachlichen Kampf, Mann gegen Mann, Ktlnstler gegen Prophet, stattdessen greift
83
Chrysostom observes the irony unnoticed by the speaker in affirming the

goddess whilst acknowledging Paul's impact:
For if this man is strong enough to turn away all, and the worship of the gods is in
jeopardy, one ought to reflect, how great this man's God be.... Observe how he
shewed Paul's power to be greater,proving all (their gods) to be wretched and miserable creatures, since a mere man, who was driven about, a mere tentmaker, had so
much power.136
I
I
3. Acts 19.27b. Demetrius' speech indicates two further elements of the pagan belief:
a) Great importance was attached to the temple of Artemis. 137 Being the
sanctuary of the great goddess, this building should be venerated, not
scorned. Such veneration and its preservation the worshippers perceived to
be their task. This notion indicates the Gentile perception of their deities,
their needs and adoration and their relationship with them. The God who is
beyond shrines made by hUman hands (Acts 7.48; 17.24b) was unknown
and inconceivable to them.
b) Artemis herself, acclaimed as the great goddess, should not be deprived of her majesty, rather it should be enhanced. In this assessment it is
the responsibility of humans to acknowledge and ensure the majesty and
ongoing worship of the goddess who received widespread veneration. For
Demetrius this would obviously include his provision of silver shrines.
This note again indicates the active involvement of Gentiles in idolatry
and shows that in their own estimation their religious duty is the convinced
enhancement and glorification of their idol's majesty. As the Jews in many
places worship God, so the Gentiles cling to their idols. That such allegiance
and devotion could be misplaced, inferior or even wrong Gentiles do not
recognise or consider themselves (this only happens through contact with
Judaism or Christianity). When fully operating, this mindset is inaccessible
to the challenge presented by the Christian proclamation. Gentiles are not
on neutral ground: Coupled with their failure coram Deo, they are actively
involved in a counter-programme and antidote.
er zu dem Gewaltmittel der tumultarischen Demonstration, also zu einem Mittel, das

einem Paulus gegenllber unsachlich ist'. The claims for the goddess were either self-evident or indefensible. Some arguments from the classical period which could have been
employed and were employed elsewhere in antiquity are listed by Keith, 'Issues', 308311.
136 Homilies on Acts 42, 258.
137 It is possibly this notion of a god and his or her relationship or dependence on an
earthly house that Stephen sees behind Solomon's building of the Jerusalem temple and
which he severely criticises (Acts 7.47-50). Cf. the description by L. Bllrchner, 'Ephesos',
RE V, (2773-822) 2810-13.
84
Though a goddess, Artemis is portrayed as in need of the attention and

care of her money-minded human worshippers and at their mercy.138 Luke
leaves the expression of this conviction for the lips of her chief propagator
(cf. v. 35). This reasoning illustrates Paul's correction of Gentile 'theology'
in Acts 17.25. The convictions and practices of these Gentiles demonstrate
their complete ignorance of God and his true nature. They are blind and in
darkness (Acts 26.18).
This last observation is supported by the contrast in this episode between
God, Jesus, Paul and Artemis: The goddess is portrayed by her own adherents as in need of attention and veneration by her keepers (the function
and call of Ephesus; cf. Acts 19.35), while in her stronghold God works extraordinary miracles through the human Paul for those she could not help.
Jesus himself sees to it - drastically and perceptibly for all- that his name is
not misused by those unauthorised to do so (cf.19.13-16).
4. Acts 19.28-34. Demetrius had not suggested a particular course of action
when he was interrupted by his colleagues' acclamation ofthe deity: 'Great is
Artemis of the Ephesians'.139 Following their furious shouts Ephesus filled
with confusion and rushed together to the theatre. 140 Chaos triumphed:
Some were shouting one thing, some another; for the assembly was in confusion and most ofthem did not even know why they had come together (v. 32).
Neither arguments nor information was needed or brought forward, nor was
this possible. The crowds are vividly portrayed as violent, fickle, susceptible
and unable to conduct an orderly assembly. While paul wished to address
them, neither Demetrius nor others, though likely to be present (v. 38; cf.
24.19f), stated their case. Though not necessarily aware of the religious origin
of this tumult (v. 32), when the crowds realised Alexander to be a Jew, and as
such not a follower of the goddess 141, they spontaneously responded with a
two hour long frantic unison acclamation as Demetrius' audience had done
previously. As with Paul's proclamation (Vs. 26-28), Alexander and all that his
identity might entail for the present case was simply screamed down rather
138 Compare the completely different approach to a similar challenge by the Jew GamaIiel (Acts 5.38f; c[ Darr, Character, 116-20).
139 Cf. Jessen, 2754. Xenophon Ephesius', Ephesian Tale 1.11 mentions the oath: 'I
swear to you by the goddess of our fathers, the great Artemis of the Ephesians' (Reardon, Novels, 135); examples of similar exclamations in Bruce,417.
140 Cf. Biirchner, 2616f and W. Alzinger, 'Ephesos B.H.e.Theater', RE S XII, 1625-29.
The crowds carried away with them (OlJVQQltutOl; cf. WB, 1566, Acts 16.19f!) the supposed culpables, indicating the tumultuous and violent nature of their action. Nothing is
said of their further treatment. Cr. our excursus on Luke's portrait of Gentile crowds
III.2.2.8.2.
141 Compare the full treatment in H.3.7.4., Klauck, Magie, 123; Strelan, Paul.
3. The Acts o/the Apostles
85
than refuted.1 42 Their reaction shows how Luke perceived the entrenchment
of idolatry among the Ephesians at large.
In these few verses Luke combines with masterly strokes Gentile greed,
the assumptions and practice of idolatry, rage, violence, chaos, rioting, antiJUdaism and pagan commitment and worship into a devastating scene and
portrait of Gentiles prior to faith.1 43 Such narrative portrayals of Gentiles
and their spiritual and moral-ethical condition must not be ignored in assessing Luke's view of them (cf. e.g. 1.2.2.3.3.).
This portrayal in toto and its individual components impinge on Luke's
assessment of the natural faculties of Gentiles. These Gentiles were far
from being able or willing to consider the Christian proclamation or the
correction presented in the Christian mission. They could not intelligently
address or respond to the challenge presented to them.
5. Acts 19.35-41. In his address to the excited crowds the Gentile YQuJ.LJ.LU"tElJ!; affirmed their convictions. In the light of the situation and the
concern he voices in v. 40, his effort probably did not have a different intention. l44 His position identifies him as an educated and cultured Gen142 Chrysostom comments: 'A childish understanding indeed! As if they were afraid,
lest their worship should be extinguished, they shouted without intermission .... Children indeed, these Greeks! And their feeling was as if by their voice they could reinstate
the worship of her, and undo what had taken place' (Homilies on Acts 42,259). Keith, 'Issues', 311 speaks of a ' ... totalitarianism of a public opinion which will brook no dissentient voices to the accepted ideology, if ideology is not too grand a word to denote what
was often an amalgam of diverse traditions. Sometimes this ideology would be little
more than an expression of local pride ... But the ideology was real enough - and woe
betide anyone who seriously threatened it!'
143 Cf. our discussion of Acts 19.13-17 in 111.2.2.12. and of 19.9-20 in 1Y.3.4.3. An exception is Luke's mention of some Asiarchs. They knew where to find Paul in this situation
and urged him not to appear in the theatre (similar to the action of the disciples, 19.31).
As Luke calls them cp[km of Paul, their warning arose from a real concern for Paul's
safety. Preventing confrontation with the culprit was not merely best policy in calming
down the commotion. Though these men 'from the noblest and richest families' (Haenchen, 574, n. 1) sympathized with Paul, they were not his converts or fellow Christians despite Paul's prolonged ministry. Luke does not mention the motivation for their action.
Schneider Il, 276f suggests why Luke mentioned these men and their intervention:
'Wenn also die Asiarchen ebenso wie die Christen Paul us vor dem Piibel im Theater
schlltzen wollten, hatten sie im Namen des Staatkultes - so will der Erzlihler sagen mindestens keine Bedenken gegen Paulus und seine Botschaft'. On the Asiarchs and
their duties see Kearsley, 'Asiarchs', who argues against any identification of their office
with high priestly duties (p.366,e.g. W.M. Ramsay, 'Asiarch', DB (H) I, 172). e.G. Brandis, 'Asiarches',RE 11, (1564-78) 1571.6-11 already argued Kearsley's case.
144 Luke does not specify the relations between personal convictions or piety, the demands of office and the necessity to diplomatically address the current situation in the
clerk's speech (ct. the above portrait of Demetrius). Whatever his personal convictions
may have been, his arguments - as intended to disperse the irregular assembly as presenting an apology for local religion - are portrayed as successful with the crowds.
86
tile.145 Next to Demetrius' speech this is the only other occasion of a Gentile prior to faith addressing matters of pagan religion146 and the major reply and defence of pagan concepts against the claims of the Christian proclamation as perceived by Gentiles. The clerk's arguments and their underlying notions deserve full attention. How does this unique piece contribute to
Luke's estimate of Gentiles prior to faith?
Acts 19.35. Everybody knows Ephesus to be the keeper of the temple of
the great Artemis and of 'the figure that fell from heaven'.
a) That gods have temples and human care takers of these temples
(vEwx6Qo~) is taken for granted. 147 This is the understanding criticised by
Paul in Athens (Acts 17.24f). Demetrius' charge against Paul's proclamation
(v. 26) is not related to other images in the city or to worship of such in general.
For anthropological conclusions from the great goddess and her human
guardians see also 19.27; CL II.3.8.3.b.
b) Demetrius' summary of Paul's proclamation (v. 26 -probably familiar
to the clerk; CL v. 38) and its application - for good reasons - by Demetrius
to Artemis are rejected: The statue kept and venerated in Ephesus was not
human-made (flu). XELQUlV YLv6IlEVO~)148 but was flLOl'tE't~~. Any claims to
the former were simply wrong.
This description of its provenance contains the name of another god. 149
Bauernfeind,235 sees him as 'tief im Heidentum'. Both defenders of paganism have obvious secondary (primary?) motives. The clerk was not only responding to the acclamation of the crowd but aware of the origin of this commotion (Acts 19.38).
14sFor his office cf. W.M. Ramsay, 'Ephesus', DB (H) I, (720-25) 723; O. SchultheB,
'rQUllllU"tEL; ILA.3 and B.3a', RE VIl,1747-55,1765f.
146 In Acts 24.2-8 the Gentile Tertullus addresses political matters and Jewish religious
notions; cf.11.3.9. The latter also applies to the letter of Claudius Lysias (Acts 23.26-30).
,
147 The clerk affirms what is known to the audience from the inscriptions and coins of
Ephesus. WB,1087list general references to the expression and several epigraphical occur\
rences of VEIIlKOQOS relating to Artemis and Ephesus. LSJ, 1172 define it as 'title assumed
~-_by Asiatic cities in Imperial times when they had built a temple in honour of their patrongod or the emperor, as Ephesus' and list further inscriptions; e[ K. Hanell, 'N eokoroi', RE
XVI, 2424f. For the variety of tasks and great number of people involved cf. Jessen, 2758-61.
148 cr. XELQOltol-rrto~ in Acts 7.48; XUQUYllU'tL 'texVTJ~ KUt EvihJll~~IIlS avfrQumou in
Acts 17.29. This statement is ironic: Demetrius' accusation of Paul to have attacked
'hand-made gods' was not even applicable in this case, thus the whole commotion was
unwarranted.
149 LSJ, 433 render &LOltE~S as 'that feU from Zeus': cf. the references in WB, 399. The
image was not "ovQuvo-1te~~ or oUQuvofu:v 'from heaven, down from heaven' (LSJ,
1273; cf. the prepositions used in conjunction with oVQUVOS to express the same idea).As
Luke 3.22 indicates that Luke can express this idea if so intended, [)WltE~, should be
taken as LSJ suggest. For the full expression et BDR 241.7, who suggest "to &WltE'tES
iiYaAlla (a statue in honour of a god), so also LSJ, 433. Jessen, 2762 renders 'direkt vom
Himmel gefallen' While mentioning that the first image was provided by one of the Amazons (2756). Dobschiltz's section on 'Die himmelentstammten Giitterbilder der Grie-
87
According to the composition of this adjective, the figure 'fell from Zeus'. He
provided the Ephesians with an image of (his daughter) Artemis as their object of worship.1so The clerk's defence ofthis image was within a polytheistic
paradigm. While the goddess and her image are not identified with each
other, the origin of this image warrants its use as an object ofworship.lSl
With these words the Christian challenge and correction to their beliefs
was either rejected, ignored or declared to be irrelevant. Pagan beliefs, being considered undeniable facts (v. 36), were simply affmned rather than
defended. That this very occasion could arise and this self-evident rejection
could occur and continue to be convincing even after the prolonged and intensive ministry of Paul, including daily public instruction and extraordinary miracles (Acts 19.11f, 16), and its consequences (vs. 17-20), indicates
the deep roots of paganism. Not shaken by the events these Gentiles
proved immune to the correction presented to them.
Acts 19.37. A charge for the authorities to prosecute Gaius and Aristarchus (ct. v. 29) would have been sacrilege1S2 or blasphemy of the goddess.153
chen' (Christusbilder. 1-25) discusses IiLOnE1:~5; (1. n. 2f: 'Dem griechischen SprachgefUhl
scheint bei IiLl.:7tEni5; der Gedanke an den Himmel fast nllher gelegen zu haben als der an
Vater Zeus. Letzterer findet sich mit Bezug auf das Palladion ... daneben von Personen
mit cler Deutung = IiLOYEV~5; ... ; vg!. auch -frEonEJl.:7t"to5; ... Tatsllchlich Ilberwiegt der
physikalische Gedanke den mythologischen ..... also p.14 ). He comments on the Ephesian image (see the extensive notes on pp. 3-96*):' ... die Kultbilder vom rohen Meteorgestein, dem barbarisch geschnitzten Holzbilde bis zu den vollendetsten Meisterwerken
griechischer Kunst. stetig wechselten. wllhrend der Glaube an ihren himmlischen Ursprung erhalten blieb (p. 16; cf. pp. Uf). Diipetes ward eben ein Ehrenprlldikat. welches
man einem besonders verehrten Kultbilde erteilte, sei es dass ungewohnliches Alter oder
auch aussergewohnliche Schonheit dasselbe auszeichneten' (p.17).
150 For the relationship between and combination of both gods in mythology. genealogies of the gods and the widespread archaeological evidence. see K. Wemicke, 'Artemis.
RE ll. (1336-1440) 1369.24-56. Artemis was known as the wife and more commonly as the
daughter of Zeus (for her veneration in Ephesus cf. cols. 1372f). This traditional and wide
spread combination of both deities means that Luke's readers could have picked up this
reference.
1S1 This assessment of the image and of the flawed application of Paul's proclamation
might explain why Paul was able to minister unhindered for two years and why no official steps were taken against Paul and his co-workers after the tumult.
1S2 REB. WB, 758 also suggest a wider reference for leQ6C11JA05;: 'der. welcher ehrfurchtslose Handlungen gegen das Heiligtum verllbt' (following the examples adduced
by Latte, Recht, 83-86; cf. the inscriptions from Ephesus (nos. 12 and 13); 1os. bell Iud.
y'13.6 562; G. Schrenk, Th WNT 1lI, 254.31-256.7; T. Thalheim. "1EQoCl1JALa5; YQa!Jl~', RE
VIII. 1589-90). This is likely, as theft (NRSV 'temple robbery') of holy items or temple
funds would be expressed differently (xAonTj tEQWV XQ'I]flcm.ov; cf. the discussion in 1.
Pfaff. 'Sacrilegium', RE I A, (1678-81) 1678). W.M. Ramsay. 'Churches. Robbers of, DB
(H) I,441 suggests: 'guilty neither in act nor in language of disrespect to the established
religion of our city'. Cf. the Jewish charge in Acts 6.13;21.27-30;24.6.
153 Cf. H.W. Beyer. ThWNT I, 620.24-31. As the men mentioned were earlier identified
as Cl"\JVE)(Ii~flO1J5; (rather than e.g. Cl"\JVEQY05;) and did not feature as Paul's co-workers
88
I!. Gentiles prior to faith
The former indicates once more that for this pagan understanding people
need to watch over the reputation and sanctity of the goddess' dwelling
(see above).
Aware of and identifying who started the riot, the official - not without
criticism - summoned Demetrius and other artisans to proper proceedings
(courts, proconsuls, official charges, regular assemblies). That all these recognised conventions and institutions would have been available casts further shadow on the events recorded previously. 154 The clerk's consideration
that the cause of the artisans and what became of it could not justify this
commotion155 might indicate his distance or main concern his.
This episode of resistance describes the appeal of Demetrius, the reaction of his colleagues, the loud, rash (v. 36) and violent reaction of the
crowds and the calm, enlightened response of the clerk. Despite sharp differences, these Gentiles from all levels of society, a representative selection
of Ephesians, shared their staunch adherence to pagan convictions and
their (ensuing) rejection of the Christian proclamation (exc. 19.31). That
this was done for different reasons, like~r'ferent levels of personal involvement and participation and (cf. the contrast between the crowds and
the clerk) differently expressed in word and action - not necessarily with
mutual approval, v. 36 - is only to be expected.
3.9. Acts 24.6,14-16
1\vo details in Luke's report of Paul's trial before Felix give indication of
the Gentile understanding of religion.
1. Acts 24.6. In Jerusalem Paul was accused of defiling the temple (xoworo,
Acts 21.28).156 Allegedly he did so by bringing Greeks with him to this holy
place. Before Felix, a Gentile governor, the Gentile attorney also tried to
previously (such as Barnabas or Silas) it is impossible to assess the clerk's second claim.
He referred to these men, not to Paul whose ministry some local Gentiles considered
blasphemous (v. 26).
15' On several occasions Luke refers to the legal institutions of the Roman Empire.
Next to some positive reports of their implementation and proper functioning (e.g. Acts
21.31-23.35) are many instances of moral-ethical failure of those administering justice
within this order, whatever the merit of the system itself may indicate (cf. Rapske, Paul;
Tajra, Trial).
155 Cf. W.M. Ramsay, 'Ephesus', DB (H) I, (720-25) 723 and C.G. Brandis, 'Asia. 3', RE
Il, (1538-62) 1551 for the legal consequences of spontaneous tumultuous assemblies. For
the clerk's moderating response cf. Acts 5.34-39. Luke's description of the Christian
meeting in Troas (Acts 20.7-12) contains several contrasts to the pagan assembly in
Ephesus.
156 Cf. F. Hauck, ThWNT Ill, 810.24f: 'im at.lichen Sinn der dinglichen Heiligkeitsvorstellung profanieren'.
89
accuse Paul of attempting to profane the temple, which was a serious matter in Gentile eyes. 157 Bruce suggests that 'here the Gentile term ~E~T]A6{J)
is used in addressing Felix'.158 The accusers expected Felix to take allegation of this offence seriously (in addition to those mentioned in v. 5) and intervene against Paul following Gentile convictions concerning the sanctity
of a sanctuary and the role of human guardians in ensuring and protecting
it (e.g. preventing sacrilege or blasphemy of the deity in residence; c(. Acts
19.27,35-37).1 59
IS7That Paul was said to have done so by bringing Gentiles in the temple was conven
iently omitted. For Roman legal definitions and regulations see I. Pfaff, 'Sacrilegium', RE
nAaE~da~ YQaq:>~', RE 1I, 1529-31 discusses incidents and
shows the 'Unbestimmtheit und Dehnbarkeit des Begriffes der Asebie' (1529.40-41),for
definition and range cf. col. 1529.43-58: Zunll.chst ist es nat!lrlich direkte Verletzung der
den Gllttern schuldigen Ehrfurcht, welche als solche betrachtet wurde, sei es, daB einer
sich an den ihnen geweihten Tempel, A1tll.ren, Bildern oder sonstigen Gegenstll.nden vergriff ... , oder die zu ihrer Verebrung gestifteten Feste und Gebrll.uche entweihte, ... oder
bei Vollziehung der Opfer den vorgeschriebenen Ritus nicht beobachtete ... oder die
Existenz der vom Staat anerkannten G!ltter in Frage stellte und ketzerische Ideen
liuBerte und verbreitete ... '. For the other charges against Paul see Rapske, Paul, 160-62.
Rapske observes that 'Thanks to Tertullus' masterful presentation, the charge and its
proofs appear to have been stripped of much of their distinctively Jewish or theological
character and reconstructed in such a way as to appeal to Roman legal sensibilities and
administrative concerns'.
158 p. 477; but compare the references to Jewish literature in WB, 277; Spicq I, (284-86)
284, n. 3. Rapske, Paul, 162 suggests that ~E~TJ).iiJaaL is fittingly chosen as it is more
broadly secular', and observes that 'Tertullus failed to explain what he meant'. Would
this have been necessary? Rapske indicates that such an explanation would not have
been advantageous at a Gentile court. Tajra, Trial, 123 also claims that the 'more secular
word ~EflTJ).6OJ is used as the setting is that of a Roman court of law', though both of his
examples are biblical with reference to the temple in Jerusalem (Ezek 23.38f; Matt 12.5).
F. Hauck's suggestion 'Entweihung ... im Sinne der at.lichen HeiJigkeitsauffassung'
(ThWNT I,605.10f) is unlikely on the lips of a Gentile addressing a Gentile.
IS9 Tertullus (Acts 24.6b) cleverly omits the tumultuous events recorded in Acts 21.30.
Felix would not only follow Gentile notions but also consider the poten tial such profanation would have for rioting in Jerusalem. In Tertullus' accusation of Paul some manuscripts (cf. NTG, 395, the discussion in Metzger, Commentary,490; BC W, 299f and Zahn,
776f; on Itala see Bruce, 477; also with references to Josephus) add the following different version of events between Acts 24.6 and v. 8: 'and we would have judged him according to our law. But the chief captain Lysias came and with great violence took him out of
our hands, commanding his accusers to come before you' (NRSV note). The violent action (fLEta 1tO)'Aij~ ~[as) ascribed to Lysias need not concern us as an instance of Gentile
moral-ethical failure, as Luke's readers are informed of the true circumstances of Paul's
arrest (Acts 21.30-36: Paul's arrest: btEAci.~Eto auto;:;, v. 33; ota -citv f\lav toii oX).ou, v. 35).
It is the Gentile Q~tOJQ Tertullus who - even more so in the variant reading - readily
twists the truth to establish the case of Paul's opponents through a false presentation of
the events. Bruce, 477 comments: ... the reproachful reference to the tribune's "great
violence" in resCUing Paul is an amusing travesty of the facts reported by Luke' (see
I A, 1678-81. T. Thalheim,
90
1I. Gentiles prior to faith
Adapting to Felix's Gentile understanding, Paul refuted the charge of

profanation, claiming that he was ,;yvLa~Evov (ayvt!;w, 24.18) involved in a
Jewish ritual and merely purifying himself. l60 His behaviour was fully appropriate for the venue, even praiseworthy, not attempted sacrilege.
2. Acts 24.14-16. Paul stressed before this Gentile that he worships the God
of the ancestors and believes 'everything laid down according to the law or
written in the prophets'. Paul decidedly identifies himself with Judaism, a
religion whose practice was recognised by Rome. 161
a) For this understanding, religion and its practice was a merely non-transcendent set of customs of certain people (et. Acts 16.21: il-&rj, III.2.2.10.3.) that
can be recognised or rejected by others and as such within the domain of imperial legislation. That their practic~ does or should reflect a relationship
with transcendent entities or that such is desirable was secondary. The antiquity of a religion, referred to in Pauljs mention of the ancient documents of
'the law and the prophets', made-fudaism more acceptable in Gentile eyes.
The antiquity of a religion mattered more than its truth.
b) Paul's testimony presents a marked contrast to this notion of religion.
Paul followed the God of the Jewish fathers, not their il'fhl. He was committed to documents of divine origin: Revelation 'established' the Jewish faith,
therefore it was beyond origin in human imagination and human approval.
In God's perspective there were righteous and unrighteous people (a5txoc;,
not aaE~r,c;). Criteria of divine assessment transcend obedience to customs,
cult regulations or cult related offences (Acts 24.6; cf.19.26f.37) but address
concrete moral-ethical behaviour. The eschatological events demand a
clear conscience, again emphasising behaviour. Later Felix realised that
Paul's proclamation was completely different from religion in this Roman
legal sense. It required personal commitment and radical changes in all areas of life to escape future judgement (Acts 24.24f; cf. III.2.2.13.).
Bruce,477 on Tertullus' use of the word blQa-n,oafLcv to describe the Jewish procedure
and also for Lysios' presentation of 'the details of the incident to his own advantage' in
Acts 23.27,p.472).
160 Cf. Acts 21.26. For Graeco-Roman usage and notions see F. Hauck, ThWNT I,
123.10-17 and WiIliger, Hagios. Ct Schneider n, 349; Rapske, Paul, 163; Tajra, Trial,128:
'He was observing a prescribed Jewish rite in full accordance with the Law's precept.
Paul rejects the charge of defiling the sanctity of the temple as totally unfounded'. On
this passage, Paul's trial before Festus (Acts 25.23-26.32, III.3.2.1.3.) and the trial of Jesus
(Luke 23.1-25, 11.2.1.2.2.-3.) ct G. Holtz, Der Herrscher und der Weire im Gesprach: Studien zu Form, Funktion und Situation der neutestamentlichen Verhorgespriiche zwirchen
jUdischen Weisen und Fremdherrschem, Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Zeitgeschichte
6 (Berlin: 1nstitut Kirche und Judentum, 1996).
161 Bruce, 479j Tajra, Trial, 13,127.
3. The Act!" of the Apostles
91
3.10. Acts 2Z29
Luke reports that during the fourteenth night the sailors suspected that the
ship was nearing land. In fear of running against a rocky shoreline they lowered anchors. This done, the sailors T]U!;oV"to for daylight. How should E'iixo~aL be translated? LSJ offer two different translations.1 62 Zahn presents
one option and translates: ' ... und den Anbruch des Tages herbeisehnten'163,
similarly Smith: 'wished' and were anxiously 'longing for day'.1 64 In contrast, the NRSV presents the dictionary's other option and translates 'and
prayed for day to come'.l65 Marshall combines both possibilities: 'to long
and pray for light to appear' .1 66 Though a certain conclusion is probably impossible, we believe this undecided matter can be taken further.
W. Kroll's entry on ancient navigation mentions the dangers involved
and surveys various religious responses to them: Safety on the sea was
sought through sacrifices before departure, vows were made before the
journey or in moments of great danger and prayers and sacrifices offered
to the gods of the sea.1 67 'Es wird Sitte, bei drohendem Schiffbruch sein
Haar den Gottern zu weihen' .1 68 Votive gifts of those surviving shipwrecks
are known.1 69 Once a journey was completed sacrifices of gratitude were
presented.
161'EUxollaLl.1-3', 739; cf. H. Greeven, ThWNT Il, (774-806) 774-76.

163 P. 835f. Others are e.g. Pesch, Weiser, Meyer, Bruce, Bauernfeind, Schneider, BC IV.
The alternative meaning is not even discussed. Greeven notes that EiiXOllaL appears also
'isoliert, so daB man keine religiose Beziehung anzunebmen braucht, wenn sie auch
moglich ist'. On the occurrence in Acts 27.29 he comments 'ohne daB damit gesagt wlire,
die sehnsllchtige Erwartung des Tageslicbtes hlitte in Gebeten oder Gel!lbden Ausdruck
gefunden (776.21-23). Rackham, 489 also translates 'longing for day', yet comments in n.
1: 'The Greek word primarily means praying: Here it must denote the ardent longing for
the dawn, which they could hardly have hoped to accelerate by prayer'.Whetber desperate sailors would have entertained such rational consideration is questionable.
16<4 Voyage, 130, 134. Rapske, 'Acts', 34 has 'waiting'.
165 So also NEB and REB. For pagan prayer cf. Greeven, 776.29-782.15; cf. Th WNT
X.2, 1091-93; HeiIer, Prayer, 74-86; Stengel, Kultusaitertamer, 78-82; E. von Severus, 'Gebet I. A.I-lI', RAC VIll, (1134-1258) 1134-62 and O. Michel, 'Gebet II (Ftirbitte). 11.
Griechiscb-Romisch', RAC IX, 11-13.
166P.412.
167 'Schiffahrt. 4. Gefabren', RE Il.A, (407-19) 412-14, here 413.55-414.9 (with references); ct. the material in Stengel, Ku!lusaitertUmer, 135 (cf. his n. 10) and W. Kroll,
'Seeraub', RE lI.A, 1036-42.
168 Col. 413.13-15. Vows of thank-offerings also occur in Jonah 1.16 (after the storm
ceased).
169 Col. 413.lf: 'In der Praxis waren sie ofiers von Bildem des Unfalles und der gtittlichen Hilfe begleitet'. Compare the inscription from the temple of Pan in EI-Kanais
(Cll II, no. 1537): 'Praise be to God, Theodotus (son of) Dorion, a Jew, saved from the
sea', according to HengeIlSchwemer,Paui, n. 399. Josephus has the distressed sailors 'vow
92
Il. Gentiles prior 10 faith
Pagan notions and practices permeated the seafaring of Gentiles prior to

faith. An ancient sea journey was a religious undertaking. Therefore it is
more than likely that the Gentile sailors on Paul's ship prayed, especially in
view of the prolonged desperate situation described in detailPo In this lifethreatening moment they looked for supernatural help.l11
Some of the possible literary precedents to Luke's account also suggest taking lliil(o~UL
as a reference to prayer.l~ Jonah was commanded by the Gentile captain to call on his
god (Jonah 1.6). Once told who is behind this storm (vs. 9f) the sailors cried out to the
Lord (v. 14). Following the ceasing of the storm they feared the Lord with great fear, sacrificed sacrifices an~rayed prayers (eii!;uVl:o EUl(UC;, 1.16).17J On Acts 27.29b Bruce re-
\
thank-offerings (l(UQ;T]QLOUC;) if they escaped the sea' (ant. lud. IX.I0.2 209). Their
response (prayer, casting lots; cl. Josephus' note: 'they began to suspect, as is natural - wC;
EvOEXE1:UL, so the translation of R. Marcus -, that one of the passengers was the cause of
the storm .. .', elc.) is indicative of the religious overtones of ancient seafaring. The religious significance of ancient seafaring is also indicated by the fact that some ships were
named after deities; compare the lists of known ship names in E Miltner, 'Seewesen', RE
S V, (906-62) 947-56. It contains the gods Castor and Pollux (cols. 953, 955) but not the
combination liLOmtOuQoL (cl. Acts 28 ..11), but cf. col. 947.26f.
170 Compare Aelius Aristides' account of a storm at sea (Orationes 48.62, mentioned
by Kroll, 'Schiffahrt', 412.36f; cl. H. Gartner, 'Aristeides. 3', KP I, 557-59) in which sailors,
thinking that they and their ship would be lost, sprinkled ashes on their heads. Parallels
to Acts 27 are listed by van der Horst, Aelius Arislides, 43f
171 Cf. Luke 8.24; Pss 107.23-32; 18.16; 104.7; 106.9; Nah 1.4; SchUrmann 1,473-79.
l7Z Bruce, 'Acts!ANRW', 2578 suggests that the account of the shipwreck shows 'some
dependence on the Septuagint account of Jonah's abortive Mediterranean voyage
(Jonah 1.4ff)'; for a more general discussion see Rosner, 'Acts'. For parallels in GraecoRoman accounts see Robbins, 'We-Passages' and 'Land', 217-34 and the essays of R.P'C.
Hanson, D. Ladouceur, R. Merkelbach, G.B. Miles - G. Trompf and P. Pokorny listed by
Weiser, 363; cf. Rapske, 'Acts', (22-47) 43-45.
173 On the threefoldjigura etyrnologica see BDR 153. In Luke's account Paul appears
almost as a contrast figure to Jonah. Compare the description of the sailors in the
pseudo-Philonic sermon De Jona 28-54 and in Ios. ant.lud. IX.10.2 209-12. Josephus
clearly pictures the sailors at prayer (EUXa.C; E;tOLQ"iiV1:o). De Jona also depicts the sailors
as praying: 'Nun lieS der Steuermann das Ruder los und die Seeleute ihre sonstigen
Gerate, und sie breilelen die HiJnde aus ,urn Gebet. Doch auf ihr Gebet hin beruhigte
sich der Sturm keineswegs ... ' (28). However, it is difficult to discern whether the author
sees the sailors as Gentiles. Siegert, 'Heiden' ,54 also notes that neither the sailors nor the
Ninevites are called Gentiles. Though Jonah asks for the ship's destination, the reference
to Tarshish (Jonah 1.3) is omitted (24). When Jonah finally arrives in Nineveh, the
preacher simply says' ... gelangte er zu den Menschen' (102).
Their gesture of prayer points in either direction. E. van Severus, 'Gebet 1', RAC VIII,
(1134-1258) 1167 notes on Jewish posture and gestures:' ... vor allem betete man wie im
ganzen Orient und im antiken Mittelmeerraum mit ausgespannten und erhobenen Hlinden. On Graeco-Roman customs he writes: 'Wie bei den Griechen (s.o. Sp. 1141.1143)
war auch bei den Rllmern das Erheben der ausgestreckten Hlinde der alltllglichste und
einfachste Gebetsgestus ... ', col. 1158. Different from the LXX (&VE~O(J)V eKUITtOC; 7tQOC;
1:QV ihQV U\J1:WV, Jonah 1.5) the deity they addressed is not identified as pagan (d
Siegert, 'Heiden', 54). However, the sailors charge Jonah: 'Los, steh auf, schUttle den
93
fers for the idea to Homer: 'many of the concepts, and in some respects much of the
wording, of the Odyssey became part of a literary tradition in nautical matters'.'74 These
references indicate that in the Odyssey navigation is overloaded with religious ritual and
symbolism and accompanied by prayer.''' This would not necessarily be the case in the
first century A.D., nor likely to occur in everyday navigation among professional and less
eloquent sailors. However, it is likely that this rich heritage should surface in exceptionally drastic circumstances and determine behaviour.
The reference in Acts 28.11 to the figurehead of the Dioscuri, the 'unzertrennliches
Ritterpaar in jeder Not, zumal in Kampf und Sturm'176 and recognised 'HeIfer in
Seenot'177, possibly indicates the gods to whom the sailors prayed.
Schlaf ab und bete zu deinem Gott' (35; cf. LXX: ErcLKaAoii 'tov (}eov cr01!). The use of the
possessive may suggest that Jonah's god was different from theirs.
The sailors are credited with spiritual perception: 'Nun sahen die Lenker des Schiffes
ein, daB das Gebet durch SUn den vereitelt wurde, und sie strengten eine Untersuchung
an iiber die Taten jedes einzelnen' (41; cf. Siegert's conclusions in 'Heiden', 54). God revealed Jonah's secret to the captain of the ship (44) and used the casting of lots through
the sailors: 'So wird Gott durch das Los /rommer Manner zum Richter' (46).
Before throwing Jonah over board, they assure him: 'Nun sind wir aber nicht begierig,
guter Mann, jemanden sterben zu sehen oder gar, wie manche geborenen Rohlinge, uns
an der grausamen Hinrichtung eines Menschen zu weiden. Wir wo lien nur das Unheil
abwenden, das uns rings umlauert' (48; cf. Luke's ~6:Q~aQoL in Acts 28.2,4). This comparison does not - unlike that in Luke 12.30 - refer to Gentiles, which might be expected of
Jews. They do not call on God or deities as their witness: 'Zeugen sind der schwarze Himmel Uber uns und die freundliche Erde mit ihrem festen Boden;Zeuge ist das Meereselement, das dies en Sturm IIber uns brachte' (50; cf. OT instances where elements of nature are called upon as witnesses, e.g. Deut 4.26; 30.19; 31.28; 32.1; Isa 12; Mic 6.lf; however H.W. Wolff,Dodekapropheton 4: Micha, BKAT X1V/4 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1982), 146f also notes this feature in Canaanite inscriptions).
The sailors go on to justify their impending action: 'Nicht weil wir Rauber oder Unmenschen waren, werfen wir einen aus dem Schiff; wir gieren auch nicht nach deinem
Gepllck' (51; cf. Acts 28.2). They continue 'Doch ist uns, die wir aus /remder,feindlicher
Hand schon 6fters lebendig entkommen sind, der elende Tod hier auf dem Schiff keine
unabweisbare BUrde des Schicksals' (51). The combination offremd andfeindlich is possible on the lips of Gentiles and of Jews (cf. O:iJ.OYEV~\; in Luke 17.18, ;EvO\; in Acts
17.18,21, ciiJ.6tQLO\; in Acts 7.6; 1 Clem. 7.7 says of the Ninevites: ciiJ.O'tQLOL "toii (}EOii
OV'tE\;). The same holds true for their wish: 'Moge ein Engel der Unterwelt od er vieIleicht
sogar ein stummes Seeungeheuer deine Seele anvertraut bekommen' (52; cf. 1. MichI,
'Engel I (heidnisch)" RAC V, (53-60) 55f 'Angeloi der Unterwelt' and idem, 'Engel IT
GUdisch)'. RAC V, (60-97) 76f 'Engel bei Tod und Gericht'.
m Acts, 523; e.g. IlI.158f, 178; 1'1.360-66.473-80; IX.142f; XIII.50-55; cf. also Bruce,
'Acts/ANRW', 2578.
175 On prayer in Homer ef. E. von Severus, 'Gebet I'. RAC VIII, 1139-41.
176 E. Bethe, 'Dioskuren', RE V, (1087-1123) 1087.29-31; cf. H. v. Geisau, 'Dioskuroi',
KP 11, 92-94.
177 Bethe, 1096.55f (cf. col. 1094.17-59). From the fifth century this side of their function
comes to the foreground; cf. W. Kraus, 'Dioskuren', RAC Ill, (1122-38) 1131; Jaisle,
Dioskuren and v. Geisau, 93 for literary references to this predominant function. We return to these deities in III.2.2.14.
94
lI. Gentiles prior to faith
Provided this is the right meaning of Luke's EUX,OflUt, this is Luke's only example of Gentiles at prayer.
a) Unlike some of Luke's previous portrayals of Gentile religion, this
note may indicate a personal relation of Gentiles with their gods. They consider them present, listening to their pleas and able to intervene, and expect
them to do so. Their prayer is mentioned only at the most dire moment.
b) But the account continues. Following their prayers the sailors became
active and under pretext tried to set out at night to escape from the ship.
Apparently their prayers for daylight did not provide the needed assurance. The action may indicate doubt that the deities addressed would interveneps The sailors whose skills alone could possibly save the whole ship
were concerned only about their own survival and ready 'so ihren Schiffsherm; das Militiir nebst den 'iibrigen Passagieren und das Schiff selbst
ihrem ~;hicksal zu tiberlassen'.179 Their religious convictions and prayers
did not rffect their actions. Their prayer and behaviour is in contrast to
Paul's c;oncern and action in Acts 27.33-36. Paul's prayer and symbolic
breakmg and eating of bread in the presence of all encouraged everybody
.
and made them eat.
3.11. Acts 28.4-6
1. The natives of Malta showed the shipwrecked travellers unusual kindness in kindling a fire and welcoming all around it. ISO As Paul laid wood on
the fire, a viper fastened itself on his hand. The 'barbaric' islanders lSI
ascribed this event to the efficacy of the goddess of Justice: 'This man must
178 Chrysostom, Homilies on Acts 53, 316 notes that their action indicates their disbelief of Paul's prediction (Acts 27.24).
179 Meyer, 452. He continues' ... wie leicht lilsen sich bei gemeinen GemUthern in soIchen Lagen lebensgef!1hrlicher Ungewissheit die Bande der Treue und Pfiicht, wenn auf
Kosten derselben eine sichere Rettung eriangt werden kann'. Chrysostom, Homilies on
Acts 53,317 calls the sailors 'a reckless sort of people'.
180 For the location of the island see Rapske, 'Acts', 37-43. For the presence or absence
of snakes on the island and their kind see Smith, Voyage, 148f,65f; cf. H. Gossen, A. Steier,
'Schlange (zoologisch)" RE II A, (494-520) 497.3847. On ancient beliefs of their perilous
nature see cols. 498-500, for their significance as omen cf. cols. 507f and in popular belief
cols. 517f. The ExLOVct is treated in cols. 537-43.
181 With the expression ~a!!~ct!!OL Luke indicates that these were uneducated people;
cf. W. Ruge, 'Barbaroi', RE II, 2858.50-63; Smith, Voyage, 163-65; Pesch 11,297. In light of
Luke's presentation elsewhere Bruce's statement (532): 'Only ~a!!~ct!!ol., in Luke's
judgement, would say anything so foolish' is inappropriate. The scope and intensity of
Gentile religion is not correlated with status or education. In addition, these Gentiles are
portrayed as thinking of I'l.lxl], not of one of their autochthonous deities; cf. H. Baiz,
EDNT 1,198; J.JUthner, RAC I, 1173-76; W. Speyer, 1. Opelt, 'Barbar',JAC 10, 1967,25190.
95
be a murderer; for though he has escaped from the sea, "Justice" has not allowed him to live' (28.4).
6.LKT] was a personified abstract deity associated with vindication.1 82 The
goddess pursues 'the wrongdoers and takes revenge for crimes that have
gone undetected and unpunished by humanjudges'.183
a) The Gentile islanders believed in this deity, her presence and intervention in human affairs, therefore it was impossible to escape divine judgement. 184 A common event, like the snake bite, was immediately interpreted
within their pagan frame of reference and associated with one deity of the
pantheon.185 The existence and power of these gods to accomplish their purposes is presupposed. 186 The idolatrous disposition ofthese people is evident.
b) Following their own paradigm, these Gentiles completely misjudged
Paul. Paul was not only not a murderer but had been fully vindicated by
God in the previous narrative (ct. Acts 27.9-11,21-26,44) and been commissioned and authenticated as God's servant. God already had announced
that Paul would arrive in Rome (23.11; 27.24).
c) Within the context of complete spiritual failure, Luke reports the islanders' ov 't~v 'tuxoiiaav qJLAav1'tQwnLav (28.2). Such reception of shipwrecked
travellers was not obvious. W. Kroll notes one potential reception: 'Auch dem,
182 E. Berneker, 'Dike', KP Il, 24-26 summarises and explains the origin and development of this personification. See also Latte, Religionsgeschichte, 300,321-24; Nilsson,
Geschichte 1,343,589,711,714,776 and on personification p. 20lf,21l,488 and Zeit, 198200. Nielsson, Geschichte II,347 also mentions the abstract deities of Dikaiosyne, Eleos,
Homonoia, Pronoia and from an Orphic hymn collection Dike, Nomos, Eniautos, Penteteris and Arete. Cf. G. Schrenk, ThWNT II, (180-83) 183.20f,48f; Hirzel, Themis,56-227;
O. Waser,RE V,574-78.A similar case of personification was the mistaken 'Avcl!naa~ in
Athens, Acts 17.18.
183 P.W. van der Horst, 'Dike', DDD, (476-80) 479: 'The people ... evidently draw from
the fact that Paul was attacked by a deadly poisonous reptile the conclusion that the goddess of justice has finally caught up with him'. Paul's survival has been seen as part of
Luke's strategy to vindicate Paul; et. the discussion of these proposals and further criticism in Rapske, 'Acts', 43-46.
184 Their conviction is not necessarily wrong (cf. Luke 13.3-5). It becomes problematic
once such justice is no longer an attribute of God but a deified principle of its own. The
often adduced inscription of the poet StatylIius F1accus (e.g. by Pesch n, 298, n. 10; cf.
AGr Il, 1957, VII, no. 290) offers a parallel in that somebody who escaped from the sea
was bitten to death by a snake. In the section quoted by Pesch this event is not explained
with reference to t.tXl]. Anticipated divine retribution might explain the reaction of the
Philippian jailer, Acts 16.29; cf. Pesch 11,116.
185 Against Cluysostom,lfomilies on Acts 54, 321.
186The presence of diseases which remained to be healed by Paul and his God did not
impinge on their convictions. If a goddess was quick to intervene against a murderer, why
did she or other gods fail to deliver their devotees from such suffering? This is a recurring observation; cf. Acts 8.6-10, 11.3.4.4.; 19.11f. Even after Paul had successfully addressed these diseases there was no spiritual response (cf. 1112.2.15.1.).
96
der glUcklich an die Kiiste gelangt war, drohten weitere Gefahren von Strandriiubern' .187 Spiritual failure and moral-ethical demeanour are not necessarily linked.l 88
However, their CfJLAuv{}Qw:n;iu should not be overestimated. With 276
people landing on their shores, including soldiers, the rural islanders were
likely to be outnumbered and did not have much of a choice but to show
hospitality (despite Acts 27.33). Possibly their behaviour was not based on
humanitarian concerns l89 but derived from their belief in .1.ixTJ: should they
fail to perfonn their duties of hospitality, the ever present goddess might
turn against them.
2. But Paul suffered no hann.1 9o After waiting and seeing that contrary to
their expectations, nothing unusual happened, the islanders changed their
minds. Yet the presumed murderer, now vindicated, was not simply recognised as an innocent man but taken to be the appearance of a god, who
through his survival of the bite had provided proof of his immortality.
a) Just as Dike was thought present and active among them, this event
\\was likewise interpreted in pagan categories. Bauemfeind comments:
___ ~'
Urn das qeschick des seltsamen Fremdlings zu deuten, mUssen die Einwohner weit
ins Metaphysische greifen; das ist bezeichnend, wenn ihre Vorstellungen auch lediglich urn heidnische Giittergestaiten kreisen.19I
187 'Schiffahrt',RE Il.A, (407-19) 413.24-26; compare the reference to robbers in Robbins, 'Land', 222 and the Roman legal regulations in E. Weiss, 'Naufragium', RE XVI,
1898f. Tertullian reports how donations of Christian communities were also used to support shipwrecked persons (item naufragis, Apologeticum 39). To adduce this in his apology, such help must have been an unusual expenditure among non-Christians. With reference to Jiithner,Hellenen, Schille, 471 speaks of a 'Motiv der freundlichen Aufnahme bei
Barbaren'. I could not ascertain this claim. Dio Chrysostom (Euboica, Oratio 7.2-10)
provides a fine parallel of friendly reception following a shipwreck. The crew of the
wrecked boat was immediately received by fishers. Dio followed the native hunter whom
he met on the beach without fear of any treachery (7.8; on his offer of hospitality, see
Norden, Theos, 313. p. 83, n. 181). Cf. the scruples Josephus (ant. lull. IX.10.2 212) ascribes to the Gentile sailors in throwing overboard Jonah, 'who was a stranger and had
entrusted his life to them'.
188 Though Chrysostom,Homilies on Acts 54,321 in his over-positive assessment of the
islanders rightly notes that they did not assail Paul, neither did they come to his aid after
the bite; cf. GossenlSteier, 500.29-504.53 for the various treatments of snake bites known
and applied in the ancient world. This is in striking contrast to Paul's subsequent healing
ministry (Acts 28.8f) and the previous examples of Christian response to disease and accident (Acts 3.2-8; 20.9-11). For positive reference to Gentile moral-ethical behaviour in
28.7,10 cf. III.2.2.15.1, IV.3.4.6.
189 Chrysostom, Homilies on Acts 54, 321.
190 Cf. ancient descriptions of the symptoms following the snake's bite, summarised by
GossenlSteier, 540. Paul's ministry on the island (Acts 28.7-10) and the islanders' continued spiptual failure is treated in III.2.2.15.
191P.277.
4. Conclusion
97
Such categories were immediately and consistently applied. Both, the initial
assessment and the revised estimation of Paul (now a god like Dike or others), indicate how mistaken Gentiles could be. When forced by the course of
events to revise their earlier incorrect assessment, the result was not closer to
the truth, but rather more blasphemous and idolatrous. The miracle was recognised but not appreciated as a correction or challenge to their notions
(e.g. concluding to Paul's innocence or divine protection). Rather it was interpreted in accordance with and to affirm these notions. This recurring observation restrains optimism concerning Gentile natural faculties.
Though the islanders thought Paul to be a god, neither acclamation nor
intention and/or preparation to worship is mentioned as in Acts 12.22 or
14.11.192 Paul received no further attention, nor were his services required.
Only after the random healing of Publius' father other sick islanders came
to be cured (28.9). As readily as his divinity was acknowledged, as easily
was recognition or veneration of him as such neglected. As nothing was
done about a murderer in their midst (<pOVEU~; et <p6vo~ in Luke 23.19,25),
nothing happened when the same man turned out to be divine.
b) For these Gentiles a boundary between humans and (a multiplicity of)
gods is non-existent or at best fluid. This indicates their lack of apprehen.
sion of the true God, of humanity and their relation to each other.193
4. Conclusion
Luke describes a wide range of Gentiles prior to faith who differ in time,
national and ethnic background, social status, education and level of civilisation. The amount and nature of what Luke mentions of these Gentiles is
subject to his main purposes. Except for the general statements in Luke
12.29f and Acts 4.25f, our conclusions must be based on his portrayal of specific Gentiles. This has two consequences: a) Not all the strokes of this portrait necessarily apply to all Gentiles; some may even appear self-contra-
112 Neither is there the typical reaction of the missionaries to divine acclamation (cf.
Acts 14.14f). Pesch (1l,298) suggests: 'Ihr Urteil wird nieht ausdrucklich korrigiert wohl auch deshalb, weil es weiter keine Folgen zeitigt', more likely such reaction is lacking because their deliberations were unknown to Paul. See F. Pfister, 'Epiphanie', RE S
IV, (277-323) 316-19 for pagan responses to epiphanies. In light of these examples the
apathy of the islanders is surprising.
193 Cf. W.M. Ramsay, 'Religion of Greece and Asia Minor' ,DB (H) V, (109-56) 154. For
further conclusions see 11.35. Luke's two other cases of Gentile identification of humans
as divine in connection with a miracle (Acts 14.10f; 16.26-30; et Pfister, 312-14 for pagan
examples) will be treated in 1II.2.2.
98
dictory. b) Because Luke does not judge all Gentiles alike and allows for diversity, his portrait appears true to life. Luke allows for exceptions.
Despite the limited evidence and its diverse nature, Luke's Gentiles still
share some common characteristics. Our conclusions from Luke's direct
references to his view of Gentiles prior to faith can be summarised under
some closely interrelated headings.
1. Ignorance of God
The religious practices of Gentiles with their underlying assumptions (see
2.) and their lifestyle and behaviour bear witness to their ignorance of God
and their lack of revelation. Gentiles are explicitly labelled as devoid of
special revelation (not having the 'Law'; Acts 2.23). Only through God's initiative and servants did Gentiles receive or come to receive what they did
not have themselves (Luke 4.26; 11.30,32) and could not obtain elsewhere.
They did not know of, or experience, the provision, revelation and salvation
Israel had through prophets like Elijah and Jonah or in Solomon's wisdom
(11.31). Even Israelites quickly became again like the Gentiles once the impact of their encounter with God faded (Acts 7.39-43). What Gentiles
lacked was beyond their reach. What revelation was given before the establishment of Israel (Luke 11.50) was lost or perverted. Their own wisdom
was of no avail in recognising or accomplishing God's purpose (Acts 7.22).
Not knowing God and his providential care, anxious concerns for material needs and efforts to ensure their own existence characterise Gentiles
(Luke 12.30). Such efforts become sinful when an expression of this failure
,_arulJ~dependence. Gentiles exemplify people so attached to this life, its activities~nd duties, as to forfeit or overrule spiritual sensitivity.
!
2. SpiritUal incapacity
In addition to or - possibly as a consequence - of their ignorance of God
Luke's description indicates the extent to which Gentiles prior to faith
were spiritually incapacitated. Gentiles misconceived the nature of God,
his worship and their relation to him and the nature of his rule over his
world.
2.1. Idolatry: Ignorance of God and his proper worship. Gentile ignorance of the true God and his proper worship and spiritual incapacity are
evident from the deities they knew and venerated instead. The theory and
practice of idolatry, the fabrication, presence and worship of idols witnesses
to and expresses this failure.
a) Gentiles of various nationalities and eras ofthe past and present (Acts
7.40-43; 19.23-37) shared this common denominator. In addition to handmade artefacts the created universe was worshipped (7.43). These deities
and their worship had a devout and fierce following and permeated all as-
4. Conclusion
99
pects of the Gentile world (Acts 15.20; 19.24-28,34-37; 28.4-6). Some Gentiles received a living from such worship (19.24-27); they and those in official positions are introduced as the staunchest supporters of idols.
Gentiles perceived their deities as dwelling among their worshippers
who had to keep them (Acts 7.43; 19.35; cf.17.24f,29). The gods were in the
hands and at the mercy of their human devotees, who raised and protected
their temples against defilement and enhanced the god's reputation. Every
sanctuary and the worship associated with it witnessed to the Gentile ignorance of the true nature of God. The futility of such worship or the inability
of their gods to intervene (7.41,48f; 19.35) or their other inadequacies
(19.12f; 27.20) were not recognised. The notions behind their worship and
its actual practice was in contrast to what God requires.
b) Linked to the ignorance of God and idolatry was the Gentile inability
or failure to distinguish between human and divine (Acts 8.9-11; 12.20-23;
19.35), as the perceived deities are so human - needing and appreciating
housing, attention and protection.
c) Their polytheism and idolatry was accompanied by magical practices
(Acts 8.9-11). Gentiles fell prey to magicians even though they failed to address their real needs (8.7).
2.2. Lack of positive references. In addition to Luke's description of the
Gentile failure and consequent spiritual condition, it has to be noted that
there are no positive indications for any genuinely Gentile recognition or
worship of God. The Gentiles who knew and feared God prior to the arrival of the Christian mission did so through the testimony and mediation of
the Jewish prophets or Judaism (cf. Y.1.8.). The Gentiles' incapacity to recognise God's nature expressed in his providential care is also evident from
their worried and anxious striving to ensure their own existence (cf. 114.1.)
2.3. Rebels against God. The spiritual condition of Gentiles prior to faith
is not only apparent from their ignorance and idolatry but also from their
rebellion against God and rejection of his purposes. a) Gentile nations are
portrayed in joint open rebellion against God and his rule (Acts 4.25f). The
nature of God's rule over them and its beneficiary character is not appreciated (cf. ayu{}ougywv ouguVO{}EV, 14.17). Its rejection led to other centres
of value and loyaJty.194 That Luke could re-apply and expand this estimation of Gentiles to the rejection of Jesus (4.27) indicates that he considered
this attitude and conduct a lasting characteristic. Because of their ignorance
of God's nature the futility of such attempts is not realised. The attempts
are indicative of previous failure to recognise God. b) The Gentile rejection
194 My thinking was enriched by Niebuhr's discussion (Monotheism,16-31), whose terminology I have employed. For the heading 'Rebels against God' cf E. Brunner, Man in
Revolt.A Christian Anthropology (London, New York: Scribner, 1939; trad. o. Wyon).
100
lL Gentiles prior to faith
of God's rule and purpose is also apparent in their anti-Judaism (ct. their
treatment of Jerusalem, Luke 21.24-28,112.7. and the discussion in Y.1.2.).
The behaviour of the _Gentiles in Luke 21.24-28 indicates their failure to
appreciate their role within God's history in ruthlessly over-stepping their
commission.
2.4. Response to challenge and correction. When confronted with special
revela tion (e.g. with Judaism or with miracles), such challenge and correction
oftheir convictions (Acts 16.16-21;19.26,33f;28.5f) was a) interpreted in their
own frame of reference to affirm their convictions (28.6; ct.14.10f); b) blindly
and on occasion violently rejected for different reasons (16.19; 19.24-28,34)
or refuted intellectually (16.20f; 19.35-37). In these responses their own notions or customs were decisively affirmed (16.21; 19.35f). These Gentiles
were blind to their true state and immune to its exposure and correction. Exceptions are the Ninevites and the God-fearers (cf. Y.1.8.).
In view of the plight of their ignorance and various spiritual failures and
their response, a solution consisting only of correction would be inadequate.
God's direct intervention is required for the salvation of such people.
3. Moral-ethical sin(s)
References to Gentile moral-ethical behaviour without connection to their
response to salvation are rare. 195 This dearth of negative and positive references to Gentile moral-ethical behaviour is due to Luke's subject matter.
3.1. In the context of idolatry fornication and greed appear (Acts
15.20,29; 19.24-27). The Gentile sailors intended to escape from the shlp to
save themselves, leaving the passengers to their fate. Other moral-ethical
failures mentioned or displayed in these direct references to Gentiles prior
to faith, like the violence against Jerusalem (Luke 21.24-28), the Egyptian
enslavement and ill treatment of the Israelite strangers in Egypt (miQOLKO(;,
Acts 1.6f}a~d the violent outbursts of anti-Judaism, are closely related to
and expressive of spiritual failure.
3.2. The spiritual failures of Gentiles do not necessarily entail moral-ethical failure. Luke also notes the unusually friendly reception given to Paul
and his companions on Malta (Acts 28.2).
4. Under divine claim and condemnation
a) Despite these deficiencies and failures Gentiles were under God's claim,
accountable to him and expected to meet his demands. Except for 'lYre and
Sidon, Luke indicates how God's demands were or could have been known
to them, namely through Noah, Lot, Jonah and Solomon. For their failures
195 Cf. Y.15. Where material included here has such connection, the incidents are considered in III.2.2.17.1.
4. Conclusion
101
these Gentiles came and come under temporary and eschatological divine
judgement (Luke 10.12-14; 11.30,32; Acts 7.7). That for this "XQLULS" Gentiles
will be resurrected emphasises their accountability.
b) In light of their failure before God and these judgements, Gentiles
need repentance and salvation. Gentile responses to divine judgement varied: While the Ninevites repented at Jonah's mission and proclamation (not
at their own insight; cf 2.2.), the contemporaries of Noah and Lot in their
carelessness and/or refusal to act did not become unsettled by the impending doom. They either failed to recognise their own precarious state (indicating the inadequacy of their natural faculties) or the summons to repentance, and with it the condemnation and correction of their previous attitude and behaviour was rejected.
c) In Luke's references to judgement over Gentile cities of the past no distinction is
drawn: either all the inhabitants were punished (explicit in Luke 17.29::n:civta~) or all repented. The evidence of later parts should clarify whether this lack of distinction is entirely or primarily due to the brevity and intention of these references or whether such
lack indicates that all Gentiles need repentance to escape judgement irrespective of the
variety among them.
d) In punishment for her apostasy Israel was given over to idolatry (Acts 7.39-43).
Idolatry itself and God's continuing toleration of it may be an act of divine punishment.
Gentile idolatry may likewise be related to previous punishment for their apostasy. Possibly such apostasy, punishment and idolatry impinge on the Gentiles' spiritual capacities
for them to no longer perceive the true state of affairs and the futility of their idolatry.
Though Luke mentions possessed Gentiles, the devil or demons are remarkably absent from these direct Lukan references to Gentiles. Gentile
failure and its various manifestations (e.g. the fierce devotion to Artemis,
Acts 19.27,34) is neither related to nor explained with recourse to such. 196
In this second part we have gathered what could be gleaned from what in
their majority are remarks 'in passing' on Gentiles. Already a fairly coherent portrayal of their state has emerged. Nevertheless, as the condition and
plight of Gentiles is not Luke's main concern, we could produce only a
torso. These initial impressions need supplement and correction through
clues from the more comprehensive and deliberate portrait of the Gentile
encounter with Christian salvation. What can be concluded from the remedy offered and the solution accomplished in salvation to the plight
thereby addressed? A vast field awaits us.
195 Cases of possession of Gentiles and of demonic manifestations will be treated in

part III; ct Luke 8.26-39; Acts 8.7; 16.16-18; 19.13-16; full conclusions in III.2.2.17.2.
Ill. The Gentile encounter with salvation

1. Introduction
Since Luke is not primarily interested in people's spiritual and moral-ethical condition prior to their encounter with the salvation which is his main
focus, it is not surprising that the former topic is only rarely directly addressed. Now we examine Luke's descriptions or remarks on the Gentile
encounter with salvation. neatment of the most extensive material for our
quest will be accomplished in two steps:
1. We start by looking at the instances where Gentiles encountered God's

salvation in their contact with John, Jesus and the Christian proclamation
through the Gentile mission. From these encounters we draw conclusions
as to the state of Gentiles prior to faith. How or why did Gentiles receive or
need to receive God's saviour and salvation? As only such conclusions are
our present interest, these encounters need to be examined only in so far as
they contribute to it. Again we follow the sequence of Luke's narrative
(ill.2.1. Luke's Gospel, 1lI.2.2. Acts).
2. We shall continue with Luke's statements relating to the salvation of Gentiles (III.3.). What does Luke directly or indirectly indicate on the state of
Gentiles prior to faith? Why, from what fate or condition, or from whom do
Gentiles need to be saved? What can be gathered from Luke's description
of divine and human activity in the Gentile appropriation of salvation to
shed light on their condition prior to faith? What does the nature of this salvation indicate for the plight it seeks to address? We shall include some
statements beyond the distinction Gentile-Jew, which - even when appearing in a Jewish context - also apply to the Gentiles.
104
2. The Gentile encounter with salvation

2.1. Luke's Gospel: contacts between Jesus and Gentiles 1
2.1.1. Gentiles and the ministry ofJesus
2.1.1.1. Luke 6.17-19
The Sermon on the Plain was delivered before people from 'all Judaea, Jerusalem and the coast of Tyre and Si don '. Marshall observes that 'the construction suggests that Jews from that area are meant, but "lYre and Si don
are so much a symbol of heathenism (10.13f.) that perhaps Gentiles are
meant'.2 Though Luke does not mention that the crowd wanted 'to hear the
word of God' (cf. 5.1), they came to hear Jesus, to be healed of their diseases and to be delivered from unclean spirits.
If Gentiles were among the crowds (at considerable distance from the
Phoenician :rtuQuA.tu), they overcame their own pride, possibly anti-Judaism, and the Jewish antipathies to receive what they themselves or other
Gentiles could not offer: the teaching of Jesus and his power to heal their
diseases and deliver them from unclean spirits (cf. Luke 6.18f). Such teaching they lacked; what they experienced though was disease and demonic
bondage against which they were helpless. 3 This possible mention of Gentiles may indicate their future receptiveness to the Christian mission. 4
2.1.1.2. Luke 7.1-10
A Gentile centurion5 employed Jewish elders to ask Jesus to heal his slave.
Probably he was not a God-fearer like Comelius (Acts 10.2), 'for when such
1 The incidents treated in this section include the contacts of Gentiles with Jesus in his
saving role (mainly in III.2.1.1.), but are not limited to those (cf. III.2.1.2.).
2 P. 242; et Evans, 322; more definite for Gentiles Fitzmyer, 624; Ernst, 165. Cf. Luke
4.14. Dahl, 'People', 324f argues against the inclusion of Gentiles because of the occurrence of ~a6~ in v. 17; cf. Luke 2.30-32; H. Frankemlme, EWNT II, (837-48) 839,2: 'Das
Bedeutungsspektrum vom~. reicht im NT van a) Yolk, BevlJlkerung, Leute, Volksmenge
... - ohne jegliche nation ale Nuance - !Iber b)~. als t.t. fIIr Israel als Gottesvolk .. .'. His
discussion of occurrences in Luke-Acts (843-45) misses Luke 6.17; cf. col. 845. Cf. also
King, 'Universalism'.
3 This conclusion reminds one of the assessment of Gentile wisdom in Luke 11.31;
Acts 7.22 and Simon's and the Samaritans'lack of power over diseases and unclean spirits, Acts 8.7; cf. Acts 14.8; 19.11f;28.8f. Luke 6.18 suggests that the Gentiles did not come
as mere spectators. Miraculous events or their report attract Gentile attention; cf. Luke
23.8; Acts 8.6-11; 28.9.
4 With Fitzmyer, 624; SchUrmann I, 321~ 266f.
S For his identity see Burchard, 'Matthaus', 278-88; Walaskay, Rome, 32-35. Burchard
(279) shows that the centurion was not a Jew (279; against Catchpole, 'Faith', 519, 527[,
539). Wegner also suggests Gentile identity (Hauptmann, 60-72,255-61,372-75; cf. pp. 6669 for Luke's other, definitely Gentile, centurions).
105
a title is applicable he (Luke) uses it'.6 Beyond his introduction as: 'worthy
of having you do this for him, for he loves our people, and it is he who built
our synagogue' nothing is said about his convictions. Nothing in the centurion's description as a man of 'friendship, respect for authority, and piety'
necessarily points to spiritual perceptiveness.7 Yet - though <pxOOOIlTJOEV
does not necessarily imply that he donated the building8 - such activity illustrates his uYCl3tTJ and sympathy with Jews. In not asking or demanding
Jesus to enter his house he displayed respect for Jewish customs. 9
The account follows Luke 6.17-49. Immediately after this sennon Jesus entered Capernaum (7.1). The centurion's request could be seen as a response in faith to this and similar teaching. He displayed some of the attitudes demanded by Jesus (6.20,27: ayrutQ'tE
'toilS exf}Qoils UJ.lWV .. ayrutfl. YCxQ'to E~OS ~J.lLV; cf. 7.51; 6.30,35,45), desired to hear a
word from Jesus and relied upon it (6.47). According to Luke's account a Gentile was the
first after the sennon to respond by trusting Jesus and believing in his intention and
power to save.
In considering himself unworthy of Jesus' intervention, he demonstrated

humility.10 He approached Jesus with a need which neither he nor others
could address and was commended for his exemplary faith that Jesus could
heal his servant through the mere power of his word. Luke may also relate
this faith to the previous miracles in Capernaum. ll Surpassing them, the
centurion recognised the absolute authority of Jesus and believed that Je6 Walaskay, Rome, 32 (for references see p. 83, n. 94); Wegner, Hauptmann, 261, n. 36;
Marshall,279.
7 Walaskay, Rome, 34; in contrast to the description of CorneIius in Acts 10.2,22.
WalaskaY,33 links the building of the synagogue to Augustan religious restoration. It is
doubtful whether Luke was aware of this.
s So F. Bovon, 348 (et. his nos. 23f; Bovon takes the officer to be a God-fearer) and
Walaskay, Rome, 32: 'wealthy enough to build a synagogue'. The centurion need not have
donated the funds to build the synagogue, he also could have ordered his soldiers to assist in the building of the synagogue. There is evidence that Roman soldiers were involved in the construction of buildings for civil purposes. Davies, 'Life', 329-331 lists various public works, including temples, erected by Roman soldiers and describes the duties
of a Roman commander towards the community.
9 In contrast to the Gentile 'employer' of the Jewish prodigal in Luke 15.15. Cf. Tannehill,Luke,114; Catchpole, 'Paith',535.
10 This confession is in contrast to the principle by which the Jewish delegates assessed
and recommended him, Luke 7.4f; cf. 18.9-14. This Gentile displayed a different attitude
from the demand for such a sign in Nazareth (4.23). His action is expressive of his care
and affection for his servant (et. Schllrmann I, 391; Marshall,279), not of other concerns
(e.g. financial loss through the death ofa valuable slave) and an example ofmora\Iy commendable behaviour of Gentiles.
11 Luke 4.23,31-41. These miracles answer the question raised by O'Rourke ('Military',
228): 'what would have moved a pagan to seek the help of a Jewish preacher and wonderworker?' Luke records several instances which suggest that supernatural events
made a strong impression on Gentiles, e.g. Luke 6.17-19?; 835,37; 11.30,32; 23.44-47; Acts
8.6-11.
106
llf. The Gentile encounter with salvation
sus could heal even when physically absent (Luke 7.7f; cf. 4.39f). His faith
amazed Jesus: 'Not even in Israel have I found such faith'.12 The report
does not include the officer's reaction to the healing, his salvation or ensuing discipleship.
This incident demonstrates that exemplary faith on the part of a Gentile
living in the Jewish context and familiar with Judaism was possible. We return to the significance of the God-fearing Gentiles, and to the observation
that Gentiles who already had various degrees of contact with Judaism
were the Gentiles most responsive to the Christian proclamation (ct.
III.3.3.3.3.).
2.1.1.3. Luke 8.26-39
An incident during the ministry of Jesus directly involving Gentiles took

place in the region of the Gerasenes, in Gentile territory.13 The presence of
swine indicates that the inhabitants of this area were probably not Jews.14
1. A former resident of Gerasa met Jesus.1 5 His dire condition is described
in detail. He was possessed by many demons who had seized him many
times. For a long time he had worn no outer garment. 16 He lived in the city's
necropolis. It seems that prior to the exorcism demons so controlled the
man that they answered and spoke out of him. His countrymen tried to
keep him under control by binding him with chains and shackles. Those he
would break and be driven again by the demons into the wilderness away
from other people. How the man became possessed is riot mentioned.
a) Though Satan is not mentioned, this Gentile was fully under his power
(ct. Acts 26.18). He was under such domination that he could neither help
nor deliver himself. This is probably the most destructive case of demon
possession that Luke reports in detail.
12 C[ Tannehill, Luke, 115.
13 Cf. Hengel, 'Geography', 33. It is not clear that (%V1:l3tEQa Tii~ ra~lAala~ implies that
Luke 'takes pains to locate' the area as close to Galilee (Fitzmyer, 189). The location cannot be the Hellenistic city of Gadara, even if it had given its name to a region. Luke 8.34
does not indicate a longer journey to this city. The closeness of the incident to the waterfront has to be considered.
14 Cf. 11.3.1. Against Jeremias, Promise, 35 who claims 'here, too, he found a mixed
population, of whom the great majority, nevertheless, especially in the country, practised
Jewish religion .. .', with reference to A. AIt, 'Statten' who allegedly 'proved that we have
no evidence that Jesus ever went beyond the boundaries of the Jewish population'.
IS Though Jesus interacted with Gentiles when they met him (Luke 7.1-10), Jesus did
not go out of his way to meet them. Possibly this one exception was made to meet the
dire need of this man, while not reaching out to the whole community. Luke's two cases
of possession involving violence to others than the victim himself are found in Gentile
locations; cf. Luke 8.29 (1); Acts 19.16.
16 A L)LCt1:LOV; later he is L)La1:LOilEVO!;; cf. Acts 19.16; 9.36,39.
107
b) Nothing indicates that the other Gerasenes were also somehow recognisably associated with demons: the demoniac was one among many
Gerasenes apparently not to this extent or not in this manifest form under
demonic influence. Their initial reaction to Jesus differed from the man's
reaction. Yet the description of the demoniac's condition also reflects upon
his countrymen. Whatever was undertaken by them to subdue this man
and/or secure their own peace proved useless. They were completely helpless against this demonic possession and its manifestations. The means they
previously applied and the futility of their efforts explains their later terror.
These Gentiles could help neither themselves nor others in such bondage. 17
2. This impression is confirmed in the actual encounter with Jesus and exorcism. Seeing Jesus the man fell down before him and shouted: What have you
to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg you, do not torment
me. IS No such reaction of the now threatened demons against other Gentiles
or their previous efforts at restriction was reported. Gentile efforts failed to
impress them. The destructive nature of these demons again became evident
as they entered the swine and drowned them. Permitting the demons to enter
the swine was at the same time a crushing verdict against the livestock of
'lawless' Gentiles: What they treasured, ate and lived off otherwise was useful only to contain and dispose of exorcised demons.
3. Hearing how the demoniac had been delivered and finding him restored
with Jesus, all the people of the surrounding country !pol3qJ J.1EyaAqJ
O'UvdxoVto and asked Jesus to leave them,19 There was a) no expression of
gratitude (for the actual deliverance of the man or for 'clearing the area' of
a potential threat; ct. Acts 28.10); b) no recognition of divine action or ac17 This Gentile helplessness possibly explains the presence and popularity of Jewish
magicians and exorcists among Gentiles (Acts 13.6;19.13). Appearing also in and outside
Capernaum's synagogue (Luke 4.33-37,41), demons and demon possession were not an
exclusively Gentile phenomenon.
Another reference to non-Jews and demonic power may be mentioned. The exact location of the Pharisees 'warning' Jesus is unclear (Luke 13.31-33; CL 13.22). Jesus was travelling from Galilee (9.51)-to Jerusalem (cf.Schnackenburg, 'Lk 1331-33',229-31). Unavoidably the journey took him either through Gentile Decapolis or Samaria (cr. Oxford
Bible Atlas, 86 (x-y, 3-4); cf. Luke 17.11). Jesus summarised his ministry as one of 'casting
out demons and performing cures'. That some of the beneficiaries were Gentiles or Samaritans is likely. Acts 1036 mentions Jesus' proclamation of peace 'in the first instance
between men and God' before his ministry is summarised as healing all "tOU!; KU"tU,'hJvumeuolJivou!; 1.111;0 "toii llLU/3oAou (10.38; cf. Barrett I, 521,525). This summary describes Jesus' ministry Ev "t" "tfi XWQQ. "twv 'Iou~a((j)v (1039).
18 The demon is sensing the threatening presence of Jesus and wants 'to preserve distance and be left alone', TannehiJI,Luke, 89, also p. 94.
19 This 'cultured' rejection of Jesus due to their fear, is in contrast to Luke 4.29f and to
other cases of Gentile rejection.
108
clamation of Jesus (cf. Luke 8.28, the ChoTschliisse in Jewish settings20 and
Acts 14.11); c) no further healings as other diseased or possessed came or
were brought (e.g. Luke 5.15; Acts 28.9). There is a contrast between the demons and the Gerasenes: In their confession that Jesus was related to the
most high God in a special way21, these demons immediately recognised
what remained hidden from the Gerasenes even after the miracle. They
completely failed to appreciate the significance of the event. Their failure
becomes more evident as Luke's narrative continues; cf. Luke 10.17f; 11.1423. Their only reaction to the events is a true Heidenangst (8.35,37).22
4. Jesus' commission of the man suggests that the other Gerasenes needed to
hear the proper interpretation of the events - namely that Israel's God had
procured his deliverance and restoration (Luke 8.39) - to overcome their
fear and/or to prevent wrong conclusions from the miracle according to their
own pagan frame of reference. 23 The provision of this 'prophylactic' in a region of no further ministry and the unusual refusal of his offer to follow Jesus
(cf. Luke 5.10,27; 8.2) emphasises the necessity of the man's testimony to his
Gentile community and indicates their inability to draw adequate conclusions from the event on their own. They had to be proclaimed to them.
Though nothing is reported about its outcome, the provision of exogenous
correction and instruction suggests that neither is considered futile.
20 E.g. Luke 4.36,42!;5.26; 8.25. Luke 7.16likewise reports fear, but this is accompanied
by glorifying God.
21 Demonic recognition and confession of Jesus' true identity is a recurring theme (cl
Luke 4.34; Acts 16.17; 19.15).
22 Nothing indicates that they feared the return of the demons (cf. Luke 11.24-26).
Compare the response in Acts 16.29 (rnQoll0C; YEV6IlEVOC;). Possibly due to this fear,
Luke does not report anger over their considerable losses or intention to 'prosecute' Jesus for property damage. This is noteworthy in light of the two instances in Acts of genuine Gentile resistance to the Christian mission which are both motivated by greed (Acts
16.19; 19.25-27). Though their loss would be motivation for their requesting Jesus to
leave and though Luke elsewhere is concerned with the influence of material possessions, he does not indicate that 'Preferring their swine to Christ, they felt that His presence was dangerous to their greed', Farrar, 224. Luke's stress is on their utter fear. Luke
occasionally refers to people's physical or emotional state to explain their failure (cf.
Luke 22.45;24.41; Acts 12.14).
2J E.g. one of their gods healed the man, the spirits left through their own incentive in
favour of the swine, or conclusions comparable to Luke 11.15-18. Luke records Jewish
and Gentile mistaken conclusions from miracles (Acts 14.11; 28.4-6; cf. 8.18f in IY.3.4.1.).
Despite the Jewish example in Luke 11.15-18, on some occasions Jewish witnesses drew
at least commendable conclusions from Jesus' miracles by associating them with God
(e.g. Luke 7.16; 9.43; cl Ernst, 187; although their conclusions were still inadequate as
they failed to recognise Jesus' true identity;cf. Acts 3.8-10;5.12-14). In places of previous
proclamation the Gentile response to miracles was different; cf. Acts 8.5-8: tYEVE"tO M
1tOA~ XUQa; 19.9f,17.
109
Neither the demoniac Gentile himself nor other Gentiles were able to address or change this plight. When Jesus did so, their response was not recognition, gratitude or an invitation to continue his ministry. These Gentiles failed
to appreciate Jesus' identity,ministry and its significance and struck with fear
they sent Jesus away. Unable to interpret correctly the miraculous restoration themselves, they had to be told that Israel's God was at work among
them. He could do what neither they nor their gods could accomplish.
2.1.1.4. Luke 9.52-56
On one other occasion Jesus intended to enter non-Jewish territory. Travelling to Jerusalem he wanted to spend a night in a Samaritan village. Luke
indicates elsewhere that there was some contact between Samaritans and
Jews (Luke 1O.33-35?; 17.11-16). Hospitality was refused not because of a
general anti-Judaism, but for the reason specifically indicated: 'because his
face was set to go to lerusalem'.24 Jesus was not primarily rejected on account of his Jewishness but on account of his goal. Whether lerusalem or
Mount Gerizim was the appropriate place for the worship of God was perhaps the main point of contention between Samaritans and Jews.25
Samaritans were among the crowds from 'all Judaea,Jerusalem and the coast of Tyre and
Sidon' witnessing the ministry of Jesus (Luke 6.17) as 1taOTJ~ Tii~ 'Ioll&ata~ includes
Samaria26: Jesus' acclamation as a great prophet and the conclusion that God has looked
favourably on his people following the raising at Nain (0 Myo~ o-o'tO~) 'spread throughout Judaea and all the surrounding country' (Luke 7.17).r'
Though probably interested in Jesus and ready to entertain him, they did not
receive him for the goal of his journey: 'Thus they reject him because of a basic lack of understanding of the divinely determined destiny which Jesus
24 No reference is made to the problematic relationship between Jews and Samaritans;

cf. e.g. John 4.4-42, though this specific reason is indicative of the general Samaritan antiJudaism. Cf. the detailed treatment by M. Bohm, Samarien und die Samaritai bei Lukas:
Eine Studie zum religionshistorischen und traditionsgeschichtlichen Hintergrund der
lukanischen Samarientexte und zu deren topographischer Verhaftung (Diss. Leipzig,
1997),148-72.
25 Ct e.g. Schtlrer, History 1I, 15-20; R. Bach, C. Colpe, 'Samaria ',RGG V, 1350-55; R.T.
Anderson, 'Samaritans',lSBE IV,303-08.
26 'In a wider sense 'Iolloaia is used of the region of Palestine, the area inhabited by
Jews, thus including GaIilee and Perea along with Samaria,Idumaea, and the coastland
.. .', O. Betz, EDNT 1I, 191.2b.4b; SchUrmann 1,29, n. 12.
27 See also Luke 4.14b,37;5.15;Schtlrmann 1,403. The identification of Jesus as a great
prophet (7.16) would have aroused Samaritan interest, since they accepted the Pentateuch,containing the promise of De ut 18.15; cf. Acts 322;7.37.
110
must fulfil in Jerusalem'.28 This destiny had just been revealed to the readers
in the transfiguration (Luke 9.31) and passion predictions (9.22,44).29 God's
purposes with Jesus in Jerusalem and the nature of his mission were beyond
the apprehension of these Samaritan villagers. Their rejection of Jerusalem,
kept them from receiving and supporting Jesus and his mission. Their moralethical failure to grant hospitality is an expression of their spiritual failure. 3D
2.1.1.5. Luke 10.1
Jeremias concluded from Luke 10.1 that for Luke 'already during Jesus'
lifetime the disciples have been sent to the Gentiles .. .'.31 Luke is thought
to indicate this through the number of disciples sent out, which could refer
to the Jewish number of the nations of the world.32 Yet the instructions they
receive are more understandable in a Jewish context (e.g. the shaking off of
dust, 10.11).33 The missionaries are to enter houses and eat whatever is set
before them (10.5-8). If this stipulation was already meant to bring about
contact with Gentiles, the reservation displayed in Acts 10f would be difficult to understand. 34 Being sent in pairs, the disciples could no longer reach
28 Tannehill, Luke, 230. The rejection of Jerusalem itself may betray their ignorance of
God's purposes; cf. 11.2.7. On Jerusalem in Luke-Acts cf. L. Hartmann, EWNT 11, (43239) 436f; Walker,Jesus, 57-112.
29 The villagers shared their failure to understand the mission of Jesus with Jesus' Jewish disciples (Luke 9.33,45; 18.34; 24.2527,44-47).
30 Compare the hospitality granted by the Maltese islanders (Acts 28.2, III.2.2.l5.1.; cf.
also IV.3.4.6.). The proximity of the parable of the compassionate Samaritan (Luke
10.29-37, the Jewish victim travelling from Jerusalem to Jeridlo) may serve to prevent
mistaken characterisation: Unless it had to do with journeys to Jerusalem (including the
mission of Jesus), Samaritans were hospitable, even outside their territory (cf. our considerations in 11.2.8.).
31 Promise, 34; cf. his discussion pp. 33f,24f. On p. 24 Jeremias refers to Luke 10.1 as a
'secondary doublet of 9.1', concluding: 'The fact that Jesus, during his lifetime, sent his
disciples to Israel alone ... '. Also from the development in Acts Jeremias concludes: 'This
state of affairs makes it improbable that the activity of the disciples during Jesus' lifetime
was directed toward the Gentiles' (25). These quotations appear in a section entitled 'Jesus forbade his disciples during his lifetime to preach to non-Jews' (19-25).
32 For discussion, references and an alternative cf. the discussion in Evans, 444f; Nolland, 549f.
33 Cf. Marshall,354; Cadbury, 'Dust', 269-71.
34 If Gentiles were included, Luke also refers to them metaphorically as wolves among
whom the disciples are sent like lambs (EV fLEOCP }.;Ux(J)v, Luke 10.3; cf. Acts 20.29;Pss.Sol.
8.23; Herod is called an U)'W1tT];; Luke 13.32). Nolland, 551 notes that 'sheep and wolves
imagery is found in connection with Israel among the nations', but considers its presence
here unlikely. Cf. SchUrmann II.1, 6lf; Fitzmyer, 847; Hahn, VersUlndnis, 113; 1. Jeremias,
ThWNT T, (342-45) 344.13-22; Spicq I, 51H (French ed.); G. Bornkamm, ThWNT lV,
(309-13) 312.9-14; W. Richter, 'Wolf ,RE S XV (1978), (960-87) 981-87.
111
seventy nations. Marshall noted that the 'purpose of the pairing ... was not
merely to provide mutual comfort and help, but also to give attested, binding testimony' .35 Provision of two witnesses would be more pertinent in a
Jewish setting, where these were required in judicial matters (Deut 17.6;
19.15). It is thus preferable to see in their mission 'a foreshadowing of the
later evangelism by the church in the world'.36
2.1.1.6. Luke 17.11-19
A group of lepers 37 asked Jesus for mercy. Addressing him as 'Master' they
all recognised his authority and followed his instructions. Yet only the Sa-
maritan aUoyviJ~ returned, recognised that God was at work and praised
him, fell at Jesus' feet and thanked him. Acting upon Jesus' command and
implicit promise of healing 'saved' this man from his disease. Yet this Samaritan 'in his dealings with Jesus experiences an encounter with God ....
only this one makes a public identification with what God is now doing in
Jesus'.38 His response was 'the necessary response of gratitude and faith'.39
The scope of salvation in Jesus' answer (17.19b) transcended physical
restoration. 4o While the other lepers were also healed (v. 17), this man was
saved by his faith (ct. Acts 2.21). a) This man needed and received salvation
beyond his disease, something the others still lacked. This salvation addressed his relationship with God. Previous references to Gentiles and
their fate also suggest this to be salvation from judgement. b) In contrast to
the Gerasenes and the other lepers, through witnessing his healing (t6wv
(l1;L Leith]) this Samaritan understood that God was at work in the ministry
of Jesus and identified himself with this ministry. In contrast to other Samaritans (Luke 9.53) he was not restrained by Jesus' destination (17.11).
Marshall, 416 with reference to Jeremias, 'Sendung'.

Marshall,415;cf. Evans,445.
The composition of this mixed group is not indicated. It might have included more
than one Samaritan since the location is the region 'between Samaria and GaIilee' (Luke
17.11). Cf. Bruners, Reinigung, 103-18 for the parallels of this account to that of
Naaman's healing mentioned in Luke 4.27; cf. NoIland, 845.
38 N oIland, 848; cf. Horst, Proskynein, 22lf.
39 Nolland, 848; cf. Schna.ckenburg, 'Lk 13.31-33', 230f.
40 er. Marshall, 652; Fitzmyer, 1156; Emst, 366. This interpretation is supported by
Luke 7.50; A woman, introduced as 'a sinner', came to Jesus likewise to express her gratitude. She heard the same words of assurance without previous reference to healing from
a physical problem.
35
36
37
112
Conclusion
Conclusions from such a limited number of instances must be tentative.41

1. 1\vo non-Jews received from Jesus the help they asked for relating to disease and both are recommended for their faith (Luke 7.2-10; 17.12-19). Both
believed that Jesus could intervene where human help was of no avail. Their
confidence in his authority and grateful recognition of the divine nature of
Jesus' intervention was exemplary and in contrast to Jewish unbelief
For both men previous contact with Judaism is mentioned: The centurion took an active
interest in Capernaum's Jewish religious life. The Samaritan, living in a region 'between
Samaria and Galilee', was in the company of Jewish lepers and apparently willing to join
his fellow sufferers in seeing a Jewish priest to have their regained cleanness attested.
This observation recurs in Acts: Among Gentiles already in contact with JUdaism response to the mission was far greater. Severe misunderstanding of the works or message
and rejection of the missionaries occurred where such prior contact was lacking.
2. The repentance of Nineveh followed Jonah's call to repentance (Luke
11.29-32). Nothing similar is reported for Jesus' ministry to Gentiles. Gentiles within Jewish territory received no proclamation directed exclusively
to them. Possibly they were among Jewish audiences (6.17). When Jesus
ventured outwith Jewish territory he and his mission were rejected and
such proclamation was impossible: Jesus was asked to leave (8.37) or not
received (9.53). Both responses of Gentiles not in contact with and/or rejecting Judaism followed from and indicate the spiritual failure of those involved: From the miracle the Gerasenes failed to draw right conclusions as
to God's working in Jesus (8.39; cf. 7.15) and the beneficent nature of his
mission. What was divine authentication and a sign of the coming of the
kingdom only caused great fear. The Samaritans failed to appreciate God's
purpose behind Jesus' journey to Jerusalem and rejected Jesus for faithfully
following his mission. Immediate rejection rendered address or correction
of these misconceptions impossible. This cautions against overestimating
the significance of correcting Gentiles. That correction and instruction was
necessary and not completely futile is suggested by the commission of the
healed Gerasene.
3. In three incidents healing occurred (Luke 8.36; 17.19; 7.10). Salvation was
experienced in a comprehensive sense: 'the use of uCP~(j) ... in healing stories ... already suggests a connection between healing and God's redemptive purpose in all its aspects'.42 These Gentiles had needs and only Jesus'
41 Jeremias, Promise, 34 concludes from this scarcity of material on Jesus and Gentiles
to Luke's trustworthiness.
42 Thnnehill, Luke, 87.
113
saving intervention could achieve what they themselves or other Gentiles

could not attain.
2.1.2. Gentiles and the death ofJesus
After these encounters of Jesus with Gentiles in Galilee and on the way to
Jerusalem, we now turn to the Gentile involvement in Jesus' death. The
passion narrative has often been studied to assess whom Luke considers responsible for the death of Jesus. Many draw the conclusion that Luke tends
to exculpate the Romans and to put the lion's share of the blame on the
Jews. Examples of such conclusions are the studies of P. Winter, I Neyrey
and IT. Sanders. 43 In order to argue their case, some studies reinterpret or
ignore Luke's references to the Gentile involvement and guilt. Concentrating on these references, we need to assess interpretations which suggest
Gentile innocence.
The question is urgent as its results have been employed, following a
wider development in NT studies, to charge Luke with anti-Judaism. 44 This
wide field is beyond our scope, yet in focusing on what Luke says about the
Gentile involvement in and their responsibility for the death of Jesus our
conclusions will contribute to this discussion.
2.1.2.1. The third passion prediction and its fulfilment (Luke 18.32[;
23.26,3336-38)
1. Luke 18.32f The first passion prediction focuses on Jewish activity: Jesus
would undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, chief priests
and scribes, and be killed ... (Luke 9.22). Then Jesus simply announced that
the Son of Man would be betrayed into xetQa~ uvtl-go.m;wv (9.44). In the
third prediction Jesus announced: 'The Son of Man wiIl be handed over to
1:ot~ E'frveow' (18.32). In contrast to the first prediction, the latter two do
not mention Jews on their own.
The third prediction describes the procedure of "tot~ EirveOLv in detail.
Once Jesus has been handed to them, they will not give him a proper trial,
acquit or defend him against his accusers, nor wiII they simply execute him
but they wiIl treat him scornfully: They will mock, insult and spit on him
43 Winter, Trial (on Winter cf. Catchpole, TriaL,208-20 and passim); Neyrey, Passion;
Sanders, Jews. Fitzmyer, 1209 identifies 'the tendency in the Lucan passion narrative to
play down the involvement of the Romans'; similarly Wilckens, Missionsreden, 125, n. 2.
Cf. the judicious overview in Brown, Death, 389f; his n. 140 lists further scholars.
44 Cf. Rese, 'Juden', 61-79; WeatherIy, Responsibility and 'Anti-Semitism', DJG, 13-17;
Green, Theology, 68-72; Fitzmyer, Aspects, 175-202; specially with regard to the passion
narrative ef. Betz, 'Probleme',566-70 and Otte, 'Neues'.
114
(EflJtuL~oo, ElllttUOO, u~QL~oo). Then, after they have flogged him (IlUCTtLYooo),
they will kill him (emox"CEvoUOLV). This last third person plural active form
and the general designation "Col~ iHhrEOLv indicate that not only Pilate is involved. The nations are made responsible for the death of Jesus and its ignominious nature. Jesus will not only be executed but be treated and killed most
scornfully.
Trying to eliminate Gentile complicity in the death of Jesus, Sanders
claims that in this third prediction Luke 'confused this recognizedly necessary saying beyond comprehension, so that the readers cannot tell who the
subjects of those verbs are'; not even the disciples understood what Jesus
meant (Luke 18.34). Luke 'does not intend to have Jesus prophesy his
death at the hands of Gentiles'. 45 1\vo observations on this proposal suffice:
a) Readers would assume that the last suitable noun, namely "Col~ iHhrEaLV,
is the agent behind the activities expressed by the three third person singular passive verbs. 46 No other noun in the preceding verse or context is suitable. FIrst-century Jews would have had few hesitations in associating such
activities with the Gentiles. 47 b) The disciples' failure to understand the necessity of the passion is a much larger theme, not limited to this allegedly
confused prediction. 48 .Sanders' verdict seems biased through a prior decision for Jewish responsibility and guilt.
The prediction with its references to Gentile involvement in the disposal
of Jesus is reflected in the report of its fulfilment. Both should be seen together.49 We now turn to Luke 23.26-52. The preceding account of Gentile
action (23.1-25) - also fulfilling the prediction - will be dealt with in
1II.2.1.2.2.-3.
2. Luke 23.26,33/,36-38. We suggest that these verses point up 1) the active

Gentile participation in the death of Jesus announced in the prediction and
2) the nature of this participation. a) Roman soldiers 'paraded' Jesus, carrying his own heavy cross, through the bustling streets of Jerusalem. 50 On the
Jews, 13; cf. the refutation by Weatherly, Responsibility, 90-92.
Cf. the discussions of MarshalI, 690f; Plummer, 428; Evans, 655; Nolland, 895.
47 CtII.3.7.
4!! Cf. Luke 9.33,45; 24.25-27,44-47.
49 That Luke overlooked or deliberately constructed a contradiction is unlikely, for
Luke was concerned to show that the prophecies of Jesus' suffering, death and resurrection were fulfilled; see Frein, 'Predictions', 28-31. Admittedly the Gentile involvement of
the prediction could have been identified more clearly in the account.
50 Cf. Brown, Death, 912. True to the prediction of Luke 18.32, the Gentile involvement
begins once Jesus has been handed over to them (1toQO/lO{hjOE'tOL). According to Luke,
Jesus was arrested by Jews (Luke 22.47,52 no mention of soldiers). John's account may
imply Gentile involvement by listing ~ 01tELQa xal (, xLJ.LaQX0<; among the force arresting
Jesus (John 18.3,12).
45
46
115
way they seized Simon, another Jew, to carry the cross, an action which
identifies them as Romans, 'who alone had power to impress men for service in this way'.S1 b) At the place of execution they crucified JesusS2 between two criminals, adding to his shame and fully expressing their scorn
for him.s3 c) Contemptuously going beyond their orders, the soldiers cast
lots under the cross to divide his clothing, possibly leaving Jesus naked.54
d) Later the <TtQCl'tLOrtClL, a word directly identifying the subject behind the
third person plural references, mocked Jesus (E!lJtCli~w) by teasing him as
the king of the Jews. 55 The scoffing soldiers came up to him and offered Jesus sour wine. The prior mention of mockery indicates how Luke understood this gesture.56 The content of their verbal mockery, namely the apparently powerless king of the Jews on a Roman cross, and their scornful treat-
51 Marshal!, 862f; Blinzler, Prozej3, 429 and Brown, Death, 856-59,911-15 defend why
the reference in 23.26 is to the Roman soldiers mentioned later; cf. other commentators
listed by Fitzmyer, 1496f. 'E1tt.Aa~6!lEVoL, the fifth word of this account identifies the subject behind the third verb. Fitzmyer dismisses attempts to identify the subjects behind the
verb form: 'In the Lucan story the (Roman) soldiers will appear eventually (vs. 36,47),
but to read them into this vague assertion is to miss the point of the way Luke is handling
the passion narrative'. But in the light of the prediction and its partial fulfilment in the
previous account, readers would be looking for Gentile involvement. As Luke assumes
in Acts acquaintance with Roman law and legal procedure for his readers, this detail of
seizure identifying the antagonists would have been unlikely to be lost on them.
52 Cf. Brown, Death, 945-52, 1088-92 for the technical details. Ernst, 485 discusses why
no detailed description is given (for such see Blinzler,Prozej3,357-84) and suggests that
also the mode of execution indicates non-Jewish involvement. Against Bammel's argument for Jewish crucifixions ('Crucifixion') see Reinbold, Bericht, 261, n.114.
53 Cf. Brown, Death, 968-71. For the pivotal ancient values of honour and shame see
Malina! Neyrey, 'Honor'.
54 Cf. Blinzler,Prozej3, 368f; Reinbold, Bericht, 271, n.147 and the discussion in Brown,
Death, 952-55; Rapske, Paul, 297.
55 On such mockery in the ancient world cf. Brown, Death, 87377; on vs. 36-38 see pp.
996-97,1026-29. Philo's (Flacc 33-38) report of the mockery of Agrippa I by the Gentile
population of Alexandria on his arrival in A.D. 38 offers interesting parallels with the
mockery by the Gentile soldiers in Luke; cf. HengellSchwemer, Paul, n. 943 and D.R.
Schwartz, Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea, TSAJ 23 (Ttibingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1990),
55f, 67-70, 74-77.
56 H.W. HeidJand, ThWNT V, 288.37-44 suggests that Luke 23.36 'hat die Minderwertigkeit des 51;0; als billiges Volksgetr!ink im Auge (ct. 288.3-5) '" Die Triinkung ist selbst
eine Verhohnung: einen Siiuerling reicht man dem Judenkonig', 289.4-7; his second observation stands independently of the first identifica.tion. So also Brown, Death, 997:
'their offering of cheap wine is a burlesque gift to the king', on 51;0; see his n. 39; ct. the
discussion in Fitzmyer, 1505; Marshall, 870. Marshal! draws attention to Ps 69.21 LXX,'in
the light of which the act could be understood as hostile'; cf. Heidland, 289.7-12; Brown,
Death, 997, n. 39, 1058f, 1063f. Ernst, 486 suggests: 'Der als BeUiubungstrank gedachte
Schluck Essig (vg!. Mk 15.35f) wird von Lk als eine gefUhllose Verlangerung der
Todesqualen gedacht'.1t is not indicated whether Jesus actually had a chance to or did
drink any of it (cf. Matt 27.34; Mark 15.23,36; John 19.28-30).
116
ment of him also points to their non-Jewish identity.57 Their mockery echoes the official Roman titulus and estimate of Jesus. 58 e) Luke 23.47 mentions a Roman EXU1;OYtC(QXT]~ commanding the execution platoon.
3. Conclusion. 1. In the third prediction and in this latter part of the account
of its fulfilment, Gentiles were clearly involved. The titulus also clearly indicates that though Pilate gave in to popular demand,Jesus was nevertheless
crucified under Roman authority. The Romans had passed the verdict and
following the execution the body of Jesus was at their disposal (cf. Luke
23.52; see below). Being the 'Vollstrecker des Willens der schuldigen
Juden'59, they were as much committed and accountable participants. 2. The
Gentiles did not simply execute Jesus in fulfilment of the passion predictions. A range of expressions in the prediction6o , the details of the account 61
and the mode of execution emphasise the utter contempt with which these
Gentiles did so. Jesus was made to suffer 'the most pitiable of deaths', 'the
worst extreme of tortures inflicted on slaves' .62 This attitude surfaces again
when we turn to the main Gentile protagonists of the passion narrative.
57 Jewish mockery points in a different direction (Luke 22.64;23.35). The content is neglected by Walaskay, Rome, 45 who considers the identity of the soldiers far from certain:
'Luke is implying that the soldiers were either the temple police or Herod's palace
guard' as 'Both groups have already mocked Jesus'. a) Any identification of the soldiers
has to reckon with the right of seizure exercised in v. 26 and the mode of execution. b)
Why members of yet another group, namely Roman soldiers should or would not likewise ridicule their victim is not explained. c) Why Pilate would employ Herod's Jewish
palace guard (if Jewish it was) rather than his own soldiers is not considered. In view of
Herod's unwillingness to condemn or acquit Jesus (Luke 23.11) and of Jesus' popularity
in Galilee it is unlikely that the 'tE1:Q6:QX"~ of Galilee would allow himself to be associated with Jesus' execution through unnecessarily providing Pilate with the manpower to
do so.
58 Cf. Marshall, 870; Brown, Death, 962-64. Suetonius, Caligu/a 32.2 mentions a titulus
qUi causam poenae indicaret. Against Sanders, Jews, 15, 227f, I do not understand why the
'''Gentileness'' of the soldiers' mocking statement derives from their reading the label,
not from their natural disposition to talk that way', p.15. The religious leaders read the
same sign and yet mocked differently.
59 Wilckens, Missionsreden, 125, n. 2.
60 Cf. ~f1l'ttti~w, "~Qi~w, E}ll't't'llW, f1tt01:tyow.
61 ef. ~AttOCP"f1EW, E;ou{levEW, bq.l.1!X1:1lQi~w.
62 los., belL Iud. VII.6.4. 203; Cicero, In Verrem V.66,169f: 'servitutis extremo summoque supplicio', both quotations from Fitzmyer, 1503. Cicero accused Verres not only of
having crucified a Roman citizen but also of the place of execution (spectet patriam; in
conspectu legum libertatisque morialur) which added more cruelty to the punishment.
The criminals crucified with Jesus could be understood similarly. Cf. Bammel, 'Crucifixion', 164f: 'a particularly gruesome form of execution'; H.E Hitzig, 'Crux', RE N, 1728-31
for other contemporary estimates, 'die Strafe gilt als besonders schmachvoll', 1129; Kuhn,
'Kreuzesstrafe', 685-767 (for the 'Schilndlichkeit der Kreuzesstrafe' see pp. 758-67); cf.
Brown's bibliography on ancient crucifixion (Death, 885-87). Hengel's chapter headings
sum up the nature of this punishment: 'Crucifixion as a "barbaric" form of execution of
117
a) Probably these soldiers gave Jesus the kind of treatment they would
have given to any Jewish prisoner with such a titulus. Their cruel treatment
in and surrounding the crucifixion is indicative of their wickedness, moralethical failure and of the wider Gentile anti-Judaism (ct. II.3.7.).
b) In addition to this general failure, their treatment of Jesus in this way
indicates that they completely failed to recognise the nature of Jesus' identity and mission.63 Despite all that was known about Jesus and even after
his prayer for them, they still treated him with disdain. 64 Their treatment of
Jesus is in full contrast to what could be expected from his previous characterisation. He who went about doing good and with whom God so manifestly was (Acts 10.38) was treated and killed in the most ignominious way.
c) The wording ofthe titulus indicates not only the Gentile contempt for
Jesus but also their lack of comprehension who Jesus was and how God's
rule over his people would express itself 65 Jesus never pretended to be king
of the Jews or king of the Jews only. Certainly he was not a king in the Gentile understanding (ct. Luke 7.25; 22.25).
2.1.2.2. Pontius Pilate (Luke 3. It, 13.1; 23.1-7,12-25,52)
That the Gentile Pilate was to play a crucial role in the events surrounding
Jesus' death is already indicated in Luke 20.20. The religious leaders watched
Jesus carefully to trap him and 'hand him over to the jurisdiction and authority of the governor'. Once this had happened, does the account of the following events reflect what was said about Gentiles in the third prediction?
the utmost cruelty'; 'Cruciftxion as the supreme Roman penalty'; 'Crucifixion as a penalty for rebellious foreigners, violent criminals and robbers'; 'The "slaves' punishment'"
(Crucifixion, 22-38, 46-63; cf. Hengel's bibliography pp. 91-93); cf. I. Pfaff, 'Supplicium',
RE IV A, 95lf for other modes of Roman capital punishment which could have been applied. It has to be noted that this form of execution for Jesus was demanded by the Jews
(cr. Luke 23.18,21,23).
63 In addition to the information on the titulus the soldiers had probably heard who Jesus was considered to be and what he had done in all Judaea and in Jerusalem. His following and the unusual address to the crowds on the way to Golgotha (Luke 2327-31),
his prayer for them and the mockery of the Jewish leaders (23.34f) would have been a reminder of the unusual case at hand. Yet none of these events restrained them.
64 Though Jesus' prayer (Luke 23.34a, for its textual status see Fitzmyer,1503; Brown,
Death, 975-81) possibly allows for a wider reference than the soldiers,in its context it refers to the soldiers: These men did not 'understand that they were doing this outrage to
God's Son', so Brown, Death, 973f, against Fitzmyer. The prayer immediately follows the
act of crucifixion before further activities of th e soldiers are reported.
65 Luke 2337 indicates that the tilulus is to be understood in this way; er. Ernst, 486.
Marshall, 870 refers to it as a 'climax to the mockery'.
118
Ill. The Gentile encounter will! salvation
1. Luke 3.1t; 13.1. Following his introduction as Roman governor of Judaea

in the synchronism of Luke 3.1 the later note is indicative of Pilate's administration. Pilate had mingled the blood of some Galileans with that of
their sacrifices. This incident probably happened during Passover celebrations. If these pilgrims had or were just about to slaughter their sacrificial
animals, the location must have been the priestly forecourt of the temple. 66
This event shows that already prior to the trial of Jesus, Pilate was not
too scrupulous about the limits of his jurisdiction. If this reconstruction of
the location is correct, the incident also shows that Pilate had little respect
for Jewish religious regulations or customs. If Pilate had people murdered
right in the forecourt, thus defiling it67 , he was unlikely to take great pains
to appreciate the intricate religious nature of a case like Jesus'. That the
Jewish leaders tried to adduce non-religious evidence confirms this estimate of Pilate (e.g. Luke 20.20-26). Luke 13.1 testifies to Pilate's cruelty,
moral-ethical failure and his assessment of Judaism. This incident and his
treatment of Jesus and of his Jewish accusers also exhibits Gentile anti-Judaism. 68 Whatever the exact circumstances, this note is a bad omen for Jesus' encounter (23.6: raA.LA.at6~ eotLV, also 22.59) with Pilate.
2. Luke 23.1-7. Though these verses are of a summary nature and intended
to show that the charges against Jesus were baseless and quickly recognised
as such by Pilate, they also shed some light on Luke's portrayal of Pilate's
attitude and procedure in this alleged 'trial'.
Once Jesus was handed over to him and accused before him, Pilate took
the charges of the assembly (Luke 22.66) at face value (23.3a), though 'A
Roman court would not have been content with any other than its own investigation'.69 Pilate neither ordered such an investigation nor asked the
accusers for witnesses or evidence for the initial accusation and that of v. 5.
The content of what Jesus was supposed to have claimed - carefully designed by the accusers to cause an impact - was of no interest to Pilate. After asking Jesus only one question based on their accusation, which re-
66 For the circumstances cf. Nolland, 717f; Marshall, 553; Fitzmyer, 1006f and Blinzler,
'Niedermetzelung'. For Galilean rebelliousness against Rome cf. Talbert, 19Of; F. Loftus,
'The Anti-Roman Revolts of the Jews and the Galileans',lQR 68,1977,78-98.
67 Cf. Ernst, 312: 'Nach jUdischer Vorstellung kommt zum Verbrechen des Mordes noch
das Sakrileg der Tempelschiindung hinzu. Die Szene wirft ein bezeichnendes Licht auf
die Brutalitat des romischen Statthalters'.
68 Walaskay, Rome, 23f, 42 fails to deal adequately with this note.
69 So Walaskay, Rome, 40. Compare the Roman legal procedure described in Acts 24.122 and ch. 25. On readers appreciating this kind of material Pilate's neglect would not
have been lost. On the whole Roman trial cf. S. Legasse, Le Proces de Jesus: L'Hisloire,
LeDiv 156 (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1994), 87-155.
119
answer 70 ,
ceived an ambiguous
Pilate was decided. Evans notes that 'there
is no interrogation of such a kind as to constitute a real cognitio, to justify
the words after examining him in v.14, and to lead to Pilate's conviction of
Jesus' innocence'.71 Jesus was not given an opportunity to defend himself
(ct Acts 24.10; 25.16).
As governor and presently in Jerusalem,Pilate would not have been exclusively dependent on the accusers to come to a conclusion. That he considered Jesus harmless is evident
in that he did not take up the other charges brought forward. Neither did Pilate intervene when Jesus was teaching in the temple for several days and enjoyed great popularity. That the Romans were quick and capable of interfering with unusual or unwanted
events in the temple is illustrated in Acts 21.31.72 The imprisoned Barabbas exemplifies
how Pilate dealt with people who were or at least were under suspicion of being insurrectionists and murderers. Pilate did not perceive Jesus as such.
Pilate took neither the accusing assembly nor Jesus seriously. Pilate did not
acquit and release Jesus and dismiss his accusers, which should have followed his declaration of innocence. Even after the fresh charges of v. 5,
which he must have considered baseless - as we may conclude from his tolerance of Jesus' public ministry in Jerusalem - Pilate still could have done
SO.73
As a consequence of this careless procedure,Pilate only heard by chance

that Jesus was from GaliIee.74 It is only then that Pilate inquired whether
Jesus actually fell under his jurisdiction, a matter previously not of interest
to him (ct Luke 13.1). Having ascertained his Galilean origin, Pilate sent
70 On Jesus' answer cf. Evans, 847f. Jesus had answered Pilate's question; only on
Herod's later questioning of Jesus does Luke note (23.9): ou6ev CmExg[vm:o aU1:~,
against Hoehner, 'Why', 84. In Luke's account Pilate is not 'exasperated because Jesus
would not answer him '. Pilate's question was probably sarcastic and contemptuous: 'Are
you the king of the Jews?', addressed to a Jew tried at a Roman court and accused by fellow Jews.
71 p. 848. Reinbold, Bericht, 26lf notes that different regulations of cognitio applied to
non - Roman citizens (description and examples, n. 118). Though Pilate might have legally proceeded as he saw fit, the precarious situation demanded different procedure.
72 Incidents 2 and 3 of Pilate's interventions listed by Fitzmyer, 1007 indicate how
Pilate dealt with people or events suspicious to him. Possibly such interference was already demonstrated when Pilate had the Galileans killed perceiving them as a potential
threat;c[ Blinzler, 'Bemerkung',27.
73 For Pilate's other options see Walaskay, Rome, 40 and Acts 23.23f; 24.22f.
74 Against Hoehner, 'Why', 85, n.10 for whom 'personal particulars came at the beginning of the proceedings.... Since it was the normal procedure, Luke would have had no
interest in writing it'. If such particulars were properly taken, neither Pilate nor his officers paid attention to them as Pilate heard of this only in v. 6 (cf. Acts 23.33f and
Hoehner, 'Why', 87). Reinbold, Bericht, 261f cautions against conclusions from normal
procedUre.
120
Jesus and his accusers off to Herod. Hoehner comments75: 'It appears, then,
that Pilate was under no obligation to hand Jesus over to Antipas. On the
contrary, he did this of his own volition .... He does so to free himself from
an awkward case'.76 According to Hoehner in this way Pilate would (1)
save face, because 'To give in to the Jews would be a sign of Roman injustice and a weakness on Pilate's part. To withstand the Jews might well have
spelled trouble, as it had previously' and (2) 'ingratiate himself with Antipas'.77 In the latter he succeeded (Luke 23.12). With this move Pilate 'had
nothing to lose and everything to gain' (p.90).
In this opening scene Pilate appears as a quick and careless judgeJ8 Far
from concerned with the administration of justice, he intends to use this
case to promote his own goals. From the very beginning Pilate failed to act
on his own conviction (Luke 23.4). His handling of the case demonstrates
Pilate's undisguised contempt for accusers and accused alike.
3. Luke 23.13-17. When Herod returned Jesus (23.11), Pilate summarised
his previous proceedings before the earlier accusers. He claimed to have
examined Jesus and found him not guilty of any of the charges his audience
brought against him. Unless 23.3 summarises longer judicial procedure, this
claim is faise and his audience would recognise it as such. Only taking up
one charge superficially, Pilate was far from having examined the several
charges brought forward in vs. 2,5. He did not clarify Jesus' answer.
Pilate then repeated his own previous verdict and announced and affirmed Herod's equivalent verdict: Jesus had done nothing to deserve
death. Though Jesus was found innocent of any charge brought against him
by Pilate (v. 14) and Herod, under whose jurisdiction Jesus properly be-
75 Hoehner, 'Why', 88-90. Hoehner summarises the debate on forum delicti or forum
domicilii in the early principate. Schneider, 'Verfahren', 127[, denying the historicity of
the scene, does not think an answer can be found. Walaskay, Rome, 42-44 surveys five
theories for the reason of this transferral. Walaskay's own suggestion is unlikely in view
of Luke's use of sources elsewhere. IT Luke is not following tradition, Walaskay has to answer why Luke's two Herodians (and Roman governors!) turn out so differently.
76 So also Plummer, 522; Blinzler, ProzejJ, 284-88. Mommsen argued for a legal obligation of Pilate to do so; according to Schneider, 'Verfahren', 127,n. 84
n With reference to Luke 13.1 (cf. Schneider, 'Verfahren', 127,n.84;so E. Stauffer and
A.N. Sherwin-White; cf. Blinzler,ProzejJ, 291) and the setting up of votive shields in Jerusalem; cf. Philo, LegGai 299-305.
78 This verdict applies whatever Pilate was legally allowed to do in examining a nonRoman citizen. Cf. the characterisation of Pilate in Blinzler, ProzejJ, 284. Compare
Walaskay's apt observations on the deficiencies in Pilate's procedure (Rome, 40f). But it
is difficult to follow Walaskay's conclusion (also in light of Luke 13.1) that 'Luke has
done his best to show the innocence of ... Pilate .. .' and intended to help the church to
better appreciate 'the fairness of the imperial judicial system'. This account hardly fosters such goals.
121
longed, Pilate still intended to flog Jesus prior to release (23.16,20,22),79

This intention recalls the prediction (fJ.aO'tLyciJoaVtE!;, - ltaLOEuoa!;') of the
Gentiles' contemptuous treatment.so In this middle scene Pilate misrepresented his previous action, again failed to act on his own judgement and determination and continued in his disdain for Jesus.
4. Luke 23.18-25. Then the religious leaders and people demanded that Jesus be executed and Barabbas be released. Barabbas had not been mentioned previously, neither are there any explanations why the people would
or could demand the release of another prisoner (see treatment below).
With Barabbas Luke introduces a legitimate prisoner of Pilate whom - for
the reasons mentioned - Pilate did not want to release. Following his own
interests - namely wanting to release the harmless Jesus brought to him unsolicited by the Jews instead of the dangerous insurrectionist and murderer
whom Pilate wanted off the streets, not in order to administer justice to Jesus - Pilate tried to reason with the crowds. This attempt was recognised by
the Jews and Pilate's suggestion was screamed down by their demands for
Jesus' crucifixion.
Once their shouts abated, Pilate inquired: 'Why, what evil has he done?'.
When the charges against Jesus were presented earlier (23.2), Pilate did not
take them serirlUsly or investigate properly. In the light of his contemptuous
anll careless previous procedure it is not surprising that Jesus' opponents
resorted to screaming Pilate's question down. Si This precarious situation
was largely due to Pilate's previous indifferent attitude. A second time
Pilate affirmed that he had found no grounds for a death sentence 82 and repeated his intention to flog and release Jesus - unwanted by Pilate and the
Jews - rather than Barabbas whom they wanted and demanded. But the assembly kept urgently demanding with loud shouts that Jesus should be crucified (cf. alQC1l,23.18) and eventually their voices prevailed. Instead offollowing his earlier declarations and intentions to release Jesus, Pilate's verdict now simply followed popular demand.
79 Compare Rapske's instructive note on 'Nakedness, Flogging and Shame'. Paul, 297f
(for the Graeco-Roman context); Walaskay, Rome, 44; cf. the combination of EJ.UtaLYJl6~
and J.LO:crtll; in Heb 11.36 and EIlingworth, Hebrews, 629 for the Jewish context.
BC The lack of a Roman mockery scene in Pilate's court is made up by Pilate's treatment of Jesus and by the mockery of the Roman soldiers (Luke 23.36f). Not only did
such mocking happen at the high priestly house (22.63) and at Herod's court (23.11;
against Walaskay, Rome, 43).
SI Pilate's incorrect presentation of his previous measures in 23.14 and Herod's failure
to take their accusations seriously would have added to their frustration.
S2 PiIate no longer refuted all their charges as previously (cf. 23.4,14); he conceded now
- without proper investigation - that Jesus had done things deserving punishment other
than death penalty.
122
Ill. The Geneile encouneer WIlt. salvarwn
Pilate, the Roman governor, released the insurrectionist and murderer

whom the people demanded (his offences, v. 19, are repeated in v.25) and
handed Jesus over for execution (JtaQuO(OUJIlL83 ), as the people wished
though Pilate had thrice declared him innocent. Through his previous failure Pilate had but himself to blame for the delicate situation he put himself
in. Pilate was not simply an instrument of the Jews; he accepted the wrong
verdict of the people. Far from exonerating him 'Pilate appears all the more
culpable for having knowingly turned an innocent man over to execution .
... Pilate's pronouncement vindicates Jesus, not the Roman administration'.84 Pilate emerges from this trial as weak, fickle, unconcerned about
justice and even foolish.S5 The curtain falls on a final scene that could
hardly be more critical of Pilate.
Though Luke is ready to excuse or explain the failures of some Gentiles
(23.24a; et. ayvOLu, Acts 17.30), he shows no trace of excusing Pilate. Pilate
acted neither out of fear nor out of ignorance. If Luke intended any exculpating element in the presentation of the events it concerns the tumultuous
behaviour of the leaders and the croWd. Though the outcome of the events
reflects what the accusers had in mind from the beginning (cf. Luke 19.47;
22.2), they resorted to a public demonstration and tumultuous shouting
only once their previous attempts to follow recognised and proper ler[al procedure, had been frustrated by the improper procedures of two courts. In
view of Pilate's carelessness and con tempt for them and their case, they had
little choice in the matter.86In Luke 23.1-25 the behaviour of the Jews is explicable through Pilate's and Herod's failure, which is not justifiable. At the
8'J Weatherly, Responsibility, 96 concludes his study of :n:uQu1)[bwfLL in Luke's volumes:

' ... each time :n:uQu1)[bwfLL appears with a personal object in Luke, it connotes at least callous disregard and at most outright hostility toward its object (Luke 12.58; 20.20; 22.4,6;
23.25). Given the circumstances of Pilate's handing over of Jesus and the consistent use
of 1tuQub[bwfLL earlier in the narrative, the word may carry this sinister connotation in
Luke 23.25'.
84 Weatherly, Responsibility, 95 and n. 2.
as In his 1950 painting Christ Delivered to the People (oil on canvas, 69 x 149 cm, Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art, Edinburgh) S. Spencer (1891-1959) depicts in the
centre the people leading Jesus away from the place of trial. In the left top corner Pilate
appears. In contrast to the white cobble - stone ground in the rest of the painting (John
19.131), Pilate sits on a da~k red and black chess-board patterned floor. Between his legs
is a wash basin, he dries his hands with a towel (Matt 27.24). On his head Pilate wears a
jester's cap with three over-size bells. Pilate sits like a puppet, his eyes emptily staring in
the distance. Spencer's depiction of the scene is influenced by several accounts. However,
the portrayal of Pilate as a jester does fit the Lukan picture of fatal neglect and carelessness in Jesus' trial well.
86 Cf. the contrast to Acts 19.28-41: In this pagan idolatrous setting the completely confused tumultuous riot arose immediately. Later the Ephesians are reminded and called to
regular legal procedures.
2. The GenuLe encounler Wl.th sa/vatlolI
123
same time the Jewish choice of Barabbas and their demand for Jesus' crucifixion is far from flattering.
5. Luke 23.52. Weatherly concludes from the observation that Joseph went
to Pilate to ask for Jesus' body:

If Pilate is the authority who disposes of Jesus' body, it can reasonably be assumed
that Pilate is the authority under whom Jesus is executed. Indeed, it is the plan of the
conspirators from the beginning to turn Jesus over to the 'rule and authority of the
governor' (20.20, Luke only). Pilate's concession to the will of the Jerusalemites ...
does not therefore appear to be an abdication of his authority in Jesus' execution; it
indicates weakness, not innocence. Rome continues to exercise the final control. 81
6. Further observations
6.1. It was of little comfort to Luke's church to know 'that Roman magistrates are just in their judgements'BB, if such magistrates could completely
overrule their judgements on popular demand. In addition, Jesus' trial was

far from just. Not only was justice denied to Jesus, but Barabbas was released. Jesus, against whom no charges demanding a death sentence could
be brought forward in Pilate's own estimate, was immediately handed over
for execution89 , while Barabbas was released from prison. Though charged
with serious offences, Barabbas had only been BV "tti q:lUA,!lXti. Even such
treatment was denied to the innocent Jesus.
Defending Pilate, Walaskay also suggests that Luke did not consider the
events of Luke 23.1-25 it completed trial90 and that Luke wanted to show that
'Pilate could not discover enough evidence, either in the Jewish charges or in
Jesus' reply, to proceed with a criminal trial' .91 Even if correct, these observations are far from exculpating Pilate and would only underline the illegitimacy of Pilate's final verdict. It was not that after proper procedures the verdict happened to agree with popular demand, rather popular demand became the verdict without the completion of proper procedures.
6.2. Luke describes proper Roman judicial procedure and also its failures
in Acts.9:/. It has to be taken into account that Paul was tried as a Roman citizen (Acts 21.39; 22.25f), which was not the case with Jesus. J. Becker notes:
87 Weatherly, Responsibility, 96f That PiIate is the authority for Jesus' execution also
becomes evident from the content of the titutus; against Schneider, 'Verfahren', 12l.
88 Walaskay, Rome, 42 (italics mine).
89 Thus Barrett I, 195 is only right in his first claim: 'Luke emphasises Pilate's reluctance to condemn and execute Jesus'.
90 Rome,44.
9i Walaskay, Rome, 40.
92 These include Felix's corruptness (Acts 24.26), Felix's and Festus' partiality in their
desire to please the Jews (24.27; 25.9) and the failure of the Roman tribune in Jerusalem
(22.24-29). The officials in Philippi did not give Paul an opportunity to defend himself
and had him flogged and incarcerated without proper trial. Gallio likewise treated the
124
III The Gentile encounter with salvation
Zudem besa13 ein Prafekt ... das Recht, ohne durch die romische Proze13ordnung gebunden zu sein, gegen lib er Provinzialen, die kein riimisches B!lrgerrech t besaBen (peregrini), in einer Anhiirung nach eigenem Gutdiinken zu verfahren (cognitio) und
dann ein Urteil zu fail en."
However, Luke's report of the measures taken by others in Pilate's position

indicate what steps Pilate, though legally not obliged to do so, still could and
should have taken just before the Passover and concerning an accused as
popular with the people and as controversial for the Jewish leadership as
Jesus was. Against this background Pilate's procedure regarding Jesus appears even bleaker:
(1) Pilate failed to remove Jesus from Jerusalem to Caesarea, his usual
town of residence 94, to guarantee Jesus' safety and to allow examination
and a proper trial without excessive public pressure (Acts 23.12-35).
(2) Pilate did not require the accusers to present their charges properly,
nor was Jesus given an opportunity to defend himself adequately. This is in
contrast to the procedures of Felix according to Acts 24.1-2l.
(3) Pilate did not adjourn the trial to gather evidence properly in order
to decide the case as Felix did (Acts 24.22) or to allow emotions to cool off.
(4) Pilate did not consult a Jewish specialist in these matters. Festus presented Paul to Agrippa (Acts 25.13-26.32). In transferring the case to
Herod, Pilate did not intend to consult Herod, but to hand Jesus over to his
jurisdiction. 9s Pilate did not make the great effort Festus made to bring
Paul's case to a proper conclusion (Acts 25.13-27).
(6) If Pilate found the case too delicate or difficult for him to decide, he
did not consider referring the case to a higher court (A~ts 25.11).96
Also in view of the procedures adopted by other Romans in similar circumstances, it is unlikely that Pilate was a helpless puppet of the Jews.
Jewish accusers and the accused contemptuously (Acts 18.12-17; cf. Zmijewski, 660f); cf.
II3.7.1.and 3.
93 Jesus van Nazaret (Berlin, New York: W. de Gruyter, 1996),430 with reference to Th.
Mommsen, R(jmisches Strafrecht (1899), 229ff, 142ff,340f; cf. Otte, 'Neues', 1024. The verdict of crucifixion corresponds with this assessment of Jesus' legal status; cf. Becker,
p.438.
94 Cf. Blinzler, 'Geschichtsrahmen', 27. Barabbas was only held captive in Jerusalem.
9S Against Radl, 'SonderUberlieferungen', 139f; cf. the discussion of Herod's function
in N olland, 1122f. On Festus and Agrippa see Hoehner, 'Why', 89, D. 33. These latter incidents - not Luke's passion narrative, if anything in Luke's volumes is meant to do so may help the church to 'better appreciate .,. the "fairness" of the imperial judicial systern', so Walaskay, Rome, 41 who claims this for Jesus' Roman trial.
96 Walaskay, Rome,40 excludes this option,yet on p. 89,n.11 he writes 'Though it was
not mandatory to do so in Jesus' case, Pilate, if he desired, could have consulted Rome
about the trial ... '.
125
6.3. Our impression is furthered by three brief observations arising from

comparison with the Johannine passion account. As Luke might not have
known of these details, the observations carry less weight.
(1) Luke does not report that the Jews tried to put pressure on Pilate by
threatening to report the matter to the emperor as in John 19.12.97 According to Luke's report, Pilate acted under no such additional strain. It was his
free decision. TIlls agrees with the absence of any excuse.
(2) Luke does not explain Pilate's release of Barabbas by citing the Passover custom as do John 18.39; Matt 27.15 and Mark 15.6. Unless it is already known to them, Luke's readers are not told why Pilate would release
a man imprisoned for serious crimes simply on popular demand (Luke
23.18).98 It appears as an arbitrary action. Pilate does not refute the legitimacy of their request. Pilate simply released an insurrectionist and murderer (23.25, whose crimes in the capital, v.19, definitely brought him under
Pilate's jurisdiction), while the man whose previous activities in the temple
Pilate had tolerated, was executed. This procedure will make Luke's readers very suspicious of Pilate.
(3) In John's report Pilate questioned Jesus repeatedly about his identity
and mission and endeavoured to give him a proper trial (18.33-19.10). Such
effort is absent in Luke's account.
In the light of our conclusions, Sanders' reconstruction of Luke's strategy
is questionable:
Better, in the passion narrative, to do just enough reWriting to emphasise Gentile innocence and to imply Jewish guilt. Thereafter, in his freer compositions, he could ac
cuse Jews directly and explicitly."
Luke is far from emphasising Pilate's or any other Gentile's innocence.

Had this been Luke's intention, he failed badly.
7. Conclusion. The course of the Roman trial of Jesus was as much a fulfilment of the passion prediction as was its outcome and the execution of Jesus. Pilate's disdain of Jesus becomes evident from the fact that he did not
97
Cf. Philo, LegGai, 301(
Later scribes inserted civuyx1]v fJe e1xev ci:rtO~:UELV a\rto~ xa'tcl EOQTiJV Eva (as v.17;
or added this phrase after v. 19) as an explanation; c( NTG, 238; GNT, 309; Metzger,
Commentary, 179f ('a gloss, apparently based on Matt 27.15 and Mark 15.6'); Fitzmyer,
1485f; Brown,Death, 794 ..
99 Jews, 15. Similarly Walaskay, Rome, 44: 'Pilate and Rome are ultimately innocent of
Jesus' blood, Herod must bear responsibility for Jesus' shame, and the leaders of the Jews
are responsible for his death'. Reinbold, Berich!, 286 claims 'Die Geschichte [Lk 23.616]
ist im Rahmen lukanischer Redaktion hervorragend verstilndlich: Sie hat eine juristischapologetische Funktion ... '. In his all too brief treatment of two pages he overlooks crucial issues and concludes over confidently: 'Ansonsten ist die Szene ganzlich typisiert; sie
ist an den entscheidenden Stellen vollig inhaltsleer', p. 286.
98
126
grant Jesus a proper triaL The same contempt for his Jewish accusers is evident in that he did not take them and their accusations seriously. Though
recognising Jesus' innocence of the charges brought against him, Pilate did
not act upon this correct insight. He did not release him and still wanted to
have Jesus flogged. Fmally he allowed popular demand to overrule his recognition and previous decision. Pilate only became serious when in a delicate situation of his own making. Even then Pilate only fought to keep his
opponent Barabbas bolted and barred, not to grant Jesus justice. The little
that Pilate recognised of Jesus made no difference in his consistent pursuit
of his own interests (cf. the sending to Herod), leading to a complete denial
of justice. Pilate completely failed to appreciate the identity and mission of
Jesus despite all that he, as governor, would have known about him. That integrity was not pivotal in Pilate's administration of justice is seen in his misrepresentation of his own procedure. A bleak picture of cognitive and
moral-ethical failure, of the unvarnished self-interest and of the anti-Judaism of this Gentile emerges from Luke's account.
2.1.2.3. Herod Antipas (Luke 3.19[; 9.7-9; 13.31[;23.7-12)
2.1.2.3.1. To begin with we again have to consider whether Herod Antipas

can be legitimately included in our study of Gentiles prior to faith (cf. the
discussion of the Samaritans' identity in 11.3.4. and that of Herod Agrippa I
and II in I1.3.5.). Whether Antipas actually was or was considered to be a
Jew is difficult to assess.1 oo
a) Considerations of Herod Antipas' ethnic background start with his grandfather Antipater and father Herod the Great, who were of Idumean origin101, which is said to have
stuck with Herod: 'Obgleich er die Institutionen der jlldischen Religion tatkraftig
fOrderte, vergaB man nie, daB er ldumlier war .. .'.102 The fact that Antipas' mother
100 On Herod Antipas ef. Grabbe, Iudaism, 425-28 and passim; Hoehner, Herod Antipas; idem, 'Herod', ISEE II, (688-98) 694-96 and 'Herodian Dynasty', DIG, 317-26;
Koster, Einfilhrung, 406f; Schllrer, History 1,340-53 (listing all ancient soures, p. 340);
Stem, 'Reign', 283-87.
101 los.ant. lud. XIV.I.3 9; bell. 1.6.2 123 (said of Antipater);ef.LCL 365, notes band
con p. 452f. Herod the Great's behaviour was ambiguous:while e.g. he rebuilt the temple
in Jerusalem, he also promoted pagan cults in his realm and elsewhere (cf. e.g. ant. XV.8J
267-76; xv.11.1-6 380-425; XVILlO.3 44; bell. U.3.1 44; et. Hoehner, DIG, 32Of.
For the contemporary assessment of Herod the Great cf. Hoehner, ISEE II, 688-94 and
DIG, 317-22; Koster, Einfilhrung, 402-06; Schalit, Konig, 40-52, 646-75; Schlirer, History I,
296,207,234, n. 3; Stem, 'Reign', 216-82. I have not seen P. Richardson, Herod: King of the
Iews and Friend of the Romans (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1996).
102 Koster, Einfilhrung, 405; so also Hoehner, DIG, 319. Josephus reports that Herod
was rejected as king because he was a commoner (tIlLwtT]\;) and an Idumean, that is a
half-Jew (,IlloufLalcp, tOUtEcr'tLV 'lifLLLOullaLcp). However, elsewhere Josephus reports that
'The Jews claimed that they had the precedence because the founder of Caesarea, their
127
Malthace was of Samaritan origin did not help either (Ios. bell. lud. 1.28.4 562; cf. Acts
16.1-3). Thus through his ancestry Antipas' Jewish identity was more than dubious.
The references to Herod Antipas' behaviour are twofold. While sources witness to his
regard for JudaismlQ3, they also note his blatant disregard for the law and customs lO4 and
his Hellenistic sympathies.11lS
b) Luke never directly indicates his view of Herod's identity. In Luke's synchronism he
is introduced as 1:'tQU(iQJ("~ of Galilee (Luke 3.1). In this enumeration Herod follows
Pilate and precedes his brothers before Israel's religious leaders appear. The list moves
from political to religious leaders and from Gentiles to Jews. However, where exactly between TIberius and Caiaphas is the line of demarcation?
Another possible indicator of how Luke perceives Herod is found in Acts 4.27: both
Herod and Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, had gathered together
against Jesus (see III.2.1.2.5.3.). If the relation within this compilation does not follow a
chiastic pattern (a b b' a'), Herod would be counted among the Gentiles. However, association of Pilate with the Gentiles is more natural and Luke may not have intended any
specific relation between the individual and corporate pairs of opponents he mentions. I06
Still Barrett suggests: 'PiIate undoubtedly represented the Gentiles; Herod might have
wished to be regarded as a Jew, but Luke probably thought of him as a Gentile ruler'.I07
king Herod, had been of Jewish descent; the Syrians admitted what they said about
Herod ... ' (ant. XX.8.7 173; cf. bell. II.l3.7 266). Ant. XIII.9.1 257f reports the
Idumeans' forced conversion to Judaism and its lasting effect (xaxEi:vo~ mhot,; 0 :(Q6vo~
~QJ(ev wlTte eIvm 1:0 Aomov 'Ioul\a[ou~). This agrees with Josephus' favourable epilogue
on Antipater in ant. XIY.11.4 283.
103 Herod regularly visited Jerusalem, especially at the festivals, demonstrating his respect for the Jewish faith; e.g. ant. XVIII.5.3 122; CL Stern, 'Reign', 286; Grabbe,Judaism, 428; cf. Luke 23.7: could Herod's desire to see Jesus (Luke 9.9) have contributed to
his presence at this particular Passover? Fitzmyer, 1481: 'one wonders about his Jewish
allegiance'. Cf. HengellSchwemer, Paul, 71 for the importance of circumcision to the
Herodian dynasty. 'Antipas, together with his brothers, brought a successful complaint
against him (pilate) over the erection of an offensive votive shield in the palace at Jerusalem', SchUrer,History I, 343 with reference to Philo's LegGai 299-305. In contrast to his
brother Philip, Herod did not have his own image stamped on the coins he issued; CL
Stern, 'Reign', 286; on Herod's coinage cf. SchUrer, History 1,343, n. 16.
104 E.g. his marriage to a Nabatean princess and preparations to divorce her to marry
his niece Herodias, who was his brother's wife (against e.g. Lev 18.16;20.2l;cf. Luke 3.19;
ant. XVIII.5.lf 109-19,136; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 458; Hoehner, DIG, 323; Koster,
Ein{Uhrung, 407; Schtlrer, History I, 344; Stern, 'Reign', 284). Josephus comments on
Herod's favourite foundation: 'For the knew that this settlement was contrary to the law
and tradition of the Jews because TIberias was built on the site of tombs that had been
obliterated, of which there were many there' (ant. XVIII.2.3 38). While TIberias also
had its ;tQooeuJ(~ (Ios. vita 277), Herod's palace in TIberias 'contained representations
of animals - such a style of architecture being forbidden by the laws' (Ios. vita 65, 67
for the Greek inhabitants of the city).
105 Cf. the two inscriptions mentioned by Stern, 'Reign', 285 (OGIS 416 and 417,
quoted by Schtlrer, History 1,341, n. 1) and the foundation of TIberias on the 'organisational forms of the Hellenistic polis on the model they had assumed under the Roman
Empire'; Stern, 'Reign', 286; Schtlrer, History I, 342f; II,178-80.
10~ Radl, 'Sondertiberlieferungen',138 concludes: 'lliBt sich die Prophetie auf die Heiden mil dem romischen Statthalter als Reprllsentanten und auf die Stllmme Israels mit
dem jUdischen "Ktlnig" beziehen'.
107 1,246.
128
Schneider relates v.27 to the previous verse and concludes: 'Als Exponent der Konige
wird Herodes, a1s der der aQXovt~ Pilatus angesehen,,,08 While in Ps 2.1f (Acts 4.25f,applied to the present situation in v.27f) the 'kings' clearly refers to non-Israelite kings (see
II.3.2.), in Luke's use of the passage a Jewish king could be included as 'Messiah' no
longer refers to an anointed Jewish ruler.
c) However, while these Lukan references are unclear, in the trial scene
and the other references we survey below, Luke portrays Herod very much
as a Gentile orientalischen Kleinkonig. 109 This portrait, which in the absence of direct indicators, suggests Herod's Gentile identity to Luke's readers, consists of Herod's taking of his brother's wife, his arrest and execution
ofJohn (ciIos. ant. ludo XVIIL5.2 117-19), his denial of the possibility of
a resurrection, his perception about Jesus and his procedure in the examination and mocking of Jesus (see below for detailed discussion). While
traits similar to Herod's are elsewhere ascribed also to Jews llO , their combination and the similar portrayal of Herod in other sources justifies the
above designation.
Herod betrays characteristics elsewhere ascribed also to Gentiles (denial
of a resurrection, Acts 17.18,32; 26.23f). Herod's treatment of John and Jesus furnishes a suitable illustration of Luke 22.25: ot ~a(JLt..Et~ ,;wv H}vwv
XUQLE'IlOUUW alJ'twv. Thus Barrett's verdict that Luke probably thought of
Herod as a Gentile ruler is sustainable.
Due to the ambiguity of Herod's origin and behaviour reflected in other
sources, to Luke's manner of portrayal of Herod and to absence of direct
108 1,358. Luke refers to Antipas as 'tE'tQaaQX"~ (Luke 3.19; 9.7; Acts 13.1;'tE'tQaaQxEOl
in Luke 3.1; no title: Luke 8.3;13.31; 23 ,7f,1lf,15) , not as ~aOlAE-u~ as in the designation of
Herod the Great (Luke 1.5) and Herod Agrippa (Acts 12.1). The lack of royal designations makes Schneider's claim 'Reprasentant der "Konige der Erde" war gemliB Lk 23.612 Herodes' (1,358) doubtful.
109 We borrow the term from Koster's description of Herod Agrippa I (Einfahrung,
410). On Antipas Koster, 406 writes: 'Er war der getreue Sohn seines Vaters, verschlagen
und grausam, aber auch prachtliebend, doch ohne wirkliche GroBe' (so also SchUrer,
History 1,341). Mark 6.14-29 offers sinister confirmation of Luke's portrayal (et SchUrer,
History 1,346-48). Josephus furnishes a similar portrait: ant. lud. XVIII.2.3 36-38
(Stern, 'Reign', 286 comments on the foundation of TIberias ' ... by royal order in accordance with the practice of HelIenistic sovereigns'), the circumstances of Herod's courtship
and marriage to Herodias in XVm.5.1 109-12 (cf. Ferguson, Backgrounds, 458) and
his account of the ministry and murder of John in XVIII.5.2 117-19 (fear of sedition as
Herod's motivation 119).
110 For adultery cf. Luke 16.18, for the arrest and execution of John cf. the Jewish persecution of the prophets (survey in Stenschke, 'Bedeutung'; also Jewish kings persecuted
OT prophets, e.g. Jeremiah. However, other than Herod, active resistance to John is not
noted; cf. Luke 7.29f). The denial of the possibility of a resurrection Herod shares with
the Sadducees (cf. Luke 20.27; Acts 4.lf; 23.6-10). For his perception of Jesus as a miracle
worker or magician cf. Luke 4.23; 11.16,29 (1); for his procedure in the examination and
mocking of Jesus cf. 22.63-70;23.35,39.
129
indicators, e.g. similar to that which Luke provides for Herod Agrippa's
Jewishness in Acts 12.23 (ci II.3.5.), we include Herod in our endeavour to
study Luke's portrayal of non-Jews as comprehensively as possible. The nature of this evidence renders conclusions drawn only from this material inferior to others. However, while valuable facets would be lost, exclusion of
Herod from this study would not essentially affect our results.
2.1.2.3.2. Before we consider the actual trial scene Luke 23.7-12 we briefly
survey Luke's previous references to Herod.

1. Luke 3.19/ John publicly rebuked Herod for his adulterous relationship
with his brother's wife. In response Herod added John's incarceration to all
the other evil things he had done. Later John was even executed.1l1 Whatever role political expediency112 played in Herod's move, Luke sees sin in
John's imprisonment, as in Herod's adultery and in the reference to
Herod's many evil deeds (KaL 1tEQL mlV"tOlv cbv btOLTJUEV 1tovTJQwv).l13
However, being directed against God's agent (e.g. Luke 3.3-6; 7.24-28),
Herod's action against John clearly has a spiritual dimension.
The contrast in the chapter is strong. While the people came to John and
asked for instruction on what is right, repented and were baptised, the ruler
arrested John when he dared to rebuke him.114 The moral challenge and
correction which Herod received through John for all his sins was rejected
straightaway and the corrective was removed and killed: 'Opposition and
rejection is by those who do not want to hear the truth'.115 If Luke considered Herod Antipas a Gentile, this brief reference - not a visit from wise
Gentiles as in Matthew 2 - is the very first Gentile response to the salvation
111 In Luke's account John's murder is fully and only Herod's responsibility; cf. Mark
6.14-29.
112 Cc. Fitzmyer, 477:' ... in contrast to the political motivation for John's imprisonment
supplied by Josephus'; more detailed in Schiirer, History 1,345f (both with reference to
ant.lud. XVIII 5.2 117-19). cc. Acts 24.27;25.9; 12.3.
113 This is one of Luke's few instances where a specific moral-ethical sin and general
WB,
moral-ethical sins are mentioned and clearly identified as such (1:0 :n:OVTJQov);
1385C.2.c. Luke does not identify the other 'many transgressions'. If Luke had a moralethical concept of sin (cf. Conzeimann, Mitte, 212f), he misses a fine opportunity to draw
a catalogue of vices (cf. Luke 22.25f and what is reported of Herod in Schllrer, History I,
340-52).
114 Cf. Ernst, 115; Sch1lrmann I, 184: 'Der Kontext stelIt die Unbu13fertigkeit dieses
Konigs in starken Gegensatz zu der (anfanglichen) Umkehr- und Glaubensbereitschaft
des Volkes: hier ist Unbuflfertigkeit van Anfang an, die durch den BufJruf nur nach
gesteigert wird' (italics mine). If Luke portrays Herod as a Gentile, as we argued above,
the contrast is also one between Jews and a Gentile. The Jewish picture is differentiated
in Luke 7.29f.
lIS Nolland, 156.
cc.
130
which Luke describes. 116 In its light it is unlikely that Luke thought that
people only need correction.
2. Luke 9.7-9. When it was claimed by some that this John had been raised
from the dead, Herod - unaffected by these opinions and having 'keine
Gewissensnote wegen Johannes'117 - simply affirmed that he had beheaded
John. Herod was full of confidence in his enlightened Hellenistic world
view and own sense of judgement: 'Er selbst hat ihn hingerichtet, eine
Wiedererweckung kann es filr den aufgeklarten Mann von Welt darum
nicht geben'.118 Therefore Herod could quickly dismiss what was assumed
by some Jews 119 , even though he had heard all that had taken place, which
included the raising of the widow's son and of Jairus' daughter.12o For the
same reasons Herod did not think worthy of consideration or refutation
the other estimates by the people (the appearance of EJijah or the resurrection of one of the ancient prophets).
Despite all he knew of the miracles of Jesus, Herod denied as a matter of
principle what these popular opinions held in common: 'Jesus ist zwar eine
Prophetengestait, aber eine solche, die aus einer anderen Welt kommt: ein
Auferweckter oder ein vormals Entriickter und nun "Erschienener"'.121
Though these are inadequate propositions regarding Jesus, the Jews considered possible such resurrections and appearances.1 22 Luke would rather
wonder with Paul: 'Why is it thought incredible by any of you that God
raises the dead?' (Acts 26.8).123 Herod's Gentile paradigm excludes a priori
the later resurrection of Jesus; in this paradigm properly executed people
simply do not come back to life.
116 Previous references to Gentiles are Luke 2.1f,32 and the synchronism of 3.1.
117 Conzelmann, Mitte, 44; against Schllrer, History 1,349. For a clear case of remorse
see Luke 22.61.
118 Cf. Ernst, 224. Schiirmann 1,508: Luke 'zeichnet ihn ... als so hellenistisch-aufgekllirt, daB er die Volksmeinung, Johannes sei von den Toten erweckt, keinesfalls annimmt: "Johannes habe ich enthaupten lassen" - der ist totI'; et the characterisation of
Herod by Blinzler, Prozefi, (287-89) 288.
119 The people's belief about John is not necessarily a 'very ill-informed piece of popular superstition' ,Marshall, 356; cf. also p. 357. This belief does not need to imply the reincarnation of John in another person; cf. SchUrmann J,506f.
)20 Luke 7.11-17; 8.40-42,49-56. These raisings explain Herod's desire to see Jesus (with
Schiirmann 1,506 against Ernst, 223: 'allgemeine AnknUpfungsfloskel ohne konkreten
Bezug').
121 SchUr mann 1,507.
122 E.g. Luke 7.11-17; 8.40-42,49-56 (raisings); 9.28-36: Elijah and Moses do actually appear in the same chapter!; (22.43f?); Acts 5.19 (angels appear); etc.
123 Again Gentiles of the ruling class are addressed. With the exception of the Sadducaeic Jewish ruling class (Luke 20.27) only Gentiles deny the possibility of a resurrection
or ridicule it.
131
Such a priori exclusion occurs again. Paul's Athenian audience misunderstood andlor
ridiculed the proclamation of Jesus and the resurrection (Acts 17.18, 20,31f).'l< Also Festus shared Herod's enlightened pagan estimate of resurrections. When hearing first
about Jesus' resurrection from a discussion among Jews, Festus himself describes his reaction as perplexity on how to proceed in such matters: ... lIat ltEQ' "tWO!; 'Ir,ooi:i "ti}vTllIo"tO!; DV E<jJaOllV 6 IIav}.o!; ~fjv. dn:OeOVI-'EVO~ I5E iyw (Acts 25.20; cf. in Luke 9.7
liLrutOQEIIl). When Jesus' resurrection was mentioned again by Paul in his presence (Acts
26.12-15,23: El ltQw"tO!; E; clvaO"taolIl!; VlIQWV), Festus exclaimed that Paul was out of
his mind (26.24: !1atvTI IIai:iAE ... El!; flavtav ltEQL"tQE1tEL}.12S This widespread cognitive
failure of educated Gentiles to understand the core of the Christian proclamation would
hardly be overcome by correction alone.
As Herod confidently dismissed these suggestions, he was left perplexed as

to (bLT]:rtOQEL) who this was about whom he heard these things. While a few
verses later the Jewish disciples correctly identified Jesus' identity (Luke
9.20), and the Jewish people at least employed valid categories to explain
for such miracles or were able to draw on examples from the past, Herod
was simply 'in groBer Verlegenheit'126 before Jesus and his works. This upper-class educated Gentile was at a complete loss to comprehend the miracles, identity and mission of Jesus within his enlightened Gentile frame of
reference and understanding. Such a minds et, with its presuppositions and
limitations, is shown to be inadequate to appreciate and appropriate God's
salvation.
Herod sought to see Jesus (Luke 9.7). His motivation is identified in
Luke 23.8: 'it reveals nothing of any belief in him, only curiosity'.127 Despite
124 Cf. Zmijewski, 639,646f: 'auch bei den Griechen die Auferstehungsbotschaft zum
entscheidenden AnstoB, der die Ablehnung auslost '" Die Auferstehungsbotschaft ist
eben filr so1che empirisch und zudem dualistisch denkenden Griechen Hicherlich'; cf.
III.2.2.11.
125 Cf. Zmijewski, 849: 'Der Einwurf des Festus ... macht deutlich, daB er, der pragmatisch-ntichtern denkende Heide, die christliche Auferstehungsbotschaft als Irrsinn einsch1ltzt, der aus einem tlberm1lBigen Studieren resultiert und dem gesunden Menschenverstand widerspricht'; Weiser, 361; Schneider n, 376. The responses to miracles of less
enlightened Gentiles in Acts 14.11; 16.30?; 28.6 were equally invalid. Within their pagan
paradigm they reckoned with and accepted the appearances of deities in human form
without their prior death. For a survey of various Jewish convictions see G. Barth, 'Umstrittener Auferstehungsglaube', in Bormann, Propaganda, 117-32.
126 EWNT T, 746. Luke 3.19f and 9.7-9 possibly suggest a nexus between previous
moral-ethical and spiritual failure and ensuing lack of spiritual apprehension: Herod was
unwilling to follow John's call to 'prepare the way of the Lord' (Luke 3.4-6) through repentance and its worthy fruits. As he refused and rather executed the one who exhorted
him, Herod, while amazed at Jesus' deeds, was pU7.z1ed about his identity. Once they met,
Jesus had nothing more to add in word or deed to John's appeal. Refusal of repentance
with ensuing change of behaviour prevents response to God's salvation.
127 Fitzmyer, 759; Marshall, 357: 'a feeling prompted by curiosity or malice, not by
faith'; cf. Ernst, 224.
132
Uf. The Gentile encounter with salvation
this desire, and although he was in an excellent position to do so, Luke reports no effort of Herod actively to find out more. Only once Jesus was sent
by Pilate Herod got to see Jesus.
Herod had no regret for his murder of John and excluded the mere possibility of events that Luke reports and beliefs pivotal for him.128 Herod's
moral-ethical disposition, violent refutation of correction, deficient spiritual recognition and failures and lack of determination could hardly have
been sketched more sombrely.
3. Luke 13.31/ Luke knows of reports to Jesus that Herod wanted to kill him. Herod's
desire to see him (9.9) had supposedly given way to a desire to kill him. Yet it is very
likely that the religious leaders who warned Jesus, but were not disposed favourably toward him (1l.53f), fabricated Herod's evil intent in order to induce Jesus to leave
Herod's domain. l29 It is difficult to understand how these Pharisees would have known
about Herod's real intentions and, if they had, why they would have wanted to warn Jesus\30, as Herod's intent was in line with their own aims. On Luke's pages Jesus had not
challenged the ruler for his transgressions as John had done. Herod's desire to kill Jesus
is also improbable in the light of 23.7-15. Unless Herod is portrayed as fickle - improbable in view of his reaction in 9.7-9 - it is unlikely that Herod would have missed the
chance given to him had the intentions of 13.3lf been serious. The course of the Jerusalem examination is difficult to reconcile with the supposition of an accurate report in
13.31. Therefore. Herod's alleged murderous intention is neglected for our purpose.
Within this reference to Herod is the note that Jesus called him a fox.m
Whether it conveys Herod's weakness and insignificance ('the mean and
paltry man as opposed to the lion'132) or craftiness and slyness133 , both
meanings suggest that divine assessment of Herod is in contrast to his
claims and self-confident behaviour in Luke 3.19f; 9.7~9; 23.7-12. Either a
sinful character trait is directly addressed (CL 3.19f) or an, equally unacceptable attitude of pride and arrogance is indirectly addressed: Herod is not
what he thinks himself to be.
Wellmann notes that foxes were hunted as 'Rliuber des Federviehs',134 A
128
ct Fitzmyer, 192-97; Marshall, 'Resurrection'.
129 This
position has been argued in detail by Denaux, 'I:hypocrisie';against e.g. Darr,
Character, 106; SchUrer, History f,349.

130 Previous
occurrences of the Pharisees point in the opposite direction; cf. Scbnackenburg, 'Lk 13.31-33',232; cf. his treatment on p. 233.
\31 On the ancient meanings of this metaphor see Schnackenburg, 'Lk 13.31-33',233;
WB, 81; Nolland, 740; Fitzmyer, 1031 and the extensive treatment by Darr, Character,
139-46 (suggestingfourcharacteristics for the fox); cf.M. Wellmann, 'Fuchs',REVll, 18992.
132 Evans, 561; cf. Marshall, 571.
133 Wellmann, 191.22-26: 'Verschlagenheit und Bosheit'; 189.65-67: 'Die wissenschaftliche Zoologie des Altertums charakterisiert ihn als ein verschlagenes ... Sllugetier'.
134 Col. 190.61. In the same column Wellmann notes on the fox (10-14): 'Er nllhrt sich
von GefJUgel ... ', adducing several literary references. Darr, Character, 140f ( and others)
already noted that the metaphor may concern the fox 85 a predator: 'A fourth trait attrib-
133
third possibility is that the designation 'fox' is meant to accuse and indict
Herod for having in a fox-like manner carried away and killed the innocent
and defenceless John. This suggestion is supported by the immediate context: In 13.34 Jesus speaks about the gathering of Israel with another metaphor 'a hen gathering her brood under her wings'.135 Both metaphors could
be related: While Herod the fox carried away the fowl, Jesus intended to
gather Israel as a hen would protecting her brood. 136 That Jesus would have
left Herod's deed,knowing at least of John's imprisonment (7.18-23), without comment, once occasion arose to do so, is unlikely. Darr concludes:
At this point, the reader's hypothesis is that the primary thrust of Jesus' comment is to
identify and condemn this Galilean tyrant as one o/the earthly powers who oppose the
implementation o/the divine plan by destroying God's agents. m
This interpretation of the metaphor agrees with the characterisation of

Gentile rulers in Acts 4.2Sf (et 11.3.2.) and Luke 4.5t
2.1.2.3.3. Luke 23.7-12
1. Once Jesus was sent to Herod to be tried under his jurisdiction, Herod
was very glad. He had wanted to see Jesus for a long time (Luke 9.9; cf. 9.7),
hoping to see Jesus perform some miracle. Herod used this unexpected opportunity and curiously questioned Jesus at some length. BlinzIer observes:
Und gerade das ist fIlr den leichtfertigen Ftlrsten bezeichnend, daB er sich zunlichst
nur fiir den Wundermann interessiert und gaoz zu vergessen scheint, warum Jesus ihm
vorgeftlhrt wurde. Mit vielen Worten drang er in ihn, urn Nliheres tlber seine geheimnisvollen Krlifte zu erfahren und womilglich selbst Zeuge eines Wunders zu werden.
Er stellt Jesus auf eine Stufe mit den Goeten und Gauklern, die damals dem Hofpublikum die Zeit zu vertreiben pflegten. Man wird sich den FUrsten also nicht als dUsteren Inquisitor,sondern eher launig,jovial,herablassend denken mtlssen.13S
From the sequence of vs. 9f (cf. the contrast in 23.2f), Herod's questioning
did not serve to substantiate the charges brought forward against Jesus by
the chief priests and scribes. 139 Like Pilate, Herod did not take Jesus' Jewish
uted to foxes was the inclination toward destructiveness and rapacity. This pejorative notion was probably based on the actual experiences of farmers and herdsmen who often
lost crops and livestock to these common predators' (italics mine).
135 ct Fitzmyer, 1036.
136 Cf. Darr, Character, 145f; cf. p.146 for Luke 13.35a and its relation to foxes.
137 Character, 145 (italics mine).
138 ProzejJ, 289. Cf. also F.G. UntergaBrnair, 'Zur Problematik der lukanischen Passionsgeschichte: Jesus vor Herodes (Lk 23.6-12)" Schrift und Tradition. FS 1. Ernst, eds. K.
Backhaus, F.G. UntergaBmair (paderborn, Munich,Vienna: R Schilningh, 1996),273-92;
for bibliography on 23.7-12 see Schneider, 'Verfahren',1l9, n.43.
139 Nolland, 1123 argues for a close nexus of v. 9 and 10: 'Jesus is questioned by Herod
about the accusations leveled at him by the chief priests and scribes'.
134
Ill. The Gentile ellcounter with salvalioll
accusers and their charges seriously. Despite their vehemence, nothing is said
of any interaction with them. Herod simply ignored them while pursuing his
own interests: His goal for this encounter was not a fair trial or administration ofjustice to his subject. Initially he rather wanted to see some good performance of Jesus140 and to satisfy his curiosity. When this failed he did not
examine the charges brought against Jesus or question him but turned to
ridicule and entertainment at Jesus' expense. In addition to portraying his
moral-ethical failure as a judge (ct. Luke 18.1-8), Herod's behaviour indicates that he again failed to appreciate Jesus' identity, the aim of his mission
and the occasion and purpose of his works (cf. Luke 5.26; 7.16; 11.16,29-32).
As Blinzler indicates, Herod understood Jesus and his ministry naturally
and only according to his own pagan categories. As these were insufficient
and misleading, Herod completely failed.
2. As Jesus failed to comply with Herod's ideas of the nature of their encounter141 , Herod's attitude changed quickly. He and his soldiers started to
treat Jesus with contempt (tl;O'IJitevEo) and to mock him (t!l:n;aL~o) - illustrating and fulfilling the prediction of Luke 18.32 - even though Herod
found nothing in the accusations brought against Jesus (23.15). Nolland observes that such 'Mockery is no statement of innocence; it looks rather
more like a measured strategy, designed to undermine the public image of
Jesus without creating a direct confrontation'.1 42
The accused now also served Herod's previous wish and idea of entertainment in a different way: 'He treats Him as a crazy enthusiast, and gives
a mock assent to His claim to be king'143, probably presented by the accusers (ct. 23.2). Deriding and shaming the alleged pretensions of Jesus, Herod
140 His categorical denial of a resurrection (Luke 9.7-9) might imply that Herod did not
count upon a supernatural miracle but some kind of magic trick or sleight-of-hand. As
such he would have understood a real miracle. The Jewish magician Elymas of Sergius is
a parallel (Acts 13.6).
141 See Darr, Character, 163. Luke provides no explanation for Jesus' silence. Some indications are given: a) Jesus even condemned the Jewish generation asking for authenticating signs, not for entertainment (Luke 11.29). Herod never desired a sign that would
authenticate Jesus for him. Says No\1and, 1125: 'Jesus was critical enough of those who
demanded signs as proof ... , but Herod was a step further away; he simply hoped he
might see a good show'. b) John.'s previous indictment of Herod's sins and his call to repentance were still valid, though unheeded. Jesus had nothing to add to it. For other explanations see Nolland, 1124f.
142 P.1122. Compare the Graeco-Roman examples listed by Rapske, Paul, 283-312,pa5-
sim.
143
Plummer, 523; compare the fine portrait of the scene by Blinzler, Pro~ef3, 289f.
135
44
had an elegant robe put on him.1 Herod failed to realise Jesus' real kingship far beyond his own tetrarch's petty glory.1 45 To the very end Herod
sought to get entertainment out of this encounter; if Jesus refused to provide amusement, Her~d would see to it himself. Herod's scorn and contempt, his complete failure to understand the kingship of Jesus and his obsession with tasteless entertainment add to the spiritual failure indicated
previously.
3. Fmding that Jesus had done nothing to deserve punishment146 , Herod,
like Pilate, failed to release him.147 After this humiliating display and still
unexamined charges, Herod sent Jesus back to Pilate, likewise freeing 'himself of an awkward case'148, though Pilate had explicitly acknowledged
Herod's power of jurisdiction. Sending Jesus back to Pilate, Herod served
his own interests while relinquishing his right of jurisdiction and failing to
protect one of his subjects. Herod 'avoided direct responsibility for the
death of Jesus, and yet, by mirroring Pilate's indecision (both turn over Jesus rather then protect him) and backing him on Jesus' innocence, he
makes a powerful friend'.1 49 Herod again failed as a judge in pursuing nothing but his own agenda.
4. Pilate and Herod became friends (Luke 23.12)130, not by joint projects for the benefit
of their subjects or by common virtue. Both pursued and achieved personal goals. Their
friendship started the very day of their mutual denial of justice to an accused they both
considered innocent and of their mutual scornful treatment of his Jewish accusers. The
position of this note after vs. 6-11 indicates the relation of that friendship to their mutual
moralethical and spiritual failure. This comment adds to the character-sketches of both
men, to Luke's estimate of Gentile rulers (Luke 22.25; Acts 12.20;24.25-27; 25.9) and prepares for Acts 4.27.151
1401 Cf. Nolland, 1124: ' ... the mock investiture was the beginning point for the treatment with contempt and ridicule'. Such mockery was to point up 'the contradiction between grand claims and what appears to be powerlessness', Nolland, 1125. Blinzler,
Prozej3, 290: 'den als Spottkonig ausstaffierten ... durch die Spottkleidung deutete er an,
daB er den Mann eher fUr 11I.cherlich als gefll.hrlich halte'; cf. Brown, Death, 760-86,863-77
and the instructive parallel in Philo, Flacc 36-38.
14S Ct. Blinzler, Prozej3, 289f.
1.6 Cf. Luke 23.15; Walaskay, Rome, 12f; Darr, Character, 162-65.
147 Hoehner, 'Why',90 seems to claim that Herod's agreement with Pilate on the innocence of Jesus would absolve him from the responsibility of Jesus' death. Although it was
Pilate who eventually ordered Jesus' execution, Herod failed to acquit and release him.
Had this happened, Pilate would not have condemned Jesus.
148 Hoehner, 'Why', 88.
149 Darr, Character, 166; ef. Plummer, 523; Nolland, 1125.
ISO For their former enmity and the possible relationship to Luke 13.1 ef. Fitzmyer,
1482; Marshall, 857; Blinzler, Prozej3, 291.
IS1 These functions cast doubt on Fitzmyer's listing of this verse among 'Luke's inconsequential explicative notes' (1482). Wiefel, 391 (following M. Dibelius and Hl. Cadbury,
see Walaskay, Rome, 43,90, n. 22 for summary and other suggestions) provides no argu-
136
In this final scene of Luke's portrayal of Herod his response appears in

stark contrast to all the reader knows about the identity and miracles of Jesus, the nature of his kingdom and to the Jewish and Gentile examples of
positive response to him. Herod's shallow curiosity, his lack of comprehension of Jesus and his ministry and understanding of it in pagan categories,
his failure in administering justice and his contemptuous treatment of accusers and accused alike, his consistent pursuit of his own interest, his obsession with entertainment at any price and his disdainful mockery are indicative of a moral-ethical and spiritual disaster beyond or hardly amenable to correction.
If Luke indeed considered Herod to be a Gentile, no other Gentile is mentioned as often as Herod, nor are the references as evenly distributed in
Luke's Gospel as those to Herod; for no other Gentile is the moral and spiritual portrait so devastating. Whether Jew or Gentile, Luke's characterisation
of Herod alone casts doubt on some proposals for Lukan anthropology.
2.1.2.4. The Roman centurion (Luke 23.47)
Luke mentions a Roman ExatOvtaQXTl~152 witnessing the crucifixion and

its aftermath. It is unc1ear153 whether the centurion heard Jesus' prayer of
forgiveness (Luke 23.34) or his conversation with and promise to one of the
criminals (23.39-43) who already attested Jesus' innocence (ouMv (hmtov
EltQa;Ev).154 The officer surely a) perceived the three hours of darkness
during the brightest hours of the day155, b) witnessed Jesus' manner of suffering this most cruel punishment156 and c) heard his loud cry before his
death: 'Father, into your hands I commend my spirit' (23.46) which indicated 'the steadfastness of Jesus' commitment to God in the midst of his
suffering'.157 Taken together these events vindicated Jesus and generated a
ments for his claim 'Die Notiz ist fraglos unter dem EinfluB von Ps. 2.2 ... zustande gekommen', similarly WalasKay, Rome, 43. Barrett 1,247 commen 15 tha t 'it would be unwise
... to say that Luke invented it in order to demonstrate a fulfilment which he does not
trouble to mention'; cl. also Blinzler's criticism in Pro'l.ejJ, 292.
15~ For his Roman identity see Blinzler, ProlejJ, 429, n.14.
153 Due to the expression ldwv ... 'to YEVOfLEVOV.
154 Against Fitzmyer, 1519.
155 Cl. Pobee, Trial, 95f,100; Sawyer, 'Eclipse'.
156 ef. H.F. Hitzig, 'Crux', RE IV, 1728.36f;1729.lf;1731.17-23; Kuhn, 'Kreuzesstrafe',
751-57. Jesus did ~g. not retaliate when abused by the religious leader and soldiers (cf. 1
Pet 2.23); compare the contrasting description of the usual behaviour of crucified people
in Blinzler, Pro'l.ejJ, 373 (cl. Luke 23.39). Blinzler speaks of Jesus' 'beispieUoses Sterben'
(374).
157 N oUand, 1159. Similarly Zahn, 706: 'Das von Kraft und Zuversicht zeugende Leiden
Jesu .. , macht auf den ... Centurio einen so tiefen Eindruck .. .'.
137
recognition in the centurion. He praised God by attesting to Jesus: 6

clv/}QO>ltOIO o1'i-r:olO 6(xaLolO.
1. The centurion did not address the God of Israel (EM1;a~ev 'tov {l-e6v Af.-yWV) as Jesus
had done (23.46: e'bu:v ... mheQ). Luke presents him praising God through or by his attestation lSS though the centurion himself was unaware of this significance of his statement. This is also apparent from his lack of any further action (see below). It is not indicated that he was a God-fearer and otherwise praying to God (ct Acts 10.1f: ae6f1vo~).
Lukan prayers in the infancy narrative and elsewhere need to be compared,specially the
close parallel in Luke 2.28f: eUMYTJOev 'tov i}eov xat Elm:v ... Man;o'ta.
2. N oUand, among others, argues that aLxaLo~ should be taken in its normal Lukan sense
of 'righteous'.I" We summarise his arguments: Luke never uses aLxaLo~ meaning 'innocent' elsewhere. Immediately after this occurrence Joseph is described as good and
6txaLo~ (Luke 23.50). The context suggests 'that the statement about Jesus as 6[)(aLo~ is
something about which God can be glorified'. Nolland rightly asks: 'Is God glorified by
the discovery that an "innocent" man has just been executed? Normally in Luke people
praise God when they recognise that God has been at work in and through Jesus'.\6Il In
addition, Luke here uses 6[)(aLo~ rather than the expressions employed by the criminal
or Pilate to attest Jesus' innocence; this is unlikely to be merely stylistic variation.
This Gentile drew a right conclusion. Through the miraculous darkness, Jesus' extraordinary mode of suffering, his prayer and death the officer came
to realise and acknowledge the righteousness of the man whose execution
he just oversaw161 : Jesus 'was a good man, and quite right in calling God His
Father'.162 The second half of this quotation probably credits the officer
with more than Luke wants to ascribe to him. The spiritual insight of the
centurion should not be overestimated.1 63 As the significance of the death
\SS Cf. BDR 418.5; c[ Fitzmyer, 1515: ' ... he "glorified God", as he acknowledged ...
the centurion's declaration of Jesus' innocence constitutes his glorifying God'.
159 Pp. 1158f. Following Kilpatrick (,Theme'; summary in Nolland, 1158; Doble, 'Problem', 321f), 6l)(aLo~ was often taken to mean 'innocent'. Nolland, 1159 also summarises
and critically evaluates Sylva, Temple' and Matera, 'Death' ,481-85. In Acts 0 6[xaLo~ becomes a christologica1 title (3.14; 7.52; 22.14). Fitzmyer, 1520 argues for two levels of
meaning: 'On the lips of the historical centurion, dikaios would have meant innocent. ...
but at Stage III [ct his p. viii] one can ask whether Luke may not have meant more .. .'; cf.
Brown, Death, 1163-67. A full discussion of aLX(lLO~ and its meaning, place and contribution to Luke's theology is provided by Doble, 'Problem' and Paradox, 25-160.
160 Cf. Luke 2.20;5.25f; 13.13; 17.15; 18.43;Acts 4.21; 11.18; 21.20. Fitzmyer,586: 'a characteristic reaction of persons in Luke's Gospel'; Marshall, 876: Glorifying God 'is a favourite cukan reaction to a revelation of divine power and mercy, and the estimate of Jesus which follows can be regarded as a praise to God for the way in which Jesus died'.
16\ Cf. Brown, Death,1166. The officer came from commanding Jesus' execution to acknowledging the righteouSness of the executed. With his previous actions and words he
failed to praise God and to recognise the nature of Jesus and of his death.
162 Plummer, 539.
16] So also Blinzler, ProzefJ, 374: 'Man bnlucht diese AuBerung gewiB nicht als ein
volles christliches Bekenntnis zu nehmen'. For its function in Luke's narrative see Blinzler, ProzefJ, 374; Brown, Death, 1164-67, for its significance for a Lukan theologio crucis
138
of Jesus and its interpretation is not a strong Lukan concern, it is unlikely

that Luke put crucial interpretations of the event on the lips of Jesus' chief
executioner. For Luke, Jesus' vindication is his resurrection. This caution
also applies to statements like: 'Jesus was no criminal but had died in accordance with God's will'I64, or, Jesus, not those accusing, condemning and
executing him, 'stands in the right relationship with God'.165 Possibly all
that the officer realised and that Luke wants him to express was that the
mockery of the Jewish leaders and of his soldiers, quite apart from appreciating the theological content of the former, was misplaced.
The context confirms our minimalist approach. There are no indications
of faith in Jesus beyond this acknowledgement, no reactions or further
steps such as remorse for his personal involvement (cf Luke 22.62), confession (cf. 15.18,21; 19.8), conversion166, the provision of a decent burial for
Jesus 167, etc. are reported for the centurion. This lack is difficult to explain
when his words are overemphasised.
1. The Jewish crowds also witnessed what had taken place and beat their breasts (Luke
23.48). Though as a sign of remorse or repentance their action is probably over-interpreted"", nothing like their reaction, whatever its exact nature, is suggested for the Gentile centurion.'69
2. For evaluation of his acknowledgement, comparison with earlier incidents of individual Gentiles responding positively to Jesus is instructive. His reaction was neither that of
see Doble, Paradox, 226-44. Apparently not all who magnified the name of Jesus in
Ephesus (Acts 19.17: Efl.Eycu.'liVETO) after 19.16 became Christians (19.18).
164 Plummer 539
165 Nolland, i159: with reference to Matera, 'Death',483. Fitzmyer, 1515 claims: ... he
recognises the meaning of the innocent death in God's plan'. Such far-reaching recognition of the plan of God and the significance of Jesus' death is not necessarily implied.
Similarly also Brown, Death, 1163-67.
166 Ernst, 490 discovers in this note 'Erstaunen, Ergriffenheit, und Bekehrung'; similarly also Brown, Death, 1166f.
167 This task is left to the Jewish council member Joseph and the disciples (Luke 23.5056).
168 Cf. Ernst, 490: 'in den Augen des Lukas sind sie ergriffene Zuschauer, die nicht nUT
Mitleid zeigen und Thauer, sondern spontan auch den Willen zur Lebenslinderung zum
Ausdruck bringen. Das "an die Brust schlagen" (18.13) ist Zeichen der Zerknirschung
und Ausdruck der Reue und frommen Verehrung' (similarly Grundmann, 435f ' ...
Trauer,die zur Umkehrfilhrt' and Brown,Death, 1167f: 'like the publican they beat their
breasts, implicitly signifying, "Be merciful to us sinners"'; for textual variants cf. p. 1168f.
Cf. Marshall, 877: 'the action is a simple expression of grief at the death of a victim of
execution, perhaps grief at his undeserved death; to read repentance into it is unjustified'. Fitzmyer, 1520 and NolIand, 1159 are undecided.
169 Against Brown Death, 1168 who suggests that 'The conversion of the crowds is not
a conversion on the level of that of the centurion, for they neither glorify God nor confess Jesus'.
139
his comrade in Capernaum (Luke 7.1-10), nor of the healed Gerasene (8.35,38), nor of
the restored Samaritan (17.15-19).170
3. Other commendable responses of Gentiles are also tied to supernatural events, e.g. the
repentance of the Ninevites occurred in response to the sign of Jonah (Luke 11.30,32;cf.
Acts 19.17-20). Luke's Gentiles generally responded to supernatural events, though usually within their frame of reference (Acts 14.11; 28.4-6).171 Yet they also gullibly accept
magic or forgery which was far from divine or truly miraculous (Acts 8.9-11; 13.6-8).
Walaskay argues that Luke 'uses the explicit statement of the centurion to further exculpate the Romans .... This centurion gives the final Roman verdict ... : "This man was
truly innocent"'.172 In its present context immediately following the death of Jesus, the
centurion's declaration is far from achieving this purpose. Rather his statement contains
the realisation that something had gone wrong! Jesus received something which he did
not deserve. Though Pilat~ repeatedly found Jesus innocent, he still condemned him to
death. This is the otJicwl and final Roman verdict.17J
2.1.2.5. The death of Jesus in retrospect (Luke 24.7,20; Acts 2.23; 4.25-27)
Luke 24.7. In the passion predictions Jesus was said to be handed over
El~
XEtQ<l~ avfrQWltOlV and "tot~ e-&vEOLv (9.44; 18.32). Following the description
of the circumstances of this It<lQa.bOOL~, Luke adds yet another characteristic to those involved in Jesus' death to further modify the XEtQ<l~ av{}QWltOlV. The angels declare that Jesus had to be It<lQ<l60{}fjV<lL el~ XE1Q<l~
avfrQWltOlV a,uaenoAwv.174 Though this designation of the participants also
includes Jews, the Gentiles Pilate and Herod with their subordinates demonstrated their sinfulness in their various moral-ethical and spiritUal failures surrounding the death of Jesus ap.d are now declared to be sinnersP5
People in general are sinners. The implicit understanding of sin is defined
l70The centurion did not react like the Philippian jailer, who witnessed the miraculous
vindication of his prisoners and immediately inquired what he must do to be saved (Acts
16.30).
171 Such a response is precluded for the centurion by the Jewish setting: Jewish Jesus
prays to the Jewish God outside Jerusalem in the presence of Jewish crowds.
tnRome, 45.
173 Fitzmyer, 1519 recalls the centurion's position: ... he is a mere subordinate, for
Pilate is in the pretorium'. The official verdict is alluded to in Luke 23.52: Pilate, under
whose authority Jesus was crucified, decreed over Jesus' corpse (cf. above for Weatherly's observation on 23.52).
174 Omitted by Codex D and ltala;NTG, 242; cf. Mark 14.41.
175 Evans, 896 sees the expression as probably referring to Jews, 'who in Acts 2.38 are
exhorted to repent of the crucifixion'. Sanders, Jews, 10 without further discussion takes
it to refer to the Jewish authorities. Meyer, 571; Weiss, 635; Godet, 585; ElIis, 272; Leaney,
292 (with reference to Jewish parallels) take it to refer to Gentiles. No longer is ufluQ"tooM~ used as previously in the context of an inner-Jewish debate, e.g. Luke 5.8,30,32;
18.13; cf. Green, Thf!ology, 84-86 and the discussion in Neale, Righteous, 68-97,152f who
assigns Luke 24.7 among 'other places in Luke afluQ"tooAot is nothing more than a term
of derision'.
140
by their action of crucifying Jesus: 'Die Sunder sind hier nicht die Heiden
im Gegensatz zu den Juden, sondern die Menschen im Gegensatz zu Gott
und seinem Gesandten'.176 This understanding of sin Is inners and its implications transcends an moral-ethical understanding of sin.
Luke 24.20. The disciples reported how the chief priests and leaders
handed over Jesus for the sentence of death. Doing so ECTtauQ(J)crav ain:6v,
they 'had him crucified')77 In the preceding chapter the reader learned
who was involved: the religious leaders handed Jesus over to the Romans to
have him condemned. Once this occurred, the Romans carried out their
own sentence. Mention of Pilate and the Romans beyond reference to the
mode of execution is unnecessary or even tautologous. 178
Acts 2.23 again mentions the Gentiles and their contribution to the murder of Jesus. He was crucified and killed c5ui X.ElQo~ UVO!l(J)v)79 The Jewishness of the audience is emphasised in 2.22, in opposition to this group avo!l0~ occurs referring to Gentiles. ISO The passion account indicates that the
Gentiles were not mere Jewish instruments but fully responsible and committed participants.
1. Luke's stress on the Jewish responsibility for the death of Jesus in Acts 2.36; 3.15,17 derives from the audience of these charges: Peter addresses Jews to lead them to a proper
recognition of their involvement in the rejection of Jesus. Elaboration on the Gentile involvement in Jesus' death would not further this goal. Therefore Pilate's participation in
the event (3.13) is only mentioned in passing. When the guilty Jerusalemites (cf. Luke
23.13,23) are no longer addressed, the presentation is more balanced. 2. Within the
church Jewish and Gentile responsibility appears balanced (Acts 4.25-27).3. In Pisidian
Antioch Paul simply reported how the 'residents of Jerusalem and their leaders' condemned Jesus. m Though they found no cause for a sentence of death, they asked Pilate
176 Blinzler, Prozef3, 430
(italics mine). This understanding is spelt out in Acts 4.25-27.

Fitzmyer, 1564.
178 It is not surprising that disciples who from the early Galilean days onward knew of
the hostility of the religious leadership towards Jesus would mention them in a summary
as chief agents; against Sanders,lews, 10 (also pp. 229f). Sanders rightly observes that 'it
is probably not Luke's intent to absolve "the people" of guilt' and provides good explanation for the disciples' shortened version of events (p. 68).
179 In Luke 22.37 iivOfLO~ it is better translated as 'criminals'; cf. WB, 143.3. lbis also
seems to be the sense in Isa 53.12; cf. Bock, Proclamation, 137-39. Acts 13.28 mentions
Pilate as representative of the clv6fLOlV. For the theological significance of this designation cf.II.3.1.
180Wilckens, Missionsreden, 125 equates this expression with that of Luke 24.7
(Civfrg<OltOL clfLagtOlAot). This misses the preceding direct address of Peter's Jewish audience; against Sanders,Jews; 10, for whom the identification of clv6fLOlV as referring to the
Romans is 'by no means certain in view of the similar phrase in Luke 24.7 ... which seems
to refer to the Jewish authorities'.
181 The contrast no longer is 'you did - but God' (Acts 2.23: clvElAatE; 36: "(Let,. Em:a"UgwOatE; 3.14f: "(LEr~ TJQv,;oao{}E, uti)oaa{}E, cl:n:ElttELvaTE).
177
141
to have him killed (Acts 13.28/)182 and Pilate granted their request.l'" Weatherly concludes: 'The text betrays no interest in protecting Pilate from a share of the responsibility,
though clearly it is primarily concerned with the responsibility of Jerusalem'.'" 4. Neither Jews nor Romans are charged in Paul's temple speech or his defence before Festus
(ct 26.23). The stress in ascribing responsibility depends on the occasion and audience
when the topic is addressed.'8S
Acts 4.27 applies the preceding quotation to the united action of Jews and
Gentiles against Jesus. God's authorised assessment of the Gentile world at
large (Ps 2.1f)186, is now extended to include Jews and applied to the recent
events. In truth, both Herod and Pontius PiIate187, with the Gentiles and the
tribes of Israel gathered together against God's holy servant and anointed
one.
1. Gentiles and Jews are portrayed as co-operating in this united hostile

gathering. 18B Our previous observations on the passion narrative have
182 Luke reports how the crowd directed its demands 'm;a1igou' at Pilate, indicating
their expectation that he would be the one to crucify Jesus; et Weatherly, Responsibility,
96. Sanders, Jews, 14 exculpates Pilate: 'Luke gives no indication that Pilate acceded to
this request'. While this is correct, the reader knows the whole of Luke 23, also Acts 13.29
sufficiently indicates that PiIate granted their request and had Jesus executed.
The considerable change in reference of the third person verbs in 13.29 from the residents of Jerusalem and their leaders (d JtJ..tigwoav, e-UQcv'te; il'tljoavco, v. 27f; E'tEAeOaV,
v.29) to the unnamed Joseph of Arimathea (xaiteAOvcE; ... E-Ihjxav plural; cf. Luke 23.53
third person singular verbs!) cautions against far-reaching conclusions from the occurrences of third person plural forms in the actual passion narrative (Luke 23.13-35; cf. e.g.
Walaskay, Rome, 44f).
183 et Barrett 1,641. It appears here as if without Pilate's consent they could not have
killed Jesus.
184 In contrast to Jerusalem, in Pisidian Antioch the report of the circumstances of Jesus' death did not provide the basis for a call to repentance, rather they have become part
of Jesus' biography from which, as a whole, the audience is challenged to faith (Acts
13.38f).
185 This occasional character of the reference to the responsibility for the death of Jesus is repeatedly overlooked by Sanders, Jews, 13-15,240 who claims that from 'the Emmaus Road account, the accusations against the Jewish authorities become explicit and
remain so throughout Acts', p. 15. Sanders explains these differences between the passion narrative itself and these later charges with reference to Luke's anti-Jewish handling
of sources, p. 15.
186 Spoken by the Spirit through his servant David; ct our discussion of this quotation
in II.3.2.; cf. III.2.1.2.3.
!B7Luke identifies the plural form oL agxovce; of the quotation with Pilate, not with
the Jewish religious leaders whom he elsewhere designates by this expression (Luke 14.1;
23.13,35; 24.20; Acts 3.17;4.5,8; 13.27). For a more extensive treatment ofthis observation
see Weatherly, Responsibility, 92. A statement of the rebelliousness of the Gentile world is
expanded to include Jews; Luke does not expand a statement on Jewish obstinacy or one
related to the rejection of the prophets to include Gentiles.
188 Against WiIckens, Missionsreden, 133: 'Von einem Zusammenwirken beider in der
Tlltung Jesu ist nicht die Rede'. EVen the current threats to the church (reported in ch.4
and of Jewish origin) are associated with both groups ('tci; emEv..ci; av'tci.iv).
142
Ill. The Gentile encounter with salvalion
shown this summary statement of international, inter-ethnic and inter-religious co-operation against Jesus to be in agreement with the narrative. Also
in the light of Pilate's and Herod's portrayal and of the note of their nascent friendship (Luke 23.12), the charge of hostile cooperation is not unexpected. After repeated emphasis on Jewish guilt in the rejection of Jesus
(see above, occasioned by the audience of these charges!), this is - following the third passion prediction - Luke's most direct accusation of Herod.
Pilate and their subordinates of their involvement in the rejection of
Jesus.1 89
2. In addition to indicating co-operation, this verse also offers a theological
interpretation of the passion events. In contrast to those praying (Acts 4.2430), (Jews and) Gentiles failed to recognise, appreciate and honour Jesus,
his identity, position, and mission. Their gathering and ensuing action was
not mere moral-ethical failure, they plotted and rebelled against God's
anointed. Through use and application of the quotation the present Gentile
participation in the rejection of Jesus, far from being downplayed or excused, is understood as yet another act of the direct Gentile rebellion
against God known from the past.
Further incidents of this co-operation and rebellion are described later
in Acts. Jewish-Gentile united resistance surfaces again in their co-operation against Jesus' followers. The Gentile intervention against the Christian
mission, which was likewise divinely appointed, indicates further Gentile
rebellion against God. Luke sees Gentiles of the past and of the present in
rebellion against the representatives and means of God's saving purposes.
This assessment points to a deep spiritual failure and need of the Gentiles.
After the passion narrative it is not surprising that Luke 'does not say here what any of
the parties mentioned did to Jesus'.19O Though Sanders claims rightly that 'This passage
could ... hardly be cited as evidence that Luke intended to designate the Romans and
not the Jews as the executioners of Jesus', the passage describes both groups as sharing in
the rebellion against God. In the light of Acts 4.27 it is wrong that nowhere 'does Luke
189 Before the prayer goes on to identify the culprits in an encompassing universal
manner (cUv ffrvEOLV), God's sovereignty and role as creator is acknowledged (Acts
4.24). Walaskay, Rome, 43 argues that when quoting Ps 2.lf in Acts 4.25-27, Luke only
states 'exegetically that all the powers of the world were arrayed against Jesus' and the
verses are dismissed (cf. our n. 151!). Thus W. concludes that 'Pilate and Rome are ultimately innocent of Jesus' blood' (44). Yet whether Luke reports what he takes to be historical events or merely states 'exegetically', his readers would understand Luke as holding both Jews and Gentiles accountable for Jesus' death. Against the older view adopted
by Walaskay, the historicity of the scene in Luke 23.7-12 is defended by NoUand, 1122;
Blinzler, Prozep, 292; Hoehner, Herod, 227-30; cf. also Marshall, 854f. The passage should
not be dismissed that quickly.
190 Sanders,Jews, 14, also for the following quotations.
2. The Gentile encounter wilh salvation
143
stray from his consistent portrayal of the Jewish religious authorities as those who plotted and carried out the crucifixion of Jesus ... '.
3. Both groups were God's instruments in fulillling his predetermined purposes (Acts 4.28: <Saa ~ XEtQ aou Kat 1] ~OUAi] :7tQOWQLaEV YEVEo{}m),191
Sanders tries to use this note to diminish the force of v. 27,192 Yet for Luke
human responsibility and guilt and the fulfilment of the plan of God go
hand in hand. Unconscious fulfilment of the plan of God does not absolve
the Gentiles from guilt.
Jesus' prayer indicates that such involvement incurred guilt requiring forgiveness (Luke
23.34).193 In Luke 2124-26 the Gentile treatment of Jerusalem, though a fulfilment of all
that is written (21.22), is followed by judgement over the nations (distress, confusion,
fear).194 Jews are indicted for their contribution to fulfilling this plan, called to repentance and threatened with judgement.'9s
Conclusion
Luke describes the Gentile participation in the death of Jesus and its nature. He ascribes to the Gentiles a significant share of the responsibility and
guilt. Therefore Luke's passion account should only be called 'anti-Jewish',
if one is to add that it also is 'anti-Gentile': Jesus was rejected and murdered at the hands of Jews and Gentiles together (Luke 18.32 (24.7); Acts
4.25-27). These two summary statements of participation and responsibility
bracket and summarise the account of the events. The mixture of positive
and negative Gentile responses to the ministry of Jesus has in the passion
prediction, its fulfilment and retrospective assessment given way to a bleak
negative portrait.
Luke's report indicates the moral-ethical failure of Gentiles. They denied
Jesus justice while releasing a murderer, they followed their own interests,
mocked and ridiculed Jesus and failed to take his Jewish accusers seriously.
Though Gentiles affirmed Jesus' innocence against his Jewish accusations,
they nevertheless co-operated to do away with him against this better
knowledge. While it is conceded that the people and leaders of Jerusalem
191 We turn to the question of divine predestination in the salvation of Gentiles in

IlI.3.3., where these references to God's plan and predestination in other areas need to
be considered, though predestination in one area does not necessarily imply its occurrence in the other.
192Jews, 14; for a summary of Sanders' arguments and refutation see Weatherly, Responsibility,92-94.
.
193 For its textual status and discussion see Fitzmyer,1503f; Brown, Death, 973-81.
194 Cf. II.2.7.; Fitzmyer,1350; Noliand,1005f.
195 Cr. Luke 23 .28-31; Acts 2.23,3640; 3.13-15,17-19,26; ct Barrett I,142f,154,156, 201-03.
144
have acted out of ignorance (c'iyvOLU, Acts 3.17; 13.27), these Gentiles acted
against their knowledge of Jesus' innocence.196 Their share in the events
and of the responsibility is not less despicable. Upon recognition of failure
by one Gentile participant (Luke 23.47), no steps were taken. The Gentile
treatment of and contempt for Jesus is embodied in their mode of execution and its realisation: they inflicted upon Jesus the cruellest and most
shameful punishment with all this entailed.1 97
The Gentile treatment of Jesus is also indicative of their spiritual failure.
The Gentiles involved completely failed to recognise Jesus' identity, the nature of his claims and his mission. In view of all that Luke wrote about Jesus
prior to the passion account a more extensive misapprehension (not just
lack of apprehension) and mistreatment of Jesus is hardly conceivable.
Their action is interpreted as a sinful rebellion against God (Luke 24.7;
Acts 4.25-27). The moral-ethical and spiritual failure of the two individual
Gentile protagonists in their treatment of Jesus agrees with Luke's previous references to them. 19B
The passages on the Gentiles and the death of Jesus indicate the complete moral-ethical and spiritual failure of the Gentiles involved. Such misapprehension and the ensuing demeanour indicate a serious spiritual deficiency and preclude linking Luke's soteriology closely with the natural capacities of Gentiles. The picture emerging from the Gentile encounter with
Jesus fully affirms our previous observations on Gentiles prior to faith.
2.2. Acts; The Christian Mission and the Gentiles
2.2.1. Introduction
In Luke's Gospel the number of incidents of Gentiles meeting Jesus or the

salvation he came to bring are limited. At its end the disciples are charged
with the proclamation of repentance and forgiveness in Jesus' name to all
nations (Luke 23.47). The opening verses of Acts pick up these threads: The
196 The textually dubious concession of ignorance ov yag OroaoLv 'tL l'tOLOiiow in Luke
23.34 refers to 'the Romans who physically affixed Jesus to the cross but did not understand that they were doing this outrage to God's Son', Brown, Death, 973. It is problematic to apply this concession to Pilate and Herod who both held Jesus to be innocent, or
to expand it to the soldier's following mockery (23.36f); against Brown, Death, 973-75
who suggests a wider application of the concession and quest for forgiveness.
191 Against Schlitz, Christus, 31,36f; though we agree with his assessment on p. 41: 'das
Sterben Jesu als Konkretisierung einer bis ins lluBerste gehenden Abweisung und Verwerfung jenes Jesus von Nazareth dar'.
198The consistent depiction of both men illustrates Luke 22.25 (both 'E!;ovOLal;ov'te~
XlJgLeUOVOW' over John and Jesus; cf. Fitzmyer, 1416f). The attitude and demeanour of
Gentile rulers serve as a negative example in paraenesis.
145
disciples will be Jesus' witnesses to the ends of the earth (Acts 1.8). In this
section we study the encounters of Gentiles with salvation and the Christian message. Again our concern is: what can be concluded from their reaction and response to their state prior to faith?
In addition to these incidents we shall gather into one excursus the references to Luke's
portrayal of the nature and behaviour of Gentile crowds. l " This section includes the missionaries' encounters with the demonic in various fonns regarding Gentiles. We have not
presented this material in a section of its own for two reasons: a) As we include these instances in this section, deal with Luke's references to the devil and the state of Gentiles
in III.3.2.1.2.3. and discuss Luke's view of demonic interference in the Gentile appropriation of salvation in III.332.4., further fragmentation is not advisable; cf. 1.3.3. b)
'freatment in the present section follows Luke's thought. The devil, demons, possession,
ete. do not occur for their own sake but only as linked to salvation and deliverance. Our
observations from these incidents and our previous insights (including Luke 6.17; 8.2639; Acts 8.7-11) will be summarised in III.2.2.l7.2.
2.2.2. Philip's ministry in Samaria (Acts 8.4-13)200
Philip was among those going from place to place EuaYYEAL~6JlEVOL -rQV
.A.6yov. Yet to the Samaritans EX~Q\JaaEv a\,..cor~ -rov Xeun:6v. This title,
used with the definite article, suggest that such a figure was known and ex"
pected by this audience. 20l The crowds listened eagerly as they witnessed
Philip's signs (v. 7). Great joy arose. They believed Philip's proclamation of
the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus as .the
Christ202 and were baptised. Even Simon believed, was baptised and stayed
with Philip (:TtQoaxaQ"tEQwv; et. Luke 8.38)203, greatly amazed at the signs
that took place.
199 III.2.2.8.2., conclusions include the relevant material from 11.3.4.-11.
200 We already studied Simon's demeanour and claims and the quasi-idolatrous response of the Samaritans which forms the negative backdrop to Philip's ministry and
proclamation and its reception (Acts 8.9-11, II.3.4.). In IY.3.4.1. we shall examine Acts
8.18-24.
201 ct. the different designation of this person in Athens (Acts 17.18). Luke did not
mention such Samaritan expectations previously (et. John 4.25). Probably Luke 17.11-19
does not contain messianic overtones. On Samaritan messianic expectation see Dunn,
Baptism,63 and Macdonald, Theology, 362-71, 458 and his General Index s. v. 'Messiah',
'Taheb', 476.479.
202 ct. Pesch 1,273; Barrett 1,408: 'Attention continued and at a certain point became
faith ... The name of Jesus is a tenn for the active power of Jesus, visibly at work in the
healing of disease and in the spiritual healing also'. Dunn's rejection of the genuineness
of their conversion (Baptism, 64), though attractive for vs. 12f, becomes problematic
later: the apostles seem to assume the Samaritans' genuine conversion,no re-evangelisation or correction is mentioned before the apostolic prayer, laying on of hands and reception of the Spirit. The latter would hardly have been fooled.
203 Cf. Taeger, Mensch, 117,n. 457 (on :7t!!OOeXEW see pp. 152f,214).Dunn, Baptism, 65f
argues against Simon's genuine conversion. Ct. Marshal!, Power, 97f, 238, n. 15; Pesch I,
1.46
Ill. The GerllLie encou/lIer
WHiz salvaLLuri
The insertion (8.9-11) compares and contrasts these events with their
previous response and allegiance to Simon: 'they listened eagerly to Simon
because for a long time he had amazed them with his magic'. Their former
response and allegiance does not mar their positive response to the gospe1.204 The Samaritans did not believe in Philip or his works among them
but in him as EiJaYYEAL~0/lEVq>.20S They believed Philip the evangelist who
came with a different message, pointed away from himself and to the kingdom of God and Jesus and did not claim that 'he himself was someone
great'.206 This is in contrast to their previous demeanour when they followed Simon's person and claims. Despite their previous devotion to and
acclamation of Simon, they did not acclaim Philip as an even greater manifestation of the power of God (ct Acts 14.11).
This exemplary response is somewhat surprising in view of their depiction prior to faith.207 The Samaritans understood the Christian proclamation, rightly appreciated the accompanying signs and believed that Jesus
was the Messiah. Does Luke explain this? These Samaritans had Jewish
neighbours and interacted with them (et Luke 9.52-56; 17.11; Acts 9.31)
and shared elements of their faith and their messianic expectation (ct Luke
17.13-15). In addition, it can be assumed that at least some of them were familiar with the teaching and works of Jesus. 20B Persuaded by Philip's proclamation and the superior miracles in its support (which amazed even
magic Simon himself, 8.13), they realised that the Jesus whom Phili"p proclaimed as Christ was the real Messiah, not Simon whom all of them had
mistakenly identified as such or a similar figure and who only now was unmasked in his pretensions through his lack of power over demons and disease.1\vo conclusions arise:
274f and the discussion in Barrett 1,409. Dunn, Baptism, 63 also suggests that there are 'a
number of reasons for believing not only that their response and commitment was defective, but also that Luke intended his readers to know this'.
204 Against Dunn, Baptism, 64t.
205 Barrett 1,408; cf. the conclusions of Dunn, Baptism, 65.
206 Taeger, Mensclt, 214 says: 'Ein Blick auf 8.5ft. zeigt, daB zwar die Menge gleichermaBen auf Philippus und Simon achthat (Y. 6.10f.), aber im Fall des Christen Philippus
richtet sich das Interesse auf das, was dieser sagt, und dadurch werden die Leute gewonnen (Y. 12), wahrenddessen Simon die Aufmerksamkeit wohl fUr geraume Zeit durch
seine Zaubereien auf sicb, seine Person, ziehen kann, docb gegen die christliche VerkUndigung letztlich nicht ankommt'. Similarly Pesch I,274f.
207 'Es handelt sich urn einen Massenerfolg, wenn auch 1tav1:~ hyperbolisch zu verstehen ist', Bauemfeind, 139. All the way through the subject of the third person plural
verbs (btL<TtEllaaV, E~a1t1:[!;OV1:o) is 1taV1:E~ cmo !1L"Qou EW'; jJ.Eyw..OlJ. The apostles heard
that Samaria had accepted the word of the Lord (8.15). Acts 9.35 reports a similar mass
conversion through a miracle in Jewish Lydda; cf. Schwartz, 'Peter', 392f and the repentance of the people of Nineveh (Luke 11.32).
208 Cf. Luke 6.17, III2.1.1.1. and 4.
147
1. As with Jews and God-fearers, among these non-Jews with such 'messianic' categories for understanding the true identity of Jesus the proclamation was properly understood and gained considerable following. Where
those categories are lacking, the picture is drastically different.
2. Philip's proclamation and ministry was necessary to provide the correct identification of the Messiah, unavailable and unattainable otherwise,
and to expose the previous blunder, which remained not only unrecognised
but was strongly believed. They had listened eagerly because over a long
period of time Simon succeeded in amazing them with his magic (Acts
8.11).209 It was only this message and ministry which exposed and overcame their mistaken veneration of a deceitful fellow-human being. Though
the above factors explain their exemplary and overwhelming response,
they previously failed to affect the Samaritan assessment of Simon; perception of the real state of affairs, encompassing salvation and correction,
came only with the Christian proclamation.
2.2.3. The Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8.26-40)
While not designated a God-fearer, this Ethiopian made a tremendous effort to find GOd. 21O He undertook a long and costly journey to worship in
Jerusalem. Even on the journey he read the Scriptures. Among the Gentiles
were people highly committed to searching for God and who were searching in the right direction (ct: III.3.3.3.3.).
This royal treasurer was educated and of high social status. 211 He was
committed and had been a long time 'on the right track', he was looking at
the right source and was reading it with care; yet even he failed to understand scripture on his own: 'Wirklich verstehen kannen den Propheten Jesaja nur die, denen das reehte Schriftverstandnis gegeben ist, die Christen.
Nichtchristen bedilifen der Anleitung zum Verstehen, der Belehrung'.212
209 According to Bauernfeind, 125 this note serves to: 'das kritiklose Verhalten der
angehenden Christen soIl begreiflich gemacht, gewissennaBen entschuldigt werden'. I
210 For the discussion of the man's religious status and the significance of this passage
in the structure of Acts (relation to 10.1-11.17) cf. Taeger, Mensch, 209f. On the purpose
of the eunuch's visit cf. n.R. Schwartz, 'On Sacrifice by Gentiles in the Temple of Jerusalem', in idem, Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity, WUNT 60 (Ttibingen:
J.C.B. Mohr, 1992), 102-16 and HengellSchwemer, Paul, n. 345.
211 Cf. Miiller, Lesen, 9,163, n.11.
212 Taeger, Mensch, 212 (italics mine); cf. MUller, Lesen, 10r. In this the Ethiopian was
no exception. Jesus had to open the eyes of the disciples to the necessity of his suffering
which was foretold by Scripture (Luke 24.25-27,44-47; for the parallels between Acts 8
and Luke 24 see Lindijer, 'Encounters'). The devout assembly on the day of Pentecost
failed to recognise the fulfilment of Scripture among them. The apostles argued continuously from Scripture that Jesus was the Messiah. Their message was not self-evident even
148
Even when asking the right questions, he failed to find answers by himself213 God provided this essential ingredient: Philip started with the explanation of this scripture and proclaimed the good news. It was only after his
questions were answered and the good news was shared with him that, in
accordance with the proclamation and reception of Jesus as good news, he
continued his journey rejoicing. This provision and its necessity indicates
the spiritual deficiency even of Gentiles who were already attracted to Judaism. Even such 'promising' Gentiles failed to understand God's special
revelation.
Despite this deficiency Luke stresses that Gentiles already acquainted with Judaism and
its Scriptures were the Gentiles of most positive response. The mission had its greatest
success among them (cf IlI.3.3.3.3.). Once it ventured beyond these confines of knowledge and acceptance of Scripture, this vital backdrop was lacking and severe misunderstandings occurred. 214 This silent but forceful tribute must not be overlooked in assessing
Luke's view of ludaism. Taeger writes:
Die Voraussetzungen filr ein erfolgreiches Bekehrungsgesprlich werden deutlich: auBer der in diesem Fall gegebenen gemeinsamen Basis der Schrift, der Bereitschaft,
sich belehren zu lassen, Interesse und Offenheit.21$
Except for the God-fearers, this common basis is not shared with Gentiles. 216 When
Scripture was shared with them in speeches based on Scripture (Acts 14.15-17; 17.22-31),
the response of Gentiles was at best limited. Likewise, except for God-fearers, Taeger's
other three ingredients (readiness to be taught, interest and openness) hardly occur. This
encounter is exceptional.
2.2.4. The conversion ofCornelius (Acts 10.1-11.18)

2.2.4.1. Cornelius and his preparations
Cornelius is characterised through his qualities (1), his prompt response (2)
and welcome of Peter (3).
1. Acts 10.2,22. Cornelius is introduced as an exceptional Gentile: He was a
devout (EUcrE~Tj~) man who feared God with all his household, gave many
for the serious yet unbelieving readers of Scriptures. Even once openly proclaimed, it
was not accepted by all. More than mere information was involved. Luke repeals differences between various people: All those familiar with Scripture first need their eyes
opened to fully appreciate it.
213 MUller, Lesen, 12. Compare his Lukan 'Lesemodell', pp. 84-92. In his all too brief
treatment Mtlller does not draw anthropological conclusions from Acts 8.26-40; cf. my
review in NT 39, 1997, 197-99.
214 Lindijer, 'Encounters', 84: ... it is to be found in the Old Testament; all people who
are on their way, Jews as well as Gentiles, must go via these Scriptures'.
215 Mensch, 212.
216 Gentiles lack special revelation; cf. 11.3.1., III.3.2.2.2.
149
aims and prayed constantly to God. V. 22 further characterises him as

~txaLO~, God-fearing and well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation.
4>o~eLo{}aL with God as object also occurs in Acts 10.35; 13.16,26.
Whether the expression is used here as a technical term or as a description
of piety nee\i not concern US. 217 Unless the expression itself identifies him
as 'attached or favourable to the synagogue'2ls, such adherence is not explicitly stated. 219 Yet his fear of God and prayers to God clearly indicate his
Jewish orientation. Almsgiving and prayer were crucial expressions of Jewish piety220 and indicate the seriousness of his commitment. 221 Through his
contact with Judaism, Cornelius knew of, feared and revered God. F. Blass
rightly notes on ~LXaLO~: 'sensu Iudaico, observans praecepta Dei'222, again
stressing the Jewish connection. dLXULO~ was previously applied to commendable Jews (Joseph223, Zechariah, Elizabeth, Simeon; Luke 23.50; 1.6;
2.25). They rejoiced over the coming of God's salvation (1.77-79; 2.3032). 224 1his characterisation does not preclude the need of salvation; rather
those thus qualified immediately welcomed the good news of its arrival.
Luke has previously introduced other Gentiles of exemplary response
and piety (Luke 7.1-10; 17.11-19; Acts 8.26-40). They had in common that
they were already associated or familiar with Judaism. They shared essential parameters for understanding the Christian proclamation. These commendable Gentiles appear in contrast to the usual characterisation of Gentiles prior to faith.
217Barrett 1,499-501 discusses the expression and concept. See also K.G. Kuhn, H.
Stegemann, 'Proselyten' ,RE S IX,1266; Blue, 'Acts', 17&-83; Gempf, 'Appendix'; SchUrer,
History Il1.1, 150-76. For Graeco-Roman occurrences of E-UOE~';~, K"tA. cf. W. Foerster,
Th WNT VII, 175-78, NT occurrences on pp. 180f.
218 Barrett 1,500.
219 Neither is his attendance necessarily implied in the expression "tq) Aaq) for the recipients of his alms. On his fasting, mentioned by some manuscripts, see Taeger, Mensch, 60,
n.230,
220 Cf. Schneider n, 65, 'n. 48; R. Bultrnann, ThWNT Il, 483 and the excursus 'Die
altjUdische Privatwohltlltigkeit', SIr.-B. IV.l ,536-58. For a comparison of Cornelius' prayers in 10.2 and 10.46 cf. Horst, Proskynein, 247.
221 Schneider n, 65: 'Er gehort nicht nur zu jenen heidnischen Sympathisanten der
jiidischen Religion, sondern tut sich auch in der Frommigkeit hervor, indem er Almosen
gibt und bestllndig betet'.
222 Acta, 127; similarly Pesch 1,340 "'fromm" im Sinne der atl. jiidischen Tradition';
against Taeger,Mensch, 60f, n. 231 who proposes a 'nattirliche Gerechtigkeit'. On the nation of 'righteous Gentiles' see also Donaldson, Paul, 65-69.
223 Fitzmyer, 1526: 'an upright and law-observing Jew'.
224 Cf. Brown, Birth, 257f, 267f (n.13!),452f,625. Such previous occurrences define the
meaning of the word and guide the readers. These righteous Jews are also characterised
by their observance of the Law; ct Acts 13.39.
150
Likewise Cornelius' firm Jewish orientation is the backdrop to our passage. It is not any arbitrary type of EuaE~ELa, of which Luke also knows
(Acts 17.23; 19.27; EuaE~Eoo, aE~CLaf.LCL), which leads to such positive assessment It was Cornelius' prayers to the living God and his alms to the Jewish
people225, following Jewish practices of piety and charlty226, that were recognised by God; not any Gentile prayer, piety or charitable expression. 227
Cornelius was not a devout pagan and benefactor like others in Caesarea. 22S Cornelius is not a typical Gentile, but as Jewish as a Gentile can be
without ceasing to be Gentile. It was this concrete example that led to Peter's conclusion in Acts 10.35.
Taeger suggests that EuaE~~~ 'bezeichnet eine personliche Qualitat. Neben und zusatzlich zu CPO~O'\if.lEVO~ stehend (10.2), solI damit der lobenswerte religiOse Eifer des Heiden unterstrichen werden'.229 Yet as we have
seen this lobenswerte religiOse Eifer des Heiden is exclusively expressed
within Judaism. This invalidates Taeger's conclusion: 'Indem er so den ersten Heiden, der in die Gemeinde aufgenommen wird, als "fromm" bezeichnet, wilrdigt er zugleich eine Religiositat, die man nicht nur als ohnehin mit einem Fast-Jude-Sein gegeben begreifen muB'Po An assessment
like Acts 10.4 is never extended to any Gentile religious activity.
2. Acts 10.4,7/,33. Though terrified by the vision, Cornelius responded in an
exemplary fashion to the angel. Cornelius' character is further shown in his

immediate obedience. Unlike Zechariah (Luke 1.18,20) or Ananias (Acts
9.13f), he neither voiced objections nor asked questions..
An euae~~'; soldier was sent immediately. Cornelius was unlikely to send someone not
sharing his outlook (cf. Acts 10.2: aVv navtL 1:4"1 0(;(4> au"J;Ou). This excludes the pagan
22S So Pesch 1,336; Conzeimann, Milte, 153,n.1;Blue, 'Acts', 182: 'publicly known in the
Jewish community as a benefactor'. For Caesarea's considerable Jewish population cf.
SchUrer, History Il, 115-18; I. Benzinger, 'Caesarea 10. Caesarea Stratonis od er Palaestinae', RE [Il, 1291-94; Levine, Caesarea, 22f, 61-106 and Roman Caesarea, 40-45.
226 Note the time of the vision; cf. Acts 3.1. Weiser,154: 'Der Hinweis auf die neunte
Stunde, niimlich eine Gebetszeit, hebt ebenfalls die religiose Disposition des Kornelius
hervor .. .'; for Jewish customs of prayer cf. Safrai, 'Religion', 800-04.
227For Gentile charity cf. Bolkestein, Wohlliitigkeit; Danker, Benefactor, 317-416.
Danker sees in Cornelius a 'typical Graeco-Roman benefactor' (445).
22lI On Caesarea cf. Schilrer, History ll, 115-18 (bibliography p. 115, n. 155); Benzinger,
'Caesarea'; Levine, Caesarea, 15-22; on the city's pagan community ct pp. 57-60 and
Levine, Roman Caesarea, 18-23.
229 Mensch, 60-62. We disagree with Taeger's (Mensch, 61) interpretation of this word in
Acts 17.23: 'Paulus tadell nicht die Religiositat der Athener, sondern nur deren falsche
Ausrichtung. Zweifellos bezeichnet das eUOe~eLV hier etwas Positives, das Verhalten der
vorglaubigen Athener, an das der Missionar ankniipfen kann'.
230 Taeger, Mensch, 62.
151
connotation this expression can also carry.m Full of expectancy Cornelius gathered a
large audience, believing 'that the divine message was not for him alone'.232 This gathering was already before God and eager to listen to all that God had commanded Peter to
say (10.34). Through the vision Cornelius recognised that Peter's message came from
God. A better point of departure can hardly be imagined. The contrast of this scene to
Acts 17.19-21 is striking.
3. Acts 10.25f Upon Peter's arrival Cornelius fell at Peter's feet and worshipped him (NRSV). That a more than acceptable gesture of welcome or
honour was involved in Cornelius' proskynesis233 is also apparent from Peter's response, which clearly upheld the distinction of divine and human.
Peter's verbal rejection of such adoration was accompanied by his action to
counteract the wrong intention.234 Luke repeatedly describes Gentiles
ready to give to other humans or to receive for themselves divine acclamation.235 In this exciting moment this failure surfaced in the otherwise im-
231 Acts 17.23; 19.27; cf. the discussion in Barrett 1,499-501. W. Foerster, ThWNT VII,
177.9-14 notes for Hellenistic Roman times that 'der weitere Bedeutungsumfang, nach
dem E-uoE~eLa allgemein die ehrfurchtsvolle Haltung zu den Ordnungen des Lebens
bezeichnet, ist dem Wort nicht verlorengegangen. So wird E-uoE~ELa in dieser Zeit auch
vom Verhalten .,. der Sklaven zu ihrem Herrn, der Legionen zum Kaiser .,. gebraucht';
similarly P. Fiedler, EWNT 1I, (212-14) 213 foI' Acts 10.7. Probably the religious connotation of its occurrence in 10.2 would lead the reader to assume the same here. Foster, 'Sergius', suggests that this devout soldier might have been crucial in preparing Cornelius for
Christianity.
232 Barrett 1,513.
233 Barrett I, 513f: 'considering him to be more than man'. For its significance in a pagan setting see Horst, Proskynein, 55-57, 116-121., 173, 191.
2J~ Though Peter performed real miracles (Acts 3.4-7; 5.12-16; 9.33f,40), he rejected
such homage. Peter's humility is in contrast to Simon's proud claims and Herod
Agrippa's acceptance of divine acclamation (Acts 12.22f). Peter's declaration of their
common humanity points to that of the missionaries at Lystra who rushed among their
'worshippers' to render worship and sacrifice impossible. The occurrences of nQoOltUVEW
in the LXX (cf. Horst, Proskynein, 25, 28, 52f, 61-67, 94[, 121-28, 135, 139, 142, 148-50) indicate that this gesture in itself is not necessarily pagan. Jews not only 'go down on their
knees' before God but occasionally also - like Cornelius - before other people, e.g.
prophets: the company of prophets saw Elisha and nQoOEltuVTJoav alrt(fl bd 1:~V yiiv (2
Kgs 2.15). Obadiah EnEOEV Ent nQcownov autoii before the prophet Elijah (1 Kgs 18.7;
Ios. ant. [uti VIII.13.4 331 reads nQoOElt-UVTjoev a-utcv; for further occurrences in Ios. cf.
Horst, 63f, 113-15, 126f and index, pp. 31Bf). The third captain sent to Elijah EXal-l"IjJEV Ent
1:0. ycvata autoii xm:EvavtL 'Rktou (2 Kgs 1.13; cf. Horst, lI5f). In none of these cases
was the gesture refused or criticised. In contrast, Peter's rejection of Cornelius' gesture
suggests that more than an expression of respect or honour was involved. Th us our argument for its pagan background.
2JS Compare Simon's claims and the recognition he received in Samaria (Acts 8.9f), the
acclamation of Herod Agrippa as divine (12.22f), the Lystrans' acclamation of the missionaries (14.11), possibly also the jailer's address of the vindicated missionaries as
ltUQLOL (16.30) and the considerations of the Maltese islanders (28.4-6).
152
Cornelius. 236
peccable
He now reacted in pagan categories to the vision
and the man it announced. Though he had already come a long way from
paganism, this Gentile response was still with him.237
The one pagan element surfacing in Cornelius' depiction is corrected
forcefully. This forbids overestimation of Cornelius' characterisation as
M'XaLoC;. The immediate correction of this failure forbids the conclusion
that the positive references to his piety also apply to pagan piety. Luke
clearly rejects the latter; where elements of it appear, they are immediately
refuted.
Such pagan misconceptions and responses were not automatically corrected or irrevocably deleted through prolonged association with Judaism
and its Scriptures. What was appreciated did not necessarily challenge or
replace deep-rooted pagan paradigms, nor did it prevent their recurrence.238 The Gentile receptivity to correction is limited. Peter's speech
contains further corrections of pagan concepts (CL III.2.2.4.3.)
2.2.4.2. Peter's surprised conclusion (Acts l0.34f)
Through God's supernatural arrangement and preparation of this encounter, Peter understood that God shows no partiality to the Jews: 'Gott schaut
bei der Zuwendung seines Heils nicht darauf, ob jemand Jude oder Nichtjude ist, sondern in jedem Yolk ist ihm willkommen, wer ihn fUrchtet und
Gerechtigkeit ilbt'.239 How is Peter's statement to be understood?
1. Cornelius was introduced as such a God-fearer; Peter's audience consisted of such. The singular references to God - "tov fteov, CLtJLOV, Acts
10.2,35 - indicate that this statement does not acknowledge any sort of pi236 Cf. Horst, Proskynein, 246f: 'bei der noch heidnisches Empfinden der Menschenvergotterung durchbricht ... diesen heidnischen Gehalt seiner Proskynese'. Though the previous description of the Jewish orientation of Comelius' piety and lack of explicit correction
demand caution, Horst suggests 'hellenistischen Stimmungsgehalt' for the vision itself: 'Sie
ist auf seinem religiosen Heimatboden die Epiphanie eines 1!aumorakels, deren Weisung
auch entsprechend mit ~XQl]lla'tLa&rj wiedererzahlt wird (22) .... daB Cornelius in diesem
FaIle eine Selbstverstiindlichkeit darin sehen muS, vor dem ihm durch das Traumorakel
bezeichneten Manne, selbst wenn es ein Jude ist, die tiefste Form der Proskynese zu
vollziehen, als ob die Gottheit selbst in Petrus gegenwlirtig ware, da ja sein Erscheinen
die Erfilllung des Orakels anzeigt'.
237 Horst, Proskynein, 247 comments: 'Diese Mischung von jildischem und noch heidnischem Empfinden bei einem qJo~oullevo~ 'tov {tEOV ist durchaus bezeichnend'.
238 Cf. Lieu, 'God-Fearers', 333f; the initial depiction of Comelius would call in question some of Lieu's observations.
239 Weiser,156; Schneider 11,75: 0 qJo~ouIlEvo~ a:tHOV is 'nicht terminologisch, sondern
im Sinne des atl. Frommigkeitsideal zu verstehen'; cf. H. Balz, ThWNT IX, 197-99,208f.
Weiser, 157 writes: 'Auch in dem biblischen Ausdruck "Gott fOrchten" dominiert nicht
das schreckhafte Element, sondern die Bedeutung: ihn im Vollzug seines Willens ehren'.
153
ety andlor fear of gods or of the numinous. On Luke's pages only Gentiles
associated with Judaism already know and fear God. Cornelius, from whose
case Peter drew this conclusion, represents this group, not the Gentile
world at large.
2. 'EQYCl~6f.'EVOL 5LXClLOoVVTJV refers to moral-ethical behaviour like that of
Cornelius which was previously defined in Jewish categories. People like
Cornelius were EQYCl~6f.'EVOL 5LXClLOOUVTJV. 240 That this characterisation
does not negate the need of salvation becomes apparent in Cornelius' pagan reception of Peter. Peter's conclusion is not a general assessment of
Gentile ethics but an acknowledgement that the group of people fulfilling
these requirements is not confined to ethnic Jews. Luke introduced several
non-Jews who feared God, did what was right and were accepted by God
(Luke 7.1-10; 17.11-19; Acts 8.26-40).
3. The context also indicates how 5EX"t'6~ is to be taken. God recognised Cornelius' attitude and deeds: 'God looks with favour upon those who so far as
they know him fear him, and so far as they know what righteousness is practise it'.241 Yet in themselves this attitude and deeds were not sufficient Despite Cornelius' devotion and correspondent lifestyle, God arranged that
Cornelius heard the gospel. 242 Cornelius heard in the vision that he and his
household will be savecf243 through hearing and accepting the Christian message (Acts 11.14: Q~f.LCl"tCl ... Ev o~ oc.o1'HJcrn). Cornelius still needed salvation.
The Spirit only came upon the audience as they heard that forgiveness of sins
through Jesus' name is available to those who believe in him.244 Severianos
of Gabala concludes: oux E\.:n;EV, EV :7tClV"tL e-BvEL " :7tOLWV 5LXClLOcruVTJV
aW~E"tCl1., uAAa 5E~"t6~ EU"tL. "tOU"tEU"tL, a!;LO~ YLVE"tClL "tou ~EX'fiiiVClL.245 Peter's
programmatic statement foreshadows the course and results of the Gentile
mission and should be understood in light of the following chapters (cf. the
enumeration and conclusions for the God-fearers in III.3.3.3.3.).
240 Says Weiser, 156: 'Der positive Teil ist in Anlehnung an die religiose Charakterisierung des Komelius (10.2,4,22,31) und an Ps 14.2 LXX forrnuliert'.Ps 14.1 LXX asks
who may abide in God's tent and who may dwell on God's holy mountain. Similar to
Acts 10.34, the answer (v.2) does not follow ethnic categories: '1togElJ6J.1vo~ ii~w~o~ xat
gya~6~Evo~ c'lLXaLOoVVI']V,AaAWV aAijitELav EV xagc'lL\l airtoil'.
241 Barrett 1,498; et. Acts 10.4.
242 Barrett I, 503 observes: 'God is about to take action on behalf of Comelius by
bringing him within reach of the Gospel. He does this, one might say, because Comelius
has shown by his devotion and his charity that he deserves it' (italics mine).
243 Iwi}ijan is passive. There is no indication that this proclamation will merely present
the opportunity to respond; cf. Acts 2.40: be saved (awit-rj"tE); 16.30.
244 Ct. Dunn, Baptism, 79-82.
24S 4.15. century A.D. (cf. A. Olivar, LThJ(2 IX, 698f), in Calena on Acts 10.4 (from Cramer, Calenae Ill, 173).
1..)4
111. Ihe GenLlie encounler wuh saivallon
2.2.4.3. Peter's proclamation and its consequences
1. Acts 10.36-43. Some comments on Peter's proclamation suffice. 246

1.1. The affirmation of the universal lordship of Jesus (Acts 10.36:
ltavtwv XUQLO~) contains criticism of Gentile notions: Such correction was
probably not misplaced before a Gentile audience, whose best representative had just betrayed Gentile misconceptions. Barrett calls it a 'not
unfamiliar phrase ... and Luke's readers may well have met it in both religious and political settings'.247 This designation ofJesus (cf. the summary of
the Christian proclamation in Acts 11.20: E-uaYYEALtOf.!EVOL "tov XUQLOV '1'1]crotiv) challenges and corrects Gentile notions: Jesus, and no pagan deity or
mortal is the nclv-rwv "vQtO~.248 Set in the Eastern Mediterranean and in
the house of a Roman officer, this christological title could be a refutation
of the developing Emperor cult. 249 The nature of this correction illustrates
Gentile failure; its necessity indicates their spiritual state.250
1.2. The message that was to save the audience (through hearing and accepting it, Acts 11.14) was essentially a summary of Jesus' life and an interpretation of its significance. The shape of Peter's sermon reflects that 'there
is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given
among mortals by which we must be saved' (Acts 4.12). Peter elaborates on
this name. Saving knowledge of this kind is inaccessible to Gentiles. Only
the Christian proclamation can bring it about. It cannot be attained in any
other way.
1.3. The risen Christ commanded the apostles to preach to the people of
Israel (Acts 10.42). Yet as Jesus was ordained as judge of the living and the
dead251, the scope widens beyond Israel.
For conclusions from etQTtvTt in Acts 10.36 ct. III.3.2.2.4.

1,522, with quotations from Plutarch and Epictetus.
248 Cf. Strecker, Theologie,424 on Acts 7.59f; 11.17,20; 16.31; 20.21; WB, 933.2.b.; W.
Foerster, ThWNT II, 1045.14-1056.26 (Gotter und Herrscher als KUQLot); Spicq III,34446,350 for Graeco-Roman occurrences; E. Williger, 'Kyrios', RE XII, 176-83; D. Zeller,
'Kyrios', DDD, 918-28; J.w. van Henten, 'Ruler cult', D DD, 1342-52; D.L. Jones, 'Christianity and the Roman Imperial Cult',ANRW /1.23.2, (1023-54) 1024-28; Klauck, Umwelt
II, 17-74. The classical contribution of DeiBmann, Licht, (263-77) 263, speaks of a 'polemischen Parallelismus zwischen Christuskult und Caesarenkult'; cf. also Bousset, Kyrios,
240-46.
249 Cf. Fitzmyer, 20lf; cf. EWNT II, (811-20) 813, 819f.
250 This failure consists in ascribing characteristics or honour - only appropriate for
God or Jesus - to human beings (cf. III.3.2.2.2.1.).
251 Weiser, 158 observes: 'aber die Richterfunktion Jesu erstreckt sich auch auf aIle
Menschen (17.31). Der Gedanke der Universalitat des Richter-Seins Jesu beriihrt sich
mit der Universalitat des Herr-SeinsJesu Vers 36b ... '.
246
247
155
Delling suggests that this reference to the last judgement may have been
included specifically for the Gentile audience:
Beide,Juden und Heiden,haben BuBe und Vergebung notig angesichts des kommenden Urteilspruchs.JUdischen Horern ist der Gedanke eines eschatologischen Gerichts
nicht fremd; vor heidnischen Hiirern wird er betont (in 10.42 konnte Lukas bei seiner
Einfuhrung an die noch heidnischen Horer denken, den en die judische Eschatologie
weniger bekannt sein mag als der Monotheismus und die Ethik des Judentums ).252
The universalistic vein continues: navra 'tov :Ttw'tEuov-ca E~ a:u'tov may receive forgiveness of sins through his name (Acts 10.43).253 This is the climax
of the speech and point of divine interruption. The presence of sins and the
availability of forgiveness applied also to Peter's immediate audience. The
narrative assumes their response in faith to this offer. Acts 11.1-18 summarises the Gentile acceptance of the word of God. They believed in Jesus and
received this gift.
These verses permit several conclusions: The offer of God's forgiveness
to all people implies that sins are a universal human characteristic. 254 Any
attempt by Gentiles to propitiate for or otherwise deal with sin on their
own is dismissed. Removal of sins only comes through faith in Jesus. The
need and urgency of this forgiveness arises from the fact that God already
ordained Jesus to be the universal judge to whom all people are accountable.255 Unforgiven sins will lead to condemnation.
1.4. Cornelius, though positively described earlier and already 'fearing
God and doing what is right', had sins and had to hear of and appropriate
this salvation to obtain forgiveness. 256 With Cornelius, well prepared
through his association with Judaism, the proclamation fell on ready
ground, though some Gentile misconceptions still needed correction (cf. his
proskynesis, possibly a pagan understanding of lordship and lack of eschatology). Only through the present forgiveness of their sins through faith in
the Christian message, were Cornelius and his household saved from condemnation in the future judgement (Acts 11.14).
2. Acts 10.44-48. The Spirit fell on all who heard the word and authenticated
the identity of the new believers. Though otherwise commendable, the
91; cf. Barrett 1,528 and Acts 17.31.

Cf. Bock,Proclamation, (230-40) 237f.
Cf. Dupont, 'Conversion', 62f; 1. Navone, Themes of St. Luke (Rome: Gregorian Up,
1970),38-46.
255 Cf. Dupont, 'Conversion', 76.
256 Cf. Dupont, 'Conversion', 65f: 'Even when the apostolic preaching does not make a
special point of the pagans' sinfulness, yet it spontaneously conceives their conversion as
an act of repentance,so evident is it to the Jewish mind that all pagans are sinners'.
252 Kreu;z:estod,
253
25~
156
audience did not have this holy Spirit previously; CL IY.3.1.1., IY.3.2.1. They
had to receive it ab extra.
3. Acts 11.18. The believers in Jerusalem concluded that God has given to
the Gentiles (as Gentiles) the repentance that leads to life. 257 This concluding
interpretation of the event deserves careful study. We need to engage at
some length with the proposal of H. Conzelmann, as a) many scholars followed him in this (see below) and b) his proposal impinges on Luke's view
of the Gentile appropriation of salvation which will be our subject in sectionm.3.3.
Conzelmann argues, in short, that when Luke speaks of God 'granting
repentance' C-t~V ~"tclVOLUV ec5wKEv) itis not repentance itself that God
gave and needed to give. Rather God provided an opportunity for repentance, e.g. by bringing about the contact with the Christian proclamation. 25B
This proposal raises important issues for Lukan anthropology: Do people

need to receive repentance from God or can they repent of their own, once
the opportunity is made available? To clarify matters, we examine Conzelmann's argument in detail.
3.1. Conzelmann observes that the expression OOiivaL f.LE"tclVOLUV occurs
only here and in Acts 5.31, in which 'die f.LE"tclVOLU als Heilsgut, nicht als
Bedingung und Leistung erscheint'.259 Conzelmann initially identifies
f.LE"tclVOLU as a Heilsgut260 which is the plain meaning of both occurrences.
Yet he continues: 'Er [this expression] erweist sich bei naherem Zusehen
als gelaufige Redensart, deren ursprilnglicher Sinn nicht mehr gegenwartig
iSt'.261 Conzelmann does not explain how Luke's readers would have recognised that the traditional sense is no longer present.
3.2. Conzelmann then also finds the same use of the expression 'als
gelaufige Redensart, deren ursprtinglicher Sinn nicht mehr gegenwartig
iSt'262 in 2 Tim 2.25 and Pol. Phil.ll.4.
3.2.1. 2 TlID 2.25 speaks about Christian opponents (like those mentioned
in 2.171) who should be corrected with gentleness, because 'God may per-
251 Conclusions from the qualification of repentance as leading to life appear in

I1I.3.2.2.5.
258 Mitte, 92,214, n. 1; c( also Conzelmann,Apostelgeschichte,47 on Acts 5.31: 'Lk meint
- trotz der Ausdrucksweise - Gelegenheit zur BuBe, nicht, daB die BuI3e aIs solche Geschenk Gottes sei'.
259 Mitte, 92, 214, n. 4: 'Hier ist die BuBe als das geschenkte Heilsgut verstanden'. Conzelmann continues: 'In Anlehnung daran stehen lihnliche AusdrUcke Le 24.47 und act
13.38.... Act 13.38liegt popularisierte paulinische Terminologie vor'.
260 Later he writes: 'Der. alte, umfassende Sinn erscheint noch in Ausdrlicken, die Le
aus der nadition Uberkommt: act 5.31 und 1U8', Mitte, 214.
261 Milte, 92,214, n. 4; cf. Conzelmann, Aposleigeschichte, 47.
262 Mitte,92.
157
haps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth'. These opponents were held captive by the devil to do his will. In the light of this captivity and its consequences they needed to be given repentance itself
3.2.2. Polycarp closely reflects this situation and wording: quibus det dominus paenitenliam veram. However, Pol. Phi!. 112 seems to suggest that the avaritia of Valens and his
wife which needs repentan.ce had consequences which require more than an opportunity
for repentance ('ab idololatria coinquinabitur et tarnquam inter gentes iudicabitur, qui
ignorant iudicium domini').
3.2.3. In n. 4 on p. 214, Conzelrnann adds Barn. 16.9,!LE"t<ivOL(lV ()t.sou~ 1]!LLV. The surrounding context (16.7-9) and the immediate description of God's activity indicate more
divine involvement than provision of an opportunity: God 'fUhrt die vom Tode Geknechteten, indem er uns die TUr des Tempels, d.h den Mund, offnet (un d) uns BuBe gibt,
in den unverganglichen Tempel'.w Bam.16.9 begins with God's calling according to his
promise (T) xAfjm; (lu"to'ii tfj~ bt(lyyEll(l~).
Against Conzelmann we affirm that the original sense of the expression is

alive in these examples. 264 This negative conclusion regarding Conzelmann's supporting evidence casts doubt on his assessment of this expression. How does he think Luke and his readers understood this expression?
3.3. Conzelmann proposes that Luke understood the traditional expression as 'die Gelegenheit zur BuBe ist gegeben'.265 Before we turn to these
passages from Acts, we examine the references which Conzelmann adduces
to support his interpretation of OOUVaL flE1:cXVOLaV as the opportunity for repentance. Conzelmann refers to the Jewish origin of this expression.266 We
begin by examining his examples.
3.3.1. Only Wis 12.1O,19f combine /.lE1:aVOLa and OLOOJflL in the LXX. Wis
12.10 explicitly refers to an opportunity for repentance: EOLOO1J~ -r6nov
IlE1:avota~. This 1:o:rtDV 1l1:avota~ was futile: In judging the Canaanites before the conquest little by little, God gave them an opportunity to repent,
though he knew that their origin was evil and their wickedness inborn and
that their way of thinking would never change. For people thus qualified
the mere opportunity for repentance was insufficient.
In contrast, God has fIlled his children with good hope because he gave
them (OLooi:;) EnL clflaQ1:1jllaO'LV IlE1:cXVOLaV (12.19f). This gift is the founda-
26] Dad. D.A. Koch, in Lindemann,Apostolische Vilter, 67.

2114 These references for which we proposed the traditional usage occur in writings
most likely written after Acts; et. Bruce, 9-18 pace Schnelle, Einleitung, 303f,383-85. Polycarp's letter is usually dated to 135 A.D.; c( Lindemann,Apostolische Viller, 242; P. Meinold, 'Polykarpos', RE XXI, (1662-93) 1687.53-56; Altaner, Patrology, l11.
265 Mitte, 214, n.1; c( p. 92 and Apostelgeschichte,l11. Similarly Schneider n, 84; I, 396,
n. 94; c( Wilckens, Missionsreden,lB2.
266 Mitte, 92, n. 1.
158
1I1. The Gentile encounter with salvation
tion oftheir hope. A "C6no~ is not mentioned. Wis 12.19 relates God's gracious
dealings with Israel. Wis 12.20 returns to the Gentile nations: God punished
with such great care and indulgence the enemies of his servants and those deserving of death, granting them only XQ6vo1J~ Kat "Conov to give up their
wickedness (6L' mv cmaAAaywoL "Cij~ KaKta~; following the NRSV). While
God severely punished Israel's enemies he chastened Israel in mercy (vs.
21f). While Israel was given repentance for her sins, the nations were merely
granted time and opportunity to give up their wickedness. God gave to Israel
what merely was a futile opportunity for others. Both ideas, 'granting repentance' and 'granting an opportunity for repentance' not only appear as different concepts but are also expressed differently.267
This sharp and far-reaching distinction between God's dealing with Israel and the Gentiles in Wisdom indicates how revolutionary the events of
Acts 10-11 and the conclusion of Acts 11.18 were: Through these events the
believers concluded that God no longer grants to Gentiles only an ultimately meaningless opportunity for repentance but repentance as a
Heilsgut itseli They now receive what they could not obtain previously (cf.
the analysis of the Gentile state in Wis 12.10f).
The occurrences of1:ono~ (19 in Luke, 18 in Acts) indicate that this word
was at Luke's disposal. Though usually not occurring in the figurative sense
of opportunity, this is the case e.g. in Acts 25.16: the accused is given the
n'mov"CE cmoAoyLa~.268 Luke was able to express the idea of providing an opportunity for something if he chose to do so. He was not tied to traditional usage to express something he did not really mean. Against this Jewish backdrop the lack of1;ono~ in Acts 11.18 is significant and seems deliberate.
3.3.2. Sib. Or. IV.166-69 exhort:
Stretch out your hands to heaven and ask forgiveness for your previous deeds and
make propitiation for bitter impiety with words of praise. God will grant repentance
(~o,,; bWOEI I1E"tuvoluv) and will not destroy.'"
A time or opportunity for repentance is not mentioned. God's readiness to

give repentance is the foundation of this summons. The systematic or
chronological relation of this gift and human response is not addressed.
3.3.3. According to 1QS 3.1 whoever declines to enter into the covenant of
God (2.25) 'loathes the. restraints of knowledge of just judgement. He has not
267 Cf. Winston, Wisdom, 43-58,241, 243f; Reese, Influence, 19, 116,128; Goodrick, Wisdom, 262f, 269f.
268 Cf. Schille,444: "tono,,; 'von der Gelegenheit'; WE, 1640f.2.c. has 'Moglichkeit, Gelegenheit, AnlaB.
269 Translation according to J.J. Collins, OTP I, 388.
159
remained constant in the transformation of his life and shall not be counted
with the upright'. This reference does not relate human and divine activity in
this process of transformation. It refers not to repentance or conversion but
to an ongoing process of sanctification according to the community's ideals.
Whoever declines to enter obviously forgoes this opportunity.270
3.3.4. Philo writes that God does not visit with his vengeance even those
who sin against him, immediately, but that he gives them time for repentance, and to remedy and correct their evil conduct (All III.106). But again,
Philo is more specific than Luke's OOUVUL IlE"tclVOLUV: McSwm xeovov Et~
IlE"tclVOLUV. 271
3.3.5. Conzelmann adds two further references in his commentary.m Neither of them is a
real parallel as they refer to humans giving opportunities for change of mind. Vespasian
and Alexander could hardly have done more than offer such opportunities.Josephus describes how Vespasian advanced to the borders of Galilee: there he camped and showed
his army to the enemy, in order to frighten them and to afford them a season for repentance (llE"taVOLU~ "aLQov llLllo1i~) before it came to battle (belL ludo I1I.6.3 127f; cf.
VI.6.2 339: Vespasian first ravaged Galilee and thereby gave the Jews time for repentance: ~mllLllou~ "IlLV XQovov d~ llE"taIlEAElav). The KaLQO~ for repentance is explicitly
mentioned. Plutarch reports how Alexander 'arrived before Thebes, and wishing to give
the city still a chance to repent of what she had done (llLllout; EtL 1:WV nEnQaYIlEvwv
IlE1:UVOl.(1v), merely demanded .. .' (Vitae,Alexander 11.4). Here a time,space or opportunity, elc. is not explicitly mentioned. Yet it is implied as Alexander could not have done
more.
3.3.6. There are further examples where an opportunity to repent is explicitly identified
as such. In 1 Clem. 7.4 the blood of Jesus has given to the whole world the grace of repentance (!LE1:aVoLa~ XUQLV "mjveYKEv). God has given to generation after generation
IlE1:avola~ 1:onov, to those who wanted to turn to him (7.5). This is illustrated in 7.6f by
the examples of Noah's preaching of repentance to his contemporaries (cf. Luke 17.26f)
and Jonah's announcement of a catastrophe in Nineveh and their exemplary response. In
the proclamation of these men this 1:cn:ot; was provided. m The church in Thyatira was
granted by God time to repent of her fornication (Rev 2.21: ellwxa aU1:fj XQcvov Lva
IlE1:aVo~crn).
In another case 1:ono~ and IlE1:uvOI.a occur without ll[llwIlL: When Esau wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent (Heb 12.17:
IlEtavo[ac; yaQ 1:cnov OUX EVQEV)P' Those scorning God's law while they still had free-
270 Similarly Cornelius shaped his life according to JUdaism. Yet this process of assimilation - the reality and limits of which Luke describes - was not the repentance that led
to life and was not followed by reception of the Spirit.
271 Greek text according to Conzelmann, Mitte, 92, n. 2. In SpecLeg 1.58 Philo describes
people who 'have gone to such a pitch of extravagant madness, that they have left themselves no retreat or way to repentance (avaxwQTJoLV E~ IlE1:uvmav), but hasten onwards
to the slavery and service of images made by hand'.
zn Apostelgeschichte, 47.
273 Livy offers two remote parallels in Latin: 'neque locus paenitendi ... relictus'
(XXIV.26.15, 'no chance left for a change of mind'); 'paenitentiae relinquens locum'
(XLIY.IO.3, 'abandoning the chance for a change of mind').
27' Cf. the discussion in Ellingworth, Hebrews, 668f.
160
dom, and did not understand but despise it while an opportunity for repentance was still
open to them (et cum adhuc esset eis apertum paenitentiae IOCUS)V5, must in torment acknowledge it after death (4 Ezra 9.11f).2 Apoc. Bar. 85.12 twice mentions that the opportunity for repentance with other things will not longer be available.v
These references indicate that elsewhere God's provision of an opportunity

or time to repent is directly expressed. These references do not support
Conzelmann's case. Therefore, where not modified by additional expressions such as 't6:7to~, Xa.lQ6~, XQ6vo~, repentance as a Heilsgut deserves full
consideration. The examples from Wis 12.10,19f indicate that the presence
or absence of such additions can be significant. Now we inquire whether
Conzelmann's claim for the two occurrences of 60uvaL IlE1:uvmlv in Acts
stands up to scrutiny.
3.4. Acts 5.31. ConzeImann dismisses the presence of the old traditional
sense ('BuBe als das geschenkte Heilsgut') for this verse: 'Neben act 5.31
steht V 32, wo der Gehorsam als Bedingung verstanden ist'.277 Presumably
Conzelmann argues: because reception of the Spirit follows obedience in v.
32, the f.LE'tUVOLl of the preceding verse cannot be a gift but only an opportunity for repentance which the same obedience must lay hold of, ie. in repentance obediently using the opportunity God is granting. 278 This construction, whether fully reflecting Conzelmann's thought or not, invites
consideration.
3.4.1. Forgiveness of sins and reception of the Spirit is otherwise linked
to faith and not obedience, though possibly faith could be understood as
obedience to the proclamation. Peter claimed the need to obey (3tEL{}lQXEW) God rather than men (Acts 5.29). This the apostles did. The present
participle 1:ot~ :7tEL{}aQXouOLv in 5.32, on which Conzelmann's argument
hinges, characterises Christians who obeyed God's purposes, in contrast to
275 Die Esra-Apokalypse (lY. Esra) , ed. B. Violet, GCS 18 (Leipzig: J.e. Hinrich, 1910),
260. The English wording follows B.M. Metzger, OTP I, (516-59) 544. A.FJ. Klijn, Die
Esra-Apokalypse (lY. Esra), GCS (Berlin: Akademie, 1992), 75 renders: 'als ihnen noch
die Stelle der Reue offenstand'. In Apoc.Abr. 31.6 God says: 'For I waited so they [the
Gentiles;cf. 31.lf] might come to me,and they did not deign to' (OTP 1,705); cf. Donaldson, Paul, 54.
27. Cf. A.FJ. Klijn, OTP I, (615-52) 65l.
277 Mitte, 214, n. 1.
278 Here and in his commentary (Apostelgeschichte, 48) Conzelmann fails to argue
clearly his case. Schneider 1,396, n. 94 follows Conzelmann. With a quotation from him,
Schneider affirms the traditional sense of l.I.E"taVoLa. Against this meaning Schneider
writes with reference to Wilckens, Missionsreden, 182: 'Nach Lukas schenkt Gott
Gelegenheit zur 1.I.E."tavoLa ... und die Stlndenvergebung'. No attempt is made to argue
the absence of this traditional sense in Acts 5.31. Why Luke does not express what is
claimed to be his conviction is not discussed. On Acts 11.18 Schneider 11, 84 simply concludes: 'DaB Gott ihnen die 1.I.E."tavoLa geschenkt babe, ist im Sinn von 5.31 zu versteben:
Gott gew!lhrt ihnen Gelegenheit zu BuBe und Umkebr (vg1.17.30)'.
161
what their audience has done and is presently accused of (5.30). Peter compares the Jewish leadership (traditionally endowed with the Spirit, but now
disobedient) and obedient Christians; he is not speaking about the conditions for receiving the Spirit (ct. 2.38!) or evangelising in 5.31. Yet even if
the Spirit's initial bestowal were dependent upon obedience, this would not
necessarily allow for a subtle deduction for repentance and forgiveness in
the preceding verse where no such condition is mentioned: The object in v.
31 is not "tot; ltEL{}aQxo"iJoLV or "tot; ltLO"tEuo"iJOLv, x"tA. but Israel (cf. the object "tot; E-frvWLV in 11.18).
3.4.2. Conzelmann overlooks the second divine gift of v. 31: God gives Israel repentance and forgiveness of sins. Though God could provide only an
opportunity for the former, he has to give the latter, as people cannot forgive their sins themselves. 279 That the verb is to be taken in different senses
for the former and latter object is not indicated. J. Behm notes: 'Die Stindenvergebung ... erscheint aber auch als eschatologisches Heilsgut neben
der I1E"tclvOLCl (Ag 5.31); eine Bindung der Vergebung an die Umkehr wie im
Judentum besteht nicht.'280
3.4.3. In Acts 5.31 God is not the agent granting repentance. Rather God
exalted Jesus as Leader and Saviour that he might give repentance and forgiveness. 281 'It is not enough that God should grant forgiveness to those
who repent; he first makes repentance possible': 'The work of the saviour is
said to issue in repentance and the forgiveness of sins'.282 For Jesus' new
role as saviour to be significant, he needs to give more than an opportunity
for repentance. As God's appointed saviour he will give repentance itself
and forgiveness of sins. 283
7:/9 Schneider n, 396 avoids this dilemma by translating [)[[)OlfLl as 'to offer'. Wesley,
Notes, 412 argues for a distinction in this verse: 'Hence some infer, that repentance and
faith are as mere gifts as remission of sins. Not so: for man co-operates in the former, but
not in the latter'. He does not comment on this issue in Acts 11.18.
280 ThWNT IV, (999-1001) 1000 (italics mine). The combination of both repentance
and forgiveness also appears in Luke 24.47, for which Conzelmann also claims a 'feste
Redeweise, deren Sinn nicht mehr gegenwlirtig ist' (Mille, 214, n.I). Schneider, I, 396, n.
94 takes Luke 24.47 as one of the proofs that 'Nach Lukas schenkt Gott Gelegenheit zur
fLll"tUVOl(l und die Siindenvergebung'. Thyen, SUndenvergebung, 133f proposes for the
combination ~Wt"t\OfL(l fLE"tclVOl(lS IllS a<pEolv afL(lQ"tlwV (Luke 3.3): 'Durch das Hendiadyoin "BuBe und Vergebung" ist dabei nichts Geringeres als das endzeitliche Heil
beschrieben' (Cf.p.137,n.1!).
281 Like in Luke 1.77 (OOltl]QLaS .,. Ev a<pt\oEL afL(lQ"tLwV au"twv), salvation (Jesus the
Saviour) is linked with the forgiveness of sins. Therefore parallels in which God grants
repentance need to be used with caution for this reference (et. Acts 11.18).
282 Barrett I,290f.
283 The apostles had appeared before their present audience previously (Acts 4.5-12).
They already provided them with an opportunity for repentance by charging them with
their rebeIlious counteraction of God's intention and announcing that salvation would
162
Recalling our conclusions from the references which Conzelmann adduces, we saw that his dismissal of the traditional sense - repentance as
Heilsgut - behind Acts 5.31 is far from compelling. Our own observations
led us to affirm the opposite. With these results we return to
3.5. Acts 11.1B. What is said explicitly about an opportunity for repentance elsewhere, Conzelmann assumes for this verse. Luke does not mention such an opportunity or time for repentance. Elsewhere it is clearly indicated and not left for the reader to conclude. Nothing in Luke's account
suggests that God gave anything but repentance itseli Our above consideration of the whole event and the context of 11.18 rather suggest that
more than provision of an opportunity was involved (10.44; 11.14f): no sins
of the audience were addressed, nor was a call to repentance presented, nor
is it said that the audience made use of this 'opportunity' for repentance
provided for them. Yet God's forgiveness of sins through Jesus' name occurs. Before any opportunity could be presented the Spirit fell on the audience. It was God's gift (t~V LOT\V bOlQECtV Eomuev a\,.to~) of the Spirit that
made Peter's audience in Jerusalem conclude that God must also have
given even to the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life (11.17). It seems
that for Acts 11.18 Conzelmann has not proved his case.
There are no reasons to doubt the 'traditional meaning' of the expression for these Lukan occurrences: The repentance that God gave to the
Gentiles was a Heilsgut. Pesch rightly speaks of repentance as a 'Geschenk
Gottes'284 which Gentiles need. Against the background of Solomon's Wisdom this is a significant conclusion: God not only gave Gentiles the opportunity of repentance as he did in the past, in Jesus he gave repentance itseli
be found only in Jesus. Their audience did not make use of this opportunity. More than
the provision of opportunity seems necessary.
284 1,347. Similarly Dupont, 'Repentir', 447: 'Le repentir est un don de Dieu; c'est sa
grace qui l'eveille dans les coeurs, leur ouvrant par la l'acces de la vie eternelle'; cf. Dupont's discussion of 'L'action de la grace', pp. 447-49 and 'Conversion', 75f: 'God's gift is
eternal life, but also and prior to that the repentance which gives access to life'. On God
bringing people to repentance ct also HengellSchwemer, Paul, 74. Compare the conclusions of Siegert, Kommentar, 309 for the pseudo-Philonic sermons De Iona and De
Sampsone: 'Da:r1lber hinaus bietet De S. 3,6 und 24-26 eine ausdrllckliche Lehre von den
Gnadengaben, die jeglichen Verdienstgedanken beiseite Hillt ... Nicht nur Leben und
Menschsein sind Geschenke Gottes ([De Iona] 97f.; 120), sondern sogar die Werke der
BuJ3e, genannt "Frllchte der Frommigkeit", werden mit auf Gott zurtickgefllhrt ( 216f;
vg\. 154),. In his study 'Heiden',55,Siegert concludes: 'In einer nicht aufgeteilten Einheit
des Geschehens ist auch ihre Antwort mit Gottes Werk. Das ist ... die eingangs genannte
Frucht der goUlichen Gerechtigkeit ( 216)'.
163
This conclusion reminds one of Luke's many references to things or privileges beyond
human reach which God or Jesus bestows (e.g. knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom
of God, Luke 8.10). Our survey of these in II1.3.3.2.2.10. will show that repentance as a
Heilsgut is but one of many gracious divine gifts to humanity.
3.6. Luke's calls to repentance. Before we return to the next Gentile encounter with Christian salvation, an issue connected with Conzelmann's
proposal needs attention. He concludes his brief survey: 'Wie Lc den
tradierten Ausdruck versteht, zeigt die interpretierende Wiedergabe act
17.30: die Gelegenheit zur BuBe ist gegeben'.285 Though Conzelmann's interpretation, use of this verse and deduction to previous references are
problematic286 , he raises a significant issue. While Luke twice calls repentance a divine gift, he also includes calls for repentance (e.g. Luke 13.3,5) or
even the universal command repent (Acts 17.30; cf. Luke 24.47). How can
what is called a gift be commanded at the same time?
Not seeing or recognising this tension, Luke does not systematically relate both aspects. Possibly Luke thought that those responding to this invitation are those to whom faith, repentance and conversion has been
given. 2S7 Some aspects need notice.
a) While attribution of repentance or conversion to divine activity similar to Acts 11.18 does not happen regularly, the programmatic character of
Acts 11.18 and its purpose should not be overlooked. In order to justify the
Gentile mission - an endeavour reflected in the whole account of Acts
10.1-11.18 - in this extensive report Luke ascribes the moving force behind
the Gentiles' conversion to God: The lerusalemites rightly concluded that
it was by God's will and initiative that the Gentiles were saved.
b) There are other indicators that this attribution is not simply traditional, a pious convention or one demanded by Luke's purpose at this par-
285 Mitte, 214, n. 1. Conzelmann's following references to Philo and 1 Clem. 7.4 have
been treated above. He also refers to Herm. Sim. VIII.6.lf. Hermas does not speak of an
opportunity for repentance either. Rather God's gift of the Spirit to some people is explained by the worthiness of the recipients: EOWKEV :7tVEuJ!a 'tot; a;ioL~ ouaL J!f.'taVOLa~.
This is expounded: God 'tou'tOt; /iEOWKE 't~v J!E'tcivoLav who wanted their hearts to become clean and wanted to serve him with all their heart. Reception of repentance is explicitly linked to spiritual disposition.
286 In Acts 17.30 repentance is not given (OOUVaL) as in 11.18, but explicitly comrrumded
by God (1tagayytAAw); cf. Fitzmyer, 151,160. The mere fact of this command seems to legitimise Conzelmann's interpretation. Yet the context of this command portrays God as
the active creator and sustainer throughout history. Previous Gentile response to him
and his manifestations is judged inadequate and is corrected. This preparation for the
command needs to be taken into account: following this continuous precedent, God will
also be active to procure the repentance he commands. If left to humans, chances of their
proper response to this command are minimal.
287 Cf. Dupont, 'Repentir', 447.
164
ticular juncture of his narrative. 2BB We shall return to these issues in our
treatment of Luke's view of divine and human activity in the Gentile appropriation of salvation in III.3.3.
c) In this context it is noteworthy that despite the charge of preaching repentance to all
nations (Luke 24.47) the imperative to repent is rarely presented to Gentiles. The Christian message or its proclamation is usually described otherwise. In Luke 10.13 and 11.32
Jesus speaks to Jews of the hypothetical or factual repentance of Gentiles cities. In Acts
26.20 Paul summarises his ministry as a call to testify repentance before God without direct application to his Gentile audience. Acts 17.30 mentions the command of universal
repentance but - though that is implied - does not directly apply it to the Gentile audience. The only direct command to repent given to a non-Jew is the charge to Simon as a
believer (Acts 8.22: fLE'taVOT]oov).2B9 Is this absence of direct imperatives linked with the
understanding of repentance as a Heilsgut?
2.2.5. The mission in Antioch (Acts 11.19-26)

The good news of the Lord Jesus was proclaimed to the Hellenists of Antioch.29o In contrast to Cornelius, no prior contacts with ludaism are mentioned. 291 The hand of the Lord was with the missionaries and 1toJ..:u~ .
aQvfr,...o~ (cf. 11.24: c5x.J...o~ i.xuvo~) believed and turned to the Lord.
Barnabas saw 'the grace of God' at work.
1. The outcome - mentioned thrice - is not explained by or attributed to the
Hellenists' particular responsiveness, insight and reasoning or the mission-
Cf. Dupont, 'Repentir', 447-49.

These are all occurrences of fLE'tavow with reference to Gentiles; fLE'tclvOLa occurs
in Acts 11.18; 20.21; 26.20. Only the last occurrence is before a Gentile audience, again
without immediate application. Lack of imperative appeals also applies to similar verbs.
Gentiles are only once directly commanded to turn (away from idols, 14.15: EltL01:QE!pELV).
The occasion of the short address required such an imperative; cf. Barrett 1,680:' ... God
has patiently waited for the present moment in which he makes turning possible'. The
Philippian jailer was commanded to believe in order to be saved (16.31: ltL01:ElJOOV).
Later he and his household rejoiced that they had become believers in God (16.34: ltEltLO1:EUlUbt;; not: 'that they believed', but 'er frohlockte, gliiubig geworden zu sein', BDR
415.1).
290 Some important manuscripts read mT]V as in Acts 19.17; 20.21 (cf. GNT, 461); for
discussion see Barrett I, 550f; Metzger, Commentary, 386-89; ct Hengel/Schwemer, Paul,
85f on the identity and ministry of the 'EUT]vL01:at. The non-Jewish identity of this audience is established througli the contrast to 'Iou~a(oLt; in Acts 11.19.
291 For the substantial Jewish community in Antioch see Barrett I, 549; Kraeling, 'Community'; Meeks, 'Jews', 2-13; Schiirer, History Illl, 13; I. Benzinger, 'Antiocheia 1. Am
Orontes', RE I, (2442-45) 2443.44-51; further literature in HengeI/Schwemer,Paul, n. 949.
For the various pagan cults see J. Kollwitz, 'Antiochia am Orontes', RAC I, (461-69) 463;
Barrett 1,549; I. Benzinger, 2443; see also idem, 'Daphne. 3', RE IV, 2136-38;cf. IV.3.3.3.2.
On the origin of the Christian community in Antioch and the early contacts of the missionaries to local synagogues and the following development cf. HengellSchwemer, Paul,
196-98,200.
288
289
165
aries' skills, but was due to God's gracious intervention (the presence of the
hand of the Lord and the working of God's grace).292 'It was this that
caused the conversion .. .'.293 Responding to this, Gentiles did believe and
turn to the Lord. As in Acts 10.1-11.18, God's activity in the nascent mission
is stressed.294 God was at work not only in missionary endeavours specifically directed by him (as with Cornelius), but also when Christians ventured out without specific guidance. The stress on divine intervention suggests that what the missionaries could contribute, namely preaching the
good news of the Lord Jesus (11.20) - thus providing the opportunity for
repentance - is not sufficient in itself. For Gentiles merely to have this opportunity is likewise insufficient.
2. Previously these Gentiles did not know God or believe in him. They were
in a position from which they had to turn to him: 'The image is that of a
man retracing his steps: a person who was walking away from God has
changed direction and is now coming back to him' .295 As nothing is said of
typical or particularly severe Gentile moral-ethical or spiritual failures, this
seems to be a general assessment of Gentiles. This lack of relationship with
God and their alienation from him only changed once the gospel was
brought to them, their previous notions were challenged (cf. the Lord JeSUS 296) and God graciously intervened.
Also Gentiles for whom no previous association with Judaism is mentioned became Christians. Extensive response among Gentiles without
such previous association is unusua].297 Here mass conversion occurs in
conjunction with the emphasis on divine activity. It seems that without this
intervention no ground can be won.
Cf. Pesch 1,352; Dupont, 'Conversion', 69-79.

Barrett r, 552; cf. Dupont, 'Conversion', 74-76.
294 This emphasis in the immediate context of Acts 11.18 questions Conzelmann's interpretation of t')ouvaL !1E"tD.VOLaV, while repentance as a Heilsgut in 11.18 is in line with
the stress of the following pericope.
29S Cf. Dupont, 'Conversion', 79 (-81) (italics mine).
296 On the proclamation of Jesus as Lord cf. II1.2.2.4.3.1., the apologetic thrust of e:uayYEALOV is discussed in III.3.2.2.2.1.
297 Acts 11.21,24 challenges JerveU's claim that for Gentiles not related to Israel no accounts of mass conversion are found ('People', 44t); it is precisely such an account! Acts
14.21 is a further example or many conversions without the explicit mention of previous
association with Judaism. Not all Gentile Christians were previously associated with Judaism. Cf. also 1y'3.3.3.2. on Acts 11.23 and ry'3.3.1.2.1. on 11.25f.
292
293
166
2.2.6. Sergius Paulus (Acts 13.6-12)
2.2.6.1. Sergius Paulus is the first Gentile contact of the first missionary
journey. He is described as (JlJVE't6C;. This adjective has been understood differently: For example Bauernfeind takes it positively to mean 'fUr wahre
Glaubenseinsicht aufgeschlossen', while Bruce simply renders: 'a man of
good sense',298 Sergius wanted to hear the Christian proclamation. How is
his interest to be understood? Was it personal religious interest or part of
his duties as governor?
The meaning of auvE't6c; becomes clearer once Elymas appears. Sergius
kept and entertained such a man at his court. 299 As becomes evident, Elymas was not without influence. Thus Bauemfeind over-interprets auvE't6c;.
Bruce's assumption, immediately following the above rendering, that this
characterisation means that Sergius was 'not too susceptible to the magician's persuasiveness '300 needs to be modified in light of vs. 8-11, where the
missionaries estimated the situation differently. Barrett rightly suggests a
closer relation between both men. Elymas feared Sergius' conversion because that 'would no doubt have meant the end of his employment
(whether because the proconsul no longer believed in sorcery or because he
thought the missionaries more powerful sorcerers)'.301
Sergius is portrayed as superstitious. This educated upper-class official
also failed to realise that this magician was a fraudulent false prophet and
that though he called himself Bar-Jesus, he was actually a son and servant
of the devipo2 Like the gullible Samaritans (Acts 8.9-11), Sergius fell prey
to and financed the demonic magic and false claims of Elymas. 303 On his
298 P. 297. Other commentators are Haenchen: 'fUr die christliche Verkilndigung offen';
Roloff,198: 'nicht nUT unverbindliche religiose Neugier' (Roloff's treatment is far too
positive); Stiihlin: 'echtes religioses Interesse und BedUrfnis' (al\ quotations from Zmijewski, 488, see discussion there). Cf. also Nobbs, 'Cyprus', 282:'a man of ability or understanding'; Pesch n, 24: 'ein gesundes Urteilsvermogen, eine vernUnftige Offenheit'; LSJ,
1731: 'intelligent, sagacious, wise'.
299 Roloff, 198 calls Sergius Elymas' 'Brotgeber and Gonner'.
lOO Bruce, 297.
301 Barrett 1,616 (italics mine). The italicised words at least indicate Sergius' susceptibility. Barrett's second option is unlikely in light of the stress of Acts 13.12: Sergius is El!.Jt},,"006\lEVO~ btt
O,Oaxti 'tOU xUQLou. Potential or real loss of power and influence is
also the motivation behind other Lukan cases of resistance; c( the description of Elymas
by Zmijewski, 488.
302 Garrett, Demise, 85; for the 'kontrastierende Anspielung' with his name see Zmijewski,489.
303 Barrett 1,617 reconstructs Elymas' position and practice from Acts 13.10: ... illicit,
and probably profitable, dealings with the supernatural
fraud, by making money by
To practise deceit and fraud is to be an enemy of
deception and trading on credulity
uprightness' (italics mine); cf. Lieu, 'God-fearers', 341f for pagan response to magic and
00.
'n
00'
00'
167
own Sergius was unable to recognise Elymas' true identity or fraud. Not
only was he far from attaining 'wahre Glaubenseinsicht' (Bauernfeind), he
ended up with the complete opposite of what is desirable from a Christian
perspective.304 Sergius is a Gentile prior to faith in contrast to Gentiles like
Cornelius who had already come a long way in the right direction.
In the light of this narrative characterisation - neglected by the positive interpretations of O1JVE't6~ and assessment of Sergius - it seems best to relate
this adjective to his political conduct: As governor he 'at least wished to satisfy himself that what they were propagating in public was not subversive' .305
He wanted to hear from the missionaries and before trouble broke out.
While Sergius heard the Christian message Elymas opposed the missionaries and tried to turn Sergius away from the faith. The missionaries' stern
reaction and the punitive miracle indicates how serious this threat and possibility was taken. Being turned away from accepting the faith was possible
and constituted a real danger: that the intelligent Sergius would obviously
and naturally come down on the side of the Christian proclamation once he
heard it, was not assumed. The immediate execution of the curse revealed
to Sergius the true prophets. The miracle elicited faith in the proclamation. 306 Sergius was astonished at the teaching about the Lord: 'Mit dies em
Hinweis auf die den Menschen uberwiiltigende und zur BufJe bringende
Wirkmacht der "Lehre des Herm" erreicht die Erziililung einen "kronenden AbschluJ3"'.307
miracles. Hengel/Schwemer, Paul, 69 suggest that Elymas, the 'Jewish seer and miracle
worker' was an advisor to Sergius; cf. also Breytenbach, Paulus,passim. For studies on
Sergius Paulus cf. HengeVSchwemer, Paul, n. 363; Breytenbach, Paulus, 38-45. For the
Gentile estimate of and interest in Jewish magic ct. Acts 19.13f and HengellSchwemer,
Paul, 70 and nos. 37lf.
304 Sergius shared the darkness and blindness which Elymas expressed and for which
he was punished; cf. Zmijewski, 490; 'die Strafe (Erblindung) dem Vergehen (CCgeistige
Verblendung") entspricht ... Elymas ist ... geistig blind, macht andere geistig blind .. .'.
305Bruce, 297. Pesch's suggestion (II.24), 'Ober seinen jildischen Magier hatte der
Prokonsul moglicherweise bereits Beziehungen zur jildischen Synagoge, an welche die
Missionare anknilpfen konnten', is unlikely. EVen if such a magician should be tolerated
by the synagogue, Elymas is also characterised as a false prophet. Where such contacts
existed, Luke usually mentions them. No synagogue or ministry to Jews is mentioned for
Paphos (ct. Acts 13.5; ct. Zmijewski,487). W.M. Ramsay, 'Religion of Greece and Asia Minor', DB (H) S, (109-56) i55 suggests that 'to the educated observer in contemporary
Graeco-Roman society, such as Sergius ... he [Paul] seemed to be a new teacher of philosophy, more or less impressive in himself, but not essentially different in type from
scores of other lecturers who were striving to catch the ear of the educated world'.
.
306 For the close relation of miracle and Christian proclamation see Dupont, 'Conversion', 72-74. The miracle also exposed Elymas as a fraud who had to capitulate; cf. Garrett, Demise, 83.
307 Zmijewski, 490 (italics mine).
168
11/. The Gentile encounter with salvation
2.2.6.2. 1. Acts 13. 1 Of. When the mission addressed the first representative
of the oLxOUIlEVTJ - administering a fraction of the authority which the devil

-granted to the Roman empire (Luke 4.5f; ct. III.3.2.1.2.3.1.) -, the devil
struck back in Elymas' attempt to turn Sergius away from the faith.30B Elymas' true spiritual and moral-ethical identity, inextricably intertwined, were
revealed: He was a son of the devil, an enemy of all righteousness, full of all
deceit and villainy, unceasingly making crooked the straight paths of the
Lord. As the Spirit initiated the mission (Acts 1.8; 13.2,4), so the devil instigated this resistance to keep sway over the people in his dominion (ct: Acts
26.18).
Though Gentile resistance to the mission is also accounted for differently309 and though Taeger rightly observes: 'Wenn in der Apg eine erfolglose Verkllndigung geschildert wird, geschieht das ohne Verweis auf den
Teufel'310, in the light of Acts 13.10-12 such encounters and instances of
Gentile resistance were not devoid of demonic influence. The position of
these verses is noteworthy. Garrett explains their significance:
... at the outset of the endeavour to which Paul had been called by Jesus himself....
Jesus had commissioned Paul to open the eyes of the Gentiles, that they might turn
from darkness to light and from the authority of Satan to God. But if people's eyes
have been 'biinded' by Satan's control over their lives, how can Paul open them? Or,
to use Luke's other metaphor (Luke 8.11-15), if the devil desires to snatch away the
newly planted word, how can Paul stop him? The answer is that Paul must himself be
invested with authority that is greater than Satan's own.311
This investiture released Gentiles from the power of Satan. Previously

Gentiles were under his dominion and unable to change their plight. When
Gentiles became Christians, it was the greater divine authority that re-
308 For the significance of the event see also 111.3.3.2.4.2. Though Elymas' personal motivation is not explicity stated, it can be concluded; cf. Barrett I, 616:' ... acceptance of the
Christian message would no doubt have meant the end of his employment'. Such safeguarding of his own existence, status and material interests made Elymas a ready and effective instrument for the devil. For the characterisation of Elymas and the contrast to
Paul cf. Garrett, Demise, 8ot. Such counter-attack is not noted when other men in a similar position came in contact with the mission and proclamation. Is it presumed in these
later cases or was demonic intervention unnecessary: the Philippian praetores, Gallio, Felix, Festus, ete. (cf also Pilate) rejected the mission through their own character, attitude
or moral-ethical failures? None but Sergius is designated auvE1:0!;.
309 Gentile resistance follows Jewish instigation or is triggered by the success and impact of the mission, e.g. loss of or threat to financial interests. Does Luke offer a variety
of such reasons, is it always the devil alone (no other reasons mentioned though discernible in the text) or the devil (not specifically mentioned) and one or more other factors
which are mentioned?
310 Mensch, 76.
311 Demise, 84; cf. p. 86; Taeger, Mensch, 76. This emphasis may explain why little is said
about Sergius and the consequences of his conversion.
169
leased the captives. The devil was behind efforts to thwart the mission.
Luke probably assumes his presence in other encounters of Gentiles with
salvation in defending his realm. Yet despite Paul's greater divine authority,
not all Gentiles of a particular location were released from this dominion.
The first encounters of Gentiles with salvation set several parameters: God gives repentance, his hand procures conversion, the Spirit initiates the systematic Gentile mission,
ete. In this episode Luke intimates that more than human factors were involved in the
Gentile encounter with salvation and that superhuman forces are opposed to the Gentile
mission. Neither proclamation nor conversion occurred in a merely human, neutral setting; rather they appear in a dualism between God and Satan. Luke does not elaborate
on this theme and reference to the demonic is limited in the report of the actual Gentile
mission (cf.III.2.2.17.2.).
The hand of the Lord was against Elymas and he became blind. Mist and darkness
came over him, and he went about groping for someone to lead him. The man associated
with the devil groped in the physical blindness and darkness reflecting his spiritual
state.m A similar combination recurs for Gentiles in Acts 26.18; cf. III.3.2.1.
2. Also in the explanation of the parable of the sower (Luke 8.12) Luke
mentions Satanic interference with the human response to the word of
God. Due to its general character this note also applies to Gentiles. The
word remains without any impact when, after hearing, the devil comes and
snatches it away from peoples' hearts so that they may not believe and be
saved. The devil does not turn them away from believing as in Elymas' attempt, but rather by removing the word he withholds the opportunity of
starting to believe (mm:cUOavtE~).313 The word is not neglected, but taken.
It is a 'teuflisches Werk, welches das Verderben des Menschen zum Ziel
hat'.314 Apart from Satan's power and influence over people, asserted or
manifest otherwise, Luke does not explain how such far-reaching intervention is possible.315 No reference is made to the spiritual or moral-ethical
disposition of these hearts (cf. Luke 8.15).
312 Zmijewski, 490: 'Elymas ... ist geistig blind, macht andere geistig blind und wird zur
Strafe dafiir vorUbergehend auch leiblich blind'; Garrett, Demise, 83.
3\3 Estrada-Barbier, Sembrador, 170. Against Ernst, 207: 'die dem Feind des Gotteswortes, dem Teufel, nicht genllgend Widerstandskraft entgegensteIlen. Sie hilren die
Predigt und sind auch bereit, die Saat aufgehen zu lass en, aber am Ende sind sie doch zu
schwach'; similarly Brown,Apostasy, 119: 'when someone thrusts aside the word of God
in unbelief (Acts 13.46), the devil is said to take the word away from his heart (Luke
8.12)'; cf. pp. 121, 138, n. 604.
314 Ernst, 207;ci Dupont, 'Semeur', 99-102, 108. Theger, Mensch, 76, 71 writes:' ... in der
Gleichnisdeutung, die den MiBerfolg der Verkllndigung bei bestimmten Menschen erklliren
will und deshalb mil einer erfolgreichen Aktivitlit des TeufeIs ... rechnet ... Bei seinem
Werk der Verhinderung der Glaubensannahme (vg!. Apg 13.8,10) reicht der EinfluB des
Teufels bis ans menschliche Herz. 8.12 blickt voraus; in der Zeit der Mission ist mit dem
Teufel zu rechnen'.
31S Estrada-Barbier, Sembrador, 172. For Luke 'el acento se pone en el hecho de que ha
sido arrancada del coraz6n de 105 hombres'; cf. Dupont, 'Semeur' for the Lukan empha-
170
This complete removal applies only to some people as Luke also describes three further responses where the word is left to germinate. Apart
from the demonic removal, the seed starts to groW.316 Were it not, it would
seem, for the devil's intervention, all people would - at least initially - respond positively to the word. Baumbach argues
daB Lukas hier den Verlauf der christJichen Mission in dieser vom Satan beherrschten
Welt andeuten will. Der Satan fungiert dabei als der Feind der christlichen Mission,
der zum Unglauben und damit zum AbfaJl und Verderben verfUhrt. ... demzufolge gehort aJles, was in den Versen 1214 als Gegensatz zur christlichen Missionverktindigung herausgestellt wird - Teufel (v. 12), Versuchung (v. 13), Sorgen, Reichtum und
weltliche LUste (v. 14) - engstens zusammen, wie ja auch diese drei 'Gruppen' von Menschen gemeinsam der prinzipieJl andersartigen vierten 'Gruppe' gegentiberstehen.317
Though rightly drawing attention to the special character of the fourth

group, this interpretation does not do justice to the different point of departure shared by the other groups. For group two demonic involvement is not
mentioned, though previously the devil has been associated with temptation.318 Though demonic influence appears elsewhere with the concerns of
v. 14, it is absent in the interpretation of the parable.319 We examine the
spiritual threats of v. 13f in IY.3.3.3.
Though according to Luke 8.12 people fail to respond to the proclamation through Satanic intervention, his activity is not regularly mentioned in
Acts to explain lack of response to the Christian message. Acts 13.8-11 is
sis in the interpretation of the parable. Dupont, 102 refers to Luke 8.lf. What had been
given to the disciples is not denied to others by God: 'C'est le diable,et non Jesus, qui est
responsable de l'incredulite des gens qui n'accueillent pas la parole de Dieu; c'est lui qui
cause leur perte'. Garrett, Demise, 130, n.17 suggests that Satan's vested interest in idolatry accounts for his opposition to mission efforts. Her construction of the Lukan view of
the devil renders specific explanation unnecessary: ' ... Luke regards Satan as a powerful
being with much of the world under his authority. He controls individuals by means of
sickness and demon possession. He controls entire kingdoms, whose inhabitants live in
the darkness of idolatry, worshipping Satan and giving him the glory that is due God
alone', Demise, 43.
316 Taeger, Mensch, 24f in contrasting the heart of Luke 8.12 with that of v. 15, overlooks the fact that the quality of the latter heart ('sofern es "fein und gut" ist, den Menschen positiv fUr seine Begegnung mit der VerkUndigung pradisponieren') is connected
to perseverance, not to the initial response.
317 Verstiindnis, 178.
318The devil tempted Jesus, Luke 4.2,12; cf. Luke 11.4.
319 Satan is mentioned in close context with Judas receiving money for betraying Jesus
(Luke 22.3-5) and he filled Ananias' heart in keeping back part of the proceeds (Acts
5.3). Taeger,Mensch, 76, n. 299 notes: 'DaB die Zeit der Kirche genereJl eine Zeit der Versuchungen sei (so oft, z.B. SchUrmann 1,216; ... ) ist bei Lukas keineswegs betont. In der
Apg wird der Satan als Versucher Uberhaupt nicht zum Thema .. .'. Taeger's cautions are
legitimate. Luke refers to persecution of Christians without reference to the devil, Acts
20.19; cf. Luke 11.4. Acts 5.3 remains exceptional. Baumbach, Verstiindnis, 178 summarises the relations of Luke 8.12-15 to Acts.
2. The Gentile encounter wiLh salvation
171
the only incident where what was stated in Luke 8.12 is illustrated in an attempted practical outworking and identified as such.
2.2.7. Pisidum Antioch (Acts 13.14-52)
1. Many devout converts to Judaism (,tmv (JE~OIlEVo)V JtQ0O'TlA:lJ'tOlV) from
the synagogue responded to the Christian proclamation. Already associated with Judaism, they understood the message and adhered to the missionaries. Among these Gentiles response was greatest,320 Then almost the
whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord, which indicates curiosity
and interest also among Gentiles previously not associated with Judaism. 321
2. The missionaries justified their move to the Gentiles with Isaiah 49.6. 322
Their message was to be a light for the Gentiles, to bring salvation to the
ends of the earth. 323
The nations' misconceptions of God and their subsequent worthless and often senseless
idolatry were repeatedly described satirically in Isa 40-48.l2' The nature, extent and consequences of the darkness to be enlightened became apparent. Prior to this light, the
Gentiles were xa~fLivoL Ev OX6'CEL (Isa 42.7). They had neither light nor salvation, which
are closely linked in the quotation. Uke Isaiah's evidence for Gentile darkness, Luke
supplies several incidents to iUustrate the darkness here implied and then explicitly
stated in the similar statement of Acts 26.18. Stegemann concludes:
'Ucht der Vlllker' ist also bei Lukas das in der Auferstehung des Messias und OIJ)'C~Q
Jesus verbilrgte und in ihm als n:Qiii'Co~ Er; aVam;aOEIJ)~ VEXQWV schon realisierte Heil
(OOJ~QLOV) Israels, in dem sich die nationale Hoffnung des Gottesvolkes auch den
Heidenvolkern mitteilt. Inhaltlich ist es die Auferstehung van den Toten, die auf 'ewiges Leben' zielt.'2S
320 Cf. 111.3.3.3.3.; for the exhortation of Acts 13.43 cf. 1V.3.3.3.3.
321 CL Pesch n, 41. For the local pagan religion see G. Hirschfeld, 'Antiocheia Pisidiae',
RE l, 2446.30-37; Ramsay, Cities, 285-96; GilllWinter, 'Religion', 89.
322 Cf. also Isa 42.6f and Luke 2.32; cf. Barrett 1,658. Stegemann, 'Ucht', 81-83 summarises discussion of Isa 42.6; 49.9 and the significance of these references in Isaiah's context.
323This quotation contains polemic against imperial or pagan religious claims: true
light and oOJ'tT]QLa come exclusively from the God to the ends of the earth. Cf. K.H.
Schelkle, EWNT Ill, 782, 784f; Strecker, Theologie, 130f; Spicq III, 347-49, 351-53; Winter,
'Cult', 94 refers to 'the major Julio-Claudian imperial temple at the Roman colony of
Pisidian Antioch dating from the middle to late Augustan period'; cf. Ramsay, Cities, 28596 for the religious and political self-understanding expressed on the city's coinage, for
the temple mentioned by Winter, pp. 294L
324 Cf. Isa 41.4; (42.17); 46.lf (also 37.12).
325 'Ucht', 95. Stegemann's considerations ('Licht', 84-87) to whom OE in the quotation
refers, do not affect our conclusions for the Gentiles.
172
IlL The Gentile encounter with salvation
Against Stegemann, salvation is not so much the resurrection of the

dead326, as rather the prospect of a verdict of eternal life at the judgement
following this resurrection. This is the eternal life rejected by the Jews and
then received by Gentiles (Acts 13.46,48).327 Without God's light and salvation, Gentiles will not have eternal life, and remain under eschatological
judgement. Gentiles are in a condition requiring the light of the word of
God and God's salvation.328 They did not have this light and were unable to
produce it on their own, to change their plight or to reach this salvation and
life through their own efforts or insights. Only God's intervention brings
salvation and eternal life.
3. The Gentiles were glad and praised the word of the Lord. Many Gentiles
believed and the word of the Lord spread throughout the region. 329 Reminiscent of the references to divine activity in Syrian Antioch, belief is credited to divine predestination (13.48), not to the Gentiles themselves.3 3o
In addition to this attribution, it should be noted that many local Gentiles had previous links to Judaism, some had even converted. This encounter occurred in a Jewish setting (on the Sabbath, in or around the synagogue ).331 Jews and Gentile associates were in the audience, preventing any
Gentile misunderstanding of the message. Gentiles hostile to Judaism
would hardly have noted the earlier events or attended the synagogue.
4. The malignant Jews won over the devout women of high standing of the
Gentile associates of the synagogue332 and, probably through them, "tou~
JtQro"t01J~ "tfj~ Jt6A.E(o~. It is unlikely that these men were also adherents of
the synagogue, as EuaX~!lOva~ describes the women.
Barrett notes 'that the JtQW"tOL were probably Roman magistrates; some
of the leading families are known to have been associated with the cult of
326 The resurrection of Gentiles was implied previously; Luke 11.3lf; 13.2Bf. Jesus is the
judge of the living and the dead, who will be raised for this occasion (Acts 10.42); cf. also
17.31.
327 For further conclusions from this expression as to the state of Gentiles prior to faith
see III.3.2.2.5.
328 Cf. our full treatment of Gentile darkness in III.3.2.1.2.2. and of judgement over
Gentiles in III.3.2.2.1.
329 Cf. Ramsay, Cities, 29Bf for the overwhelming reception.
330 Cf. the extensive discussion in III.3.3.2.2.3.
331 So Barrett I, 655; cf. Pesch n, 45. For Jews in Pisidian Antioch see Ramsay, Cities,
255-59. No miracles are recorded.
332 For their identity see Barrett I, 659f; Kee, News, 88, 115, n. 6. On the female Godfearers mentioned by Luke in Acts 1350; 16.13f; 17.4,12 cf. HengellSchwemer, Paul, 66f and
their nos. 352,382. They survey the whole range of female God-fearers in various sources
and conclude: 'Luke, who in Acts often emphasizes the importance of prominent women in
connection with the synagogue, gives a completely accurate picture of the situation', p. 68.
173
the god Men and may have attacked Paul and Barnabas because they were
a threat to the cult'.m Though otherwise mentioning pagan deities or their
worship, Luke does not note such a connection. Unless pagan loyalty is assumed by the readers, in Luke's presentation these men followed the Jewish instigation without motives of their own.334 Not recognising the Jewish
tfjAO\;, manipulated by Jews against the Jewish missionaries and lacking
discernment of their own, they made persecution possible and thus helped
in expelling the missionaries. In contrast to those who became believers,
they remained in darkness and acted accordingly.335
The persistent Jewish influence on Gentile devout women indicates that
not all Gentile associates of Judaism became Christians. Apparently Luke
does not assume that all Gentile associates were among those predestined;
et. III.3.3.3.3.
2.2.8. !conium (Acts 14.1-6)
2.2.8.1. 1. Through proclamation in the synagogue many Greek associates

of JUdaism became believers. In this context preaching was successful.
Whether there was any impact beyond these adherents 336 is not indicated
(ct. Acts 13.44). The unbelieving Jews were without any reported efforts
able to stir up (EJ'tEYELeCO; ct.13.50) and 'poison' (xax6co)337 the mind of the
Gentiles against the Christians.338 Though the missionaries remained for a
333 I, 660. For the extensive cult of Men in Pisidian Antioch see GilllWinter, 'Religion',
89, noting that 'members of the local social elite seem to have held priesthoods' (literature in n. 54, more generally on Men et w. Fauth, 'Men', KP Ill, 1194f); cf. A. Lesky,
'Men', RE XV, (689-97) 692ffor the cult of the god in Pisidia and Lycaonia (,Die wichtigste Kultstlltte des Landes ... ist Antiocheia'); extensive description of the local sanctuary
in Lane, 'Men'.
334 Ramsay, Cities, 313f suggests political charges against the missionaries which caused
the magistrates' intervention. While demonic influence is not explicitly mentioned, it
probably can be assumed in view of Acts 13.8-12. Acts 13.45 indicates the Jewish motivation.
33SFor portrayals of the Gentile crowds, their character, fickleness and actions see
III.2.2.8.2. Cf. the different picture in Acts 16.19-24 and 18.12-17; cf. n.3.7. Either through
their own anti-Judaism or through co-operation with Jews the Gentile local elites mistreated the missionaries (exc. Acts 19.31).
336 Zmijewski, 525; Trebilco, Communities, 150.
337 Cf.Zahn,460,n.53. Trebilco, Communities, 173-84 draws conclusions from this ability regarding Jewish-Gentile relationships. How this was done is perhaps illustrated in
Acts 19.9: xaxoAoyouvr:E!; n;v OOQV EvWltlOV 'tou 7tATrIl-01J!;. According to Acts 14.2 no
factual refutation of the missionaries was attempted. The Jewish resort to different
means indicates their estimate of the Gentiles and of their ability to appreciate Judaism
and the Christian proclamation. Effort to turn Gentiles away from the faith was previously ascribed to a Jew (cf. Acts 13.6-8).
3J8 See Barrett I, 668; Pesch I1,51 includes unconverted God-fearers.
174
long time and boldly spoke for the Lord, who testified to the word of his
grace by granting signs and wonders, their ministry only superficially affected the 'poisoned' Gentiles. The population was divided, some siding
with the Jews, some with the missionaries. Then both Gentiles and Jews
with their rulers (aQx.ovtE~) attempted to mistreat and to stone the missionaries.
2. Though Schneider rightly observes: 'Den unglli.ubigen Juden wird die Verantwortung fUr die Verfolgung der "Apostel" zugeschrieben. Sie "machten"
die Heiden erst "bose"'339, it needs to be added that the Gentiles were easily
convinced by them and willingly joined this Jewish initiative. They neither remained neutral nor defended the missionaries. The Gentiles were as guilty as
the Jews. In a sense their co-operation was worse than the Jewish instigation:
while the Jews understood what they were rejecting and why, the gullible
Gentiles joined them without interest of their own or understanding of the
occasion.
3. The Gentiles' susceptibility to the Jewish 'poisoning' was accompanied
for some of them by complete lack of response to the message and the miracles. Although it was forcefully authenticated among them and though
they were themselves among the beneficiaries of these miracles, these Gentile residents without association to the synagogue rejected the word of
God's grace outright.34o No factual refutation of the missionaries was attempted. These Gentiles sided with the Jews against the mission. The Gentiles who sided crUv tOL\; cmoo-cOA.OL\; did not believe (14.1). The missionaries could not rely on them to frustrate the attempts of the other Gentiles.
Their adherence did not transcend superficial fascination with the miracles
(ct: 8.9-11).
4. As in Acts 4.25-27, Jews and Gentiles with their leaders conspired against
the mission. Both the Gentile leaders and residents rejected what God had
339 Schneider lI, 151. Luke does not mention the various local pagan cults (cf. Ramsay,
Cities,330-34) or loyalty to them as a cause for Gentile resistance. In Luke's presentation
it seems that by and large pagans do not initially realise the challenge to their religions
contained in the message and ministry of the Christian mission.
340 Zmijewski, 525: .... bestiitigt es gegenUber moglichem Zweifel und faktischer
Bestreitung ... als wahr und damit heilbringend ... '; cf. Dupont, 'Conversion', 72-75 for
the relation of the miracles to the resurrection. To deny or neglect these miracles is to reject the 'proof of the glorious condition to which God raised Jesus at the resurrection
and in which he continues to exist'.
175
initiated (13.2f). 'Y~QL~ELV341 and A.Lf}0~oAEi:v342 indicate their contempt and

hatred for the missionaries and their message.
The Christian proclamation and message of God's grace was not accepted despite miraculous signs. Some Gentiles received it with contempt,
others failed to draw consequences from what they heard, saw and only
outwardly adhered. Their susceptibility to faith-preventing influence, lack
of response and passionate and contemptuous treatment of the missionaries testifies to a Gentile state which needs more than correction. Information and correction on their own were insufficient. The only Gentile converts were already associated with the synagogue. 343
2.2.8.2. Luke's portrayal of Gentile crowds
In addition to the positive portrayal of some individual Gentiles and of
groups of Gentiles associated with Judaism, Luke's portrait of Gentiles
prior to faith contains several scenes of Gentile crowds without such association.
Next to typical Gentile characteristics such as idolatry, Gentile crowds
are mainly characterised by their susceptibility to manipulation and ensu-
341 Cf. G. Bertram, ThWNT VIII, 305.22f: 'beschimpfen oder miBhandeln'; Rapske,
Paul, 283-91. <Y~QU;LV recalls the Gentile treatment of Jesus, predicted in Luke 18.32
and illustrated throughout the passion narrative. What Gentiles did to Jesus was extended to the missionaries. A more cultured contempt characterises the majority response to the Christian mission in Athens (Acts 17.18,32).
~2 With Zahn, 463, n. 62 we take >"L-frO~OAEtV as throwing stones at the missionaries in
contempt, not as an intended capital punishment. 'Daf3 bei AusbrUchen wilder Leidenschaft, des Hasses oder der Verachtung dos Volk im Altertum mU Stein en war[, ist eine in
den verschiedentlichen Quellen hiiufig bezeugte Tatsache ... Steinigungen als Folge des
Wutausbruches beim Volke', writes 1. Pfaff, 'Lapidatio', RE XII, (775f) 775.33-37,776.3f
(italics mine); against W. Michaelis, ThWNT IV, 217.27: 'dagegen 14.5 wohl Steinigung'.
Stoning as a form of punishment related to religious crimes was known among Greeks
and Romans (cf. Michaelis, 271.5-16; K. Latte, 'Steinigung', RE III A, 2294f; Hirzel, Strafe). Acts 14.5 reports popular action rather than official Gentile requital e.g. of a sacrilege against one of the local deities (cf. Ramsay, Cities, 330-34) or whatever else the Jews
may have brought against the missionaries. AL{j-o~oAlv and iJ~Ql~LV cannot be assigned
to Jews or Gentiles respectively.
3~3 In Oerbe the missionaries proclaimed the good news and made many disciples
(14.21; cf.14.6). Though this summary neither mentions contact with a Jewish community
or influence nor any resistance (cf. Barrett 1,685), from the pattern in Acts (13.14; 14.1)
and from what is known of the area (cf. W.M. Ramsay, 'Oerbe', DB (If) 1,595; 'Galatia',
DB (H) ll, (81-89) 85,88 (,Galatians',DB (H) ll, (981-93) 992f); 'Lycaonia', DB (H) 1II,
(174-76) 176; Cities, 399f; Schiirer, History Ill,34) regarding the considerable Jewish
presence and its significance in the area, it is likely that the 'many disciples' were Jews or
God-fearers.
176
ing violence. 344 Luke shows repeatedly how quickly Gentiles could join a
cause or change their mind when won over by others.
1. The magician Simon was able to captivate the Samaritan crowds with his
sorcery (cf. II.3.4.).
2. Luke reports two cases of genuine Gentile resistance to the mission involving crowds. Without any indicated interest of their own or demand on them
to do so, the Philippian crowds joined the upper-class slave owners in attacking the Jewish-Christian missionaries, Acts 16.22; cf. II.3.7.1., III.2.2.10.3. The
Ephesian crowds joined the cause ofthe silversmiths (19.28f;cf. II.3.8.). Their
portrayal is rather negative. In both accounts Luke notes violence and strong
undercurrents of anti-Judaism. 345 The latter incident also testifies to the
crowds' idolatrous commitment.
3. Due to the course of the Christian mission, Luke more frequen tly reports
how Jewish rejection of the mission resorted to and easily procured Gentile
support for its cause. Gentile crowds were readily susceptible to Jewish instigation and became hostile in attitude and action. 346
Some of the residents of Iconium sided with the Jews. With them the crowds and their
leaders wanted to mistreat and stone the missionaries. Though some of the Gentiles
sided with the missionaries they did nothing to support or defend them against the hostile crowds. Hardly convinced that Paul was not divine, the Lystran crowds were easily
won over by Jews and assisted in stoning Paul (Acts 14.19). The unbelieving Jews of
Thessalonica formed a mob, recruiting some Gentile avliQa~ 'nva~ 1tOVT]QOU\; from the
market place, and together they were easily able to throw the city into an uproar (17.5).
Such ruffians were readily available; Luke reports no effort on the side of the Jews to
persuade them to join their cause. The Beroean believers immediately acted on the arrival of Jewish opponents (17.13), probably in anticipation that even Jews from another
city could stir up the Gentile crowds of their city with matters of Jewish religion. The
availability and susceptibility of crowds for that purpose is presupposed. The various
Gentile crowds were ready to use violence.
Despite the anti-Judaism displayed by Gentiles elsewhere, these Gentiles

joined Jews. They failed to realise the similarity between Judaism and the
Christian mission (cf. Acts 16.20f). Luke's only instances of Gentile co-operation with Jews are the murder of Jesus and the persecution of the di-
344 The Gentile crowds in Caesarea acclaimed Herod as divine of their own accord. The
Maltese islanders changed their mind and identified Paul as a god without any persuasion from outside. Both instances illustrate their spiritual failure.
345 Cf. the comments on these incidents and the discussion of Gentile anti-Judaism in
II.3.7. Philo's negative portrayal of the Gentile crowds of Alexandria during the visit of
Herod Agrippa I provides an instructive parallel (Flacc 29,33f,36-41).
346 Also the leading men of Pisidian Antioch are won over and become instruments of
Jewish jealousy (Acts 13.45, III.2.2.7.4.). Gentile susceptibility is not limited to lower
class mobs.
177
vinely-ordained Christian mission. Where Gentiles refused to co-operate

the picture is equally negative (18.12-17; 19.33f).
4. These Gentile crowds joined Jews or other Gentiles without understanding or pursuit of personal goals. Lack of orientation and discernment
in spiritual and moral-ethical issues becomes apparent. Gentile resistance
and united resistance against the Christian cause was easily achieved: Luke
reports no incident of Gentiles or Jews trying in vain to instigate Gentiles
to join their cause against the Christian mission. Gentile crowds were fickle
and violent. Whether Gentile crowds rejected the Christian mission for its
Jewish origin out of their anti-Judaism or joined Jews in their rejection of it,
they sooner or later did reject it. This paradox stresses the blindness and rebellion of these Gentiles. 347 While Luke reports positive encounters of individual Gentiles with Judaism or with Christian salvation and recognises individual Gentiles with morally-ethically commendable traits, Gentile
crowds are consistently 'bad news'.
These susceptible, unruly and violent crowds present an unrestrained humanity, what Gentiles were like once the safeguards of law, order and impending punishment were momentarily threatened or removed. Here Luke
is reminiscent of Thucydides, for whom the true nature of people was displayed under such exceptional circumstances (e.g. the plague in Athens or
the civil war in Corcyra; History of the Peloponnesian War 1.47-55; rII.6985). What Thucydides states about human behaviour in and following civil
wars applies also to Luke's picture of crowds:
Then, with the ordinary"conventions of civilised life thrown into confusion, human nature, always ready to offend even where laws exist, showed itself proudly in its true
colours as something incapable of controlling passion, insubordinate to the idea of
justice, the enemy of anything superior to itself, for, if it had not been for the pernicious power of envy, men would not so have exalted vengeance above innocence and
profit above justice.'"
347 The crowds' anti-Judaism, susceptibility and ensuing action are never explicitly associated with demonic influence,e.g. in the manner of Luke 22.3.
348 Ill.B4 (trad. R. Warner); cf. also I.52f; Finley, 'Introduction', 23-25,3lf and Butterfield, Christianity, (26-47) 30-32. For Thucydides' anthropology see 0. Luschnat, 'Thukydides', RE S XII, (1085-1354) 1224, 1231-36, 1241,1251-57 (extensive survey of research);
MOri, 'Beitrag'; Stahl, Thukydides. Cf. also Polybius' estimate (Histories VI.56):' .,. the
masses are always fickle, filled with lawless desires, unreasoning anger and violent passions ... ', quoted according to Polybius: The Rise of the Roman Empire: Translated by I.
ScolI-KilverJ, Selected with an Introduction by EW. Walbank, Penguin Classics (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1979),349.
178
2.2.9. The events and speech at Lystra (Acts 14.7-20)
Our survey of research indicated that the speech contained in this passage,
due to its form and its similarity to the Areopagus speech, has received a
fair amount of attention. We saw that both speeches were often studied in
isolation from their narrative contexts, which were neglected as less promising ground for Lukan theology. Against this background we want to treat
the whole incident, including the speech, in the place where it is found in
the overall narrative. We follow the summons of ParsonslPervo: 'The
speeches belong to the narrative and must be analysed in this context
rather than as detachable entities'.349
2.2.9.1. Initial proclamation and healing (Acts 14.7-10)
1. Paul and Barnabas fled to Lystra, Derbe and the surrounding Lycaonian
country. So far the missionaries had contact with and success among Jews
and their Gentile associates. 350 No further contacts with Jewish synagogues
are mentioned for this area. 351 They were 'on their own' in this barbaric
backyard of the empire352 and continued their nonnal task: euayyeALf;6fLevOL ~aav353, like the apostles and others before them.3 54 Luke does not
further elaborate on their message. The reader is left to assume that they
preached the same good news to these Gentiles as Peter preached to Cornelius and as was proclaimed in Antioch (Acts 11.20).355 Previous objects
349 Rethinking, 85; et: Lehrle, 'Predigt' ,55. This portrayal of Gentiles prior to faith follows
their characterisation in 24 chapters of Luke and 13 of Acts. For the methodological sign ificance of Luke's narrative sequence see Darr, Character, 16-59. For the whole passage cf.
also M. Foumier, The Episode at Lystra: A Rhetorical and Semiotic Analysis of Acts 14:720a, AmUSt.TR 197 (New York, Washington D.C./Baltimore,Boston: P. Lang, 1997).
3S0 Cf. Acts 13.5f,14; 14.1; exc. 13.6-12.
3S1 Cf. Haenchen, 431. It would seem unusual for Paul to miss a synagogue if there was
one. Even after persecution and expulsion from Pisidian Antioch, the missionaries immediately made contact with the Jewish community in lconium. Among the Gentiles associated with both communities they had considerable success. It is therefore unlikely
that they deliberately fled into exclusively Gentile territory. If that were the case, the
events in Lystra would indicate that the absence of Jews did not mean the end of problems. Acts 16.1 mentions Timothy's Jewish mother in connexion with Lystra; for a Jewish
community see Riesner, Frllhzeit, 243f,247.
3S2 Zahn, 469: ... die Hellenisierung der Volksmassen in Lykaonien viel weniger vorgeschritten war, als in den bisher von den Missionaren besuchten Stildten'; cf. W.M. Ramsay, 'Lycaonia',DB (H) Ill, (174-76) 176.
3S3This summary is confined to proclamation in contrast to the summaries of the
longer stays in Iconiurn and Ephesus, Acts 14.3; 19.9-12.
3S4 Cf. Acts 5.42; 8.4,12,25,35,40; 11.20; 13.32.
355 Acts 13.16-41 exemplifies Paul's preaching on his missionary journeys and is to be
assumed for similar occasions. Luke's two speeches before Gentile audiences follow
179
of E{,UYYEA.L~W guide the reader (Acts 5.42; 8.4,12,35; 10.36; 11.20): the good
news of the Lord Jesus was proclaimed to Gentiles.
This is confirmed by the conclusions regarding the content of the Lystran good news
which can be drawn from Acts 14.9. The proclamation contained references to the life
and ministry of Jesus similar to Peter's speech (10.34-43):' ... how Jesus went about doing
good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil .. .'.'S6 That the lame man believed
in the continuing power of Jesus to heal through the missionaries may indicate that the
proclamation included Jesus' resurrection and commission to evangelise. For Gentile
Athens the standard proclamation to Gentiles is summarised as 'the good news about Jesus and the resurrection' (Acts 17.18).
Despite repeated rejection by Jews and Gentiles, the missionaries remained convinced of the content and necessity of their message. Luke describes their perseverance with fun sympathy and approval. Gentiles
needed this good news of the Lord Jesus and needed to have it brought to
them as they could not find it in themselves or elsewhere in the pagan
realm. The salvation it announces is found in no other name (Acts 4.12; cf
1II.3.2.3.).
2. In Lystra a cripple from birth listened to the proclamation. Of an the people listening (d Acts 14.11), only this man responded in faith. 357 He understood enough of the missionaries' initial and intended proclamation in
Greek to respond. 358 The reaction to the miracle indicates that the proclamation of the good news was not understood by the crowds.
Healing and/or salvation could be implied in aw{l-ijvaL. That this man had
nLO"tLv "tou aw{l-ijvaL possibly indicates that beyond the likely reference to
Jesus' healing ministry (10.38: La0f.taL), the missionaries proclaimed Jesus as
aw"tTJQ. 359 Luke elsewhere employs laof.tUL to describe mere physical healing.3 60 As faith and salvation are also linked where no physical need occurs,
brief references to the 'normal' proclamation of the Christian message and they correct
Gentile misunderstanding of the missionaries' identity or of that original message.
356 Cf. Marshall, 236; Barrett I, 524. ALfjf,.rn should be taken as a complexive aorist,
emphasising (with the present participles eUE'1YE1:WV and tWJ.LEVO~) that 'the ministry regarded as a whole was made up of a continuous series of acts of beneficence', Barrett I,
525; cf. BD R 332.2.
357 Usually report of proclamation is followed by a report of the response, see e.g. Acts
14.1. Only in 14.20 does Luke mention further believers. The missionaries returned to
Lystra to strengthen the believers; cf. Acts 14.21-23; 16.1-3.
358 From this observation it is safe to conclude with Gempf,Appropriateness, 202: 'Presumably the crowds mentioned would have been able to speak and understand their 10callanguage and some Greek at least .. .'; cf. Haenchen, 431.
359 Gempf, Appropriateness, 217; Haenchen, 431: ':n:LatLV "to-O ooo-flijVaL ... presupposes
that Paul has been speaking of Jesus as ooo"t1]'1'; cf. Luke 2.11; Acts 5.31; 13.23.
360 Exc. Acts 28.27, when quoting Isa 6.10.
180
his faith likely went beyond faith 'to be healed'.361 This man was probably
one of the disciples mentioned in Acts 14.20. 362
In contrast to Gentiles already associated ~ith JUdaism (cf. e.g. the great
number of Greek converts in the synagogue of Iconium, 14.1), the proclamation in thoroughly pagan Lystra evoked only minimal response. The vast
majority remained unaffected by the good news. The only response recorded at this point in the narrative came from a lame man who believed in
the good news of Jesus the saviour and benefactor. The careful description
of the man's state and its duration363 demonstrates that neither he himself
nor other Gentiles nor the gods known and venerated in Lystra were able
to deliver him. In his desperate situation the impotence of Gentile deities
has become apparent. 364
2.2.9.2. Acclamation and Preparation
(Ac~
14.11-13)
Witnessing the miracle, the crowds jumped to false conclusions regarding

the identity of the missionaries and shouted in Lykaonian: 'The gods have
come down to us in human form' (cf. Acts 12.22). Quickly the alleged gods
were identified with deities from the traditional Greek pantheon365 by the
361 Cf. Luke 7.50; 8.12; Acts 15.11; 16.31; coupled with disease: Luke 8.48,50; 17.19;
18.42.
362 This need not imply that the man understood the full implications of Christian salvation; cf. Barrett 1,675. Only after the correcting speech and the interval before the arrival of the Jewish opposition Luke mentions Gentile disciples. However, this does not
indicate that the prolegomena contained in the following speech were fundamental to a
proper response to the good news proclaimed initially.
363 Cf. Barrett I, 674; Zmijewski, 533 for the functions of this description; cf. Luke 8.43
(cf. Sch!lrmann I, 490f); Acts 3.2.
364 Luke does not explicitly link this personal need and his faith. Breytenbach, 'Zeus',
401 mentions an altar inscription in Iconium which calls Zeus OOO-n1g. Possibly there is
implicit polemic: Though Zeus and other deities were known and worshipped as ooo'tT)g
(cf. Deissmann, Licht, 292, 311t), they all failed to procure ooo'tl]gLa for the cripple (for
Hellenistic rulers and other human saviours see Wendland, Kultur, 119, 126, 132, 148,
221). This contradiction went unnoticed. For pagan miraculous or divine healing cf. Kee,
Medicine, 27-94; R. Herzog, 'Asklepios', RAC I, (795-99) 795-97 and idem, 'Ant', 720-24;
E. Thraemer, 'Asklepios. 2', RE 11, (1642-97) 1655-62,1677-90; F. Kudlien, 'Gesundheit',
RAC X, (902-45) 920-29; J.H. Croon, 'Heilg5tter', RAC XIII, (1190-1232) 1215-19.
315 On these identifications Gill/Winter, 'Religion', 84f (similarly Gempf,Appropriateness,205f) conclude: 'Thus Paul and Barnabas are quite likely to have come across a local Lycaonian cult, which itself recast the nature of the deities in the language of the classical world; there is no reason to suppose that Luke presented these gods "in terms of the
Greek gods with whom his readers would be familiar'" (inclusion from Marshall, 237;
against Zahn, 471). For occurrences of both gods in and around Lystra see Hansen,
'Galatia', 393; Gempf, Appropriateness, 205.
181
Lykaonian speaking people of a Roman colony.366 This combination provides a fine example of pagan syncretism. Luke provides reasons for this
'functional' identification: Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called
Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. Immediately the priest of Zeus,
whose temple was outside the city367, became active. He brought oxen 368 to
the gates 369, because he and the crowds wanted to sacrifice to the incarnate
deities in their midst.37o
These events allow several observations on these Gentiles.
1. Idolatry and pagan conviction were deeply entrenched. There was a local
priest and a sanctuary of Zeus. As in their everyday routine so also under
exceptional circumstances these Gentiles were devoted to and ready to
366 Cf. GillfW"mter, 'Religion', 82; Gempf, Appropriateness, 202.

367 Cf. GilllWmter, 'Religion', 84, n. 22. For an Augusteum in Lystra and its relation to
the sanctuary of Zeus see Lake, 'Route', 226.
368 Cf. Breytenbach, 'Zeus', 402f on bulls as sacrificial animals and their close relation
to and use in the worship of Zeus. His observation of the 'weitverbreitete Verbindung
zwischen dem Wettergott Zeus und dem potenten Stier im Taurusraum' (p. 402) will become important for v.17: 'lm Zuge der Hellenisierung alter religiiiser Vorstellungen wird
der Wettergott im Raum d~r Tauruskette mit Zeus identifiziert. Hier weist der Stier Zeus
als Gott des fruchtbringenden Sonnenscheins und der Gewitterstiirme aus. Es ist weiterhin auch iiber den anatolischen Raum hinaus belegt, daB Zeus Stiere geopfert wurden,
damit sieh seine FlIhigkeit, Fruehtbarkeit und Waehtum zu sehenken, vermehrt' (402f; ef.
my forthcoming extensive review of Breytenbaeh,Paulus in CV). For an ox prepared for
sacrifice with garlands cf. the photograph and discussion in Eltester, 'Schiipfungsoffenbarung', plate I, picture 2 and p.104, n. 3.
369 For GillIWinter the gates are likely to be those of the precincts of the temple of
Zeus: 'It was here, within the sacred area, that the sacrifice would take place', 'Religion',
85; similarly Ramsay, Traveller, 119. Yet as the missionaries were in the town, it is also
possible that the animals were brought to the city gates from the temple 1tQo 1t6Aew~;cf.
Meyer,263.
370 There need not be implicit irony in the observation that though Hermes performed
the miracle, the priest of Zeus was about to bring an offering; against Zahn, 473: 'FUr eine
Tat des angeblichen Hermes wird dem angeblichen Zeus ein kostbares Opfer bereitet!'.
It is not said that the offering will be to one god only. There might have been only a sanctuary and priest to Zeus in Lystra, and there was a strong perceived relation of both gods
in the .area. Cf. HengeVSchwemer, Paul, n.l09S on the significance of Hermes in the area.
On the intention of the priest of Zells to offer sacifices to the missionaries, the authors
note: 'This is a quite irreplacable authentic feature, since in this way the priest of Zeus
wants to steal a march on the priest of Hermes, who represents the chief god and is of
higher rank'. If that were the case, this remark adds to Luke's satirical description of pagan notions and veneration and is further evidence of the Gentile readiness to use religion to promote personal interests. Breytenbach, 'Zeus', 400f gathers proof for the gods'
association of the gods in the area and concludes that both. the Philemon and Baucis
myth and Acts 14.12 reflect 'Lokaltradition' (401). For other local links to these deities
see GillIWinter, 'Religion', 82, nos. 19-21.
182
demonstrate this commitment.371 They did not shy away from cost or lack
loyalty to their deities. Their spontaneous response to what they perceived
to be a theophany, authenticated by a miracle372, testifies to their enthusiastic dedication. This is not surprising in light of Breytenbach's reconstruction
of the significance of Zeus in the central Anatolian religion: 373
Ftlr die Kaiserzeit lllBt sich nun nachweisen, daB es in Phrygien, Pisidien und Isauria
Zeusverehrungen gab, die seine Funktion als Wettergott besonders betonen. Dies
sieht man z.B. an den Zeusabbildungen mit Blitz auf den kaiserlichen Mtlnzen aus Isaurien und Lykaonien - Illndlichen Gegenden des trockenen Zentralanatoliens, wo
man fUr die Ernte auf den Regen angewiesen war.
Zeus' responsibility extended beyond matters of weather. Again Breytenbach:

Zeus wurde in Angleichung an den Wetter- und Vegetationsgott des hethitischen Pantheons vom ursprtlnglichen Wettergott zum Gott des Wachstums. In den Abbildungen
fallen vor all em das Getreide und die vom Menschen verzehrbaren Frtlchte auf. .. ,
Zeus ist derjenige, der Frtlchte und Ernte gibt .... der Wettergott Zeus, der die Jahreszeiten kontrolliert, gleichzeitig als Vegetationsgott verehrt wurde.
Following Gill/Winter who write that 'the priest of this cult was probably not somebody
who had a lifelong role asa priest; rather it would be a member of the local urban elite
who was fulfilling the role for a set period of time'm, a good number of people would
have been consecutively involved. The priest probably provided for the animals and garlands from his private means.m
371 Codex Dreads btdroELv for the intention of the priest(s). Ramsay, Traveller, 117
translates this compound as 'to make sacrifice beyond the usual ritual' and comments:
'extra beyond the ordinary ritual which the priests performed to the God'. LSJ, 635 also
offer 'sacrifice besides or after' would allow for this interpretation. Regular offerings are
implied by the presence of the priest and the swiftness with which preparations were
made. For discussion see Bruce, 322 and Kilpatrick, 'btL'lhiEW', 151 who suggests that
btL%EW denotes a pagan sacrifice: 'Sacrifice is offered either by a pagan or to others
than the God of Israel or otherwise unlawfully'.
m Lane Fox, Pagans, 100 writes: ' ... they had to be convinced before they jumped to
the wrong conclusion: the "barbarians"were not deceived without reason'.
373 'Zeus', 404-07, quotations from 404f. For references see Breytenbach's extensive
notes. The literary evidence and the various archaeological data for the popularity of
Zeus explain the identification with those gods in this particular area. The ensuing address by the missionaries specifically challenged and corrected these local associations
and identifications. Whether a special god with healing competence and thus more likely
to be credited with a healing miracle, was venerated locally is unknown; cf. Gempf, Appropriateness, 204.
374 'Religion', 82f; further material on priests of Zeus in this area in Breytenbach,
'Zeus', 40lf. This succession of office holders could explain the D reading which has several priests coming with the people to sacrifice; c[ Bruce, 322; Gempf, Appropriateness,
209, n. 24. Luke previously mentioned leading men of Gentile cities who became active
in religious matters (Acts 13.50; 14.5).
375 Cf. Gill/Winter, 'Religion', 83. The plural 'tauQo\J~ would indicate an affluent man.
183
The nature of these Gentiles' religious devotion and outlook also becomes
apparent in that the earlier proclamation failed to produce any results and
in that their reaction to the miracle was contrary to all that was probably
known about the missionaries and to anything the missionaries would have
said. 376
Haenchen has argued that Luke is deliberately silent about the first message in order to avoid an allegedly insurmountable contradiction: ' ... a
preacher who proclaims a new faith, inveighing against old gods could not
be mistaken by his hearers for one of those very gods!' .377
Gempf writes in response:
In a culture in which syncretism was a way of life, it should only be expected that the
Lystrans initially misunderstand Christianity's exclusivity and attempt to incorporate
new religious data (and persons) into their obviously flexible system'.'78
Rather, Luke deliberately describes the paradox of how these Gentiles

adopted the emissaries of a radically different God into their existing paradigm and thus neutralised the challenge their message presented.
2. The miracle was not taken as authentication of the missionaries and a vital
component of their message which was to be embraced in response, but was
immediately and quasi-naturally interpreted within their pagan framework
(cf. the functional identification). They rightly associated the miracle with the
supernatural (not as an act of magic or sorcery, unlikely in view of Acts 14.8!)
and ascribed it to their incarnate deities and so identified the human miracle
workers. Even after hearing the initial proclamation of the gospel this miracle only affirmed their pagan outlook and nourished and deepened idolatrous commitment rather than weakened it by showing up the impotence of
their pagan deities. The challenge and correction to their pagan paradigm
contained in the proclamation and in the reality and grandeur of the miracle
failed to affect these Gentiles. 379 This complete failure indicates that more
than such correction is necessary for the salvation of Gentiles.
3. On 'ot -frEot 6f.LOLw-frEVtE~ c:'tv-frQOO:rtOL~' GilllWinter comment: 'the people
expected the gods to be anthropomorphic' .380 Though 'expected' is possibly
376 This observation lets Gempf,Appropriateness, 202 question 'their degree of fluency
even in Greek',yet the reference to the Lykaonian vernacular is an explanation why the
missionaries initially did not realise what response their miracle elicited.
377 Gempf,Appropriateness, 208, quoting from Haenchen,43l.
378 Appropriateness, 208, see also p. 217; ct: U. Wickert, 'Kleinasien', TRE XIX (1990),
244-65.
379The miraculous punishment of the opponent of 'tov "J..6yov 'tou {leou was understood by Sergius as authentication of'tfi 1iL1iaXfi 'tou K1JQt01J (Acts 13.11f). Sergius was
'able to put things together', which Souter, Lexicon, 248 indicates for 01JVE't6~.
380 'Religion', 82;cf. Lane Fox, Pagans, 100.
184
too strong, there was no hesitation to assume, recognise and worship deity
in human form. This readiness is also illustrated by Luke's other instances
of Gentiles crediting people with divinity (Acts 12.22f; 28.6-8; cf. also 10.25;
16.29f).381 The missionaries were identified with pagan deities. Polytheism
was the spontaneous and natural frame of reference. The exclamation and
ensuing activity indicate fundamental lack of understanding of the uniqueness and true nature of God and the cognitive failure and blasphemy behind their idolatrous dedication.
Local dedication and possibly also the expectation of such an event may have been increased
by the legend, originating from this region, that Zeus and Hermes had visited Phrygia previously.382 A 'thousand homes' (627f) refused them a place to rest until Philemon and Baucis
invited them in. Rejection brought punishment on other villagers. 'If the local people had
failed to honour the gods as gods on their previous visit, they were anxious not to repeat the
error'.383 In avid's myth the gods - ofLoLw{tiVte~ Iiv6-QOJTIOL~ - indicate their identity
through a miracle.3" Philemon and Baucis saw this strange sight with amazement and fear,
and with upturned hands Baucis and 'the trembling old Philemon' (preces limidusque,682;cf
Acts 16.29) both uttered a prayer. Only as the main course of the meal was about to be
butchered did the gods reveal: di sumus. This background could explain why the crowd took
the missionaries to be gods rather than human exorcistslwonder-workers3M and also why
similar miracles in a Gentile environment did not yield this response (e.g. Acts 19.11f).386
381 Cf. W.M. Ramsay's section 'The worship of living men as deities' in 'Religion of
Greece and Asia Minor', DB (H) S, (109-56) 154; Pervo, Profit, 65.
382 avid, Metamorphoses VIII. (617-724) 627! avid stresses in the introductory verses
that his account follows local tradition. Lelex, the source and narrator of the account
(617) has himself seen the spot (ipse locum vidi, 622) and assures: 'Even to this day the
Bithynian peasant in that region pOints out two trees ... These things were told me by
staid old men who could have had no reason to deceive. With my own eyes I saw votive
wreaths hanging from the boughs ... ' (719-23). The tradition might have been kept alive
as a welcome aetiological explanation for the presence of a lake (see 624f,690-97) in an
otherwise dry area. Caution in the use of this legend is required as avid's location is simply the colles Phrygiis (621). Zahn, 473, n. 81 tried to identify details of avid's account
(624f) in the vicinity of Lystra. Hasty use and identification is criticised by Lane Fox, Pagans, 99: 'On the thinnest evidence, this myth has been located by modem scholars near
Lystra and accepted as the source of Acts' incident'.
383 Marshal!, 237; cf. Pervo, Profit, 64f.
38~ 'Meanwhile Philemon and Bauds saw that the mixing-bowl, as often as it was
drained, kept filling of its own accord, and that the wine welled up of itself; ct 1 Kgs
17.14-16, referred to in Luke 4.26.
385 However, also the nature of the miracle (against the backdrop of Acts 14.8) would
sufficiently explain for their reaction. Lane Fox, Pagans, 100 sees a potential reason for the
missionaries identification in the manner in which these gods were locally portrayed: 'on a
sculptured relief, we can see how people locally pictured these divinities, round-faced and solemn, with long hair and flowing beards, a searching gaze and the right hand held prominently
across the chest. Such a Zeus looks uncommonly like our image of a wandering Christian holy
man .. .'; cf. Acts 14.9. There is too much of 'our' or Lane Fox's image in this suggestion.
386These observations contradict Lane Fox's claim: 'In the view, then, of an early
Christian, pagans might think at any moment that they were seeing and welcoming a god
.. .',Pagans, 101.
185
In response to this situation and these failures the following speech was delivered. But it was not merely to address and, if possible, to correct a series
of inadequate Gentile religious concepts; Paul spoke to prevent his audience from blasphemously worshipping him and Barnabas. 387
2.2.9.3. Barely successful corrections (Acts" 14.14-17)
Such complete misunderstanding, fervent intention and preparations required poignant correction.
1. The realisation of the missionaries led to two unmistakable gestures of
refutation: they tore their c1othes 3BB as 'an expression of revulsion at a blasphemous attempt to regard men as divine' and' ... the swift rush ... into the
crowd was their attempt to avoid being reverenced as gods and so committing sin against the true God'.3B9 The speech is set on this ironic stage: with
torn clothes the alleged gods, alias Jewish missionaries, were amidst their
devoted Gentile worshippers trying their best to prevent their veneration.390 A short explanation and exhortation accompanied these gestures.
Acts 14.15. In contrast to what the Lystrans assumed (6!lOLo){}ME~) and
did, the missionaries expressed their indignation Cd 'tuu'tu 1tOLEL'tE)391 and insisted on their own humanity: 'We are merely mortals like you (6!lOL01tu{}ET~)
392, who should have been and should now be recognised as of the same human nature. Such recognition of them and all other humans forbids all Gentile attempts at acclamation and worship. The distinction between truly di-
Cf. Lerle, 'Predigt', 54f.

and Graeco-Roman parallels see Gempf,Appropriateness, 211.
So Marshal!, 237. Similarly Bruce, 323: 'The action indicated their horror at blasphemy'. Marshall suggests that 'The use of the term apostles ... is perhaps meant to stress
the role of Barnabas and Paul as mere messengers of God'. The Lystrans failed to recognise this. Gempf, Appropriateness, 200 notes 'the interesting and ironic twist of the "sen t
ones" being mistaken for gods themselves'. On the use of futOO'tOAO: in Acts 14.4,14 see
Barrett I, 666f, 671f, 678f.
390 Chrysostom contrasts the reaction of the missionaries to those acclaiming them:
'But if it had come to be in the power of anyone of those senseless people ... to do anything like it, would he not straightway have looked for an altar and a temple to be reared
to him, and have wanted to be equal with the gods?' (Homilies on Acts 4, 31).
391 WB, 1208.1.b.~. note that 'eine verllchtliche Nebenbedeutung' is assumed by commentators for OV'toq, cf. Luke 1530; 18.11; Acts 4.17; 17.18. BDR 290, n. 1 limit this usage to present persons. The address with merely avllQE: indicates a distance not felt with
Jewish audiences (cf. Acts 17.22;27.10,21,25) where a/lEAqJol is often added.
392 Zahn, 476, n. 89: '''in alIen wesentlichen Eigenschafien wie andere Menschen
geartet" im Gegensatz zu Gatt oder den Gottem'; cf. Gempf, Appropriateness, 213;
Bruce,323; W. Michaelis, ThWNT V, 938.41-939.3.
387
388 For Jewish

389
186
1JI.
The <Jellcile en.counter wLlh saivallon
vine and human, non-existing or severely blurred in their admirers' minds,

was clearly affirmed. 394
This passage may provide an indirect but trenchant criticism of the ruler cult (cf. our n.
248, p.154). No human beings, whatever their appearance or claims (cf. Luke 7.25; Acts
12.21), can transcend their OflOlOltO:frO<; with fellow humans, and therefore do not deserve worship. If this refutation applies even to those healing the lame and crippled from
birth, how much more does it apply to unwarranted claims! In combination with Acts
12.22f the message is unmistakable. 'OflOLOlta-81\<; may also imply criticism of Gentile
concepts of divine nature. Because the missionaries have affections just like other people, they cannot be divine. Therefore deities which in many ways resemble humans cannot be divine either (cf. Acts 7.48-50; 17.24f).
After dismissing humans as deities, the missionaries address traditional

Gentile deities. Though mere mortals, the missionaries had good news to
deliver: the Lystrans should heed it and turn away from their worthless
things to the living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea
and all that is in them. 395
1.1. 'These pagan gods are "vain things" (toun.ov tWV fJ.utuLrov), in contrast with "a living God", the implication being that pagan gods were not
living, and that they could not intervene in the affairs of men'.396 MutaLrov
refers to the gods mentioned and to everything associated with their worship (the te~ple397, its personnel and the sacrifices).
MutatO<; is a common and derogatory term in the LXX. Some examples suffice: apostate
Israel ran after vain things and has herself become vain (Jer 2.5); they provoked God to
anger with their carved things (tOL<; y).,um:o~) and flataloL<; u).,).,OtQlOL<; (Jer 8.19). Unless
God intervenes 'the mouth of the Gentiles will be opened to speak the praises of vain
things (j.tatalwv) and that a mortal king should be admired in eternity' (Est 4.17p. LXX;
cf. Acts 12.22!). 'Let not the vain-minded [referring to Gentiles] praise their vanities (j.tT]
tot<; flataloL<; ot flatat6QlQOVE<; ... ) at the destruction of your beloved people, saying 'Not
even their god has rescued them'" (3 Macc 6.11)."3 Mutato<; and other words of the
speech (oj.toLo:rta{hi<;, EvaYYE)"l~Eu{}at, E:rtLOtQEQlELV, EVQlQOcr\JVT], 0 '/reo<; ~wv) indicate
that Luke's choice of terminology 'auf einer Linie mit dem Sprachgebrauch des griechisch-sprechenden Judentums liegt'."g
394 Cf. Lerle, 'Predigt', 47 and Acts 10.25[ The same attitude was displayed by Peter in
Acts 3.12; cf. Barrett 1,192. On Acts 16.31 see III.2.2.1D.4.
395 This epithet of the creator God alludes to the LXX (Exod 20.11; Ps 146.6; cf. Acts
4.24; 17.24). In their correction and instruction of their Gentile audience the missionaries
repeatedly alluded to the OT. This is rightly emphasised by Lerle, 'Predigt'.
396 Gill/Winter, 'Religion', 85.
397 Cf. Acts 7.48 and the characterisation of the Gentiles in 15.19;etc.
398 See further O. Bauemfeind, ThWNT IV, (525-30) 526.52528.6,528.23-31. H. Balz,
EDNT II, 396 writes: 'everything else connected with pagan gods and their images was
considered flUtato<; (Hos 5.11; Isa 2.20; ... ; 2 Chr 11.15) .... In the NT fl(ltata include
every false worship directed toward the veneration of humankind rather than the true,
living God'. For discussion and references cf. Breytenbach, 'Zeus', 397 and nos. 4-11.
399 Breytenbach, 'Zeus', 397; cf. also Lerle, 'Predigt'. These pointers to the conceptual
background need to be remembered for the interpretation of the Areopagus speech.
2. Ihe
Gentile encounter wIth salvation
187
This designation entails a verdict over the intellectual and spiritual faculties of the worshippers: They venerated with dedication and effort such
vanities without recognising their lack of life and power and their worthlessness. 4oo
2. The pagan deities with their temple outside of the city4C)1 and special per-
sonnellooking after their well-being are contrasted with the living God, the
creator of all things. His creation and continuous providential care testify
and prove that he is alive (cf. Acts 14.17, see below).402
This living creator-God was known and worshipped among Jews. God is Lord of heaven
and earth (Luke 10.21).'03 The maker of heaven and earth, the sea and everything in
them, is addressed as the creator in a context that affirms his special revelation (6 ...
E!JtWV, Acts 4.24) and supremacy and the accountability of the Gentiles (4.26)."'4 God,
whose throne is heaven and whose footstool is earth, does not need the kind of house
that human hands could erect, for his hand made all these things (7.48-50). God made all
nations with a specific purpose in mind (17.26).
Nevertheless, this living God and creator was unknown among the Gentiles. His very existence and nature needed to be proclaimed. They had
failed to recognise him (see below). The proclamation of God the creator
challenges Gentile cosmology. Meyer notes on 8~ E1toLrlOE: 'bedeutsame
Epexegese des ~G)V"ta, wodurch die !J.at!lL6tT)~ der polytheistischen Vergotterung einzelner Naturkrafte sehr fUhlbar gemacht wird'.405
3. These failures are the sad tidings, against which the Lystrans heard the
good news that turning to a living God was not only necessary but possible. 406 In their natural state they were away from God and in a position
which required turning to God.
Gentiles revered worthless idols while the living God and his nature
were not recognised despite his creation. This idolatry and failure indicate
the Gentiles' spiritual state of blindness and darkness: not only did they fail
400 The cripple was one proof of the ~a"taL6"tT]C; of their gods. The same irony occurs in
Ephesus: while Artemis received fanatical devotion, Paul healed the sick and the name of
Jesus drove out demons (Acts 19.11-16; cf. 8.6-12; 28.4-9). Jewish exorcists were welcome
while otherwise Jews were' not appreciated (19.13f,33f).
<101 Meyer,263 observes: 'Der Ausdruck ... erklart sich aus der heidnischen Vorstellung,
dass der Gott selbst in seinem Tempel gegenwartig ist ... '.
402 Breytenbach, 'Zeus', 397f traces the Jewish background of the expression 0 {tEac;
~Oiv.
403 Cf. Luke 11.40; No\land, 664: ' ... God who is creator of the human agent ... '; cl.
Schl1rmann ILl, 310.
404 Cf. Barrett 1,243. A remarkable parallel is Hezekiah's prayer in Isa 37.16-29. On
God the creator see also Schnelle, Anthropologie, 14-22.
4OsP.264.
<106 ct. Gempf,Appropriateness, 213, also Acts 26.18; 1 Thess 1.9.
188
with their natural faculties or insight to recognise and serve the living God
- far from remaining 'neutral', they were turned away from him and worshipped vain idols. The existence and nature of the previously unknown living God and the possibility now to turn to him is truly good news and a necessary part of the proclamation. Knowledge and worship of him was nonexistent, both had to be announced to these Gentiles.
Acts 14.16. In the past God allowed all nations to go on their own way.407
The Gentile nations are under God's claim and in an accountable relation
to their creator: That God did not prevent them from going their own way
'does not mean that they have ever been out of his jurisdiction - they are
still under his sovereignty'.40B Acts 14.16 suggests that without continuing
divine intervention, Gentiles by nature follow or continue on their own
ways further away from God, rather than remain on or even find God's
way. They were not only on the wrong way but continually progressing on it
ever further away from God. Their own ways, characterised by false understanding of the world around them and of their relationship with God and
by various spiritual and moral-ethical failures, led to the spiritual condition
described in the previous verse. They needed to turn away from their position of ignorance of God and away from him and from their idolatry. For
Luke, only Gentile Christians became wayfarers on the way of the Lord (cf.
IV.3.1.3.).
Acts 14.17. Though the Gentiles had abandoned God to embark on their
own ways and though God did not prevent them from following these own
ways, the living God had not left them without testimony to himself through
his gracious and all-embracing kindness to all people: rains from heaven and
fruitful seasons, to fill them with food and their hearts with joy.409
What happened to this natural revelation?
1. Despite his revelatory provision which was to witness to him, people
failed to recognise God. They did not understand God's revelation in and
purpose behind these provisions. It has been misread and perverted, not
because of its inadequacy, but due to human inadequacy and failure. The
previous verses indicate the extent of the Gentile failure before natural
revelation.
407 Bruce, 324 comments: God 'overlooked their errors insofar as these arose from ignorance of his will'. Though eschatological judgement has not yet come, some Gentiles of
the past came under temporal judgement (Luke 10.13-15; 17.27-29).
408 Gempf,Appropriateness, 215.
409Por OTand possible Graeco-Roman parallels see the discussion in Gempf,Appropriateness, 216; Theger, Mensch, 24, n. 76. Lagercrantz, 'Act 14.17',87 translates: 'Da er
euch fruchtbares Wetter durch Regen vom Himmel gegeben und eure Herzen mit Preude llber Nahrung erftIllt hat',
189
2. Zahn notes the consequences of this failure: 'An dieser Gottesoffenbarung haben alle Menschen Teil, so daB'sie unentschuldbar sein und BuBe
tun mfissen, wenn sie dem giitigen Gott nicht die ihm allein gebiihrende
Ehre erweisen'.410 This failure brings Gentiles under divine judgement.
3. God's revelatory providential care not only failed to procure recognition and worship of himself, but the very opposite of his intention occurred:
instead of recognising this testimony, turning to and worshipping God, the
Lystrans had attributed to their worthless idols what God had provided.
These vanities they knew and venerated. By attributing the miraculous
healing to their gods and by their readiness to worship men, the audience
indicated their failure to comprehend and apply God's testimony concerning himself in natural revelation.
4. This statement contains further correction of Gentile notions and instruction in the true state of affairs: The one God is the one source of these
provisions. He gives rain and fruitful seasons oUQ<xvo-frev. Because God is
alive and not living in hand-made buildings, he can do so.
Breytenbach proposes specific local polemic: the living God and creator
is the one granting fertility, not the various local fertility gods who came to
be associated with Zeus: 411
Der lebendige Gott ist 0 aya{}ouQYwv, nicht ZEil~ KaAal<ayatJ-6~. Er ist der wetterbestimmende Himmelsgott,der durch Regen fruchtbare Zeiten gibt ((iLlioil~ .,. xaLQoil~
l<aQ:rco<p6Qou~) und eben nicht Zeus, der auch in Phrygien, Pisidien, Isauria uod Lykaonien als Wettergott verehrt wurde und fUr den in Ostphrygien die Namen KaQ:rcoM'tTj~, 'E:rcLxaQ:rcLo~, EiixaQ:rco~ und sogar KaQ:rco<p6QO~ belegt sind. Vom lebendigen
Gott, 0 {}E6~ 7;wv kommt das Wachstum und die Nahrung und nicht vom Himmelsgott
Zeus, der als wetterbestimmender Vegetationsgott in der Umgebung von Lystra viele
Kultstatten hatte und unter dem Namen Zeus Bronton zusammen rnit Hermes verehrt wurde ... , Hiermit wird 0 ttEO~ 7;wv von einer landlichen Perspektive her naher
bestimmt als der Schopfergott, der in Bezug auf Regen und Ernte genau die Funktionen ausUbt, deretwegen die Heiden im anatolischen Gebiet Zeus verehrten. Fur die
Ernte auf dem Markt in Lystra sorgt der lebendige Gott und nicht Zeus, der in dieser
Gegend als Garant der Landwirtschaft verehrt wurde.
Against the background of v.17, the possibility of leaving behind the worthless gods and turning to the living God and provider is truly good news. The
410 P. 479. Pervo, Profit, 74 suggests that 'miracles may most visibly manifest providence, but they are merely the tip ofthe iceberg (14.15-17),. Pervo claims that the 'verifiability of God's "providence" is constitutive for the theology of Luke'; cf. his n. 90, p. 165.
4ll 'Zeus', 408f. The polemic thrust of this section of the Lystran speech has to be kept
in mind when we turn to the Areopagus speech which is in many ways similar. Breytenbach, 'Zeus', 398 proposes that Deut 11 constitutes the conceptual background. Deut 28
points in the same direction. But both texts presuppose and stress Israel's unique covenant relationship with God. Breytenbach assumes that rain or drought would have a
similar function in God's dealings with Gentiles;cf. Stenschke, 'Bedeutung', 133, n. 34 for
the significance of rain and drought in OT history.
190
111. The Gencile encounter
IIItCh
salvation
mere existence of a living God, who over a long period of time has demonstrated his goodness and care through manifold provisions, is good news for
the Gentiles who failed to recognise him. God's gracious character is evident in that he did so even when he was neither recognised nor worshipped
by his beneficiaries while his providential care was attributed to worthless
idols.
In contrast with other speeches in Acts, the Lystran speech was not interrupted by the audience.412 There are no indicators that more was said (ct.
Acts 2.40). Surrounded by crowds ready to sacrifice and worship, it is unlikely that they repea ted their previous proclamation of the good news (Acts
14.7). In Lystra the missionaries did not need to clarify a misunderstanding of
their previous proclamation as in Athens. Perhaps what was said in correction was all that this audience could take.m In Luke's portrait these Gentiles
were incapable of or indifferent to refuting the missionaries' claims.
2.2.9.4. The Gentile response (Acts 14.18f)
Acts 14.18. The missionaries refuted the immediate intentions and underlying presuppositions of their audience. Yet, though just told that the miracle
workers were mere men and that the living God should be worshipped exclusively, the crowds were only with difficulty restrained from sacrificing. 414
All that the missionaries achieved was preventing them from proceeding with
their idolatrous and blasphemous intention. Their appearance and position
among the crowds also hindered such worship. Nothing is said of a reversal
of the earlier identification according to the missionaries' affirmation. In
contrast with other reports of proclamation, this basic exhortation - tailormade for the audience and occasion - to turn from their mis-identification,
from their readiness to worship humans, their idolatry and failure to attri-
412 Cf. Cadbury, 'Speeches', 403f.

413 Against Marshall, 238: 'Luke's account of the preaching at Lystra is confined to this
aspect (the true nature of God) of the message; his readers could draw on their knowledge of the earlier sermons to provide what Paul was likely to have said in addition'. But
this is Paul's first speech before a Gentile audience. Little of Paul's synagogue sermon in
Pisidian Antioch would be applicable to the Lystran audience. The initial proclamation
of Acts 14.7 can be assumed. For interrupted speeches see Pervo, Profit, 166, n.108.Some
manuscripts (see NTG, 363; CL Bruce, 325) add that (after their speech) the missionaries
'stayed on and taught. Some Jews coming from Iconium and from Antioch reasoned
openly with the missionaries and persuaded the crowds to withdraw from the missionaries, saying that they were not telling the truth at all, but liars in everything they said'. The
conclusions that this variant would allow for Gentiles can also be drawn from similar yet
better attested texts (cf. Iy'3.3.1., III.2.2.8.2.).
414 Gempf, Appropriatelless, 211 sees in this remark a further suggestion of 'the possibility that communication with these natives in Greek was difficult'.
191
bute God's provisions to h).m and to follow this testimony, remained without response. After the initial proclamation, the miracle and this speech the
living God was still not recognised; no conversions are reported. 415
Acts 14.19. Jewish opponents incited the idolatrous Gentile crowds
against the alleged deities in human form. While difficul t to convince of the
human character of the missionaries and of monotheism (still wanting
ihJLV av-ror~) through arguments delivered by people authenticated by a
miracle and who were earlier taken to be divine, the crowds were nevertheless won over by the Jews.416 The miracle was forgotten. They joined these
Jews against Paul, the undisputed benefactor of one of them, and stoned
him.417 Like a dead animal, the benefactor's alleged corpse was dragged
out of the city.418 If this were not enough, in their defiance even the meanest burial was denied.419 The blindness, fickleness and wickedness of these
Gentiles could hardly be described more forcefully.
TWo observations remain.!. Gempf suggests why Luke elaborated on
this episode of the first missionary journey:
... Luke's purpose is to emphasise the conceptual back-tracking that needed to be
done in such situations. There must be a preface of sorts to the usual gospel message
to preach a belief in One God, and against idols. Luke's point is that these types of
misunderstandings were real possibilities and should be dealt with in this way.42.
But Gempf overlooks'the initial specifically Christian proclamation (Acts

14.7), which continued to be the point of departure with Gentile audiences
(17.18). The Lystran speech is not a 'preface' to proclaiming the gospel,
rather it is a response to misapprehension of the missionaries' identity. The
recommended 'conceptual back-tracking' for such situations only with dif41S Readers discover only in passing in v. 20 that also others have responded to the initial proclamation; against Pervo, Profit, 26. Only belief in the good news would make
Christian disciples (the usual meaning of fla{h]1;-ri~), not response to the recorded speech.
416 Pervo's expression 'whip up the local rabble into a frenzy of hatred' (Profit,26) is
incorrect. Luke speaks of all Lystrans, while Acts 17.5 expresses Pervo's suggestion.
Pervo, Profit, 65 notes as a 'theme beloved of Greek literature: the fickle and irresponsible nature of barbarians'; et. the different scenario in Acts 19.33f.
417 For MarshaII, 239 the Jews are acting on their own. The crowds 'could easily have
been persuaded that the missionaries were in fact impostors and been content to let their
fellow-countrymen treat them as they thought fit'. Zahn, 481, differs: 'Die eigentlich handelnden Personen sind bei alledem die fremden Juden, aber doch so, daB die Mehrheit der
BevOlkerung, vor aIIem der Gassenpobel ihnen zur Seite stand'; on stoning cf. III.2.2.8.1.4.
418 et. Barrett 1,684 and Acts 17.6.
419 This treatment is in contrast to the several burials in Jewish settings. The usual procedure is described in Luke 7.11-17: the corpse is carried out on a bier. Joseph, a good
and righteous man, arranged a prop.er burial for Jesus (Luke 23.52~56; 24.1). Despite
their sin, Ananias and Sapphira received a proper funeral (Acts 5.6,10). Dorcas' corpse
was properly prepared for burial (9.37).
420 Appropriateness, 218:
192
ficulty succeeded in preventing idolatry, did not procure any positive results and was far less successful than the initial proclamation, which led at
least to some disciples.
Nevertheless Gempfs 'in such situations' reminds one that Luke probably considered
other Gentiles prone to similar misunderstanding, which would need to be addressed
similarly. The Lystran episode is not merely a curious incident told for the readers' entertainment, but paradigmatic as much in how such misunderstandings should be clarified
as also in its assessment of Gentiles: other Gentiles would react similarly to the proclamation of the good news and to miraculous signs. These types of misunderstandings are
indeed 'real possibilities'.
2. Taeger interprets 'from the power of Satan to God' in Acts 26.18 in the
light of 14.15: 'Was mit Satans Macht(bereich) konkret gemeint ist, darUber
gibt die einzige SteIIe Auskunft, an der sonst noch neben der Hinwendung
zu Gatt (EJtLa"CQEqJELV EJtt-frEOV) auch die Abkehr von etwas (ano) erwahnt
ist'. From this semantic link he concludes: 'Die Exousia des Satans steht
also mit dem heidnischen Gotzendienst in Zusammenhang, sie erstreckt
sich auf den Bereich, der durch die heidnische Verkennung des wahren
Gottes gekennzeichnet ist'. Against this observation it should be noted that
Luke never directly relates Satan to this spiritual failure (e.g. as its origin[ator] or beneficiary).421 When idolatry is mentioned, it never occurs
that Luke idolatry 'deshalb mit dem Satan in Verbindung bringt, so wie er
es auch sonst bei der DarsteIIung von in christIichen Augen Abgrtindigem
tut (Lk 22.3;Apg 5.1ffnach 4.32ff)'.422 Satan's power over Gentiles in Acts
26.18 is more than a reference to idolatry (cf. III.3.2.1.2.3.). This assessment
does not take seriously enough the consequences of Luke's references to
Satan for his anthropology.
On this premise Taeger concludes that' ... die Abwendung von der Exousia des Satans, konkret von der Idolatrie, van dem durch den christlichen
Verlctindiger aufgekHiiten Menschen vollzogen werden kann .. .'. Yet even
if this Abwendung were possible and Taeger's link granted, precisely such
turning did not occur: the Lystrans were merely prevented from sacrificing.
They did not revise their previous identification nor their polytheism or
idolatrous frame of reference in general and repent. 'EmO'tQEqJELV did not
occur. Taeger's aUfgekliirte Menschen, after receiving Aufkliirung which
only just restrained them from sacrificing to mortals, participated in the attempted murder of the Christian messenger. More than enlightenment and
correction through the Christian proclamation is required. Several notes in
this account caution against Taeger's emphasis on correction: The lame
Cf. Lev 17.7; Deut 32.17; Ps 106.37; Bar 4.7; 1 Cor 10.20; Rev 9.20.
All quotations from Mensch, 79 (see also p. BOf); arguing against Baumbach, Verstiindnis,167.
421
422
193
Lystran was not merely successfully corrected but had faith to be saved. The
content of the original proclamation was the good news, not explicit correction of Gentile notions. When correction became necessary through complete misunderstanding and application of their pagan paradigm by the
audience, correction proved far from successful.
Acts 14.7-20 contains several ingredients of the Lukan picture of Gentiles prior to faith. Once association with Judaism was left behind, response
to the Christian proclamation was minimal. Severe misunderstandings of
the nature and work of the missionaries occurred, which could hardly be
clarified. Gentiles interpreted events according to their frame of mind, dismissing the challenge and correction presented to them. They are portrayed as dedicated idolaters and polytheists. They continually failed to recognise the living God in his providential care and were turned away from
him. What God had provided for them in witness to himself, was readily
and with devotion ascribed to their gods. Correction of their assumptions
was not accepted. Though some Gentiles were prepared for the Christian
message, the vast majority was far from ready.
2.2.10. Paul's ministry in Philippi (Acts 16.11-40)
2.2.10.1. Lydia's conversion (Acts 16.13f)
In PhiIippi also ministry began at the Jewish place of prayer. The missionaries continued to attend and preach at this location (v. 16). Apart from Lydia
and her household - already among those worshipping God - Luke mentions no further response. 423
Lydia's response in faith is ascribed to divine activity: God opened Lydia's heart to listen eagerly and understand the Christian message.424
Through this 'opening' she became a believer in the Lord. Rackham comments: Paul's 'words went home, because the way was prepared by the di423 Though a longer stay is implied, nothing indicates missionary activity beyond these
confines. This limitation is somewhat unexpected after Acts 16.6-10. Possibly the charges
levelled against the ~issionaries and the reference to their identity (16.20f) imply that
they spoke outwith the prayer meeting. Lack of response among other Gentiles may also
be related to the counterproductive testimony of the slave-girl, see below.
424 On Lydia and her background et Peterlin, Philippians, 128-30, 155-60; Pilhofer,
Philippi I, 174-82, 234-40; for the place of prayer and its location et pp. 165-74,231-34 and
the extensive treatment by Richter Reimer, Women, 71-149. I have not seen L. Bormann,
Philippi - Stadt und Christengemeinde zur Zeit des Paulus, NT.S 78 (Leiden, New York,
Cologne: EJ. Brill, 1995;cf. the review by 1. Reumann inJBL 115, 1996,762-64) and y.A.
Abrahamsen, Women and Worship at Philippi: DianalArtemis and Other Cults in the
Early Christian Era (Portland: Astarte Shell, 1995; CL the review by G.F. Snyder in JBL
116,1997,557f).
194
vine grace, as at Pisidian Antioch: only instead of the military metaphor

['tE'tUYfJ.EVOL, 13.48], here S. Luke uses that of the door'.425 Through God's
intervention the proclamation penetrated, yet the response to that message
is not directly ascribed to him. However, it seems that once a heart is thus
prepared positive response follows. 426
Taeger proposes that Lydia's coming to faith 'laBt die Bekehrung fast als
selbstversUindliche Folge des l'tQOOEXELV erscheinen'. Taeger's emphasis is
on this verb and on 'auf die VerkUndigung folgende menschliche Glaubensentscheidung'.427 Luke's emphasis is on ~kllVOLl;Ev, whereby it is made feasible for her, successfully to l'tQOOEXELV. Bengel concludes: Cor clausum est
per se: sed DEI est, id aperire. Apart from this divine 'opening', the hearts of
Gentiles prior to faith were closed to the word of God and response to the
proclamation was impossible. Others, even though also associated with Judaism, merely listened without understanding. 428 Though rendering possible attraction to Judaism, the natural intellectual faculties of Gentiles were
inadequate to understand the message of Christian salvation.
The missionaries had just been called over to Macedonia. Now God affirmed their ministry beyond former fields in a different part of the world. 429
This note indicates that in Europe also it was God who continued intervening to grant the mission suceess. 430 This will be affirmed by the following
events in Philippi.
425 P. 283. Similarly MarshaIl, Power, 94: 'It is thus God who makes human hearts receptive to His Gospel; apart from His act the preaching of Paul would have consisted of ineffective words'.
426 Cf. E. Schweizer, Th WNT VI, 410.9f on Acts 16.14:' ... wo Lukas unterstreichen will,
daB das mot'Euom kein natUrliches, sondern ein von Gott wunderhaft geschenktes Ereignis ist', with reference to Acts 3.16: ~ :1tlOt'L~ ~ OL' mhou; cf. Barrett 1,200; Taeger, Mensch,
217-19.
'27 Both quotations Mensch, 214; cf. Zmijewski, 607.
428 Weiser, 241, comments: 'Lukas deutet auf diese Weise zugleich an, weshalb nur Lydia und nicht auch die anderen erwiihnten Frauen zum "Glauben an den Herrn" kam'
(italics mine); cf. Zmijewski, 607; similarly Taeger, Mensch, 214. Though an argument
from silence, it is noteworthy as for other places Luke reports generous response among
the Gentile associates; cf. e.g. Acts 14.1; 17.4. Possibly only Lydia is mentioned as she became the hostess of the missionaries. Elsewhere it is clearly indicated that not all Godfearers became Christians; cf. 13.50. This bears on Marshall's observation that Lydia was
already a worshipper of God (Power, 93f).
429 Cf. Taeger,Mensch, 214. Europe was traditionally perceived as a distinctive and different part of the ancient world; cf. e.g. the definition and description of Strabo,
Geography II.5.24-26. Cf. H. 1l"eidler, 'Europe. 2. Erdteil', KP 11, 448f; H. Berger, 'Europe.
2. Europa', RE VI, (12981309) for further ancient descriptions of Europe (1309.9-16)
and various definitions of Europe's south eastern boundary in cols. 1299f.
430 This note of God's intervention at this particular junction is not surprising in view
of the position of similar previous notes: Stress on God's activity in Acts 11.2123 appears with the move to Greeks not associated with Judaism: God will also intervene in
195
This note illustrates Luke 8.12 (cf. III.2.2.6.2.2.). As Lydia's xaQIiLa was opened for the
proclamation to penetrate, the devil could no longer take the word from her xaQIiLa. As
a consequence she believed (cf. III.33.2.2.6.1.), was saved and bore fruit (cf.IY.3.4.6.).
What others listened to was taken away as their hearts remained closed. The following
incident testifies to subtle demonic activity in Philippi.
2.2.10.2. The slave girl (Acts" 16.16-18)
1. Acts 16.16. The missionaries encountered a slave girl with a spirit of divination who was 'clairvoyant and able to predict the future'431 and brought
her owners great income through fortune telling. The later exorcism in the
name of Jesus indicates Luke's estimation of this spirit of divination. Next
to the Gerasene demoniac, this is the only other incident where Luke reports with some detail on a possessed Gentile and the consequences of
such possession. 432 In comparison to the Gerasene a harmless and friendly
form of possession appears. This girl moved freely among the people. Her
'spirit' was not considered dangerous, rather it was much appreciated and
many used her services. The 'great deal of money' indicates the extent to
which her and other such services were in demand. Her capacities enjoyed
trust and popularity. This is the 'word' Gentiles had and trusted. The real
origin of her ability was not recognised or not considered reprehensible.
Luke portrays a Gentile naivete vis-a-vis the demonic.
2. Acts 16.17f This girl gave the missionaries unsolicited attention.
2.1. Only this nu{}wv, apart from the Gentiles attending the :n:QoallJ(~, showed any response (see above). Despite the prolonged testimony of the spirit - otherwise freely consulted and trusted -, the Gentiles neither heeded nor became active against the missionaries and their message.m The consequences of the exorcism and the occasion of opposition
indicate the city's preoccupation (cf. Luke 17.27f), possibly explaining their indifference.
2.2. This observation also suggests examination of her identification of the
missionaries and summary of their proclamation. Was this ni,.{}orv faithfully

salvation with this Ilew group of people. The statement of predestination in Acts 13.48
follows Paul's first missionary speech in a synagogue context which is to become the
usual initial pattern for his missionary work. What is explicitly said on these occasions
can probably be assumed for others (cf. the discussion in III.3.3.2.2.).
431 R.E O'Toole, 'Slave Girl at Philippi',AncBD Vl, (57f) 58: 'The writer of the account
in Acts undoubtedly viewed the girl as possessed'. O'Toole rightly sees this incident and
Acts 19.11-20 as part of 'a group of stories of Paul's encounter with preternatural phenomena in Graeco-Roman cities'. For the other two incidents which O'Toole includes,
Acts 13.4-12 and 19.21-40, Luke fails to give clear indication of preternatural involvement; but cf.13.1O. ef. Peterlin,Philippians, 140-42 and the overly positive assessment by
Richter Reimer, Women, 151-94.
432 Fnr Acts 19.12-16 see III.2.2.12.
433 The course of events in Lystra might indicate why the missionaries tolerated the Python 'for many days' before intervening; cf. Trebilco, 'Paul', 63f for other explanations.
196
presenting their identity and message or was the indifference induced by

the spirit's paganizing interpretation of the missionaries' proclamation to
promote misunderstanding?
This latter understanding of her words is suggested a) by the use of 6 i}EO\;
ii'l(!LmO\;, which occurred among Gentiles either in a context of 'syncretism
with Judaism'434 or was applied with or without Jewish influence to Zeus and
other pagan deities. 435 Whatever exact connotations it had for these Philippians, this expression had the potential to cause confusion as to the identity
or exact nature ofthe God the missionaries proclaimed. 436 In v.20 the opponents knew of the Jewish identity of the missionaries. If known previously,
their identity would indicate which 'Highest God' they spoke ot: b) For oM\;
a definite and indefinite sense is possible: 437 The spirit could be referring to
their message as the way or a way of salvation (as e.g. NRSV). In the light of
Paul's ensuing action and our previous considerations, the latter is preferable.438 Thus the message proclaimed by these Jews was merely one way of a
vague Gentile concept of salvation. c) ~oot'llQta 'would not suggest to a pagan
that the content of the Christian message was being referred to'.439 d) The
girl's relation to the Python supports an ambiguous or misleading presentation of the Christian mission44o 1\s Elymas' previous attempt to bLaOtQe'l(!m
tfj\; nL<nEOO\; was linked to demonic influence.
... ano
434 So BC W, 193 (with reference to F. Cumont, "'Y-IVLO"tO~', RE IX, 444-50). Cumont

also lists examples of genuine pagan occurrences and of various syncretising contexts.
For a more recent survey of the pagan and Jewish use of the designation see uebilco,
'Paul', 51-57 and the discussion of HengellSchwemer, Paul, 77,163f and nos. 399,412-14,
418,841.
435 Trebilco, Communities, 127-44; idem, 'Paul', 57f denies that most pagan occurrences
of this title derive from Jewish influence. The pagan connotations of this title explain
Paul's reaction. In the light of the ambiguity of Cumont's material, it is best to see a combination of Jewish and pagan connotations in the designation. Horsley, Documents, no. 5
discusses more recent examples showing Jewish influences; ct. also C. Breytenbach,
'Hypsistos', DDD, 822-30 and Pilhofer, Philippi I, 182-88 for extensive surveys. Cf. the
designation used for God in Acts 14.15.
436This is the conclusion of Trebilco, 'Paul', 60-65: 'There were many "Highest Gods"
and a pagan hearer would understand the referent of the term to be the deity he or she
considered to be supreme. Hearers would not think of Jahweh. Thus, the primary effect
of the term on pagans must have been to mislead them'.
m Ct. BC W, 193; cf. 'Il"ebilco, 'Paul', 64 for the significant omission of the article.
438 Cf. Rapske, Paul, 117, n. 13: 'the girl was implicitly denying an exclusive way of salvation'; Pilhofer,Philippi I, 187.
439 Trebilco, 'Paul', 64. For the pagan connotations of crO}"tTJQla cf. W. Foerster, ThWNT
VII, 969.28-970.28 ('cr<i>~O) und crO}"tTJQ(a im religitisen Sprachgebrauch'), 1005-12; C. Andresen, 'Erlosung', RAC VI, (54-219) 76-88. Possibly they saw their adherence to Roman
customs, later defended, as their way of 'salvation'.
440 Against e.g. Zmijewski, 608 (for others of the same opinion see TI-ebilco, 'Paul', 70,
n. 54) who suggests: 'Der aus ihr sprechende Wahrsagegeist "verrllt" n!lherhin 2 Wahr-
197
Paul's reaction to this presentation and its termination indicates that

such misunderstanding of the proclamation by Gentiles was a possibility
and danger. Though it needs to be recalled that Luke does not explicitly report proclamation in Philippi beyond the Jewish place of prayer and does
not identify the slave girl's presentation as a demonic attempt to thwart the
mission, this ambiguous presentation may explain why the Philippians did
not respond to the missionaries' proclamation. Possibly this continuous ambiguous and relativising attribution and description succeeded in immunising these Gentiles against the proclamation and its carriers. They accepted
the spirit's verdict on the missionaries' identity and what they proposed
was of no interest in their pagan estimation.
The accusation later levelled against them may imply some contact with
other Gentiles.441 Depending on the extent of previous ministry in PhiIippi,
the charge of advocating unlawful Jewish customs may indicate how little
was understood of the Christian mission and proclamation. 442 The missionaries were far from merely advocating Jewish customs. After this danger of
syncretism and misunderstanding was averted, financial concerns immediately took its place in opposing the mission. Only further miracles with tremendous personal impact procured the conversion of the jailer. Otherwise
Philippi remained unaffected.
2.2.10.3. 'Customary' resistance (Acts 16.19-24)
Following the exorcism the missionaries were charged with disturbing the
city.443 Their opponents did not state their real grievance, namely property
damage, but an accusation more likely to gain general public support,
namely 'die Romerwfude der stolzen Stadt, der XOAoovtU: Jtidische Storung
der mit Stromen romischen BIutes besiegeIten Ordnung'.444
heiten',see the survey of the treatment of this aspect and criticism by Trebilco, 'Paul',59f.
Ct. W. Foerster, ThWNT VI, (917-20) 920.5f for the link between the girl, the spirit and
the demonic (' ... die Magd ... mit dem Diimonischen in Yerbindung stand').
MI Ct. Zmijewski, 608. Possibly the slave owners merely drew conclusions from the
girl's exclamations or the missionaries' association with the Jewish place of prayer as to
their identity and message; cf. Pesch n, 113.
M2 Cf. Demetrius' summary of Paul's proclamation in Acts 19.26.
M3 For the whole incident see Rapske, Paul, 115-34, for the Gentile anti-Judaism displayed here see 1I.3.7.l.
#4 Bauernfeind, 210. This argument had greater importance in the Roman colony of
Philippi, which endeavoured to keep its Roman flavour, p. 210; et. PiIhofer, PhiIippi I,
189-93; Tajra, Trial, 5-8,12. For the Jewish association of the missionaries cf. PiIhofer, 173t.
The sweeping success indicates that the owners played the right card; cf. Rapske, Paul,
121-23.
198
The offence was advocating E~ not lawful for Romans to adopt or practise. 'E{}o~ refers
to 'die kultischen Gesetze der Juden' and is 'Ausdruck fUr die ganze aufMose zurtickgefilhrte kultische Gesetzlichkeit (Ag 6.14; 15.1; 16.21; 21.21; 26.3; 28.17)'. Wilson suggests
that in Luke E{}O~ refers 'in general to the Jewish way of life, described variously as customs' and that this set of customs is often identified with the law of Moses.441 The charge
was proselytising:
The slave-girl's owners ... were calling attention to the proselytising activities being
carried out in a Roman colony, amongst Roman citizens, by two Jewish missionaries.
In reality the apostles were being accused of attempting to convert Roman citizens to
an alien religion.446
For Luke association of Gentiles with ludaism was their first step in the right
direction (ct: ID.3.3.3.3.). That this step and its promotion was considered a serious offence and its prevention considered a matter of legislation indicates
the pagan understanding of religion and their blindness to revelation. 447
These Gentiles understood ludaism (from which the Christian message
was not distinguished) as a set of customs or a way of life closely linked to
a particular ethnic identity.44S Being Romans they already had their own
set of gods and customs and should not adopt a different set, which would
annul their customs. Protection of these Roman customs was the duty of
legislation and the local magistrates. 449
Any reference to transcendence beyond mere human Eihj was lacking.
These Gentiles failed to appreciate the living God revealed and worshipped in ludaism. Rather they considered their own religion as their customary expression of piety comparable and superior to ludaism. There is
ample evidence for the idolatrous nature of their customs. 450 This ethno441 H. Preisker, ThWNT Il,370f. On Gentile lips such identification would presumably
be less specific. WiIson, Luke, 103 notes: 'Cultured pagans also described Jewish laws as
customs.... It represents an enlightened, tolerant approach to the distinctive way of life
of the Jews, in which their laws/customs are viewed as the natural and legitimate expression of their nationhood'. Wilson presents references from pagan authors (Dionysius
Halicarnassensis, Antiquitates Romanae LVU.14.2; 18.52; Lxy'9.2; Diodorus Siculus,
Bibliotheke XL.3.1-8; 1.55.5) on pp. 10f. Cf. also HengeIlSchwemer, Paul, 191 and n. 398
who quote Philo, VitMos n.44.
4016 Tajra, Trial, 13. He continues: 'Their preaching of Jesus Christ was unsettling the local
religious scene as it was drawing men away from the worship of the colony'S gods especially Roma and Augustus'. This is an argument from silence;cf. Rapske, Paul, 117-19; Pilhofer, Philippil, 189-73; for the legal and historical background CL Tajra, Trial, 12-14,22f.
4017 Cf. Rapske, Paul, 118.
448 Tajra, Trial, 22: 'The Romans also tended to identify religion ethnocentrically. Thus
Judaism was considered the national religion of a particular people .. .'. On the significance and estimation of customs and laws in the ancient world cf. Siegert, Kommentar,
302, n. 8, 303.
4019 See Rapske, Paul, 119, n. 22.
450 On the pagan cults and practices in Philippi cf. 1. Schmidt, 'Philippoi', RE XIX,
(2206-44) 2241-43. Her list of 'griechisch-romischer, thrakischer und orientalischer Gotterkulte' (2242) contains twenty five deities; cf. Pilhofer, Philippi I, 92-113.
199
centrism and understanding of their religion and of Judaism immunised the

Philippians to correction or proclamation. The one Gentile to convert was
the jailer whose assumptions were strongly shaken.
This understanding of religion is reflected throughout the account. Despite these solemn declarations, resistance to the missionaries was only triggered by the loss of clairvoyance capacities and the subsequent fmancial
IOSS.451 Prior to this event their customs were not defended against the threat
of Judaism or Christianity. The custom-conscious owners also readily used
this I1{rfrcov possessed girl to make their profit. Their Roman customs and
this demonic manifestation and their exploitative use of it were not in conflict. There was no sense of fear, amazement or even gladness over the deliverance. 452 Their resistance was not linked with concern for the honour
of the I1U{}cov. 453
This episode characterises the nature of these pagan 'customs'. They allowed for 'illicit dealings with the supematural'454, exploitation of a possessed girl, anger at her deliverance from demonic power, greed, anti-Judaism, tumultuous action overriding accepted legal practice and miscarriage
of justice.455 While a charge of proselytising readily upset the whole city
and led to far-reaching consequences, the civic status of Paul- granted and
guaranteed by the same legal authority - was neglected and justice denied.
An opportunistic approach to justice emerges: where suitable and promoting Gentile interests, Roman law is utilized, when in conflict with these interests, it is neglected.456
The Gentiles treated the Jewish Christian missionaries with contempt
and deprived them of all honour: They were publicly stripped of their gar-
451 ef. Tajra, Trial, 8; Rapske, Paul, 118.

452 Compare the contrasting reaction of other Gentiles to miracles, e.g. the Gerasenes
or the jailer (Luke 8.32f; Acts 16.29) and the Jewish responses to successful exorcisms in
Luke 4.40-42; 9.37-43a. Roloff, 246 comments: 'An die Stelle des dankbaren Lobpreises
fUr die Heilung eines Menschen lritt die Entrtistung derer, denen die QueUe ihres bisherigen Gelderwerbs versiegte. Wo das Religiose in zynischer Weise vermarktet wird, da
gilt auch der einzelne Mensch nur als Objekt zur Befriedigung des Gewinnstrebens. Die
hier dargestellte Mentalitat soU im Sinne des Enablers als reprasentativ fUr die religiose
Situation der heidnischen Gesellschaft gelten'.
453 Cf. Acts 19.26f. Bauernfeind, 210 notes: 'In unserem Fall macht es den XUQlOL keinerlei Schmerz, daB die angegriffene und vertriebene Macht heilig war'. Neither did the
opponents claim any threat to or breach of the pax deorum.
454 Barrett 1,406.
455 Though insisting on their Roman identity, they failed to follow Roman legal practice; cf Schille, 370; Rapske, Paul, 128-34!
456 ct. Rapske, Paul, 118.
200
ments and severely beaten. They were imprisoned in the innermost cells,
'reserved for dangerous low class felons'457, and their feet were fastened in
the stocks for security and torture.458 Throughout the account spiritUal and
moral-ethical failure appear side by side.
2.2.10.4. The conversion of the jailer (Acts 16.28-34)459
The unusual praise of the missionaries, the subsequent earthquake and the
miraculous survival and release of ail, let the Gentile prisoners stay (Acts
16.26). Once the jailer discovered what happened and was kept from committing suicide, he fell down trembling before Paul and Silas to inquire:
'What must I do to be saved?' This question was occasioned by God's miraculous intervention on behalf of the missionaries.
The jailer's question is answered as having soteriological content. We need
to heed Zahn's caution: 'DaB die so Angeredeten das Wort oorfl'fjvaL sofort
im Sinne von Bewahrung vor dem verdammenden Urteil Gottes und vom
Erwerb der ewigen Seligkeit deuten, gibt kein Recht, auch der Frage des
Heiden diesen Sinn unterzulegen'.460 To examine what made the jailer ask
this questio~ will help in its assessment. He no longer immediately feared for
his own life and contemplated suicide. He was not asking what he must do to
be saved from the consequences of losing prisoners under his charge. 461
The jailer was charged to imprison and torture men who demonstrated
their power over the Python462 and who had now demonstrably received
miraculous vindication and liberation through the earthquake.
457 Rapske, Paul, 126. For a detailed description and the implications of such treatment
cf. Rapske, Paul, 124-27. The procedures recall the contemptuous Gentile treatment of
Jesus.
m Rapske, Paul, 127.
459 Compare my treatment of this incident in 'Need'. On Ihejailer's identity in light of
Graeco-Roman evidence see Peterlin,Philippians, 144-50.
60 P. 5S0. So also B. Witherington; 'Salvation and Health in Christian Antiquity: The
Soteriology of Luke-Acts in Its First Century Setting', in Marshall, Witness, 14566. In
view of the preceding depiction of Gentile religiosity in Philippi, it is noteworthy that the
jailer did not take refuge in pagan deities.
461 Cf. Acts 12.19. Paul had already 'saved' the jailer's life by assuring him that the prisoners had not escaped and thus preventing his suicide; ct Pesch n, 115. Suicide was his
immediate and spontaneous reaction to the events. Only through Paul's intervention
could he inquire about salvation. Only this Gentile contemplates suicide in Luke-Acts as
Luke describes Judas' death as an accident,Acts 1.18; ct Matt 275; Barrett I, 9Sf.
462 The jailer is likely to have known of this event, though not part of the charge against
the missionaries. For the power displayed by Paul see Zmij ewski, 60S.
201
An earthquake followed the joint prayer of Jerusalem's church (Acts 4.32). The hardpressed church received this affirmation from God463 whom they earlier praised as the
Sovereign Lord (4.24). Possibly the jailer took the earthquake as an answer to the prayer
and hymns of the missionaries (16.25) and a sign of their vindication and the impending
doom of those who maltreated them previously.464 Conzelmann adduces examples of
such signs for answered prayer from the Graeco-Roman world.'" Such traditions might
have influenced the jailer's reaction.
The jailer's question is immediately related to the events and could be

paraphrased: ' ... was er, der sie, wie das Beben ihm angezeigt hat, frevelhaft
einkerkern muBte, tun mtlsse, um vor dem strafenden Zorn der G6tter bzw.
des h6chsten Gottes dieser Manner "gerettet zu werden"'.466 His question
indicates fear because of his previous cruel actions which events proved
wrong. Prior to the earthquake there was neither respect and fear of the
Jewish God nor any remorse over his deed. While expressing fear of the
retribution of the God of these Jews, the question does not indicate a deep
conviction of his immediate sin or sins in general. Only the apostles' answer
widened the scope of the necessary salvation. Again Pesch: 'Der Gefarrgniswarter erfahrt nun von einer Rettung in einem viel umfassenderen Sinn.
Sie liegt in dem Reil, das der Glaube an den "Rerrn Jesus" empfangt'.467
The jailer did not realise the full extent of his need of Christian salvation.
On the nature of salvation and its appropriation he had to plead ignorance.
The Jewish God and how to appease him or receive his pardon was unknown to him. As he was in dire need of salvation, his question was not refused. There are two contrasts between the jailer's question and the missionaries' answer which also indicate his ignorance:
463 Cf. Schille, 142: 'Die Zustimmung Gottes zeigt sich augenblicklich. Sie tritt an die
Stelle,an welcher gew(lhnlich die Mitbetenden durch "Amen" ihre Zustimmung aussprechen. Der ErdenbegrUnder lliBt den Erdboden erzittem'; Zahn, 177 referring to Acts
16.26 and Matt 27.50f; 28.2; Bruce, 159: 'a sign of divine assent (cf. Exod 19.18; Isa 6.4; 4
Ezra 6,15.29),; Pesch 1,174; G. Bertram, ThWNT VII, 70, n. 28 and the occurrences of
OaM:UW in the LXX (pp. 65-67).
464 For pagan interpretations of earthquakes cf. E. Wllst, 'Poseidon', RE XXII, (446557) 480.5-481.15 (Homer); 455.49-456.21; W. Capelle, 'Erdbebenforschung', RE S IV,
(344-74) 358-61 ('Das Erdbeben im griechischen Volksglauben'); for earthquakes perceived as expressions of divine wrath, 360.46-55. Due to pagan understanding of the relation between themselves and their gods, pagans prayed to the gods 'in jeder Lebenslage
als Retter, SchUtzer, Spender, Hater, Riicher, Zeugen ... ', W. Fauth, 'Gebet', KP II, (70810) 709.16-22 (italics mine); cf. F. Pfister, 'Epode', RE S IV, (323-44) 336.50-338 .
65 Apostelgeschichte, 44; Schille, 347 argues for the local limitation of the quake and
speaks of an 'Entfesselungswunder'; cf. Pesch, Wundergeschichten, 11 .
66 Pesch n, 116; similarly Zmijewski, 611. Luke notes pagan concepts of divine retribution (cf. the abstract goddess 6[,c1] and her 'vindication' in Acts 28.4-6).
467 H, 116.
202
Ill. The Genlile encounler with salvalion
1. The jailer asked what he must do in order to be saved. The answer with its charge to
believe did not demand an action or deeds but a spiritual commitment. The jailer did not
know what God required and the wording of his question betrays this ignorance. Says
Pesch: 'lm Horizont paulinischer Theologie wird auch als Akzent erkennbar, daJ3 kein
"Tun",sondem der Glaube an den Herrn Jesus (vgI.11.17; 15.11;auch 13.39) zur Retlung
erforderlich ist'.'68
2. The jailer addressed the missionaries as XUQLOL, which could also be translated 'Sirs' or
'Lords'. Though xUQto~ in itself is a common word, here it probably had divine undertones.'" Says Schille: 'da es sich urn das Erschrecken vor der Epiphanie gottlicher GewaIt handelt. Der FuJ3fall ... demonstriert den Schreck. Der Wllrter erkennt in den Gefangenen gottliche "Herren" und zollt diesen die gebiihrende Ehre'.70 Pesch notes his
physical reaction: 'Sein "Zittem", mit dem er vor den Missionaren niederfllllt, drUckt religiose Scheu vor den Gottesmllnnern aus, die der Heide - wie auch die Anrede "Herren" besagen kann - fUr Gotterboten Mlt'.471 This quick change in assessment (from indifference and contemptuous treatment to acclamation) recalls Acts 28.4-6; for the reverse order see 14.11-19. The missionaries' true identity and commission remained unrecognised. Again the missionaries' answer was corrective, 'wobei der Hinweis auf den
Kyrios die Ehrerbielung vor den Kyrioi (V. 30) stillschweigend korrigiert':472 There is
only one :>(veO" his name is Jesus. They then proclaimed not their own message - but 'tov
A6yov 'toii XUQLOU. This Lord and his word were unknown previously.
The man previously trembling out of fear and his household then believed
and rejoiced that they had become believers in God. Knowledge of him,
faith and this joy were previously absent. Other Philippians still lacked
knowledge of God and his word and this relationship with him (cf.
N.3.4.4.).
' 68 11, 116. The inward change required of and carried out by the jailer had immediate
and radical consequences for his behaviour; cf. IV.3.4.6.
'69 Pesch 11, 116. KUQto~ as an address and designation of pagan deities is widely attested; cf. L.w. Hurtado, 'Lord', DPL, 560f; cf. also the inscription adduced by Hengell
Schwemer, Paul, n. 412. W. Foerster, ThWNT Ill, 1045-56 'Gotter und Herrscher als
~vew'. On Acts 16.31 Foerster comments: 'Der Gefllngniswarter ... driickt mit seiner
Anrede XUQLOL den Gefangenen seine Ehrfurcht aus',1085.29-31. KUQU! as singularvocative appears in Peter's address as he responded to the voice commissioning him (Acts
10.l3t). Luke's usual address for men is av6QE~ (Acts 27.10,21; cf. 7.26; 13.26,17.22); cf.
BDR 146, n. 4. Gestures of refutation by the missionaries like those of Acts 10.26 or
14.14 are missing, but could be assumed.
,70 p. 348, against Zahn, 580, n. 4.
471 11,116; cf. also Schille, 348. Luke's Gentiles repeatedly mistake humans for divine
beings, indicating their ignorance of the living God and their perception of their gods and
their relation to them. ct. the pagan examples discussed by F. Pfister, 'Epiphanie', RE S
IV, (277-323) 312-14, for pagan fear in response to epiphanies cf. cols. 317.63-318.19; for
the reasons for such fear and potential punishment in the wake of an epiphany cf. cols.
320.55-321.38. Cf. analogous Jewish reactions in Luke 1.12,29; 8.47; 24.5,37 to angels or to
Jesus. Luke's Jews never pay similar homage to humans.
m Schille, 348. The 'word of the Lord' appears in contrast to and as a corrective to the
conglomerate of misconceptions present in the jailer'S question.
2. 1 he GentiLe encounter wah saLvaCion
203
Acts 16.35-39. The motivation for the missionaries' release is not given; it
is not explicitly related to the events of the night. 473 The attitude displayed
by the magistrates was not remorse over their previous procedure474, but
fear of the personal consequences of their miscarriage of justice was the
motivation behind their apology.
The missionaries were officially ordered to leave the city. Their presence
and ministry were perceived as too threatening for the city's peace, its D..nLS'
'tiiS' EQyctO'LctS' and pagan customs and the inhabitants' self-understanding.
The Philippian episode testifies to an unanimous, violent and contemptuous official Gentile rejection of the correction and salvation brought by the
mission. For the exceptional cases of Lydia and the jailer God's intervention is noted.
2.2.1I. Paul's ministry in Athens (Acts 17.16-34)
We are approaching a passage much interpreted and with widely diverging

results. 'IWo approaches and traditions of interpretation oppose each other
(cf. the survey in 1.2.2.2.). In view of this deadlock, one way forward is to examine afresh whether Luke really conveys a different message in the Athenian speech and its often neglected narrative setting from that of Lystra or
what is portrayed at other places. Does Luke make one major exception in
the otherwise unified portrait of Gentiles prior to faith that has emerged so
far? Is Taeger right with his claim: 'Was als Zugestandnis an die hellenistisch-philosophische Tradition erscheinen mag, ist tatsiichlich kaum ii.berbietbarer Ausdruck der Hochschiitzung des natiirlichen Menschen durch
Lukas'?475
2.2.1I.1. The initial ministry (Acts 17.16-21): Clues from the setting of the
stage
Acts 17.16. Athens was a 'veritable forest of idols'.476 This is the Lukan
characteristic of Athens.477 That this aroused Paul to great anger (nug473 Cf. Rapske, Paul, 128, n. 78. Rapske discusses and evaluates the procedure of the
magistrates. Codex D relates both events; cf. Rackham, 290; Bruce, 366; Schneider 11,218.
474 Cf. Rapske, Paul, 128, n. 79; cf. pp. 129-34 for Paul's concealment of his Roman citizenship (specifically religious motivation, pp. 133f).
475 Mensch, 103 (italics mine).
476 So the rendering ofWycherley, 'St. Paul';cf. Gill, 'Achaia', 443f. In v.23 Paul refers to
such an inspection and religious stock taking. Gill, 444f provides a description of all the
temples and statues that could have been seen from the Stoa Poikile on which Paul was
debating.
477 Gill/Winter, 'Religion',86 note: 'It is within this city ... that Paul appears before the
Areopagus .. .'. They describe what 'idols' and temples a visitor to the city would have
encountered and which for Paul would have been 'a daily reminder of the way that pa-
204
OO;UVEl'O to JtVEUIlU EV U1i1'ip; CL 15.39) is hardly surprising after earlier incidents involving idolatry. These idols and the pagan convictions they expressed and embodied were not taken lightly but deeply affected the
Christian missionary. This note of the spiritual condition of the city sets the
stage and tone for Paul's ministry and speech: The Athenians continually
failed to realise the worthlessness of their idols and their worship and had
not found the true God.
By now readers know Luke's assessment of idolatry. A multitude of idols indicates alienation from God. As a result of idolatry, God handed Israel over in judgement to worship the host of heaven, pagan deities and idols. A plethora of idols bears witness to
God's judgement (Acts 7.40-43) rather than to acceptable or preparatory piety. The
Lystrans were charged to turn from worthless idols to the living God. A city teeming with
idols is one consequence of God allowing nations in the past to go on their own ways.
That idols and whatever is associated with their worship are typical Gentile traits which
need to be discarded is declared by the apostolic decree. Luke does not commend devout
idolaters and their spiritual capacities.
Acts 17.17. From the beginning Paul's Athenian ministry presents a twofold
thrust. Following his usual practice he made contact with the local synagogue to meet Jews and their Gentile associates. Luke notes nothing more
about Paul's reception and success in the synagogue. Paul also reasoned
daily with those who happened to be present in the market-place. 478 Nothing is said of any response in faith.479 The content of Paul's discussion was
the good news of Jesus and the resurrection (see below).
This summary contains a surprising element. Elsewhere Paul started his ministry with
the synagogue and its adherents. Acts 17.2 reminds readers o(the usual Pauline practice:
Ka1;a OE: -';0 etwM~ (17.2; 13.14,44; 14.1; 17.10; 18.19; 19.8).480 Only once his message was
rejected there did Paul turn to the Gentiles beyond this location. The missionaries immediately addressed Gentiles only in places for which no Jewish community is mentioned.
That Paul abandoned his usual practice, elsewhere ascribed to divine necessity (13.46)481
and pursued this twofold thrust from the very beginning is best explained by this abundance of idols, explicitly mentioned for no other place of ministry. In addition to the an-
gan religion, and especially Athena, dominated the life of the city'. For Pausanias' description of Athens see p. 86, n. 32; Moxnes, 'World', 119-23. Similarly Ramsay, Traveller,
239: 'In this centre of the world's education, amid the lecture-rooms where philosophers
had taught for centuries that it was mere superstition to confuse the idol with the divine
nature which it represented, the idols were probably greater in numbers than anywhere
else in Paul's experience';cf. Gill, 'Achaia',441-45.
478 In Athens Paul 'made himself like an Athenian and adopted the regular Socratic
style of general free discussion in the agora', Ramsay, Traveller, 237; cf. Gill, 'Achaia',
445f.
479 For Ramsay, Traveller, 239 this is 'fully explained by the shortness of the time. Paul's
stay in Athens can hardly have been longer than six weeks, and it was probably less than
four'; cf. pp. 23941.
480 Against Ramsay, Traveller, 239.
481 Cf. Barrett I, 656 (-57).
205
ger he felt over them, this manifestation of idolatry added urgency to his endeavour.oI82
Except that Paul was on his own, Luke gives no other indicators to explain this deviation
from the Etwt}6~.1I3 This intensity of ministry indicates the necessity of the Christian
proclamation.
Acts 17.18. Among Paul's disputants were some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers. These men become Luke's focus for ~thens. The synagogue with
its Gentile associates and other people in the market are left aside. The following verses specifically report Paul's encounter with some Athenian philosophers and their responses, not Paul's representative ministry and message to the Gentile world at large. Because this limited focus has often been
overlooked, the following speech was given too much significance.
1. The formula 'Jesus and his resurrection' aptly summarises previous proclamation in
Acts and presents what readers would expect from Paul's lips. The resurrection belongs
to the end of Jesus' earthly biography. Its mention indicates that more was said about Jesus' life and ministry (in analogy to Acts 10.36-43; cf. 11.20). Paul's message must have
contained references to Jesus (like accounts of miracles; cf. Acts 10.38) that allowed the
conclusion that Jesus was not a mere man. In Acts Jesus' resurrection is the divine approval of his ministry of salvation. The resurrection and exaltation were essential for the
continuing ministry of Jesus in the church, for the spread of the gospel and for Jesus' future task as judge.54 The resurrection makes this office possible and was proof to all people of the coming judgement. To proclaim Jesus and his resurrection without reference to
God was impossible as God raised Jesus.
Luke notes the message which Paul originally delivered and intended. No
other message was proclaimed in Athens and to these philosophers than the
standard proclamation which Paul and others had preached so far and in
varying circumstances. This is in line with the programmatic statement in
Acts 4.12. Thus Harnack's conclusion is problematic:
So wie die drei Petrusreden ein Bild der urapostolischen Lehre unter den Juden enthalten, zeigen die drei maBgeblichen Reden des Paulus seine Lehre fUr die Juden
(Kp. 13),jUr die Heiden (Kp. 17) und filr die neu begrilndeten christlichen Gemeinden (Kp.20).485
482 Athens is also the only place where Paul is reported as evangelizing lIa1:a nnO'av
ti!!EQav from the very beginning; ct: Acts 19.8f; 14.7t: Otherwise the Lukan Paul seems to
have worked at his profession on weekdays and attended the synagogue every Sabbath
(e.g. 18.3f). Acts 20.31 describes Paul's pastoral ministry.
48JThis might have impinged on Paul's ministry in a Jewish context. For the significance of two witnesses, especially to testify and proclaim the eschatological fulfilment of
Scripture cc. Jeremias, 'Sendung'.
484 For a summary of the. Lukan view of th e resurrection, ascension, exaltation, present
and future role of Jesus see Fitzmyer, 193-96; cf. also pp. 197-227 (bibliography on p.263);
Kee,News, (6-27) 26f; Zmijewski, 68-72; Marshall, 'Resurrection '; Voss, Christoiogie, 13148.
'liS I quote from KUlIing's summary of Harnack, 'Rede' (Geheimnis, 5; italics mine).
For a summary of Harnack's arguments and criticism of E. Norden cf. KiiIJing, Geheimnis,5. We endorse Harnack's careful investigation and results stressing that this speech is
2U6
111. Ihe Gm/iie
enLOWlter
,nil, salvation
2. In arrogant self-confidence and with an air of superiority some philosophers ridiculed and discredited Paul and his message and treated him 'as
though he were rummaging through trash' .486 Their question was rhetorical, not a request for explanation or further elaboration. They did not interact with Paul. These philosophers completely failed to understand the
standard plain proclamation of the good news; what God intended for their
salvation was dismissed with contempt.
3. Though making more of an effort to understand Paul than the first group,
other philosophers still displayed lack of understanding by assuming that
Paul ~EVWV &aLIlOVLWV /lOXE! xaLaYYEAEiJ~ EIvaL. This misunderstanding
arose from Paul's proclamation of Jesus and the resurrection. They realised
that Paul's message was something unheard of. The Christian proclamation
was characterised as new and foreign. What they heard from Paul was not
something they had always known and recognised or could have concluded
themselves. Their attempt to understand this new proclamation consisted
of its interpretation within their existing pagan framework. Says Gempf:
... the initial sermon produces misunderstanding in some of the hearers' minds as
they try to fit this Christian preaching into their polytheistic beliefs . ... in Athens,Jesus
and 'the Resurrection' are interpreted as similar polytheistic deities which must however, be rejected as 'strange gods'.""
a) These philosophers recognised Jesus as divine within their polytheisticsyncretistic framework. He was one among the many strange gods. The
flexibility and range of this system is indicated in th~t two deities, possibly
of a different nature and sex - a deified person or {}EtO~ avfm and a goddess/deified abstraction - could easily be understood within it. What was
for Luke a crucial part of Jesus' fate (or the eschatological fate of all peopIe) was mistaken as a separate deity. This identification indicates failure to
an essential and original component of Acts: 'Man sieht, daB die kleine Periode von neun
Versen sprachlich und stilistisch durch die stiirksten Klammern mit dem ganzen Werk
verbunden ist und daB der Versuch daher ilberaus miBlungen ist, sie aus dem ursprilnglichen Werk herauszubrechen', quoted from KUlling, Geheimnis, 6. We hope to show that
the same is true for its anthropology and estimate of the Gentiles.
486 Kee, News, 63. Bengel, Gnomon sees in their question 'the haughtiness of a confused and scornful mind'. For discussion of CJ1tEQIlOt..oyo; see Ramsay, Traveller, 242f;
Spicq Ill, 268f; KUIling, Geheimnis, 22; Zmijewski, 639; Gllrtner, Areopagus, 48. Ct the
summary of the high requirements for public speech in the ancient world by Siegert,
Kommentar, 315. Siegert concludes against tbis background: 'Urn so berechtigter mag uns
jetzt das Urteil der Atbener Uber den "Komchenleser" aut dem Areopag erscheinen ... '.
487 Appropriateness, 217 (italics mine). That these gods were to be rejected is not quite
true, rather their 'strangeness' made them attractive and the audience wanted to know
more about them. Much depends on the role ascribed to the Areopagus council.
207
understand the person, fate and saving significance of Jesus. This was their
only conclusion from Paul's proclamation of Jesus.
b) Jesus' resurrection was taken as the name of a separate deity or an abstract goddess. Paul was probably thought of as 'promulgating a religion with
a new male/female pair or divinities like Adonis and Venus or Osiris and Isis:
Jesus and Anastasia'.488 Their conclusion is illustrated by the various Hellenistic mystery religions in which deities die and rise (avlmT)J.lL) again.489
The Christian proclamation was met only with either scornful ridicule or
misunderstanding. What they heard did not penetrate but was interpreted
according to their pagan paradigm and thus neutralised. On this (mis)interpretation the following procedures were based. Luke elsewhere reports a
belief-unbelief division among the audience of the proclamation. For these
488 Kee, News, 64; already suggested by Chrysostom, Homilies on Acts 38, 233:' ... for in
fact they supposed "Anastasis" ... to be some deity, being accustomed to worship female
divinities also'. Possibly this is indicated by the two articles. Against Zmijewski, 639 who
argues that the eschatological general resurrection of the dead is intended as in Acts
17.31. Though it explains the absence of a possessive pronoun (au'tOu) for livO:<naoLv, it
does not give enough force to the plural liaLJlovlrov; cf. Gartner, Areopagus, 48, n. 5. O.
Seeck, 'Anastasia', RE I, 2065 only mentions one or possibly two women with this name
in late antiquity. Luke is familiar with pagan concepts of abstract deities and personifications; cf. the goddess .6.ixTl in Acts 28.4, II.3.11.1.
HengellSchwemer, Paul, 163 mention the inscription of a pagan sympathizer of Judaism in Pisidia with an altar and column, 'which is dedicated to 8Eip "Y'l'L<n!p xat ~YEL'<l
Ka'!;aqJUyfi', giving the highest God a female abstract partner deity called Refuge (cf.
Exod 17.15 and the authors' discussion and nos. 847f. JosAs 12.13; 15.7; 17.6; 195,8 give
the name Ka'talpuyrj to the exemplary convert Asenath). HengeIlSchwemer also mention a thanksgiving inscription from Pontus (third century A.D.) dedicated 'to the invincible God Asbamaios and the Lady Proseuche' (1:fi xUQL~ :n:Qo<JEuxfi): 'Asbamaios is
probably another name of Zeus which comes from a source in Tyana in Lycaonia; in
other words, this is originally an anonymous local god on the frontier of Cilicia. By contrast ... the "Lady Proseuche" is to be derived from the Jewish synagogue'. Against this
background, it becomes understandable that the Athenians identify a Jewish preacher as
the messenger of an unknown local male deity with the proper name Jesus and his female abstract consort Resurrection. a. also R. Merkelbach, Isis regina - Zeus Serapis:
Die Religion um Isis und Serapis in griechisch-riimischer Zeit (Stuttgart, Leipzig: B.G.
Teubner, 1995).
489 Cf. H. WiBmann, 'Auferstehung I. 1. ReIigionsgeschichtlich', TRE IV,442f. G. Bertram, 'Auferstehung I (des KuItgottes). A. NichtchristIich', RAC 1,919-26 lists Osiris,
Adonis, Attis, Dionysos,Mithras,etc.; cf. cols. 927-29 for Christian apologetic demarcation
against these concepts. In light of the revival of 'Lokalkoloritforschung' (cf. TheiBen,
Lokalkolorit, 10-12) in Acts and of the illuminating reconstruction of the background of
the Lystra episode by Breytenbach ('Zeus' and Paulus, 31-38,53-75), it seems worthwhile
to investigate systematically for further links between the Lukan setting and speech and
the actual and specific religious practice in Athens or Eleusis. Points of departure would
be Klauck, Umwelt 1,77-95 (bibliography p. 84!); Mylonas, Eleusis and AlderIink, 'Mysteries'; for Dionysos see Kerenyi, Dionysos, 273-388; cf. also Winter, 'Introducing' and
our n. 529, p. 219.
208
philosophers no initial response in faith is noted: the division was only one
of derision and total misunderstanding of the most basic Christian tenets.
Both reactions are attributed to the best educated Gentiles of the time and
of Luke's books, the wisdom-loving Gentile intelligentsia in the centre of
education and learning. Their natural ability, training and Gentile wisdom
proved inadequate to understand the proclamation and its significance.
Luke's narrative is a scathing disclaimer of Gentile 'philosophy of religion'
and their natural faculties. 490 This backdrop to Paul's speech precludes expectation that Paul assumed much common ground with his audience or
was overly appreciative of its pluralistic theology. It also cautions against
overestimating certain statements of the speech. Luke's note of their assessment indicates that the proclamation was not understood in enlightened
philosophical terms but within their religious-pagan paradigm. Precisely
this understanding will be addressed and refuted in the speech; the speech is
not a refutation of or assimilation to pagan natural theology.
Acts 17.19-21. Following the estimation that Paul proclaimed strange
gods, he was brought by the latter group of philosophers to the Areopagus
and requested to speak to them again. 491 Winter proposes that Paul was understood as an official
herald of new gods. The Areopagus informed him of its legitimate role in this matter
in Athens. It was appropriate that he should give account of his teaching before them
since, as they claimed, 'We possess the right to judge what this new teaching is being
spoken of by you. You are bringing "strange (foreign) things" to our ears: we therefore wish to judge what it is being claimed ... "these things" are'.492
The Areopagus intended to assess Paul's claim and then decide whether
these new gods should be worshipped and incorporated into their existing
pantheon.493 The underlying principle behind this institution and its procedure is significant: Only by investigation and consent of certain bodies can
new gods be added to an existing polytheistic pantheon and then be 'legally' worshipped. 494 Should the proposed god(s) fail to gain approval, recognition would be denied. The god and his worship would be banned from
490 Ramsay notes another disclaiming element: 'The different opinions of the philosophers in v.IS are purposely placed side by side with a touch of gentle sarcasm on their inability, with all their acuteness, to agree in any opinion even about Paul's meaning', Traveller,242.
491 For a reconstruction of the circumstances see Ramsay, Traveller, 245-47; Winter, 'Introducing'.
m 'Introducing', 90.
493 For details cf. Winter, 'Introducing'. What Paul proclaimed, the philosophers called
strange ideas; et WB,110S: 'befremdliche Dinge'. Their appreciation did not go beyond
recognition that it was something new and foreign. That the proclamation was not understood or accepted suggests that their philosophy had not prepared them for this message.
494 For the procedure see Winter, 'Introducing' and the literature cited there.
209
Athens. On these presuppositions the mere possibility of God revealing

himself and demanding response and exclusive obedience according to his
terms is excluded a pr~ori (ct. Luke's salvation-historical accounts of God's
revelation to and dealings with Israel or e.g. Paul's own conversion). At
most, a fortunate new god can join the traditional divine assembly and their
more recent associates.495 The Athenians496 decided how many and what
kind of gods they were ready to accept on their own terms into their own
pantheon and worship according to their own ideas.497 That these proceedings and their underlying assumptions made them almost immune to the
challenge and correction of the Christian proclamation is indicated in the
following verses. In arrogance and self-confidence these Gentiles held full
sway and control over what they considered divine and worthy of worship
in their 'home-made' religion. The gods fortunate enough to be accepted
were recognised and venerated by the grace of those who accepted and
then looked after them. Paul was truly addressing the foresters of 'a veritable forest of idols'.
Acts 17.21. Apart from these 'official' concerns, their desire to hear more
did not transcend superficial curiosity. It did not indicate any recognition of
need or of the importance or validity of the message, but reflected the general character of Athens: All its inhabitants would spend their time with
nothing but telling and hearing the latest news.49B This mind-set could easily mistake the Christian proclamation as a current new idea of some entertainment value, soon to be modified or replaced by further new ideas and
gods499: little wonder that Paul found such a city teeming with various idols.
495 Winter, 'Introducing', 75-77 lists the more or less illustrious additions during the
first century. The Areopagus was ready to investigate whether the 'gods' proclaimed by
Paul were worthy of addition to Roman emperors and their (extended) families. Adding
Jesus to such deified humans the pagan philosophers were ready to consider. The quality
of the existing pantheon indicates the lack of spiritual perceptiveness of those investigating and approving of these additions; cf. the Lukan instances of Gentiles mistaking men
for deities. The divine status granted to them shows that the criteria (cf. Winter, 72) for
acceptance (e.g. an epiphany) were hardly taken seriously. These gods and the process of
their accreditation was probably known to Paul who is reported to have carefully inspected the city's religious monuments and their inscriptions (Acts 17.23, for examples
see Winter, 76-78).
496 According to Winter, 'Introducing', 76f the Areopagus, the Council of the 600 and
the Demos were involved in this process.
497 Winter, 'Introducing', 74 notes on the implications of approval:' ... it is certain that
those who secured the introduction of a cult had to have SUbstantial means, for they had
to buy consecrated ground (temenos) and build an altar for sacrifice. There was also the
requirement to endow an annual feast'. Winter, 84f shows how these notions were refuted
one by olle in the following speech.
498 See Ramsay, Traveller, 248f.
499 Cf. O.Jessen, wAyvw<TtoL{}eoL', RE S I, (28-30) 29.11-16.
210
His audience wanted something congenial to their curiosity, some entertainment, intellectual stimulus and simply something 'new', rather than
spiritual truth. For them, the proclamation and hearing of such news did not
imply accepting and acting upon it. Again a mind-set appears which was almost inaccessible to correction through the proclamation. sOO
It is hardly surprising that the rural, uneducated and superstitious
Lystrans failed before the initial proclamation (Acts 14.7). In Athens, cosmopolitan, educated and 'enlightened' ears, itching for and accustomed to
hearing new things, failed once the gospel rang in them. Lack of interest or
absolute misconceptio'ns occurred at a placeS01 and in an intellectual climate ideal for the propagation of a new faith. In view of this failure, Paul
presented the same Christian essentials again in his address. so2
The setting of the speech provides crucial clues to Luke's estimate of
Paul's audience. These keys, guiding the readers, may not be neglected.
Treatment of the speech without examination of its context is illegitimate.
In his consideration of Paul's speech, Taeger reached the conclusion quoted
above which contradicts everything we discovered so far. Because Taeger
interpreted the speech apart from its narrative context, vital clues were
missed. It needs to be seen whether results based on this setting and the
speech, respecting this sequence, lead to a revision of his verdict
2.2.11.2. Paul's Areopagus speech (Acts 17.22-31)
Acts 17.22. 1. Paul attested W\; IIELOLllaLflOVEOLEQOlJ\; the Athenians were in
everything. Were they extremely religious or superstitious? Which of the
meanings of this expression is correct?503 Is this merely a captatio benevolentiae, similar to what Tertullus and Paul employed before Felix? However, a comparison with these captationes indicates their different character. Does this expression imply criticism from the very outset?
500 Against the interpretation of Winter, 'Introducing', 86f. There is a strong contrast
between this superficial attitude and the serious Jewish searching in Berea, mentioned at
the beginning of the chapter (Acts 11.11; cf. the suggestions discussed by Winter, 'Introducing', 86ffor the relation between vs. 21 and 22). Acts 17.21 contrasts the reference to
Paul's continuous manual labour in 18.3f;cf.IY.3.3.S.2.e.
SOl Athenian piety was a locus communis (Norden, Theos, 33), yet such dedication is
not evaluated positively or as preparatory for the Christian mission;cf. Acts 19,23-41.
502 For the place and its significance see Zmijewski, 640f. The situation is different from
Acts 13.42 when Paul and Barnabas were urged to speak about these things again the
next Sabbath. Their original proclamation had been understood.
503 For a survey see K. Grayston, Theology as Exploration: Inaugural Lecture at Bristol
University (London: Epworth, 1966), 3-6; er. WB, 347.
.::. 1 ne ue/llHe
encounte.r Wall
sai~allon
L..ll
The pejorative meaning 'superstitious' follows from the previous context. 504 The city teemed with idols. The members of the audience ridiculed
or completely misunderstood the Christian message. The underlying assumptions of the very occasion of this speech were idolatrous. sos In the
light of Paul's earlier strong reaction against the incorporation of himself
and his message under old labels into a similar polytheistic paradigm (Acts
14), now that Jesus and his resurrection were interpreted similarly, Luke's
Paul would hardly compliment his audience for their religious dedication.
Luke uses other terms to express piety in an unmistakably positive sense,
e.g. the present participial forms of OEj30IJ.aL.S06 Deliberate ambiguity is
possible: Paul intended 'superstitious', while his audience - not recognising
this correction after and despite Paul's initial proclamation - felt complimented. Irony is also conceivable; in view of the occasion (,Should more
gods be added to the existing pantheon?') their piety is indeed superstitious veneration of a plurality of gods or demonsS7 which is manifest in
504 For the opposite conclusions see Zmijewski, 641; cf. his observations on KIiesch,
Credo. The German 'aberglaubisch' well designates the character of this superstition. It
is a belief-system in contrast and opposition to the Christian proclamation.
sos Grayston, Theology, 6 follows the NEB in translating /)L()L/)aLfLOVE:m;EQ01J~ as 'uncommonly scrupulous'. Though this seems a neutral synthesis between the poles introduced above, in its context it is not positive: Luke has described in what ways and activities they were uncommonly scrupulous. None of them is commendable.
506 See Acts 13.43,50; 16.14; 17.4,17; 18.7 in contrast to 18.13 and 19.27; ct WB,1721.2.
G. Downing, 'Freedom' suggests that even according to some of the philosophic reasoning of the time the Athenians are far from truly religious: 'dL()LOa41ovm;eQo1J~ may be
an ironic remark that the Athenians are assuming something senseless in their supposition that an unknown deity would claim worship from anybody (senseless even in nonChristian standards), this concept would be a prime example of superstition. What God,
if he were one at all, would be content to be unknown and to receive little attention?
(49) .... Observance becomes superstition when it suggests that God or gods demand
some action that does no good to the community or the individual worshipper. Thus an
unidentified God would not have an area of competence, therefore no benefits would accrue from proper worship (50). The idea that a deity will quickly take offence if the ritual
is not punctiliously observed is impious.... The Athenians with their (supposed) worry
about offending a (supposed) unknown god are superstitious in this way'. Ct also Polybius' assessment ofsuperstition and his theory of its origin in Rome (Histories VI.56):' ...
the Romans have adopted these practices for the sake of the common people ... the ancients were by no means acting foolishly or haphazardly when they introduced to the
people various notions concerning the gods and belief in the punishments of Hades ... ',
quoted according to Polybius: The Rise of the Roman Empire: Translated by L Scotl-Kilvert, Selected with an Introduction by F.w. Walbank, Penguin Classics (Harmondsworth:
Penguin, 1979), 349; cf. XVI.12.3-11; Walbank's introduction, pp. 24f; Siegert, Kommentar,
311.
.
So, Luke could have both in mind, without necessarily or explicitly identifying the former with the latter; cf. 1 Cor 1O.20f. Zmijewski, 641 translates literally: 'die Dilmonen
fiirchtend' (/)e[/)Ol, /)a[flove~ pI.; cf. WB, 337.1). That they venerated their gods is evident,
Acts 17.16. For the ideas and veneration of /)a[flov~ cf. C. Colpe, C. Zintzen, 'Geister
212
their idols and permeates their life XIl'tCx miv'ta. Despite all this they still
failed to find and to worship the true God; their piety was characterised by
UYVOLIl.
Acts 17.23. Paul records inspecting the Athenian objects of worship (recalling 17.16) and discovering an altar dedicated to an unknown god. 508 The
Athenians worshipped this unknown god among the gods of the many
other aE~clafl(l't(l. Though the origin or reasoning behind this worship is
not given, it can be reconstructed. Rather than offend a deity forgotten or
as yet unknown to them and risk retribution for such disregard, worship of
the unknown god was established in precaution. There was 'fear or anxiety
that by naming one god instead of another their acts of worship would not
yield the results desired. To be on the safe side, a Greek could use the formula "unknown god"'.509 This altar and its inscription indicates that even a
god whose existence and identity were dubious was worshipped, showing
the uncertainty and confusion in which these Gentiles were. Worship of yet
another god, though unknown, is not surprising in their polytheistic paradigm. P.W van der Horst concludes:
So the quotation of the inscription functions as a way of introducing his own proclamation of the unknown god. 'There was, to be sure, no real connection between "an
unknown god" and the true God; Paul hardly meant that his audience were unconscious worshippers of the true God. Rather, he is drawing their attention to the true
God who was ultimately responsible for the phenomena which they attributed to an
unknown god'. The altar inscription enables Paul to emphasise the ignorance of his
audience concerning the true identity of God. It is not only by ayvootiVtE; in v.23 that
he stresses this point, but also and again in v. 30 where he says that God has overlooked the times of their ignorance ... Until the coming of the revelation of God's
true nature in Christianity men lived in ignorance of him.slO
2. In the following speech Paul had to introduce the God whom they did
not know despite all their knowledge, curiosity and eagerness to hear more
and their concern for the completeness of their pantheon. There was no
(Damonen)" RAC IX, (546-797) 615-26,640-47; F.Andres, 'Daimon',RE S Ill, (267-322)

269-310; W. Foerster, ThWNT 11,1-9.36.
508 On shrines with this dedication and their interpretation cf. e.g. Gill, 'Achaia',446f.
509 Van der Horst, 'Altar', 1449. We follow van der Horst's second category. For the detailed argument and bibliography cf. pp. 1446-49, 1451. Nilsson describes it as 'das angstliche Bemiihen, alle Gatter lU erfassen' (van der Horst, 1451, n. 99); p. 1443 for the ambiguity of the expression. O. Jessen's reconstruction (''j\yvOlQ'tOL {)-o[', RE S /,28-30) is
similar (cf. 28.63-29.30, most succinct summary); cf. W. GlIber, 'Theoi Agnostoi', RE V A,
1988-94; D. Wachsmuth, 'Theoi Agnostoi', KP V,708 (,mllglichst vollstandige Beriicksichtigung der Gottheiten, also auch der "Unbekannten''') and also Downing's conclusion quoted above. K. Berger, 'Geschichte', 51, n. 22 considers whether the unknown god
could be a reference to the God of Israel and suggests a possible parallel (this is van der
Horst's first category,1444-46).
510 'Altar', 1454; the enclosed quotation is from Marshall, Acts, 286.
213
natural knowledge or recognition of this God, his nature and worship; he

was different from anything known to the audience. Even though God had
not left himself without testimony (Acts 14.17), he remained unknown
even to the Gentile intelligentsia. His testimony to himself was not recognised and appreciated, but perverted into idolatry (later thus interpreted in
the speech), tokens of which filled the city.
Acts 17.24f The subsequent proclamation shows point by point how com-
pletely - in theory and praxis - these Gentiles were mistaken. This full scale
analysis, refutation and rectification and its necessity indicates the inadequacy of Gentile recognition and notions. The true God, his nature and
proper worship must be proclaimed ab extra from the very beginning and
basics. God made the world and everything in it. As creator and Lord of
heaven and earth, he does not live Ev XLQO:TtOL~'tOL~ vao~ in the care of his
creatures.511 Since he himself gave to all mortals life and breath and everything else, he does not need anything that people could offer.
1. There is only one God to whom the whole universe is to be ascribed, not
various gods with their respective areas of competence. S12 He is the one
and ultimate source behind everything.
2. As Lord of the universe God does not need or live in hand-made edifices. S13 This affirmation rejects 'die vermessene Einschiitzung, man konne
liber ihn (God) in irgendeiner Weise verfiigen, er lasse sich eingrenzen oder
sei sogar aut Menschen angewiesen und van ihnen abhiingig'.S14 Because
God, his nature as transcendental creator and his continuous Lordship remained unrecognised, the Gentiles substituted their deities for God. These
lived in the temples they had erected for them. Each such edifice attests
511 cr. Gill, 'Achaia', 442: 'Moreover several older temples seem to have been transplanted from the Attic countryside and placed in the agora' (listed there). Gill also lists
the new shrines and statues erected since the reign of Augustus. Paul rightly assumed
that their religion was very much alive and practised.
5uCf.Zmijewski,642 for the Gentile notions corrected by this statement.
513 The adjective XELQOltOirll;o~ is not a neutral term, but in the LXX and early ludaism
it appears frequently as a periphrasis for an idol; cf. HengellSchwemer, Paul, 165. P.w. van
der Horst, 'New Altar of a Godfearer', in idem, Hellenism -Iudaism - Christianity: Essays on Their Interaction, Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 8 (Kampen:
Kok Pharos, 1994 = lIS 43, 1992), (65-72) 67 concludes: 'In fact XELQOltOLrJ1;o<; has become
a technical term for an idol, a pseudo-god' (cf Horst's suggestions about the origin of the
altar mentioned in Acts 17.23, pp. 70f); cf. E. Lohse, Th WNT IX, (413-28) 426.4-8; against
W. Rebell, EWNT Ill, (1112-14) 1113: 'An beiden Stellen wird keine grundsatzliche Kritik am Tempel zum Ausdruck gebracht .. .'. Stephen levelled similar criticism against a
paganized, superstitious understanding of the Jewish temple, Acts 7.48; cf.II.3.3.3.
514 Weiser, 261.
214
Ill. The Gentile encounter with salvatioll
their failure to recognise God, his nature and humanity's relation to him
and indicates the Gentiles' blindness. Apart from the underlying ideology,
as there is only one God, a multiplicity of such constructions further testifies to the Gentiles' spiritual failure.
3. God also does not need human services or anything people can offer. 515
Rather he is the one who gives life and all that is required for its sustenance. The creator is obviously independent of his creatures; rather he is
the continuous provider, fundamental to human existence (Acts 14.17).
a) The exposed and criticised pagan notion and praxis of worship again indicate that the Athenians failed to recognise God and their indebtedness to
and dependence on him. God's provisions failed to enlighten them as to his
true nature and worship. b) The theology and piety they substituted for recognition and appropriate veneration of God, concerns gods closely reflecting their worshippers, living in edifices, in need of provisions and of
care. In his narrative portrayal of Gentiles Luke illustrates the pagan theology addressed here (cf. Acts 14.11-13; 19.27-37). This failure to recognise
the essential contrast between the true God and his human creatures is the
cause behind the several instances of humans being considered divine.
These points expose and refute Gentile misconceptions. The true state of
affairs was unknown to them, they had to be told. This line continues.
Acts 17.26. After God's relationship with and claim to the world have been
established, his claim to and authority over all humanity is proclaimed. This
God was not the God of one particular group of people, however defined,
but the universal God from the very beginning. Though unknown previously, he is not a new usurper or a deity irrelevant or incompetent in Athens. The likely understanding of the audience is again challenged: this God
was God and claimed all humanity with legitimate authority long before
the Areopagus ever met. The Gentile procedure and decision on whether
to recognise and venerate him is irrelevant.
This clarified, God's universal sovereignty, purpose and concern was now
revealed. The nations which God made from one ancestor had a twofold vocation. Firstly, they were to inhabit the earth. God allotted the times of their
existence and the boundaries in which they should live.516 From the very be-
515 This is directed 'gegen den Versuch, ilber Gott auf dem Weg des Kults "verfilgen"zu
konnen', Zmijewski, 643.
516 See Taeger, Mensch, 95; Zmijewski, 644; Ktllling, Geheimllis, 91-93 for the discussion
whether KaLQol and oQoih!ulm are to be taken as historical or philosophical references.
KmQoi could refer to seasons - a thought familiar from Acts 14.17 - or to 'times of existence (e.g. as in Luke 21.24 or Acts 1.7). As provisions similar to those of 14.17 were already mentioned in v.25 and as an OT background seems preferable to a philosophical
215
ginning throughout history, the sovereign God dealt with and had a purpose
for all of humanity under his claim. Credit for history does not go to Gentile
rulers and nations and their proud endeavours and claims, but to God's direction of history. Despite these provisions and God's revelation in these arrangements, God remained unrecognised. Rather, the Gentile reaction to
God's sovereign and beneficent rule over all humanity has previously been
described as one of rebellion against his rule and establishment (Acts 4.25f).
Acts 17.27/1. Paul then revealed humanity's second vocation. God created
and 'organised' humanity not merely to inhabit the earth according to his
temporal and spatial arrangements, but also with the specific purpose and
charge of ~T]"tEi:v .ov {}Eov.S17 God's beneficent direction of humanity - in
addition to the testimony in his provisions, Acts 14.17 - was to provide
guideposts and incentive to do so. Yet against this charge, Luke's references
to Gentiles prior to faith indicate that they not only failed to find and recognise God, but also failed to seek him. Against God's purpose, he was still
unknown to the Athenians and had to be proclaimed and introduced to
them under circumstances that are hardly flattering to the audience. These
Gentiles missed God's purpose for their existence. Instead of searching for,
finding and worshipping God, they had gathered a plethora of idols,
erected altars and temples for them and worshipped the gods of their making. At the present moment they were deciding whether the 'deities' of
Paul's proclamation could be admitted to this illustrious circle.
2. People were to search, perhaps to grope for God and find him. Zmijewski refers to the
OT background of 1jJT]Aa<pUV and concludes that the expression 'laBt an das unsichere
Tasten eines Blinden den ken ... oder ob sie ihn (sogar) so, wie er es wUnscht, "finden" ...
understanding, we follow Gartner's arguments for 'times of existence' (Areopagus, 14752; against Kiilling, Geheimnis, 90-104 who here follows Dibelius; cf. 1.2.2.2.1). The verse
alludes to the Gentile resistance to God's intention in Gen 11.4,8 and the following involuntary scattering of the nations to their respective places; cf. Zmijewski's discussion of
the meaning of 1:a~ oQo-ll'a[a~ Tii~ )Ga1:oL)da~ aU1:wv. Scott, 'Horizon', 54lf proposes a
'foreshortening the story line of Gen 1-10'; cf. Gartner, 151 and the time reference in De
10na 104: 'Die Tage eures Lebens hat euch der Herr der Welt verkiirzt. Eure Zeit ist begrenzt .. .'.
517 For discussion of the full implications of ~Tp;eLv see Zmijewski, 644 ('ein "Einlassen
der ganzen Existenz" ... auf den Sch6pfergott, das als Ziel die rechte Gottesverehrung
ha!'; Kiilling, Geheimnis, 104-09; against Taeger, Mensch, 95. De 10na goes further in
claiming that failure to find God and respond to him accordingly renders human life
senseless: 'Wenn sie [the NinevitesJ nun weder mir gegenUber zu Dank bereit sind, noch
sich untereinander etwas gonnen, sind sie selbst den Elementen eine Last, von denen ihr
sinnloses Leben sich bisher nahrte' (18, italics mine). On the judgement of Acts 17.31 cf.
Appendix 3.2.
216
ist ... ungewiB'.sls However Luke theoretically evaluates the Gentiles' capacity to respond to these sign-posts and to find God, the setting and previous elements of the
speech - congruent with his portrayal of Gentiles prior to faith elsewhere - demonstrate
that the Gentiles best equipped to do so have not found God. Rather, their religious convictions and practices indicate the opposite."o
3. The Gentiles' failure to seek, grope for and find God is heightened by the
assertion that God was actually not far from them.520 In his creation, continuous providential care and rule and revelation in history (cf. vs. 24-26)
God was close to the Gentiles for them to seek, find and worship him. He
had not left himself without testimony (CL Acts 14.17). God was not to
blame for the current state of affairs! Against this backdrop the Gentile
failure to find God - not further accounted for here - is all the more severe.
4. The two quotations 'In him we live and move and have our being' and 'For
we too are his offspring' aptly summarise the preceding argument that human
existence originates from and is dependent upon God. For that reason and to
that extent these snippets have their validity. They do not endorse Gentile
thought in general521 because they are surrounded by assertions of Gentile
failure to recognise God and to worship adequately the God close to them.
Even if these Gentile poets - not the philosophers so often adduced for the interpretation of this speech - were granted to have recognised the true God's closeness to them
(which the briefest glance at Aratus' Phaenomena quickly discourages), for Luke they
S18p' 644. Similarly KUlling, Geheimnis, 110: 'Dieser Optativ .. bezweifelt die Gewillheit, ob das Finden dem Suchen folgt. Das Finden wird zwar als mllgliche Folge des
Suchens ins Auge gefaBt, aber es bleibt unsicher, ob es sich verwirklichen liiBt'.
519 Similarly KUlIing, Geheimnis, 112: 'Der Optativ laBt allerdings ... Zweifel offen, daB
die Menschheit aus eigenen Kr!lften jemals diese Gottesgemeinschaft erreichen wird,
und die iiYVOLa, der die Athener in ihrer eigenen Gottesverehrung verfallen sind, beweist, daB sie sie verfehlt haben. Sie ist eine Bestimmung, die sich erst mit der VerkUndigung des Evangeliums verwirklicht'.
520 V. 27b 'hIIlt fest, daB Gott fUr jeden einzelnen Menschen erreichbar ist und deshalb
nicht vergeblich gesucht werden mua', KUlling, Geheimnis, 113; cf. pp. 113-19.
521 1. For this reason their exact source and significance in their original context is irrelevant (cf. Taeger, Mens,h, 97f; Zmijewski, 645; KUlJing, Geheimnis, 119-33). We are
concerned with these quotations as integral parts of Paul's speech, in which setting they
have to be interpreted; cf. Zmijewski for their relation to and definition through the preceding verses. 2. These quotations from Gentile poets do not add anything new. 3. Luke
indicates elsewhere that the Gentile awareness of the nearness of the divine expressed
by these quotations led to blasphemous and hardly commendable conclusions fully
within the pagan paradigm. This has been amply demonstrated in the Lystran episode
and in other instances of Gentiles taking humans as divine. 4. There is an element of
irony: Paul was previously belittled as an 'ignorant plagiarist' (Souter, Lexicon, 239).
Now Paul employs their own recognised words in a context that demonstrates that their
recognition was not followed up and accused them of not even practising what they considered their 'ftrst-hand knowledge'. Not even the little they ridiculed Paul for being able
to pick up, had made any difference.
217
only stated the obvious. In addition, (1.) such insight would not be surprising in view of
some previous references to Gentiles. Luke mentions many God-fearers who came to
recognise, and beyond that, to fear the true and near God, which does not apply either to
the poets or to the audience; (2.) from this realisation no or wrong conclusions were
drawn as to God's purpose for humanity and for his worship. Though the Gentiles were
God's offspring and moved, lived and were in his sphere, they were not ready or able to
move further to seek and find God. What was known, if it was known, was not pursued.
Rather, the opposite was the case. From the Gentile notions of their relationship with the
divine and from their own existence and needs consequences were drawn regarding the
deities and their needs (cf. Acts 17.24f). This reflects how Gentiles understood these quotations. V. 29 outlines the proper conclusions.
Acts IZ29. After temples and the pagan ideology of worship has been criticised and the Gentile failure before God's revelation has been indicated, the
idols which they substituted for God come under attack: Because they were
the offspring of the living God, who was just introduced to them, the Gentiles
should not think tha t the dei ty is like inanimate material, an image formed by
human art and imagination.m Their divine origin as creatures, their own life
and the tokens of God's vivacity should have kept the Gentiles from assuming that 'to 'frEtov couldbe captured or reproduced in dead matter.
Yet it is precisely this which the Gentiles have done as God's nature and
its aniconic implications were not recognised. Rather than search for the
living God, who was not remote, they formed gods out of metal and stone.
Their failure in this regard is evident: The city filled with such products of
human craftsmanship testifies to the extent of this misconception. What
was produced, present and venerated among them is incongruous with
522 Cf. Taeger, Mensch, 98; Zmijewski, 646; Gill, 'Achaia', 445. L. GoppeJt, 'Versohnung
durch Christus', in idem, Christologie und Ethik:AuJsiitze zum Neuen Testament (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968), (147-64) 151 notes that 'to {}ei:ov indicates Gentile
notions of deity: 'Die heIlenistische Welt aber kennt Gott nur als das Gottliche, das als
Kraft und Ordnungsprinzip den Kosmos durchwaltet und als Inspiration aus gottlichen
Menschen spricht. Die heIlenistischen Schriftsteller pflegen unpersonlich neutral von
dem {}etov, dem GBttlichen, der {}la cpuoU; oder der {}eta IiUvalW; zu reden'. In contrast,
'Der Gott des Neuen Testaments ist der streng personhafte Gott des Alten Testaments;
der gibt den Menschen nicht Orakel, "er gibt ihnen sein Wort", so daB eine Partnerschaft
entsteht .. .'. Cf. also LSI, 788,s.v. II.2. and H. Kleinknecht, ThWNT 1I1, (65-128) 122.28123.30 who notes that 'to il-ELOV does not occur in the LXX (123.23). Through his choice of
words Paul carefully distinguishes between his God (introduced in vs. 24-29: 0 -oeo~ 0
:n:mTjoas ... , mentioned again in v. 30: u:n:eQwwv 0
and the notions of divinity of his
audience ('to il-ELOV), which he sets out to correct: oux 6CPELA0f1EV VOf1(!;ELV ... (against
Bruce, 385 'its use here instead ohov {}e6v is probably stylistic,and not theologically motivated'). On the variants in v. 27, (f1aAlO'ta) !;,,'tELV'tO {}etov (EO'tLV), see Metzger, Commentary, 457. Siegert, Kommentar, 308 affirms this conclusion: 'All dies ist mehr oder
weniger griechisch gedacht, ebenso wie der vage Ausdruck "die Gottheit" ('to {}eLOV) in
[De Sampsone] c.10.23;De Iona 14.174.180'; e[ Siegert's n.24.
-oeo,)
their origin. m As God and their relationship to him were not recognised,
this paradox was not realised. Their own divine origin and God's proximity
were denied in their notion and practice of worship. Also in this last reference to the audience's pagan convictions, failure to recognise and revere
God is exposed.
Gill describes the temples and statues of Athens showing the pertinence
of Paul's claim that God does not inhabit such buildings and of his indictment of idols:524
Yet this is exactly how the Athenians would have perceived the gods: for example, the
chryselephantine cult statue of Athena Parthenos, a representation,par excellence, of
the art and imagination of man (17.29), in the Parthenon, and the bronze cult statues
of Hephaistos and Athena in the Haphaisteion.
Acts 17.30. After this stock-taking of actual Athenian theology and piety
and factual lack of response to God, Paul announced God's response and
explained why God did not intervene earlier. Though people could be held
responsible for their failure, God renounced judgement and graciously
overlooked the past times of ignorance. Divine intervention would have
meant judgement over the failures exposed. 525
1. All religious activities of Gentiles before the arrival of the proclamation
are subsumed as ignorance of God, his nature and worship.526 What was
present and practised at Athens testifies to this ignorance. This estimation,
the ensuing command of repentance and announcement of judgement criticises the natural faculties of Gentiles and supports our interpretation of
vs. 27f. Continuous correction of the past in God's challenge of their convictions through his provision and sovereign control of their lives did not remedy this ignorance but only affirmed their mistaken notions.
2. God now commands all people evelywhere to repent. Such failures and the
need of repentance were not limited to Athens. The universal scope of this
charge is not surprising as God was introduced as the Lord of heaven and
earth and sustainer of all people. As such, God has every right to demand uni-
S23 Should the quotations concede the partial insight of some Gentiles into the divine
origin of humanity and its relation with God, the Gentiles as a whole were not only unable to draw the right conclusion but did and produced the opposite.
524 'Achaia', 444f, quotation from p. 445.
S25 We contend that the cases of temporal judgement over Gentiles of the past did
probably not involve ignorance; et. III.3.2.2.1.2. Ct. Siegert, 'Heiden', 56 on the notion of
ignorance in De Iona.
526 Cf. Zmijewski, 641f. The fact that no exception is made for the poets and their insights and that no other differentiation occurs here, also suggests that the use of these
quotations does not recommend the natural faculties of their Gentile authors.
219
versal repentance. The change of mind demanded includes recognition of (a)

failure to recognise God and his character and therefore to venerate him
adequately, (b) failure to search for and find God and (c) withholding the
honour and gratitude due to God and lavishing it on idols. 527
3. The comprehensive scope of past and present failure, which requires such repentance
and the past failure to recognise and respond to correction, indicates that more divine intervention is necessary for this repentance than the mere provision of an opportunity to
do so. The force of the position of Acts 17.30 after 17.16-29 is overlooked by Conzelmann.
In view of the setting and speech, it is problematic to propose: 'die Gelegenheit zur BuBe
ist gegeben'.528 When the opportunity was given through the proclamation of the good
news in Acts 17.18, not a single note or case of repentance occurred.
Acts 17.31. The immediate motivation for repentance was the coming
judgement: God will have the world judged in righteousness by a man
whom he has appointed. S29 Of this appointment God has given assurance
to all by raising him from the dead. Again the scope is universal.
1. All humanity comes under its Creator's jurisdiction and judgement for
the failures which were exposed and corrected previously. Only full turning
away from these failures, and nothing pagan whatsoever, can spare people
from sure condemnation on this occasion (ct our conclusions from previous references in 11.4.4.).
2. With these words Paul returned to the original message of the market
place (the good news of Jesus and the resurrection) to complete the Lukan
527 Again Luke misses an opportunity for displaying the moral-ethical understanding
of sin proposed by Conzelmann. Norden's explanation of ayvmo as ignorance 'hinsichtlich kultischer Verehrung des hochsten Gottes' (Theos,45) underestimates v. 27. God's
purpose for humanity as searching after him implies more than proper kultische Verehrung. Ct Siegert's conclusions for the scope of repentance in De Iona and De Sampsone (Kommentar, 313).
528 Conzelmann, Mitte, 214, n. 1; cf. p. 92 and our discussion of Conzelmann's proposal
in 1II.2.2.4.33.
529 In contrast to human judgement, this will be a XQt~o Ev OLXmOOlJvT\. This modification implicitly criticises Gentile legal procedure and judgement (e.g. 16.20-24,35-37;
Luke 23.1-25);cf. the previ9us criticism of Gentile governments (Luke 22.25; ct 7.25) and
inadequate administration of justice. The description of b XQL'tl]<; 'tfj<; aliLxLo<; in Luke
18.1-8 as 'neither fearing God nor man' (18.2,4) may indicate a Gentile; cf. Plummer, 411.
Beyer, 109 suggests a local reference and contrast to the Erinyes (cf. HJ. Rose, QCD,
406f; E. Wtlst, 'Erinys', RE S VIII, 82-166), deities of revenge whose sanctuary was by the
Areopagos hilI: 'Die Rache der Erinnyen ist Todesverhlingnis, vor dem es kein Entweichen
gibt. Das Gericht des Christus, der den Tod Uberwunden hat, ruft zum Glauben auf und
schafft die Moglichkeit eines neuen Lebens'. God does not take revenge, rather he overlooked past failure and now commands repentance before the judgement. For the functions
ascribed to these deities cf. Wtlst, cols. 112-17; for the Athenian sanctuary, its location, ritual and close relation to the Areopagus Council cc. cols. 128f (including references to
Pausanias).
220
indusio. The significance of vs. 30f is missed when they are merely considered Christian additions to an otherwise Jewish sermon or a Hellenistic
excursus de natura deorum. Once the speech is isolated from its narrative
context, this bracket and others are missed.
The speech so far provided a basis on which Paul's earlier and essential
message of Jesus and the resurrection can be understood: Jesus is not
merely a foreign deity whose acceptance and veneration is open to debate 530, but he is the divinely appointed human agent of coming universal
judgement. Therefore the Athenians had to hear of him (Acts 17.18). ~vf}Q
is not a cryptic reference to Jesus, but deliberate correction of the previous
Athenian syncretising apprehension of him - failing to appreciate his significance - as a pagan deity to be treated in this frame of reference. 'H
&vcicnum;, rather than being a separate deity or concept, is a fact of crucial
importance to all humanity. Jesus' resurrection was God's proof of this
coming judgement and of Jesus' appointment as the judge. As God's proof
to all people, it had to be proclaimed previously, though they failed to appreciate its nature and significance.
3. Before we study Luke's concluding remarks we briefly look at Taeger's conclusions: 'Sicher, zur wahren Gotteserkenntnis sind die Athener nicht gelangt,
doch wird dies nicht zum AnlaJ3, Schwache, Fehlbarkeit oder schuldhaftes
Versagen des Menschen in dieser Hinsicht anzuprangem'. In addition to our
observations for vs. 22-29, the call to repentance and the announcement of
judgement also contains such Anprangerung. Taeger con!inues:
Auch und gerade angesichts der zu konstatierenden Agnoia werden die Menschen
auf ihre Bestimmung und auf das ihnen durch ihr Gottesverhiiltnis naturlich eignende
Erkenntnisvermogen, also auf ihre eigenen Moglichkeiten verwiesen, urn in der mit
der christlichen Mission angehenden Epoche ... das, was eigentlich immer schon
moglich war, nun auch tatsllchlich zu vollziehen ... SJ1
The failure of the Gentile Erkenntnisvermogen and eigene Moglichkeiten

has been demonstrated in the setting and in the previous correction and in-
530 This verse contains a reversal. While the Areopagites intended to decide whether
these deities should be accepted and venerated, Paul announced God's impending judgement over them: the very Jesus under discussion will be their judge and God's proof of
judgement to them.
531 Mensch, 99f. Taeger continues: 'SolchermaBen mit den eigenen im Gottesverhllltnis
gegebenen anthropologischen Moglichkeiten, bei eigenem Wissen und ahnender Frommigkeit (Y. 22f.) behaftet, wird der Weg aus dem ayvoELV geebnet, und jedermann kann
diesen Weg gehen'. It has to be noted that the possibilities given with their relation to
God have not been used in the past. This interpretation puts too much emphasis on v.22,
based on the positive understanding of IiEL01.liaLj.LOVEO"tE!!OU~. The subsequent speech indicates that such altars and the notions behind them are not indicative of spiritual understanding or possibilities. Only a minority of Gentiles actually walked on this way.
2. The Gentile encounter with saivalion
221
struction of the speech. Even if true knowledge of God was eigentlich immer schon moglich, it was not attained in Athens and Luke does not mention it for any other place or time. Though Taeger also notes this faiIure 532,
this recognition does not modify his assessment of Gentile natural faculties.
For this interpretation Taeger builds on previous observations of Luke
12: 'In Lk 12.54ff. wurde der Mensch bei dem ihm konstitutiv eignenden
Vermogen zur rechten Erkenntnis behaftet. Apg 17 verbalt es sich nicht anders' .533 In addition to serious doubt whether this is Luke's purpose in Acts
- as Luke consistently points up the failure of the ihm konstitutiv eignenden
Vermogen zur rechten Erkenntnis -, this combination is dubious. Though Jesus conceded to his Jewish contemporaries the ability to 'interpret the appearance of earth and sky' (Luke 12.56; cf. the examples for their successful
reasoning in 12.54f), he scolded them for their inability to interpret the present eschatological time (12.56). In spiritual matters these Jews failed. This
is not recognised by Taeger. Ability of correct weather forecast and spiritual perceptiveness need to be distinguished!
Verse 57 belongs to the following paraenesis which serves as a call to 'readiness for the
last judgement'.D! Following the accusation of 12.56, it is not a commendation of their
Vermogen zur rechten Erkenntnis. The audience is challenged to discern 'what is fitting to
do in the circumstances'53S, which they had failed to discern and do. Therefore 'to ObtaLOv
is outlined/or them (12.58). The most that is assumed in the illustration is that the Jewish
audience should know themselves how to settle a dispute when guilty. This call to consider for themselves 'to o[XaLOV closes a chapter of extensive and explicit instruction on
'to o[xaLOv in light of the future. Thus the charge 'xQlve'tE' is not based on the konstitutiv
eignenden VermlJgen zur rechten Erkenntnis but on previous teaching, which is now to be
applied to their lives.
Therefore Taeger's conclusion is risky: 'Apg 17.27f entspricht dem a<p'

EUU'tWV in Lk 12.57. In beiden Fallen geht es urn die rechtzeitig vor dem
Gericht zu treffende Entscheidung'. Though the second statement is a keen
observation, in both cases the verses stress human failure in their Vermogen
zur rechten Erkenntnis. The teaching previously delivered to the Athenians
was misunderstood. In light of these observations and those on the speech,
we fail to see the speech with Taeger as a 'kaum uberbietbarer Ausdruck
der Hochschatzung des natilrlichen Menschen'.536
532 'Da die Athener tats1!chlich nicht van sich aus zur rechten Erkenntnis gelangt sind
und in der Agonia geblieben sind, bleibt gewahrt, daB erst durch die christIiche Verkiln
digung das Heil erlangt wird', Mensch, 101. .
S33 Mensch, 102; for Taeger's exegesis of Luke 12.54ff see pp. 9094.
534 cr. Marshall, Luke, 552 for various identifications.
535 MarshaIl, Luke, 551.
S36Both quotations Mensch, 103. Comparison with other missionary speeches (e.g.
Acts 13.16-41) also sheds light on Luke's assessment of the audience of the Areopagus
speech. While Jewish and Godfearing audiences received longer speeches, shared the
222
Ill. The Gentile encounler with salvation
2.2.11.3. The response to Paul's Areopagus speech (Acts 17.32-34)

Acts 17.32/ The Athenians received what their previous lack of understanding required (Acts 17.18f). The announcement of God's universal sign
for the coming judgement caused division of the audience. The difference
in reaction was not between ridicule and misunderstanding as previously,
but one of scoffing and cautious interest.
Interruption of speeches in Acts often occurs after the crucial statement
to indicate the emphasis of the speech.537 Thus in Athens the main concern
was not natural theology as such, but repentance, the 'man' Jesus, his
authenticating resurrection and God's impending jUdgement. At this resurrection some listeners scoffed. Unaffected by the explanation they had required, the previous scorn and ridicule revived. As a new goddess avam;um~ was attractive and comprehensible to their curious pagan minds (Acts
17.21) and acceptable, but not as God's assurance. They not only failed to
recognise but contemptuously rejected the proof for the coming judgement
also provided for them and which had now been announced to them.
As the core of Paul's message was not accepted, it is of little significance
whether th.e philosophers in the audience would have agreed with some
elements or all of Paul's criticism of Gentile religion and contrasting positive assertions. Whatever true insight they may have had is disqualified by
failure of implementation and by their lack of preparation and failure to
understand the essential Christian proclamation and to recognise and accept God's proof.
The response of others was but a more polite way of expressing the reaction of the first group:
Die anderen Zuhorer speisen Paulus mit einer unverbindlich-nichtssagenden Vertrostung auf ein andermal ab ... Die auf diese Weise reagieren, gehen so der Entscheidung aus dem Weg; sie halten das Kerygma fOr einen diskutablen Gegenstand und
miBverstehen es SO."8
At best this group wanted to discuss things further: they failed to appreciate the nature of Paul's proclamation as a matter demanding faith and obedience (6 -frE6~ ... JtUQUYYEAAEL, Acts 17.30) and considered it to be one curious and stimulating new teaching, which could provide further entertaincommon ground of Scripture and salvation history and could be told of the fulfilment of
Scripture through Jesus the Messiah, the fully Gentile audience was ready only for basic
and thorough correction of their misunderstandings of the Christian proclamation and
of God.
m Cf. Haenchen, ''fradition', 212: ... daB diese Unterbrechungen ein bewuBt gehandhabtes Kunstmittel des Schriftstellers Lukas sind und immer erst dann eintreten, wenn
das ihm Wich tige gerade gesagt ist'.
538 Zmijewski, 647.
i.. lhe Gentile encounler WUhSQlVallOn
223
ing discussions. Some might not have understood Paul's simple message
and needed to hear him again to do so.
Acts lZ33f As his speech was interrupted and the previous reactions to his
proclamation continued undiminished, Paul left the assembly (cf. Luke
4.29f). No questions were asked. S39 Paul did not continue (cf. Acts 2.40) as
what needed to be clarified and announced had been said.
A third group appears: Dionysius, Damaris and others of the audience
joined Paul and believed.540 In the light of these conversions is difficult to
see how G.A. Lehmann, representative of many others, can conclude:
Die ganz zum SchluB (17.31) deutIich ausgesprochene VerkUndigung der Totenauferstehung, der Wiederbelebung des Fleisches, war schon heikel genug und hat bekanntlich zum vollstilndigen Fehlschlag geftlhrt.S41
Yet Lehmann raises an important issue. Comparison of Paul's ministry

among Jews and their Gentile associates and among Gentiles in Acts 17
further indicates Luke's assessment of Gentiles: in Thessalonica some Jews
and many of the devout Greeks were persuaded by Paul's claim 'that it was
necessary for the Messiah to suffer and to rise from the dead'. The proclamation of the resurrection was not ridiculed or misunderstood and required no further clarification. Jewish opposition arose through the success,
not the content of the proclamation. Among the Beroean Gentile associates the proclamation had considerable success. These Gentiles shared the
basis of Scripture and the reactions and complete misapprehensions of
Athens were absent. Among the 'genuine' Gentiles, the initial proclamation
was misunderstood. Even after clarification and correction the response
was meagre. Judaism, not Gentile philosophy or natural theology, is Luke'.s
preparatio evangelica.
In our interpretation of the speech we followed the clues of the preceding context and demonstrated that the speech can be understood accordingly. The whole Athenian episode forms a unity and does not support
Taeger's proposal quoted above. In a city teeming with idols the proclamation was either contemptuously rejected or misunderstood according to
syncretistic polytheism. The purpose behind the occasion for clarification
S39 Cf. Acts 2.37. When the Athenian response is compared with positive Jewish responses, the negative Jewish responses should not be neglected (cf. Acts 7.54-59; 22.22f).
540 Why these responded in faith is not indicated; cf. Luke's previous explanations of
response in Acts 13.48; 16.14.
541 ~beitspapier', 310 (italics mine); differently Schille, 361: 'keinen gewaltigen, aber
doch einen sich tbaren Erfolg'. Others, overlooking or depreciating these conversions, resort to a link with 1 Cor 2.2f; 1 Thess 1.9f or Acts 18.5 (01lVEiXE"tO -rq; AOYrp 0 rraiil..o~ liLallaQ"t1JQ6IlEVO~); see e.g. Ramsay, Traveller,252f.
224
was idolatrous and polytheistic. The speech addressed and revealed at

every point the misconceptions behind and the inadequacy of pagan theology, worship and piety, all of which are branded as ignorance of the true nature of God and his worship. Though God was close, people did not search
for or find him and thusmissed God's purpose for their existence. Repentance was mandatory. to escape the coming judgement. This correction,
proclamation and the divine proof of its validity were not received but rejected. Only a few people responded in faith under circumstances most
congenial to the Christian proclamation. The best-educated Gentiles on
Luke's pages appear as spiritual 'write-offs'. It becomes clear that more
than correction is needed. Our previous investigation of Luke's view of
Gentiles prior to faith confirms these conclusions from Acts 17.16-34.
2.2.12. Paul's ministry in Ephesus (Acts 19.9-20)
Through Paul's regular and prolonged public teaching all the Jews and
Greeks of Asia heard the word of the Lord. 542 Nothing is noted of their response to it.543 God did miracles through Paul as part of and authentication
of this message.544 Diseases left the sick and evil spirits came out. Nothing
is reported on how these miracles were received.
1. This lack of report is remarkable in view of Luke's notes elsewhere (cf
Acts 19.20). The following verses describe local acquaintance with the work
of Jewish exorcists and with various magicians and tools of their trade. This
portrayal is indicative of the pagan/magic frame of mind operating in
Ephesus. The Gentiles most likely misunderstood the extraordinary miracles of Paul the Jew545, described in Acts 19.12, in these categories546 and
542 For conclusions from this proclamation cf.III.3.2.2.2.

543 The wide spread of the message presupposes Gentile curiosity or interest (cf. Acts
19.20,26). This cautious note (Qxou(JaL) is different from the mass conversion reports for
Jews (e.g. Acts 21.20: nE3ttCJ"tEuxo1:OJv;Jervell, 'People', 44-49); cf. Schneider n, 268; Zahn,
677-81. Paul's ministry within the Jewish community ended in 19.9. For this synagogue no
Gentile adherents are mentioned. This might account for the prolonged ministry and
Luke's cautious remarks on the success of the mission; cf. Pereira, Ephesus, 138-76; Strelan, Paul, 131 on the lack ofresponse in Ephesus.
544 For the nexus of proclamation and miracles see Garrett, Demise, 91. For the details
of Paul's healing miracles see Trebilco, 'Asia', 313; for general background information
see pp. 302-12; cf. also Pereira, Ephesus, 177-82.
545 ef. Acts 13.9-11; 14.3(?),9f; 16.18 and 5.15;Schille,379; Pesch 11,172.
546 Meyer, 348 rightly notes the contrast between Paul's miracles (Acts 19.1lf) and
those of the Jewish exorcists: 'mit denen der jUdischen Exorcisten (v. 13) nicht zu vergleichende'. Luke certainly considers Paul's miracles superior; the question is whether
they were recognised as such by the Gentiles. Previous miracles among Gentiles led to
fear, misunderstanding or persecution. Except for Samaria, no positive Gentile response
225
therefore failed to realise that God was working to authenticate an equally

extraordinary message.S47 In this frame of reference the extraordinary
character of Paul's signs and their function was not recognised. The challenge that these unusual miracles presented to their mindset and the message they embodied and authenticated remained unnoticed. The breakthrough only came when Paul and the message proclaimed by him (i.e. Jesus; cf. Acts 11.20; 17.18) proved itself superior to anything locally known or
practised and surpassed what could be understood or accounted for within
their pagan and magic paradigm.
2. Together with Acts 8.7 and 16.16 these exorcisms point to a larger
number of possessed people among the Gentiles. Though Luke does not
mention that these healings and exorcisms occurred in a city that, in addition to its dedication t9 Artemis, had its own sanctuary of Asclepius s48 and
a famous medical associations49, the presence of sick people and evil spirits
shows that the Ephesians, however qualified, could not heal these diseases
or exorcise these demons themselves (cf. below on the 'E!JlEOLCl YQaf.Lf.LCl'tCl).
Though not all the Ephesians were possessed (to an extent that it was recognised and dealt with), where manifest possession occurred, Gentiles
were helpless. 550 The task of healing and deliverance remained for the
Christian missionary. The Gentiles' own inability as victims and helpers and
the apparent failure of their gods, even if realised, did not lead to their
abandonment and openness to the Christian proclamation.551
3. Acts 19.13-16. Luke introduces itinerant Jewish exorcists.S52 Their presence
also suggests that possession was a regular occurrence even after the long
ministry of Paul. That they were still in business indicates their relative poputo miracles is reported. Positive response among Gentiles is consistently linked to the
proclamation of the gospel.
547 Cf. Zmijewski, 692f.
548 Cf.L. Btirchner, 'Ephesos', RE V, 2804.66f; D. Knibbe, 'Ephesos', RE S XII, (281-87)
284.54-60;ltebilco, 'Asia' ,312; W.Foerster, ThWNT VlI, 1006.1-42.
549 Cl. Knibbe, (271-76) 276.3-19, also 284.57-60;288.52-54.
550 Despite Ephesus' role as temple keeper and local devotion, the Jewish exorcists
were tolerated. The later vibrant outburst of anti-Judaism (Acts 19.33; cl. II.3.7.4.) suggests that unless desperate, Ephesian Gentiles were unlikely to accept Jewish services.
Resistance to the Christian missionaries and exorcists only arose once their ministry impinged on the local economy, not for their interference with local pagan healing and ex
orcising.
SS! According to R. Herzog, 'Asklepios', RAC I, (79599) 798 these implications were
made explicit by early Christian apologists: 'Gegentiber den daemoniaci ist Asklepios
ohnmlichtig; er kann sie nicht heilen, weil er Uber Dlimonen keine Macht hat; er ist eben
selbst einer' (with reference to Lactantius,lnstitutiones Divinae IV.27.12).
SS2 Cl. Zmijewski, 693; Pereira, Ephesus, 18287. Luke does not link the exorcists with
the synagogue. There are no indications that their efforts were limited to Jews.
L.L.O
ill, L he
Gemile encowlter with salvation
larity and real or pretended success, the despair of those concerned and also
that Gentiles had little equivalent to offer. Imitating Paul's ministry553, these
exorcists tried to employ the name of Jesus for their exorcisms rather than
their own formulas or the well known local formula of the 'Ephesian
words'.554 This quick change indicates the impotence of such formulas.
The impressive defeat of the seven sons of Sceva555 demonstrated the
strong reaction of the evil spirit against Jesus' name and demonstrated Jesus' surpassing and real power in a city well acquainted with magic and
magical formulas. 556 'fraditional formulas of whatever origin, sorcery or
Gentile deities could not procure this result. These deities the spirits neither knew nor feared. The magical approach of the exorcists, employed to
please and fully shared by t~eir Gentile customers, received correction.
4. Acts 19.17. Through this unexpected event everyone was awe-struck and
the name of the Lord Jesus was praised.
Their ignominious defeat by the demon shows the Ephesians that 'Jesus' is a power
that cannot be controlled: he will not act as a lackey for anyone who calls upon his
name. This name ... is of a wholly different character than the names that magicians
invoke.... Jesus' name cannot be corrupted or misappropriated. Hence 'the name' deserves grandest praise.sS7
Now the Jesus previously proclaimed - yet misunderstood or neglected was recognised as XUgLO;- over the spirits. The Gentiles were affected by this
SS] Cf. Garrett, Demise, 92.
.
SS. In the context of magical formulas and spells used in Ephesus, Luke's readers
would probably be reminded of the widely known specific 'Eq:>Ema yguf.lf.lata; cf. E Kuhnert, "Eq:>Ern.a yguf.lf.la1;a', RE V, (2771-73) 2772.64-2773.3. These six words were used for
various magical purposes and came to be associated with Ephesus, 2772.42. Their miraculous power was proverbial and unlimited (2772.61-64) and they were also used in exorcising demons. The possessed person had to recite the 'Eq:>ern.a yguf.lf.lata (2772.65-67) or
the exorcist would quietly recite the words (2772.34-36). The presence of the ltveuf.lata
'ta ltOVTlga shows that the use of this (and other) formula proved to be of little use even
in Ephesus. Zmijewski, 695 wrongly identifies books of magical content with the words
themselves.
555 Fitzmyer, 'Sceva' suggests that Sceva was more likely a high priest in the Ephesian
imperial cult (301-03) than of Jewish high priestly origin (301; further bibliography on
p. 305; cf. Zmijewski, 693). The possessed man's Gentile identity is not indicated, yet in
the light of Acts 19.8-10 it is unlikely that the Jewish exorcists would resort to Paul and
Jesus when dealing Jewish patients and employers! The description of this man's reaction
recalls the Gerasene demoniac and the futile Gentile attempts to control him, Luke
8.27,29. Luke's two most dire cases of possession occur in a Gentile setting.
556 Zmijewski, 694 notes (cf. pp. 692f): 'Wieder wird damit einem rein magischen Verstandnis gewehrt: Der Name Jesu wirkt nicht automatisch; vielmehr ist seine Wirkung an
den Glauben gebunden. Er wirkt insofern auch nur im Munde derer, die zu seinem
Gebrauch dadurch legitimiert sind, daB sie sich selbst der Macht Jesu im Glauben unterstellen'.
557 Garrett, Demise, 94f.
227
destructive 'miracle' (not even done by Paul) not by Paul's previous teaching and extraordinary constructive signs, Acts 19.11. Only once their neutralising interpretation and integration of Paul's message and miracles into
their own magic pagan paradigm was shattered558 , and he whom Paul proclaimed and in whose name he ministered proved to be more powerful
than anything these Gentiles knew, does Luke report response to the earlier proclamation (ct Acts 19.10,20): thus the word of the Lord grew and
prevailed. Prior to this revealing event Paul was seen as merely one teacher
of the oxo}..~ and a worker of miracles like others. The message and real nature of Paul's miracles, the futility of their own approaches and the great
power of the demonic remained unrecognised.
In Luke's account (ct 11.3.8. for 19.23-41) Ephesus is the city of rampant
idolatry combined with greediness and anti-Judaism, of unaddressed disease and demon possession, of the dedicated practice of magic, of misunderstanding of the Christian proclamation until forceful correction and of
prolonged lack of response to the mission despite its intensity, quality and
wide spread. These Ephesians were far from seeking or finding the true
God. Significantly, Ephesus is also the city for which Luke mentions no
Gentile adherents of the local synagogue (et Acts l1.19f). The portrayal of
these Gentiles could hardly be bleaker.
2.2.13. Paul before Felix (Acts 24.22-27)
1. Felix was well informed about the Way.559 Whether this was due to personal interest or his duty as governor is not indicated. Though well informed, Felix had not become a Christian. Felix sent for Paul and heard
him speak concerning et\; XgLOt'OV 'blOOUV 31:(01:'1';<0\;.560
Whether this was what Felix sought to hear is not indicated. Schneider suggests that
''ijxouoEV alJ1;oii soli ein wirkliches Interesse zeigen'.561 Yet in view of the subsequent
characterisation of Felix, simple curiosity, wish for entertainment or ulterior motives are
558 Cf. Zmijewski, 694; Garrett, Demise, 93, 96: ' ... despite the evangelist's compressed
narration, it must be concluded that Luke supposed that the defeat of the seven had
prompted a great many persons to believe in the Word'. On p. 97 she notes on the local
scene:' ... the seemingly relentless grip that the practice of magic - the trafficking in evil
spirits and concomitant loyalty to their master, the devil- had exercised on the Ephesian
people'.
559 Cf. Acts 24.22; with Bruce, 482 against Schneider 11,349, n. 70.
560 This interview is not related to Paul's trial. The earlier adjournment of the trial- because Felix was well informed and appreciated the delicacy of this case - was ordered for
Lysias to arrive, not to obtain more information from Paul in private hearings.
561 11,352.
228
more likely than serious spiritual interest. s", Felix's interest in Paul and his message was
not necessarily spiritual. Says Rapske:
(The way) was well worth closely watching as it had existed for nearly 25 years to this
point and currently consisted of many thousands (Acts 21.20) of Jewish adherents in
Jerusalem. Felix would have known that, beyond this, the Way's adherents were also
dispersed throughout the Empire, particularly in Caesarea (Acts 8.1ff;21.8f) and even
within the Roman armed forces (Acts 10.lff).S6J
2. Paul's proclamation is summarised as faith in Christ Jesus (cf. Acts 17.18).

As Felix was well informed about Judaism and the Christian movement, no
misunderstanding occurred. The message of Jesus as the Christ was understood. As an integral part of this faith Paul addressed topics on which Felix
failed to score high.564 As Paul came eventually around565 to justice, selfcontrol and the coming jUdgement, Felix became frightened. 566 Felix sent
Paul away intending tQ call him again at some convenient moment. Felix's
subsequent behaviour shows the relevance of Paul's references (see 4.).
Felix did not show any reaction to the proclamation of faith in Jesus
Christ. It was only when his lifestyle came under scrutiny, a time of reckoning was announced and drastic changes were required, that Felix was startled: 'Vor dem Ernst verbindlichen Anspruchs schrickt Felix zurtlck ... '.567
2.1. The message and its implications were not lost on Felix. His fear implies realisation of his failure, of responsibility and of the impending doom.
The origin of these pangs of conscience/realisation is not indicated. However, such realisation and fear were quickly overcome.
2.2. The proclamation was acceptable while theoretical (i.e. Jesus' identity, fate, authentication and role in the plan of God; cf. the missionary
562 Cf. the characterisation
563 Paul 164
564 Ancient
of Herod in Luke 9.7-9; 23.8.
~ources and vs. 26f provide evidence of the relevance of Paul's address; cf.
Schneider n, 351, nos. 5, 9; 345, n. 18; P. v. Rohden, 'Antonius. 54. Antonius Felix', RE I,
2616-18;Schiirer, History 1,459-66.
565 So rightly Schneider n, 351: 'AIs aber die Rede ... kam'. Conzelmann claims that
this is a 'typisch lukanische Zusammenfassung des Christentums' (143). This vote underestimates the previous proclamation of faith in Christ. Schneider n, 352, n. 17 rightly
notes: 'Ethik und Eschata sind nicht als Zusammenfassung der Christusbotschaft verstanden, sondern als deren Abrundung'. Both were already linked in Acts 24.15f. Paul's
message recalls the preaching of John the Baptist, who 'with many other exhortations (cf.
Luke 3.10-14), proclaimed the good news to the people' (3.18). In both cases this message
went hand in hand with ethical correction and instruction.
566 Cf. EWNT 1,1092. Though this is the only Lukan occurrence of this expression without reference to a supernatural apparition (cf. Luke 24.5,37; Acts 10.4; 22.9 v.l.), Luke is
probably not relating this massive twinge of conscience to superhuman origin.
567 Pesch H, 262. Schneider H, 35lf notes: 'Jedoch ist zu beachten, daB V.25 nur auf den
abschlieBenden TeiI der paulinischen Predigt bezogen ist. ... Der Statthalter erschrickt,
als die Botschaft den Punkt erreicht, an dem er und DrusiIla sich am rneisten betroffen
fiihlen mllssen'.
229
speeches before Jewish audiences) and not personally applied to demand

change in the light of eschatology.S68 That the required change was inseparably linked to the identity and position of Jesus and to faith in him, Felix
probably failed to recognise. The correction presented to Felix, and with it
the first part of Paul's proclamation, was rejected, which the following
events attest. Apparently more than good acquaintance with Christianity,
further exposition and specifically-applied correction through the exemplary
proponent of the Gentile mission is necessary.
2.3. 'The day when God will have the world judged in righteousness'
(Acts 17.31) is part of the Christian proclamation. Preceded by the resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous (24.15), the coming judgement applies to all people. Because of it, Felix's unbelief and sins transcended their
interhuman and temporal character. In view of this eschatology Paul did his
best to 'always have a clear conscience toward God and all people' (24.16)
and called others to repent in preparation (17.30). In contrast, Felix, though
frightened, did not repent to escape condemnation.
As similar challenges and responses on other occasions are not reported,it
is difficult to assess whether that of Felix was a representative Gentile reaction to divine claim and responsibility.Felix himself repudiated the required
consequences and with them salvation; no exterior human or demonic efforts
are mentioned in turning Felix from the faith (cf. Acts 13.8). Though Luke
does not relate both aspects, this passage suggests a close relationship between personal morality and spiritual receptivity. Weiser observes that:
... der Adressat aber wegen mehrfacher unrechter Bindungen sich der Botschaft nicht
zu offnen vermag. Die eine unrechte Bindung, in der er lebt, ist seine Ehe mit der anwesenden Drusilla. '" Die andere unrechte Bindung des Felix ist sein habgieriges Besitzstreben, das auch vor Bestechung (Y. 26) nicht zurtlckschreckt. ... Lukas erwllhnt
sie hier, urn zu zeigen, daB eine solche Haltung der Aufnahme des Evangeliums und
seiner Ausbreitung im Wege steht .. .' .S6J
3. Acts 24.26/ Paul's choice of the particular ethical topics is well illustrated
in the following events. Felix was corrupt and hoped to receive money from
the very man who spoke to him about justice and self-control.S7O
Felix did not recognise that his expectation and the content of PaUl's proclamation were
mutually exclusive. As it was unknown to himself, Felix did not reckon with Paul's per-
568 Nowhere in Luke's descriptions of Gentile piety or religious belief is there indication that adherence or practice led to or demanded a distinctive lifestyle beyond ritual
observance.
S69p.350 (italics his). These Bindungen are not related to the devil. Compare the
description and conversion of Cornelius.
570 On Felix's venality and what might have sparked his expectations see Rapske,Paui,
166f. Meyer, 419 notes: 'Felix bleibt verworfen genug, urn von einem solchen Manne noch
Bestechung zu erwarten'.
230
111. The Gentlie encounter wLlh sa/vaLion
sonal integrity. Though Felix's lack of Eyxga'tELu could also have been illustrated by his
various marriages and how he arranged themS1i , Luke focuses on Felix's greediness, the
aspect of his character which had to do with Paul and in which Luke elsewhere shows
strong interest.S7l
For {)LXaLOaUVTJ Luke's portrait is likewise bleak; he is silent as to whether

Lysias ever was called or appeared as announced (Acts 24.22). Nothing is
said of any attempt during the two year period to settle the case. In order to
suit Felix's corruption, Paul's case was procrastinated.573 While in office Felix expected a bribe and was probably ready to release Paul upon payment
regardless of the Jewish accusations, the unsettled case, Paul's legal status
or his own duty. During this time, Felix's interest was money, not justice.
When the time came to hand over to Festus - and thus to abandon all hopes
that he would receive a bribe - Felix left Paul in prison. Though not pursuing their case previously and ready to release Paul on payment, now Felix
wanted to grant the Jews a favour (24.27).574 At this point his interest was
enhancement of his personal future and career. Again Paul lost and was
misused to enhance Felix's selfish purposes (ct. III.2.1.2.2.). The portrayal
of this moral-ethical failure in his administration of justice goes hand in
hand with Felix's spiritual failure. His knowledge of the Way, repeated encounters with the Christian message, the threat of impending judgement
and even his reaction of fear, made no difference to his behaviour. The
characterisation of Felix is devastating.
2.2.14. Paul and his God - his fellow-travellers and their gods (Acts 27.9-44;
28.11)
1. Though rejection of the prophets is a recurring Jewish trait in Luke's
writings575 , disregard of such a man also occurred among Gentiles. Unasked, Paul warned against continuing the sea-journey and predicted great
571 Cf. Bruce, 483. Paul's challenging of a political leader with his lifestyle recalls John,
whose reprimand of a particular wrong in Herod's life is reported more directly, Luke
3.19f.
m Weiser, 348. Material concerns as an antidote to the gospel's claims appear also in
Luke 18.1825. Bruce, 483 is lenient with Felix:' ... the material consideration mentioned
in v.26 was a SUbsidiary motive for his frequent interviews with Paul; there is no reason
to doubt his interest in religious discussion - so long, of course, as it was kept within
purely academic limits'.
m Cf. Rapske, Paul, 164-66; on the form of Paul's lightened custody cf. pp. 167-72.
574 Against this background Schille's explanation (437) is misleading: 'Nicht einmal die
Verschleppung durch Felix wird im Kontext als schlechte "Verschleppung" geschildert'.
Bauernfeind,264 is more to the point: 'Felix, der sich Uber das Recht des Paulus keinen
lIIusionen hingeben konnte, will sich durch die Verschleppung des Verfahrens seine
Gegner verpflichten'; cf. Rapske, Paul, 165.
S75 Cf. Stenschke, 'Bedeutung', 132-40.
231
peril (Acts 27.9f).576 Paul's prophetic identity was not recognised and his
advice simply dismissed by these Gentiles: 'Doch niemand hOrt auf den
Warner. Das ist das normale Prophetenlos, daB man die Prophetie erst
beachtet, wenn es zu spiit ist'.577 The following account illustrates the dire
consequences of not having listened previously.
2. Luke, well acquainted with nautical matters and terminology578, was
probably also familiar with the religious aspect of ancient seafaring (cf. the
material adduced in II.3.10.).579
H.D. Betz draws attention to several passages from the writings of Lucian of Samosata
which shed light on Luke's account~'" He includes a section entitled 'Wunderbare Rettung aus Seenot'.S81 'DaB Gotter aus Seenot retten, ist allgemein antiker Glaube .. .'.s"
Salvific intervention was attributed to the gods, above all to the Dioscuri.583 'Auch in dem
Reisebericht des Paulus wird diese offenbar feststehende Notiz beztlglich der Dioskuren
vermerkt: Act 28.11'.s" Betz believes that Luke's reference to the Dioscuri would not
have been surprising to his readers as the gods were widely known in and for this func
tion ascribed to them. Their function and popUlarity is reflected in their use as a ship's
figurehead.
Long and desperate distress at sea was the consequence of disregarding

Paul. When neither sun nor stars appeared for many days, and no small
tempest raged, all hope of being saved was at last abandoned (Acts
576 Paul's advice was not unreasonable; cf. W. Kroll, 'Schiffahrt', RE II.A, 410.1-53. Predictions of a shipwreck through ancient astrologers were frequent, col. 413.11-13.For pagan practices accompanying sea voyages and designed to avert distress at sea cf. cols.
41355-414.9. Possibly Paul's clear and confident prophecy appears in contrast to such
preparations and predictions.
S77 Schille, 462.
578 Cf. Holtzmann's often-quoted dictum that Luke's account is 'eines der instructivsten Documente flir Kenntnis des antiken Schiffahrts- und Seewesens' (421).
S79 Cf. Kroll,413.28-414.9.
580Lucian (120-180 A.D.) was not an original thinker and his writings reflect earlier
tradition (cf. W.M. Edwards, R. Browning, 'Lucian', OeD, 621; H. Giirtner, 'Lukianos',
KP Ill, 774.20-25, 775.1-10). Depending on the date of Acts, there may be as little as two
generations separating both authors.
581 Lukian,l71-74.
582 Schille, 465, with reference to Lucian, Navigium 9 (as 'Beilage I' in Conzelmann,
Apostelgeschichte, 161).
583 Betz, Lukian, 173; ef. W. Kraus, 'Dioskuren', RAC IIl, 1122-38; H. von Geisau,
'Dioskuroi', KP ll, 92-94; E. Bethe, 'Dioskuren', RE V, (1087-1123): 'Retter zur See',
10965-1097.18; K. Dowden, 'Dioskouroi', DDD, 490-93; Jaisle, Dioskuren. Yet sea-rescue
was not exclusively the Dioscuri's domain. Kroll, 'Schiffahrt', 414.3-5 mentions vows to
Melicertes, the Nereids, Leucothea, Poseidon, Zephyrus and prayers to the gods of the
sea. F. Pfister, 'Epiphanie', RE S IV, (277-323) 295.67-296.6,298.9-12 mentions Sarapis,
Apollo and the Tritons (cf. cols. 284-86).
584 Betz, Lukian, 174.
232
27.20).585 The absence of the heavenly bodies made orientation impossible.

Philo says:
By observing the courses of the stars he (the skilful navigator) has been able to open
up in the pathless waste highroads where none can err, with this incredible result, that
the creature whose element is land can float his way through the element of water.S86
Possibly Luke had more than lack of orientation in mind with his description. In his account the impotence and absence of the pagan gods, in
whose area of competence sea rescue would have been, becomes apparent. The characteristic depiction of the Dioscuri with stars above their
helmets587 goes back to the belief that as helpers of distressed sailors they
showed themselves as 'St. Elmsfeuer oder als rettende Sterne'.588 Luke's
account suggests their failure to do precisely this: neither the pagan gods
specialising in sea rescue589 nor their signs appeared or intervened to rescue.590 What Paul has denounced pagan gods to be, they proved to be: "ta
!l<lLmu (Acts 14.15).
3. In contrast to these pagan gods, an angel of the God to whom Paul belonged and whom he worshipped appeared591 and gave him an encouraging message for all on board (Acts 27.23-25). While the sun and stars were
hidden, Paul's God found him and encouraged him. All lives had been grasas Schille,465 speaks of the 'nautische Hoffnungslosigkeit der Situation'.
SpecLeg IV.155, quotation from Winston, Wisdom, 266. The pseudo-Philonic sermon De Iona 134 notes: 'Wenn Seefahrer in den Wogen nach den Sternen ihren Kurs
ausrichten .. .'.
5B7 Geisau, 'Dioskuroi', 93; Bethe, 'Dioskuren', 1122.67f,1123.20-22. This manner of
portrayal occurs e.g. on a coin from Rhegium (et. Acts 28.13), reproduced in drawing by
W.J. Conybeare, 1.5. Howson, The Life and Epistles of St. Paul, new edition (London, New
York: Longmans, Green, 1896), 666; see also p. 662, n. 7 and p. 663, n. 3. Compare the corresponding description of their appearance in Lucian's Dialogi Deorum XXVI.2: 'the
half egg-shell on the head, and the star above it ... '.
588Kraus, 'Dioskuren', 1131; Bethe, 'Dioskuren', 1096.57-1097.18. For an impressive
description of such an apparition and the response of an early 18th century sailor cf. A.C. Settgast, Der Mann in Tranquebar: Ein Portrlit des Bartholomlius Ziegenbalg, gestaltet
nach Urkunden und Briefen, 2. ed. (Berlin: EVA,1986),149f.
589 Kraus, 'Dioskuren',1131; cf. Geisau, 'Dioskuroi', 93.
S90The Homeric Hymn 33 to the Dioscuri (German translation in Pesch, Wundergeschichten, 16) describes the prayers and sacrifices of pagan sailors and the ideal intervention of the gods (cf. Pfister, 'Epiphanie', 295.59-66); for similar praise of the Dioscuri
see Bethe, 'Dioskuren', col. 1096.19-29; the Dioscuri as l:w"tiiQ; cf. col. 1094.17-59.
God gave apostate Israelites over to worship the starry host of heaven with the Gentiles (Acts 7.42; cf. II.3.3.2.). In times of need these very gods fail to appear. Could this
close association of pagan deities with heavenly bodies be a contributing factor to Luke's
omission of the visit of the Magi of Matt 2.1-12, if known to him? Cf. 'xat1:o um:Qov "tou
{tEOU 'PaLlpav' in Acts 7.43 and au"toii "tov CLm:EQa in Matt 2.2; cf. also Luke 21.25.
591 Rapske,Paul,359 argues that a pagan would take Paul's uyye>..o;to refer to a divine
messenger from PaUl's God.
586
233
ciously 'given' to Paul by his God, despite the fact that they had disregarded Paul's advice previously. Through appearing, intervening and granting safety and salvation, God proved to be living and present (ct. Acts
14.9f,15).592 Not only was Paul's God concerned with those who knew and
served him, but his grace also extended to others (cf. 14.17).
P. Pokomy summarises the suggestion of R. Merkelbach that in Acts 27f elements of the
Graeco-Roman mystery novels can be found: 'Die Analogie mit dem synkretistischen
Mysterienroman ware also eine polemische Analogie'.s93 His summary of the incidents
of this polemical juxtaposition ends with Acts 28.11: 'Die Dioscuri, die Retter in Seenot,
tauchen zu split auf.S94 That 28.11 is a polemical reference to these gods is not unthinkable in view of LUke's other references to pagan deities. The mention of the deities which
Gentiles believed to protect sailors and their ships after the detailed description of the
shipwreck and God's intervention in ch. 27, is trenchant irony. Luke, 'well informed
about pagan concepts and beliefs of his time'S9S may have built this indirect but forceful
device in his narrative.
With his account of the hopeless situation, the reference to the pagan gods
and their failure to intervene, Luke demonstrates the folly of the Gentile
veneration of such gods. Though in distress at sea these gods proved to be
useless, still they were venerated and retained as figure heads. Their inefficacy remained unrecognised.
This interpretation of Acts 28.11 agrees with Luke's other references to pagan deities
and his general depiction of pagan religion. In this area other suggestions often fail.s"
592 Cf. Zmijewski, 863.

593 'Romfahrt', 23Sf;Roman.
594 'Romfahrt', 236. Pokorny also notes possible further polemics: 'In Act 19.21-40 lesen wir lib er den Aufruhr in Ephesus,dessen Mitte die Akklamation der Artemis-KybeJe
bildet (v. 34). Magna Mater - Kybele wurde damals oft mit Isis in Verbindung gebracht.
Nun hilft in der Seenot statt Isis - der Gtittin der Seefahrt - der Gott, dem Paulus dient
(27.23). Das Getreide, die Gabe der Gottin, wird ilber Bord geworfen (27.38)'. Strelan,
Paul, 116 confirms the identification of Artemis and Isis and notes that 'Isis was honored
in Ephesus ... as protector of sailors on the seas; in addition, the first fruits of the new
year's navigation were offered to her'; ct also aster, 'Ephesus',1678.
59SP'W. van der Horst, 'Dike',DDD, (476-80) 479. Through this reference to the Dioscuri Luke may also in retrospect identify the addressees of the sailors' prayer shortly before the actual shipwreck (Acts 27.29; cf. II3.10.). Epictetus counselled: 'Call upon God
to help you and stand by your side, just as voyagers, in a storm, call upon the Dioscuri'
(reference and translation according to Winston, Wisdom, 263). Hemer, Book, 206 lists
Acts 28.11 under 'Peculiar Selection of Detail'. The inclusion of this 'seemingly unnecessary detail' introduces rnaterial 'which does not lend itself to theological explanation'.
On 28.11-13 Hemer,209 writes: 'The second Alexandrian ship is said to be called "Dioscuri", and the detailed account of its prosperously uneventful voyage is given .... An interesting case was the ship. Paul completed his voyage on a famous "clipper", perhaps
the fIrSt that year to have braved the earliest spring seas'.
596 E.g. Milesmompf, 'Luke'; Ladouceur, 'Preconceptions'; Praeder, 'Acts 27.1- 28.16';
for the latest summary see Rapske, 'Acts'. Possibly there is increasing satire in Luke's depiction of Gentile ideas of the divine. The Lystrans mistook rnen for gods after they per-
234
Ill. The Gentile encounter with salvalion
The nature of these gods is also shown by the fact that their images can be painted on a
ship's prow, while no hand-made building can contain God, as the heaven is his throne,
and the earth his footstool, Acts 7.48. Luke affirmed God's authority over the sea (Acts
4.24; 14.15): God was there and intervened to save.
4. Convinced of the reliability of God and his promises'''', Paul took bread, thanked God
before all and began to eat."" Paul's confidence in the presence and power of his God
was exceptional; the Gentiles were without any encouragement, help or courage in a
situation like this. They lacked any assurance for themselves, let alone were they able to
mediate it to others. Paul affirmed that he not only belongs to God, but also actively
serves him (Acts 27.23).'99
5. The account of the sea voyage contains several references to Gentile behaviour.
5.1. The centurion Julius treated Paul kindly (<piJ..av{}QW1t!Il~ ... XQl]mil-tevo~, Acts 27.3),
allowing him to visit his friends to be cared for.6/JO Later he acted upon Paul's counsel60l
and spared Paul's life against the intention of his soldiers (27.42f}.602 This positive portrayal of a Gentile prior to faith should not be overestimated. Allowing Paul to be cared
for by friends meant that lulius did not have to supply provisions for the journey.603 Although a prisoner's escape could have had serious consequences (Acts 27.43; et 12.19),
killing an unconvicted prisoner who had appealed to the Emperor before a much higher
official (25.1-12) was not a light alternative."" The Gentile soldiers without such personal
responsibility were less concerned (27.42a).6'" In addition,lulius may have come to recognise Paul's usefulness for his own purposes (27.30-36). The relation of 27.23f and the
officer's wish is not clarified.
formed a healing miracle. The Ephesians were concerned about the image of a goddess
that fell from heaven and which humans had the privilege and burden of keeping. Finally,
though failing completely, such gods were positioned or painted on fragile ships.
598 For possible eucharistic overtones in Luke's comment see Schille, 467; Schneider Il,
396f; Zmijewski, 863f; Haenchen, 707, n. 3. It seems best to conclude with Bauernfeind,
275: 'Auch Paulus und seine Begleiter werden an das Mahl des Herrn gedacht haben; das
Mahl, das sie jetzt hielten, war jedoch ein Mahl zur Silttigung'.
599 On Aal;QE1)(1l cf. Zahn, 834, n. 84. I fail to find support for Zahn's suggestion (834)
that Paul testified 'daB der Gott, den er anbetet, der einzige wahrhaftige Gott der ganzen
Welt und Menschheit ist cf. 17.23f; rather see Meyer,451! Other than Paul's lewishness,
identification of his God is lacking. The angelic messenger does not necessarily point to
God;cf. WB,12;W. Grundmann, ThWNT I, 73.1-74.3 for IiYYEAOL in Graeco-Roman religions. F. Andres, 'Angelos',RE S Ill, (101-14) 101.66-106.19,107.64-111.37 describes the
variety of pagan iiYYEAOL and frequent syncretism with ludaism.
600 Cf. WB, 1712. Zmijewski, 859 adds: 'natilrlich unter Bewachung dUTCh einen
Soldaten (vgl. 28.16)" likewise Pesch 11,289; Haenchen, 698. On Julius and this incident
see Rapske, Paul, 267-70. Rapske, 270 discusses reasons for lulius' kindness.
601 Cf. Rapske, Paul, 271.
602 Cf. Zmijewski, 864; Pesch n, 293; Rapske, Paul, 270f.
603 Cf. the discussion in Rapske, Paul, 223f.
604 ct. Rapske, Paul, 271; cf. p. 32 for the punishment of guards who kill their prisoners.
60S Cf. the discussion in Haenchen, 708; Rapske, Paul, 3lf,271.
235
However, these positive traits appear in the context of spiritual failure: Julius rejected
Paul's prophetic advice and relied on advisers presumably more competent (Acts
27.11).606 Only after Paul's first prediction had come true and the dire consequences of
disregard became all too evident, did Julius regard Paul's advice (27.31f). Nothing is said
of any spiritual interest or response despite his prolonged exposure to Paul and the fulfIlled prophecies and miracles.
5.2. The fact that Paul was visited by a divine messenger in a situation where the Gentile gods proved useless, had prophesied the deliverance of all travellers (Acts 27.22-26)
and prevented the sailors' escape (27.30-32), together with his ministry in 27.33-36 did
not keep the soldiers from intending to kill Paul.607
2.2.15. Paul's ministry on Malta (Acts 28.7-10)
1. Like the kind islanders of the site of the shipwreck (Acts 28.2; cf.
II.3.11.1.c.), Publius was hospitable. He extended three days of hospitality608 to the large contingent of needy travellers (IJlLAoIJlQ6vw~ E;VLoev). In
gratitude for healings 609, the islanders bestowed many honours on Paul and
his companions and supplied them with the necessary provisions. The same
is said offellow Christians in Acts 27.3 (btLlleA.Eta~ "CUXetv).
In view of their scarcity these positive references to moral-ethical behaviour of Gentiles are noteworthy.61O Luke reports and acknowledges their vir006 Cf. Rapske, Paul, 374, 376, p. 377 for the options Julius had in responding to Paul's
advice. Cf. Zmijewski, 860; cf. p. 865 for Paul's prophetic role and depiction throughout
the following narrative. Haenchen, 700, n.4 notes that Luke 'does not want to praise Paul
as an experienced and weather-wise traveller, but as a man gifted by God with prophetic
foresight' .
(IJ7 Cf. Rapske, Paul,271, 360 on the soldiers' relation to Paul. Chrysostom,Homilies on
Acts 53,317 sees a demonic attempt to hinder the fulfilment of the prophecy behind the
sailor's plan.
008 Cf. IV.3.4.6. On his identity see Schneider H, 403; Zmijewski, 871f. They and others
unduly limit the ';Ila~ of Acts 28.7 to 'die Gruppe urn Paulus' (Schneider). See Rapske,
Paul,273 for the provision after these days.
009 In other summary reports of the healing of Gentiles, demon possession and exorcisms also appear (cf. Acts 8.6f; 19.11f). Unless Luke conveys demonic influence over the
islanders through the reference to their diseases (ao-&vELa; cf. G. Stahlin, ThWNT I,
(488-92) 491.18f; Fitzmyer, 545), nothing is indicated here. In Luke 8.2 uo-&evEla occurs
together with evil spirits; cf. Nolland, 366 and Luke 9.2,6; 10.9; cf. the discussion in No 1land,213f.
610 Cf. III.2.2.14.5.1. This concentration invites speculation. Does Luke want to rehabilitate Gentiles whom other Gentiles consider barbarians? Does he want to encourage
mission among them? Of all the Gentiles Luke describes in some detail, these islanders
are geographically the most Western. Does Luke want to encourage mission in the Western half of the Mediterranean (possibly aware of Paul's plans to travel to Spain, Rom
15.23f,28; cf. 1 Clem. 5.6f?), possibly indicating that even where there are no or not as
many Diaspora Jews as in the East, missionaries will - though facing paganism as elsewhere - also experience hospitality? Cf. Siegert's conclusion for the pseudo-Philonic sermon De Iona ('Heiden', 58): 'Es ist eine Predigt, die es wagt, die Heiden ganz unvoreingenommen in den Blick zu nehmen, und die ennutigt, auf sie zuzugehen'.
236
tues. These Gentiles showed hospitality and expressed their gratitude for favours received. For other Gentiles the opposite holds true (Luke 8.37; 9.52f).
However, these positive traits occur in the context of spiritual failure (cf.
II.3.11.1.c., Ill.2.2.14.5.1., Iv.3.4.6.). Despite Paul's miraculous survival of
the deadly bite, the healings and a prolonged stay, neither Publius nor other
islanders became Christians. While the islanders were unusually kind and
expressed their gratitude in an exemplary way, no conversions are recorded. 611 Schille claims far too much in proposing that Paul was accompanied by the 'stiindig gesteigerten Ehrungen der GHiubigen' or speaking of
the 'Versorgung des Apostels durch die Gemeinde'.612 Bauemfeind is more
to the point: Paul
filr einen Gott anzusehen oder seine Handauflegung anzunehmen, sind die Einwohner auch gem bereit; zwischen ihnen und dem Evangelium dagegen scheint eine unUberschreitbare Grenze zu bleiben.613
2. To heal Publius' father, Paul prayed and put his hands on him.614 Pesch
observes:
... im Kontext ist jedenfa1ls wichtig: 'Mit der Feststellung, daB Paulus vor der Heilung
betet, wird darauf verwiesen, daB er nicht kraft eigener Vollmacht handelt (also kein
Gott ist, vg\. V. 6!), sondem sich bittend an seinen Herrn wendet'.6ls Similarly Weiser,
370: Darin ist ein wichtiges Korrektiv gegenUber der verbreiteten hellenistischen Auffassung von Wundertlltem als 'gllttlichen Menschen' (theoi andres) zu sehen.
61l Though not explicitly mentioned, proclamation can be safely assumed (against
Roloff, 367). Rapske, Paul, 360 suggests: 'what ministry of the spoken word there must
certainly have been on Malta is passed over in favour of .. .'. There is no evidence for
Schwank's suggestion (,Rom', 178): 'wenn es auch nach dem Bericht ... nicht unwahrscheinlich ist, daB Paulus bei der Abfahrt bereits eine kleine Christengemeinde hinterlieB'. For the varying Gentile response to miracles see Luke 23.47; Acts 8.7f,12; 13.12;
14.10f; 16.19; 19.11-20.
612 P. 473 (italics mine).
613 p. 276. In Rolofrs positive estimate of Acts 28.6 (p. 367: 'Die gottliche Lenkung, die
iiber dem Weg des Paulus steht, ist so augenfllllig, daB selbst Heiden sie erkennen und in
ihrer - gewiB unzulllnglichen - religii.isen Begrifflichkeit zum Ausdruck bringen mUssen') it is even more surprising that their recognition had no consequences.
614 Kirchschlllger, 'Fieberheilung', 514 observes: 'Einzigartig ist fUr das NT und fUr die
jUdisch-hellenistische Tradition dieser Zeit die Kombination von Gebet und HandaufJegung bei einer Heilung'.
615 II.299; the included quotation is from Kirchschlllger, 'Fieberheilung', 516. Similarly
Weiser, 370: 'Das Gebet vertraut den leidenden Menschen Gott an, anerkennt ihn als
den wirklichen Herrn des Lebens und erbittet seine Hilfe. Im vorliegenden Text wird
tiberdies dadurch zugleich deutlich, da/3 Paulus kein ... Gott ist und da/3 sein Heilvermi.igen Geschenk von Gott her is!. Die Bindung der heiIenden Boten an den Herrn, in dessen Dienst sie stehen, wurde auch schon in 3.6; 4.10-12,30; 6.8; 8.20; 9.12,17,34,40; 14.3;
16.18; 19.11 von Lukas hervorgehoben'.
237
Paul's procedure served to avert false identifications and to correct Gentile

notions. Paul was God's servant and dependent upon him (cf Acts 27.23),
not divine himself His power derived from God. Without these precautions
the Gentiles would have continued to interpret Paul's miracle within the
frame of reference displayed earlier (28.6). Paul's action indicates their
spiritual blindness and its persistency.
This last episode of Paul enjoying considerable freedom does not present the crown of his career as the missionary to the Gentiles. Paul's conviction that this salvation of God had been sent to the Gentiles and that they
would listen (Acts 28.28), was hardly based on the events on Malta.
2.2.16. Paul's ministry in Rome (Acts 28.30f)
In Rome Paul welcomed all who came to him. In view of his previous discussion with the Roman Jews and his confidence that God's salvation has been
sent to listening Gentiles, this reference includes Gentiles. 616 To them he proclaimed the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ. 617
The kingdom of God features mainly in the missionary preaching to
Jews. 618 Yet God and the nature of his rule over and claim to the world was
also proclaimed to Gentiles (Acts 14.15-17; 17.24,26,30f) as it remained unrecognised. Concerning God's rule and its nature and consequences the
Gentiles had to be instructed. The Gentiles were in rebellion against God's
universal rule (Acts 4.25f). The expression 'the kingdom of God' captures
what Gentiles needed to know about God and his relation to the world and
their own calling apart from the specifically Christian message summarised
by Paul's second subject.
The proclamation of God's rule in the capital of the Roman empire also
challenges and corrects pagan notions. Despite all claims to the contrary,
God's kingdom is the one and only legitimate universal rule. 6l9
616 Cf. Weiser, 377: 'womit Lukas entsprechend dem Kontext vorwiegend Heiden
meint, Juden aber nicht ausschlieBt'; similarly Schneider n. 420: 'Lukas denkt bei den
Besuchem des Paulus offenbar an "Griechen... Some manuscripts identify the audience
as 'Io1J.sato1J~ 1:2 )taL E)J.~va~; cf. NTG, 408; Metzger. Commentary, 502.
617 For the close relation of both topoi see Bruce,542f; Zmijewski, 888: 'Paul us spricht
in der Weise vom Reich Gottes, daB er anhand der Jesusgeschichte nachweist, wie Gottes
Reich mit Jesus gekommen ist ... Paulus verkUndigt damit genau die Botschaft, die im
gesamten lukanischen Doppelwerk inhaltlich und in Form geschichtlicher Darstellung
... Uberzeugend und mitreiBend zur Sprache gekommen ist'.
618 Cf. Acts 9.22; 173; 185,28; 19.8;28.23, but cf. also 8.12. Paul summarises his proclamation in Ephesus in 20.21,24 in familiar terms. In 20.25 it is also summarised as 'tlte
kingdom'; cf. NTG. 384; Metzger, Commentary. 479. Possibly this is due to the characterisation of Ephesus in ch. 19. In this city the rule of God had to be affirmed.
238
Ill. The Gentile encounter wilh salvation
The second topos also recalls earlier proclamation to Gentiles (cf. Acts
10.42; 11.20; 17.31; 18.25?; 24.25).620 As on previous occasions, the Lord Jesus Christ is the standard content of the proclamation to Gentiles. It follows
from the declaration of Acts 4.12 that salvation cannot be found in any
other name. The name, person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ was the
message to these Gentiles. Only where this proclamation was misunderstood, did the prolegomena and clarification found in Lystra and Athens
become necessary.621
The proclamation of the kingdom of God and the Lord Jesus Christ under all circumstances (e.g. by the prisoner Paul) implies that the Gentiles
needed to hear and receive God's rule and this salvation. This necessary
message had to be proclaimed to them. Apart from such proclamation,
God, the nature of his rule and his salvation were inaccessible to Gentiles.
2.2.17. Luke's portrait of Gentiles prior to faith
2.2.17.1. The Gentile encounter with salvation
Luke's narrative of encounters of various Gentiles with salvation contributes two aspects: 1. In Luke's reports of the setting of these encounters
and of the proclamation further pagan beliefs and practices appear. They
do so in close conjunction. These beliefs and practices indicate the spiritual
state of the people who hold and practice them. This perspective adds to
Luke's direct statements on and descriptions of Gentiles prior to this encounter (cf. IT.). 2. The second aspect is the actual response of Gentiles to
Christian salvation once confronted with it. Often this response follows
from the portrayal of the nrst aspect. Therefore both types of material were
treated together in this section, instead of including the first aspect in section 11. What do these aspects indicate for Gentiles prior to faith?
1. The beliefs and practices of Gentiles prior to faith. In spite of God's creation and living in his world, and his gracious provisions, Gentiles did not
know, recognise or respond to the living God. God's providential care was
not recognised but ascribed to various deities. Like their worshippers, these
620 Cf. Pesch U,311; Zahn, 859: ' ... und die Tatsachen der Geschichte Jesu vortrug'. 'Die
Forrnulierung bezieht sich ungefiihr auf den Stoff des dritten Evangeliums, vornehmlich
aber auf Tod und Auferstehung Jesu: 18.25; 23.11; Lk 24.19,27', Schneider 11,421, n. 10l.
Some Latin manuscripts add: dicens quia hie est Christus Jesus filius dei per quem incipiet
totus mundus iudicari, recalling Acts 17.31; cf. NTG, 408; Zahn, 859, n. 31; BC W,349;
Metzger, Commentary, 503.
1521 Misunderstanding was unlikely for the Gentiles who came to see Paul, the Jew, in
confinement. They knew what Paul stood for and about his origin.
239
gods dwell in houses built for them,require altars and sacrifice and are represented by material images. As a consequence of these 'humanised' gods,
distinction between human and allegedly divine was vague. In addition to
devoted idolatry, superstition and also magic practices enjoyed great popularity and attracted considerable material involvement. These failures bring
Gentiles under God's judgement.
The falseness and futility of their gods, their worship, of other practices
and their underlying assumptions were not recognised. The Gentiles were
in ignorance of the true state of affairs. That Gentiles can be easily impressed or influenced also indicates their lack of judgement. The Christian
proclamation, including God, his true nature and rule, his requirements and
claims, had to be brought to them. Luke's Gentiles did not already know or
reach the right conclusions on their own. The natural intellectual faculties
of Gentiles are inadequate.
2. The Gentile response to Christian salvation. a) Once confronted with the
Christian proclamation, the Gentiles' response is not enthusiastic. Though
individual Gentiles from various walks of life respond, mention of large
numbers of converts is limited to the early Jewish chapters of Acts. Mention
of large numbers of Gentiles is exceptional, Acts 11.21; 19.18. Responding
Gentiles are in most cases already associated with JUdaism. 622 Other Gentiles are usually characterised by indifference, misunderstanding or contemptuous rejection. At crucial junctures Luke explains Gentile conversions with reference to God's intervention (ct. III.3.3.2.2.). Such notes are
not surprising in view of the characterisation of Gentiles.
b) Due to Gentile presuppositions, the proclamation of the Christian
message or Christian actions can lead to severe misunderstandings and
wrong associations. At times the mission is interpreted within a pagan paradigm and thus 'neutralised'. Where these essential misunderstandings occur, the gospel is far from making inroads. The correction brought in the
proclamation (in both the announcement of the good news and particular
challenge of pagan notions) and action is not gratefully received but rejected by the majority. When accepted, it does not necessarily lead to conversion (Lystra, Athens). Gentiles do not present an intellectual refutation.
622 Even these Gentiles were in need of proclamation and salvation. The account of the
Ethiopian shows that commitment and education will not unravel the Scriptures. The
outside input of a Christian missionary was needed to open them and to pave the road
for rejoicing. Cornelius' case demonstrates that despite his exemplary fear of God, prayers and ethical integrity, he still needed to hear the Christian proclamation. Only on
hearing and responding to this message did the audience receive the Spirit, which previously they had lacked. In both cases God arranged the encounter.
240
c) Though positive response of individual Gentiles (Sergius, jailer) occurs in the context of miracles, often miracles were ignored or interpreted
within and to affirm the ever present pagan paradigm, rather than ch alh~nge or overthrow this paradigm.
d) Moral-ethical failure of Gentiles appears closely related to their spiritual failure vis-a-vis salvation. Their moral-ethical failure towards the mission cannot be separated from their spiritual failure; the former expresses the
latter.
In these encounters Luke presents a mistaken Gentile world in need of

salvation, unable to help itself and without orientation. Although urgently required, correction alone proves inadequate. We can fully affirm our previous
conclusions. Also in these incidents Luke shows the Gentiles' lack of revelation and its consequences. They continue their rebellion against God in their
rejection of the mission and of the salvation and correction it seeks to bring.
2.2.17.2. Gentiles and the devil
We already drew some conclusions (Ill.2.1.1.3., 111.2.2.6.2.) regarding the

demonic involvement in the Gentile encounter with salvation (Acts 13.812) and in the human response to the word of God (Luke 8.12). The devil
appears behind an effort to turn a Gentile away from faith. In a more general context he is said to withhold response from some people by removing
the word. We also noticed how on other occasions Luke does not explicitly
explain lack of response by demonic interference, giving other or no explanations. Now we summarise what the other incidents of Luke and Acts add
to previous conclusions.
1. Luke's reference to manifestations of the devil among Gentiles is limited,
namely Luke 8.27-30; Acts 8.7; 13.1O(?); 16.16; 19.12.623 Likewise manifestations of demonic presence are limited: not all Gentiles seem to be affected
by the demonic (e.g. as demon-possessed) in a perceptible way. Not all visibly affected suffer to the same extent.
The Gerasene demoniac appears among many Gerasenes without this bondage. Though
many were possessed by unclean spirits, this is not said of all Samaritans nor of Sirnon.
Philippi's possessed slave girl was one among many other Philippians; the same holds true
for the possessed people in Ephesus.
623
Diseased Gentiles appear in Acts 8.7; 14.3(7),8; 19.12; 28.8f.
241
2. Though not all Gentiles were manifestly to the same degree under the
power of Satan, when Satan's power becomes manifest in possession or sickness 624, Gentiles were helpless and their attempts to bring relief futile. 625
Luke suggests that Jews fared better in this regard. Jewish exorcists are granted some
measure of success (Luke 11.19): 'Jesus here assumes the reality of such acts and that
they were carried out by the power of God'.626 Lack of this power of God renders Gentiles helpless.
3. The devil is assigned a relatively low profile.

3.1. Though S. Garrett rightly concludes:
... Luke regards Satan as a powerful being with much of the world under his authority. He controls individuals by means of sickness and demon possession. He controls
entire kingdoms, whose inhabitants live in the darkness of idolatry, worshipping Satan
and giving him the glory that is due God alone6%7,
the notions and actions of Gentiles in opposition to God are not (directly)
ascribed to the devil:
624 Baumbach, Verstiindnis, 166 claims much when he concludes for Acts 10.38: 'Lukas
hebt durch diese Zusammenfassung all er Menschen, denen Jesu Heilswerk gaIt, zur
Gruppe der vom Satan Beherrschten hervor,daB aUe Wohltaten und Heilungen Jesu der
Entmachtung des Sa tans durch die Befreiung der Menschen aus seiner Gewalt dienten,
die in V.43 als 'Vergebung der SUnden' charakterisiert wird'. Taeger rightly counters that
ElieQye1:OJ (cf. ElieQyeoi.a, Acts 4.9) as also [aollaL refers to the sick and possessed, not to
humanity in general, Mensch, 72, n. 282. For the relation between exorcism and physical
healing see the discussion in Nolland, 213f; G. Stllhlin, ThWNT I, (488-92) 491.18f: Diseases 'sind die Wirkungen von Geistern z.B. Mt 17.18 und bes Lk 13.11: 1tVei:illa
ll(rfh:v[a~'; cf. Nolland, 724 on Luke 13.11 and Acts 10.38 ('best taken as referring to
healing in genera!'); Fitzmyer, 544f on Luke 4.33; U.B. MUller, 'Krankheit III. NT', TRE
XIX, (684-86) 684f;TheiBen, Wundergeschichten, 94-102; o. Bllcher, 'Dllmonen IV. NT',
TRE VIll, (279-86) 281.43-282.2,283.35-284.4.
62S All efforts and the physical restraint applied to the Gerasene demoniac were futile.
Simon was unable to heal or to exorcise demons from the many Samaritans afflicted by
them. Only through the missionaries was the Philippian slavegirl delivered from the Python (in the latter cases no notice of previous attempts to do so). Through Paul's extraordinary miracles in Ephesus evil spirits came out of the sick. While some references to
physicians occur in Jewish settings - Luke 4.23 (proverbial); 5.31 (metaphorical); 8.43 (?
cf. Metzger, Commentary, 145) - Gentile physicians are not mentioned, although Gentile
magicians appear.
626 Marshall, 474. Luke mentions itinerant Jewish exorcists in Ephesus who prior to
Paul's ministry were probably somewhat successful. The demon chaUenging the sons of
Sceva does not question their general capacities but their use of a name that was not
theirs to use,Acts 19.13-16.
627 Demise,43.
242
a) Gentile spiritual failure (pagan concepts, idolatry and the practice of magic628) is not
explicitly associated with the demonic. Luke does not suggest that 'the devil made them
do it'. When Gentiles were addressed, their failures were assigned to their ignorance and
own spiritual failures. m
b) For the two places of genuine Gentile resistance to Christianity, Philippi and Ephesus, Luke also records demonic activity. But rejection of the missionaries is not explained
by demonic influence or instigation, rather it is traced to the threatened material interests of Gentiles.
c) Though the Roman Empire is depicted as one of the devil's vassals63 and though Judas' betrayal of Jesus is linked to the devil entering him (Luke 22.3)631, the Gentile involvement in the death of Jesus is not explicitly linked with the devil. Possibly this reference (ct the 'reminders' in Luke 22.31,53) also extends to the Gentile involvement in the
death of Jesus.
d) Gentile moral-ethical failure toward Gentiles, Jews or Christians is not associated
with the devil.""
3.2. Yet in view of this 'low profile' it is necessary to consider whether regu-
lar and consistent occurrence or attribution shOUld be expected. To answer

this question it is important 1. to remember that Luke's main concern is to
describe God's universal salvation in Jesus. The same attention is not given
to related or subordinate themes or to the adversary of this mission and his
influence over the people Jesus came to save; 2. to remember that the
above observations of absence appear between two statements of universal
and far-reaching demonic dominion over Gentiles (Luke 4.5f; Acts 26.18).
Within these ramifications, repeated and consistent reference and association is not necessarily to be expected; and 3. to note that incidents mentioning the devil or his influence appear at key points ~n Luke's narrative,633
628 Simon is not portrayed as possessed, neither is his magic ascribed to this source.
Elymas is not associated with the devil as a magician, but only in his attempt to turn away
from the faith. Demon possession and magic appear in Sarnaria and in Ephesus, though
not in Paphos.
.
629The context of the Areopagus speech (Paul rectifying a severe misunderstanding of
the plain Christian proclamation which was not understood) does not foster expectation
that the message would be further complicated by explaining the origin of their ignorance and its relation to their own responsibility. The speaker was at pains to procure
adequate understanding of Jesus and his resurrection without risking the introduction of
a biblical understanding of the devil! The same applies to the Lystran speech.
630 Luke 4.5-7; cf. 111.3.2.1.2.3. Sergius, one of the Empire's sub-vassals, entertains a
man who turns out to be a demonic agent.
631 ct III.3.2.1.2.2.3.2.
632 A possible exception is Luke's critical reference to the style of Gentile government
(Luke 22.25): because the kingdoms of the world and their authority are distributed by
the devil (Luke 4.6), the ~a01.i..et~ ,;wv ih'lvwv and ot ~~ouota~ov,;e~ av,;wv are his vassals.
Possibly their behaviour reflects their overlord.
6J3 Mention of possession in Samaria (Acts 8.7; cf. 1.8!); demonic resistance to the mission at the beginning of the systematic Gentill! mission (13.8-11); demonic attempt at falsification and neutralising the proclamation at the first stop in Europe (16.16f); mention
of possession in Ephesus, the longest and geographically most extensive Pauline ministry
3. The state and salvation of Gentiles prior to faith
243
which suggests that what is made explicit there could be assumed elsewhere. Such assumption would be encouraged by the bracket indicated in
the point 2.634
The picture emerging from these incidents prepares us for Luke's direct
declaration on this subject treated in the next section, the Gentile existence
under the E!;OUULCI tOU UCItCIvd (ct. III.3.2.1.2.3.). There we shall be in a position to consider the relation of Luke's narrative portrayal and his direct
declarations on the subject. 635 A summary will appear in our conclusions
(V. 1. 6.).

3.1. Introduction
We have studied the incidents when Gentiles came in contact with Jesus or
with the Christian mission. In this section we turn to Luke's references to
the state of Gentiles prior to faith (III.3.2.) and to the implications of
Luke's statements about how Gentiles are saved (III.3.3.). Our pursuit of
these questions of Lukan soteriology is limited to what this portrayal indicates about Gentiles prior to faith. 1bis section supplements the preceding
observations from the various incidents in Luke's narratives.
1. From Luke's direct statements on the Gentiles' state and from the solution offered we draw conclusions about their plight prior to faith. What
conclusions regarding the recipients of this salvation and their plight prior
to faith can be drawn from the nature and necessity of God's salvation?
2. We need to ask to what extent God is involved not only in the preparation of the salvation but also in the Gentiles' actual appropriation of salvation. What other factors are involved? How does Luke portray and relate
God's involvement, Satanic interference and the Gentiles' own contribution to the appropriation of salvation?
to Gentiles (19.12-16). This distribution is comparable to that of statements emphasising

divine activity in the Gentile appropriation of salvation.
634 Despite this 'demonic bracket', Gentiles are held responsible for their failure, which
is not explicitly ascribed to demonic influence or instigation. Though the devil may have
been active in originating and/or sustaining Gentile ignorance, Gentiles were challenged
to repent (Acts 14.15; 17.30).
63SThese conclusions then need to be related to Luke's references to divine and human activity in appropriating salvation. In view of Luke's assessment of the devil, how
active does God need to be;how active can the Gentiles be themselves?
244
3.2. The state of Gentiles prior to faith

We begin our first quest with Luke's most extensive statement on Gentiles
prior to faith and its context (II13.2.1.). To avoid fragmentation, we gather
similar material from elsewhere in Luke-Acts into the outline provided by
this statement and treat the relevant material together. Then we briefly try
to illuminate the conceptual background of Luke's statement (III.3.2.1.4.).
Finally we examine other references or implications as to the state of Gentiles prior to faith (III.3.2.2.).
3.2.1. The state of Gentiles prior to faith in direct address (Acts 26.16-29)
The close link between solution and plight, between God's saving intervention and the Gentiles' state prior to faith is most obvious in the summary of
Paul's ministry and message in Acts 26.18. This most comprehensive estimate of the Gentiles' state occurs in Paul's speech of defence before the
Gentile Festus and his visitor Herod Agrippa 11 (Acts 25.23-27). In addition
to its comprehensiveness, two further characteristics add to the significance
of this passage. 1. Paul summarises his ministry by quoting his commission
through the risen Christ (Acts 26.15f) who constitutes the highest authority
on Luke's pages. 2. This passage provides the 'theologische Begrtlndung filr
die Notwendigkeit des missionarischen Dienstes des Paulus'636 which was
not undisputed.
As with earlier speeches it becomes apparent that the speech and its context are closely related.
3.2.1.1. The preceding context (Acts 26.16f)

Paul is to serve and to testify to the things in which he has seen the risen Jesus and to those in which Jesus will appear to him. Jesus in turn promises
Paul to rescue him from his own people and from the Gentiles to whom he
was sent.
1. The description of Paul's message indicates that it was inseparable from
Jesus and consisted of him. Paul was to proclaim to Gentiles what neither he
nor anybody else could know naturally or conclude apart from this revelation of Jesus. Paul himself had to be and would be shown Jesus and his significance and through his proclamation the Gentiles had to be shown. 637 With
this message Paul was to fulfil the task outlined in Acts 26.18.
636
637
Baumbach, Verstiindnis, 166f.

Previous references p.icture Paul fulfilling this charge,Acts 14.7; 17.18,31.
245
2. Divine protection is needed from the Gentile recipients of Paul's message. Though Paul is to proclaim what otherwise could not be known, this message and its messenger would not find enthusiastic acceptance, rather lifethreatening resistance and rejection would arise (ct. Luke 10.3). What Gentiles did not and could not know, would be violently rejected once made
known. Salva tion and correction are not eagerly awaited nor warmly received.
Paul requires divine rescue from the very beneficiaries of his message. Ibis
promise already gives some indication as to the state of the Gentiles.
This reference to the rejection of God's messenger with this testimony ties in with
Luke's previous description of Gentiles: Not only did such rejection occur, but on several
occasions also the Gentiles were quick to endorse unworthy causes and characters.6Ja
3.2.1.2. Paul's message and ministry to the Gentiles (Acts 26.18)
Paul was sent to the Gentiles with this message 'to open their eyes so that
they might turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God,
so that they might receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who
are sanctified by faith in him'. Apart from this message Gentiles are blind
(1), in darkness (2) and under the power of Satan (3). They need to turn to
God (4) and need forgiveness of sins (5). The unholy Gentiles need to receive a new position among those sanctified by faith in Jesus (6).
What Luke offers here is a general description of the Gentiles (v. 17) and therefore not
applicable in detail to every individual. Luke has previously mentioned individual Gentiles attracted to Judaism and the positive consequences of such an association. The description is clearly less applicable to such God-fearing Gentiles. TIlOugh they were well
on their way to salvation, Luke still affirms their need of salvation (cf. the discussion of
the God-fearers in 111.3.3.3.3.).
3.2.1.2.1. Closed eyes
Paul's commission to avo~UL o<Pf}uAllouS- implies that' the Gentiles' eyes

are closed and need to be opened so that they may turn from darkness to
light. As with darkness-light imagery, this expression is familiar on Luke's
pages, as are references to seeing and failing to perceive.639
~voU;aL
{lIp!l-a)"fLou; describes a revelation of something otherwise unknown: The two

disciples' eyes had to be opened to recognise the risen Jesus (liLT\VOLx-&r]oav ot oqJ"!l-aAfLol,
638 Non-Jews enthusiastically accepted Simon, Elymas had some influence over Sergius, the Philippian crowds joined the slave owners and the Ephesians supported the
guild's cause. Gentiles followed Jewish instigation against Paul. The very occasion of
Paul's speech in Acts 26 reflects this Gentile characteristic: Felix rejected Paul's message,
failed to administer justice to Paul and left him in prison for Festus to deal with his case.
639 Cf. Luke 8.10; Acts 9.8;Taeger,Mensch, 68,n.257.
246
Luke 24.31), Jesus then opened the Scriptures to them (~LTJ"OLY" "ta~ YQa'Pa~, 24.32).
Later he opened the minds of the other disciples to understand Scripture (~LTJVOLI;EV
alJ"t(j)V tOY vovv, 24.45; for Acts 16.14 cf. III.3.2.1.3.2., 111.3.3.2.2.6.). Paul opened the
Scriptures in their new interpretation (~Lavo(ywv, Acts 17.3). In these other references
the subject of this 'opening' is always distinct from the objects or beneficiaries. Likewise,
the Gentiles did not and could not open their eyes themselves.
Gentile eyes are closed to the truth and their true state. This observation
cautions against assuming much adequate 'natural' insight among the Gentiles. Through their blindness they do not recognise the darkness they live
in and the bondage they live under. They continue in their blindness and
even resist attempts to enlighten them in the proclamation (cf. Acts 26.17).
Only through God's intervention is sight restored. However the Gentiles' own contribution to their turning is to be assessed, it is only possible
after the initial divine opening. Luke adduces ample evidence for this
blindness (in their thinking and practice, e.g. their idolatry and repeated ascription of divinity to humans) and for the fact that the Gentiles have not
opened their eyes themselves.
3.2.1.2.2. In darkness
Gentiles are to turn from their state of darkness to light. On two previous
occasions OX()"T;O~ or OX01;(U was the implied state of Gentiles, when God's
salvation is described as the light to illumine them.
1. Simeon identified Jesus as the salvation which God had prepared in the
presence of all peoples 64o, 'a light for revelation to the Gentiles' (cpw~ Et~
U3tOXUAtJ'I\'LV, Luke 2.30-32). This salvation and light of revelation is needed
to illuminate those in darkness.
Das Licht des Messias wird den HeidenvOlkern so scheinen, daB sie die notwendige
'Enthiillung', 'Offenbarung' bekommen, die sie herausrettet aus ihrer Finsternis, ihnen heraushilft aus ihrem Irrtum liber Gott und liber sein Yolk Israel. Selbstverstiindlich ist dieses enthlillende Licht als wirkkriiftig gedacht ... 641
2. The missionaries are to be 'a light for the Gentiles (cpWS- e-8vwv, Isa 49.6;
cf. 42.6f) so that they may bring salvation to the ends of the earth' (Acts
13.46f). While Israel had a history of salvation to reflect on (13.17-25), prior
640 Aawv here refers to Israel and the Gentile nations. Cf. Farris, Hymns, 148 for discussion and arguments why both expressions also refer to Gentiles; against Kilpatrick,
'Aaol'.
64! Schlirmann 1,126; cf. Nolland,120. Both areas of error suggested by SchUrmann are
amply illustrated in Luke-Acts. Berger, 'Canticum' ,36 interprets God's revelation as 'sie
in die Erkenntnis und Anerkenntnis Gottes hineinzufiihren'; cf. A. Oepke, ThWNT Ill,
(565-96) 573.34-580.4 for revelation in the OT. Gentiles lack and can not attain themselves all that revelation is and entails; cf. Oepke's summary pp. 595.5-596.8.
247
to this light Gentiles are in darkness and do not know or have salvation. In
Acts 26.23 Paul returns to this proclamation of cpUi~: Through his proclamation of light to Jews and Gentiles, the risen Messiah will dispel all darkness
(ct. Luke 1.78f).
In addition to having closed eyes, Gentiles are in darkness, in need of divine light and revelation to dispel darkness and to recognise the true state
of affairs and need for salvation. The theoretical and practical consequences of these needs have been illustrated in Luke's portrayal of Gentiles prior to faith. Gentiles have been characterised as lacking revelation.
This repeated application of darkness-light imagery to Gentiles also indicates that whatever Gentiles have to offer is subsumed under the verdict
'darkness'. What Gentiles know or can know of themselves is insufficient.
In their present situation Gentiles are unable to help themselves. They have
no light and cannot illumine themselves. Paul's commission indicates that
help from outside is necessary to dispel this darkness, to proclaim the true
state and to procure change.
3. The imagery of darkness also occurs in contexts relevant to Gentiles.
3.1. The disciples are sons of light (Luke 16.8) in contrast to the darkened children of
this age. According to Baumbach, !jlw~ is
Bezeichnung ... fUr den durch Christus erschlossenen Heilsbereich .. , Dementsprechend wird 'diese Welt' als 'Finsternis' bezeichnet und als 'Herrschaftsgebiet des Satans' verstanden ... 'Diese Welt' mit ihrer Macht und ihrem Glanz wird vom Satan beherrscht, die 'S6hne dieses Aons' stehen darum im 'Machtbereich des Satans' (Apg.
26.18), die 'S6hne des Lichts' geh6ren dagegen zu der in Jesus erschienenen zukUnftigen Welt des Lichtes ... 6<2
The reference to the darkened sons of this age appears in a context familiar for Luke's
Gentiles. The steward of Luke 16 tried to secure his existence with what he had at his disposal. This material preoccupation is ascribed to Gentiles in Luke 12.30; 17.27f and illustrated in several incidents. Also the second concern of the people of this age, namely to
marry and be given in marriage (Luke 20.34-36) appears as a Gentile concern in Luke
17.27.
3.2. The following mention of Satan in Acts 26.18 is also not surprising as on two previous occasions darkness and the devil were closely related.
The conspiracy to engineer Jesus' death gained momentum when Satan entered Judas
(Luke 22.3).643 In the subsequent arrest the 'power of darkness' became manifest
Verstiincinis, 197,199.
Cf. Nolland, 1029f; Brown, Death, 259; Fitzmyer, 1374-76. Though another motive is
not provided, there possibly is reference to Judas' greediness in Luke 22.5. Fitzmyer,
1375 suggests on 22.5: 'this detail takes on a significantly ominous nuance. It specifies the
Satanic element in the evil that Judas does'. Satan triggered and drove the passion events
including Gentile involvement; cf. III.2.1.2.
In John 13.26f Satan enters Judas during the Last Supper (not previously as in Luke 22.
3), immediately afterwards Judas ESf]k-frEV E-uthi~. ~v 6E w; (v. 30; Luke's only temporal
reference is Luke 22.14); cf. C. Dietzfelbinger, Der Abschied des Kommenden: Eine
Aus/egung der johanneischen Abschiedsreden, WUNT 95 (TUbingen: lC.B. Mohr, 1997),
642
643
248
(22.53).64< Brown concludes from Luke 22.53: darkness 'is the domain of sin and ignorance presided over by Satan, a domain opposed to Jesus who is light and whose followers must walk in light'.645
As a punishment, physical blindness and darkness came over Elymas, the devil's agent,
in accordance with his inner state (Acts 13.11). Pesch notes: 'Mit den Mitteln der Wundergeschichte ist der theologisch-anthropologische Zusammenhang von "Verblendung"
und "Blindheit" als Tat-Folge-Zusammenhang ("Strafe") interpretiert'.646
3.2.1.2.3. Under the power of Satan
Gentiles are to turn a:7to ... "tfi\; t!;OlJOLCl\; "tou OCl"tClVc'i E:7tL "tov -frEOV. Though
blind and in darkness, Gentiles were not on neutral ground but were under
the power of 8atan.647
Satan and his influence on Gentiles were previously described on several occasions....
Though not all Gentiles were equally and perceptibly affected, some Gentiles were
manifestly under demonic possession, though possessed Gentiles are nowhere described
as being subject to Satan's power to a greater extent than others. The same is true for disease, another expression of Satan's power. Luke's portrayal does not indicate a striking
concentration of possession or disease among Gentiles, nor that deliverance from such
was a regular or dominant feature of the Gentile mission (although see below on 1.).
However, we noted that incidents mentioning the devil's dominion appear at key points
in Luke's narrative and are representative rather than exceptional (III.2.2.17.2.3.2.).
Where such demonic power became manifest, Gentiles were helpless.
17f; R.E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (xiii-xxi): Introduction, Translation, and
Notes, AncB 29a (Garden City: Doubleday, 1970),576,579; G. Delling, Th WNT IV, 111720.
64< Cf. NolIand, 1089; Brown, Death, 291-93. Baumbach, Verstiindnis, 190 suggests that
E!;ouoiu 'tou ou'tuvd (Acts 26.18) is 'die lukanische Interpretation von ox6to~.... 1st
ab er die E!;ouoiu tOU outuvd mit dem ox6to~ identisch, dann muG die E;OUOLU 'tOU
(JX6'tou~ mit dem Satan gleichgesetzt werden .... Die Verbindung "eure Stunde und die
Macht der Finsternis" zeigt, daB in der Gefangennahme Jesu durch die jUdische Obrigkeit der mit der Finsterni.s identische Satan zur MachtfOlle gelangt'. Cf. pp. 171,189;
Brown, Death, 16lf, 186, 1042. Nolland. 1156 comments on the darkness of Luke 23.44:
'For the Lukan sense, surely 22.53 must direct our understanding: Luke thinks of the Satanic onslaught that stands behind the cruel deed that comes now to its fruition ... this
climax to Satan's activity'.
64S Death, 292; cf. H. Conzelmann, ThWNT VII, 429.9-32 for the OT significance of
darkness (darkness expresses the concealment of God, p.430.16f). Luke does not explain
this Gentile darkness as a punitive darkening in response to their sin (cf. pp. 431.23-432.2;
Rom 1.21;Eph 4.17-19).
646 Cf. MuBner, 78: 'Elymas ... ist ... geistig blind, macht andere geistig blind und wird
zur Strafe dafUr voriibergehend auch leibJich blind'; Zmijewski. 490. For physical blindness as punishment see E. Lesky, 'Blindheit. IV. Straf- und Heilungswunder', RAC II,
438-40; W. Schrage, ThWNT VIII, (270-94) 287.29-31 (and his n. 122 on Elymas' blindness); pp. 291.22-294.10 for metaphorical use.
647 The Gentiles' spiritual blindness and inability to recognise or change their plight
themselves is not explicitly linked to Satanic origin.
648 See III.2.1.1.3., III.2.2.passim; cf. the summaries in III.2.2.6.2., III.2.2.17.2.
249
Though existence under Satanic dominion has not yet been designated a
Gentile characteristic, Luke and Acts contain several references - in addition to those already examined - which suggest that this would be an apt
conclusion, rather than a surprising exception.
1. Luke indicates that the dominion over the kingdoms of this world has
been given to Satan (Luke 4.5-8). Satan has these kingdoms at his disposal
and is able to pass them and his E~ouoia over them to whom he pleases.
Through his earthly vassals Satan is master over the whole otxoullEVT] in
which Gentiles live under his E~oucrLa. Baumbach concludes: '1st aber der
Satan der Herr der Welt, dann gehoren alle Menschen in der Welt zu seinem Bereich'.649
All Lukan references to the devil (and the Gentiles) appear sandwiched
between the statements of universal Satanic dominion of Luke 4.5-8 and Acts
26.18, Luke's first and last reference to the devil. 65o Satan's influence over
Gentiles is therefore n(Jt a negligible factor.
In addition, Luke 4.5-8 is highly critical of political power. While Jesus
declined to become the devil's vassal, others agreed to his 'offer' of power
and glory. If the condition Satan set for Jesus, namely ail ouv EaV 1tQoaxuv~an~ Evwmov Ellou, also applies to others metaphorically, the picture is
even worse. The indirect identification of those in authority, predominantly
Gentiles (miaa~ "ta~ f3aaL1..ELa~ Tii~ otxouIlEVT]~), as Satan's vassals guides
the readers' assessment of them. 651 This bleak characterisation coincides
with Luke's references to and descriptions of Gentiles in authority; CL e.g.
Luke 3.19f; 9.7-9; 13.1; 22.25; 23; Acts 4.25f; 12.20-23; 18.12-17. These Gentile vassals reflect their overlord.
2. Satan's power over people is also suggested by Luke 11.2lf: When strong Satan guards
Ti]v eau"toii au):rjv, his property is safe and his prey is under his power. Then one stronger
649 Baumbach, VerstlJndnis, 166; see also pp. 110,140,167,171,175,186. He concludes

'daB bei Lukas alle Menschen vor ihrer Bekehrung zum Herrschaftsbereich des Satans,
zur Finstemis, geh1!ren und darum als "vom Satan Beherrschte" (Apg 10.38) zu verstehen sind' (167). Satan is called 0 "toii KOUfLoU aQJ(wv in John 12.31; 14.30; 16.11 (cf. also 1
Cor 2.6,8; 2 Cor 4.4; Eph 2.2); cf. WB, 228.3.; G. Delling, ThWNT J, (476-88) 487.37-488.9.
650 Cf. our conclusions in III.2.2.17.2.3.2.2. from this 'Satanic bracket' regarding Satan's
involvement elsewhere even when not explicitly mentioned.
651 Walaskay, Rome, 116 fails to consider the passage and its implications. Cf. the sensitive treatment by SchUrmann 1,211: ' ... die sich im Imperium Romanum verk1!rperte.
Dessen EsouuLa ist hier faktisch gemeint, und diese ist fest in der Hand des Teufels, der
mit ihr belehnt (obgleich er nicht umhin kann, einzugestehen, daB ihm diese MachtfUlIe
"Ubergeben" wurde)'. This linkage needs to be considered when an apologetical defence
of Christianity is suggested as the purpose of Luke-Acts; cf. Buckwalter, Character,42-44;
Jervell, 'Paul', 157f. Possibly this note explains why an explicit statement like Luke 22.3 is
not necessary for the Gentile involvement in the death of Jesus: Pilate, to whom Jesus is
brought in Luke 23.1, is already in Satan's line of command; but cf. III.3.2.l.2.2.3.2.
250
Ill. I he Genllle encounter wuh salvatIOn
than he overpowers him and divides his plunder (uxuka).6S1 The context of this statement is Jesus' exorcisms. Baumbach rightly sees in them the 'Befreiung der vom Satan
beherrschten Menschen'.,w Jesus, who in the temptation of Luke 4.1-13 proved to be the
tUXUQ61:EQO~, overpowers Satan and liberates his captives. Originally these were not Satan's people, but his 'prisoners of war'. Though the general nature of the discussion in
Luke 11 includes Gentiles, this statement is limited to possession rather than a general
statement of Satanic dominion (unless the auki) is similar in extent to the sphere of Luke
4.5-8).
3. The extension of Jesus' ministry of deliverance in his disciples (Luke 9.1,6; 10.17)
caused Satan's fall from heaven like lightning. Prior to and possibly apart from these
events Satan was enthroned in heaven and ruling his ~auLkEta (Luke 11.18; cf. 4.5).6S4
Again the context is deliverance from demon possession. Apparently possession is an expression of Satan's rule (cf. III.2. 2.17.2.1.-2.).
4. Satan's E;ouuLa is also apparent in that a) after people hear the word, he can take
away the word from their hearts so that they may not believe and be saved (Luke 8.Uf;
ct. III.2.2.6.2.2.). Unless Satan is prevented, the word will not even sprout.6SS b) Satan
could enter Judas (Luke 22.3; cf. III.3.2.1.2.2.3.2.) and demand to sift the other disciples
like wheat (Luke 22.31f).6S6 c) Satan can somehow induce a believer's heart to lie against
the Spirit (Acts 5.3f).
Luke here and elsewhere indicates that Gentiles are under the E!;OUOLU -COU
ou-cuvCi. Liberation from this power, restoration of the former state and resistance to Satan's approaches only comes with God's or Jesus' intervention. Gentiles themselves are unable to recognise, due to their blindness
and darkness, or break this bondage.
The first part of Paul's commission describes the Gentiles' state prior to
faith. Where and what these Gentiles were became cl~ar. Before we study
how these Gentiles can change and what characterises these changes, we
need to ask whether Luke conceives the Gentiles to be in complete blindness, darkness, and completely under the devil's power. Nothing to the contrary is indicated. The description of their state as under Satan's power
shows that more than opening and illumination through the proclamation
is needed. On the Gentiles' blindness and darkness Baumbach notes:
Beide Begriffe sind nun aber dadurch metaphysisch Uberh6ht worden,daB die Finsternis als E;o\Ju(a 1:0-0 ua1:avd ... bezeichnet und das Licht mit Gott ... und Christus (Lk
2.32; 11.33; Apg 13.47; vg!. Apg 9.3; 22.6,9,11; 26.13) in Verbindung gebracht wurde. 6S7
652 For
the Isaianic background see IlI.3.2.1.4.

Verstiindnis, 130.
654 Luke does not systematically relate Satan's fall to latter cases of possession, of his
intervention or to Acts 26.18. It seems that the deliverance through the mission or the
'turning' of 26.18 is possible because of andlor after Satan's fall.
6SS To the disciples it had been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God; cf.
1II.3.3.2.2.10.3.
656 See Brown, Death, 135.
657 Verstiindnis, 132.
653
3. The stale and salvalion of Genliles prior 10 faith
251
Indicative of Luke's understanding of sin, this threefold summary describes

the Gentile spiritual condition, not their moral-ethical shortcomings. Luke
does not explain why there are God-fearing Gentiles despite Satan's dominion.
3.2.1.2.4. Away from God
1. Estrangement from God. The Gentiles' eyes need to be opened 'so that
they may turn (toU E3tLUtQE'ljJaL)'. Other Lukan occurrences of EnLatQE<pELV
throw light on Gentiles prior to faith. Gentiles were to turn from idols
(Acts 14.15)658 and abandon things polluted by idols, fornication, etc. (15.20;
cf. II.3.6., Acts 26.20). The events at Lystra showed that idolatry is but an indicator of the Gentiles' needful spiritual state, of their lack of apprehension
or misapprehension of God. The Lystrans were charged not only to turn
from idols, but also to turn to the living God previously unknown to them.
The need to turn to God indicates the Gentiles' estrangement from him.
Gentiles are away from God. This estrangement becomes manifest in their
futile mindset and idolatry (Acts 14.15), again indicating their closed eyes
and existence in darkness under the power of Satan. Prior to their EnLUtQo<P~ to God, Gentiles are under Satan's power. As all Gentiles need to
turn, all are under Satan's power.
2. Turning or being turned? The subject of E3tLUtQE<pELV varies: people are
charged to turn, yet also John and Jesus were sent to turn people (Luke
1.16). Can Gentiles 'turn' themselves? The previous description of the Gentiles' state precludes assuming a significant capacity in spiritual matters.
Gentiles, with the exception of the God-fearers, were unwilling or unable to
accomplish this return to God on their own. God's intervention was necessary: Paul was sent to the Gentiles; turning only came then. Can they turn
once the mission has reached them? Paul was to open Gentile eyes so that
they might turn. This seems to indicate that once their eyes were opened ab
extra, they were able to turn. The following observations need to be kept in
mind:
1. Luke's first instance of the Gentiles' turning is explained by the fact
that the hand of the Lord was with the missionaries (E3tEatQ'ljJEv, Acts
658Though EltLO"tQE!pW occurrs only at Acts 14.15, the results of the first missionary
journey are summarised as the E:7tLO"tQoqrljv tWV EthrWV (Acts 15.3). In reaction to Israel's
idolatry, God turned (OtQE!pW) away and handed them over to pagan worship (Acts
7.42f). God's own turning expressed itself in that he let Israel do as the Gentiles did, who
had already turned away from God which is evident in their idolatry. From this rebellion,
expressed in false worship and its underlying conceptions, the Gentiles need to return to
God.
252
11.21; ct. III.2.2.S., III.3.3.2.2.2.). This suggests that more than the mere opportunity or possibility of turning is intended. 659 2. Not all Gentiles who
were enlightened through the Christian mission did actually turn. 3. Even
once enlightened, they still were under the power of Satan. If this expression is to have any meaning it suggests that those under such power cannot
simply leave its sphere. 66o Deliverance from Satan's bondage is not at the
victims' own disposal (Luke 11.21, see below). 4. Unless divine activity is
assumed behind this turning, the opening of eyes must be comprehensive
and probably already includes God's saving intervention. We return to this
question in our discussion of the Gentiles' appropriation of salvation
(III.3.3. ).
Such divine turning is implicit in Acts 3.26. God sent his servant first to the Jews, to bless
them by turning each one of them from their wicked ways.661 IIQu)"tov means here 'zuerst,
zunachst'662 and implies that once the item mentioned is accomplished, another similar
task follows: 663 Jesus will then turn the Gentiles also from their l'tOvT]QLm. Gentiles also
need to be turned. Their turning requires divine help as they neither had turned nor were
able to turn themselves. In this function Jesus commissioned Paul to share in this task regarding the Gentiles. 664
659 Though Luke does not mention the Spirit and his activity (e.g. in a salvific role) in
this summary of Paul's commission (perhaps due to Paul's audience?), it is noteworthy
that in Acts 10.43-46 the coming to faith of Gentiles (their reception of 'the gift of repentance', 11.18) is closely related to the reception of the Spirit ( ... mx",a 'tov l'tLO"tevov'ta
d~ mh6v .... rneoev 'to l'tVij~a 'to aYLov ... ); cl. Acts 2.2-4,41. Does Luke see the Spirit as
God's agent of 'turning' enabling such a move? Luke would. hardly have answered our
question without reference to the Spirit! Cf. the major recent studies of Lukan pneumatology: J.M. Penny, The Missionary Emphasis of Lukan Pneumatology, Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 12 (Sheffield: SAP, 1997); M. Thrner, Power From on
High: The Spirit in Israel's Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts, Journal of Pentecostal
Theology Supplement Series 9 (Sheffield: SAP, 1996);M. Wenk, The Holy Spirit and EthicaVReligious Life of the People of God in Luke-Acts (Diss. London [LBC], 1998); cf. also
DUnn, Baptism and C. Keener, The Spirit in the Gospels and Acts (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997).
660 In the Isaianic background to these expressions a change from darkness to light or
liberation from captivity is exclusively God's domain (Isa 42.16; cf. III.3.2.1.4.).
661 Barrett r, 214 advocates the active transitive reading. The context, 'the notion of
blessing is more consistent with that of divine than human action'.
662WB,1453l.
663 Luke uses l'tQwtOV ... xaLt6te in Luke 6.42,:7tQwtoV '" Ev'tIQ 6ElJtEQ<l! in Acts 7.l2f
and l'tQwtOV ... :7tQo ('tou aQLo'tOlJ) in Luke 11.38. The construction of Acts 3.26 also appears in Luke 9.59,61; 12.1 {cf.14.28,31; Acts 26.20; WB, 1453). The pattern Jews first then
Gentiles is spelt outin Acts 13.46 (:7tQwtOV ... :7tEL6~ ... ).
664 This combination of 'turning' and address of individual sins also occurs in Acts
26.18 (a~aQtLaL). In Luke's last occurrence of rnLO"tQEqJCll (Acts 28.27) Jewish failure to
turn is explained by a hardening of heart and wilful rejection (cf. Pesch n, 310; ct. Acts
2.36): Once people have seen with their eyes,listened with their ears and understood with
their hearts, they need to turn to God. If they fail to do so, they no longer understand and
turn (Isa 6.9f). Possibly Luke assumed that this was also true of the Gentiles of the past.
3. The stale and salvation of Gentiles prior to faith
253
3.2.1.2.5. In need offorgiveness
The benefits that Gentiles are to receive shed further light on their state prior
to faith. Not only are Gentiles spiritually blind, in darkness and under Satan's
power and estranged from God, but also their spiritual and moral-ethical sins
need remedy. They have sinned and are sinners in need offorgi veness. The relation of their sins to their spiritual state (e.g. sins as indicators of and consequences of the state or as factors contributing to it)665 is not indica ted. 666 That
the people described in Acts 26.18a and called lawless earlier (Acts 2.23; ct.
II.3.1.) fail to fulfil God's will is hardly surprising.
Luke closely links forgiveness of sins to salvation: salvation consists in
forgiveness (Luke 1.77).667 The salvation of the Gentiles also addresses
their sins. Yet Conzelmann's proposal that Luke only has a moral-ethical
understanding of sin curtails the Lukan picture. 668 Nothing indicates that
Luke has the or only the moral-ethical sins of Gentiles in mind in Acts
26.18. 669 The Lukan picture of the sins of Gentiles is much more complex
(see below). Salvation not only includes the forgiveness of individual sins,
but also needs to address and does change the sinful state behind these
manifestations. After addressing the Gentiles' state, Luke now addresses
their individual sins of a spiritual and moral-ethical nature. Both aspects together constitute Luke's hamartiology. A summary of other references to
the sins of Gentiles supports these conclusions:
1. John's preparation of all flesh for God's salvation (Luke 3.6) included addressing the
sins of a Gentile (cf. III.2.1.2.3.2.l.). John's exposition of Herod's sins (Luke 3.19f, the
:n:ovTJQ6v done to John and all the other evil things; for the former see 3. below) shows
how God's salvation also addresses specific sins of Gentiles.
66S Cf. Acts
7.42, Barrett 1,368.

Baumbach, Verstiindnis, 137 (italics mine) concludes from the relationship of btLatQthpELV (26.18), MOatQEIjlELV and the range of :n:ovTJQ[m in Acts 3.26: 'Dem MOatQEIjlELV &:n:6 entspricht das ~matQeIjlELV a:n:6 in Apg 26.18, wo von der Bekehrung von der
Finsternis und der Macht des Salans zum Licht und zu Gott die Rede ist. Die :n:OVTjQtUL
sind somit in Beziehung zur Finsternis und zur Mach! des Satans zu sehen, wiihrend sie
im Blick auf Apg 3.19 ihre Jdentitiit mit der SUnde erweisen. Die Bekehrung von den
:n:OVTjQ[UL = uJl.uQt[m = Ol1tO~ = e~o"cria 'toii aatavd ist also Voraussetzung ... fliT die
Anteilhabe am Heil, die si ch nach 3.19 in der Silndenvergebung verwirklicht. Die "bOsen
Taten" sind demlufolge Ausdruck des Unbekehrlseins blW. des Zustands vor der Bekehrung'.
667 This defmition of salvation occurs in a Jewish context For Jews salvation also consists in more than forgiveness of their moral-ethical sins. Salvation also addresses their
rejection of God and his purposes; cf. Stenschke, 'Bedeutung', 140-42.
668 Mitte, 212f; cf. the discussion and criticism in 1.2.2.3.2.
669 Most probably Luke would have also considered e.g. the acclamation of Herod or
of Artemis, the worship of idols and the identifications of humans as divine as sin requiring forgiveness.
666
254
III. The Gentile e1lcounter with salvation
2. Repentance for forgiveness of sins was to be proclaimed to all nations (Luke 24.47).67.
The fact that all nations were to receive this call suggests universal sinfulness.671 Reception of forgiveness does not derive from the Gentiles' own insight or effort, but is made
known in the apostles' proclamation (cf. also Acts 10.43; 13.47; 26.22f). Repentance and
forgiveness of sins are exclusively linked to the name of Jesus. m
3. Both spiritual and moral-ethical sins of Gentiles, often inextricably intertwined with
each other, appear throughout Luke's narrative.67J Gentile sins are usually related to
Luke's main story-line of salvation and concern the rejection of salvation in the Gentile
involvement in the passion events or against the Christian mission. Because they involve
rejection of God's purpose; these sins are as much spiritual as moral-ethical offences. Specific moral-ethical sins of Gentiles, not immediately directed against God or his salvation, are hardly reported.67~ Carefully and consistently to identify this or that action or attitude of Gentiles as 'sinful' is not Luke's concern. Readers are expected to recognise
such attempts as opposition to the purpose of God and therefore sinful. This lack of designation also applies to Luke's descriptions of spiritual failure. 67s
That unforgiven sins and an inheritance among the sanctified are mutually
exclusive, indicates the seriousness of these sins. Dupont summarises:
L'une ne va pas sans l'autre: en obtenant la remission de leurs peches, les paiens prennent en meme temps possession d,une part d'heritage; echappant a I'empire de Satan,
ils se trouvent par le fait meme dans l'heritage de lumiere. 676
The close link of sins with God's forgiveness here and throughout Acts 677
indicates that Gentiles cannot remove or atone for their sins themselves or
contribute to their forgiveness. As Gentiles cannot change their state, so
they cannot escape the consequences of their sins (cf. ill.3.2.4.1.) but
through God's forgiveness, suggesting their natural inadequacy and need of
salvation. Luke does not record efforts of Gentiles to remove their sin or
identify their pagan practices as such an attempt.
670 For textual matters see Fitzmyer, 1584. Due to this universal scope, these 'sins' do
not refer to the nations' involvement in the death of Jesus (cf. III.2.1.2.1.).
671 Also in Acts 10.43 sins appear as an universal human characteristic. It is presupposed that all who believe in Jesus,Jews and Gentiles, have sins and need to receive forgiveness for them.
672 Plummer,563. Evans, 923 outlines how this theme is developed in Acts 10.42; 11.18;
17.30f; 20.21; 26.20.
673 Cf. III.2.1.2., III.2.2.passim, III.2.2.l7.1.2.d.
674 E.g. Acts 27.30 (?; cf.II.3.10.b.);Luke 3.19 general summary: l'tEgL l'tavtwv wv E:n:olllUEV l'tovllQwv. Sinful attitudes of Gentiles prior to the encounter with salvation are
treated in part 11. Specific inter-personal failure mostly occurs in Luke's parables: e.g.
Luke 10.29-37; 11.5-8?; 12.16-21(cf. 12.29f; 17.27-33); 12.45-48; 14.7-147; 15.11-32; 16.18,19-31; 18.1-8; 19.11-27;20.9-19. However,most of these case also involve a breach of divine law.
675 Cf. II.3.7., III.2.2.passim.
676 Dupont, Discollrs, 280f.
677 Ct. Conzelmann, Mitte, 212, n. 4; cf.1.2.2.3.2.1.c.
255
3.2.1.2.6. Unholy and unbelieving

In addition to forgiveness of sins, Gentiles were to receive a position not
held previously: 'X.A.tjQo; Ev 'tot; ~YLacrflEvOL; 1tLOl"EL"tfi El; EflE. Formerly unholy Gentiles join those sanctified, not by their own merit, but by faith in
Jesus. We return to aYL<i~OJ and its implications for Gentiles prior to faith in
our discussion of Luke's designations of Gentile Christians (cf. Iv'3.1.1.-2.).
This inheritance had to be received ab extra. It was not an innate deposit
or faculty that merely needed to be or could be activated. Gentiles could
not sanctify themselves but had to be sanctified by God. 678 Gentiles were
made holy by their faith in Jesus. Prior to this faith Gentiles did not believe
in God. lIDs new position was exclusively tied to faith and could not be
achieved otherwise. None of the Gentiles' past achievements constituted
an acceptable contribution 679 , not surprisingly in view of the earlier description of their state..
3.2.1.3. The subsequent context (Acts 26.19-29)
1. Acts 26.20. Paul declared to the Gentiles 'that they should repent and
turn to God and do deeds consistent with repentance'.
1.1. Repentance. At this point the force of IlE"tavoLa has been well established:MD John's
ministry was to proclaim the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sin;; (Luke
3.3). Jesus called sinners to repentance (5.32). Repentance befits sinners (15.7,10). In
Acts 2.38 and 3.19 the call to repentance is linked with sins (counteracting the plan of
God, 2.23f; 3.13-15, and other sins). Jesus gives repentance and forgiveness ofsins (5.31).
Repentance also occurred with Gentiles: The inhabitants of1Yre and Sidon would have
repented had they witnessed Jesus' miracles (Luke 10.13). The Ninevites repented upon
the proclamation of Jonah (11.32). Repentance and forgiveness of sins was to be proclaimed to all nations (24.47). God commands all people everywhere to repent as he no
longer overlooks ignorance (Acts 17.30).68' Paul proclaimed to Jews and Greeks - 're-
678 O. Procksch, TDNT I, 112 compares the occurrences of !iYLa~OJ in Acts with Col
1.12 and notes: 'except that the passive ~YLaollEvoL causes a heavier stress to fall on the
setting up of the state of holiness'; cf. H. Balz, EWNT I, (38-48) 41 on the passive usage of
!iYLa~OJ, who concludes: 'Als Subjekt der HeiIigung ist in den pass. Formulierungen sehr
oft Gott zu denken (Pass. divinurn)'.
679 The Lystran episode shows that the pagan paradigm and its expression was not appreciated andlor incorporated, but strongly repudiated; cf. also Acts 17.16; 19.26.
680 On E:n:LO"tQIi"ljlaL see 111.3.2.1.2.4. On Luke's concept of repentance cf. Stenschke,
'Need'; Taeger,Mensch , 134,140,145.
681 Sinful misapprehension of the living God and veneration of idols are mentioned in
the speech, not moral-ethical sins.
256
gardes comme les representants du monde palen et idoHitre'68L repentance before God
and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ (20.21)."'"
The call to repentance presupposes sins of various nature. As with the previous reference to the forgiveness of sins, Paul's message implies that Gentiles are sinners in need of repentance. Without turning to God, an aspect
which again indicates more than moral-etmcal sins, these Gentiles continue
to be aligned in a different direction, remaining far from God or on a road
leading away from God (cf. ffi.3.2.1.2.4.).
1.2. Worthy deeds (li;lU '[fj~ JLE'tuvolu~ EQYU :rcQciooov'ta~) are to follow
repentance and turning to God. The need of a changed lifestyle is added.
More is involved than 'der vom Menschen zu vollziehende Obergang von
einem Aufklarungszustand in einen anderen ... von falscher 'Oberzeugung
zu rechter Einsicht'.684 The Gentiles' AuJkliirungszustand and behaviour,
closely linked in this verse, require change. Again, EQYU is not limited to
moral-etmcal deeds. This change allows for conclusions regarding the nature of Gentile EQya prior to repentance. Gentile deeds were uvci;la tij~
JLE'tavoLa~ and requiring repentance. Gentile EQYU prior to faith are unacceptable.
Luke does not elaborate on Gentile ethics or the ethical change following conversion (cf.
IY.3.35., IV.3.4.). In a Jewish context, John had already called for xaQ:n:ou\; a;LO'\)\; tfj\;
f.LE'tavola\; to escape the wrath to come (Luke 3.7). The nature of these worthy fruits was
outlined (3.10-14). That some among the audience were given negative instructions ('do
not') implies (1) that they currently did what should be done no 10nger;685 (2) that people
had to be told what is right.
68l Dupont, Discours, 82; cf. p. 83, n.1.

683 Dupont, Discours, 83 takes e~ ~EOV IUmivoLCtv to refer to the Gentiles: 'Ils ne peuvent se convertir qu'en se repentant de leur egarement; la formule "se repentir envers
Dieu" bloque les deux idees de conversion A Dieu et de repentir'. This encompassing
sense is rightly observed, but from other Lukan passages it becomes clear that :n:L01:L\; Ei.\;
'tov XUQLOV ~J.L6Jv 'I1]ooiiv is also required of Gentiles (e.g. Acts 24.25, where the Christian
proclamation to a Gentile is summarised as :n:EQL tfj\; et\; XQL01:0V '!1]ooiiv :n:[01:ew,;; cf.
26.18).
684 Taeger, Mensch, 145. Taeger stresses this on p.135.
68SThe instruction given to the soldiers in Luke 3.14 not to extort or accuse falsely
(f.L1]c5Eva c5LaoeL01]'te f.L1]c5ti ouxotpavtiJ01]'te) could suggest their Gentile identity: (1) Jewish soldiers would be less likely to extort money from their own countrymen by threats of
false accusations, which at the same time is an easily conceivable offence of non-Jewish
troops. (2) The Gentile Felix receives instructions how authority is to be wielded (Acts
24.25). Luke often relates Gentiles and worldly power. (3) The desire for wealth and securing one's own existence (O'/JWVLOV taken as provision; cf. C.C. Caragounis, 'O'l'QNION:
A Reconsideration of its Meaning' ,NT 16, 1974,35-37; H.W. Heidland, Th WNT V, (591f)
591.29-35), displayed by the soldiers, is elsewhere explicitly identified as the concern of
'tCx E1'Tv1] 'toii x6of.Lol! (Luke 12.30). (4) Though the people and tax collectors are mentioned
in 7.29, the soldiers do not appear again. Is it because they are not part of the }.ao\;?
(5) Other Gentiles come into view long before the Gentile mission; cf. 6.17; 8.26-39.
257
The many references in Acts to the instruction of Gentiles (cf. IV.3.3.1.) also indicate
the necessity of changed behaviour. The required fruits were e.g. outlined to Felix as an
integral part of the proclamation 'concerning faith in Christ Jesus' (Acts 24.25). He had
to believe and his lifestyle had to change (cf.III.2.2.13.). Luke includes some examples of
the changed lives of Gentile Christians; cf. IV.3.4.
2. Acts 26.20. The summary of Paul's ministry in v.20 (declaring to Jews and
Gentiles that they should repent and turn to God and do deeds consistent
wih repentance) recalls our earlier discussion of the Gentiles' involvement
in the appropriation of salvation (III.3.2.L2.4.2.). We include discussion
here, rather than in llI.3.3., as crucial clues are provided by the context.
Does this summary indicate that all that was required was the Gentiles' enlightenment through Paul's declaration about their true state and the path
to change? Can Gentiles, once they recognise their blindness and darkness
(ct. the previous description of the Gentiles' state), turn from the power of
Satan to God and experience the benefits of salvation?
The sins of the Gentile Herod are also addressed in John's programme of preparation,
3.19f.
Plummer, 92 takes the soldiers of Luke 3 as Jewish soldiers acting as police, possibly
supporting the tax collectors. This is also suggested by J. Jeremias, Neutestamentliche
Theologie I: Die VerkUndigung Jesu (Berlin: EVA, 1973), 55, n. 19 with reference to P.
JoUon, L'Evangile de Notre Seigneur Usus Christ, Verbum Salutis 5 (Paris, 1930), 310f.
Jeremi as takes the O'tQa'tEuo[1E'VOL as 'die die Steuereinnehmer begleitenden Gendarmen '" Es handeIt sich also urn Juden'. Yet the O'tQa'teuo[18vOL are not again mentioned
in connection with the tax collectors.
This suggestion is supported by the study of I. Shatzman, The Armies of the Hasmonaeans and Herod: From Hellenistic to Roman Frameworks, TSAJ 25 (TUbingen:
J.C.B. Mohr, 1991), 186, who notes that while the bulk of Herod the Great's army consisted of Jews, it also included troops of various nations. Josephus, to whom also Marshall
refers, mentions Thracian, German and Galatian soldiers in Herod's funeral procession
(an/. Iud. XVI1.8.3 198f; bell Iuti. 1.33.9 672f). There is further evidence of Nabataean, Sebastenian and Ituraean soldiers. Shatzman (pp. 183!) also argues that Herod's
bodyguard was an ethnically mixed unit. As such, foreign, pagan mercenaries had served
under various Hasmonaean rulers since John Hyrcanus I for a number of reasons (d. the
evidence collected by Shatzman, pp. 31-35; 'It may be then inferred that foreign, Gentile
mercenaries became a constant element of the Hasmonean standing army .. .', p. 32), it is
reasonable to suppose that the sons of Herod continued this practice. According to Luke
3.3,19fthe soldiers ofv.14 were most likely troops of Herod Antipas (cUohn 1.28; 3.23);
so also Marshall, 143: 'the forces of Herod Antipas, stationed in Peraea (possibly including non-Jews, like his father's army ... '.
Shatzman (p.190) discusses a note of Josephus (ant. Iuti XV.10.2 353) that could indicate a low salary paid by Herod the Great to his soldiers. Rather than exploiting the
popUlation these soldiers went over to Herod's Arabian enemies. However, Shatzman
concludes on the pay of Herod's soldiers: 'A reasonable, even generous salary has to be
assumed under such circumstances' (cf. the studies cited in Shatzman's n. 72). If the same
holds true for the pay of Herod Antipas' troops, the inclination suggested by Luke 3.14,
namely forcefully to supplement their income is more despicable.
258
Baumbach summarises: 'Die Aufgabe des Missionars besteht gem1iJ3 unserer Stelle darin,
die fUr die Bekehrung notwendige Erkenntnis zu bringen'.686 The message 'bildet damit
die Voraussetzung fUr den Glauben ... der im Akt der "BuBe" Wirklichkeit wird und aus
der E1;oucr[a tou cratavn herausreiBt'. Though rightly stressing the importance of the
proclamation of this message, Baumbach overestimates the message while neglecting its
author: 'Diese Botschaft "tlffnet die Augen" (24.31; Apg 26.18) bzw. den Sinn (24.45) bzw.
das Herz (Apg 16.14),.
Taeger concludes similarly but proceeds further:

Das 'Augentlffnen' geschieht durch die VerkUndigung (vg!. Apg 26.20a), die die Voraussetzung dafUr ist, daB es auf seiten der Adressaten der Verktindigung zum EmOtQlhpaL und Aa~i:v kommen kann .... Die Menschen, denen durch die VerkUndigung
die Augen getlffnet worden sind, ktlnnen selbst die Exousia des Satans verlassen; dessen Macht hat also dort ihre Grenze, wo Menschen sich von ihr abkehren. 687
In this understanding the message is accorded a dynamic of its own, apart

from its divine origin, to which Gentiles can respond. Do Baumbach's references support this suggestion?
Through Jesus' breaking, blessing and distributing the bread, the disciples' eyes were
opened to recognise Jesus (Luke 24.31; repeated in v. 35). This did not happen while Jesus
interpreted for them 'the things about himself in all the Scriptures' (Luke 24.27; cf.
24.16,32!). Though the message proclaimed to them 'caused their hearts to bum' (24.32),
the opening of their eyes is ascribed to not the message itself, but Jesus/God.
Jesus also opened the other disciples' minds to understand the Scriptures (Luke 24.45;
cf. v. 32). Previously their meaning was concealed. Even after their minds were opened to
understand Scripture, after Jesus taught them extensively (Acts 1.3) and after Peter had
demonstrated his grasp of this new understanding of Scripture (1.16-20), the necessary
empowerment for ministry was the reception of the Spirit.
In Acts 16.14 God opened Lydia's heart to listen eagerly 10 the Christian message proclaimed by Paul (cf. the discussion in 111.3.3.2.2.6.). This distinction is important. Though
Luke ascribes dynamic to the Christian message, it never convinces or opens hearts or
eyes. 688
In these instances it was not the message itself, however Spirit-empowered

and aided, well presented, convincing and attested it was, but divine intervention which brought the message home. 689 It" people understand and respond, it is in response to God's activity.
Versldndnis, 167.
Mensch, 68f.
Other references also point in a different direction: The results of the first missionary journey were summru:ised as God opening a door of faith for the Gentiles (Acts
14.27). The report of the Gentiles' conversion is followed by the missionaries' report of
all that God had done through them (15.4; cf. III.3.3.2.2.4.).
681lBaumbach rightly observes that Luke occasionally refers to the word almost as an
entity or dynamic force of its own: The word can continue to spread (Acts 6.7), it can
spread throughout the region of Pisidian Antioch (13.49) and grow mightily and prevail
(19.20). Once Luke says that the word continued to advance and gain adherents (12.24).
Yet in all these cases the word is characterised as the word of God (6.7; 12.24) or of the
Lord (13.49; 19.20). He is the active agent behind its strength and at work through it; cf.
686
687
688
259
Also for Acts 26.18,20, several observations discourage Baumbach's and

Taeger's conclusion: The wider context demonstrates that what these scholars suggest did not happen in Luke's volumes. Luke often reports the proclamation of this message without or with only limited results, or that proclamation was met with violent resistance. People prove to be recalcitrant
and immune to the proclamation. The message neither functions automatically nor is it endowed with virtus operativa. More than mere availability
through proclamation seems required for the message to sprout.
Clues which contradict their proposal and some indicators that more
than enlightenment is involved in the Gentiles' turning are also provided
by the closer context (Acts 26.17,24-29). From the very beginning Paul was
told that this ministry of enlightenment would not meet universal acceptance but resistance (26.17).690 Festus did not understand Paul's testimony
and convert, but drew inadequate conclusions (26.24). Paul recounted his
commission through the risen Jesus ('being the first to rise from the dead').
As on the Areopagus, the interruption occurred at the mention of the resurrection. 691 Responding to this proclamation Festus did not ask for clarification, etc. (cl. Acts 2.37), but assumed Paul to be out of his mind (!J.uLvn ...
EL~ !J.uvtuv ltEQL"tQEltEL). Though Festus acknowledged Paul's ltOAAn YQu!J.!J.u"tu, the aA.T]{}Etu~ xut aWCPQoaUVT]~ QTJ!1u"tu of Paul's testimony simply
seemed foolish to him. To Festus the proclamation and belief in the core of
the Christian proclamation and its consequences (proclamation of light to
the Gentiles through the risen Christ) was only an indication of madness. 692
In this reaction the state of the Gentiles described previously is immediately and forcefully illustrated.
Dupont, Discours, 243f; Mm, Wort, 64-71; Reinhardt, Wachstum, 198f, 219f, 235-38, 26377; IlI.3.2.2.2.2., III.3.3.2.2.6.
690 Acts 26.22 mentions an actual attempt to kill Paul. The very setting of Paul's testimony to his commission is a judicial hearing in which the prisoner Paul was on trial for
his obedience to this commission.
691 Schille, 453; 'Wieder ist die Unterbrechung als literarisches Kunstmittel eingesetzt;
sie erfolgt nach der Auferstehungsbotschaft, die dadurch den Hauptton erhalt'; cf.
III.2.2.l1.3. Compare the different reaction of Herod Agrippa 11, whom Luke most probably considered a Jew (cf. II.3.5.; p. 72, n. 90) in v. 28! With Agrippa the point of contention was elsewhere.
692 Cf. the Athenian scorn of the idea ofa resurrection in Acts 17.32 and the categorical
exclusion even of its possibility by Herod Antipas in Luke 9.7-9; ct III.2.1.2.3.2.2. Compare Festus' assessment of ludaism in Acts 25.19 as a lewish bELOLbalf!ovia; cf. Tajra,
Trial, 157f. Tajra notes that the setting would require a 'complimentary meaning' such as
'pious attitude or deportment towards the gods', otherwise 'the term could be used in reference to any legally unrecognised religion or to religious behaviour which was uncultured and unrefined or not in conformity with the spirit of the official religious tradition of
the Roman state'.
260
In addition to this spiritual failure, Luke also comments on Festus'

moral-ethical behaviour. Though Acts 25.1-4,17 are positive notes in contrast to the procrastination and corruption of Felix (24.26f)693,Festus' quick
attention to Paul's case is ascribed to Jewish haste and instigation
(25.2,7,15!), not to his personal virtue. Festus failed to release Paul when his
accusers could not prove their charges against him because he wanted to
please the Jews (1tSA-WV 'tOU; 'IolJ1)aLo~ XCt.QLV xa'ta1tscr1tllL, 25.9).694 This is
also the motive behinc;I his quick proceedings.695 Though knowing Paul to
be innocent (25.7,10: WIO xal oil XCt.A.A.LOV E:rILYLVWOXELIO, 25), Festus suggested
further unnecessary legal procedure at a different venue rather than release Paul. 696 Festus' dilemma is evident in vs. 26f: though confessing his incompetence in the case (25.18f), Festus drew on advice only when a situation arose which was embarrassing for himself. Throughout this chapter
the portrayal of Festus becomes increasingly negative. 697
Paul's response to Festus corrects his mistaken conclusion. Paul immediately demonstrated his reasonableness by his address (XQCt.'tLO't cflfjO'tE)
and answer: 'Mit ihrer sauberen Anrede und ihrem klaren Sill demonstriert
die Antwort ... daB durchaus kein Enthusiast vor Festus steht: insani non
utuntur nominibus et vocabulis honoris'. 698 Paul could not be dismissed as
insane, rather he delivered his message with :7taQQT)oLa. 699 Also in the following conversation Paul demonstrated that he was sane.7oo
3. Acts- 26.29. Though called to be an 'eye opener' and presenting his case
and message clearly and with conviction (ev OA-Lyot pe :rreH)et~), Paul nevertheless prayed to God that the very people before whom he delivered these
UA-T)1tELalO xat oWIjlQocrUVTJIO QTUJ.a'ta (v. 25) would also become Christians.
Paul is portrayed as not depending on his own arguments and aware that
additional ingredients were required for people to be 'persuaded'. God is
seen as the active agent in this process.1 01 The reader knows and has just
693 For
the initially positive portrayal of Festus see Zmijewski, 830.

Cf. Zmjewski, 831; Rapske, Paul, 184; Pesch n, 266; Tajra, Trial, 135, 139f.
Cf. Zmijewski, 829.
696 Zmijewski, 831 notes: 'sollte man eigentlich erwarten, daB er Paulus unverz(lglich
freilliBt'.
697 Cf. Rapske, Paul,passim; Tajra, Trial, 135-71.
698 Schille, 453; quotation from Bengel, Gnomon.
69' With boldness or 'quite openly', not 'secretly' (Souter, Lexicon, 194), reflecting
Paul's conviction that his audience needs to hear this message.
700 [n contrast to Festus, the Jew Agrippa knew of and believed the prophets (Acts
25.27) who testified to what has taken place, including the resurrection (Vs. 22f). Yet
when challenged to draw the conclusions from his belief and convert, Agrippa was far
from ready 'to be persuaded' (v. 28).
701 For Taeger, Mensch, 162 the interpretation of v.28 as:' ... der Verk(lndiger wirkt auf
die Menschen ein, und diese entscheiden sich dann', is not related to his summary of v. 29:
694
695
261
been reminded (Acts 26.12-16) how Paul himself became what he now
wished others to be.
In this most comprehensive Lukan analysis of the general Gentile state
prior to faith they are in a dire situation. Their spiritual eyes are closed and
need to be opened; they are in darkness and need divine enlightenment.
From their natural position under Satan's dominion and far away from
God, they have to turn to him. On their own Gentiles are not able to
fathom or change their plight. Only through the Christian mission does
God illumine them and reverse their plight. God's saving initiative has to
release them from bondage. Their state is expressed in that they are sinners
in a comprehensive sense in need of God's forgiveness, unholy and unbelieving.
3.2.1.4. The conceptual background of Luke's description
Luke's description of the Gentiles' state recalls and alludes to Isaiah. That
Isaiah provides a vital backdrop for Lukan statements regarding Gentiles
already becomes apparent in Simeon's Nunc Dimittis.702 Quotations from
Isaiah appear throughout Luke-Acts (Luke: 3.4-6: Isa 40.3-5; 8.10: Isa 6.9;
19.46: Isa 56.7; 22.37: Isa 53.12; in Acts 7.49f Isa 66.lf; 8.32f Isa 53.7f; 13.34:
Isa 553; 13.47: Isa 49.6; 28.26f Isa 6.9f).703 We shall examine this conceptual
background of the elements of Luke's description of the Gentiles' state.704
We follow the above outline.
'Entsprechend steUt der folgende v.29 auch nicht auf den Prediger und seine Aktivit!l.ten,
sondem auf Gott und die Hiker ab'.
7DZ Cr. Brown, Birth,439f,458f, 686 on the OT background of Luke 230-32.
703 According to 'Index of quotations: New Testament Order', GNT, 889 the 'Allusions
and verbal parallels' (pp. 906-08) are numerous; cf. Seccombe, 'Luke' and his conclusions
p. 259:' ... Luke's evident appreciation of this (Isaianic) heritage as well as his thorough
understanding of its source.... in approaching quotations from and allusions to Isaiah
there is a presumption in favour of Luke's awareness of their context and wider meaning
within Isaiah as a whole'.
704 Back, Proclamation does not deal with this verse, neither do the monographs of M.
Rese, Alttestamentliche Motive in der Christologie des Lukas, StNT 1 (GUtersloh: G.
Mohn, 1969) and T. Holtz, Untersuchungen aber die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Lukas,
TU 104 (Berlin: Akademie, 1968). Holtz studies only the 'Zitate aus dem Jesajabuch',
pp. 29-43. M. Wilcox, The Semitisnu of Acts (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965),32,35-37 argues
that the expression xAijQOV Ev 'tot,; ';YLaoflEvou; at the end of v.1S and in Acts 2032 (CL
IY.3.1.1.) is an allusion to Deut 33.3f (l't(iV'tE~ ol ';YLaCJj.LEvOL
tat; JCEiQat; (01)
XAT]Qovofliav (J1Jvay!J)yai:~ 'Iaxw~) or Wis 5.5 (Ev ciyloU; 6 XA.ijQOt; aiJ'toii ECJ'tLV; note Wis
5.1-4,6-8; CL Winston, Wisdom, 147). Wilcox also refers to 1 QS 11.7f; 1 QH 11.llf; Col
1.12 and Pol. PhiL 12.2.
,mo
262
1. Closed eyes. Recovery of sight, appearing in a quotation from Isa 61.lf

LXX, first features in Jesus' summary of his mission in Luke 4.18f. The account of Jesus' ministry (7.22) is again cast in Isaianic terminology (cf. Luke
14.13,21; 18.35-43). The allusion in Acts 26.18 is closer to Isa 42.7 than to
61.1f.705 In addition, Isa 42.7 follows a direct reference to Gentiles to whom
this ministry applies, while Isa 61.1-11 focuses on the servant's mission to
Zion.706
The servant is to a.VOL;ClL 6q)'fraA.!lou~ t'J(PAWV, to bring out the prisoners
from the dungeon, from the prison those sitting in darkness (Is a 42.6f). The
nations to be enlightened are associated with blindness in a metaphorical
sense707, bondage and darkness (for the latter see below). In the immediate
context of Isaiah's reference to closed eyes occur themes, familiar from
Acts, which indicate why and for what these eyes need to be opened:
God introduces himself as the creator of heaven and earth who gives
breath to the people upon it and spirit to those who walk in it (Isa 42.5f).
The following verse stresses God's uniqueness: 'I am the LORD ... my
glory I give to no other, nor my praise to idols (tO~ yA.tlltLOi:~)' (42.8). The
worshippers of carved and cast images will be put to shame (42.17, see 41.4;
46.lf; also 37.12).
In Isa 42 which mainly provides the background to Acts 26.18, Gentile
blindness becomes evident in failure to recognise God the creator and to
worship him.708 The Gentiles gave the recognition and praise due to God to
their idols. The nature, extent and consequences of their closed eyes are apparent. The nations' misconceptions of God and their subsequent idolatry
are repeatedly described satirically in the wider context of !sa 40-48.
Luke shares essential elements of Isaiah's view of Gentiles and presents his assessment
similarly: Isaiah's assertions on the condition of the Gentiles are illustrated by the folly
70S Dupont writes, Discours, 280: 'Ajoutons que, dans le discours devant Agrippa, la
mission de Paul est en partie definie en termes qui s'inspirent directemente de textes
bibliques: Jr 1.5-8 et Is 42.7,16, ce dernier fournissant notamment les mots relatifs au retour "des tenebres it la lumiere"'.
706 This also applies to Isaiah's other references to regaining sight: 29.18f (God's restoration of repentant Israel) and 35.5f: upon God's arrival and salvation uVOLxilTJaovtaL
6<pttaA!10t w<pMiv. The helpless exiles who are to experience the restoration of Zion are
described as blind, deaf,lame and speechless.
707 In Isa 42.16,18f blindness is also associated with Israel. Vs. 19-21 describe Israel's
blindness to God's will and way. Isa 59.10 again indicates that w<pA6~ is intended metaphorically (cf. Isa 43.8). Cr. E. Lesky, 'Blindheit. VII. Bildersprache' ,RAC II, (433-46) 442;
W. Schrage, Th WNT VIII, 280f for w<pi..6~ in the LXX, specifically on blindness in Isa
p. 281.4-34. P. Wilpert, 'Auge', RAC I, (957-69) 963 notes: 'Blindheit erscheint als Strafe
Gottes fUr SUnde (Ex. 4,11; Jer. 31,7; Dtn. 28,28; Zach. 14,4)'; cf. Schrage, 280.18-22. Such
a connection is not made by Luke (exc.Acts 13.11).
708 Luke follows this argument and likewise points out that God the creator and sustainer of life is incompatible with idol wnrship, Acts 17.24-29.
263
of Gentile idolatry (e.g. 40.18-20; 42.17; 45.20). Occasionally both are clearly linked (e.g.
44.8-20). Luke, following his choice of genre, includes several incidents to illustrate the
state of Gentiles, e.g. the setting, the Gentile reaction and in the speeches in Lystra and
Athens. It has become evident that this light is not necessarily appreciated and accepted
by the Gentiles.
2. In darkness. Like Luke, Isaiah also portrays the Gentiles as xa-&r]flEvou;

ev oxon,L (Isa 42.7). How their dark existence is defined by Isaiah's context
is indicated above. In and against this darkness the servant is called to be a
c:pw; E{}vWV (42.6).Aln~ady in Luke 2.30-32 the allusion was to Isaiah's c:pw;
E{}vWV (42.6; 49.6).709 Jesus himself and the missionaries he sends (Acts
13.47, quotation from Isa 49.6) are the light of revelation which enlightens
the Gentiles' darkness.
3. Under the power of Satan. The verses of Isa 42, to which Luke's description of the Gentiles alludes, mention a further Gentile characteristic. The
servant's mission includes el;ayaYEtv ex OEO"flWV OEOEflEVOU; xat El; Or%OU
c:pul..a%fj; (42.7), which characterises Gentiles as prisoners in a dark dungeon. Luke's el;ouoia "tou Oa1:ava. probably reflects Isaiah's OEOflWV and
OLXOU c:pul..a%fj;. Satan's el;ouoia expresses itself in binding people and
keeping them in bondage. Their state reflects his el;ouoia.
The description of the beneficiaries of Jesus' mission in Luke 4.18 (quoting Isa 61.1f), includes those 'under power' who shall be released (KT]Qll!;at atXflakunoL; /iqleotv). Their
oppressor(s) is not identified. Nolland notes: 'A connection with exorcism is, however,
near at hand. (Note the immediately following exorcism in Capemaum ... ),.710 Only one
Lukan occurrence of Mw refers to 'demonic' bondage (cf. !sa 42.7): a crippled Jewess
was bound by Satan (Luke 13.16).7lI This is the only link to Isaiah through <'ie<'ie).1EVO\)';
and <'ieo).1o,;.712
Luke 1l.21f, verses also recalling Isaiah, also suggest that Satan keeps people in his
oIKo,; ql\)kaKij';.7U Satan's victims are called his plunder (to. axuka). Isaiah's context is
God's liberation of helpless and captive Israel from powerful oppressors: 'Can the prey
(oKuka) be taken from the mighty or the captives of a tyrant be rescued? ... Even the
captives of the mighty shall be taken and the oKuka of the tyrant be rescued' (Is a 49.24f).
709 Brown writes: 'The themes of seeing salvation, the sight of all the peoples, a light to
the Gentiles, and glory for Israel, which appear in the Nunc Dimittis, constitute almost a
pastiche from the Isaian passages', Birth, 458; see also pp. 439f, 684-87; Farris, Hymns, 149;
Berger, 'Canticum', 35f. For metaphorical darkness elsewhere in the NT see W. Hackenberg,EWNT 111,610-12.
710 P. 197, with reference to Busse, Wunder, 64f. A summary reference to Jesus' exorcism follows the account of the exorcism of Capemaum, Luke 4.41. These people were
atXflakw"tOL, prisoners of war. Originally they were not Satan's 'people' (cf. Acts 17.26),
but 'prisoners of'war' whom he had captured previously.
71l See Baumbach, Verstiindnis, 185-87.
712 Otherwise <'ieoflo; means in Luke literal chains. 'E!;ayw occurs 9 times. It is used e.g.
of God bringing out Israel from Egypt (Acts 13.17) and of Peter's deliverance (12.17; cf.
5.19). <l>ukaKl1 (24 occurrences) never refers to demonic bondage.
713 Cf. Baumbach, Verstiindnis, 35.
264
4. Away from God. In Isaiah btLO'tQEIPOO is used of the Gentiles' (re)turning

from idolatry to God. The ends of the earth are challenged to turn to God
and be saved (btLO'tQUlPll"te ltQ6~ ILE KilL aoo{}~aEa{}E), for he is God and
there is no other (Isa 45.22; idolatry is mentioned in 4S.20f, 24f?; 46.1f). The
sponsors of idols (46.6, later called ot ltE1tAIlV'lILEVOL, lit. 'those wandering
about without orientation') are to remember the futility of their idols and
to groan, repent and return in their heart (ILE"tllvoitall"te, ... eltLO'tQE1jJIl"tE
"tu xllQbic;,t , 46.7f).714 The darkness and Satanic dominion from which the
Gentiles are to turn in Acts 26.18 is closely related to idolatry and the futility of mind and condition of which it is but the expression.
5. In need of forgiveness. In the part of Isaiah which was alluded to previously, the Gentile sins which need forgiveness consist of rebellion against
God, his purposes and people and of idolatry (the production, worship and
reliance on idols). The emphasis is on their spiritual, not on their moralethical failure.
Luke's dependence on Isaiah in this description of the Gentile state is evident. These chapters with their exposition and criticism of the Gentiles indicate the Gentiles' state and why they need God's intervention. As Luke
recalls, in this direct statement on the state of Gentiles prior to faith and in
his narrative, Isaia\1's estimate and manner of presentation of Gentiles, this
background for his anthropology needs serious consideration. This observation supports Ellis' claim: 'Soweit erkennbar, sieht Lukas ... den Menschen in alttestamentlichen Kategorien'.71S Further study of the comprehensive conceptual background of Luke's view of Gentiles prior to faith
along these lines is necessary.
714 On that day of Israel's return to God, all of them will throwaway their idols, which
their hands, following their pagan neighbours, have made for themselves (Isa 31.6; cf.
Acts 7.43).
715 'Funktion', 384. Discussion of the conceptual background of Luke's anthropology
and view of the Gentiles has concentrated on the Areopagus speech to the neglect of
other Lukan indicators. Against the proposal of Dibelius and others of a Hellenisticphilosophical background, Glirtner and others have rightly noted and argued for an
OT/Jewish background; c( the balanced discussion of both options by Killling, Geheimnu. These neglected indicators could help in determining the appropriate background
for Acts 17.
3. The stale and salvalion of Gentiles prior to faith
265
3.2.2. Other references to the state of Gentiles prior to faith

3.2.2.1. Under judgement
On several occasions we noted that Luke sees the Gentiles' state as liable
to divine judgement. The reasons for this universal eschatological judgement have also become apparent.
1. What is said about future judgement is supported by past experience:
Luke implies that temporal judgement came upon 'lYre and Sidon. Further
eschatological judgement will follow (Luke 10.13i). Jonah was sent to
Nineveh to announce God's impending judgement (11.30,32).716 Both passages imply the presence of Gentiles for the eschatological X(lLcrt.\;. The
flood destroyed Noah's contemporaries. Lot's contemporaries perished in
the judgement over Sodom and Gomorra (17.26-29). Of the four occurrences of Gentiles of the past in Luke, three refer to divine judgement overtaking them (exc. 4.25-27)!717
2. These incidents do not contradict Acts 1730.718 It seems that in these incidents of past
judgement, these Gentiles either had contact with God-fearing people or presumably
had a divine warning of the impending judgement: a) Nineveh escaped a judgement announced against and to her by Jonah. b) Possibly Luke took the prophetic oracles of
doom against "lYre and Sidon, in analogy to Jonah's proclamation, as urgent caBs to repentance directly addressed to these cities. The direct address e.g. in Ezek 28.1,12, 2lf
and the scenario of Jer 27.1-11 and Luke's other instances of past judgement for which
he mentions some warning or a call to repentance would also suggest this. In addition,
both cities were close to Israel. Luke mentions contacts: EIijah stayed and performed
miracles in Zarephath "tfj~ l:LbOlvLa~ (Luke 4.26f; cf. 1 Kgs 17.12). Other than the note
that they would have repented (Luke 10.13), Luke does not mention that judgement
overcame these cities. c) The people of Noah's and Lot's generation had these men as examples and warning.719 Judgement came once both men were removed (Luke 17.27,29).
716 In both passages the threat of or actual temporal judgement or its reasons are not
mentioned.
7171n Luke 425f the drought as judgement over Israel (1 Kgs 17.1) also applied to
Gentile territory.
718 KtUIing, Geheimnis, (142-44), 143 says: 'Das gottliche Ubersehen kann also niemals
als eine derartige Duldung verstanden werden, die der heidnischen Gottesverebrung irgendwelchen positiven Wert zumessen Wilrde. Es ist keine anerkennende Toleranz, sondern der Ausdruck van MiBbilligung und Abneigung. Gatt HiSt die Heiden voJIbringen,
was ihm nicht gefllJlt und seinem Wesen zutiefst widerspricht. Insofern ist das gottliche
u:n:QLbetv kein gnlldiges, sondern ein strafendes Handeln'. This understanding of
u:n:eQLbEtv explains why Luke reports cases of God's past punitive intervention, when his
purposes were not met.
719 Luke does not designate Noah a preacher of repentance or of righteousness as in 2
Pet 2.5; cl. Bauckham, Jude, 250f. Lllhrmann, Redaktion, 75-83 and Schlosser, 'Jours',
28,35f discuss other references to Noah and Lot explaining the cause of the judgement
and identifying transgression(s). For sources and paraJlels in this characterisation of both
2b6
Ill. The Genll/e encouncer wlIlt salvallOll
These past judgements did not come on ignorant people, but on people who rejected
what was revealed to them or what they witnessed.
3. Acts also mentions judgement over Gentiles of the past: God noted the Egyptian mistreatment of Israel (Acts 7.34) and intervened to rescue; the punishment which God
brought over Egypt appears in the prediction (7.6f): God would judge the oppressing nation (-to ii-6vo,; ... xQww eyw). The ancestors dispossessed the Gentile nations that God
drove out before them (7.45; cl Acts 13.19). Luke hints at God's reaction to the Gentile
idolatry of 7.40-44. Once Israel adopted and absorbed it, God turned away from them
and handed them over in judgement as he had turned away from Gentile idolaters.
4. Judgement also applies to contemporary Gentiles. Because ~ J-tE)'.A.OtHJT]

6QY~ also applied to Herod, John rebuked him for his sins (Luke 3.19f). Jesus is God's ordained judge of the living and the dead (Acts 10.42).720 God
commands universal repentance to avoid condemnation on the appointed
day of judgement (17.30). Paul announced to Gentiles the resurrection of
the righteous and unrighteous and the coming judgement ("rou xQiJ-tu"to
"tou I-1AJ.ov"to,24.15,25).1 21
As a result of God's claim on all people and of their various failures,
Gentiles past and present await eschatological judgement and condemnation. 1bis impending judgement indicates serious deficiencies with their
natural state. From sure condemnation Gentiles need salvation.122 There is
no other way for Gentiles to escape condemnation.723
These references to God's temporal and eschatological judgement over
the Gentiles agree with and form the backdrop for Luke's description of
the benefits of Jesus' mission as salvation.724 While salvation is more encompassing than deliverance from the eschatological judgement, such deliverance is of prime importance (ct. Acts 17.31). Deliverance from this
judgement of the state and failures of the Gentiles is not - and in view of
men see Bauckham, Jude, 250-53. Noah as oLxawaUVl]'; x';Q1Js is 'well-known in Jewish
tradition', p. 250. Luke does not interpret the activities of their contemporaries (cl
11.2.6.) as deliberate counter-measures or demonstrations in incredulous defiance of the
approaching judgement.
720 Weiser, 158.
721 Judgement and materialism were already linked in Luke 17.27f. Gentiles of the past
were preoccupied with material gain to the extent that they failed to recognise and act
upon God's providence and warning and endeavoured to secure their existence themselves; cr. II.2.5.-6. Both recur together in Acts 24.25f: Though Felix heard about OLXaLoaUvT] and the xQLfl-a, his interest was elsewhere.
722 For the condemnation cr. Luke 12.47f; 20.47; 23.40; 24.20 and Fitzmyer, 1319; er.
p. 1317; Nolland, 977.
723 Eschatological condemnation is also indicated in that only through salvation will
the Gentiles' future be eternal life; cf. I1I.3.2.2.5.
724 er. the fuller discussion in 111.3.3.2.13.2. Luke-Acts also contains several references
to judgement over Jews; e.g. Luke 6.37; 10.14; 11.3lf; 13.3-5,35; 19.11-27,43f; 20.47; 23.40
(1).
3. The slale and sa/valion of Gemi/es prior 10 failh
267
the Gentiles' state cannot be - procured merely by correction, instruction,

enlightenment, etc., however important they become following salvation. If
these and other notions were what Luke considered of prime importance in
order to escape judgement, or to remedy the human plight, Luke's emphasis on salvation and its link with the forgiveness of sins 725 would be misleading. Luke's emphasis on the salvation which can deliver Gentiles from divine judgement complies with his anthropological convictions.
It is difficult to define exactly the interplay between the emphasis on salvation, Luke's references to judgement and his anthropology: is the description of Jesus' mission with the OcP~w, XLA-. wordgroup the point of departure for Luke's anthropology and teaching on judgement or perhaps
even vice versa?
3.2.2.2. Devoid of revelation
The proclamation to the Gentiles is described in various terms as the

'word', the 'word of God', sometimes further modified as the 'word of his
grace'. Most often the message is simply called 'good news'.
1. The good news is closely related to Jesus (Luke 1.19) and the arrival of God's salvation
(3.18). Frequently it describes the mission and ministry of Jesus (4.18,43; 8.1; 16.16; 20.1;
cL Acts 10.36). The disciples are to proclaim this good news (Luke 9.6). This good news
also applies to Gentiles who were among the beneficiaries of Jesus' mission (4.18). In
Acts EuaYYEi..l~of.LaL becomes the technical term for the proclamation of the Christian
message.726
The content of the good news is the kingdom of God (Luke 4.43; 8.1), Christ Jesus
(Acts 5.42; Jesus 8.35), the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ (8.12), peace
through Jesus Christ (10.36), the Lord Jesus (11.20), the fulfilment of the promises to the
fathers (13.32), turning away these idols to the living God (14.15), Jesus and his resurrection (17.18) and God's grace (20.24).
For Gentiles the report of what God did through Jesus and the possibility
of leaving their pagan past behind is good news. Against the backdrop of
their failure and state and of the divine judgement with ensuing condemna72S CL Luke 1.77: yviiJrJLV oQrr;T]QLa~ ... Ev CUPEOEL clf.LaQ'tLWV. W. Foerster, ThWNT Vll,
(966-1024) 997.33-35 observes for Acts: 'Den Inhalt der OW'tT]QLa hat die Apostelgeschichte in der immer wieder genannten Siindenvergebung geseben (3.19,26; 5.31; 10.43;
13.38; 22.16; 26.18)'; cf. E. Larsson, 'Heil und Erl6sung. Ill. NT', TRE XlV, (616-22) 618:
'Der Heilsinhalt ist die Verge bung der SUnden und die Gabe des Heiligen Geistes'.
726 The good news of Jesus as the Christ was preached (Acts 5.42). Christians evangelise the word (8.4; 15.35). The good news is proclaimed in Samaria (8.12,25). The good
news of the Lord Jesus was preached to tbe Ethiopian and in Antioch (8.35; cL also 8.40;
11.20). The good news was presented in Pisidian Antioch (13.32). In Lycaonia the missionaries continued to evangelise (14.7) and proclaimed the good news in Macedonia
(16.10). Paul proclaimed the good news in Athens (17.18). Only Philip is called euayyEi..LO't~~ (Acts 6.5; 8.4-40; 21.8).
268
tion, God's renunciation of vengeance, salvation and the availability of forgiveness truly is good news. In this perspective an account a/the present state
a/the Gentiles is the ill tidings to be addressed. All that the good news contains and entails Gentiles did not and could not obtain otherwise. Apart
from its proclamation, the content of the good news cannot be known.
Autochthonous Gentile ideas of what would constitute 'good news' were
inadequate:
Luke's use and definition of the good news word group may also contain
polemic against Gentile notions thereof: This is the good news, not other
pieces of news which were thus designated. It is not the birth or inauguration of a human being that is truly good news. Strecker notes:
Von besonderer Wichtigkeit ist die Inschrift von Priene (OGIS 11.458), in der E1layytAta sowohl Anktlndigung des mit dem Erscheinen des Kaisers heraufziehenden
Heils ... als auch die Freudenbotschaften des Heilsereignisses ... bezeichnen.727 Trotz
des rhetorischen Sprachstils ist klar, daB uayyeAta hier und in anderen hellenistischen Belegen ... Heilsereignisse bezeichnen, welche die Bewohner des Imperiums in
ihrer Existenz betreffen .... Wenn auch das NTeine Abgrenzung zurTerminologie der
griech.-hellenistischen Herrscherverehrung bzw. des hellenistisch-rllm. KaiserkuItes
nicht ausdrtlcklich vollzieht, so ist diese doch inhaltlich gegeben, da def Singular
uayytAl.Ov das Christusgeschehen als einzigartiges eschatologisches Ereignis von alIen uaYYEALa in der nichtchristlichen Umwelt unterscheidet.12S
This eiJayyfJ...LOV of the resurrection, investiture and Lordship of Jesus is the

only and true gospel. Only from his exalted position will blessings flow (e.g.
Acts 5.31). Jesus and only he is the Lord. This correction throws an interesting light on Luke's references to the content of the good news. Its necessity
is indicative of Gentile failure and of their spiritual state.
, 2. The phrases 'the word, the word of God/the Lord' describe the content of
the proclamation to the Gentiles. 729 Something previously unknown and un-
727
728
Cf. the different translations of the Priene inscription in Lietzmann, 'Review', 161.
EWNT II, (176-86) 179f with reference to the examples of DeiBmann, Licht,276-78.
et: K. Wegenast, 'Euangelion', KP 1I, (395-97) 395.42f: 'Religillse Bedeutung gewinnt

EuayyeMa im Kaiserkult' (cf. our considerations on Jesus as Lord in III.2.2.4.3.1.1.);LSJ,
704f; KIauck, Umwelt 1I, 50f; O. Michel, 'Evangelium.A.II.Griechisch-hellenistisch', RAC
VI, (1107-60) 1110f; G. Friedrich, ThWNT 1I, 708-710.13, 711.5-23, 719.20-721.3; specially
'EuayyEAl.Ov im Kaiserkult', 721.4-722.26. For the background see Wendland, Kultur, 12327,142-51,266. Cf. Brown, Birth, 41St, 666f for further suggestions regarding Luke's interaction with the Empire's claims.
729 Samaria accepted the word of the Lord (Acts 8.4,14). The apostles testified and
spoke the word of the Lord in Samaria (8.25). The Spirit fell on all who heard the word
(10.44). The Gentiles accepted the word of God (11.1). Sergius heard the word of God
(13.7). The Antiochenes gathered to hear the word of the Lord (13.44). The Gentiles
praised the word of the Lord (13.48). The word was spoken in Perga (14.25). The word of
the Lord was taught and proclaimed at Antioch (15.35). The first missionary journey is
summarised as proclaiming the word of the Lord (15.36). The Spirit forbade to speak the
269
available - the word and will of God - was brought to the Gentiles in the
proclamation of this word.13o Previously Gentiles lacked special revelation.
Luke amply describes the manifestations and consequences of this want. The
Gentiles' lack of the word prior to faith is explicitly stated in Luke's first reference to Gentiles in Acts (ct L8; 2.5), which defines them as 'lawless' (2.23;
ct II.3.1.). Lack of special revelation distinguishes Gentiles from Jews.?31
Other than Luke 1l.50f (cf. n.2.4.), there are no indicators that God spoke to Gentiles in
a manner comparable to his revelation to Israel. In Luke's only instance when Gentiles
of the past received and responded to God's word, it was delivered to them in the
x~Q\JYfJ.a of one of Israel's prophets (Luke 11.32; CL II.2.2.,1II.3.2.1.1.2.b., but compare
also 111.3.2.2.1.2.).732
3.2.2.3. In need of divine restoration (Acts 3.21)
Peter's Jewish audience in Jerusalem was told that Jesus will remain in heaven
until the time of universal restoration that God announced long ago,7331bis
word in Asia (16.6). Paul and SHas proclaimed the word of the Lord to the jailer (16.32).
Paul taught the word of God in Corinth (18.11). All Asia heard the word of the Lord
(19.10). The divine origin of the proclamation is also apparent where these expressions
do not occur. E.g. in Lystra the living God was introduced with expressions from the OT
(14.15; cf. Acts 4.24). Scripture also occurs in various synagogue sermons. For a summary
see Milrz, Wart, 9-11.
The proclamation is also called the word of God's grace (Acts 14.3; CL 111.3.3.2.2.11.)
and the word of this salvation (13.26; also applying to Gentiles, 13.46), announcing what
God already accomplished (cf. 13.23; cL Barrett I, 639f) and identifying the content as
God's saving action: God's salvation is brought to the ends of the earth (13.47).
730 Paul was chosen to bring the Lord's name before the Gentiles (Acts 9.15). It is 'the
Christian message, regarded as summed up in my name ... ', Barrett 1,456; cf. L. Hartmann, EWNT 11, (1268-77) 1271L Jesus' name had to be made known as it was unknown
to them.
731 CL III.3.2.2.1.2. Jews received the A.6YLa ~wvta of the law (Acts 7.38; cL 7.53; 13.39f)
and pious Jews live by it (Luke 1.6; 2.22-24,39). For some Jews God's word shapes their
lives to the smallest details (e.g. Luke 11.42; cf. Lev 27.30) and is much discussed among
them (e.g. Luke 6.1-11); others, however, ignore or reject it; cf. Stenschke, 'Bedeutung'.
732 Luke does not mention figures like Melchizedek or Balaam, though the latter features in OT summaries of Israel's history (e.g. Mic 6.5) and both repeatedly occur elsewhere in the NT (Heb 5.6,10; 6.20; 7.1,10f,15,17; Jude 11; 2 Pet 2.15; Rev 2.14).
733 For these predictions and their applicability beyond Israel CL Bayer, 'Eschatology',
248; Pesch I, 156, n. 28. Cr. also WtOxa-frL<TtT]fJ.L in Acts 1.6. In OT eschatology Gentiles will
also benefit from the Messianic restoration of the kingdom for Israel. What then will become theirs, they lacked previously, 'while the nations, brought to the knowledge of the
true God by the displays of His power and mercy, are either incorporated with the chosen
people as sharers of their privileges (Ps 87) or become worshippers and tributaries ofYahweh (Ps 72.10f,17;lsa 60;Mall.ll;etc.),,lOrr. 'Kingdom of God, of Heaven', DB (H) II,
(844-56) 848 (italiCS mine). Cf. also !sa 2.2-4; 19.18-25; 42.2; R. Smend, 'Eschatologie.II.AT', TRE X, 256-64; L. Schmidt, 'KClnigtum. n.2', TRE XIX, 33033; Pesch 1,68;
Buzzard, 'Acts 1.6'; W.C. Alien, 'Kingdom, K. of God 5',DAC I, 677L
270
Ill. The Gentile encounter
with
salvallo"
a:rtoXatCtO'taOL~ ' ... implies a creation that has diverged from the condition
in which it was intended to be; it is perverted and must be put right. ... Jesus
as the coming Messiah will restore God's perverted world' .734 P'-G. Muller assesses similarly:' '" the Messiah is expected to bring about the eschatological
return of things to their original state, the universal renewal of the world
which re-establishes the original integrity of creation' .135 Gods creation is no
longer what it was and was intended to be, it is in a perverted state.136 This is
Luke's closest reference to the fall.
The genitive mlV'twv, embracing the whole of creation737, implies that all
people, Jews and also Gentiles, need God's restoration as they had not or
could not restore their state themselves. 738 Luke testifies to the nature and
expression of their present perversion repeatedly.
This divinely initiated a:rtoxaLCto'tUoL~ also implies that more than correction is needed, namely full and active divine restoration: 'there may
even be a hint of the new messianic creation'.739 Though universal restoration begins in and through the mission, this eschatological restoration will
only be fully accomplished once God's Messiah fulfils this task. Only he can
restore all.
3.2.2.4. E~mity (Acts 10.36)
The message sent to Israel was God's good news of peace through Jesus
Christ.74o Marshall observes: 'Although it was sent to Israel, it was intended
for all mankind, since, as Peter adds in an emphatic parenthesis, Jesus, the
author of peace, is the Lord of all men'.141
734 Barrett 1,206; similarly Roloff,72: 'Restituierung des heilvollen Zustands der verlorenen Urzeit'; against lC. Lambert, 'Restitution', DAC Il, 321 who proposes that what
is intended is 'not a restoration in the large sense of a UniversaIist doctrine, but a moral
and spiritual recovery of Israel ... '.
735 EDNT 1,130. Bauernfeind, '1radition', 477 refers to Moxa'tacmjoL in Mal 3.23
LXX; see also Wilckens, Missionsreden, 153-56, 234f.
736 Bayer, 'Eschatology', 247 suggests 'bringing back to an original state', for definition
and secular usage see A. Oepke, Th WNT I, 388.28-389.3. Rabbinic material links restoration and the fall (Gen. Rab. 12; cf. Bill. 1.19).
7.l7 Cf. the discussion in Oepke, 390.29-39. Restoration of the present condition to its
'schtipfungsgemliBen Integritlit' must include people.
738 Before this eschatological altOKa'tCtO'tam; mlvrcnv God has already sent his servant to bless Israel by amiO'tQE<:pELV haO'tov alto 'twv ltoVl]QLiiiV (Acts 3.26). Again the
initiative and action is with God. Vs. 21 and 26 taken together suggest that the restoration
of GentUes would also be God's activity; cf.lII.3.2.1.2.4.
739 Bayer, 'Eschatology', 248; cf. also Oepke, 390.46f: 'Zugrunde Iiegt also der dem
Judentum geHiufige Begriff der messianischen Neuschtipfung'.
740 Cf. Schneider 11,76, n. 154; Barrett 1,521.
741 Acts, 191 (italics mine);cf. Schneider II, 76; Pesch 1,342. For the consequences of this
declaration for the Gentiles cf. Bock, Proclamation, 237-40: 'Because Jesus was Lord of
271
Reference was made to this peace previously. 1. The dawn from on high has to guide people on to the path afpeace (Luke 1.78f: xu"te1JiHivoo. "tOUt; 1tollut; T]fLwV ett; Mav dQ1jvt;).7<2
They were not by nature on this path; rather they sat in darkness and in the shadow of
death. They were not on andlor have not been able to find this way themselves. 2. The angels announced peace on earth (2.14). Again the reference extends beyond the 1tuvti."tip
Auqi of 2.10. What is announced was previously lacking among people and in their relationship with God. SchUrmann observes on the nature of this peace: 'Die etQ~VT], die jetzt
auf Erden verwirklicht wird, muB mehr sein als Beseitigung van Krieg und Streit: sie ist
das volle Heil der Endzeit ... , SUndenvergebung (1.77) und Licht (1.78), im Sinne van Is
52.7'.m Marshall concludes similarly: ' ... the word is used to indicate the full sum of the
blessings associated with the coming of the Messiah .,. He brings a new situation of
peace between God and men in which his blessings can be communicated to them ... '.7"
EtQ~vTJ
has two implications:
1. There will be no other peace with God than this God-given reconciliation. The comprehensive scope of God's eschatoiogicai peace needs to be
divinely applied to people as they are not or have not been able to attain
light, peace, forgiveness of sin or salvation themselves. All human attempts,
including those of Gentiles prior to faith, to etablish peace with God are inadequate.
2. God's intervention procures a complete reversal of their present state and

restores peaceful relations. This restoration indicates that prior to God's initiative and intervention, peace was absent. God's peace-offer is intended to
end a state of 'strife and enmity between man and God' and to procure the
'positive blessings that develop in a state of reconciliation'.745 Everything
all, any Gentile rightfully belonged to what was no longer just a Jewish religious group,
but a new stage in God's work of salvation extending to all men (238) .... The realisation
that Jesus is Lord of all is the theological ground for propriety of such a universal mission', p. 239. Possibly the addition 0~"t6t; E01:LV 1tQV-Cwv X"QLO~ with its universal claim
also alludes to Isa 57.19, where God also announces his peace and intention of healing
"tot~ fLuxQav xuL "to~ yyU~ OUGLV.
742 WB,859:'die FUBe auf den Friedensweg hinlenken';cf.SchUrmann 1,93,nos. 85f and
Farris, Hymns, 141 for the OT background.
743 I, 114; er. p. 93: "'Friede" ist hier im Vollsinn des messianischen Heilsgutes zu
nehmen'; cr. Luke's theological use of eLQ1jVT] in Luke 2.29; 7.50; 8.48; etc. Cf. Fitzmyer's
comprehensive treatment of etQ~VT], 224f; Marshall, Acts, 191; WB, 459.3; W. Foerster,
Th WNT 1I, 409-14 (,eiQtiVT] als Friede mit Gott', 413.26-414.29); G. Delling, 'Frieden. IV.
NT', TRE XI, 614.29-615.4; Conzelmann, Mitte, 159; Wiefel, 74; Grundmann, 84f; Eph
2.14-17; Rom 5.1; Weiser, 157: 'Die .Ahnlichkeit der Aussage mit Lk 4.43 und Jes 52.71iiBt
vermuten, daB mit der Friedensbotschaft hier die Botschaft Jesu von der Hemchaft
Gottes gemeint ist'. According to Barrett 1,521 it also refers to peace between Jews and
Gentiles; see there for the textual transmission of this verse.
744 Luke, 112.
745 Both quotations from Marshal!, Acts, 191. Cf. the OT definition of peace in
Fitzmyer,224f; WB,458f.L3. In Luke 11.21 and 14.32 (ct. Acts 7.26; 12.20) ELQtiVTJ occurs
'im Gegensatz zum Kriegszustand', Delling, 'Frieden', 614.42. Elsewhere in the NT this
state is directly addressed: 'EX{}Q6~ wird weiter gebraucht, urn das Verhiiltnis des natUr-
272
contained in this expression was lacking to Gentiles prior to faith. The opposite applied to them; they were -freofLclxoL (Acts 5.39; cf. Luke 19.27).
This peace is exclusively attributed to God. Possibly this implies a correction of the audience or of Gentile notions in general: Jesus, the only divi filius brings God's true peace in
contrast to the pervasive and pagan pax Augusta.'46 PaxltQ~VT] as the personification and
deification of political peace (like ll.btTJ, Acts 28.4) emerged during the early principate.m The Gentile notion and attribution indicates their inadequate understanding of
peace and of their state before God.
3.2.2.5. Spiritually dead (Acts 11.18; 13.46,48)
God gave Gentiles the repentance that leads to life. The eternal life rejected
by the Jews of Pisidian Antioch was received by the Gentiles. Some Gentiles
were destined for eternal life. With this qualification Luke strikes a familiar
note. It is God who reveals the ways of life (Acts 2.28). Jesus is the author of
life (3.15).748 The apostles proclaimed the whole message about this life
(5.20), 'the message of the life-giving Christ event' .749 Apart from this Godgiven repentance Gentiles neither knew of nor participated in this eschatological life as it is exclusively linked to Jesus. Gentiles are spiritually dead and
on an eschatological 'death row' from which they need salvation. Without
lichen Menschen zu Gott zu bezeichnen', WFoerster, ThWNT II, (810-15) 814.9f (-26;cf.
also pp. 813.27-814.8, 815.11-15), e.g. Rpm 5.10; 11.28; Co11.21;Jas 4.4. The Gentiles' hostility and open rebellion against God was directly addressed in Acts 4.25f; cf. II.3.2.
746 Cf. Fitzmyer, 224, 399; cl W. Foerster, Th WNT II, 398-400.11 for the Graeco-Roman
usage, p.400.12-19 with reference to Augustus.
747 Cf. W. Potscher, 'Pax', KP IV, 576; C Koch, 'Pax', RE XVIII, 2430-36; H.J. Rose,
'Pax', QeD, 793; CAR X, 384f, 481-89, 546-48, 583-606 et passim; CAH XI,445f, 475-78,
620,845-53. In his captalio benevolentiae the Gentile ThrtuIJus associates peace (noiJ,.fi~
tQ~vTJt; 'tuyxavov'tEt;) with a Roman office bearer (Acts 24.2; cf. Conzelmann, 141; Pesch
n, 256; Schille, 432; DelJing, 'Frieden', 614.45-48: 'wendet ... auf den Statthalter Aussageweisen an, mit denen insbesondere der romische Kaiser als Garant des Weltfriedens
geriihmt wird .. .').
748 Fitzmyer, 217 notes: 'it seems to mean a pioneer, author, or originator, i.e. a person
who begins something and is thus regarded as the source of its effects, blessings, etc.'; cf.
Barrett I, 197f for the meanings of aQXTJyot;. If taken as 'leader', it is fo IJowed by a genitive of direction to read 'leader to life', so Zmijewski, 191.
749 Fitzmyer,226. Cf. the summary of Luke's usage in Fitzmyer,217,225f and Zmijewski
on these references. Cl Barrett I, 197f; L. Schottroff, EWNT II, (261-71) 269-71; R. Bultmann, ThWNT 11, (833-77) 864.17-867; idem, ThWNT 1II, 13-21; G. Dautzenberg, 'Leben.
IV. NT', TRE XX, 526-30. For the opposite see Luke 1.79; 12.5 (cf. Fitzmyer, 959: 'the second death'; 1. Dupont, 'L' Apres-mort dans l'reuvre de Luc', RTL 3, 1972,3-21); 23.43;
Acts 2.24; Barrett I, 143f.
3. The state and salvation of Gentiles prior to fauh
273
salvation, without Jesus, the source ofthis life and the message about this life,
Gentiles will not share in eternal life but receive condemnation.750
3.2.2.6. Unclean hearts (Acts i5.8f)
God cleansed (xut}uQiou!;) the Gentiles' hearts by faith. The mention of

their hearts and of faith as the agent of cleansing indicates that more than
removal of ritual uncleanness is involved. Jewish and Gentile hearts need
God's xat}uQo(,!; from sinful defilement751 , for the latter this will include defilement through idolatry and further specific Gentile uncleanness. 752 In
their natural state and with the natural content of their lives Gentiles are
'unclean' before God.753
In Acts 15.8 Peter is portrayed as drawing conclusions from the conversion of Cornelius and his household. If what is said applies even to such exemplary Gentiles, it certainly applies to Gentiles at large! Even the hearts
of such God-fearers still needed cleansing.
Their hearts could only be cleansed by God. The initiative and action was
on God's side. Gentiles did not and could not cleanse their hearts themselves through circumcision, the keeping of the law, or their own moral impeccability. God cleansed their hearts by faith in the message proclaimed to
them (cf. 15.7).154 This is expressed later: Gentiles will only be cleansed and
saved (na 'tfj!; XciQL'tO!; tOU X\1Q[O\1 'IT)oou (15.11). Therefore Meyer rightly
takes their faith as a divine gift: 'den Glauben ... dessen er sie theilhaftig
750
Ct. the references to temporal and eschatological judgement over Gentiles, III.3.2.
2.1.
751 Cf. WB, 786: 'van der sittlich-religiosen Reinigung - rein machen van der Sunde'.
This is not limited to moral-ethical sins, see next note. WB, 55.2 offer for the metaphoricalnse ofaxail-aQ"to~ 'sittliche Beschaffenheit' (listing references in Luke-Acts); cf. H.
Thyen, EWNT ll, 540f; E Hauck, ThWNT Ill, (427-32) 428.4-12, 431.l6f,22-25,432.9f,1623: 'oxail-aQaia zur AlIgemeinschilderung des vollkommen gottwidrigen Zustands, in
dem si ch das Heidentum befmdet ... Die heidnische axail-aQoLa steht im vollendeten
Gegensatz zur Gerechtigkeit der christlichen Heiligung' (italics mine).
752 ~xail-aQ"to!; is also used: 'besonders van a1lem, was mit Gotzendienst zusammenhlingt, da dieser aIIes verunreinigt', WB, 55.1. For the interrelationship of physical, ritual
and moral impurity see Hauck, 430.34-431.4. Though Luke also knows of unclean spirits
(Luke 4.33; Acts 8.7; cf. SchUrrnann 1,247; Hauck,432, n.12), the Gentiles' uncleanness is
not explicitly related to demonic interference.
753 Acts 10.28 challenges the conception of Gentiles as ritually unclean: fLTJliiva XOLVQV
~ ruea1Jae-rov UYELV li.v1Jew~ov; cf Barrett I, 515f who also refers to the Gentiles' consumption of unclean food.
754 Cf. Zmijewski, 566: 'schenkte er ihnen doch durch den HI. Geist jene allein heilsnotwendige Reinheit des Herzens'; cf. the discussion in 1II.3.3.2.2.5.
274
werden liess'.7 55 An unclean heart will hardly procure this faith. God's activity is stressed (cleansed, gave, saved).756
Gentiles are in a state that leads to judgement, are devoid of revelation and in need of
restoration. In enmity towards God, they need God's peace offer. They are spiritually
dead and without the prospect of eternal life. Their hearts need cleansing from various
sins that defile them. These 'status-reversals' need to be accomplished through God's intervention. These further references to the state of Gentiles agree with the characterisation in direct address (cf. I1I.3.2.1.). Both types of material combine to produce an
impressive picture.
3.2.3. Conclusion: The Gentile need of sa lvati011
The necessity of the Gentiles' salvation arises from its nature and the plight
of Gentiles prior to faith which it seeks to remedy. Gentiles are blind, in
darkness, under the power of Satan, turned away from God; they have
sinned and do not have an inheritance among the sanctified and do not believe; they face condemnation in the eschatological judgement, are devoid
of revelation, are part of a world in need of restoration, in enmity towards
God and in need of cleansing. This is their state past and present, and because of it they need salvation. God's salvation of the Gentiles addresses
their state in a comprehensive sense, their failure before God and their fellow humans.757 Luke also indicates that divine intervention from without is
needed because Gentiles, reflecting their state, had not been or were unable to change their condition themselves. The narrative portrayal of Gen-
15S P. 272.
156 Acts 16.9f also hints at the Gentiles' plight. The missionaries were called to help
by proclaiming the good news: 'Der Gedankengang 11Iuft vom Hilferuf des
Mazedoniers zur Abhilfe der Not durch das EuaYYEt..Luaailm', Schneider 11,207; for Acts
27.17;21.28 cf.EWNT 1,536; F. BUchsel, ThWNT 1,627. Gentiles were in a distressed situation requiring superhuman help and interven tion. Pesch I1, 103 speaks of 'Not der Welt
... die der Hilfe bedarf with reference to Isa 61.1 in Luke 4.18 (God helps - E~oi]~ua
people in bondage on the day of salvation, Isa 49.8). Help through the proclamation was
to achieve something that could not be achieved otherwise. What the missionaries encountered during their first longer stay gives some clues to the distressed state: demon
possession, a population relying on clairvoyance, greedy slave owners, anti-Judaism, confusion in spiritual matters, injustice and pagan response to miracles; cf. III.2.2.1D. Weiser,
227 comments: 'In Korrespondenz zur Bitte des Mazedoniers zu kommen, urn zu helfen
(v. 9), wird man die VerkUndigung des Evangeliums hier auch im Sinn des Lukas als Hilfe
zum Leben, als Hineinziehen in eine "neue Existenz" verstehen dUrfen', included quotation from Glombitza, 'Schritt', 79f; cf. Glombitza's conclusions on EuaYYEt..Luaai}m
aU1:ovc;, pp. 80r.
1S1The comprehensive scope of the Lukan portrayal of the Gentiles' state precludes
characterisation of Luke's understanding of sin as only or mainly moral-ethical. It is significant that Acts 15.8 mentions the Gentiles' condition of heart, rather than their individual sinful actions; cf. Luke 8.15; 11.37-54; 16.15).
(~oT]W(J
3. The stale and salvation of Genliles prior to faith
275
tiles studied previously illustrates and supplements what Luke says, directly
or indirectly, on the Gentiles' state and their ensuing need of salvation.
Both modes of portrayal complement each other.
The necessity of salvation and its nature as being beyond human reach
also follow from its character. Jesus is 'the agent of salvation, the O"OOL~Q
([Acts] 5.31; 13.23),.158 This salvation is in no one else but Jesus, for there is no
other name by which people must be saved (Acts 4.12). While found in a Jewish context, the scope of this statement is also universal. Salvation does not lie
with Jews and Gentiles themselves or with whatever they might ascribe salvation to. The exclusive agency of Jesus denies any pagan notion of salvation:
'If we are to be saved at all, it must be in this way, for there is no other'J59
Even once this name becomes available through the proclamation, people
need 'to be saved' (pass. O"OO-frfjVClL) by God. Luke's SE! in Acts 4.12 underlines
the necessity of this salvation and the need of God's action. 760
The multifaceted and bleak portrait of the state of Gentiles prior to faith
combined with that arising from the incidents studied previously sets the
stage for our last concern in the Gentiles' encounter with salvation, namely
the actual appropriation of God's salvation by Gentiles. Our observations
in parts II and ill do not lead us to expect a significant contribution from
such Gentiles; rather they lead to an anticipation of indications of divine
activity in the procurement of salvation.
3.3. The appropriation of salvation by Gentiles; the implications of Luke's
statements about how Gentiles are saved
3.3.1. Introduction
Luke leaves no doubt that through God's initiative salvation was coming to
the Gentiles. But how were Gentiles actually becoming Christians? The
Barrett I, 231.
Barrett I, 233.
760 W. Popkes, EWNT I, (66871) 669 comments: '~et bezeichnet eine unbedingte Notwendigkeit; die Aussagen haben von Hause aus einen absoluten, nur schwer hinterfragbaren ... deterministischen Charakter. ... Im NT wird die Aussage zumeist mehr odeT
minder direkt als gottliche Setzung verstanden .... Ausdruck der Normgebung und ganz
besonders der Planung Gottes'. Specifically on Luke he writes (670): 'Gottes Plan prligt
sowohl ganze Lebensschicksale ... als auch Einzelgegebenheiten (z.B.Lk 12.12;Apg 10.6
(9.61); 16.30; deshalb schreibt Lukas Apg 4.12 wohl auch mujJ, nicht "kann" wie Herm v
4,2,4)'. Against Schneider 1,348 who interprets 'durch den wir gerettet werden ktlnnen'.
C[ also the significance and activity of the name in Acts 3.6,16;4.7,10; cf. Zahn, 170f; Zmijewski, 218; Pinnock, 'Acts 4.12'; Bock, 'Athenians', 124, n. 8.
7S8
759
276
fact of salvation raises the issue to what extent the Gentiles are able to respond to that salvation and appropriate it once available to them.
Three possibilities arise: 1. God does everything involved in their salvation: he predestines, makes atonement, has the word proclaimed, opens
hearts, causes faith and gives repentance, thus conferring salvation. In this
view the Gentiles play no part and the references to persuasion, repentance, etc. are in a sense illusory. 2. God gets the word proclaimed to the
Gentiles; when they hear it, they are able to respond and appropriate salvation. 3. Somewhere between the two, God works through the proclamation
(so that it becomes a powerful proclamation) and causes some Gentiles to
respond. In the following examination we need to see whether one of these
possibilities adequately expresses the Lukan view on the Gentile appropriation of salvation, whether there is a unified view expressed in Luke's
volumes or whether an alternative, more adequate possibility arises.
3.3.2. Gods activity in the Gentile appropriation o/salvation
Remarks such as 'as many as had been destined for eternal life became believers', 'God had opened a door of faith for the Gentiles' and 'the Lord
opened Lydia's heart to listen eagerly' (Acts 13.48; 14.27; 16.14; cf. III.3.3.
2.2.) suggest prima facie that Luke ascribes the response of Gentiles, or at
least of some Gentiles, to God's determination or activity. But there are
also instances when such comments are lacking. Is such divine intervention
really in mind, is it only noted for exceptional cases, or do such remarks
only make explicit what may be assumed throughout, as Kiilling claims:
... I1[Bt die Apg keinen Zweifel offen, daB dieser durch Reden und Htlren bewirkte
Glaube in einer gottlichen Verfiigung oder Erwllhlung begrUndet ist. Vorausnehmend
fUr alle nachfolgende Orte spricht dies Lukas zu Beginn der paulinischen Verkiindigung in Kleinasien aus (Apg 13.48).761
To pursue these questions we shall survey the background to God's salvation, study the material indicating andlor describing God's activity in the
Gentiles' salvation and some related material and consider the significance
of the absence of such remarks.
761 Geheimnis, 183f. KUlIing's use of Acts 15.7 (Geheimnis, 184) is problematic as the issue is not the divine election of the Gentiles or of some Gentiles or some Lukan ordo salutis but God's choice of Peter to be the one to initiate this move. Weiser, 213 notes that
'Lukas spricht von diesem Geschehen [Gentile mission as whole] im Stil biblischer Erw!lhlungsaussagen (e;EA.E;al"o: z.B.l Sam 16.9 LXX; IKon 8.16 LXX) ... '.
277
3.3.2.1. The background to God's salvation of the Gentiles
Before the report of the conclusion at the Jerusalem Council that God took
from the Gentiles a people for his name (Acts 15.14, see below), Luke prepared for this divine concern and initiative in the salvation of the Gentiles
in different ways. We briefly summarise and sketch this background.
1. Luke asserts God's universal concern. God is declared the creator of the
world (Acts 4.24; 14.15). The Gentiles' divine origin is made explicit (17.2628).762 God continually cared for all peoples (14.17). Acts 10.35 implies that
God knows all the people in every nation. Already at the beginning of
Luke's work it becomes clear that God is also concerned about the Gentiles (Luke 2.31f).763
2. God's name has already been invoked over the Gentiles (Acts 15.17):
'For all the Gentiles belonged to God who was the Creator and Lord of all
things'.764 Despite their failures Gentiles were under God's universal claim.
Existence as God's creatures under his claim entailed responsibility and expectations (Acts 17.27). Likewise Jesus is .n-cIV-rWV XUQLO~ (10.36); he has
authority over and will judge all people (10.42).765
3. It follows naturally from God's concern and claim that he initiates, directs and empowers the Gentile mission so that all flesh can see and benefit
from God's salvation. God's initiative is attested in different ways:
God prepared his salvation in the presence of all peoples (Luke 2.30-32).766 This reference to themes fully unfolded later is followed by the announcement that Isaiah's prophecy that all flesh shall see the salvation of God (Luke 3.6; Isa 405) is about to be fulfilled.
Again the initiative is God's. What is to happen is exclusively God's salvation. Divine initiative is behind the commission to bring the good news of God's salvation to all nations
(Luke 24.47f).767 God initiated and arranged that the Gentiles would hear of this salvation.
762 This also becomes apparent in Luke's genealogy: Jesus' ancestry is traced back beyond Abraham (cf. Matt 1.2) to Adam (Luke 3.23-38). Adam and all who descended
from him were 'the son(s) of God';cf. 12.22.3.6.
763 ' the Gentiles too are God's people', Brown, Birth, 459; cf. also p. 440. Siegert,
Kommentar,301 notes a similar emphasis in the pseudo-Philonic sermon De Iona: ' ...
sondem die Gilte Gottes gegenilber den Niniviten, d.h. gegenllber alien Menschen, ist in
De Iona das Hauptthema'.
764 Rackham, 253. The quotation alludes to Jer 12.14-17; cf. Weiser, 214; Pesch n,80.
76S Cf. Barrett I, 522; Bock, Proclamation, 265.
766 Brown, Birth, 458 notes: 'The prophecies of the particularly universalistic section of
Isaiah (chapters 40-55) are now coming to fulfilment. These chapters attesting that
through God's initiative the Gentiles are to share in God's salvation provide the background to this Lukan concept (cf. 40.5; 42.6; 49.6; 52.10),.
767 God's initiative is also apparent in some of Luke's references to OT Gentiles (cf.
II.2.1.-4.). Elijah was sent (by God) to a Gentile widow (Luke 4.26). Whether and how
278
Acts underscores God's initiative in the Gentiles' salvation. Barrett observes that God
'is regularly in Acts the one who initiates the work of salvation'.7" In 1.8 the disciples are
again commissioned to be witnesses to the ends of the world.769 God sent Philip to meet
the Ethiopian. Paul was God's chosen instrument to bring the Lord's name before the
Gentiles and their kings.770 Through God's initiative Cornelius heard the good news.
God's spirit initiated the systematic Gentile mission.m God decided that the Gentiles
would hear the good news and become believers. God took from the Gentiles a people
for His name. God paved the way for the Gentiles' salvation in rebuilding David's fallen
house, so that all the Gentiles over whom his name has already been called may seek
him. God initiated the proclamation in Gentile Europe (16.6-10). God sent his salvation
to the Gentiles (28.28).
Luke's notes of God's initiative carry several implications:

3.1. Although God's initiative in preparing this salvation and ensuring its
proclamation does not necessarily imply his involvement in the Gentiles'
appropriation of this salvation, it prepares for such references.
3.2. God's initiative and salvation underlines the Gentiles' deficient state.
They needed a remedy and that remedy had to come from without as it was
not to be found within their own community. Divine initiative is essential
for their salvation. Luke's description of and emphasis on the salvation772
implies a plight which it seeks to address, namely an unheilvoll state, lacking everything associated with salvation and gained only through it,773
Apart from this salvation people live in the plight it seeks to remedy.774
This implicit anthropological statement is stressed by Luke's strong emphasis on salva- .
tion, expressed through the charateristic following word group:
a) The verb oc9~(O is used seventeen times in Luke (6.9; 7.50; 8.12,36,48,50; 9.24 bis;
13.23; 17.19; 18.26,42; 19.10; 23.35 bis; 37,39) and thirteen times in Acts (2.21,40,47; 4.9,12;
11.14; 14.9; 15.1,11; 16.30f;27.20,31).77S
Naaman ever met Elisha is not apparent from Luke's reference (4.27). Though not specified, it is implied that God sent Jonah to Nineveh (11.30,32; et Jonah 1.2; 3.2).
768 1521
769 The disciples are promised empowerment for this task with the holy Spirit. This implies that their universal task will not be easy and that superhuman powers are needed
for this witness to achieve its aim; cl. Barrett 1,79.
770 Acts 4.25f describes what the Gentiles and their rulers did prior to and without
God's intervention;cf. IJ.3.2.
771 Acts 13.1f. This is not expressed for the mission at Antioch (11.19-26), nor are further missionary journeys as much under direct divine commission (15.36). Not all efforts
to evangelise Gentiles are ascribed to divine initiative.
772 For a survey see Marshall, Historian, 77-215.
77J Cf. E. Larsson, 'Heil und Erltlsung. 111. NT', TRE XIV, (616-22) 618: 'Der Heilsinhalt ist die Vergebung der SUnden und die Gabe des Heiligen Geistes.... Die Ermoglichung von Heil ist aussehlieBlich an Jesus und seinen Namen gebunden ([Acts] 4.12),.
774 Luke has rightly been called 'Theologe der Heilsgeschichte'; cf. Lohse, 'Lukas';
Flender, Heil. Such a history of salvation is only meaningful against the background of
previous absence of such salvation and of its necessity.
775 For a comparison with the other Gospels see Marshall, Historian, 92. Marshall concludes: 'Luke, however, does use the verb in a spiritual sense in a way that stands out by
279
b) awnig: Mary praises God her Saviour (Luke 1.47); the birth of the Saviour is announced to the shepherds (2.11). God exalted Jesus as Leader and Saviour (Acts 5.31).
God has brought to Israel Jesus the Saviour (13.23).
c) aW'tl]g[a: God has raised up a horn of salvalion ('a mighty saviour' ,NRSV) for Israel
(Luke 1.69). It brings salvation from opponents (1.71). God gives the experience of salvation to his people which consists of the forgiveness of their sins (1.77). In Jesus,salvation
has come to the house of Zacchaeus (19.9). Salvation is to be found in no one but Jesus
(Acts 4.12). God's intervention is described as giving salvation to his people (7.25). The
report of Jesus the Saviour (13.23) is the message of salvalion (13.26). God's salvation is
to be brought to the ends of the earth (13.47; on Acts 16.17 cf. III.2.2.10.2.2.2.).
d) aw"tTJgloV: Simeon saw the coming of God's salvation in the infant Jesus (Luke 2.30).
All flesh shall see the salvation of God (3.6). The message about Jesus is the salvation of
God which has been sent to the Gentiles (Acts 28.28).776
comparison with the other Gospels'. Cf. W.e. van Unnik, 'L'usage de O!O~ELV 'sauver' et
les derives dans les evangiles synoptiques', in 1. Coppens (ed.), La formation des
evangiles synoptiques, RechBib 2 (Bruges: Desclee de Brouwer, 1957), 178-94 = Sparsa
Collecta. The Collected Essays of W. C van Unnik: Part One: Evangelia - Paulina - Acts,
NT.S 29 (Leiden, New York, Cologne: .1 Brill,1973), 16-34.
776 Cf. Marshall's conclusion to the statistical evidence: Luke's 'distinctiveness over
against the other Synoptic Gospels stands out at this point. We would claim that this distinctiveness affords some clues to Luke's own main interest, and is therefore worth following up .... [salvation] is the central motif in Lucan theology', Historian, 92[ For detailed treatment of these references cf. his pp. 93-102. Marshall argues persuasively that
'salvation supplies the key to the theology of Luke. Not salvation-history but salvation itself is the theme which occupied the mind of Luke in both parts of his work', p. 92; cf. his
application of this insight to various themes of Lukan theology on pp. 103-215. Cf. also e.
Andresen, 'Erlosung', RAC VI, (54-219) 107-11; W. Foerster, G. Fohrer, ThWNT VII,
(966-1024) 991.32-992.10 (Luke); 997.25-998.7 (Acts), for awniQ cf. pp. 1015.28-1016.9; W.
Radl, EWNT Ill, 765-70; K.H. Schelkle, EWNT Ill, 781-89; also F. Bovon, 'Le salut dans
les ecrits de Luc',RThPh 23, 1973,296-307; Buckwalter, Character,138-70;Fitzmyer,21927; A. George, 'Le vocabulaire de salut' , Etudes sur l'(1!uvre de Luc, SBi (Paris: Gabalda,
1978),307-20 = 'L'emploi chez Luc du vocabulaire de salut', NTS 23, 1976177,308-20;
Gewiess, HeilsverkUndigung; Glockner, Verkilndigung; EM.B. Green, The Meaning of
Salvation (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1965; c( the summary by Marshall, Historian,
93); P. Pokorny, Theologie der lukanischen Schriften, FRLANT 174 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), 128-55; RH. Throckmorton, '~r.O~ELV, aW'tl]QLa in Luke-Acts',
StEv VI (TU 112),1973,515-26; W.e. van Unnik, "'The Book of Acts", the Confirmation
of the Gospel', NT 4,1960,26-59 = Sparsa Collecta T,340-73 (cf. the summary by Marshall, Historian, 93) and the contributions of 1. Nolland ('Salvation-History and Eschatology'), J.R Green ('Salvation to the Ends of the Earth: God as the Saviour in the Acts of
the Apostles'), H.D. Buckwalter ('The Divine Saviour') and R Witherington III ('Salvation and Health in Christian Antiquity: The Soteriology of Luke-Acts in its First Century
Setting') in Marshal!, Witness, 63-123, 145-66; further bibliography in Fitzmyer, 265f. Cr.
the considerations of Siegert, Kommentar, 310f.
Luke has been called 'Theologe der HeiIsgeschichte'; cf. Lohse, 'Lukas'; Flender, Heil;
Fitzmyer, 179-92. Such a 'history of salvation' is only meaningful against the background
of previous absence of such salvation or its Jack apart from this history and of its necessity. Cf. the criticism of this concept by MarshalI, Historian, 77-88.
280
Though Luke often presents Jesus as a teacher of the crowds and of the disciples, addressed and acknowledged as such by friend and foe 777 and
though he emphasises the need of instruction (cf.lY.3.3.1.) and how it was
met, it is remarkable that in describing the purpose and benefits of the mission of Jesus, Luke primarily uses the arfJl:;w, ".A. word group and not the
Greek equivalents of words like discipline, instruction, enlightenment, correction, etc. 778 This agrees with Luke's references to the eschatological
judgement and his link between salvation and the forgiveness of sins (cf.
III.3.2.2.1.).
3.3. God's initiative in the Gentiles' salvation emphasises the fact that
this salvation is essentially and exclusively his own saving action (cf. Luke
1.47). It is a salvation which the Gentiles neither thought of nor could accomplish on their own. This salvation is not dependent on any previous insight or effort of the Gentiles. Rather it is announced in the proclamation
and is exclusively linked to Jesus. Acts 20.28 indicates why this is God's salvation: The saved Gentiles belong to the church which God obtained with
the blood of his own son. Only he could do so.
God always cared for and claimed his Gentiles. He initiated their salvation. This survey of God's initiative and the conclusions from the nature of
God's salvation provide the background for those cases where God's intervention and activity in the Gentiles' appropriation of this salvation is explicitly stated. God's initiative in providing and making his salvation known
is presupposed throughout.
3.3.2.2. Indications of God's activity in the Gentiles' salvation
3.3.2.2.1. Luke 2.14; 10.21
The angels proclaimed peace on earth among the avt}Qo>JtOL eMlOxLac;

(Luke 2.14). As heaven and earth are contrasted, the reference to avt}QO>-
m Cf. Luke's seventeen occurrences of bu'hxaxw with reference to Jesus (Luke 4.15,31;
5.3,11; 6.6; 11.1; 13.10,22,26; 19.47;20.1,21 bis;21.37;23.5; Luke 4.15; 13.22; 19.47;21.37 occurring in summaries!), Jesus as bLMoxaAo!; in 7.40; 8.49; 9.38; 10.25; 11.45; 12.13; 18.19;
19.39; 20.21,28,39; 21.7; 22.11 and bLbax~ in 4.32; cf. Fitzmyer, 147f; also S. Byrskog, Jesus
the Only Teacher: Didactic Authority and Transmission in Ancient Israel,Ancient Judaism
and the Matthean Community, CB.NT 24 (Stockholm: Almqvist & WikseIJ International,
1994), l3-196.
778 Cf. e.g. the terminology used in 2 TIm 3.16 to describe the usefulness of ltijcra YQacp~:
ttLbaaxaA(a, EAEy!!O;, mavoQ{}wm;, ltaLtteta; compare the further occurrences of ltaLbeta in Eph 6.4; Heb 12.5,7f,11 and of vou{}eata in 1 Cor 10.11. Cf. LN, nos. 33.224-50,
417-22.
281
:reOL EU60XLUS also applies to Gentiles.779 In the light of fresh evidence from
Qumran a consensus has emerged that EU&OX[U means 'voluntas Dei eligens et praedestinans potius quam complacentia divina':78o
Der lukanische Sprachgebrauch (10.21 und E1iboxetv 12.32; 3.22) macht es dann nliherhin auch wahrscheinlich, daB E1i/loxLa hier das in Gottes freier Gnadenwahl begrtlndete Wohlwollen, nicht Gottes anerkennendes Wohlgefallen meint'.781
SchUrmann continues:.(:retlS (, AU6S, v.1D)

bekommt hier seine eschatologische Korrektur - und Ausweitung: das Reil wird den
Auserwlihlten zuteil, Ev avf}QW1tOL!;: eulloxLa!;:, die doch nicht so schlechthin mit dem
Aao!;: von V.I0 g1eichgesetzt werden dUrfen (vg/.U5-53). Es ist an die eschatologische
Heilsgemeinde zu denken, an das durch Gottes Gnadenwahl geeinte Gottesvolk.7B2
People need 'das in Gottes freier Gnadenwahl begrl1ndete Wohlwollen' of

God, manifesting itself in their salvation, to escape condemnation. On their
own they cannot change their plight.
EU60XLU also occurs in Luke 10.21. Not all people were to the same extent God's spiritual beneficiaries: It was the Father's will to hide these
things783 from the wise and intelligent and to reveal them to the VTJ:reLOL:
Gott hat ... das so beschlossen (EUboXLa EYEVE"tO) . daB Gott sich den avf}Q!Jmo~
E1illoxLa!;: ... zuneigt. Er ist es, der seine Geheimnisse aktiv 'verbirgt', wie er sie aktiv
anderen 'offenbart' .... Nicht mehr den 'Weisen' ist Gottes Weisheit und Offenbarung
zugedacht,sondern paradoxerweise den Einfliltig-Kleinen.784
'The clause describes God's gracious and condescending action in regard to

the elect in the matter of revelation. It has not been his good pleasure to reveal these things to everyone'.?85 People cannot gain spiritual understanding themselves; revelation is required. This revelation does not apply
to all people, but only cl>
~OUA.TJ"tUL 0 1JLOS u:reOXaAU'IjIUL. 786
eav
779 Cf. the more limited scope of 2.10: navri"tip Aacp. Cf. SchUrmann 1,110: 'V 14 wird
der Rahmen Israels dann ausdrticklich gesprengt und das messianische Heil weltweit gesehen'; cf. Luke 2.30, 6.17!
780 Vogt, 'Pax', 428. See the surveys by Brown, Birth, 403-05 and Fitzmyer, 411f. This interpretation has not remained unchallenged, see the summary in Brown, Birth, 677-79.
781 SchUrmann I, 115.
782 SchUrmann 1,114. Brown, Birth, 679 goes less far: ' ... we can still recognize that the
reason they are people of good will is not because of their own merit but because God's
grace/favor/good will has moved them in that direction ... '; cf. p.427 for his earlier position closer to SchUrmann.
783 cr. SchUrmann ILl, 105: 'das Zukommen der Basileia'; Fitzmyer, 872f.
784 SchUrmann 11.1, 105f.
785 Fitzmyer, 873.
786 Cf. Schilrmann II.l, l09-l8;Marshall,437f.
282
IlL The Gentile encounter wilh salvation
3.3.2.2.2. Actl" 11.18,21,23[
Peter's audience concluded that God gave even to the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life (cf. III.2.2.4.3.3. for the discussion whether repentance itself is a Heilsgut). That a great number of Gentiles became believers
and turned to the Lord is ascribed to the efficacy of the hand of the Lord
(cf. III.2.2.5.1.). Barnabas saw the grace of God at work (cf. Acts 13.43,
I1I.3.3.2.2.11.). The episode ends: xat rtQOOEl:E-ttT] OXA.O~ txavo~ t:<p X1JQLCP.
The concentration of these remarks at this crucial juncture indicates that it
was through God's activity that these Gentiles became Christians.
The first summary of Acts also states that new believers 'were added'
(rtQOOEl:E1tT]oav, 2.41). Though reporting thaUhese people accepted Peter's
message (artoOE;uJlEVOL 1:0V A.6yov), Luke still or also sees them as 'added'
to the church by God. 787 Daily 6 M XUQLO~ rtQOOE1:L-ttEL 1:0U~ OcptOJlEV01J~
(2.47); they are 'those whom God calls into membership .. .'.788 Both statements ascribe the outcome to God, though the account itself mentions acceptance and arguments and exhortations to be heeded.
The significance of such statements is heightened when the function of
the summaries is taken into account. Zmijewski observes that events mentioned in the summaries
erscheinen lediglich als typische Beispiele einer allgemeinen Situation bzw. Entwicklung ... Die in den Summarien aufgefUhrten Verhaltensweisen und Zustlinde umschreiben ja nichts AuBergewohnliches, sondern etwas, das nach Lukas die Urkirche
bleibend prilgt ... Lukas bemilht sich darum, in den Summarien das filr die Kirche generefl Typische herauszustellen.'"
787 In the preceding verse Peter is pictured as testifying with many arguments and exhorting them (I'iLEfJ-aQ-ruQa1:o xat 1taQExaJEL) to save themselves from this corrupt generation (Ucill'hl1:E, 2.40; et 2.21). Says Barrett I, 156: 'It is often supposed that the verb is
used here in a reflexive sense: Save yourselves.... Here however there is no possibility
that men will save themselves except in the sense that they call upon him who has already called them: thus, Accept your salvation'.
788 Barrett 1,73; cf. Reinhardt, WacJ1Stum,160-66; Pesch I, 128-33; WE, 1439f.1.b; RiusCamps, 122; Bruce, 133: 'The Lord himself reserves the prerogative of adding new members to his community'; C.Maurer, ThWNTVIII, (152-70) 169.45-170.3: 'Einftigung von
Menschen in eine Gemeinschaft' (so also in LXX, examples p.169.24-29) and p.170,n.2:
'Auf jeden Fall ist die passivische der medial en Obersetzung "sie schlossen sich an" vorzuziehen. Das Passiv weist auf Gott als das logische Subjekt'.
789 p. 162; cf. KodeU, 'Word'; Zingg, Wachsen, 19-72; Reinhardt, Wachstum; U. Wendel,
Gemeinde in Kraft: Das Gemeindeverstiindnis in den Summarien der Apostelgeschichte,
Neukirchener Theologische Dissertationen und Habilitationen 20 (Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener,1998),13-109.
283
This observation suggests that Luke saw the divine intervention and activity mentioned in these summaries as the pattern, rather than as exceptional.
3.3.2.2.3. Acts 13.48
When some God-fearers and other Gentiles (ct Acts 13.44) heard that there
was to be a light for them and that God's salvation was to reach the ends of
the earth (13.47), they were glad and praised the word of the Lord (cf.
III.2.2.7.3.). As many of them as had been destined for eternal life became
believers (aam ~(Jav "tE"taytJkvm d~ ~w~v atoovLOv). According to this statement God apparently determines that some Gentiles become Christians.
Some observations on this note and its context are necessary before we survey how this Lukan comment has been taken by several scholars.
The reference is to Gentiles. Not all the Gentiles present became beIievers,790 which is the usual Lukan picture (exc. Samaria). While those who
were destined for eternal life became believers (on eternal life see
III.3.2.2.5.), others remained unbelieving toward the word of God. This division of the audience is not related to the previous God-fearing Gentiles
of Pisidian Antioch (addressed in Acts 13.16) or the more recent synagogue
audience (13.44).191 L~ke recorded previous Gentile conversions without
reference to any divine "t6.~L~.792 This remark follows the pronounced turning away of the missionaries from rejecting Jews to the Gentiles (13.46f, ~v
avayxuLov:rtQUJ"tOv).
1. Marshall argues that though salvation 'is received by men through the initiative of God', Luke's expression is unlikely to mean 'that the people in
question believed and received eternal life because they had been individually predestined to do 50'.193 His three arguments need attention:
1.1. Marshall notes that 'the previous verses speak of the free rejection of
the Gospel by the Jews who disbelieved; the passage says nothing about
their being predestined to do so'. However, this does not necessarily ex790 Cf. Weiser, 190: 'DaB sich indes nicht alle Heiden Antiochias bekehrten, deutet er in
der positiven Ausdrucksweise an .,.'.
791 This observation argues against Marshall's second suggestion: 'But it could also refer to those who had already put their trust in God in accordance with the OT revelation
of his grace and were enrolled in his people' ,Acts, 231; cf. discussion in 1.2.
792 Though in previous conversions divine activity is stressed (Antioch). Sergius converted once the spell of Elymas was eliminated. The conversion of Cornelius was initiated by God.
793 Power, 93. Marshall studies Luke's remarks on predestination to salvation to discover 'whether the fact that God takes the initiative in salvation implies that those who
receive the gift have been predestined never to lose it', This question is beyond our task.
284
clude the predestination of some Gentiles.7 94 Barrett draws different conclusions: 'The rest, one infers, did not believe, did not receive eternal life,
and were thus appointed to death. The positive statement implies the negative'.795 A corresponding negative predestination, though logically deducible, is neither mentioned nor necessarily in view. That other Gentiles did
not believe and receive eternal life follows from their state, not because
they have been appointed to this fate. Says Pesch:
Eine positive Reprobation wird ausgeschlassen, da das Urteil derer, die Gottes Wort
van sich stoHen, sie seien 'des ewigen Lebens nicht wUrdig', ... nicht das Urteil Gottes,
sondem ihr eigenes eigensinniges ist.196
1.2. Marshall considers that 'it may be that those who are described as being ordained to eternal life were Gentiles who were already proselytes and
worshippers of God'.797 This is possible in view of Paul's address to the
audience in Acts 13.16, where God-fearing Gentiles are mentioned next to
Israelites (ct. v. 43: Jews and .wv aE~Of.4EvWV ngoUTfA.1hwv). Yet in contrast
to other places798 , 13.44 indicates that the audience of the second Sabbath
extended beyond that addressed previously; almost the whole city gathered. This audience would have included people beyond the earlier scope
suggested by Marshall.799 The number of those ordained cannot be limited
to God-fearing Gentiles. Though the Christian mission makes the greatest
inroads among already God-fearing Gentiles (ct. III.3.3.3.3.), Gentiles also
for whom no prior contacts with Judaism are mentioned or inferred become Christians.
1.3. Marshall draws attention to the context of Acts 13.48b (see above):
It was because Gentiles as such had been ordained to eternal life - on condition of
faith - that they now believed. Luke's statement, therefore, is not concerned to delimit
a particular group of Gentiles who, in distinction from other people, were specially ordained to believe, but to demonstrate that when God took the initiative and offered
salvation to the Gentiles, in accordance with his purpose to call a people for Himself
out of the Gentiles, they responded with faith.BOO
794 The 1tQ6iTov of Acts 13.46 indicates the differences between Jews and Gentiles; cf.
Barrett I, 656f.
795
1,658 (italics mine).
796 II,49; similarly Wesley, Notes, 449. However, the rejection of the word of God and of
salvation leading to eternal life to which Pesch refers (13.46: O1i" af;iov!; "QLveTE EUVTaU!;; cf. Barrett 1,656), is that of Jews (13.45f), not of Gentiles.
797 Power, 93.
798 Compare the distinction in Acts 14.2-4 between the Greek adherents of the synagogue and other Gentiles (TO 1t1..ij-fro!; Tij!; 1t01..EW!;). Marshal\'s suggestion would be more
applicable in such a case.
799 Marshall, Power, 94, n. 8 (p.238) is aware of this difficulty with this identification.
800 Power, 94 (italics mine).
285
Yet this demonstration already took place in Acts 10-11.18: God has chosen
Gentiles just as much as Jews. The programmatic conclusion that Gentiles
are included in God's saving purpose has already been drawn (11.18).801
Built upon this conviction the Gentile mission was on its way. A first important Gentile conversion has been mentioned (13.12). Not all Gentiles in
Pisidian Antioch became believers (cf.13.50); such divided response is also
true for other Gentile audiences in Acts.
Had Luke wanted his readers to equate "to. E-IIvrJ and OOOL - to express that the Gentiles
such believed as they were predestined to do - he could have made this connection
clearer: the combination of neuter plural forms (like "to. fllvr) with ooa occurs in Luke
18.12,22; Acts 3.22; 9.13,39. Luke thus could have referred back to"tcl iM] by using ooa.
On other occasions OOOL goes with masculine plural forms: Luke 9.5; without a corresponding prior reference, a link is apparently not necessary!; Acts 2.39 links UfLLV, xaL "tots;
"tEXVOLs; UfLwV xat naOLV "toIS; Ets; fLaxQo.v and OOOUS;; 4.6: clearly identifying the former
men with the later category; 4.36: a group is named (EV au"toi:s;) some of which are special,
introduced with ooot; 10.45: OOOL after ot EX ltEQL"tofLfis; ltLO"tOL. Thus Luke's OOOL in 13.4Sb
is unlikely to refer to the Gentiles in general.
as
2. Pesch, though rightly drawing attention to the context, seems to invert
the Lukan order: 'Wo es Gott mit seiner siegreichen Gnade gltlckt, daB
Menschen ihre Berufung zum Dienst in Seinem Volk frei bejahen, sind diese ''pradestiniert'''.802 Luke's expression "tE'tUYflEVOL seems stronger.
Pesch rightly notes that election/salvation is sometimes combined with a
specific task to be fulfilled ('Berufung zum Dienst in Seinem Yolk', as e.g.
repeatedly mentioned for Paul; see below on 6.2.). In these cases election to
salvation and election for a particular task (which may involve conversion)
can hardly be separated as one entails the other and the election to salvation should not be overemphasised or seen apart from the commission. Yet
such linkage is not made in Acts 13.48. These Gentiles were predestined for
eternal life, not for any particular task. Their predestination is not linked
with the spread of the word in 13.49, though the new converts probably had
their share in its spread. Neither does such linkage occur in the remarks we
examined previously.
3. Zahn takes Luke's expression as
Bezeichnung der das Glllubigwerden der Heiden ermoglichenden inneren Verfassung
derselben ... eine dem Inhalt nach noch sehr unbestimmte Sehnsucht nach Errettung
aus Stlnde und Tod und nach einem ewigen Dasein, welche sie fiir das Evangelium
empfllnglich machte und sie rur den Glauben vorbereitete .... Was Le hier als Voraussetzung des GllIubigwerdens nicht weniger Heiden sagt, ist also dies, daB sie schon
801
Schneider 11, 146 refers to this link. The (gift of) fLE"to.voLa ets; l;(m;v is matched by EiS;
l;(J)~v alrbVLOV. Marshall's suggestion would fit well with Acts 28.28.
802
II,48f.
286
vorher, unbefriedigt von ihrer bisherigen religiilsen Stellung und sittlichen Verfassung, mit ihrem Denken und Streben auf ewiges Leben gerichtet waren.BQJ
All this Zahn ascribes to 'eine innere Einwirkung Gottes'. This interpretation is unlikely: Luke could have expressed such a Gentile yearning much
more clearly. Though these thoughts may possibly capture the sentiments
of some God-fearing Gentiles, Luke never expresses this or explains their
existence along these lines. Acts 13.44 indicates that Gentiles not attracted
previously to Judaism were also present. For these other Gentiles Luke offers no evidence that they were desperately looking for something else.
4. Schneider claims: 'Die letztere Wendung macht keine pradestinatianische Aussage. Vielmehr will Lukas anzeigen, daB nicht die ganze BevOlkerung zum Glauben kommt'.804 That Luke's statement indicates this is
correct, but it should be noted that Luke has other ways of stating this,
e.g. the note that many (txavou~)805 became disciples in Derbe, allows the
conclusion that some others did not (Acts 14.21). In the present context
such a statement would be superfluous: the fact that not all local Gentiles
became believers is indicated by the fact that the rejecting Jews found
sufficient unconverted Gentiles to organise opposition and expel the missionaries (13.50).806 Rather Luke's statement explains why some already
God-fearing and other Gentiles became Christians. Other than this statement Luke does not explain for the divided response, which is a recurrent
feature.
5. Barrett's straightforward interpretation is the most commendable:

The present verse is as unqualified a statement of absolute predestination - 'the eternal purpose of God' - as is found anywhere in the NT. Those believed who were appointed (the passive implies, by God) to do SO.807
803 P.454f, quoting from Zahn's second argument about the 'bereits vorher vorhandene
Herzensbeschaffenheit' (454). Zahn's first argument against a predestinarian interpretation is that Luke's expression can 'nichts anderes bedeuten als einen ausschlieBlichen
Gegensatz zu dem Urteil der Missionare Uber ihre jiidischen ZuMrer: "ihr achtet euch
selbst nicht wert des ewigen Lebens"', p. 453; see above on 1.3. Zahn's third argument denies the passivum divinum:' ... wenn diese Deutung in der Absicht des Lc gelegen hatte,
dann aber in der Tat ware ein uno ("toii) {}Eoii bei ~aav "tE'tay~evoL (cf. Rm 13.1) unerUf.Blich gewesen',p. 454; cf. BDR 130.1.
8041I 146
80S Cf.
760.1.c. The rendering suggested under 2. may indicate something different
from a numerical reference. Possibly the word could be rendered in Acts 14.21 as 'geeignet, geschickt, tauglich, wiirdig'.
806 Against Bengel, Gnomon Il, 638 who claims that so many Gentiles became believers that when the apostles subsequently returned, 'they had none in that town to make
disciples of, but had only to "confirm" those already made'.
807 I, 658. The included quotation is from Calvin, 393. For the direct continuation of this
quotation see above on 1.1. Barrett then continues: 'It must be recognized that Luke,
WB,
287
Reference to a divine "taSL~ is hardly surprising in this context: Paul related

previously how God, 6 'frEO~ "tou 1.uou "tou"tou, chose (ESEAESU"tO; no reasons given) the ancestors and exalted this people. God's ongoing and sovereign activity is stressed in this summary ofIsrael's history. BOB God destroyed
seven nations in the land of Canaan, and gave the ancestors their land as an
inheritance (Acts 13.17-19; their destruction is not explained as a judgement as e.g. in Gen 15.16; Lev 18.24, God simply seems to dispose of them).
Therefore that God would also destine some Gentiles for a special fate is
not surprising at the end of the same chapter. The surprise is that such destination no longer happens along the lines ofthe Jew-Gentile division. As God
had chosen the Jews in the past, he now also chooses some Gentiles. 809
Similar Lukan references to the Jews also supports Barretl's interpretation. That God
would choose certain people in preference to others appears repeatedly as a matter of
fact: God chose Israel (Acts 7.2). From all Israel God chose various prophets (cf. also
7.25,3034: Moses; 13.20-22: the officebearers within Israel). Jesus called disciples (Luke
5.27) and chose twelve apostles (6.12-16; cc. Acts 10.41).8[0 They enjoyed privileges which
other Jews did not enjoy (e.g. Luke 8.10; cf. III.3.3.2.2.10.), and were commissioned for a
particular task. Jesus also chose Paul for a particular ministry, Acts 9.15; 22.10 (taucJELv,
22. 14f: 'has chosen you to know his will',apparently people need to be chosen for this; cf.
Luke 10.22); Acts 22.21;26.16-18.
However, in Paul's election his conversion and the commission he received are closely
linked. m He is chosen for a particular task which presupposes his salvation. Luke does
not indicate in the accounts of Paul's conversion whether such direct divine intervention,
though on a different scale or less dramatic, happens in every conversion. It is noteworthy that all Lukan cases of divine election to a particular task, which involve or necessitate preceding conversion, concern Jews, not Gentiles (see above on R. Pesch).
Luke also notes how some Jews were more receptive to Jesus or the Christian mission
than other Jews, e.g. some EM!;avto 'tov i..6yov ~E'ta 3taUl]C; 1tQoih!!Jlac; (Acts 17.11); cf.
who was a narrator rather than a theologian, was apt to put down on its own the aspect
of any question that concerned him at the time of writing, and did not, as Paul did, insist
upon a rounded view obtained by viewing theological issues from all sides', pp. 658f.
Zahn, 452-55 goes to great length to prove the contrary.
808 God gave judges and a king. God simply removed Saul (~Em<miuac;; no reasons
given other than his long reign) and made David king, Acts 13.20-22; ct. the different
presentation in Stephen's speech with its emphasis on human activity.
809 Luke's 'predestination' also resembles a common hellenistic concept. Thus this
brief indication is sufficient and Luke does not need to explain the matter further. E.g.
Cook, 'Responses', 250 points out that 'Hecate and Porphyry account for Christian belief
by using the concept of the fates or fate. One could call their approach a hellenistic doctrine of predestination'.
810 K.H. Rengstorf, ThWNT IV, (392-465) 465.42-45 notes on ~a-!TrJ'tE1icJavtEC; in Acts
14.21: 'Vielleicht steht hinter diesem zunilchst nur ntl. Gebrauch des Wortes die Erkenntnis, daB man zum Jilnger Jesu ... nur aufgrund eines Rufes wird, der einen in seine
Nachfolge ftihrt'.
811 Cf. Marshall, Power, 95 (on Acts 26.19).-
288
the many incidents of divided Jewish response. No further explanations are given for this
difference in response.
Acts 13.48 testifies to God's involvement and the Gentile response to salvation. The good news was not simply offered and after careful consideration accepted by some Gentiles. God took the initiative in causing faith and
predestining some Gentiles. Those Gentiles who did believe, did so not due
to any particular worthiness, insight or whatever else on their part, but due
to God's preceding action. That others believed is not indicated.
Gentiles were not able to save or ordain themselves: 'For a man cannot
ordain himself ... to everlasting life, except by believing: but here the ordination is mentioned prior to faith; therefore the ordination is the act of
God'.812 Wesley concludes: 'In a word, the expression properly implies, a
present operation of divine grace, working faith in the hearers'.813
Luke's theme of 'the ultimate triumph of the Gospel'BI' provides a unifying link for some
events of the first missionary journey: Elymas' diabolic attempt could not hinder Sergius'
conversion, the Lystran failure and attempt on Paul's life could not hinder the course of
the gospel, neither could the Jewish resistance at Pisidian Antioch. Luke's predestinarian
note reinforces this theme. The Jewish rejection could not render God's plans and purposes void: those destined became believers despite efforts to the contrary (Acts 13.45).
3.3.2.2.4. Acts 14.27; 15.3t 21.19

1. The missionaries report 'all that God had done (broiTJUEv 6 'frEO,) with
them' and summarise the results as 'how God ~VOL;e,V 'tot' E'frvEOLV 'fruQav
:n;LO'tEW,'. This is
eine theologische Deutung der Ereignisse ... Gott selbst hat alles mit ihnen gewirkt!
Gemeint ist wohl, daB auf ihrer Reise Gott der eigentlich Handelnde war ... handelte
es sich dabei doch eigentlich nicht urn ihr eigenes menschliches Thn, sondern urn das
Wirken der Gnade Gottes, in dessen Hand sie lediglich Werkzeuge waren.B15
In the miracles and ministry of the missionaries as also in the conversion of

the Gentiles, God was at work.
The genitive :n;[cnEOl~ can be taken in various ways. If taken in the objective sense,
namely a door 'leading to faith'BI", the Gentiles' faith is linked to God's intervention. This
is also true for Barrett's suggestion of an 'appositional genitive, the meaning being a
door (into salvation) consisting of faith',,17 Thus Barrelt concludes:' ... the way offaith is
812 Bengel, Gnomon II,637.

813 Notes, 449.
814 Barrett I 686
BlS Zmijewsia, 549, similarly Pesch, Schneider and Roloff.
816 Thrner, Synta:c, 212. In the subjective sense it would be a door where faith enters.
817 See Barrett I, 692. The ijVOLl;EV is reminiscent of Acts 26.18.1. Jeremias, Th WNT Ill,
(173-80) 174.18-21 writes: 'und er (jffnet den zum Glauben Kommenden eine GlaubenstfJr
289
open for them, faith may come to them, and by faith they become Christians'. God
opened the door of faith and continually brought Gentiles to faith. Prior to this intervention faith was lacking.
.
2. The 'report of the Gentiles' conversion' is followed by the missionaries'

report of all that God had done with them (bt:o{rJUEv, Acts 15.3f). This note
establishes a causal link between God's activity and these conversions. God
was the active agent. S1B With these summaries and ascriptions Luke prepares for the arguments and conclusions of the Apostolic Council (for the
significance of the summaries ct: our pp. 282f).
3. Paul again relates what God had done among the Gentiles through his
ministry (bro{rfUEv,Acts 21.19): 'Der Bericht steht dabei unter dem Gesichtspunkt, daB im Grunde die ganze Heidenmission Gottes eigenes Werk ist
.. .'.819 If it were merely a matter of providing information to the Gentiles
rather than of their actual salvation, God's activity would be limited to providing this information and need not have been emphasised so much.
1brough this threefold use of EltOLT](JEV God is portrayed as having
worked among the Gentiles in a manner recalling his creation (ct: EltOLT]O'EV
{}EO~ in Gen 1.1,7,16,21,25,27). Other Lukan occurrences of God and
ltOLetV refer to the creation (Acts 4.24; 7.50; 14.15; 17.24,26)820 or to significant events of salvation history (2.22,36).
3.3.2.2.5. Acts' I5.8f, 14, 17
The account of the Jerusalem council is an obvious place to look for references to God's initiative and activity in the Gentiles' salvation as both establish the legitimacy of the Gentile mission. We shall return to Luke's
stress on divine activity and the Lukan purpose in a separate section
(Ill.3.3.2.3. ).
1. Acts 15.8f hints at God's activity in the Gentiles' salvation: God gave them the holy
Spirit and cleansed their hearts by faith (see 1Il.3.2.2.6.). The gift of the Spirit to Gentiles
does in itself not indicate whether God was active in their appropriation of salvation, e.g.
by stirring their faith. God could also bestow this gift in response to human activity. Luke
does not indicate the relationship between reception of the Spirit, faith and cleansing.
When God cleansed their hearts (his action or reaction?) is not indicated. One might
... indem er ihnen die Moglichkeit schenkt, gla.ubig zu werden. Bedeutet die Offnung der
Tilr, von Gott gesagt, Gewiibrung seiner Gnade .. .'; ct nos.16,18.
BI8 Cf. Rackham, 237; Zmijewski, 564.
819 Zmijewski, 766.
820 Cf. Barrett 1,244; Zmijewski, 227; cf. H. Braun, ThWNT VI, (456-83) 457.48-458.52
for the LXX occurrences refering to God's creative activity (similar NT usage pp. 460.49461.46). Acts 15.12 and 19.11 mention the signs and miracles that God ibtolT]OEV/btolEL
among the Gentiles.
2S1U
Ill. 77,e Gentile encounter with salvation
gather from the Gentiles' state, namely lacking this Spirit and with hearts needing purification, that the Gentiles were unlikely to believe apart from the gracious intervention of
the Lord Jesus (15.11).
2. God looked favourably on the Gentiles and took from among them a
people for his name (Acts 15.14, EllEOxlhj)(l'tO A.U~Ei:V ES E-&vOW). Brown
comments on the background of this claim:
The ancient formula describing Israel, 'a chosen people out of all the nations (Eihrrj:
Deut 14.2; Exod 19.5)';has been reinterpreted - God has chosen for Himself a new
people out of the nations (IHlv1']), i.e., a people consisting of Gentiles'.811
The first verb describing God's intervention (EllEOXE'l\JUW) implies God's

activity in the Gentile response. Bauer/Aland define this shade of the
word's meaning as 'von der heilbringenden gottlichen Gnadenheimsuchung' .822 God's gracious intervention on behalf of the Jews has been described with the same word: God looked favourably (EJlI::OXE'l\JU'tO) on his
people and redeemed them (Luke 1.68; cf.1.78; 7.16; 19.44).823 Beyer notes
on the occurrence in Acts 15.14: 'dahinter steht der ganze heilsgeschichtliche Inhalt des Wortes EllLOXEll1:0!lClL .. .'.824 The same notion with all its
implications about God's activity and the state of the recipients is now extended to the Gentiles.
Just as God previously chose Abraham and his ancestors (Acts 13.17,
ESEA.ESUW), he now took (A.U~Ei:V) a people out of many nations. Again
Luke uses an expression 'die bewuBt an atl.-judische Wendungen anknupft
.. .'.825 The analogy with God's previous choice ofIsrael suggests that the
Birth, 459 with reference to Dupont, Mar: see also Dahl, People'.
WB, 604.3. They list OT (e.g. Gen 50.24f; Exod 3.16) and Jewish references; cL H. W.
Beyer, Th WNT Il, (595-602) 597.27-598.27 for the LXX usage.
82J Cf. Brown, Birth, 371: 'in biblical Greek it also refers to God's gracious visits, helping His people' and p. 373; Ernst, 75; Fitzmyer, 383: ... denotes God's gracious visitation
of his people, bringing them deliverance of various sorts ... '; Nolland, 86; Schlirmann 1,86:
'heilbringende Gnadenheirnsuchung' and p. 403; Beyer, 601.14-602.1 (on the Lukan usage). In Luke 1.77f btLOKE:n:1:o]laL appears with oo)1:1']'1[a, acpeou; Ct]la'11:LWV and H..eollS
{}Eoii; cL Beyer, 601.22-31. On Luke 19.44 CL Beyer, 603.42-52. Lukan occurrences in the
sense of visit are Acts 7.23; 15.36.
824 P. 601.(32-)37-602.1.
I!2S Weiser, 214. For the theological significance ona]l~civO) ct. WB, 944.lf: 'entnehmen,
auswiihlen'; Id: 'in Empfang nehmen, annehmen' would not be strong enough here. A.
Kretzer, EWNT Il, (829-33) 830 distinguishes between an 'aktive Bereich nehmell, ergreifell' and 'rezeptive Bedeutung annehmen, empfangen'; Luke has the former in mind.
God had commanded Moses to take ().a~E) the Levites from among the Israelites and to
cleanse them (Num 8.6). God took (EA.a~ov) some of Israel's sons to become his prophets (Amos 2.11); cl. G. Delling, Th WNT lV, (5-16) 5.24-7.40.
821
822
291
initiative and activity is God's.826 This unqualified statement is among the

strongest indicators of God's activity in the Gentiles' salvation.
Not all Gentiles were part of this people. God is depicted as taking a certain number of Gentiles from all the Gentiles (e; e{)vwv)827: 'Die bewuBte
Paradoxie von e1; e{)vwv und A.U~Ei:v A.UOV druckt das Uberraschende der
gottIichen Wahl aus'.828 This statement resembles that of Acts 13.48.
3. It is not clear how the statement of Acts 15.14 relates to the following quotation from
Amos 9: after God's restoration of David's tent the Xa1;W.OutoL "twv av{}gwlttllV may
seek the Lord, even all"ta E~ over whom God's name has already been called (15.17;
for conclusions from the second line see III.3.3.2.1. ).829
The context focuses on the significance of God's dealings with Israel and their consequences for the Gentiles rather than on the Gentile response; following God's restoration of Israel, other people(s) may seek him. The following questions are not in view or
answered: a) Are these xa"taAoLrCoL "twv av{}gwTCwv considered able to seek and to find
God? b) Is their seeking related to God's intervention beyond Israel in their case also? Is
God initiating their seeking?8JO c) Will the Gentiles do as they now may and actually seek
God?8J1 d) Were the Gentiles seeking the Lord before the restoration of Israel? How is
their eschatological seeking related to the unfulfilled human purpose l;ll"tELV "tov {}EOV
(Acts 17.27)?
3.3.2.2.6. Act\" 16.14

1. God opened Lydia's heart to listen eagerly to the Christian message (cf.
III.2.2.10.1.). This 'divine opening' preceded her faith in the Lord. Though
826 Though not explicitly mentioned, it is presupposed that God's taking implies the
salvation of this people and his attainment of it. It is not stated that this people is taken
to fuUil a particular purpose; cf. I1I.3.3.2.2.3.2., III.3.3.2.2.3.5.2., Eph 1.14.
827 In Acts 6.3 El"CLaxE:rc"tofLaL means to select. Should this nuance be present in 15.14
rather than the one suggested above, God's choice would be emphasised. He selected by
taking.
828 Schneider II,182.
829 In view of Amos' parallelism it is difficult to assess the relation between xa"taAoLTCoL
"twv av{}gwTCwv and"ta E~. Is it simply synonymous variation or are Gentile individuals possibly contrasted with the nations who were as a whole under divine claim? For the
OT background see Zahn, 516-22. Weiser, 214: 'wobei noch gesagt ist, daB Gott selbst
dies bewirke' is incorrect, God rather makes this known: TCOIWV mvm yvwOTa. Richard,
'Purpose', 201 observes that in beginning the quotation with f.lE"ta "taii"ta civamgE"ljJw
Luke not only expresses 'God's presence among the Jews, but he also highlights the numerous contacts of God with the nations: God did not leave himself without witness
(14.17); the Gentiles expect or imagine that the gods visit them (14.11); God visits the
Gentiles to acquire a people (15.14); and, finally, he is not far from the nations of humanity (17.27),. Acts 14.11 should be omitted, as its context does not warrant this positive assessment.
BlOThe stress on God's activity in Acts 15.16 (aVa(J1:gE"ljJW, avoLxoliof.l~aw 2x, avog{}waw) could suggest such involvement.
831 The encounters in Acts point in a different direction: except for individual Godfearers, it is nowhere suggested that Gentiles actively sought the true God.
292
not directly credited with the response to that message, God is shown as active in ensuring that the proclamation penetrates. He is active in and alongside the proclamation. He 'makes human hearts receptive to His Gospel;
apart from His act the preaching of Paul would have consisted of ineffective words'.832 Once a heart is thus opened, response in faith follows.
Though Luke might mention only Lydia's conversion because of her role as hostess of
the missionaries813 , in view of his other notes of response to the proclamation, this singular response and absence of further conversions is noteworthy. According to this record
the other God-fearers did not become Christians. Does this observation indicate that response to the proclamation is linked to God's act of opening: 'Lukas deutet auf diese
Weise zugleich an, weshalb nur Lydia und nicht auch die anderen erwahnten Frauen zum
"Glauben an den Herrn" kam'?'JoI
2. Some of Luke's so called Wachstumsnotizen ascribe power and efficacy

to the word (ct. III.3.2.1.3.2., III.3.2.2.2.): the word of God continued to
grow (TjUsavEv) and the number of the disciples increased greatly (En;A.Tj{hJVE"tO, Acts 6.7);835 6 BE Myo; mu aEOU TjusavEv xat En;A.TjauvE"tO
(12.24; cf. 13.49, ' ... the word of God increased in effectiveness and in effect,
so that the number of believers multiplied'836); the word of the Lord grew
(TjuSavEv) and prevailed (19.20).837
The 'word' grows, gains adherents and prevails. 838 Though Luke ascribes
such dynamic to the Christian proclamation, it does so only as 6 Myor;; "tou
itEOU which cannot be separated from its author. Whatever the word accomplished, it did so as the word of God. God works through this proclamation; it does not automatically work on its own., It becomes powerful
proclamation through God's intervention (16.14!) and causes some to respond, others hear it in vain (ct Luke 8.10; Acts 28.26f), while from others it
is removed (Luke 8.12; cf. III.2.2.6.2.2.). In conjunction with God's intervention the message leads to salvation. Gentiles need more than informa-
832 Marsh all, Power, 94.

8l1Neither her later hospitality nor a different task or purpose is mentioned in connection with God's action. God intervened to procure her salvation, not to commission
her to a particular task.
834 Weiser, 241; similarly Taeger, Mensch, 214. This impinges on Marshall's observation
that Lydia was already a worshipper of God (Power, 94).
83S Says Barrett 1,316: 'The word of God ... had continually increasing influence and
effect. It was responsible for the increasing number of disciples'. The church had peace,
was built up (otKol\oIlO'UfLEV.,,) and increased (Ell)..,,%VE'tO, 9.31). On this and Acts 165
see Dupont, Discours, 258-60.
836 Barrett I, 595.
837 Cf. Weiser, 297; Dupont, Discours, 243.
838 cr. Zmijewski, 474f; Marz, Wort, 8-28. Miirz categorises these occurrences of
the word as hypostasierte, progressive, wirkmiichtige, soteriologische and pneumatische
GrOpe.
3. The stall!: and salvation of Gentiles prior 10 faith
293
tion if they are to be saved. In the process of salvation something more than
the mere imparting of information takes place.839
3.3.2.2.7. Acts 18.10
Paul was not to be afraid but to speak, for God was with him; no one would
lay a hand on him to harm him for there are many people in Corinth who
were Gods people. Marshall comments:
The 'many people' are usually and rightly regarded as people who would form Paul's
field for evangelism and not as the many who had already believed (Acts 18.8). Hence
the forces of evil would not prevent Paul from accomplishing the work given to him
by GOd.840
839 A further reference contributes to an understanding of Luke's view of divine activity in the Gentiles' salvation. From among the audience in Thessalonica's synagogue,
many of the devout Greeks were persuaded and nQooexk1]Qu)"lnloav t!{l naukqJ, Acts
17.4. nQoaxk1]Q60l can either be taken in the middle sense, i.e. 'they cast their lot with
Paul and SiIas' (Rackham, 295; NRSV: 'joined'; cf. also W. Foerster, ThWNT Ill, (757-86)
765.1-8) or in the passive sense, i.e. 'they were assigned by lot, i.e. by the divine will, to
Paul; or they were allotted to him, i.e. assigned to him as his lot', Rackham, 295. For the
passive LSJ, 1517 give both options 'to be assigned to, to be attached to' (suggested for
Acts 17.4). Thus Pesch n, 122 notes:' ... nur "einige unter ihnen" lassen sich i1berzeugen
und werden (von Gott) Paulus und Silas als Anhllnger geschenkt' (so also Zmijewski,
622; Schneider n, 224, n. 23; de Wette, 133; Meyer, 307; Holtzmann, 389). Pesch rightly
sees the primary reference to the Jews mentioned previously, but the verbs of v. 4a also
apply to the Gentiles mentioned in v. 4b. Apoc. Abr. 31.8 offers an interesting negative
parallel: (the Gentiles) 'glorified an alien god. And they joined one to whom they had not
been allotted, and they abandoned the Lord .. .', OTP I, 705.
Taeger, Mensch, 152 advocates 'sie schlossen sich an' and refers to Acts 17.34. Yet the
fact that this idea is expressed (XoU1]~Evte~ aut!{l e1tLat1!oav) through the verb
xokA.O:Ol does not indicate the same meaning for Acts 17.4. KOUo:Ol occurs three times in
Acts (5.13; 9.26; 17.34; c[ Luke 15.15) in the meaning 'to join the Christian cause'. Had
Luke merely wanted to express this notion in Acts 17.4, why would he have refrained
from reusing XOUo:Ol and resorted to a different word, occurring nowhere else in the
NT? While Luke's predilection for using synonyms is well known (c[ e.g. the contributions of G.Mussies in FilNT 4,1991,165-82 and FiINT 8,1995,23-62), it needs to be noted
that in its passive meaning nQoaxk1]Q60l is not synonymous with XOUO:Ol.
After the unusual events at PhiIippi and once Paul was able to resume his usual synagogue ministry in Europe, Luke could well be re-expressing the thought of Acts 13.48.
Only those thus assigned (by God) were persuaded by the proclamation (tLVe~ E; autwv
End~oav, 17.4) others were not. No (other) explanation is given why some responded
and others did not.
840 Power, 94f; c[ Marshall, Acts, 296; DahI, 'People', 326: 'many who will become Christians'. Against this proposal it is possible to link the reference to God's ka6t; Eatl flOL
nok-ut; to v. 8 (c[ 15.14). Previously Paul tried to reach Jews and Greeks in the synagogue
(18.4). After opposition arose, Paul left. Many of the Corinthians who heard Paul became
believers and were baptized. V. lOb does not occur in a context indicating the results or
promising further success of the proclamation, but following rejection; because God has
many people in the city (c'lL6tL ka6~ EatL flOL ... ), no one will lay a hand on Paul or harm
294
Ill. lhe Gentile encounter with salvation
The comment indicates God's foreknowledge of the conversion of more

people.841 God will keep Paul safe until his ministry is completed. Luke's
reference to God's Corinthian Aa6~ nOAu~ does not contribute to our question, as God's foreknowledge of these conversions does not necessarily imply his activity.
3.3.2.2.8. Acts 18.27
Apollos was able to greatly help those who through grace had become believers (nemcrtElJXOOLV bUl 'tfj~ xaQL'to~; ct III.3.3.2.2.11. on the grace of
God). Marshall points out that 'these words show that faith in God is due to
the grace of God. They may be linked with Acts 16.14 in proving that salvation is always due to the work of God'.842
This interpretation of the phrase has been challenged.
a) According to Schneider,
Die SchluBwendung 'durch die Gnade (Gottes), ... ist wo hI nicht auf :reemm:wKouLV
zu beziehen, sondern auf (1IJve~ake'to :reok':'. Der Beitrag des Apollos in Korinth wird
im folgenden Vers naher beschrieben.3
This construction of the phrase to mean 'to help through grace those who had believed',
is also adopted by Weiser, 283: 'AJs eine Hilfe "durch die Gnade" kann dies deshalb
bezeichnet werden, weil im Verk!lndigungswort Jesu ... und seiner Boten (143;20.24,32)
Gottes Heilszuwendung gegen!lber den Menschen geschieht'. Yet in Acts 143 this Heilszuwendung is spelt out as 'tqi kOylp 'tfj~ xaQL'to~. In 20.24 it is referred to as 'to e-uaYYeALOV
him. Because a considerable number of Corinthians became Christians (and the Jewish
synagogue was sufficiently weakened and had lost credibility through the apostasy of
their leader Crispus with all his household) the usual resistance to the Christian mission
arising from Jewish quarters would not appear. The proximity of the new meeting venue
(18.7) to the synagogue (in addition to the fact that the Christian meeting contained former Jewish members) would not foster Gentile appreciation that the ways had parted
and thus would not help the Jews in rallying Gentile support for their case. Because of
this Paul could stay for the unusually long period of 18 months and teach the word of
God without hindrance (18.11). Such unhindered ministry increased the number of disciples (cf. 931; 12.24; 16.5; Dupont, Discours, 258-60). This relation of v. 9 to v. 8 is supported by v. 12: When Gallio started his proconsulship, the Jews tried to take advantage
of his recent appointment and lack of knowledge of previous events and the local situation. This way ka6~ does not refer to non-Christians, which would be unusual; cf. Marshall, Acts, 296. In this suggestion the verse does not mean: 'So because the Lord had
much people, therefore the apostle was not to be silent, but to speak all the more', but
'Because the Lord had much people the apostle could speak all the more'.
84! Less strong Marshall, Power, 95: 'Divine foreknowledge of the situation is thus indicated .. .'. Rackham, 327 sees the statement as confirmation of'S. Luke's emphasis upon
the prevenient choice of God'.
842 Marshal!, Power, 95 (italics mine); cf. Nolland, 'Use', 617f. A particular task or purpose for those saved through grace is not mentioned.
843 n, 261; et. nos. 26f. So already Bengel: 'Huic verbo annecle OLU'. This possibility is
also mentioned by Marshal!, Power, 95.
J. The stllIe and salvation of Gentiles prior to faith
295
"tfjc; XclQL"tOC; "toii itEoii, neither does it occur on its own in this meaning in 20.32:"t~ AOY<p
"tfjc; xaQL"toc; ai,,;ou. This is also true for Luke 4.22 ("to~ AOYOL' "tijc; XIiQL"tOC;). These combinations elsewhere caution against reading 'helping through the grace', as one would
expect similar indications. The idea here assumed Luke expresses elsewhere directly: e.g.
xat &\JvafLEL IlEyaAn Me&L&o\JV "to llaQTUQLOV (Acts 4.33). This interpretation is also unlikely as grace is a divine instrument, while Apollos is the subject of the sentence.
b) Pesch takes &La "tfjc; xaQL"toc; to mean 'durch seine besondere "Gnadengabe" (vg!.
6.8). Denn er war in der Lage, "energisch" ... die Juden zu widerlegen' .... This information would be unnecessary in 18.27, as the following verse comments on the nature of
Apollos' help. Though Stephen is described as l"tA1\QT]C; xaQL"toc; Kat &\JvaIlEOlC; (6.8), what
he had in common with Apollos, namely his skill in arguing with Jews, is not credited to
this xaQLC; but to "tfi aocpLI:lXut"t<P l"tVEullatt (6.10; cf. 7.55). Neither does this grace occur
in Luke 21.15. An effective sermon is usually explained with reference to the fullness of
the Spirit, not as a gift of grace (ct.l"tAT]aiteLc; l"tVEulla"toc; UYLO\J, Acts 4.8,31; 13.9). Pesch's
suggestion is expressed differently in 7.10: f1)OlKEV avt~ XclQtv Kat aocpLuv. That Apollos
was able to speak boldly (l"taQQT]ma~EaitaL, 18.26) is explained by Luke without reference to a divine gift (18.24-26): he was eloquent, well-versed in Scripture, had been instructed in the Way of the Lord, was able to speak with burning enthusiasm and teach accurately. These prerequisites were completed by the more accurate instruction he received.
IIL3.3.2.2.9. Acts 20.28
God obtained (JtEQlJtOL~aaLO) the church with the blood of his own (Son).
Our concern is not with the latter part of this statement but with the
verb. 845 God actively did something for people which they could not accomplish themselves. They are characterised as passive: they were acquired_846
... II,162, following Haenchen. Similarly Rackham, 344: 'Through the grace given unto
him, manifested especially in "the word of wisdom and the word of knowledge'" and
Bauernfeind,227 'sehr f6rderlich durch seine Gnadengabe'. According to Bruce, 404
'The position [of &ui "tfjc; XaQLtOC;] may favor the former construction [with believe],
while the latter makes better sense'. Why 'people believing through grace' should not
make good sense is not clear.
84S Cf. Barrett, 'Theologia'; Lohfink, Samm/ung, 85-92; Bruce, 434 with reference to
COnZelmann, Mitte, 187f, 215 and Aposte/geschichte, 128; Moule, 'Christology', 171;
Rolof!, 306; Bock, Proclamation, 338, n. 204 and p. 355, n. 107; Lohse, Martyrer, 187-191.
Cf. the similar thought expressed by the Ninevites in the pseudo-Philonic sermon De
Iona (Siegert, Predigten): 'Es ware ja ganz und gar ungereimt, wenn ein Mensch, der
einen Sklaven urn Geld gekauft hat, zwar den Anspruch auf dessen korperliche Dienste
beslU3e, wir aber, aus dem Tod ins Leben zurUckgekauft, uns nicht mit ganzer Seele unserem Kaufer hingeben wUrden' (154). Siegert's conclusion ('Heiden',57) also applies to
Lukan soteriology: 'Das Erstaunliche ist hierbei, daB der Herr des Sklaven - in der
Sachhalfte also Gott - den Kaufpreis bezahJt! Der Preis kann also nicht in den BujJ/eistungen der Niniviten liegen; er besteht vielmehr ... in Gottes unverdientem Verzeihen'
(italics mine; ct. discussion in 1II.2.2.4.3.3.).
846 Bruce's note (434) that 'The word group :n:EQlJtotiollat Il"tEQIJtOLT]OLC; has a well-recognized significance in LXX in relation to God's election of Israel' is hardly justifiable
in the light of the few relevant references (Isa 31.5; 43.21; Mal 3.17; cf. 2 Macc 3.35); ct.
296
Only God was in a position to pay this price and he did SO.847 Though this
statement concerns the atonement, this description of salvation points to
divine activity in the appropriation of salvation.
3.3.2.2.10. Divine gifts
The 'gift of repentance' in Acts 11.18 indicated a close link between a divine gift (El)wxEV) and the Gentiles' salvation (cf. III.2.2.4.3.3.). We argued,
against Conzelmann, that repentance should be understood as a Heilsgut,
not as the mere provision of an opportunity for repentance. Our preceding
argument is strengthened when this remark is set in the wider Lukan picture of divine gifts. 848 This picture casts further light on the nature of the
Gentiles' appropriation of salvation.
1. Prior to and apart from any spiritual blessing, God gives to all humanity life and breath
and al1 things (Acts 17.25), he gives rain from heaven and fruitful seasons (14.17). People
owe their very existence to God and for sustenance they are continually dependent on
God's gifts.a< That this dependency would also apply to spiritual blessings is not implausible.
2. The privileges of the Jews are also introduced with 6t60ll.u: God gave Abraham his inheritance and a covenant (Acts 7.5,8) and gave Joseph favour and wisdom (7.10). God intended to give salvation through Moses (7.25; 6t60l0LV OOl'tTIQtav alJ'tO~). Moses received
the living words (of the Law) from God to give them to Israel (7.38). God gave judges to
Israel and gave them a king (13.20f). God was to give that Israel might serve him without
fear, and to give them knowledge of salvation by the forgiveness of their sins (Luke
1.73,77). The present generation will be given the sign of Jo~ah (11.29). That gifts of a
similar nature would also apply to the Gentiles is not implausible.
3. The disciples are the recipients or potential recipients par excellence of divine gifts:
God gives to those who give themselves or ask (Luke 6.38; 11.9). It was given by God to
the disciples, alluding 'to the gracious election of his disciples by the Father'B50, to know
the secrets of the kingdom of God as mere recipients of divine favour, 8.10. Luke 10.2lf
with their emphasis on revelation (c'l1tExQ'U'/la~ ... a:7texci)..'U'/la~ a,rtCl VT]:7ttoL~) and renunciation of human oo<pia and O1ivOL~ develop this thought; cf. III33.2.2.1. In contrast,
Jesus spoke to others in parables so that they would not perceive and understand. At-
Schnackenburg's more detailed exposition of the OT background, 'Episkopos', 252f,

257f. Cf. also Spicq Ill, 100-102.
847 Cf. Weiser, 322f; Schneider n, 297, n. 48. Meyer, 368 explicates; ' ... von der Herrschaft des Teufels erlBst und zu Erben seines ewigen Heils gemacht hat'. Though it is implied that the members of the church were formerly not in God's possession, this idea is
not developed by Luke; ct TItus 2.14; 1 Pet 2.9; Aao~ E~ :7tQL:7tOL~OLV .. , EX ox6't0'U~ UfLli~;
ct Acts 26.18. Acquisition for a particular task or purpose is not mentioned.
848 Cf. Luke 1.73,77; 6.38; 8.18; 9.1; 10.19; 11.9,13,29; 12.32,48; 19.26; 21.15; 22.1; Acts
2.4,19,27;4.12,29; 75,8,10,25,38; 8.18; 10.40; 1320f,43; 14.3,17; 15.8; 17.25; 20.32.
849 The ALfL6~ of Luke 4.25; 15.141 and Acts 11.28 are reminders of this.
850 Fitzmyer, 707.
3. The slate and salvation of Gentiles prior 10 failh
297
tempts to perceive and understand will be futile apart from divine MaL~. Perception and
understanding are divine gifts.
Those who already have, will be given more (Luke 8.18; 1926). Jesus gave the twelve
power and authority (9.1; 10.19). The Spirit will be given to those who ask (11.13). It is
God's good pleasure to give them the kingdom (12.32). The disciples will be given words
and wisdom (21.15). The Spirit gave the disciples ability to speak in other languages
(Acts 2.4)."51 The Spirit was given to Jewish and Gentile believers (8.18; 15.8; &wQea in
2.38; 8.20; 10.45; 11.17: &WQEUV Mwxev). God gave the risen Jesus to appear to the chosen
witnesses (10.40). God gave signs and wonders to be performed by the missionaries
(14.3). Though not all divine gifts to the Jews or the disciples pertain to salvation (cf. the
previous observations on election to salvation andlor to a particular task), it is not implausible that this emphasis and nature of gifts would also apply to the spiritual blessings
of the Gentiles.
A divine gift and universal salvation (uno 1:0V OUQuvov) are linked again in
Acts 4.12 (ct. III.3.2.3.).ss2 Only the name of Jesus is given (-to 6E6oIlEVOV)
'as an instrument of salvation' by which people must be saved.ss3
If all people are portrayed as completely dependent on God's material
gifts, it is not surprising that they shOUld also be dependent on him in the
spiritual realm. The Jewish privileges past and present consisted in divine
gifts. The exalted Jesus is to give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel
(Acts 5.31). In these gifts God acted on Israel's behalf. Similarly the disciples' existence is one originated and sustained by divine gifts.
This veritable 'theology of divine gifts'854 is further support that God
gave the Gentiles the repentance leading to life as a Heilsgut, not as a mere
opportunity_ The other references to divine gifts do not imply the mere provision of opportunity to appropriate the mentioned gift or something other
than the gift itself
God's gifts to the Gentiles accord with Luke's references to the many
other things which people need to be given: God also gave the Gentiles the
holy Spirit (Acts 15.8). Only God and the message of his grace was able to
give to Gentiles an inheritance (60UVUL 1:~V XATjQovoll(uV) among all who
851 It was God's gift that his Holy One did not see corruption, Acts 2.27. Apart from
this gift, he would have experienced the normal fate.
852 Cf. Luke 1.77: God gives knowledge, i.t!. experience of salvation to his people.
853 Barrett I, 232f; for "to &e&Of.LEvOv cf. BDR 412.4. Other than the implication of the
passive form UW-6fjVUL nothing is indicated about the appropriation of this gift.
854 Cf. also the occurrences of XUQttofLuL, Luke 7.21,42f; Acts 3.14; 27.24; cf. W. Popkes,
EWNT I, (771-76) 773.3 for the semantic field, see also cols. 773-75. On Luke Popkes concludes: 'Lukas zeigt llber den gemein-synopt. Gebiauch hinaus eine Vorliebe fUr &EL-Formulierungen. VieIleicht imitiert er LXX-StH, sicher aber betont er den Gabecharakter
des Handelns Gottes ... ' (col. 775). For parallels with John's Gospel in the question ofdivine gifts and activity in salvation compare the discussion in Schnelle, Anlhropologie,
148-51; Popkes, 775f.
298
111. The Gentile ellcoutLIer wtlh salvatwfL
are sanctified (20.32855 ),just as only God was able to give Abraham an inheritance (el\{J)xEv Ilui:cp XA.T]QOVOIlLIlV, 7.5). God's various and generous
gifts form the background to and indicate his activity also in the Gentile appropriation of salvation which is stated explicitly elsewhere. His gift of repentance that leads to eternal life is but his greatest gift to Gentiles prior to
faith.
3.3.2.2.11. The grace of God
Luke's references to the grace of God also suggest its significance and his
involvement in the Gentiles' salvation.856
1. The grace of God was at work in the numerous conversions in Antioch (Acts 11.23).
Salvation is ascribed to God's grace: ' ... it is described not in human terms but as the
grace of God. It was this that caused the conversion of the Hellenists'.tlS7
2. Believers were to continue in the grace of God (:n:QOOfJiVELV, Acts 13.43) what they began through his grace.sss Continuation in grace presupposes that they started through
this grace.sS!> God's grace was involved in conversion.
3. The missionaries were commended to the grace of God (Acts 14.26; 15.40).s60 Barrett
sees here a 'particular reference to the protective care of God who watches over his people and especially over his missionaries'.'61 Beyond such travelling mercies - a picture severely marred by the events at Lystra reported only seven verses previously (14.19) - this
note possibly expresses the fact that the success of the mission is dependent on this grace,
and not on the human qualification of the missionaries or the receptivity of the audience.
4. Jews and Gentiles will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus (Acts 15.11). Salvation is independent of human merit (keeping the law; ef. 15.10f).862 Gentiles cannot
contribute to this salvation. This gracious salvation is summarised later in the claim that
sss Dupont, Discours, 261-84 delineates the close relation between the inheritance and
its nature as divine gift.
856 Barrett I, 691 observes that XUQu; 'nowhere in Acts receives a precise theological
meaning' and discusses some of the shades of meaning present. Cf. No\land, 'Use', who
interacts with Taeger, Mensch.
SS7 Barrett 1,552. The response is also ascribed to the presence of the hand of the Lord
(Acts 11.21). Many people were brought to the Lord, 11.24; cf. III.3.3.2.2.2.
858 Bauernfeind, 178 speaks of 'die Mahnung zum Ausharren im erlangten Gnadenstand'; cf. Schneider Il, 142, n. 145. Acts 13.38f mention forgiveness of sin and justification, both of which people could not attain themselves but had to be granted.
859 Perseverance is dependent on God's grace; cf. IV.3.3.3. Luke does not indicate
whether these believers were predestined to continue in the faith.The predestination of
Acts 13.48 does not exclude the need for perseverance; cf. 111.3.3.2.2.3.1.
860 Cf. Dupont, DiscoUTS, 236-45.
861J,691.
862 Bruce, 337 combines :n:LCTtEVOflEV oOJ~VaL with an epexegetic infinitive, 'i.e. we are
saved by faith'; cf. NoUand, 'Use', 618[ See also the discussion and examples for the combination of :rtLCTtEVOJ and ow~oflaL in BC IV, 174.
3. 1 he SCale and saivallon of Gentiles prior to faith
299
God looked graciously upon (bteoluhpm:o) the Gentiles and took from among them a
people (15.14; cf.III.3.3.2.25.2.).
Apollos greatly helped those who by the grace of God became believers (Acts 18.27; cf.
III.3.3.2.2.8.). That salvation is through grace may also suggest God's involvement in its
appropriation.!6:l
5. The Christian message is 'the word of God's grace' (Acts 14.3): ' ... the central thought
is ... of the loving favour of God ... made apparent in the Gospel .. .'.864 Paul testified to
the good news of God's grace (20.24).865 Its content was mentioned previously: repentance before God and faith in our Lord Jesus (20.21). Though the eschatological judge
has already been appointed (10.42; 17.30), God grants to people what they do not deserve and what they cannot procure for themselves. This is proclaimed in the good news
of God's grace. Dupont concludes concerning this proclamation:
Mais elle fait plus que simplement annoncer cette grace; eUe la communique ~ ceux
qui re~oivent le message avec foi. 11 faut done dire qu'elle contient la grace; eUe en est
comme l'enveloppe. ... la grace divine qui est presente dans le message et opere par
lui. .,. Dieu accorde sa grace aux hommes par I'intermediaire de sa parole, identifiee
par les chretiens avec le message evangelique et avec les evenements du salut qui font
l'object de ce message.... Le message evangelique offre la grace de Dieu et le salut ~
tous ceux qui lui donnent ('adhesion de leur [oi; en ce sens, iI est 'I'evangile de la grace
de Dieu', annon~nt la bonne nouveUe de la grace accordee par Dieu, et procurant
cette grace a ceux qui croient .... iI souligne que Dieu accorde sa grace ... meme aux
'Grecs', appeles par pure misericorde a avoir part au salut. BOO
God's grace and gracious dealings with Gentiles clearly is a Lukan theme.
Without this active grace of God the Gentiles' salvation is unthinkable. The
emphasis on God's grace indicates a corresponding human state. Grace is
linked with the impact of the word and response to it (cf. III.3.3.2.2.6.2.).
The conversion and salvation of Gentiles is ascribed to an outworking of
God's grace. Grace is involved in the Gentile appropriation of salvation.
Nolland demonstrates, against Taeger, that 'Luke's major theological use of
Xa.QL~ is in reference to a tangible divine power ... '; it is 'the power of God
which works conversion in the human heart'.867
863 ct the acute observations of Taeger, Mensch,221 on this verse. Yet Taeger's distinction between 'Ingangsetzung des Heilsgeschehen/grundsatzliche Errnoglichung' and 'individueUe Heilsaneignung' (p. 221, n. 915) is too neat and untenable in view of the above
material: 'Die Ingangsetzung des Heilsgeschehens, an dem die Menschen Anteil erlangen konnen und soUen, ist aUein Gottes souverlines Werk und geht allem menschlichen
Handeln voraus ... , doch darf das nicht dazu verleiten, die Bekehrung als Handeln Gottes am Menschen anzusehen'.
864 Barrett 1,670.
865 Later the Ephesian elders were commended to God and the word of his grace (Acts
20.32), a message able to build up and to give an inheritance among all who are sanctified; ct. IV.3.3.5.; Zmijewski, 745f.
866 Dupont, Discours, 243f,105; cc. also Stegemann, 'Licht', 86.
867 'Use', 619 and 614, the later quotation summarising Wilckens' position (Missionsreden, 184, n. 2). Wilckens writes: 'Ein soteriologischer Synergismus ist ftir Lukas
300
3.3.2.2.12. God's activity in the Gentile appropriation of salvation

In different ways and metaphors Luke describes God's active involvement
in the appropriation of his salvation by some Gentiles. It is God who grants
repentance; faith and conversion are also due to the grace or hand of God
at work. Gentiles are brought to the Lord, saved and added by him to the
church. He opened a door of faith for them and worked through the missionaries. He graciously looked upon them and took for himself a people
from the peoples. He opened the hearts of individual Gentiles to understand the proclamation. 1brough His grace and by his gift Gentiles became
believers. Though the meaning and thrust of some of these statements may
be disputed (cf. our above treatment), the bulk of the material indicates
God's involvement in the Gentile appropriation of salvation. With this conclusion we differ from Taeger's conclusions. Before we return to this debate,
two observations are necessary.
1. The consequence of such involvement on behalf of some Gentiles is also
spelt out in Luke's works: on some people God's favour rests; to these is revealed what remains hidden from others. Some Gentiles were destined to
eternal life. To dismiss these statements as pious language or 'traditional',
and thus to diminish their force, does not do justice to an author who shows
great care elsewhere and repeatedly returns to such assertions.
2. What clues to the recipients do these statements of divine activity provide? Luke's indications of divine activity reveal the state of the recipients.
The Gentile recipients need God to do for them what they cannot provide
or attain themselves. They need to receive repentance; their conversion and
faith does not originate with them. Unless God opens their hearts, no response to the proclamation follows. Without divine activity Gentiles remain
in the state they were in prior to faith. This anthropological background to
God's salvation shows the Gentile need, rather than the adequacy of their
natural faculties or their closeness to God.
3. Stating his conclusion, Taeger identifies a surprising Lukan contradiction
in this matter:
Von der ganzen Anlage des lukanischen Werkes her, in Anbetracht der Betonung des
Planes Gottes, der mannigfachen UbernatUrlichen Eingriffe und des unermUdlichen
Einsatzes der Missionare, konnte man erwarten, daB Gott oderfund die Missionare
Christen 'machen'. Dieser Gesichtspunkt tritt nur ganz am Rande auf und steUt an
schlechterdings ausgeschlossen'. He adds in n. 2: ' ... Gott bzw. der erhohte "Herr" es ist,
der uberal\ Bekehrungen bewirkt ... und durch Gnade wird man bekehrt (15.11; 18.27)';
et the criticism of Taeger, Mensch, 221.
301
keiner Stelle den Grundsatz in Frage, daB man aus besserer Einsicht und in freier
Entscheidung Christ wird, nicht zum Christen 'gemacht wird'.''''
In view of this surprise, we need to relate our results to the wider Lukan
picture:
a) Luke's indications of God's activity in the Gentile appropriation of
salvation are not surprising in view of Luke's description of the Gentiles'
state prior to faith. Change of this state requires divine activity. Because of
this connexion the Gentiles' state and their appropriation of salvation are
treated in one subsection (1II.3.).
b) The notes suggesting divine activity and/or election of some Gentiles
agree with the incidents Luke reports: not all the Gentiles to whom the 'opportunity' to become Christians is presented on a particular occasion actually become Christians. Luke rarely gives other explanations for Gentile response or directly accounts for its absence (ct. Acts 24.25f).
Taeger notes:
Wer die Schrift - angeleitet durch den christlichen Missionar - recht versteht, wird
Christ. FreiIich lassen sich nicht aIIe durch eine von der Schrift ausgehende Verktlndigung 'tlberzeugen', wie auch Lukas weiB und vermerkt (vg!. [Acts] 17.2-4; 28.23f).860
Taeger fails to draw conclusions from this last observation. It appears as if

something in addition to the human factors of interest and availability of
information is necessary for response. As not even under the ideal circumstances of Taeger's examples (Jewish audiences, thus shared acceptance of
Scripture) were all convinced, recht verstehen is beyond mere human capacity: not all were able or willing to understand. This observation equally
applies to Gentiles. Gentile response to the proclamation based on Scripture (Acts 14.15-17; 17.22-31) was limited.
Taeger explains this lack of response strictly as a human failure. On the
Athenian episode he concludes: 'An Gatt hat es nicht gelegen, versagt hat
auch nicht Paulus, versagt haben die Horer' .FrlO
SolchermaBen auf seine nattlrlichen MogIichkeiten und seine Entscheidungsfreiheit
verwiesen und dabei behaftet, mull dem Menschen der (Tbertritt zum Christen turn
mit seiner tlberiegenen Moral und der wahren Erkenntnis a1s eine in jeder Hinsicht
einsichtige Sache erscheinen; eigentIich konnen nur Inkonsequenz, BoswiJIigkeit oder
Verstocktheit der Grund sein, wenn Menschen sich dem Christentum verschIieBen.B71
868 Mensch, 221; cf. his discussion of Wilckens, Missionsreden and Conzelmann, Mitle,
22lf, who both argue/allow for divine involvement
869 Mensch, 212. Lack of response also occurred on occasions when proclamation did
not set out from a particular passage of Scripture while some or all of the three other ingredients are p.resent (cf. Acts 24.24-26;26.2-29).
870 Mensch, 222.
871 Men.ch, 227; cf. our further discussion of this quotation in III.3.3.2.4.2.
302
ilL lhe Gentile encounter with salvatIOn
Without denying or denigrating the factors adduced by Taeger, more justice is done to Luke if the failure of many Gentiles is explained as a combination of Taeger's human factors and of superhuman factors (the absence of divine involvement and the presence of Satanic involvement; cf.
III.3.3.2.4.2. ).
Both the Gentiles' state and the actual Gentile encounters with salvation
support and illustrate the above indications of God's activity in the Gentile
appropriation of salvation. Taeger's positive and negative conclusions are
problematic in view of both of them. Before we examine Luke's indications
of the absence of such: divine activity (111.3.3.2.5.), it remains to relate our
results to two further aspects.
3.3.2.3. Two Lukan themes and the indications of divine activity
1. If one of Luke's purposes was to justify the Gentile mission and trace
how Gentiles came to be included as Gentiles among God's people872,
among his finest arguments is the demonstration that this new way of including Gentiles among God's people happened through God's agency. As
a consequence Luke would emphasise divine activity in the Gentiles' salvation, and possibly downplay the Gentiles' own contribution, to stress that it
was not the Gentiles themselves who appropriated God's salvation once
available, but that God saved them, possibly against all odds. 873
2. Luke's emphasis on divine activity is not surprising in view of his stress

elsewhere on the plan of God and God's detailed fumlment of this plan. 874
872 Cf. Maddox, Purpose, 30-90; Buckwalter, Character,Sl-S4, who summarises previous
suggestions in this area as 'A redefinition of relations between Christianity and Judaism';
Dahl, 'Story', 1SH and the studies devoted to Luke's demonstration of the legitimacy of
the Gentile mission and their inclusion into the church as Gentiles mentioned in 1.2.12.
873 In his discussion of Luke's several strategies of justifying the Gentile mission, WiIson, Gentiles, 242 notes the strong emphasis on divine activity in the Gentile mission: 'Indeed it could be claimed, with some justification, that Luke has gone too far and that in
his eagerness to emphasise the role of God he has reduced the human participants to
mere puppets'.
To some extent Luke's portrait of the Jews could serve as a control. Does the same relation between divine and human activity in the appropriation of salvation surface with
the Jews? Do Jews appear more active in their appropriation of God's salvation? Such
considerations would need to bear in mind that the Jews start from a different point of
departure and how and whether that affects their response and appropriation (111.3.3.
2.2.3.5.2.,111.3.3.2.2.10.2.). Jervell, Theology, 30-34 demonstrates how Luke's emphasis
on God's activity has influenced his christological presentation. His analysis also applies
to Luke's soteriology and, indirectly, to anthropology.
874 Cf. the study of Squires and others in 1.2.1.2.1. W. Popkes, EWNT I, (668-71) 670 delineates the particular scope of the Lukan concept: 'Lukas weitet das c'ieL systematisch
auf die ganze Heilsgeschichte aus.... Gottes Plan pragt sowohl ganze Lebensschicksale
303
That such a plan would include the election of specific Gentiles for salvation and God's activity in bringing this about is not implausible. The plan of
God in the past consisted of electing one Gentile, Abraham and one nation
from among the nations (Luke 3.23-38?; Acts 7.2; 13.17875) and God himself
actively wrought the fulfilment of his purposes.876
Luke's indications of God's activity in the Gentile appropriation of salvation reflect and agree with both of these Lukan concerns, while Taeger's
depreciation or denial of such intervention and his exclusively human emphasis is problematic.
3.3.2.4. The devil and the Gentile appropriation o/salvation

Luke's indications of God's activity in the Gentile appropriation of salvation
are also corroborated by Luke's general remarks about Satan's influence
over Gentiles (1.) and by the incidents in which Luke indicates his influence
over the Gentiles or attempts to prevent their appropriation of salvation (2.).
1. The Gentile encounters with salvation appear between the statements in
Luke 4.5f and Acts 26.18: 877 Gentiles live in blindness and darkness under
Satan's dominion and authority. Their state and his dominion over them are
linked. Luke mentions Gentiles who were manifestly under his power.
Other Gentiles, not perceptibly affected themselves, were unable to help
them. Gentiles were not on neutral ground prior to faith. On their own they
were unable and have failed to overcome this bondage. Any response of
Gentiles and whatever credit might be given to them is dependent on the
prior removal of the demonic dominion over them (cf. Acts 26.18). Satan's
dominion and their corresponding state point to and demand the necessity
of divine intervention and activity in their salvation (cf. Luke 11.2lf).
... als auch Einzelbegebenheiten .. .'; cf. also col. 669.2. Cf. also Siegert's conclusion of an
analogous theology in the pseudo-Philonic sermons De Iona and De Sampsone (Kommentar, 299): 'Es steht fIIr unsere Texte auBer Frage, daB sich diese Vorsehung auch urn
Kleines und Einzelnes kllrnrnert, urn Handlungen und Ergehen einzelner Menschen. Die
Bibelparaphrasen im ganzen sind dazu die Illustration'; cf. also p.300.
875 Cf. III.3.3.2.2.3.5.1., Barrett 1,337-40,631: 'The relation between God and people results from an act of election on God's part. This is put into effect in an act of salvation';
Zahn, 248-51; Zrnijewski, 312-14,502f; Dabl, 'Story'; Wieser, Abrahamsvorstellungen, 98112.
876 Divine causation in the Gentile mission and conversion is posited by Jervell, Theology, 2It, 30-34 in the wider theme of the importance of God's activity for the purpose of
Acts.
877 Cf. our previous discussion and conclusions in III.2.2.17.2. and IH.3.2.1.2.3.
304
The descriptions of God's intervention also suggest its necessity and nature ab extra. Through the ministry of Jesus and of his emissaries, people
were liberated from demonic bondage.
2. At two key junctures of Luke's report of the Gentile encounter with salvation Satan's dominion over Gentiles is shown to express itself in resistance to the 'liberation front' of the Christian mission; et. ill.2.2.17.2.3.2.3.
Attempts to prevent conversion are associated with Satan (Acts 13.8-11).
Neutralising re-interpretation of the Christian proclamation is ascribed to
one of his agents (16.16-18).
Acts 13.8-11 belongs to the first event of the first missionary journey which is recorded at
some length while the previous synagogue ministry on Cyprus is passed over (cf. also
III.2.2.6.2.1.). Acts 16.16-18 belongs to the report of events at the first stop in Europe to
where the missionaries had been directed (see III.2.2.10.1-2.).87B The eminent position of
these events and their agreement with the wider picture from point 1 suggest that they
are not negligible as isolated or solitary. Both incidents also indicate that Satan cannot
uphold his dominion any longer against the divinely originated and empowered mission.
Once these parameters are set, Satan's attempted interference is not explicitly and consistently mentioned in other encounters of Gentiles with
salvation. 879
Taeger does not take seriously enough the implications of these references to the devil's
influence on the appropriation of salvation and the wider Lukan estimate of the devil.
Though noting: 'DaB es nicht zum Christwerden kommt, gehilrt zu dem Abgrtlndigen (1),
das auch sonst mit dem Satanffeufel in Verbindung gebrllcht wird',880 Taeger fails to
draw from this insight the conclusion of supernatural involvement in the Gentiles' salvation, when he sums up:' ... eigentlich kilnnen nur Inkonsequenz, Bilswilligkeit oder Verstockung der Grund sein, wenn Menschen sich dem Christentum verschlieBen' .881 Taeger
does not discuss the nature or origin of such Verstockung further.88z For Luke the devil is
much more than a convenient cypher for whatever is das Abgriindige.
878 Also when Jesus was to start his ministry of salvation (ct Luke 19.10), Satan, in an
effort to uphold his dominion, tried to lure him into betraying his call (4.5-8). His attempts at resistance follow from the disastrous consequences of the mission: Satan has
his position of power and eminence to lose (10.18; cf. Fitzmyer, 861-63).
879 Gentile opposition to and persecution of the missionaries are not explicitly attributed to Satanic efforts to thwart the mission. The cause-effect relation identified for Judas' procedure against Jesus (Luke 22.3f; c[ 22.31,53, 111.3.2.1.2.2.3.2., Nolland, 1029f)
may also be implied in actions directed against the mission. Fitzmyer,1375 suggests that
the mention of money in Luke 22.5 'specifies the Satanic element in the evil that Judas
does'. Likewise, genuinely Gentile resistance arose for material concerns.
880 Mensch, 227, n. 936 with reference to pp. 76, 79.
881 Mensch, 227; ct 1II.3.3.2.2.12.3.b.
882 Cf. Acts 7.51!; 19.9. On 7.51 Barrett 1,376 observes: 'Stephen claims that his hearers
are, as their ancestors have been, stubborn and disobedient, as good as (uncircumcised)
heathen, not in their flesh but in readiness to hear and accept God's word' (italics mine);
similarly Rius-Camps, 189: 'paganos por su mentalidad y de reacios en escuchar'. The link
305
3.3.2.5. Absence of divine activity?
Despite these recurring indications and their close relation to other Lukan
themes, Luke also reports conversions of Gentiles where God's activity in
the appropriation of salvation is not specifically indicated (ct. Acts
8.6,12,34-38; 10.44?; 13.12; 14.1,9? ,21; 16.30-34; 17.4,12,34; 18.8; 19.17-20).883
Statements which attribute human conversion to some kind of divine causation are not made consistently.
While Luke misses further opportunities to bring this point home, such
activity is mentioned at important junctures of the narrative (compare our
observations in m.2.2.; e.g. at Antioch, Pisidian Antioch, Philippi; ct.
III.3.3.2.4.2.) and when the salvation of Gentiles is addressed or discussed
systematically.884 What is said in different ways for these occasions can
probably be assumed when not directly mentioned. Elsewhere repetition is
not necessary. Thus we affirm the conclusions of KiiIIing, which we quoted
at the beginning of this section. We return to this issue in III.3.3.3.4.
3.3.3. The Gentiles' activity in the appropriation of salvation
From the indications of divine and Satanic activity in the Gentile appropriation of salvation a picture emerges of people held in sin and unbeIief by
powers beyond their control and unable to change their plight. Some of
them are brought to faith and salvation again by a power or choice beyond
their control. Gentiles do not seem to be aware of these powers. Yet Luke
also has statements about Gentile sins etc. which indicate the Gentiles' responsibility for sin and what they must do about it in order to be saved.
between lack of circumcision and Gentiles is explicit in Jer 9.26 (:n:avta "ta i1&vrt
WtEQL"t\l:rp;a aaQxl, xaL 1td,; otxo,; 'IaQar,)" a:n:EQlT:wrrOL "Q(!t5La,; aiJ"twv) and Ezek 44.6f:
u[o,),; WJ,.oyEVe~ a:n:EQLT:llliT:ov,; "Q(!0l~ xat WtEQL"tfJ.TrtOu,; aaQxt wu yLvEO"fraL Ev "to~
ayLoL,; fJ.ou; cf. Lev 26.41; Deut 10.16; Jer 4.4.
883 This list consists of the following groups and occasions: Acts 8.6,12 (Samaritans);
8.34-38 (God-fearer); 10.44? (God-fearers); 13.12 (Gentile; response to a miracle, emphasis on demonic activity, once this was thwarted Sergius converted!); 14.1 (mixed audience, Jews and Gentiles); 14.9 (unlikely to be a full Christian conversion?); 1421 (summary; too brief for conclusions); 16.30-34 (pure Gentile; response to a miracle); 17.4,12
(mixed audience); 17.34 (pure Gentiles); 18.8 (mixed audience?); 19.17-20 (mixed?).
These observations leave few cases of complete absence of any indication. The question
of a common pattern behind these incidents will be discussed below.
884 In addition to these characteristics these indications have in common that they occur in narrative material or direct speech addressed to Christians (e.xc. IlI.33.2.2.1.).
They do not occur in direct addresses of non-Christian audiences (cf. III.2.2.4.3.3.6.).
These indications regarding the Gentiles are not linked to election for a particular task
(as often with Jews) which presupposes salvation, but to salvation itself.
306
Uf. The Gentile encounter with salvation
What needs to be done is clearly stated when Gentiles are directly addressed, e.g. to repent and to believe (Acts 14.15; 16.30; 17.30).
Before we consider how the indications of God's activity in the Gentiles'
conversion relate to those of human activity and whether a reconciliation
can be found to this tension, we need to ascertain what Luke has to say on
the actual appropriation of salvation by Gentiles. The very fact that there
was a Gentile mission, that God did not simply save a number of Gentiles
(e.g. in the immediate manner in which he saved Paul) but initiated a missionary enterprise that endeavoured to bring the good news to as many
Gentiles as possible, indicates the importance of the Gentiles' response. We
study Luke's notes on the Gentiles' reception and rejection of salvation,
consider the calls to repentance extended to Gentiles and the fact of Godfearing Gentiles.
3.3.3.1. The Gentile appropriation of Gods salvation
1. The Gentile response to salvation is reported in different ways:
a) Most often it is describ~d as believing/coming to faith: the Samaritans and Simon believed (Acts 8.l2f). A great number became believers and turned to the Lord (11.21).
Sergius believed through being astonished at the miracle and the teaching about the
Lord (13.12). A great number of Greeks became believers (14.1). In Beroea many believed (17.12). Some Athenians became believers (17.34). Many in Corinth became believers (18.8). Following the miracle many Ephesians became believers (19.18; cf. 21.25).
b) Gentiles are also said to be 'turning to God' (11.21; 15.19).
c) They joined the missionaries andlor became disciples. The God-fearers of Pisidian
Antioch followed the missionaries (13.43). Many disciples were made in Derbe upon the
proclamation of the good news (14.2]: llath)1;E,jcraYtE~W). Simon stayed constantly with
Philip (8.13). Some Athenians joined Paul and became believers (17.34; cf. Luke
8.35,38f).
d) Occasionally positive response appears indirectly. The Ethiopian requested to be
baptised (8.37)... The Gentiles of Pisidian Antioch were glad and praised the word of
the Lord (13.48; cf. 19.17). Lydia had become faithful to the Lord (IlE mcnTjv ... ELVaL,
16.15; CL a).
These statements apparently present a contrast to the preceding picture.

Gentiles appear in a different position: having encountered salvation, they
respond as they were told to and appropriate salvation without mention of
divine influence. Yet once the context of these statements is taken into account (cf. III.2.2.), the list loses some of its force:
88S Cf. WB, 985.3 for the transitive meaning: 'ziemlich viele zu JUngern machen'; CL
Matt 28.19; Barrett I, 685. The activity is ascribed to the missionaries. This expression
challenges Taeger's conclusion (Mensch,221) quoted in III.3.3.2.2.12.3.
886 The variant readings of 8.37 emphasise his faith; cr. NTG, 345; Metzger, Commentary,359f.
307
Some of these responses occurred among Gentiles already associated with

Judaism (Acts 8.37; 13.43; 14.1; 17.12; 18.8?; see m.33.3.3.). Others occur in
contexts which also mention God's activity (11.21; 13.48; 15.19; 16.15; see
above) or the previous thwarting of demonic intervention (13.12; see above)
and/or where a (divine) cause-effect relation is suggested (response to miracles: 8.12f; 13.12; 19.17f). This leaves only a few incidents where the conversion of some ofthe Gentiles present is described from a human perspective.887
2.1. Luke records that on some occasions Gentiles were persuaded of the
Christian message or that efforts were made towards this end.888 Many
God-fearing Greeks were persuaded in Thessalonica (E;TI;Eloih]oav, 17.4).889
Paul tried to convince God-fearing Greeks in Corinth (oIMYE"tO .. ,
E;TI;EdtEV, 18.4).890 No reference is made to any transcendent activity.
Paul's enemies acknowledged that he had persuaded and drawn many away from pagan
religion (1tELCJa; ... t.iyrov, 19.26). Agrippa took Paul's defence as an effort to persuade
him to become a Christian: 'niichstens wirst du mich durch deine Dberredung zum Christen machen's91 (!LE 1tEL-&Et.; XgLcmaVQV 1tOLfjCJaL, 26.28). The people on whose lips these
statements appear would not know of and acknowledge anything beyond their human
experience. While Paul did not deny his wish and efforts, he was aware of a further ingredient in this process: Eu!;aLfllJv liv"tq> -&Eq> ... CJE ... YEVEcr-&aL ... (26.29; cf. III.3.2.l.3.3.3.).
2.2. This element of persuasion is also apparent in the very fact that the missionaries preach to and reason with Gentiles and present the messagt;: in a
way understandable and relevant to them. For example, Paul argued every
day in the Athenian agora (Acts 17.17). In his later speech he exposed and
corrected wrong notions. Though their state is described in gloomy terms,
Gentiles were not beyond reach through the arguments of the Christian
proclamation. The Gentiles would listen and respond to the proclamation
of this salvation (28.28). Some Gentiles responded to the missionaries' effort without reference to divine activity.8n
Of the above list only Acts 17.34 does not come in one of these categories.
WB, 1288.l.a, 3.a; cf. the occurrences of I'iLaflag"tugoflaL in Acts 18.5; 20.21,24; 23.11.
889 Luke also uses 1tgoCJxAlJQ6ro to describe the outcome of Paul's ministry; cf. our n.
839.
890 Acts 19.8 describes Paul's ministry in the Ephesian synagogue; no Gentiles are
mentioned.
891 WE, 1289.2.
892 Also some Gentiles of the past responded to God: the Ninevites repented upon the
proclamation of Jonah (Luke 11.33). The queen of the South came to hear Solomon's
God-given wisdom (11.31). The pseudo-Philonic sermon De Iona stresses that God takes
the initiative in salvation (6-9; 'in der Absicht Ninive zu reUen und zu erhaIten', 6; 'alleinige Retter '" giitige Rettung', 7; 'Rettung', 9), acting out of his Menschenliebe (e.g. 62;cf.
Luke's emphasis on salvation in III.3.3.2.1.3.2.). The Ninevites need 'Rettung' and 'Heil
der Seelen' (7-9). God speaks of 'die Rettung dieser Stadt' (189). The report of the conversion is described in human terms: in response to this initiative the Ninevites 'zeigten
887
BB8
308
2.3. For proper assessment of this observation it needs to be remembered

that proclamation among Gentiles was not without problems and pitfalls.
Efforts at persuasion were not necessarily understood properly or appreciated and only fractions of the audiences became believers (e.g. Acts 17.34).
Others were unaffected by the persuasive proclamation.893
For example in Athens the proclamation was met with severe misunderstandings of its
most elementary contents. When their misconceptions and misunderstanding of the
proclamation were addressed before the Gentile religious and intellectual elite of the
day, there was only a mixed response and the number of converts was small. Gentiles responded only reluctantly or not at all to the correction contained in the Christian message. In Lystra the missionaries could scarcely restrain the crowds from offering sacrifices to them, i.e. from continuing in their Gentile misconceptions.
3. What do the Gentiles who became Christians have in common? Are

there any explanations for Gentile response? Luke hardly mentions these
issues. Also, report of conversions often occurs only in summary form (e.g.
Acts 14.21; 17.34). Conclusions from this scant evidence remain tentative:
some Gentiles were in dire personal need (14.8; 16.29; Luke 8.35,38f) from
which neither they themselves, not other Gentiles or their gods could deliver them. Some Gentiles responded to and were convinced by the proclamation (Acts 17.34, see above). Except for these Athenians (ct our notes
883 and 887) and unless Gentiles were already God-fearers, only miracles at times in combination with personal need or with proclamation - elicited
their response (Acts 8.12f?; 13.12; 19.17f). In these cases the miracle(s) and
the Gentile response are probably somehow linked (ct Luke S.l-H).However, Luke also indicates that signs and wonders were also misunderstood
and/or did not necessarily procure a commendable response (Acts 14.3).
Except for the above statements on God's activity (III.3.3.2.), Luke gives
little indication why some Gentiles became Christians.
4. Luke's portrayal of the state and natural abilities of Gentiles prior to
faith and his reports of their encounter with salvation do not lead one to expect considerable Gentile activity in appropriating God's salvation. Luke
sich Uberzeugt von der eindringenden Predigt. Sie pflichteten dem Propheten bei und
glaubten ihm' (108). Their conviction is linked to Jonah's prophetic knowledge of their
sins: 'Dem, der ihnen ihre Untaten aufzllhlen konnte, obwohl er gar nicht aus der Stadt
war, glaubten sie seine Predigt auch' (108; cf. their reasoning in 109 and John 4.29,39).
Later, God says of his own involvement in the Ninevites' repentance: 'Boshafte Gesinnung hingegen zum Guten zu wenden - dieser Umschlag ist das Werk einer gottIichen
Hand' (196; ct: Acts 4.28,30; 7.50; 11.21; 13.11; III.3.3.2.2.2.).
893 In Acts 14.19 Gentiles were also persuaded by the Jews against the mission; et: WB,
1289.1.c. and Acts 23.21; 27.11. We already noted the curious absence of direct appeals to
Gentiles to repent, convert or believe (exc. 14.15; 16.31;cf.1II.2.2.4.3.3.6.c.).Acts 16.14 indicates that response to the proclamation is linked to God's activity. Elsewhere the proclamation and the grace of God are linked; et: III.3.3.2.2.11.
309
describes the Gentiles' consistent failure in spiritual matters; e.g. they failed
to recognise God, were devout idolaters, ascribed to their idols what God
provided for them, identified humans as divine, were involved in magic, etc.
The significance of their spiritual failures for this question has been noted
repeatedly. In view of this portrayal it is unlikely that such people would respond properly when confronted with the Christian message. Luke's portrait of Gentiles rather supports and necessitates the above indications of
divine activity in salvation.
3.3.3.2. The Gentile rejection of God's salvation
Despite the tremendous efforts of the mission, there was no overwhelming

response among the Gentiles. Though there was the same divided response
in Athens as there was in Jerusalem, in Gentile contexts the high numbers
of the early chapters of Acts do not recur. Where there was no contact with
or influence of any sort of Judaism (including Samaritanism), little progress
is reported (e.g. Lystra or Malta) or long periods of ministry and miracles
were required. 894
The two instances of genuine and active Gentile resistance were triggered by material loss or its threat (Acts 16.19-24; 19.23-28; cf. the discussion in ill.2.2.10.3., II.3.8.). More often, there was lack of response. Unless
directly and negatively affected, Gentiles were apparently indifferent.895
How does Luke explain the Gentiles' lack of response or rejection?
a) Some Gentiles found the proclamation ridiculous or they completely
misunderstood it (Acts 17.18,32; 26.24; cf. III.3.3.2.2.12.3.b.). b) Response
seems prevented by the deep entrenchment of paganism; e.g., though the
missionaries barely succeeded through word and gesture in restraining the
crowds from worshipping them, the Lystrans did not heed their call to repentance. c) Gentiles like Herod and Felix were held back by their sins and
the changes a positive response would have entailed for their lifestyle.
894 Paul stayed for a long time in Ephesus, separated from the synagogue and not menaced by Jewish interference (cf. III.2.2.12. and Strelan,Paul,passim). All the inhabitants
heard the word of the Lord (Acts 19.10). Exceptional miracles in massive concentration
are reported (vs. llf), but this did not lead to mass conversions. Only the Jewish attempt
to misuse the power perceptible behind PaUl's ministry (19.13-16) led to public amazement and to the name of Jesus being praised (v. 17). Then some conversions are mentioned. The only hints of missionary success are the notes 'So the word of the Lord grew
mightily and prevailed' (19. ), the fact that Paul apparently was not constrained to leave
or expelled, but decided to move on, and Demetrius' acknowledgement of the spread
and impact of Christianity; After all this ministry the riotous assembly still gained overwhelming public support. The picture is far from the early mass conversion accounts.
895 In spite of this attitude they still were easily won over to join Jewish resistance; cf.
III.2.2.B.2.
3lV
ill. The Gentile encounter with salvatzon
Taeger rightly notes: 'Auch die harten Konsequenzen, die der Ubertritt zum
Christentum mit sich bringt und die Lukas nicht verschweigt ... konnen Interessierte abschrecken .. .'.896 d) Some Gentiles were so immunised
against the proclamation by Jewish propaganda (Acts 14.2) that they did
not respond despite divine authentication of the mission. These human failures supplement the previous pointers to demonic influence and the absence of divine activity in the case of some Gentiles. 897
3.3.3.3. The God-fearing Gentiles
Related to our question of divine and human activity in the Gentiles' salvation is another observation: it was not just a Gentile governor and a jailer,
philosophical Areopagites, magicians or idolaters who became Christians,
but many Gentiles already associated with Judaism. In fact,
1. the majority of Luke's Gentile Christians came from this background:
In the synagogue in PisidianAntioch fellow Israelites and OlIJlO~01ifl.EVOL 'tov ~E6v were
addressed by Paul (Acts 13.16) and many 'twv (JE~0fl.EvI1lV :rtQoOT]~{I't(JlV (13.43) followed
him. Other Gentiles also became Christians (13.44,48).
A great number of Greeks attached to the synagogue of !conium became believers
(14.1). Nothing is said of other Gentiles.
In PhiLippi the missionaries frequented the Jewish place of prayer. Lydia, a worshipper
of God, became a believer with her household (16.13-15). They remained the only converts before the missionaries' imprisonment. Neither direct ministry to Gentiles nor any
response on their side is reported.
Following the missionaries' preaching in the synagogue in Thessalonica a great many
of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women were persuaded and joined
Paul and Silas (17.4). Neither direct ministry to Gentiles nor any response on their side is
reported.
The converts in Beroea included many Greeks of high standing attached to the synagogue (17.12) ...
The Corinlhian synagogue also had Greeks (18.5).8" Titus Justus was already a worshipper of God. The note 'many of the Corinthians who heard Paul became believers'
(18.8b) refers primarily to the Greeks of v. 4 who are identified as God-fearers.900
Mensch, 227, n. 936.
Against Taeger, Mensch, 227 who unduly limits his discussion to these human factors; cf. III.3.3.2.2.12.3.b.
898 The synagogue in Athens had (JE~Ofl.EVOL (Acts 17.17). Nothing is mentioned about
their response, While other Athenians became Christians (17.34).
899 On the Jewish community in Corinth see Gill, 'Achaia', 450; cf. the discussion in
HengellSchwemer, Paul,164f.
900 The fact that after 18 months Gallio could so peremptorily dismiss the Jews' charge
against Paul as being merely a matter of inner Jewish controversy (Acts 18.12-17) may
indicate that Christianity had not spread much beyond the initial confines of the synagogue and its adherents. For the Ephesian synagogue no such Gentile adherents are
mentioned (18.19f; 19.8f). Only once Paul left the synagogue and preached in the hall of
Tyrannus, Luke reports that 'all the Jews and Greeks of Asia heard the word of the Lord'
896
897
311
2. Who were these God-fearing Gentiles? Marshall defines them as people

'who were already seeking salvation and had gone as far as the Jewish religion could take them'.901 The first issue, namely their motivations and intentions, is nowhere directly indicated by Luke. 902 We shall return to this
question below. Marshall's second observation is true for the 3tQoa';A:I.J"wL
of Acts 2.11; 6.5; 13.43; however, other God-fearers hesitated to go 'as far as
the Jewish religion could take them'. Barrett defines them as
attached to the synagogue by their acceptance of Jewish religious and ethical principles and general sympathy with the Jewish way of life ... one who was half-way to being a proselyte, one who had taken several steps but not the final decisive step toward
becoming a proselyte.... What is important is (a) that some Gentiles were attracted to
Jewish ethics, theology, and worship, but did not become proselytes; (b) that in some
places they formed a recognised and valued element in the synagogue community,
though the degree of their religious attachment to it is not specified and remains unknown.903
3. Among these Gentiles already fearing God and associated with ludaism 904
the mission made its initial and usually greatest, often also its only inroads
(19.10). Derbe is the only place of considerable response to the proclamation without
mention of a Jewish community (14.21; Samaria is an exception; cf. Luke 11.32). The summary report does not specify the converts' identity.
901 Power, 94.
902 For the various reasons why Judaism appeared attractive and for the extensive recent discussion of the God-fearers cf. P.R Stuerenberg, 'Proselyte', AncBD V, S03-0S;
idem, 'Devout', AncBD Il, 184; M. Simon, 'GottesfUrchtiger', RAC XI, 1060-70; Lake,
'Proselytes'; SchUrer, History IlI.1, 1S0-76; 1. Heinemann, 'Antisemitismus', RE S V, (343) 14.6S-16.24; H. Kuhli, EWNT Ill, 410-13; M. Wilcox, 'The "God-Fearers" in Acts',
JSNT 13, 1981, 102-22; K.G. Kuhn, H. Stegemann, 'Proselyten', RE SIX, (1248-83) 125782; K.G. Kuhn, ThWNT VI, 727-4S. Cf. the extensive survey by HengeVSchwemer, Paul,
61-80 (including discussion of Graeco-Roman references to God-fearers, the conversion
of the royal house of Adiabene, etc.; et. their bibliography in n. 320). They surmise: Luke
'probably describes these figures so lovingly partly because he himself came from this
milieu' (p. 62). Cf. their observations on the attractiveness of the synagogues of Antioch,
p. 189. Though included inthese motivations and reasons, Marshall's definition as 'seeking salvation' is too narrow.
903 I, SO Of. Barrett notes that '{h:OOE~~~ and kindred terms were not so fully and universally technical terms in the description of Gentile adherents that they could not be used
ofJews and full proselytes',p.SOl (cf. the full discussion there).
90( Cf. the discussion in Lieu, 'God-fearers', 332. She argues that the designation 'Godfearing' does not necessarily imply religious commitment to Judaism (pp. 336-37, 340);
rather it is to be understood in social terms. While this may be true for the examples she
adduces (e.g. the insciption from Aphrodisias; cf. p. 336, n.17), Luke does not portray the
God-fearers - with few exceptions - as Gentile benefactors of synagogues, patrons of
Jews or otherwise but as actually attending the ordinary meetings of the synagogues. We
are concerned only with the Lukan portrait. Compare Lieu's assessment of the
Pauline/Lukan reconstruction, p. 342.
312
into the Gentile world. 90s The Gentiles who were no longer completely pagan but were already moving towards or associated with ludaism, with God
and his revelation, were the Gentiles responding to the mission. 906 This response to salvation indicates that some of these Gentiles were seeking salvation (cf. Marshall's deflnition). Something comparable to the ridicule and
extensive misunderstanding that occurred in Lystra or among Paul's Athenian market place audience is never reported in the case of the Gentile associates of Judaism. This implicit but strong commendation of ludaism as
the preparatio evangelica par excellence has to be taken into account in the
assessment of Luke's stance toward ludaism (cf. V.3.5. and TII.2.2.4.1.1.).
Luke's sympathetic portrayal of Gentile God-fearers, of their association
with ludaism and of their exemplary response to Christianity indicate a positive view ofludaism.
Where this background of information and elementary correction
through the revelation contained in JUdaism was apsent, the mission had
limited success, was ignored or complete incomprehension and/or severe
misunderstandings of the missionaries and their proclamation occurred.
These observations impinge on Luke's estimation ofthe natural faculties of
Gentiles and their appropriation of salvation.
4. Our concern now is not with the actual response of these Gentiles once
they encountered salvation but with the significance of their mere presence
on Luke's pages. In addition to his statements on the Gentile state prior to
faith, the many descriptions of its outworking in spiritual and moral-ethical
failure, and the emphasis on divine activity. in their salvation and the neces-
90S Cf. Jervell, 'Divided', 44-49 for similar conclusions and a comparison to the Jewish
response to the gospel. Jervell rightly observes that for '''pure'' Gentiles, i.e., ... those
who are in no way related to Israel, no accounts of mass conversion are found'. JerveU's
conclusions regarding Luke's main concern ('the converted Gentiles were "Godfearers", i.e., men who were previously related to Israel. The Gentiles of the synagogue
accept the gospel', p. 45; cf. the summary and criticism of this argument by Lieu, 'GodFearers',332-34) fail to take into account the - admittedly few (er) - conversions of Gentiles for whom Luke does not indicate such previous association (e.g. Antioch, Pisidian
Antioch, Philippi's jailer, the Areopagites). Cf. Strelan, Paul, 131 on the lack of response
among 'pure' Gentiles. HengellSchwemer, Paul, 82 draw similar conclusions: 'We hear of
public "street preaching" by the apostle ... really only in Athens, and there he has very
limited success'; p. 88: 'The new message of the Messiah who had been crucified, raised
and would come again must have been almost incomprehensible to a Gentile who had
no inkling of Jewish doctrine'.
906 Not ail God-fearers accepted the message, once it was proclaimed to them. Again
the picture is more complex than Jervell's conclusion. In Pisidian Antioch the Jews were
still able to mobilise further devout women of high standing (Acts 13.50; for their identity see Barrett 1,659). A great many, not all of the devout Greeks responded in Thessalonica and Beroea (17.4,12).
313
sity of both activity and salvation, Luke also mentions that prior to the arrival of the mission some Gentiles were already in various degrees associated with the institutions of Judaism, attracted to its ethics, and more than
that, they got to know; fear and revere the true God. For this reason, Luke
calls them ot !pO~01j!lEVOL"t6v {}EOV! In this search some of them went to
great lengths (Acts 8.26-40) and also endeavoured to live morally commendable lives (10.2,22).907
Though they are mentioned often and play an important role, Luke does
not directly indicate why these Gentiles associated themselves with Judaism and feared God. 90S It appears that Luke took them for granted and he
did not reflect on the relation of their presence to his other statements on
Gentiles and the wider narrative picture. Luke apparently saw no need to
explain in their case. There is no hint of their proper recognition of natural
revelation or of a Jewish Gentile mission (ct e.g. Matt 23.15), neither is it
directly indicated that God had somehow worked this attraction in them.
The fact that these God-fearers needed to be brought into contact with the
Christian message (Acts 8.26-39; 10.9-23) shows that their present status,
though an excellent preparation, was insufficient. While the status of Godfearers not brought into contact with the Christian mission is never discussed, it is clear that, though they already have come a long way, they still
need to go further.
5. Any attempt to explain the existence of these God-fearers has to be
based on Luke's other statements on Gentiles prior to faith.
5.1. God had not overlooked the Gentiles in the past: God's concern became evident in
his general care and providence (general revelation; cf. Acts 14.17) and in the instances
of 'special revelation' to Gentiles."'" God was not far from and was at work among Gentiles. God's name has already been called over the Gentiles (15.17; Amos 9.12; cf. III.3.3.
2.1.),,'0 That God himself would also attract a number of Gentiles to what he had revealed to Israel (Acts 7.38,44) is not an unreasonable assumption and not surprising after the above indications of divine activity. In this process God worked through the Jews
as human agents. Israel's role would be that described by the Isaianic passages to which
Luke repeatedly alludes: as God's Servant, Israel brought light to the nations (Luke 2.32;
907 Such a positive trait also appears in one of Luke's references to Gentiles of the past.
The Ninevites responded by repentance to the proclamation and sign of Jonah, through
which God authenticated the message.
908 Luke's description of Gentile religiosity in theory and practice indicates its futility.
This demonstration might expain why some Gentiles looked for more convincing alternatives or were attracted by them.
909 God sent Elijah to Zareptah, Jonah to Nineveh; the queen of the South came to
Solomon, Noah and Lot lived among their Gentile contemporaries.
910 Cf. Isa 4.1; Gen 48.16; Deut 28.9f;Jer 7.10; 15.16; 1 Kgs 8.43; cf. Motyer,Amos,204f.
314
Acts 13.47).911 Luke not only acknowledges this role of ludaism but also its by and large
fulfillrnent of this task. The literature in our n. 902 discusses the human reasons why
some Gentiles found ludaism attractive.
5.2. Also in the present God was al work among Gentiles prior to faith. Gad initiated
the events which led to Cornelius' salvation. Guided by a vision Cornelius called far Peter. This vision (Acts 10.3) indicates that God spoke to individual Gentiles before the arrival of the mission and arranged the encounter with it. It does not explain the positive
characterisation of Cornelius in 10.!f. Gad initiated the encounters of Gentiles with salvation and directed the missionary journeys (8.26-28; 10.3; 13.2; 16.9f). On these journeys
the missionaries visited synagogues and their God-fearers. If God arranged for and became active in their step from ludaism to Christianity, is it not likely that he initiated and
led their first step from paganism to this association?
Luke does not relate his general statements on the state of Gentiles prior to
Christian faith to the fact of the existence of Gentile proselytes and Godfearers. While tension remains for the modern reader, the God-fearers
probably do not constitute the inconsistency in Luke's view of Gentiles
prior to faith that they initially appear to be. Luke's statements on God's
relationship with Gentiles prior to faith (and on God's dealings with Israel)
do not exclude God's activity behind the existence of such people in addition to other reasons for their attraction to Iudaism which commend Gentiles prior to faith. Though they were still in need of Christian salvation,
God had already started to work in the lives of some Gentiles.
Conclusion
In the light of previous conclusions and the Gentile acceptance and rej ection
of salvation, and while allowing for exceptions and unresolved tensions, it
seems best to understand the limited number of statements regarding the
Gentiles' appropriation of salvation which are not somehow qualified by
their contexts as descriptions on the human level of the Gentile response to
the Christian mission. Though in a few cases Gentiles were called in direct
address to respond (e.g. repent and believe) and/or their response is described only in human categories (see above), the majority of Luke's statements on or descriptions ofthe Gentile appropriation of salvation indicate at
least some measure of activity on God's side. This material provides the
framework within which to understand descriptions on a human level.
The limited acceptance and occasional fierce rejection of Gentiles hearing the proclamation indicates that it was not self-evident to the Gentiles'
natural faculties and that more than human understanding and acceptance
911 This explains the reaction of the Ephesian crowds (Acts 19.33f). Whatever Alexander's own intention, they knew what he stood for as a Jew with regard to their great goddess and answered accordingly; cf. Bruce, 419; Klauck, Magie, 123; Schneider n, 277; Strelan,Paul,147-50.
3. The state and salvation of Gentiles prior 10 faith
315
was involved in the Gentiles' conversion. Altogether, the picture deriving

from the Gentiles' appropriation of salvation does not fundamentally challenge the conclusions drawn from Luke's portrayal of God's activity in the
Gentile appropriation of salvation.
3.3.4. The Gentile appropriation of salvation
We started our consideration ofthe Gentile appropriation of God's salvation

with an ambiguous picture. What is asserted in statements of the Gentiles'
condition is not consistently illustrated or referred to in the narrative. While
a number of references to divine activity point to God's intervention in the
Gentile appropriation of salvation and suggest its need, occasionally the narrative itself is restricted to the human level: e.g. all Gentiles are subject to the
power of the devil (Acts 26.18), while deliverance from this power does not
often appear in the conversion accounts of Gentiles.912 In some cases, apparently unrestricted by Satanic bondage (at least this is not mentioned), they
were persuaded by the missionaries and became believers, though they were
also characterised by spiritual blindness and darkness.
Thus on the one level Gentiles appear to be all held in sin and unbelief
by powers beyond their control, and some of them were brought to faith
and salvation again by a power or choice beyond their contro1. 913 On the
other level some Gentiles were addressed as if they were capable of response to the gospel once they heard it.
How, if at all, does Luke relate these two levels? The question of their relationship may be insoluble. Luke possibly does not relate these levels at
all. They may not have been contradictory in his estimate or, if a contradiction was recognised, resolution was not part of his intention and the issue
was left in tension.
Before this tension can be left pending, the validity of this initial impression needs reconsideration. Careful scrutiny has shown and confirmed
Luke's emphasis on God's activity in the Gentile appropriation of salvation. Its necessity was corroborated by the presence and reality of demonic
interference with the Gentiles' appropriation of salvation and the wider
Lukan portrayal of Gentiles prior to faith, and the picture of their natural
faculties which emerged earlier. We also saw that this emphasis corresponds with a common suggestion for one of Luke's purposes in writing. In
912 Exc. Acts 8.7; 16.18; 19.12; once deliverance from disease is also considered, more
incidents can be added: 14.8f; 28.8!.
913 Gentiles were unaware of these powers, except possibly in specific cases of demonic
possession.
316
addition, full consistency or continuous repetition in a matter which is only

one contributary lo this purpose is not to be expected.
The pointers to the ability of Gentiles to respond adequately and contribute to their appropriation of salvation were less compulsory on examination. In many cases these statements are significantly modified by their
contexts. In the few remaining cases they appear to be descriptions on a human level. The responsibility of Gentiles for their state and spiritual and
moral-ethical deeds is affirmed throughout Luke's volumes. Though their
blindness and darkness is closely related to their existence under Satan's
dominion, Gentiles are held responsible. Luke does not indicate how both
aspects (the state and responsibility of Gentiles) are related.
Therefore, if a solution is to be attempted, it would seem best to take what
is explicitly stated about God's activity in the Gentile appropriation of salvation. This theme occurs repeatedly in Luke's narrative, but for various reasons is not always dominant. The material pointing in a different direction
should be understood both in its closer and in its wider Lukan context. This
solution would suggest that, true to Luke's portrait of Gentiles prior to faith
(ll), Gentiles prior to faith are helpless and hopeless without God's initiative
and intervention in their salvation. God brings the gospel of salvation to the
Gentiles and arouses their response. God saves them and adds them to those
sanctified by faith in Jesus. Divine intervention is necessary. Whatever Gentiles do and/or are called to do, namely repent, turn, believe, etc. they do not
only in response to this salvation and its proclamation to them but also in response to God's activity in their appropriation of salvation.
In view of this conclusion none of the three possibilities discussed in the
introduction is fully adequate (I1I.3.3.1.). The third possibility (God works
through the proclamation so that it becomes powerful proclamation and
causes some Gentiles to respond) comes closest. It rightly emphasises that
salvation is not possible apart from the gospel first being proclaimed and
heard. Yet, though indispensible, the proclamation, however powerful and
empowered, needs divine preparation of the recipients to penetrate and
achieve its goals. It seems that apart from this ingredient the proclamation
remains unheeded.
This relation of divine and human activity is supported by the transformation that salvation entails (also compare the conclusions from Luke's
portrayal of Gentile Christians in IV.). Not only is correction or a new state
of knowledge offered to or received by Gentiles, but much more besides.
Salvation in toto entails benefits, like forgiveness of sins and transformation
of the Gentiles' state, which are beyond human reach and can only be received.
This conclusion contributes to Luke's characterisation of Gentiles prior
to faith in showing their spiritual need and inability. Not only did they fail
4. Conclusion
317
in the past and when 'on their own ways'; even vis-a-vis the proclamation
and revelation of God's salvation their own resources did not suffice. For
Gentiles to adopt salvation, God's prompting is mandatory. Gentiles need to
be saved.
4. Conclusion
Before we close our investigation with the bearing of Luke's picture of

Gentile Christians on Gentiles prior to faith, we summarise the various
clues from the Gentile encounter with Christian salvation. We have surveyed the accounts of Gentile encounters with Jesus or with the Gentile
mission, Luke's references to the state of Gentiles appearing in the context
of salvation, and the Gentile appropriation of salvation.
These three strands of evidence are closely related and separated only
for the purpose of structure.Together they fully represent the Lukan understanding of Gentiles and Christian salvation. Our comprehensive approach
unites these strands and achieves a unified picture. It is to be given preference to other approaches and results, as it does more justice to an author
who in other areas demonstrates considerable skill and coherence.
In salvation Gentiles encountered what they could not do or had not
done for themselves in the past. They received deliverance from disease
and/or demonic bondage, had their eyes opened and light brought to their
darkness, and obtained forgiveness of sins and gained a new inheritance.
This salvation had to be brought to them; it was not inherent in them nor
could it have been reached by them otherwise. Rather their state is described as one of enmity, in need of restoration and cleansing, under Satan's
power, in spiritual blindness and darkness. Their state demands God's saving intervention on their behalf Response was greatest among those Gentiles aready associated with Judaism, suggesting that God had already been
working in their lives, though also Gentiles for whom no such prior association is mentioned became Christians.914 Among the latter Gentiles severe
misunderstandings occured and/or response was limited.
The Gentile encounter with salvation does not provide the happy end to
a long history of previous ignorance of and rebellion against God. Often it
ended negatively: Gentiles rejected God's salvation and its agent or messengers once it was brought to them: Jesus was rejected with the utmost
914 Against ierveIl, Theology, 20 et passim who claims that 'The Gentiles admitted to
the church are the God-fearers, only these are acceptable to God'. On pp. 21f he rightly
emphasises God's active intervention in the Gentile appropriation of salvation.
318
contempt by the Gentiles involved in his death; similar rejection occasionally met the missionaries.
The Gentiles' state is evident not only from this rejection of God's purpose but also from their spiritual and moral-ethical failure addressed or appearing in this encounter. Gentiles are held responsible and come under
judgement for their various failures.
Relating these insights to our main thesis we see that Luke's depiction of
the Gentile state, encounter with and appropriation of salvation fully affirms the Gentile need of God's intervention and salvation from their state
and their spiritual and moral-ethical sins, and his bestowal of the blessings
of salvation. The character of this salvation in view of the Gentiles' state,
actual encounter with and appropriation of it is probably less divergent
from other NT authors than has often been suggested.
Where correction of pagan notions was presented to Gentiles prior to
faith either the results were minimal (Lystra, Athens), or correction was rejected and rather was taken to reinforce pagan ideas (Ephesus), or it was
ignored (Malta).
In parts 11 and III {Jur interaction with Taeger's proposal was mainly
negative. Against his suggestion we affirm that unless salvation is to lose its
content or to be completely redefined, Gentiles need God's salvation as the
only way forward. In part IV we shall fully affirm the need for correction
which Taeger suggested, though with modifications: correction does not
and can not replace salvation, rather it accompanies and follows salvation
and, due to the condition of Gentiles, has to follow salvation to a greater extent than Taeger allows for.
Luke offers a coherent picture of the actual encounters, the description
of the Gentiles' state including the interference of Satan and the appropriation of salvation. It is a picture with some blank spots, some unexplained issues or unresolved tensions and some statements which, if taken out of
their immediate or wider contexts could be taken differently. The results of
this part do not contradict but follow from Luke's actual description of
Gentiles prior to faith (11) and with what could be surmised from this portrayal with regard to the Gentile encounter with salvation and to salvation
itself.
IV. Clues from Luke's portrait of Gentile

Christians to Gentiles prior to faith
1. Introduction
Some New Testament authors contrast the present state of believers with
their former state (e.g. Co11.2lf: 1tO'tE oV'tac; U1tTJAAO'tQLCilfJ.EVOUC;; - VUVL 5E
u1toKa't~na1;Ev)l, implying that what was true then is no longer true and
vice versa. Even where such explicit contrasting is absent, this scheme allows us to draw conclusions, by way of contrast, from the present Christian
state regarding the 1to't prior to faith.
In this last section we turn to Luke's references to Gentile Christians and
try to gain further understanding of Luke's view of Gentiles prior to faith
by means of contrast. 2 Our aim is not a comprehensive account of Luke's
portrait of Gentile Christianity, rather we pursue limited questions: how
does Luke designate and describe Gentile Christians? What is characteristic of them and their lives? In what ways are they different from Gentiles prior to faith? What do both groups have in common? However, in
pursuing these questions caution is required for several reasons:
1. Unless the contrast between Gentile Christians and Gentiles prior to
faith is made explicit3 , conclusions remain hypothetical as Luke mayor
1 Cr. also Rom 1130; Gal 1.13-17,23; 4.8f,29 (both ,;o,;e); Eph 2.1-7,11-13; 4.17-24;5.8;
CoI3.7f; TItus 3.3-5; Phlm 11; 1 Pet 2.10; cf. the full survey in Tachau, 'Einst' and G. Stlihlin, ThWNT W, (1099-1117) 1110.16-1112.23: 'v\iv im Gegensatz zur Vergangenheit'. Cf.
the application of this scheme to the Ninevites before and after their repentance in the
pseudo-Philonic sermon De Iona 216[
2 This approach is promising, as Luke often presents issues by employing contrast (e.g.
in the parables), when different people, things, attitudes are compared and contrasted to
procure a clear picture. KUmmel, Man, 16 notes: ' ... the NT message provides not only a
picture of the man to whom the message is addressed, but also a description of the renewed mankind which results from God's action. Hence it would be perfectly justifiable
to include in our study all statements about the nature of the Christian man'.
J In such cases the references to Gentiles prior to faith were treated previously. Now
we study the corresponding descriptions of Gentile Christians to see whether further
conclusions can be drawn to add to the previous picture. Though Luke does not employ
the :rtOTE - vUV/V1JVL scheme, his narrative occasionally contains such contrasts (e.g. Acts
16.23f and vs. 33f).
320
rv.
Luke's portrait of Gentile Christians
may not have intended to make a statement by way of contrast. For example, does the note of Lydia's immediate hospitality following her conversion (cf. IV.3.4.6.) suggest that Gentiles prior to faith were inhospitable?
We have to keep in mind that more direct material is available (cf. section
II. and ill.), which should have precedence and provide a framework for indirect conclusions.
2. When we draw conclusions from the commendable traits of Gentile
Christians as to the potentially opposite traits of Gentiles prior to faith,
caution is required as Luke also portrays some positive moral-ethical traits
of Gentiles prior to faith (including positive 'spiritual' traits for God-fearing Gentiles), e.g. the hospitality of Gentiles (Acts 28.2,7). Not everything
commendable that is reported of Gentile Christians is necessarily or only
due to their new state.
3. In our assessment we also have to consider the nature of the available material. Luke
is likely to present the unusual and spectacular events or those with far reaching consequences. Their presentation overshadows the 'ordinary', which is probably only accessible in summaries. Thus Luke's relevant material does not fully represent the normal lives
of Gentile Christians, which would provide more insights and contrasts to their previous
lives.'
2. Luke's Gospel
Due to its geographical scope and content, Luke's.Gospel has little to contribute. s Only a few verses need consideration. Caution is required in Luke
4 For example, the context of Paul's raising of Eutychus (Acts 20.9f), namely the description of a gathering of Gentile Christians and its catechetical emphasis provides
valuable insights into their new communal life which allows for some conclusions,
though these glimpses are included primarily to serve as a frame for the raising miracle;
so Haenchen, 586 and Weiser, 311-13; Schneider H, 283-85 is less confident; see Weiser
and Schneider for the far reaching symbolic interpretation of Tn!mel, 'Puissance'.
S Observations regarding Luke's Gentiles of the past and of the future:
1. Luke does not mention Naaman's 'conversion' (Luke 4.26f; cf. 2 Kgs 5.15-18). Even if
Luke had done so, this conversion was far from yielding the consequences of Christian
salvation with which we are concerned. Naaman's physical salvation and through it the
recognition of God was not 'endogenous' but mediated through God's prophet (cf.
11.2.1.; for conclusions from the repentance of the Ninevites, Luke 11.32; cf. H.2.2.2.).
2. The 'traditionell-prophetische Motiv von der VOlkerwallfahrt' (Ernst, 320) behind
Luke 13.29, includes the motivation of the nations' coming to Zion: 'that the Lord may
teach us his ways and that we may walk in his path. For out of Zion shall go forth instruction and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem' (lsa 23; 49.12; Mic 4.1f). That they will
come to receive this instruction implies their previous lack and need of it (cf. IV.3.3.1.).
They neither naturally know nor walk in the ways of God. They failed to recognise God
apart from his revelation to Israel. In light of the amazing deeds of Israel's God, their
own gods and 'words' forfeit their validity and attractiveness. Though caution is neces-
2. Luke's Gospel
321
8.35-39 regarding the restored Gerasene demoniac, as his previous life was
totally and manifestly under the power of Satan (cf. Acts 26.18). While typical of some Gentiles, it is not representative of Gentiles prior to faith in
general.
1. The demoniac's deliverance and restoration is described in stark contrast
to his previous state: he who had been controlled by an evil spirit no longer
ransacked the necropolis, and the previous safety measures became superfluous. He now was among people, properly dressed6 and 'in his right mind'
(aWCjlQovOUVt<l). 7
2. Beyond restoration to the state of his fellow Gerasenes (not manifestly

under Satan's power) and in strong contrast to what the demon declared
earlier (Luke 8.28), the man now wanted to have to do with Jesus and desired to be with his Saviour. While his fellow-country people kept their distance in fear, the man sat at Jesus' feet adopting the position of a disciple
(Luke 7.38,44; 10.39). When charged to proclaim how much God had done
for him, he immediately and fully obeyed (8.38f).8 His message was that
God could do what neither he himself nor others could do (cf. m.2.1.1.3.4.).
In contrast to some Gentiles prior to faith (Acts 8.9; 12.23!), this emissary
gladly pointed away from himself and to Jesus.
Previously this man was alienated from God and far from obeying him.
While it is not clear whether Luke would ascribe this state to the man's own
responsibility, this conclusion agrees with Luke's cfuect portrait of Gentiles
prior to faith.
sary, as Luke does not mention their motivation, the conclusions we suggested feature
elsewhere in Luke's work, e.g. in the Gentiles' designation as avofLo~ (Acts 2.23) or the
lack of instruction on adequate worship of God displayed by various Gentiles prior to
faith.
6 Curiously among the few references to the activities of Christians Luke mentions
Dorcas' charitable acts which consisted of making J(L.wva~ and tfLuna (Acts 9.36,39).
7 On OW!PQOVEW cf. WB,1598.1.; for its contrast, fLaLvEo{}aL et. Acts 26.24f. The impact
of demonic influence/oppression on mental andlor spiritual capacity is also addressed in
Acts 26.18: those under the power of Satan have closed eyes and are in darkness.
8 The Gerasene even moved beyond his commission (tov oIxov 00l) ... xa-fr' OA.T]v tTJv
1tOA.LV). Best, Discipleship, 206, n. 5 suggests: 'The healed demoniac ... who returns to
preach in t~at area perhaps indicates a disciple engaged in mission to the Gentiles'. This
is underestimated by Tannehill, Luke,l14 when he claims: 'Jesus is willing to minister to
such people but does not launch a continuing mission in their areas, for the Gentiles and
Samaritans are not yet ready to receive him'.
322
IV, Luke's portrait of Gentile Christians
3. Acts
3.1. Luke's designations for Gentile Christians
As more Gentiles come in view in Acts and as some of them experience salvation, Luke's second volume provides more and richer material on Gentile Christians. We begin with the designations Luke employs for Gentiles
under faith. Where also used of Jewish Christians, we have to briefly consider those occurrences. Though Luke's variety of expression occurs also
for the sake of variation (cL Acts 18.27: brothers - disciples - believers),
these different designations are nonetheless significant: what do they imply
about the people thus designated and what conclusions can be drawn regarding Gentiles prior to faith?
3.1.1. Saints
On four occasions Jewish Christians are called ot UYlOL (Acts 9.13,32,41;

26.10).9 A derivation of the same root twice refers to Gentile Christians
(Acts 20.32; 26.18): The message of God's grace was able to build up and give
an inheritance among all who were sanctified (ev 'to~ ~YL<XUflEVOL~ ;n;uOLv).1
Only God's grace edifies and sanctifies Gentiles. Without this unmerited beneficence they cannot be sanctified. l1 Gentiles had to receive a portion
among the sanctified (XA.fjQov EV TO~ ~YLaaf!EVOL~); they were not by nature
part of this entity. Reception of this portion and the ensuing new characteristic of holiness distinguishes Gentile Christians from other Gentiles.
Their natural XA.fjQo~ was among the unholy: '~YLaOflEvOL, which if taken
strictly, will imply that they are UYLOL not by nature, or birth, but because God
has made them so.... The general meaning of the word is clear: that is a.ylO~
which is specially devoted to God' .12 Luke indicates to what and whom Gen9 Cf. WE, 17.2:d.~.; Barrett 1,455,479. Zahn,335, n. 23 observes that it is a' ... schlichte
Bezeichnung einer Ortsgemeinde, zuweilen jedoch als nachdrUcklicher Hinweis auf die
Gottgeweihtheit und die unantastbare WUrde der Gemeinde'; cf. O. Procksch, Th WNT I,
(101-16) 107-10; H. Balz; EWNT I, (38-48) 46-48; for Jewish occurrences of c'iYLOL as 'die
Gott ZugehOrigen' see Balz, cols. 43f.
10 Cf. Weiser, 320; Schneider 11,298, n. 68; Zmijewski, 746.
11 Dupont concludes from the LXX occurrences of aYLa~(j): 'Le "peupJe sanctifie",
c'est Isral!1 en tant que peuple cons acre a Dieu et constituant sa propriete particuliere',
Discours, 282; cf. Procksch, p. 111. This conceptual background indicates that by God's
grace Gentiles can also join the people consecrated by God and gain this inheritance formerly not theirs. For the background to XAfjQO~ and XATlQOVOI![a see Dupont, Discours,
261-78,280.
12 Barrett 1,455; cf. Hort, Ecc/esia, 56f; Harnack, Mission, 416f. Balz, col. 46 defines:
"'Heilig" meint hier nicht einen Zustand oder eine Beschaffenheit der Glaubenden, son-
3. Acts
323
tiles were dedicated previously: Under Satan's power and in rebellion

against God they were devoted to idols and their service (cf. Acts 7.40-43;
19.24-35). The most that Luke grants to some exceptional Gentiles prior to
faith is UO'E~EUl (Acts 10.2,7), others are merely &ELOL&UL/lWV (17.22).
Other Lukan derivatives of the root ayL- support these observations. In contrast to human spirit, God's Spirit is the holy Spirit. ll This holy Spirit is not innate in people, it
never appears in them unless it came upon or was given to them (e.g. Luke 1.15,35,41,67;
2.25f;3.16,22; 11.13; Acts 15.8). It is a divine gift (Acts 2.38; 8.20; 10.24; 11.17; 15.8). Its reception testifies to the new identity of believers. That people prior to this sanctification
are not holy is also suggested in that 'the Holy One' can be employed as a distinguishing
designation for Jesus (Luke 1.35; 4.34; Acts 2.27; 3.14; 4.30). As God's servant, Jesus is
holy in contrast to those gathering against him, including Gentiles,Acts 4.27.1' According
to Fitzmyer, this title expresses 'a special dedication of him to Yahweh and his divine
plan of salvation'.ls Such dedication to God and his purposes was unknown among Gentiles prior to faith.
3.1.2. Believers
IILcrtLC; and mcrtEuw appear most often (some thirty times) to describe Gentile Christians. Thus it is appropriate that our study speaks of Gentiles prior
to their coming to faith. Faith (in Christ Jesus) is used as a summary for the
Christian message (Acts 13.8; 24.24). Faith also describes the response this
message procures in some cases or should procure 16: faith in the (Lord) Jesus
(Christ)17 and the message about him is necessary to appropriate salvation
(14.27; 15.9; 16.31; 26.18).18 God made preparations for Gentiles to hear the
word of the gospel and to become believers (mcrtEUaaL, 15.7). Believers are
to continue in this message and in their commitment to it (14.22; 16.5).
dern ihre durch Christus bewirkte Absonderung flIr Gott, die sie dieser Welt entzieht'. In
addition to usage as a designation for Jewish Christians, Luke mentions a variety of Jewish holy items (cf. Balz, cols. 39f): God's holy prophets (Luke 1.70; Acts 3.21); God's holy
covenant (Luke 1.72); (first born) people or animals as holy to God (Luke 2.23); God's
holy angels (Luke 9.26; Acts 10.22); of the temple: 'toii 'tonol} 'toii aylol} 'to{rto (Acts 6.13;
cf. Metzger, Commentary, 341), 'tov CiyLOv tonov toiitov (Acts 21.28) and ofMt. Sinai: yfj
ayla (Acts 7.33). The close relation of Jews to God, reflected in these occurrences, Gentiles prior to faith and everything associated with their religion lacked. Nothing Gentile is
ever thus designated.
13 Cf. Procksch, pp.l03f; Balz, cols. 39,46.
14 cr. Procksch, pp. 101-03; Balz, col. 40.
15 P. 217f.
16 mutL~: Acts 14.9; 20.21; mo'tEuw: 8.12f; 10.43; 11.17,21; 13.12,39,48; 14.1,23; 15.7;
16.31,34; 17.12,34; 18.8,27; 19.18; 21.25.
11 Acts 10.43; 11.17; 14.23; 16.31; 18.8; 20.21; 24.24; 26.18; faith in God in 16.34. Ct. the
stress on faith in the variant verse Acts 8.37: 'If you believe .. , I believe .. .'; et. Barrett I,
433; Metzger, Commentary, 359f.
}8 a. Fitzmyer, Aspects, J30[writes on Acts 16.31: 'The connection between faith and
salvation is thus made clear; it is the only route for the disciple to the latter'.
324
rv.
Barrett defines Luke's understanding of nlO1:LI; as 'fiducia, whole hearted

confident trust in God (or Christ),.19 Such trust and the relationship indicative of or arising from it the unbelieving Gentiles lacked (cillI.3.2.1.2.6.).
Some related observations:
1. Absence of such trust leads to and explains the relentless efforts of Gentiles to secure
their own existence (declared to be a Gentile characteristic in Luke 12.29f; 17.26-29; cf.
11.2.5.-6.). They strive with worry for their sustenance to an extent that they overlook or
misinterpret the very tokens of God's providence (Acts 14.17). Their origin and function
was not recognised but had to be revealed a posteriori. God's providential care did not
lead to trust and worship of him.
2. The claim that God cleanses the Gentiles' hearts by faith (Acts 15.9; cf III.3.2.2.6.) and
the frequency of this notion elsewhere is a continuous reminder that the Gentiles' relationship with God is established only through faith. No achievement is mentioned or required for their salvation. Except for Cornelius (cf III.2.2.4.1.1.), the few moral-ethical
achievements of Gentiles which Luke mentions do not appear in the context of their salvation or with Gentiles about to be saved.20 Nothing of what appears of pagan religious
devotion and achievement contributes to Christian faith. The requirements are response
to facts previously unrecognised (cf. Acts 14.15-17; 17.24-29) and faith in a message unknown and little comprehensible to Gentiles prior to faith (Acts 14.7; 17.18,32).
3. The behaviour of the unfaithful servant of the parable (Luke 12.45f) deteriorates to resemble the preoccupation' and outlook ascribed to Gentiles in Luke 17.27f: 'EcrtHLV 'tE
xaL ltlVELV xaL ILd},i(Jl(Eu{}m'.21 He is punished by being put f1e'ta 'tWV G.7tUrr(J)v. In light of
1tL(J't6~ in v. 42, this could be taken to mean 'unfaithful'.2l Nolland objects: 'The fmal
clause of the master's response moves beyond anything that can be retained within the
boundaries of the story.... Here we are dealing with the assignment of an eschatological
destiny'.23 If eschatological punishment can be described as receiving a ILEgO; flE'ta 'twv
cmLu'tOlv, this identification stresses the gravity and consequences of unbelief and indicates the future lot of Gentiles prior to faith, from which they need to be saved.
Acts I, 433 (also p. 167 on Acts 2.44). Cf. the detailed treatment in Schenk, 'Glaube'.
Though possibly no more than coincidental, the contrary seems to be the case.Nothing is said of the conversion of the Gentiles whose commendable actions prior to faith
are reported; cf our observations on Acts 27.3; 28.2,7. Marshall,NT-Guide, 60 writes: 'Piety, such as that shown by Cornelius ... , is an indication of readiness to accept the message, and is pleasing to God (Acts 10.31), but is no substitute for actually responding to
the gospel, which brings salvation (Acts 11.14,18),.
21 Cf. Marshall, 542f Weiser, Knechtsgleichnisse, 194f lists Jewish parallels; cf. 1 Cor
11.21. Ernst, 306 characterises the unfaithful servant as a 'gedankenlos und pflichtvergessen in den Tag hineinlebenden Menschen'.
22 Favoured e.g. by Fitzmyer, 990: 'those who lack fidelity'.
Zl p. 704. Similarly Marshall, 544: 'The clause goes beyond the parabolic situation and
envisages the final lot of the wicked .. .'. Weiser, Knechtsgleichnisse, 201 considers that
'die lukanische Formulierung kllnnte die "Unglilubigen" im Gegensatz zu den Christen
meinen'. For WtL(J'tO~ referring to non-Christians ct Luke 9.41; Stenschke, 'Need'; 1 Cor
passim; 2 Cor 4.4; 6. 14f; 1 Tim 5.8; Titus 1.15.
19
20
3. Acts
325
3.1.3. Disciples and wayfarers
1. Disciples. The designation ot fla1'h,,:at is first applied to the disciples in

the Gospel and then to other Jewish believers in Acts (6.1,2,7; 9.1,10,19,
25f,38). The new Gentile adherents are likewise called disciples (11.26,
29).24 From then onwards it becomes another common designation for
Gentile Christians, often referring to Jewish and Gentile disciples. 25 The
purpose of the Christian mission was to make disciples of Gentiles prior to
faith (EuaYYEI..LOIlflEVOL ... 1l(l{}TJ1:E-ucravtE~, 14.21).26
Disciples know, follow, obey and glorify God's agent of salvation. In becoming disciples of the one sent and authenticated by God, Gentiles align
themselves with the purposes of God (cf. IY.3.1.5.). Prior to faith Gentiles
lack the association and conformity with God and rus purpose that is expressed in disciplesrup and its privileges and promises (cf. e.g. Luke 9.23-27).
Further clues from this designation depend on its occurrences in the
Gospel where discipleship is introduced and defined. When applied to
Gentiles, its content has already been filledP
1.1. Luke 6.40 defines the lla-th).~~ in relation to the ~LMcrxal..o~.28 This
link and the close affinity between fla{}TJ.~~ and llav{}uvoo 'indicate that
fla-th).~~ designates someone who stands in relation to another as pupil
and is instructed by that person'.29 A fla-th).~~ is primarily a learner. That
24 For Luke 8.35,38: E<'lEL1:0 eIvm crUv U"1:~ see Iv.2. For the OT, Jewish and Hellenistic concept of discipleship see Fitzmyer,Aspects, 118-22. J\XOAOV{tW as terminus technicus for discipleship probably appears only once in Acts and with a different object than
the Gospel's occurrences: the new believers of Pisidian Antioch foUowed Paul and
Barnabas (Acts 13.43; cf. Luke 5.11,27f; 9.23,57,59,61; 18.22,28,43; 22.39,54).
25 Cf. Acts 13.52; 14.20,22,28; 15.10; 16.1; 18.23,27; 19.1(?),9,30; 20.1,30; 21.4,16.
26 For the transitive usage see WB, 985.3. The didactic connotation is highlighted by
their definition 'zum JUnger machen, in die Schule nehmen, belehren'; cf. BDR 148.3,
309.l.
27 Caution is necessary as the nature of discipleship changes after the physical departure of Jesus. Cadbury, 'Names', 377 observes: 'The main difference in the use of
lLufu]1:'f); in Acts is the detachment of the word from Jesus.... In his second volume Luke
implies the continuance of the same term in an absolute sense for the adherents of the
religion preached about Jesus, including many who had never known him after the flesh
.,. '; cf. p. 378; u. Luz, 'Nachfolge Jesu I.NT', TRE XXIII, (678-86) 684f.
2B According to Fitzmyer,642 this proverb 'reflects on the preceding saying about the
"blind" and "leaders". Clear vision is needed in the guide (the teacher); but since the pupil depends on the teacher, the clear vision of the latter is all the more required'. This reflection emphasises the dependence of the disciple on the master's teaching.
29 P. Nepper-Christensen, EDNT II, (372-74) 372. It is difficult to assess how much of
the etymological link between lLufu]1:'f); and JLuv!hivw is alive in Lukan usage. Fitzmyer,
Aspects,118 observes that 'In ordinary language a "disciple" is someone who learns from
a teacher', yet says that 'by the time that Luke writes ... that tenn has become the ordinary Greek word for a Christian follower of Jesus' (125). This shift does not necessarily
326
IV. Luke's portrait of Gentile Christians
the disciples follow Jesus, imitate his example and need to be and are instructed by him, is evident throughout Luke's Gospel (on Luke's stress on
catechesis see IV.3.3.1.). Calling Gentile Christians 'disciples' implies their
need for instruction and for a model to imitate and indicates deficiencies
prior to faith which need to be redressed. Whom they followed and what
they learnt previously is discarded.
1.2. However, the Gentile 'disciples' were more than learners increasing
their knowledge. This designation indicates something qualitatively new:
The disciples became 'learners' following their call and salvation (ct.
Luke 6.12-49!). No amount of correction and instruction inherent in discipleship can replace this foundation, though both need to follow. The initial
proclamation contained the necessary information to establish the call for
repentance and discipleship. Systematic instruction began and was appreciated and properly understood only by disciples. This observation of sequence cautions against over-evaluating correction, which is to follow, but
cannot replace salvation.
In addition to instruction, discipleship also entails submission to the
authority of Jesus. Rengstorf concludes: 'Er ist fUr sie kein Rabbi / fnBacrXUAO!;, sondern ihr Herr. DaB sie JluthrcaL hellien, andert daran nichts'.3o
The Gentiles called disciples likewise acknowledged the Lordship of Jesus;
they left the Gentile rebellion against, indifference towards or lack of acknowledgement of his rule (ct Acts 4.25f). That Gentile Christians are
more than mere learners also becomes evident from the fact and nature of
other designations applied to them.
1.3. It is often argued that Luke selected his material with Gentile Christian readers in view: 31
imply complete loss of the ordinary meaning of the word before its usage as a technical
term. LSJ, 1072 suggest 'learner, pupil, student, apprentice'; LN define (la{hrrr;s as 'a
person who learns from another by instruction whether formal of informal' (p.328) and
'to be a follower or disciple of someone, in the sense of adhering to the teaching or instructions of a leader and in promoting the cause of such a leader' (p. 470). The opposite
of such adherence and promotion was true for Gentiles prior to faith; cf. Acts 4.25f.
30 ThWNT lV, (392-465) 459.32f; cf. p. 444.23-25,40f. On the use of this designation in
Acts cr. pp. 462.4-463.20 and Cadbury, 'Names', 376-78.
31 A full discussion and further arguments for this position are found in Fitzmyer, 5759 who refutes JerveU's suggestion of 'a milieu with a Jewish-Christian stamp' for Luke's
readers ('Paul', 175; cf. Jervell's more extensive arguments in Theology, 11-17) and of
Moscato, 'Theories'. Fitzmyer, 59 concludes for 'Gentile Christians in a predominantly
Gentile setting'. Nolland's suggestion (Renders, summarised and affrrrned in Luke I,
xxxii) that 'the ideal first-century reader for much of the Gospel of Luke (and of Acts) is
a God-fearer; one whose birth is not Jewish and whose background culture is Hellenistic
.. .' does not impinge on our considerations.
3. Acts
327
Der Blick auf die hellenistischen Gemeinden veranlaBt Lukas in seiner Darstellung
der Geschichte Jesu die Auseinandersetzung mit dem jildischen Gesetz und den jildischen Parteien zurilcktreten zu lass en und statt dessen die Frage nach Besitz und irdischen GUtern in den Yordergrund zu rUcken."
It follows that unless Luke saw the content of Jesus' instructions of the original Jewish
disciples as relevant and appropriate for his Gentile Christian readers, it is unlikely that
he would have included so much of this instruction (see IY.3.3.1.3.).'3 Thus these instructions (e.g. Luke 9.57,59,61; 14.25-35; 18.22,28-30,43)" reveal some of the challenges and
temptations which Gentile disciples also faced (cf. IY.3.3.3.) and would allow some indirect conclusions to their state prior to faith. We forgo this venue in favour of more direct
material.
2. Wayfarers. Ernst observes that in the Gospel's travel narrative Luke's un-
derstanding of discipleship is defined: 'Jesusnachfolge und Jiingerschaft

hellit Teilhabe am Weg Jesu nach Jerusalem ... Weggemeinschaft'35 (cf.
Luke 9.23,57-62; 18.22,28). In Acts, 'the way' becomes a designation for the
Christian movement and Gentile Christians (19.9,23; 22.4; 24.14,22; cf.
16.17: Mov owtTJQiu~ (?); 18.25f: "t~v aMv "tou {}wu).36 Christians belong
to or are on 'the Way' ("tfj~ Mou ov"tu~, 9.2); Acts 9.1 calls the same people
"tou~ !-lu{}T]"ta~ "tou XUQLOU. 37 Disciples are no longer on their own 'ways',
but on the Lord's way. Gentile Christians travel on a road that is qualitatively different, not on their own way, now better lighted and delineated.
Correction, instruction and care are required for them to walk it and remain on it. This observation recalls and is affirmed by a direct reference:
though in the past God ElUOEV :1taV"tu 'tu e-frvT] :1toQEuw{}m t:ai~ odoi"~
32 Wiefel, 21; ct. also p. 4. Similarly Schneider, Lukas, 33: That Luke wrote for Gentile
Christians 'kann angesichts der Yermeidung spezifisch jildischer Religionsfragen innerhalb des Evangeliums nicht zweifelhaft sein'. Our investigation attests that 'die Frage
nach Besitz und irdischen Giltern' (Wiefel) is a relevant issue for Gentiles. Jervell, Theology, 11-17 argues that the picture is different in Acts.
33 Cf. the observations by U. Luz, 'Nachfolge Jesu.I. NT', TRE XXXIII, (678-86) 684f:
'Das radikale Bild der damals Jesus nachfolgenden JUnger wirkt fUr die lukanische Gemeinde als Spiegel und Modell, d.h. indirekt paranetisch'.
34 Cf. Emst, 249; Beck, Character. Some teaching on discipleship addresses attitudes
elsewhere associated with Gentiles, compare e.g. Luke 14.33 with 12.30; 17.26-29; Luke
18.22 with Acts 16.19; 19.25-27;20.33-35; cf. our treatment of the italicised references.
35 P. 249; similarly Fitzmyer, 242f: 'discipleship as following of Jesus along his way', 243;
ct. Fitzmyer, Aspects, 123-28,134f; Cadbury, 'Names', 39lf.
36 Cf. WB, 1125.2.c.; Pesch 1,303: 'vielleicht eine der aItesten Selbstbezeichnungen'; for
detailed treatment cf. E. Repo, Der 'Weg' als Selbstbezeichnung des Urchristentums: Eine
traditionsgeschichtliche und semasiologische Untersuchung, AASF B 132.2 (Helsinki:
Suomalainen liedeakatemia, 1964); for parallels in Qumran cf. Barrett I, 448. Hengell
Schwemer, Paul, 81 and n. 437 also mention Jewish usage of this metaphor.
37 Schneider 11,25, n. 29: 'Da sich der Terminus nur in der Apg findet und weil er zug\eich mit der lukaruscheIi Weg-Konzeption korrespondiert ... kann man ihn als spezifisch "lukanische" Bezeichnung fllr das Christentum ansehen'; ct. W. Michaelis, Th WNT
V, (42-101) 93-95 and Brown, Apostasy, 131-45.
328
airtwv (Acts 14.16), following their natural inclination and destination, in

the present he called and brought some Gentiles to walk on his way. When
not on this way, Gentiles prior to faith are following their own ways.
3.1.4. Brothers
Fitzmyer notes that a 'special corporate sense of following is found in the

Acts ... , where the primitive Palestinian Christian community is designated
"the Way"'.38 The same corporate sense is also expressed in another of
Luke's designations for Gentile Christians: they are Me.l.. qJoL and form a
new MEA.qJ6'tT]~.39 Used of Jewish Christians from the beginning and
throughout Acts40, the expression also occurs when Gentile Christians are
included or are exclusively in mind:41 e.g. the Christians of Phoenicia and
Samaria are called brothers (Acts 15.3); the apostolic letter is addressed to
the MEA.qJO~ 'tot\; E; e'fivwv (15.23). Three observations are in order:
1. What also appears throughout Acts as an expression for 'Angehorige desselben Volkes'42 among Jews, is extended to Gentile Christians. This designation, indicative of special relationship among and with Jews, was not extended to Gentiles prior to faith. These Gentiles, unless they were proselytes (cf. Acts 13.43), were not part of the chosen and privileged people
(Acts 7.2-5; 13.17), not the descendants of the prophets and of the God
given covenant (2.25) and not participating in their promises (2.39; 7.17;
13.23,32; 26.6). With their Jewish brothers, Gentile Cfzristians share a Father
previously unknown (2.33). Brotherly relationships replace the anti-Judaism displayed by some Gentiles prior to faith (cf. II.3.7.).43
38 P. 242. Like the pictures of the church as a family or fellowship of wayfarers, the verb
auvax-!liiVaL, used of the first Gentile Christian community (Acts 11.26), also implies
community: 'Das Passiv von (JlJvayw hat hier reflexiven Sinn: "zusammenkomrnen, sich
treffen, zusammen sein"', Schneider n, 91, n. 42; against BC lV, 130 who propose 'to be
taken in as a guest' and Barrett I, 555; cf. Acts 4.5.31. For the 'Community Aspects of
Christian Life' see Fitzmyer,Aspects, 138-40.
39 Cf. WB, 29.2.; 1. Beutler, EDNT 1,28-30; K.H. Schelkle, RAC II, 631-40; Cadbury,
'Names', 378f; SchUrmann, 'Gemeinde', 65-73.
40 Acts 1.15f; 6.3; 9.17,30; 10.23; 11.1,12,29; 12.17; 15.7,13 (UVSQES MEAcpoL); 15.22f;
21.17,20; 22.13. The significance of this expression is supplemented by the summaries of
Acts 2.42-47 and 4.32-37 which describe the intimacy and intensity of this brotherhood;
cf. Pesch 1,128-33,179-94.
41 Acts 14.2; 15.1,3,32f,36; 16.2,40; 17.6,10,14; 18.18,27; 21.7; 28. 14f.
42 WB, 29.3. Acts 2.29; 3.17,22; 7.2,23)5f.37; 13.15,26,38,40; 22.1,5; 23.1,5f; 28.17,21. Cr.
the addresses of Jewish audiences to those of Gentile audiences in Acts 14.15; 17.22;
27.10,21,25; the latter are men (of their respective places), not brothers.
43 This chord may also be struck in another designation: Paul visited ,;ouS cpL)..o"S in Sidon (Acts 27.3). Though it is possible to translate 'his friends', the friends is the more
natural reading; cE Cadbury, 'Names', 379f; against BC lV, 326. Schneider n,384 has
3. Acts
329
These observations and other designations of Gentile Christians imply that salvation and
membership in this new family are linked. Salvation entails simultaneous acceptance into
community. The conversions of pious Jews and of Gentile God-fearers demonstrate that
entry and membership in the church is dependent on salvation and not achieved through
a process of reception and acceptance of correction and gradual amendment of previous
deficiencies such as ignorance and ethical failures. People who passed through this process like Comelius were &Ex't6~ (Acts 10.35), yet still needing salvation. The members of
this community also have a new status and privileges, e.g. the Spirit, unattainable for Gentiles prior to faith, however much correction they received, accepted and put into practice
(cf. 102,22,44-46). In this sense Luke contends extra ecclesia nulla salus.
2. This new brotherhood not only transcends ethnic identity but was previously defined as the fellowship of '( ... my brothers are) those who hear
the word of God and do it' (Luke 8.21, in contrast to Jesus' physical a&EA.IPOL, v. 19).45 If present behind the occurrences in Acts, this defInition of
brotherhood suggests that these Gentile Christian brothers hear and do the
word of God which they neither had, heard nor obeyed previously. For this
lack Luke repeatedly provides direct evidence.
3. Gentile Christian brothers 'are linked together as a family with one another and with
Jesus ... 'Brother' expresses 'das neue Verh1l1tnis. in das man sich zu den Mitmenschen.
both: 'seine Freunde', n. 24: 'die Mitchristen des Paulus'. In this translation 'friends' is another designation for Christians. Harnack notes: 'Wahrscheinlich bedeutet hi er "die Freunde" nicht spezielle Freunde des Apostels. sondem Christen uberhaupt (die sonst in
der Apostelgeschichte stets "die BrUder" heiBen)'. Mission. 435; ct. Hamack's excursus
pp. 433-36 for Graeco-Roman and early Christian use and C. Dietzielbinger, Der Abschied des Kommenden: Eine Auslegung der johanneischen Abschiedsreden, WUNT 95
(TUbingen: J.C.B. Mohr.1997).145. As Sidon occurs previously as a traditional Gentile
city (Luke 4.26; 10.13f. but also 6.17!), 'the friends' probably included Gentile Christians.
.. Luke does not discuss e.g. the relation of Acts 4.12 to the fate of God-fearers who
did not come inlo contact with the Christian mission or of pious Jews prior to the death
of Jesus. According to Luke 13.28 the aT saints participate in the eschatological banquet. Cf. the discussion in Pinnock, 'Acts 4.12'; Bock. 'Athenians'; Sigountos, 'Christians' .
s We follow Nolland. 395 against Fitzmyer. 725.
.. NoIland. 395, with reference to SchUrmann I. 471. Ernst. 210: 'Neue geistliche Verwandtschaften erwachsen aus der Jesusgemeinschaft und aus dem Befolgen des Willens
Gottes'. In contrast to other NT authors, Luke does not develop the concept of xOLVOlvLa
among Christians; cf. Acts 2.42.44; 4.32; cf. W. Popkes, 'Gemeinschaft', RAC IX (1100-45),
1130-33; for the developed Pauline concept see F. Hauck, ThWNT Ill, 805.29-808.28,
80837-80930, on Acts 2.42 ct. pp. 80931-810.2 and Barrett I, 163f. Other than what is implied in the designation 'brothers' (cf. Harnack, Mission, 437; Schurmann, 'Gemeinde',
67f, 70), the fellowship among Gentile Christians and that of Jewish and Gentile Christians does not appear often.
While Luke notes the unusual Gentile Christian charity towards Jewish Christians
(Acts 11.28; cf. IY.3.4.2.), his reference to the collection in Acts 24.17 (cf. Schneider 11,
348f; Berger, 'Almosen', 180r, 195-204; Conzelmann, 142; Zmijewski, 817; Weiser, 348) is
cryptic in comparison with its significance in Paul's letters (cf. S. McKnight, 'Collection
for the Saints', DP L, 143-47; J.R. Willis, DAC I, 223-25). Acts 11.28 must not be neglected
when Acts 24.17 is compared with Pauline references; cf. Weiser, 348; Dunn, 284f, 313f.
330
Iv:
Luke's por/rall of eJenllle ChrisClans
vor alien zu den Glaubensgenossen, gesetzt wuBte'." In addition to reconciliation with

Jews, this designation may also imply that Gentiles prior to faith lacked this kind of relationship with each other. 48
Luke's few references to unity and common action of Gentiles prior to faith are either
antagonistic to the cause and course of the mission (e.g. Acts 14.19; 16.19-22; 19.25-29; cf.
27.11; 18.17'9), or appear in the context of idolatry (12.22; 14.11-13; 1935) or of rebellion
against God (4.25f; cf. Luke 1832f;23.6-12,26,33,36-38). However, the restriction of Gentile 'unity' to such cases is also due to Luke's subject matter.
3.1.5. Christians
Acts 11.26 reports that in Antioch, the place of the first systematic outreach
to Gentiles, the Gentile believers became a group distinct from Judaism
with a name of their own: 'the disciples were first called Christians'. They
were designated 'Anhiinger des Christus, die ihm Zugehorigen'50, those
who identified themselves with his person and mission, in brief his partisans. After the designation of Jesus as 0 XQLm:6~ in Acts 26.23, Agrippa
speaks of XQLO"tLUVQV nOLfjOaL in V. 28.51 Barrett observes:
[The Christians] might call themselves j.la-thj"taL (as in this verse), or ltLcn;E"OV"tE~, or,
in relation to one another, ci&Et..qlOL. These words were useless to outsiders unless it
was made clear whose disciples they were, in whom they believed, in whose family they
were brothers."
Similarly Bauernfeind:
... es werden vielmehr AuBenstehende mit dies em Wart das hervorgehoben haben,
was als filr die neue Glaubensgemeinschaft charakteristisch erschien: Das alle LebensauBerungen durchdringende Bekenntnis zu dem Christus.53
47 Hamack, Mission, 417; cf. 417-19.

48 While Jews are often portrayed in groups and address each other as brothers (Acts
1.16; 2.29,37;3.17; 6.3 etc.), Luke's Gentiles use no address or other addresses: e.g. 18.14:
<1 'Io,,&aLot; 19.25,35: c'iV&QE~ 'Eq>eotO\.
49 Cf. Luke's portrayal of Gentile crowds, III.2.2.8.2. An exception is Acts 14.4: while
the :n:A:ii{}o~ of Iconium as a whole was divided, some of the Gentile residents (distinct
from the 'brothers' of 14.2) sided with the apostles, though this faction did not make its
influence felt later; cf. Barrett I, 670f.
50 W. Grundmann, Th WNT IX, 529.7.
51 No other reference to Jesus appears between both references. The connection is less
striking for Acts 11.26, where "tOY xVQLOv'ITIooi3v XQLOl:QV occurs only in 11.17.
52 I, 556f (italics mine).
51 P. 155. Cr. GilllWinter, 'Religion', 102, n.116: this designation can 'hardly be invented
by orthodox Jews since it concedes the messiahship of Jesus . ... The suffix -ianus constitutes a political comment. It is not used of the followers of a god. It classifies partisans of
a political of military leader .. .' (italics mine). Cf. also M. Henge), 'Das frUhe Christenturn als eine jiidische messianische und universalistische Bewegung', ThBeitr 28, 1997,
(197-210) 201 and H. Botermann, Das Judenedikt des Kaisers Claudius: Romischer Staat
und Christiani im ersten Jahrhundert, Hermes Einzelschriften 71 (Stuttgart: F. Steiner,
1996), 141-88. In their extensive discussion HengellSchwemer, Paul, 203 note that this
3. Acts
331
This linguistic link and the ties between Acts 26.23 and v.28 stress the connection between Jesus, the XQL0l'6~ and the designation XQLOl'LUv6~. With
this title Jesus is affirmed as God's anointed agent, his Messiah54, whose
fact and fate is linked to the plan of God and to Scripture (Luke 24.26,46;
Acts 3.18; 26.27).55 Therefore when Gentiles became the partisans of this
Christ, they aligned themselves with God's purpose and action in his
anointed and appointed agent.56 As XQLOl'LUVOL they were no longer ignorant of or counteracting God's purpose (cf. the r:iV7:lXe{ar:o~ of the Johannine epistles and itEoI.UlXOS in Acts 5.39) and ceased gathering against the
Lord and his Christ (Acts 4.26) as they had done previously.
3.1.6. The church
'EX'KAT]ULU refers to the Jerusalem Christian community (Acts 5.11; 8.1,3;

11.22; 12.1,5; 15.4,22; 18.22). The range of the term is extended to include
the church in Palestine (9.31) and then is used of the Christians in Antioch
(11.26; 13.1; 1427; 15.3) and of other Gentile Christian communities in general references (14.23; 15.41; 16.5).
1. Gentile Christians became part of this gathering of God's people;57
Together, the disciples have become the people of God, reconstituted Israel, caUed to
a destiny that they continue to share in common ... it is .. , the reality in which one
shares the Spirit of God.s8
designation 'derived from the name Christos which dominated everything in it .. .', 'an
expression of their exclusive allegiance to the crucified and risen Messiah Jesus of Nazareth', p. 230; cf. their excursus 'The name "Christians" (Acts 11.26b)" pp. 225-30. They
note that the suffix-ianus 'expressed a family relationship, a geographical origin, a client
relationship or in general a political or spiritual adherence' (p. 228; further examples,
pp. 228f and nos. 1172, 1185, 1187; further studies in n. 1162).
54 Luke 2.11,26; 3.15; 4.41; 9.20 etc.; Acts 2.31,36; 3.20; 4.26; 8.5; 9.22 etc. On this title see
Fitzmyer, 197-200, 471f, 774f. Cadbury, 'Titles', 357f stresses Luke's use ofXQLOT.Or; in an
etymological sense: 'The Book of Acts is noteworthy in the fact that so often 'Christ' is
still a title rather than a name.... How far from being a mere name with forgotten etymology XQLOT.6~ is for our author is shown ... further by his use of it for the aT Messiah
without special reference to Jesus (Luke 2.26; 3.15; 24.26,46;Acts 231) and its occurrence
in the predicate as in [Acts] 2.36 Kat KUQLOV a-tJ1;OV Kat XQLOT.OV btotllOl!V 0 -frE6~'.
ss Cf. Bayer, 'Eschatology', 241, 249f.
56 Cr. Luke 22.22; Acts 2.23; 10,42; 17.3l.
57 Once in Acts EKKAllu[a refers to Israel as the 'congregation in the wilderness' (7.38);
cf. Hort, Ecclesia, 3-7. Cf. Roloff, Kirche, 190-206; Harnack, Mission, 419-22; Berger,
'Volksversammlung' for extensive treatment.
58 Fitzmyer, Aspects, 139f; cf. Hort, Ecclesia, 42-106. Hort, pp. 5f already cautioned
against etymological conclusions. For conclusions from Luke's pneumatology see IV.3.2.
332
Cadbury further notes for E'it'itAT)ota 'LXX associations of dignity and of intimate relation with God'.59 Israel was God's E'it'itAT)ota in contrast to the
nations whom God allowed to follow their own ways. Gentiles prior to faith
lack the status and all the privileges associated with God's ancient and reconstituted E'it'itA.T)oLa. Only Gentile Christians share the God and promises
of Israel.
2. For this new E'it'itAT)oLa Luke claims a unique origin: It is the E'it'itAT)ola
which God obtained with the blood of his own son (Acts 20.28). This is
Luke's 'only theological statement ... about the nature of the church'. 'The
church is the historical realm of salvation created by the death of Jesus'.
Through their addition to this church, the benefits of the 'vicarious atoning
death of Jesus'60 are extended also to Gentiles. The application of this saving act and its benefits is exclusive to Christians. Gentiles prior to faith do
not gain from this act what Christians receive.
Though not developed, this definition of the EltltAl]cna may not appear without reason in
Acts 20.28 as EltltAl]uLa is also used of the idolatrous assembly in Ephesus, 19.32,39f. Except for Antioch, ltltAl]ULa is only used of a particular Gentile church in Ephesus, 20.17.
There is a contrast between the church at Ephesus, established by God (20.28: ijv ltEQLE1tOLTJUQ1:0) and the Gentile assembly in honour of Artemis;cf. Acts 19.23-40 and 20.17-38.
Cadbury writes: 'The single word expresses the exclusive character of the Christian religion'.61 Only the church is God's legitimate assembly, all other gatherings fall short of
this character. Luke's description of the peaceful and orderly Gentile Christian meeting
in Troas (20.7-12) also appears in stark contrast to the portrayal of the tumultuous pagan
gathering of the previous chapter.62
3. The church is also characterised as living 'in the fear of the Lord and the
comfort of the holy Spirit' (Acts 9.31). Neither characteristic applies to
Gentiles prior to faith.
Conclusion
The designations applied to Gentile Christians or to communities induding
them show that Gentile Christians enjoy a new state and blessings previously unknown. Drawing conclusions from these to Gentiles prior to
faith, it appears broadly speaking that Luke saw them as sinners lacking holiness and dedication to God; as unbelievers, lacking confident trust in him;
'Names', 387.
Quotations from 1. Roloff, EDNT I, (410-15) 414. Cf. III.3.3.2.1.3.3., III.3.3.2.2.9. for
further reference to Acts 20.28.
61 'Names', 388.
6Z The Ephesus account is introduced by the Lukan litotes (cf. BDR 495.2) '1:ciQaxos
milt oAtyOS' (Acts 19.23; cf. OUlt oAtYl]V EQyauLav, 19.24), the Troas account closes with a
similar 'ltaQEltAiJilT]uav ou ~'QLwS', 20.12. For the Ephesian riot see II.3.8.
59
6C
3. Acls
333
as not on the way of the Lord but on their own ways. They did not know,
learn or do God's word; they were not part of God's people in intimate relationship with him and not aligned with the plan and purposes of God and
his history of salvation. That some of these conclusions are confirmed
through Luke's direct statements supports the validity of our approach.
These further conclusions regarding the state of Gentiles prior to faith
also indicate a plight in need of salvation. Though correction could address
and possibly overcome some of these deficiencies, e.g. their ignorance, it
cannot alter their situation in other areas, e.g. their natural lack of holiness.
Salvation needs to be much more comprehensive than the dissemination of
information. The reported results of the actual attempts at correction and
instruction of Gentiles prior to faith likewise point in a different direction.
3.2. The difference made by the Spirit
Following ecclesiology we now briefly touch on Luke's pneumatology. We

already saw that in contrast to the human spirit, God's Spirit is the holy
Spirit and that this spirit is not innate in people. The holy Spirit is a divine
gift which never appears in people unless it has to come upon them or was
given to them (cf. IV.3.1.1.). Gentiles also needed to receive and did receive
the holy Spirit. The reception proved their new identity as believers (Acts
10.45). Prior to this gift (Acts 11.15; 15.8) Gentiles lacked the Spirit of God.
This lack helps to explain their alienation and continuous failure in their relationship with God. We came across Gentiles who were (to a greater or
lesser extent) possessed by spirits of a different kind.
Following the first coming of the Spirit on Gentiles (~ 6WQEU "tou aYLo'IJ
l'tVEU!J.U"tO; EKKEX'IJ"tUL, recalling EKXELV of Acts 2.17f,33; cf. 10.47!) they
spoke in tongues and !J.EYU).1JVOV"twv "tOY {}EOV (Acts 10.44-48). This activity
is in strong contrast to Luke' statements on Gentiles prior to faith. The immediate consequence of receiving the Spirit is an ability closely related to
the Spirit (2.3f) and previously not theirs, and an outburst of praise. The
Gentiles' praise of God is ascribed to the Spirit's agency.63 Gentiles lacking
the Spirit did not acknowledge and praise God, rather, as Luke indicates,
they praised people or idols (12.22,19.34). Barrett observes that where the
63 This praise recalls the cSe0I-lEVOS "l"OV -frEOV cSulltaV"L"os of the God fearer Comelius in
Acts 10.2. However, Horst, Proskynein, 247 contrasts Acts 10.2 and 10.46: 'Nachdem er
Christ geworden ist ... steigt durch die Gabe des ltVEVl-la seine und seiner Hausgemeinde I!UaE~ELa tlber das bisherige formelhafte Gebet weit hinauf in den freien Trieb zur
Anbetung derer, die in neuen Zungen Gott durch ihr Lob erh6hen .. .'. When f.II!yru.1ivOl
occurs again with Gentiles in Acts 13.48, it is safe to assume relation to the reception of the
Spirit though this is not explicitly mentioned. It is less clear for 19.17. On the difference
made by the Spirit ct: also the recent studies of Lukan pneumatology listed on p. 252, n. 659.
334
11': L.ukes panTall oj Gentile Lh".sltans
Spirit 'is manifestly at work (in e.g. speaking with tongues; cf. 10.46), it is
plain that there is divine action'.64 Such direct divine action in their lives
Gentiles lacked previously.
John Chrysostom noted the tremendous change in the portrayal of the apostles in Luke
and Acts.6' The Spirit procured this difference and mediated new insight (cf. Luke 1.4143,67; 2.25) as their human spirit was insufficient. The changes wrought in Gentile Christians are not as readily discernible as neither their previous Spirit-lacking nor their ensuing Spirit-filled life are described to the same extent.66 When the latter is considered below (IV.3.4.), the impact of the Spirit should be kept in mind.
a) On the departure of the missionaries the Gentile disciples of Pisidian Antioch were
filled with the Spirit (Acts 13.52). With this equipment, the new believers survived in a
hostile atmosphere until further steps could be taken to strengthen their new existence
(14.22f; see IV.3.3.4.). That such perseverance is not taken for granted, but is associated
with the fullness of the Spirit and continuous divine action (cf. the earlier exhortation:
1CQooILEVELV 'ii X<lQL"tL "tov ih:ov, 13.43) indicates the endangered spiritual state of Gentile
Christians (see IV.3.3.3.). That the Spirit is crucial even for Gentile Christians discourages the assumption of much natural potential for insight and the capability to act upon
it on tbe part of Gentiles prior to faith.
b) Fitzmyer notes that for Luke the Spirit 'acts as the substitute for Jesus of Nazareth,
who began the whole movement and initiated the teacher-disciple relationship that is the
basis of it all' .67 Gentiles prior to faith lacked this and other benefits associated with the
Spirit. Some of these benefits pertain to the fulfilment of the Christian task and were not
applicable previously, e.g. supernatural direction and equipment of the apostles."
Luke records an unusual benefit: a Christian prophet predicted through the Spirit that
there would be a severe famine over all the world (Acts 11.28).8> Through this warning
the Gentile Christians of Antioch were able to make preparations. This note is interesting in light of its consequences (cf. IV.3.4.2.), of the Gentile concern for their sustenance
(Luke 12.30; 17.26-29) and of Luke's description of the church as 'eating their food with
glad and generous hearts' (Acts 2.46). What they previously endeavoured to achieve by
their own preoccupation ~ now ensured through this prophetic warning. Though Gen-
... 1,291.
65 Homilies on Acts 1,1: ' ... the mighty change which is taking place in the disciples
now that the Spirit has come upon them .... Here again you will see the Apostles themselves, speeding their way as on wings over land and sea; and those same men, once so
timorous and void of understanding, on the sudden become quite other than they were;
men despising wealth, and raised above glory and passion and concupiscence, and in
short all such affections: moreover, what unanimity there is among them now, nowhere
any envying as there was before, nor any of the old hankering after pre-eminence, but all
virtue brought in them to its last fmish .. .'.
66 Acts describes the changes in the apostles. The Spirit and the disciples' new public
boldness are closely linked in Acts 2.14;4.8 (cf. 4.13!);4.31; 6.10;7.55. The link is less obvious for commendable behaviour (possibly 4.32-37, which follow 4.31; cf. Barrett 1,250).
Ii1 Aspects, 139f.
68 Cf. Kee, News, 36-41; Roloff, Kirche, 209 and Weiser, 227-32 for the occurrences and
significance of angels and visions.
69 Cf. Winter, 'Food'; Riesner, Frahzeit, 111-21. Step hen's account does not indicate
that Gentile Egypt was kept from starvation in the famine of Acts 7.11 through Joseph,
with whom God Was (7.9); cf. the AL\J.O; f1kya; of Luke 4.25.
J.
ACts
335
tiles prior to faith benefit from God's providential care in general (Acts 14.17), they did
not share these privileges.
3.3. The ministry to Gentile Christians
Our conclusions from Luke's ecclesiology and pneumatology regarding

Gentiles prior to faith were meagre. In this section on Luke's 'practical theology' we discover his stress on, to use modem terms, Christian education and
pastoral care. Both are closely related, the former being an expression and
part of the latter, the latter often being accomplished through the former.
In our discussion thus far we have interacted critically with the major
study of Lukan anthropology to date. We tried to show that Taeger's conclusion that people do not need to be saved does not do justice to the full
Lukan picture of Gentiles prior to faith. However, in the following section
we fully affirm the second half of Taeger's succinct summary: 'Der Mensch
... ist ein corrigendus'.7o To state our thesis by playing on Taeger's phrase:
Gentiles prior to faith need to be saved and need much correction. The nature of this correctio, how it applies to Gentile Christians and what conclusions can be drawn for Gentiles prior to faith is now our focus.
3.3.1. Luke's emphasis on catechesis: Gentile Christians in need of correction
and instruction
Luke 3.10-14 presents questions and answers cast in a style familiar from
later catechisms.71 This catechesis is followed by many chapters containing
the teaching of Jesus. After Pentecost the presence of the Spirit does not replace the need of instruction and exhortation.
Correction and instruction first appear in the Jewish Christian setting of Acts.72 In the
first summary, the first among the items listed, to which the believers were devoted to, is
the apostles' teaching (3tQoaxuQ'tEQoiivtec; 1ft liLliuxft, 2.42).73 The apostles continue JeMensch, 225.
Cf. Emst, 110f.
72 The occurrences of IiLMaxaAoc; (17 times) and IiLliaaxEw (17 times) in the Gospel
indicate the catechetical tradition of JUdaism. Comparable references in pagan settings
are scarce (Acts 17.19; 19.9).
73 For consideration ofthe content of the teaching and Luke's 'lack of interest in moral
conversion' see Barrett, 'Imitatio', 253f. The Gospel's teaching on material possessions
was put in practice in Acts 4.32-5.11. Reinhardt, Wachstum, 169 argues against a rigid distinction according to location of 'innergemeindliche Unterweisung der Apostel' and
their evangelistic proclamation, while Klauck, Hausgemeinde, 47f, 50f presents a more
differentiated picture: 'Im Ansatz, wenn auch nicht mit letzter Konsequenz unterscheidet Lukas zwischen offentlicher Missionspredigt und Gemeindeleben', p. 47. On Acts
5.42 Klauck notes: 'Wahrscheinlich wird man die Zentralbegriffe hier chiastisch verb inden mUssen, das heiBt,zum Tempel gehort das offentliche VerkUnden und zu den einzelnen Hliusern das Lehren', p. 50. In Gentile settings the separation is more distinct.
7D
71
336
IY. Luke's portrait of Gentile Christians
sus' teaching ministry in the temple (4.2: "to 6L6aoxELv; 4.18; 5.21: 'entering the temple
even at daybreak and continuing with their teaching'; cf. Luke 21.37f; 5.25,28: tJ.TJ
6L6riOKELV; 5.42: 6L6riOKOV1:Et; Kat EuayyekLl;6tJ.EVOL "tOV XQLmov 'ITJoouv), teaching the
disciples and the crowds. Little wonder that the apostles were charged with 'filling Jerusalem with their teaching' (6L6axti, 5.28). 'Their public teaching, replacing the public
teaching of the scribes, carries on the instruction of converts who have yet much to learn,
and attendance upon it is at the same time a mark of fellowship'.74
This emphasis in Acts is not surprising in light of Luke's extensive depiction of the
teaching ministry of Jesus. It is not surprising that missionaries sent to the Gentiles,
would - following their master - turn out to be teachers and follow the pattern and content of his teaching.7! Paul's speech to the Ephesian elders ends with an explicit reference to the teaching of Jesus (,lilv Mywv "tau K"UQlo"U 'ITJoou, 20.35): 'Am Ende der
einzigen Predigt Pauli vor christlichen HBrern steht der Hinweis auf die der apostolischen Autoritiit vorausliegende Autoritiit des Herrn Jesus' .76
3.3.1.1. Teaching Gentiles prior to faith
Gentiles lacked the revelation which Jews had received (e.g. Acts 2.23;
15.21). Luke describes the manifestations of this lack and the misconceptions substituting for it. Gentiles also need instruction as they failed to draw
or drew wrong conchisions from God's revelation in nature. The consequences .of their failure arose from their ignorance (17.30). It is only to be
expected that this state should be addressed, corrected and instruction be
provided once and whenever opportunity arises. Acts reports how the Gentiles' lack, rejection or perversion of knowledge was addressed. This process begins already with Gentiles prior to faith:
1\vice Gentiles prior to faith are said to receive 'teaching'. Sergius was astonished at the
6L6axiJ "tOU K"UQLO"u (Acts 13.12; cf. his desire to hear 'the word of the Lord' in 13.7; cf.
13.5). Both expressions suggest that the content was the good news of Jesus usually expressed by the euaYYEkL- word group, not the instruction of other settings. According to
the Athenians Paul presented a KaLVTJ 6L6axti (17.19), which is different from Luke's
own summary of Paul's proclamation in 17.18: "tov 'ITJooiiv Kat "tTJV ir.vamaOLv
eUTJyyektl;eto (cf. 6LEMyE"to in 17.17).
From the first point of contact onwards Gentiles receive instruction. The
mere presence and content of the two speeches before Gentiles testify to
Luke's belief that correction, information and imperatives are the way to
Hort, Ecclesia, 44 (italics mine).

Cf. the cautious approach of Barrett, 'Imitatio'.
Pesch I1, 206. This 'Orientierung an Jesus' (Ernst, 178; cf. pp. 248f.) is also apparent in
the missionaries' actions: Paul and Barnabas - themselves not among the original disciples, yet familiar with Jesus' teaching - are portrayed as following Jesus' instructions concerning rejection (Luke 9.5; 10.11; Acts 13.51). For the theological relevance cf. Barrett I,
660; Pesch n, 47; Cadbury, 'Dust', 269-71.
74
75
76
3. Acts
337
address Gentiles'?' However, this observation is modified by the respective

contexts of both speeches (see III.2.2.9. and 11. for full treatment) which indicate that teaching is of limited effect with Gentiles prior to faith.
1. Luke indicates that information is not the panacea for ignorance and ensuing failure;
cf. III.3.3.3.2. In Athens only a few of the listeners responded positively when correction
of misapprehension and knowledge was provided. There was also an informed rejection
(Acts 17.32). In Lystra the purpose of the address was not extensive correction and instruction - hardly feasible under the given circumstances - but the barely achieved hindrance of sacrifice to the missionaries. Later the corrected and instructed crowd turned
against the missionaries (cf. also 26.24f). Both circumstances and their results preclude
suggesting that Luke evaluates teaching and correction of Gentiles very highly and that
this replaces salvation.
2. In Lystra and Athens correction and instruction followed because the missionaries'
miracle andlor previous proclamation of the good news was not understood or misunderstood and interpreted in pagan categories. In Lystra correction was given to address grave
misunderstandings and to prevent blasphemous acts. In Athens it served to explicate previous proclamation and to substantiate the call to repentance: the good news of Jesus and
the resurrection was the original and crucial message78, general correction and correction
of misapprehension of the original proclamation was secondary. Proclamation to Gentiles did not start with such correction in order eventually to introduce Jesus but with the
gospel. The immediate understanding of this proclamation in pagan categories shows not
only of how little avail and dangerous the proclamation to Gentiles prior to faith can be
but also that they are not predisposed towards receiving instruction and correction.
Luke records long speeches (Acts 7.2-53; 13.16-41). In comparison to these, the
speeches to Gentiles are shorter and limited to the bare essentials to clarify and substantiate the original message or to prevent pagan blasphemy. Their occasion, brevity and different nature also indicates how much less common ground there is between Christianity
and the Gentiles than with Judaism.
3. Elsewhere Luke links the conversion of Gentiles with God's saving intervention, not
with successful correction; cf. III.3.3.2.2. The verb :n:El-frw ('persuasion of the audience')
occurs with Jews or God-fearing Gentiles in synagogue settings in whose lives God was
already at work (Acts 17.4; 18.4; 19.8; and also in the references of Demetrius and Herod
Agrippa 11 to Paul's ministry, 19.26; 26.28), not when Gentiles without such association
are addressed apart from this setting (1II.3.3.3.1.).
3.3.1.2. Teaching Gentile Christians

The picture changes for Gentile Christians. The chapters of Acts devoted to
the Gentile mission emphasise the catechesis of Gentile Christians.
In this section the stress will be on the scope and description of catechesis and its content.
Occurrences of :n:aQaXaAEW are treated below under Luke's emphasis on pastoral care.
TT Philip used an OT passage to 'evangelise' the Ethiopian (Acts 8.35). Other Godfearing Gentiles were reached through the proclamation in synagogues where instruction was based on Scripture (13.1641; 17.11).
78 Cf. Acts H.2Df where success of the same message is ascribed to the hand of the
Lord.
338
1V. Lukes portrait of GentiLe Christians
Often Luke's keywords describing catechesis and pastoral care appear together to describe the efforts to ensure spiritual survival and growth of Gentile Christians. We only
separate them to obtain greater clarity in presentation.
3.3.1.2.1. Catechesis in the Antiochene Church
1. The Gentiles who became Christians in the first systematic attempt of

evangelism in Antioch immediately received instruction.79 This ministry
was so important that Barnabas went to Tarsus to enlist Paul's aid. For an
entire year Paul and Barnabas met with the church and taught (~L~a(Jlt(j)
the great many people who were brought to the Lord (Acts 11.24-26).80 As
a consequence of this intensive teaching, a community emerged that attracted the name of the person whose partisans they had become and with
whose biography, teaching and demands they were made thoroughly familiar (et N.3.1.5.). Only when this task was accomplished did the mission
move forward (Acts 13.2).
The attention given to this systematic catechesis is underscored in that
by the beginning of ch. 13 the Antiochene church had three more men who with Bamabas and Paul were entitled prophets and ~L~a(JltaAOL - involved in this task: 'By their ministry the "apostles" teaching' (Acts 2.42)
was perpetuated and transmitted. As the number of converts increased, so
did the need for more teachers to give them the instruction they required, instruction in the principles of Christian faith and life'.81 What was said of the
Jerusalem community was extended to Gentile C~ristians.
79 Acts 11.26; for 11.23 see IV.33.2. Acts 10.48 also suggests further instruction of Cornelius and his household. For the content of such instruction cf. G. Schneider, 'Thadition,
Kontinuitat und Sukzession in der Sicht der Apostelgeschichte', Schrift und Tradition. FS
1. Ernst, eds. K. Backhaus, F.G. UntergaJ3mair (Paderborn, Munich,Vienna: F. Schiiningh,
1996), (293-313) 294-98.
80 Cf. Reinhardt, Wachslum, 220-35. On PaUl's move from Tarsus to Antioch cf. Hengell
Schwemer, Paul, 178f; see pp. 183-86, 189f, 200f for the strained Jewish-Gentile relations
in Antioch at that time and later on. HengellSchwemer, Paul, 222 note on Acts 11.26:
'Thus for Luke "assembling the community" and "teaching" belong inseparably together' and' ... for both "Antiochene apostles", teaching remained decisive. Here they
certainly provided the greatest and most abiding stimuli', p. 224; cf. also p. 277 and
n.1140.
81 Bruce, 293 (italics mine); cf. Barrett I, 602f; Hort, Ecciesia, 60f; Barrett, Church, 51.
HengellSchwemer, Paul, 199 observe that the 'The five "prophets'" and "teachers" in
Antioch in Acts 13.1, who represented something like a governing body of the community, were all Jews'; cf. also pp. 220, 278, 281. These Jewish Christians exercised the spiritual leadership; cf. IV.3.3.3.2'! For the strong links between Antioch and Jerusalem cf.
HengellSchwemer, Paul, 204f., 243, elc. Zimmermann's conclusion (Lehrer, 118-40),
based on the observation that Acts 13.1 contains Luke's only occurrence of bLbaaxaAo~,
that 'Lukas hat den Begriff traditional vorgefunden; denn er zeigt ja sonst nirgends Interesse ftlr christliche Lehrer ... Das Ami der c'lLbaaxaAOL erscheint als Relikt einer ver-
3. Acts
339
2. Some Judaean Christians ebLbucrxov the Gentile brothers in Antioch

(Acts 15.1).82 In the following council their false teaching was dismissed
and countered by the catecheticalletter quoted in Acts 15.22-29 and delivered by their teachers Barnabas and Paul and others. The Antiochenes rejoiced at this exhortation (tU :rtUQUXA:f]creL83 ) which communicated the instruction of the council (15.31). It contained the right instruction which the
troubled Gentile Christians needed. Its content, not the need of such instructions (MyOL;, 15.24) was at stake.
3. In Antioch Paul and Barnabas, supported by many others, continued
teaching and preaching the word of the Lord to strengthen the church
(Acts 15.22,25-27,35f; for 15.32 see below). The number of teachers involved in this task grew from two to 'many' (EtEQWV :rto)"),,fi)v, 11.26; 15.35).
Through his portrait of the first Gentile Christian church and its activities Luke emphasises the fact that Gentiles coming to faith need systematic
and comprehensive catechesis right away a) to instruct them about Jesus
Christ and the implications of their new status as his followers and its demands; b) to prevent the acceptance of false teaching and/or the confusion
caused by it; c) to know and to follow the word of God which these Gentiles lacked previously.
This continuous catechetic emphasis is the leading characteristic of the
Antiochene church. It is the first church whose members became known as
Christians and also the church to initiate the systematic and exemplary
Gentile mission (rather than the church of Jerusalem). Luke strongly
recommends this church and its teaching ministry.
gangenen Zeil des Urchristentums, von dem Lukas sonst nichts mehr weijJ' (p. 134) seems
hasty in view of the occurrences of Ihllaoxw, related expressions and the material gathered here. He rightly stresses the importance of 13.1-3 in the structure of Acts (pp. 12023). SchUrmann, 'Lehrer', 133-35 writes: 'Auch kennt er die katechetische Lehrfunktion
der Gemeinden durchaus .... Es ist von daher ganz unwahrscheinlich, daB ein Evangelist,
der der JUngerunterweisung eine so gro13e Wichtigkeit zuschreibt und selbst ein bedeutender Lehrer war, au13erhalb des PresbyterkoIIegiums keine Lehrer und Katecheten
gekannt haben 5011'.
82 It is interesting to observe that it was Paul and Barnabas who had 'no small dissension and debate' with these Judaizers, not the Gentile Christians. Nothing is reported of
their response to this challenge. That Paul and Barnabas engaged with them and took action indicates that they saw these Judaizers as a real danger and threat to the Gentile
Christian church with which it was unable to deal on its own. This is also the picture in the
Pauline epistles; cf. W.S. CampbelI, 'Judaizers', DP L, 512-16; P.w. Barnett, 'Opponents of
Paul',DPL,644-53.
83 Cf. Barrett I, 258,474: 'the word seems to mean comfort, though encouragement is
not impossible'.
340
IY. Luke's portrait of Gentile Christians
3.3.1.2.2. Extended catechesis by the Antiochene Church
Following the ministry in Antioch Paul and Silas were commended to deliver
the decisions of the council to Gentile Christians in Syria and Cilicia (Acts
15.40-16.4; cf. the addr~ss in 15.23). The MYJla1;a"ta ?(EKQLJlEva were important and necessary instruction for these Gentile Christians (for possible reasons see II.3.6.). Through this extended catechesis by the Antiochene church
other churches were strengthened in the faith and increased in numbers daily
(16.5).84 Luke explicitly links the existence and development of Gentile
Christian churches with the reception of sound teaching ab extra.
As they continued their journey whenever and wherever it was feasible
for the Antiochene missionaries to stay undisturbed at a particular place,
they developed the familiar teaching ministry to ensure a good start for the
churches they founded. 8s Paul the teacher is the hallmark and summary of
Luke's portrait of Paul's ministry to the Gentiles. 86
1. Paul stayed in Corinth for eighteen months (Acts 18.11; cf. 18.18). His
ministry is described as teaching (bLbao?(J)v) of the word of God among
the many Gentile Corinthians who believed and were baptised (18.8). As in
the synagogue (cf. ouvELXE"tO "tiP A6ycp, 18.5), the content of his teaching was
'the word of God'. This word and its proper interpretation, namely Ehat
"tOY XQLO"tOV 'ITjooiiv, was previously unknown and had to be taught to these
Gentile Christians.
2. In Ephesus Paul argued daily for two years (bLaA.Ey6JlEVO~, 19.9)87 in the
axoA.~ of 1}rrannus. Codex D adds that these 'classes' lasted for five hours
and took place during the hottest hours of the day (a:rto wQa~ :rtEJl1t"tTJ~ E(J)~
OE?(a"tTj~; presumably when the building was not used by 1}rrannus).88 That
84 This agent behind this strengthening and increase is not identified, e.g. through a
passivum divinum. Possibly both was procured through obedience to the charges, which
changed the lifestyles of some Gentile Christians. Compare Reinhardt's excellent treatment of Acts 16.5 (Wachstum,245-55).
85 Although the missionaries remained for a long time, even in the face of resistance,
such ministry to the new believers (Acts 14.1) is not explicitly mentioned for Iconium,
though it is probably implied in 14.3. A sense of urgency would have been added through
the previous expUlsion of the missionaries from Pisidian Antioch. In light of 11.23 and
14.22, the situation described in 14.2 was probably addressed before the believers. Barrett 1,669 explains their long stay with the brothers' need of their support. Both, the missionaries and the believers received encouragement as God joined 'his witness to theirs'
(Barrett; cf. 14.3).
86 For the scope of PaUl's ministry cf. Riesner, FrUhzeit, 234-73; Schlirmann, 'Lehrer',
151-53.
If1 Acts 20.31 speaks of a three year ministry.
88 Cf. Bruce, (4081) 408; Hort, Ecclesia, 96f; BC IV, 238; Ramsay, Traveller, 271 and '"JYrannus', DB (H) IV, 821-23 (explanation of OXOA:r\).
.
3. Acts
341
the Christians (cf. "tou~ Ila-th]"ta~ probably constituting the main audience)
met in an educational institution testifies to the emphasis of Paul's ministry.
As a consequence, all the residents of Asia heard the word of the Lord
(19.10; v. 9: the kingdom of God), which Paul taught. 89
Paul later claimed that he had not shrunk from doing anything helpful,
uvaYYEi1aL VIlLV xat oLM!;aL vllii~ OTlIlOOl~ (in the synagogue and the
crxo}..~) and supplementing this with private instruction xat xa"t' orxou~,
Acts 20.20. Paul shared the whole purpose of God (uvaYYEi1aL :1tiioav "t~v
f3ou}..~v "tou aEOU, 20.27)90, testifying to both Jews and Greeks about repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus (20.21, the reference is
to Paul's ministry in Ephesus; cf. 20.18: VIlEl~ E:1tlmacr-frE). Both references
testify to Paul's dedication to this task.
The content of repentance and faith, the use of oLaAEyollaL91 and the
note that all the residents of Asia heard the word of the Lord (19.11; cf.
19.26) indicate that Paul's ministry was not limited to teaching Gentile
Christians but included proclamation of the gospel.
3. Paul also taught (OLEAEYE"tO) Gentile Christians in Troas. Here the audience is clearly indicated by the circumstances ("tU IlL~ "tWV oa~~(hoov
cruVTlYIlEVOOV ~llwV x}..aoaL uQ"tOv, 20.7). This was such a great concern of
Paul that he spoke until midnight and on and on through the whole night
(6IlLA~oa~ CiXQL auyfj~, 20.9).92
Acts closes with Paul teaching without hindrance in Rome. The last two
verbs of Acts describe Paul as the teacher (X'l]Quoooov the kingdom of God
and c'3Loaoxoov about the Lord Jesus Christ, 28.31) of all who came to him,
including Gentiles.
89 Apollos - appearing in Ephesus - had been Ka"tT]XTjfLeVO~ in the way of the Lord and
E6t6auXEv ciKQt~W~ -rcl :nEQl "tou 'ITjuou (18.25; cf. 17.18; 28.23,31; Barrett, 'Imitatio
Christi', 257). For Ka"tT]xew in Acts 21.21,24 cf. WB, 861.1.; for Luke 1.4: 'in denen du unterrichtet wurdest' (WB, 862.2a.) see below.
90 Possibly the stress on :nuuav"CiJv ~O"A~V is directed against the synagogue of Ephesus, which knew and proclaimed only part of God's purpose to the Gentiles.
91 8taAYO/Lat occurs with Gentiles in Acts 17.17 and 24.25. In 17.17 6taHyo/Lat describes
Paul's ministry in the synagogue and the agora of Athens. The content indicated is the
good news of Jesus and the resurrection (17.18) and faith in Jesus Christ. Otherwise
Luke uses 6taAeyoflat for Paul's ministry in synagogues (17.2,18!; 18.4,19; 19.8; cf. 24.12)
or to Christians (19.91; 20.7,9).
9Z Cf. Zmijewski, 727; OfltAeW used of Felix in Acts 24.26 and in Luke 24.14f of the disciples on the road. It does not appear as a technical term for preaching; cf. WB,1146f.2.;
M. Sachot, 'Homilie', RAC XVI, (148-75) 155-57,161, the various terms appearing in
Acts for the teaching of Gentiles are discussed in col. 170. WB suggest predigen for Acts
20.11.
342
IV. Luke's porcrall of Genule ChristIans
Luke's portrait of the mission of the Antiochene Church, of Paul, the gentium doctor93 , and of the Gentile disciples that were taught with great commitment has the same implications for Gentiles prior to faith as Luke's description of the Antiochene church: Gentile Christians need to receive the
word of God and his whole purpose which they neither had nor knew previously. Prior to faith they did not know what was crucial for a proper relationship with God and each other (cf. Luke 10.27f). They had to hear about
repentance toward God, about the Lord Jesus and faith in him and about the
kingdom of God. In addition to these references to content, the proclamation
to Gentiles prior to faith indicates that the ministry to Gentile Christians had
to address and correct Gentile misconceptions. Such knowledge did not bud
and flourish on its own even following salvation and reception of the Spirit,
but had to be imparted carefully and continually. The intensity and thoroughness of such teaching shows that more than minor alterations to the natural
Gentile frame of mind were necessary. Availability and reception of this
teaching is among the benefits of salvation.
Luke's stress on catechesis and its necessity agrees with his portrayal of
the susceptible and seducible character of Gentiles (for crowds see
III.2.2.B.2., for individuals Acts 13.6f; 19.18f) and the statements and evidence of Gentile ignorance. It is clear from this material that such people
needed and received instruction prior to and under faith. However, there is
a noteworthy difference in response: where Luke reports at some length
the missionaries' attempts to correct and instruct Gentiles prior to faith, the
result is meagre (cf. IV.3.3.1.1.).94 In contrast, Gentile Christians understood
and eagerly received correction and instruction (e.g. Acts 20.7-11). Luke records no rejection or misapprehension of instruction among Gentile Christians. 95
93 I took this designation from Schwank, 'Rom', 174 who notes the inscription on a
statue of Paul on Malta: PAULO APOSTOLO MAGISTRO ORBIS GENTIUM DOCTORI. Paul the Jewish persecutor became a preacher and teacher immediately after his
conversion (Acts 9.20-22,29). In contrast to him, the Gentile Christians he served needed
much more attention to ensure their spiritual survival and prepare their participation in
the mission. That the latter was possible is indicated by the elders in 14.23 and in Ephesus, some of whom would have been Gentile Christians.
94 This also applies to revelation granted to Gentiles prior to the missionaries' arrival:
despite God not leaving himself without a witness in his providential care (Acts 14.17),
Gentiles kept striving after their sustenance.
95 On Acts 8.18-24 cf. IV.3.4.1., for Acts 20.30 et IV.3.3.S.3.
3. Acts
343
3.3.1.3. Luke's own catechetical contribution

We step back for a moment to consider the clues provided by the fact of
Luke's own volumes. Their shape and content indicate that Luke himself
had a catechetical intention. SchUrmann observes: 'Lukas versteht sich aber
wohl selbst als Lehrer, der sich nach Lk 1.1-4 der Paradosis verpflichtet
weiB'.96 Luke's own literary endeavour falls within this category of 'Christian education'. Writing primarily for Gentile Christians97 , he set out the
correct version of the life and teaching of Jesus and of the apostolic generation, possibly also refuting its distortions. 98 In his prologue Luke claims to
write so that Theophilus and other readers may gain fuller certainty (CLaqJuAELa) in the matters in which they had already been instructed (xatTlX.i1"611\;).99 Like Paul, Luke is also a doctor gentium.1 oo The importance of
such instruction and some of the threats it was to counter have become and
will become evident (cE IY.3.3.3.).
Writing a Gospel, a description of the life and teaching of Jesus (ilQ~ato
6 'ITlooll\; 3tOLELV tE xaL bLbuoXELV, Acts 1.1), testifies to Luke's conviction
that Gentiles need instruction lo enable them to become Jesus' disciples
and wayfarers (cE IV.3.1.3.). Luke's Gospel provides Gentile Christians
with the instruction they need lOl and indicates the content of this cateche-
'Lehrer', 153.
Schneider, Lukas 1-10, 33f; CL Kilmmel, Introduction, 150; CL our n. 32, p. 327.
Schneider, Lukas 1-10, 33 claims ' ... daB Lukas sein Werk gegen die Gefahr "apokrypher", wohl gnostisierender Lehrer schreibt, urn seinerseits die apostolische JesusUberlieferung vollstandig und maBgeblich zu dokumentieren'. Similarly Talbert, Gnostics and Ernst, 21: 'GegenUber der Irrlehre und VerfUhrung (Lk 21.8;Apg 20.29f) heiBt es
klaren Kopf bewahren. Lk verweist ausdrUcklich auf sein BemUhen urn mehr ZuverJassigkeit, d.h. Glaubwilrdigkeit in der Lehre (1.4)'; cf. the astute criticism of Buckwalter,
Character, 49-51 of direct attack on heresy as a Lukan purpose. The dangers described in
IV.3.3.3. were more imminent.
99 Cf. SchUrmann I, 14-16; Nolland, 10f; Cadbury, 'Commentary', BC ll, 508f. Luke's
strong emphasis on catechesis displayed elsewhere favours SchUrmann's interpretation
though the technical terms of a latter age, like 'prllbaptismale Unterweisung, liturgische
Taufansprache, postbaptismale GlaubenseinfUhrung' should be avoided, so rightly Nolland. However, Luke's emphasis throughout allows to see more in XUtT]XEW than the
'neutral and non-instructional sense', favoured by Nolland in light of the 'generally secular and historiographical tone of the preface'.
100 Luke's interest in catechesis supports the traditional identification of the author of
Luke-Acts as a travel companion of Paul, on whom this restless teacher made a lasting
impact. This traditional identification has recently been defended by Schulz, Herkunf/,
243-48,286-90 and Thomton, Zeuge, 341-67; similarly Fitzmyer, 35-53; Aspects, 1-26.
101 Cf. Ernst, 21. In light of Luke's material it is surprising that the entry 'Katechetik' of
TRE XVll, 686-701 does not have a section devoted to the NT. For later development of
the NT picture see G. Kretschmar, 'KatechumenatIKatechumenen.1. Alte Kirche', TRE
XVIII,I-5.
96
'17
98
344
sis. 102 H.D. Buckwalter's suggestion for the primary literary objective of
Luke underscores the catechetic nature of Luke's volumes:
(Luke) writes to show his readers how Jesus' life stands as the ethical model for
Christian living and how the early church has imaged his likeness in their own life and
witness. Acts exemplifies through the lives of Peter, Stephen, and especially Paul what
it means for believers to conform to the kind of attitudes and behaviour characterizing the servanthood of the Lord Jesus as portrayed in the Gospel.!"'
In view of this stress on catechesis and the nature of Luke's volumes it is not surprising
that it has been considered early on whether the Lucius of Cyrene mentioned among the
prophets and /:lihaoxoAoL of the Antiochene church (Acts 13.1) was perhaps the author
of Luke-Acts. 104
3.3.2. Luke's emphasis on pastoral care: Gentile Christians in need of exhortation and encouragement
We have already observed that catechesis and pastoral care are closely linked in Luke's
mind (IV.3.3.1.2.).I05 JIoQoxoAiw is Luke's key word to describe this ministry. The word
has an exhorting aspect ('aufrufen, ermahnen') and a more comforting, encouraging
note (,ermuntern, zusprechen, trosten').!''" To distinguish these nuances is often impossible. Luke also employs btLO'tTJQ[~W.la7
102 In Acts "tu 1tEQL "toii 'blooii (18.25; 28.23,31) summarises the content of the proclamation or teaching; cf. Barrett, 'Imitatio', 257; Acts 5.42; 8.35; 11.20.
103 Character, 281.
104 Compare the discussion in Barrett 1,597; Bruce, 293; Cadbury, 'Lucius'; Fitzmyer,
47; HengeIlSchwemer,Paul,nos.1137,458. Zahn,Lucas, 734-37 (cf. pp. 1-19, 737-44); WB,
974. Recent proponents of this view are Ford, 'St. Luke' and Reicke, Gospel of Luke,1024. This identification has been favourably considered by Sluhlmacher, Biblische Theologie I, 227f (1992; cL the criticism of J.e. Beker,lBL 115,1996,739-41). Though Ernst, 30 is
rightly cautious in mentioning this as merely a 'theoretische Moglichkeit', our observations encourage identification of the author with a known (nM.oxaAo\;. On Antioch as
Luke's native town see the variant reading in Acts 11.28: auvEO"tQofLf.U!VWV /:lE TJ,uiiv cf.
Metzger, Commentary, 391; Hengel/Schwemer, Paul, 199 and nos. 1052, 1137; Thornton,
Zeuge, 268-71; Barrett 1,564; Bruce, 8f. Origen, In Lucam Homiliae 1.6 identified Luke
with the brother
0 E1tOLYO~ Ev"tqi EtJOYYEALIfJ /ita 1tOOWV 'tWV EXXATjOLWV of 2 Cor 8.18:
'Hoc enim de nullo alia dicitur, nisi de Luca dictum traditur'; for a recent proponent of
this identification cf. e.P. Thiede, Ein Fisch for den romischen Kaiser: Juden, Griechen,
Romer: Die Welt des Jesus Christus (Munich: Luchterhand, 1998),269.
105 E.g. in Acts 11.23-26; cf. 13.1. Pastoral care is linked with proper information and
teaching (cf. Ctmpru..Eto in Luke 1.1-4).
106 WB, 1247f.2. and 4.; cf. Reinhardt, Wachstum, 214-16; J. Thomas, EWNT III (54-64)
63f; o. Schmitz, ThWNT V, 792.18-794.30, 797.17-798.13; LN, 306 (25.150): 'to cause
someone to be encouraged or consoled'.
107 Acts 11.2 D; 14.22; 15.32,41; 18.23 (v. I. O'tTJQ[~w); cf. G. Harder, ThWNT VII, (65357) 565.10f: 'Die Wirkung und der Zweck der Festigung ist die Unerschiltterlichkeit des
christlichen GJaubens trotz zu erduldender TrUbsale'. Such stengthening ' ... setzt voraus,
daB die Christen, urn deren Stiirkung es geht, angefochten sind und in der Gefahr stehen,
in ihrem Glauben wie in ihrem Wandel unsicher oder lassig zu werden' (p. 565.2-4); cf.
lines 33-35; Spicq III, 611-15.
ov
3. Acts
345
This pastoral concern already occurs in Jewish contexts. Once Peter himself had
turned, his task was to strengthen his brothers (<m]QL~IJ), Luke 22.32).108 Joseph was
called Bamabas, meaning 'son of encouragement' (Acts 4.36).1119 The church throughout
Palestine lived in"tfi nOQoKAtlOEL "toii ciylolJ nVEU~01:0~ (9.31).110
The ministry of strengthening and exhorting Gentile Christians appears in

some general references (1) and also regarding hardships associated with
the Christian life (2).
1. The new Gentile believers of Antioch were exhorted (:rtaQaxaMoo, Acts
11.23; cf. IY.3.3.3.2.). Clarifying the confusion over the Judaistic controversy,
Judas and Silas (15.26f) delivered "ta MYfla"ta and said much to exhort and
strengthen the brethren of Antioch (:n:aQaxaAEoo, E:7tL(J1;TlQt~oo,15.32).111
The initial plans for the journey of Acts 15.35 were not to evangelise more
Gentiles but to visit (E:7tLOX'ljJoofl'fra)112 the Gentile brethren in every place
of previous ministry (xaTllyyD..aflv "tov Myov "tou xUQtou) and to see :n:6.J~
exouoLv. Luke summarises these efforts as strengthening the churches of
Syria and Cilicia (EmOLTJQt~OOv, 15.41). 'E:7tLOLTJQi.~oo expresses the confirma-
108 Cf. Fitzmyer, 1424-26; Marshall, 820-22. Luke 22.31 mentions the demonic attack directed against all the disciples. Jesus' intercession, Peter's own failure and the need for
strengthening of the other disciples is related to this demonic activity. Peter's own long
term faith and perseverance is not an inherent human quality but is ascribed to Jesus' intercession. Marshall, 821 notes on the significance of Jesus' prayer:' ... the reference is to
the present time, and to the continual opposition of Satan to the people of God'. Later
occurrences of (EJtL)<m]Ql~1J) are not explicitly related to Satan. However, Ernst, 458 observes: 'Wann immer Anfechtungen solcher Art Uber die Gemeinde kommen, muB brttderliche "Bewllhrungshilfe" geleistet werden. Man darf annehmen, daB sich Lk bei der
Weitergabe des "Simon-Wortes"von solchen pastoralen "Oberlegungen leiten lieB'.
109 NRSV; Barrett I, 258f argues: 'It seems certain that lJto~ naQaKAtl0EIJ)~ must mean
son of exhortation, that is, preacher, and it corresponds with this that Barnabas is represented in Acts as an outstanding evangelist and (until their separation) partner of Paul's
.. .'. Peter exhorted (nagEKuAEL) his Jerusalem audience, 2.40. Luke credits Barnabas
with both 'inner church' ministry (4.36f; 11.22-30; 13.1,43; 14.22; 15.2f) and with evangelism; cf.13.5,7,43,46; 14.1,3,7,21,25.
110 Cf. Reinhardt, Wachstum, (201-19) 214-17. The content of :n:aQuKATJOL~ is 'whatever
it is that the Holy Spirit does, and this will include both the (messianic) consolation (cf.
e.g. Luke 2.25) and the stirring up and enabling of Christians to live as they should', Barrett 1,474; Zmijewski, 392; Weiser,139: 'Dabei betont Lukas vor allem, daB sie ihren Aufbau Gott und ihr Wachstum dem Heiligen Geist verdankt'. naguKATJ0L; is not restricted
to Jewish Christianity (13.15; cf. Reinhardt, Wachstum, 215f).
111 As prophets Judas and Silas were qualified for this ministry. Elsewhere Luke does
not specifically link this ministry with prophetic gifts.
112 Weiser, 221: 'von seinem LXX Hintergrund her u.a. die Bedeutung wachsamer
Sorge, wie sie sich auch im atl. Bild von der Sorge des Hirten urn seine Herde ausdrttckt.
Aus dem gleichen Grunde werden die Gemeindeleiter Acts 20.28 von Lukas als episkopoi
bezeichnet'; Dupont, Discours,141-45; cf. 1. Rohde, EWNT ll, (83-85), 84: 'besuchen, mit
dem Nebensinn sich um jemand kUmmem'. This is also the sense in Acts 7.23. Reinhardt,
Wachstum, 247 speaks of the 'parllnetische "Nachsorge-Aktivitaten'" of this journey.
346
1\1. Luke s portrail of Cienlile Christians
tion of previous converts. As a result the churches were strengthened

(01:QEOUvtO)113 in the faith and increased in numbers daily (16.5).
Before reaching Ephesus the ministry on the third missionary journey is
summarised (Acts 18.23; cf. 19.1): Paul went systematically ()tCL{}Sii~)
through the region of Galatia and Phrygia 114, :rtLa"tT]QL~rov :n;UvtCL~ "toiJ~
!lCL{}T]"tU~. Apollos greatly helped (auvE~uAE"tO, 18.27) the believers (cf.
III.3.3.2.2.8.). In Macedonia Paul gave the believers much encouragement
(:n;CLQCLXetAEaCL~ CL\noiJ~ Mycp :n;OAACP, 20.2).
2. Before returning to Antioch the missionaries retraced their steps to exhort and strengthen the previous converts to remain true to the faith (:rtLa"tT]Q(~ro, :n;CLQCLxaMro, Acts 14.22; cf. IV.3.3.3.4.).1l5 This was necessary in
the light of the Jewish and Gentile persecution which had arisen in Pisidian
Antioch, Iconium and Lystra (Acts 13.45,50f; 14.2,5f,19). This was done despite the danger stilI eminent in these places of previous rejection and
meant a considerable detour on their journey back to Antioch 116, both indicating the significance attached to this task.
This pattern recurs on later journeys: before their departure the missionaries returned to Lydia's house to see and encourage (t66vtE~ :n;agaxuAEaav) the new brethren of Philippi (Acts 16.40).117 In light of what happened
to the missionaries and of the Gentile attitude towards them (16.19-24), the
believers remaining behind needed clarification and encouragement. Before
Paul left Ephesus after the events of Acts 19.23-41 he arranged to meet and
encouraged the disciples (:n;aQaxaMaa~,20.1). This ~as necessary after the
fierce rejection of his ministry and affirmation of paganism.
The efforts made and risks taken indicate that the new state of Gentile
Christians (and the corrections and instructions they receive) require confirmation through exhortation and encouragement. That Gentile Christians, following salvation, reception of the Spirit and instruction, need this
ministry to remain and progress under faith carries implications: if even
they require such confirmation and influence ab extra and if even their un-
113 Cf. Reinhardt, Wachstum, 246-48. k"tEQEOW occurs otherwise only of physically regaining strength (Acts 3.7,16).
114 On the meaning of this geographical reference cf. Breytenbach, Paulus, 113-19.
115 Barrett I, 686 summarises: 'New disciples need to be strengthened, confirmed, established in the faith ... The process of strengthening is described in the next lines; it includes exhortation, the warning that suffering must come but leads to the kingdom, the
appointment of ministers, and committal to the Lord'; cf. IV.3.3.4.
116 Cf. Barrett 1,685; Riesner, Frahzeil, 247f. Schille, 308 observes that through this retracing 'die etwa 150 km bis Tarsus durch eine liuBerst schwierige Land-See-Reise
ersetzt werden mUssen'; cf. Zahn, 483.
117 Schneider n, 219: ltaQaxaAiw 'be7.eichnet hier (wie 1422; 20.1) die segnendtrostende Abschiedsansprache'; cf. 1. Thomas, EWNT Ill, (54-64) 63; Barrett 1,258.
3. Acts
347
derstanding and perseverance cannot not be taken for granted but demand
such attention and effort, how much less should the natural capacities of
Gentiles prior to faith be entrusted with responding to and appropriating
revelation and salvation.
3.3.3. The pitfalls and perseverance of Gentile Christians
Luke also directly addresses the endangered nature of the disciples' spiritual existence which lies behind the above emphasises.
3.3.3.1. Luke 8.13-15
The parable of the sower and its interpretation illustrate various modes of
receiving 'the word of God', an expression also used for the missionary
proclamation and catechesis to Gentiles.1lS The role of Satan in Luke 8.12
has already been discussed. 1l9 When Satan does not snatch away the seed
of the word from hearts, people respond positively.12o However, their perseverance is endangered by several threats:
1. Some receive the word with joy. Lacking root, however, they believe only
for a while and in a time of testing fall away. rrEl.Qaall6~ is best taken as
persecution)21 The pastoral ministry to Gentile Christians directly addressed this threat and effort was made to prepare them for and assist them
in such a time and to prevent apostasy (Acts 14.22; 16.40; 20.1; cc. IY.3.3.2.2.
and IY.3.3.3.4.).
2. Christian existence and maturity is also threatened by the material needs

and attractions of this life, including 'die verfuhrerischen Machte des
gewohnlichen Alltags: die Sorgen, die das Leben mit sich bringt'l22: others
8
11 The general nature of a parable and its interpretation makes it applicable to our
discussion of Gentile Christians. For detailed treatment cf. Estrada-Barbier, Sembrador,
117-83.
m Cf. III.2.2.6.2.2.1. and also III.2.2.17.2., III.3.2.1.2.3., IIl.3.3.3.
120 Because Ernst, 207 fails to see the difference between 8.12 and 8.13-15 he writes:' .,.
im "aufgekliirten" Verstandnis des weltoffenen Evangelisten ist der Gegenspieler Jesu
degradiert zu einer Chiffre ftlr allt!lgliche Glaubens- und Bekenntnisschwierigkeiten ... '.
Luke explicitly ascribes only the initial failure and inability to receive the word to Satan,
but not the apostasy following such reception.
Ut Cf. Marshall, 326: 'persecution as a means of tempting erstwhile believers away
from their incipient faith'; similarly Fitzmyer, 714: 'usually translated "temptation", but
which really refers to apostasy from Christian life, when constancy would be called for'.
Schtirmann 1,464 suggests a wider reference: 'in Zeiten der Erprobung irgendwelcher Art';
cf. Brown, Apostasy, 12-16; Nolland, 385f; Estrada-Barbier, Sembrador, 157-61,174-77.
122 Emst, 207. 'HcSovat "tou [3(01) means 'stindhafte GenuBsucht'; cf. the contrast between Luke 6.21 and 6.25: woe to those who are fuJJ now!
348
IV: Luke's portrait of Gentile Christians
hear (and respond), but are choked by the cares and riches and pleasUres of
life. Says Schllrmann: 'Luk[as] sieht die existentielle Wirkung von Sorge,
Reichtum und GenuBleben: Sie "ersticken" nicht das Wort (Mk), sondem
die Christen selbst .. .'.123 These natural human concerns are set without
compromise against the word of God: either the word or the thorns grow
(ou 'tEA.E(J(POQOUULV), the other will be utterly choked (01J!l3tVLYOV'taL).124
These cares, riches and pleasures of life endangering even Gentile Christians also reflect on the Gentile rpind-set prior to faith. Where the word
challenging this mind-set was never heard and started to grow, where the
changes wrought by salvation were never experienced, it is safe to assume
that, unrestrained, these preoccupations were all the more dominant.
These implications are familiar. Spiritually numbing preoccupation with the cares, riches
and pleasures of life merged as natural inclination of people who failed to appreciate
God's natural revelation (e.g. his providential care, Acts 14.17) and who were without or
insensitive to special revelation (Luke 12.30; 17.27f; cf. 11.2.5.-6.). These preoccupations
also sparked or contributed to the incidents of independent Gentile persecution of the
mission (Acts 16.19: EQyacria not U<TtEQTlfLa and Plo; as in Luke 21.4; Acts 19.24: oux
o;\.LYTlv EQyao[av; cf. Eph 4.19). These dangers appear also behind the exhortations of
Acts 8.20 and 20.33f (see below). Luke probably thought of Gentiles (Herod?) when
writing that those who put on fine clothing and live in luxury ("tQ\J<pfj u:1taQ"oV"tE; '"
Tjc')ova[ "tOU ~[0\J; cf. 2 Pet 2.13) are in royal palaces (Luke 7.25; they are the opposite of
the prophet John).I2S
This natural conglomerate of threat to Christian perseverance explains and requires
the catechetical and pastoral ministry to Gentile Christians for them to overcome the
natural inclinations so vehemently opposed to the word of God and its fruition. Such
dangers were probably addressed in the general exhortation (cf. rv.3.3.2.1.). They also
repeatedly appear and are addressed in Luke's paraenesis cin discipleship,126 Luke considered Jesus' teaching crucial for the instruction, exhortation and perseverance of his
readers and provided a basis for the continuing catechetical and pastoral ministry among
Gentile Christians. In this sense Luke's own literary endeavour contributes to counter
such threats: 'Die Tendenz ist hier [in these parenetic passages] eindeutig auf die Situation der jungen Kirche eingestellt Lk sieht in der Jiingerschar vor Ostern die nach-
123 1,464. Cf. Estrada-Barbier, Sembrador,162f,178-80.

124 Cf. Souter, Lexicon, 251.
I2SThis description matches with the Gentile style of leadership described in Luke
22.25f. Gentile Herod Agrippa wore his eu6ij"ta pa(JIJ..Lx~v (Acts 12.21; cf. 20.33!; cf. Barrett 1,590). The rich landowner of Luke 12.19 with his resolution to enjoy the pleasures
of life might be a Gentile. The dives of 16.19ff is clearly Jewish. Moxnes, 'Patron', 255
takes both men to be Jews. In 15.13 ~liiv aoul"tw; (cf.l Pet 4.3; Selwyn, Epistle, 213) is associated with the Gentile. country far away. In this environment pleasures (cf. 15.30:
:1toQvliiv) are thought to be linked with the possession and expenditure of money (c')LEox6Q:rtLOEV ~v oucriav; cf. :1tAOU"tO; and Tjc')oval in Luke 8.14).
126 Luke 959,61: the cares of life; 14.26f: cares of life, possibly persecution; 14.33: riches;
18.22-24: riches; 21.12-19 (cf. 12.11f,51f): prediction of persecution and how to deal with
it, see below; 21.34-36: dissipation, drunkenness, fLEQ[fLvm; ~Lw"tLxaL;.
3. Acts
349
{lsterliche Gemeinde vorausdargestellt'.177 Spiritual survival under these threatened circumstances required the a.acpaMLCl which Luke set out to provide. Certainty concerning
the saving events of the past, their continuing validity and legitimacy, their own new
status and about the future reward was crucial for those facing such threats.
Luke 8.13f suggest that not all embarking on the Christian life arrive at its goal. Perseverance is not obvious. Salvation, reception of the Spirit, new insight and all the further
benefits do not guarantee spiritual perseverance and maturity. This observation for
Christians entails that not too much credit be given to the natural capabilities of Gentiles
prior to faith in spiritual matters and their response to God's salvation. 12I
3. Luke provides the key to perseverance: those who hear the word of God
and hold it fast in an honest and good heart bear fruit with patient endurance. Revelation, rather than one's own insight and determination, and its
continuous, honest acceptance appears in contrast to and as an antidote to
what shapes and 'naturally' determines the lives of Gentiles prior to faith.
Only faithful and single-minded commitment to God's word ab extra will
be able to overcome these dangers and attain maturity. This affirms our
previous conclusions concerning the natural capacities of Gentiles prior to
faith. The catechetical and pastoral emphasis in Acts indicates to what extent this bed needs to be cleared of its natural growth, continually weeded,
fertilised and its new growth be supported. This happens through the word
which needs to be brought and taught to Gentile Christians (cf. I1I.3.2.2.2.).
3.3.3.2. Acts 11.23
Barnabas 1taQExO:AEL all the Antiochene believers.1 29 His exhortation to remain (1tQOC1J.lEVELV) faithful to the Lord with steadfast devotion implies the
danger of apostasy from the Lord and the ensuing return to previous pagan
worship and life-style.1 30 Persecution or its threat does not appear in this
127 Ernst, 248t:
UBThis conclusion is confirmed by Luke's portrayal of Gentiles prior to faith and of
their encounter with salvation. Ct: our discussion in III.33.25.
129 'Wie es seinem Namen entspricht ... , ermahnt und ermuntert Barnabas aUe, ent
schlossen beim Herrn ... zu verharren', Schneider 11, 91.
130 For the pagan cults of Antioch see Barrett 1,549; I. Benzinger, 'Antiocheia 1. Am
Orontes', RE I, (2442-45) 2443;1. Kollwitz, 'Antiochia am Orontes', RAC I, (461-69) 463,
further literature in HengellSchwemer, Paul, n. 949. On the religious situation in Antioch
ct: HengellSchwemer, Paul, 268-79 and the various sources listed there (cf. also nos. 1380,
1396). They quote from the Antiochene Libanius who wrote around 360 A.D.in his encomium on his home city: 'Our city was the abode of the gods, so that if we wanted to, we
could compete with Olympus. For there the stories of the gods depend on words, but
here the proof is before people's eyes' (Orationes 11.115). At Daphne, close to Antioch
(cf. 2 Macc 433; Strabo, Geography XVI.2.6), was the internationally known extensive
holy grove, temple and famous statue of Apollo. Strabo notes that 'Here it is the custom
of the Antiocheians and the neighbouring peoples to hold a general festival'. On the
grounds were also temples to Isis, Artemis and other deities. Cf. O. Jessen, 'Daphnaios.
35U
iv. Luke's poriraLl oJ Genll!c
ChnJtiall;
context nor in other references to Antioch. This implication is plausible as

1) for these Christians Luke does not indicate any former association with
Judaism 131 , which he is otherwise quick to note, and 2) pagan notions were
deeply entrenched in the everyday life of Gentiles prior to faith, which became apparent in previous sections. The existence of these new Gentile
Christians was imperilled and this exhortation needed.
This exhortation against relapse into idolatry and its possibility recalls the naQaxATjOLr;
of Acts 15.31 to the Gentile Christians in Antioch. They were to 'abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from
blood' (15.21,29). We suggested that it entails prohibition of participation in idol feasts
and their attendant activities (cf. 11.3.6.). This interpretation is supported by Acts 11.23.
Corresponding to the exhortation to faithfulness and steadfast devotion, these Gentile
Christians were later reminded to break fully with pagan activities.132 Though the initial
Christian proclamation already addressed the vanity of idols and their worship (proclamation ohov X-UQLOV 'hIOOUY, 11.20), even Gentile Christians still needed to be exhorted
to abandon both.
The observation that relapse into idolatry poses a serious danger even fo~
Gentile Christians, who had aligned themselves with the purpose of God
(ct IV.3.1.5.), indicates how deeply entrenched idolatry was among Gentiles. This reference to the persistence of idolatry also indicates Luke's
negative assessment of the Gentiles' spiritual state.
3.3.3.3. Acts 13.43
The believing Jews and Gentile associates of Pisidian Antioch were likewise urged to continue (EltEL'frOV a\J"tou~ ltQOUI-LEVEW; cL Acts 11.23),
namely "tU XUQL"tL wu 'frEoii (Acts 13.43; cf. 15.11). Return to idolatry was unlikely for a church with believers of Jewish or God-fearing origin. Taken as a
dativus instrumenti or causae, this dative construction would suggest that, besides exhortation and faithfulness, God's grace is crucial for perseverance (i.e.
1.1', RE IV, 2135f; I. Benzinger, 'Daphne. 3', RE IV, 2136-38. Benzinger notes (2137.58-
61): 'In sittlicher Beziehung war freilich der Ruf yon Daphne kein guter; Schwelgerei
und Oppigkeit waren groB und die Daphnici mores waren verrufen' (the quotation is
from Avidius Cassius 5.5, in Scriptores Historiae Auguslae, ed. E. Hohl, BSGRT (Leipzig:
B.G. Teubner, 1927), I, (85-97) 89). Caution is necessary as Luke does not make any reference to pagan religion in the context of Acts 11.23, as he does elsewhere.
J31 Gentiles already previously associated with ludaism and embracing its monotheism
would be less likely to return to Gentile idolatry even jf they forsook their Christian
commitment than Gentile converts straight out of paganism. It is interesting to observe
in this context that the Gentile Antiochene church had a recognised body of teachers
with an extensive ministry, which is not mentioned for other churches. Was this ministry
less necessary in churches including Jewish Christians and former associJltes ofJudaism?
132 This charge and its necessity agrees with Luke's descriptions of the Gentiles' commitment to paganism (e.g. Lystra and Ephesus).
3. Acts
351
continue through the grace; cf.14.3 and in analogy to 15.11: 6LCl 'tfj~ J(UQL'tO~
... 1tL<rtE\)Ofl.EV ow-tHjvaL). However, this is unlikely in view of the verb
E1tEL-frOV. 'H J(UQL~ 'toii -frEoii summarises the Christian message. As a dativus
modi it suggests that the believers were to continue in the grace of God and
not be influenced by Jewish counterattacks or resistance (ct. 13.39; 13.45:
av'tE"A.EYOV 'to~ ime) IImJAOU AaAOU!!EVOL~, 13.50!). Acts 15.1,5 and 20.30
indicate that Gentile Christians are threatened by false teaching (ct.
IV. 3.3. 1.2. 1. ).
3.3.3.4. Acts 14.22
Another example of 1taQuXAllOL; to Gentile Christians, where Luke indicates the content, directly addresses the concern which we suggested, lay
behind Luke 8.13 (1tELQao!!6;; ct. IV.3.3.3.1.1.). The missionaries strengthened the disciples they were to leave behind and exhorted them EIlIlEVELV
'tU 1tL<rtEL: for through 1tOA.A.Wv -frAL1jJEWV we must enter the kingdom of
God.133 They needed to be prepared for such events by being taught what
to expect and that this was an integral part of life under faith, a
'Kennzeichen christlicher Existenz'134, so that times of such testing would
not lead to apostasy (Luke 8.13). 1\vo aspects emerge from this summary
for Gentiles prior to faith.135
1. The fact that such persecutions pose a threat serious enough to require
such preparation indicates the fragile existence of Gentile Christians (see
below). 2. These persecutions indicate the resistance that the Christian
proclamation and its consequences encounter.
The missionaries' own fate illustrates this (Acts 13.50; 14.19; ct. Luke 10.3). As also Gentile Christians are addressed, exclusively Jewish persecutions are unlikely. These {l-At'IjJEL~
are also of Gentile origin. Though the Jewish missionaries were repeatedly persecuted by
Gentiles (on the Gentiles' own initiative, Acts 16.19-25; 19.29 or through Jewish instigation) and Luke never actually reports that local Gentile Christians were persecuted by
Gentiles1J6 , it is foretold here that Gentiles will also afflict Gentile Christians.
133 These {l-Al'IjJEL;, best translated as 'persecutions', ct. NRSV, are caused by a hostile
human environment; cf. WB, 735f.1. Cf. Acts 7.10: the actions of Joseph's brothers and his
misfortunes in Egypt; 11.19: the persecution that took place over Stephen; cf. 8.1-3. In
20.23 {l-A;:'ljJL~ occurs in combination with liECf!Lc:X, referring to the troubles awaiting Paul. I
have not seen S. Cunningham, 'Through Many Tribulations': The Theology of Persecution
in Luke-Acts, JSNT.S 142 (Sheffield: SAp, 1997).
13<4 Schille, 309.
135 Of all Gentiles, only the disciples here addressed, will enter this kingdom. Whether
this entering refers to the present, to the individual disciple's death or stiII future events
does not impinge on our observation (cf. Barrett I, 686f; Schneider n, 165f). Gentiles
prior to faith will not enter. Distinction between prior to faith and under faith also appears elsewhere.
136The identity of the hassled Christians of Acts 17.5-9 is unclear. They were attacked
by Jews with the support of (presumably) Gentile ruffians. While Jason himself was
352
Not only did Gentiles prior to faith fail to recognise the nature of what
some of them came to follow or to be impressed by its consequences, rather
they actively oppose and persecute Christians and all they stand for. Like
Jewish opponents prev.iously, they also cause {llt'IjJL; for those aligned with
the purpose of God. For such hostile Gentiles to be saved, more than insight or correction will be required as the correction incarnate among them
in the Christians and their message is fiercely rejected. This is reminiscent
of the Lukan theme of the Jewish rejection of the prophets. 137
These references to the content of the teaching and pastoral ministry indicate that despite their new state, equipment with the holy Spirit and all
other benefits of salvation, Gentile Christians are endangered by the cares,
riches and pleasures of this life, by relapse into idolatry and through persecution.1 38 The ministry addressing these threats is a kind of 'continuous correction'. However, it does not support Taeger's contention as this ministry
follows, but does not replace salvation. The precarious frailty of the Gentile
Christians' existence and the fact that their perseverance is not to be taken
for granted excludes the assumption of ample natural capacities for insight,
willingness or strength to act upon it, etc. for Gentiles prior to faith. If such
is the state even with Gentile Christians, how much less would Luke credit
to Gentiles prior to faith. Their Gentile environment and their own natural
inclinations threaten the spiritual development of Gentile Christians. This
conclusion supplements the picture arising from Luke's narrative descriptions and direct statements on Gentiles prior to fajth and affirms our suggestion that Gentiles need salvation, which has to be followed by intensive
and continuous correction.
3.3.4. Structuring Gentile Christian churches: ensuring continuous catechesis
and pastoral care
In view of our conclusion that Gentile Christians need catechesis and pas-
toral care, it is not surprising that Luke reports that measures were taken
and structures introduced to continue and ensure such ministry. Luke 'gives
enough detail to show that church-structure, even though it might have
probably a Jew (cf. n. 221 below), the 'nva~ ME;"CPOU~ (17.6) could have included Gentile
Christians.
137 Cf. Stenschke, 'Bedeutung'.
\J8 Luke does not reflect on the spiritual condition of Gentile Christians should they
succumb to these dangers, fail to receive continuous ministry or return to their ever-present old ways for other reasons; for Acts 8.22f cf. IV.3.4.1.
3. Acts
353
changed or displayed an ephemeral character, was indispensable'.139 Maddox concludes:

... a tendency toward institutionalism would be entirely natural, and indeed to some
extent necessary, to prevent the evaporation of the gospel-message in individualistic
mysticism, fanaticism or discouragement.1<O
After themselves strengthening and exhorting, Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in each church they had founded (Acts 14.23), providing
'elders for the disciples whom they were thereby helping to withstand the
troubles they were sure to encounter' .1 41 In addition to exhorting the disciples (20.1), Paul instructed the elders of the Ephesian church (20.17).1 42
What is made explicit for these churches containing Gentile Christians can
be assumed for others. It is legitimate to conclude from the institution of
these structures that they were necessary. Gentile Christians were neither
left to themselves, nor left to organise themselves, but were placed in structures that would help to ensure their perseverance. Continuous catechesis
and pastoral care beyond the initial proclamation and ministry are not left
to chance but institutionalised. This underlines their need and importance.
The support and guidance provided by such an institution is necessary as
the Gentiles' own capacities are insufficient to ensure perseverance and
spiritual growth. 143
In the paraenesis of his Gospel Luke included crucial instructions also
for the leaders of these Gentile churches. Ernst writes:
Spuren von Gemeindeleitung lassen sich in einer Reibe von Logien und Gleichnissen
des Lk-Ev (12.35-38,39f,42-48; 17.7-10; 19.11-27) erabnen.Kirchliche Anfangsstruktu-
139 Fitzmyer, 257; cl: also p.253 and G. Schneider, '1tadition, Kontinuitat und Sukzession in der Sicht der Apostelgeschicbte', Schrift und Tradition. FS J. Emst, eds. K. Backhaus,EG. UntergaBmair (Paderbom, Munich, Vienna:.F. SchDningh, 1996), (293-313) 30209. For the relation of this section to the debate on Luke's alleged FrUhkatholizismus see
Fitzmyer, 23 -27.
1<0 Purpose, 185. Of Maddox's items Luke only has discouragement. Luke's reasons for
the necessity of such institutions are summarised above.
141 Barrett I, 687. Similarly Schneider H, 166: 'In unserem Zusammenhang dient die
MaBnahme der Konsolidierung der gefahrdeten Gemeinden'; n. 22: 'Die Presbyter, deDen die Gemeindeleitung anvertraut ist ... , sind zuguDsten der Gemeinden bestellt'; cl:
Nellessen, 'Einsetzung' for an extensive treatment. Cf. Schulz, Herkzmft, 278f for discussion of the 'unler heutigen Exegeten Ubliche These, daB in der Presbyterordnung von
Apg 14.23lukaniscbe RUckprojektion aus einer entsprechenden Ordnung seiner eigenen
Zeit vorliege'. For the mode of their instalment cf. pp. 280f.
142 Scbulz, Herkunft, 281-86.
143 This observation is valid despite the fact that Luke mentions a similar office within
Palestinian Judaism (Acts 4.5,8,23; 6.12; 23.14; 24.1; 25.15), of Diaspora synagogue organisation (e.g. 13.15; 18.8,17) or in Jewish Christianity (e.g. 6.1-6; 11.30; 15.2,4,6,22f; 1-6.4;
21.18); cf. Schneider 11, 166, n. 21; Hort, Ecclesia, 62f.
354
IV. Lukes portrait of Gentile Christians
ren werden andeutungsweise vielleicht in der gegliederten Szenerie am Anfang der

Feldrede (zwOlf Apostel- die JUnger - die Menge des Volkes 6.12-19) erkennbar.'44
Such instructions were necessary for Gentile Christian leaders as the Gentile model of leadership - amply illustrated in practice in Luke and Acts
and once referred to in theory (Luke 22.25) - is adduced as a negative example for the disciples' behaviour and career in the kingdom: 'But not so
with you .. .' (22.26).145
3.3.5. Paul's legacy to the Ephesian elders (Acts 20.17-35)
Paul's only speech before a Christian audience is delivered only to a limited group, which stresses its importance. In this exhortation of the Ephesian elders Luke's concern for teaching and pastoral care is concentrated
and thus serves as a summary for our considerations on the ministry to
Gentile Christians.
1. Paul recalls his own ministry among Gentiles: he taught in public and private (Acts 20.20; see above), proclaiming and promoting not himself but
declaring the whole purpose of God (20.27), testifying about repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus I the gospel of God's grace and
proclaiming the kingdom (20.24f). Paul served the Lord (and the Ephesians) with all humility ("tWtewoqJQomivTj, 20.19), not with the attitudes
elsewhere associated with Gentile leadership (Luke 22.25f; cf. the displays
of Gentile pride and arrogance, e.g. Acts 12.23; 18.12-17). As shepherds of
the same flock, they are to continue this exemplary ministry.146
2. In the direct instruction (20.28,31) the emphasis was presumably on issues
where the elders, Gentile Christians and as Gentiles or as Jews living in a
Gentile environment and value system, were specifically in danger of misusing, misunderstanding or neglecting their office. 147 Touching potentially or
144 P. 21. Weiser, 324 adds Luke 22.24-27 and speaks of a 'ermahnenden und amtskritischen Akzent'. Ernst's exegesis of these passages is more confident; c[ pp. 303-06 (303:
'Gemeindeleiter'; 305: 'Amtstrliger'), 363f on Luke 17.10: 'Kann es sein, daB es unter den
Gemeindeleitern schon ein StandesbewuBtsein gab, das sich auf angebliche Verdienste etwas zugute hielt? Solche Fehlentwicklungen mUssen aufgehaJten werden, solange es noch
Zeitist'.
145 Ernst, 454f: Luke 22.26 'entfaltet positiv die neue Gemeindeordnung'; Fitzmyer,
1415-17. Against Fitzmyer, 1417, Marshall, 813 links this saying to church leaders.
146 See Roloff, 'Themen', 507f for the close relation of Paul's exhortation and the
teaching of Jesus. The example and teaching of Jesus is the supreme standard for these
Gentile Christians.
147 This applies irrespective of the social position of the elders. Even elders from lower
social classes would be well acquainted with the model provided by their society and
likely to follow it.
.:I.
Acts
355
already sore spots, these instructions provide further glimpses of Luke's estimate of Gentiles prior to faith. Five observations can be made (2 a-e):
2a) To counter the danger of hypocrisy, superficiality and frivolity, the elders were first
charged: 3tQOOEX"t EU1)1;O~ (20.28):1"
Der eindringliche Aufruf 'achtzugeben auf sich selbst' ,lallt deutlich erkennen, da/3 die
Sinnspitze der Aussagen nicht im glanzvollen Hervorheben der geistgewirkten WlIrde
besteht. sondern in der Einschlirfung der groBen Verantwortung.1.'
What they were to ensure and guard in others, they had to display and exercise themselves. Possibly this warning is directed against and dismisses Gentile notions of leadership where office and personal conduct/commitment were less firmly Iinked.15O
2b) The elders were to guard over all the flock. All Ephesian Christians were committed to all elders to the same extent and care. Their ministry was to exclude favouritism or
partiality with the expectation of corresponding behaviour patterns of the beneficiaries.
This charge may be directed against the continuation or introduction of pagan ideas of
patronage, clientage and benefaction into Christian leadership principles.1SI Prone to
continue or reestablish the traditional notions, even elders needed such exhortation. The
patterns of Gentile society are incompatible with Christian values. What Gentiles had
developed, cherished and used or suffered from was dismissed.
2c) The elders were reminded that the Holy Spirit had made them overseers. They had
this task due to his choice and supernatural equipment, not due to factors qualifying for
offices in their Gentile society such as birth, relations, party-membership or financial
means.152 What Gentiles valued andlor considered crucial for office/leadership was dismissed for Christian service.
2d) The elders were to shepherd the church of God. The church was God's flock entrusted to them, not their own and to be treated as such. They were to tenderly care for,
guard and feed it, rather than to exploit it. lS] Paul also called the elders to be alert in ful-
148 Dupont, Discours, 136-39 discusses occurrences of this expression in Luke 12.1;
17.3;20.46;21.34 (again relevant to leaders).
149 Weiser,324.
ISO Cf. Clarke, Leadership, 73-88.
151 A technical term of these notions, eueQyt"t,,~, refers in Luke 22.25 to those in
authority over Gentiles; cf. Nolland, 1064; Fitzmyer, 1471; Danker, Benefactor, G. Schneider, EWNT Il, 191-93; B. Kiitting, 'Euergetes', RAC VI, 848-60; 1. Oehler, 'Euergetes. 2',
RE VI, 978-81. Cf. also H. Hausmaninger, 'Qientes', KP I, 1224f; A. von Premerstein,
'Clientes', RE IV, (23-55) 51-54.51; E. Sachers, 'Tabulae patronatus, hospitii', RE IV A,
1955-57; Marquardt, Privatleben, 191-208; Friedlander, Sittengeschichte I,225-35;Moxnes,
'Relations'. Further study would need to ascertain how developed these forms of societal
interaction were in Ephesus. On Ephesus (and the considerable Roman influence) see
the surveys of D. Knibbe, 'Ephesos', RE S XII, (248-97) 259-265.51, 271-276.19 ('Die
ephesischen Staatseinrichtungen'), 277-81, 289f and L. BlIrchner, 'Ephesos', RE V,279597, 2803f. For the transformation of Graeco-Roman civic institutions in the early church
see Winter, Welfare.
152 For offices in Ephesus see Knibbe and Blirchner (preceding note).
1S3 Cf. Jer 23.1-4; Ezek 34; Mic 3.1-3; Zech 11; Dupont, Discours, 143-50; Schneider I1,
296. Compare the reference to the Gentiles as the aAACl 7r(!of3ar:a in John 10.16; cf. R.E.
Brown, The Gospel according to John (i-xii): Introduction, Translation, and Notes, 2. ed.,
AncB 29 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1987), 396; Jeremias, Promise, 38, 65. Cf. also John
11.5lf ("ter. "tExva "toii i}Eoii ,er. bLEOXOQltL0IlEVa, Gentiles?) and 12.20f. On :n:0Lf!a[vw ef.
356
filling their task. They were to remember how Paul constantly warned everyone. Various
threats to the church require such alertness, continuous concentration and dedication.ls,
Both commands may contain a deliberate distinction from Gentile notions of authority
and leadership: their office was not to be understood as an honour once acquired or bestowed. Gentile notions of acquisition and tenure of office were not to be imported. In
contrast, the elders' office was not to be materially or status-wise profitable, rather it was
a call to a function involving diligent hard work (20.31).155 It was an active task not limited to occasional civil or cuI tic occasions. Their responsibility is emphasised by the high
price that was paid for the flock entrusted to them (20.28).
2e) Material benefit is directly addressed in the final part of Paul's speech.
In the light of the close relation of financial interests and religious devotion
previously displayed by pagan Ephesians (Acts 19.25-27) and the stunning
amount of money involved in one aspect of the local pagan religion (19.19;
John 21.16. For Graeco-Roman material see F. Orth, 'Schaf, RE II A, (373-99) 384387.60, 'Hirt und Weidegang', cols. 388.39-392.47, esp. col. 389.58-62.
154 C[ Dupont, Discours, 142; Roloff, 'Themen', 510-12 (,Uneingeschrlinkte Hingabe
an den Auftrag'), 524f. Paul summoned .oil~ :n;QEO~1J.EQ01J~ (20.17), but then addressed
them as blteJl<onovq (20.28, Luke's only oCcurrence). Benoit, Origines, 234f concludes his
study of the 'Difference entre les episcopes et les presbytres': ' ... les Presbytres sont des
Notables, que leur age, leur dignite de vie, leur fortune, leur ascendance familiale
revetent d'une autorite naturelle et imposent au respect des autres membres de la communaute. lIs sont investis d'une dignite officielle mais collective, et constituent un Conseil ou chacun d'eux participe i\ I'administration de la communaute, d'une fa90n indirecte ... II en va tout autrement des Episcopes. Cl! sont moins des dignitaires que des
fonctionnaires. LeuT activite n'est plus collective et anonyme comme celle des Presbytres, eUe est personnelle et responsable.lIs sont charges de quelque office precis, normalement d'inspection ou de surveillance, comme le suggere leur titre.... On voit la difference qui separe ces deux titres: ['un exprime une dignile, ['autre designe un offICe' (italics mine). For Jewish and Graeco-Roman usage see Nellessen, 'Einsetzung', 185-87; for
Luke's motivation cf. G. Bornkamm, Th WNT VI, 665.
!SS Weiser, 320 comments: ' ... die Bezeichnung episkopoi nicht als Arntstitel, sondem
im Kontext des atl. Hirtenbildes als Funktionsbezeichnung zu verstehen ist.... Verantwortung und Dienstbereilschaft sind es, die das VerhaItnis der Presbyter-Episkopen
zur Gemeinde bestimmen sollen. EingefaBt in die Aussagen, die dem atl. Bild von Hirt
und Herde entnommen sirtd ... , bekommen sie gesagt, daB sie als "Aufseher" fUrsorgend
und schtltzend auf die Herde achthaben sollen'. Cf. Luke 17.7-10; Roloff, 'Themen',511[
Clarke, Leadership, describes the delicate interplay between secular and Christian leadership notions in Corinth as reflected in 1 Cor 1-6 (cf. his sections on 'Profile and practices of secular leaders in Corinth', 'Secular practices of Christian leaders' and 'Paul's
principles of Christian leadership' (pp. 23-39, 59-88,109-27). Clarke concludes: 'In addition to his identification and criticism of secular leadership in the church, Paul constructed for the Corinthians different parameters of leadership. This positive definition
offered a stark contrast to the secular patterns of leadership. Paul focused not on status,
but on task; the terminology used was specifically that of function; and the individuals
whom he referred to as examples of good Christian leadership were specifically chosen
for their commitment to service and not status' (p. 131).
3. Acts
357
curiously only mentioned for Ephesus), Paul's disclaimer in Acts 20.33f is

noteworthy. Paul himself did not covet anyone's possessions, but worked
with his own hands to support himself and his companions. Paul did not
share the material concerns of the silversmiths, but displayed true 'UneigennUtzigkeit'.156 Though also serving as a distinguishing mark from false
teachers of the future, Paul's attitude was to serve as a model for the elders.
The money-mindedness displayed by Gentiles was to have no place in the
church. 157
Paul gave the church and its elders an example: Oii"tOl~ 'KOltLwvtU~ OEL avtl1af.L~avEO"fraL "twv aO"frEvOUvtOlV. This expression refers to manual labour
to care for the materially poor or socially weak or to the teaching ministry
mentioned previously for the spiritually weak, though the former is usually
understood.158 Christians have to care for these aO"frEvouv"tE~.
This charge is motivated by a maxim of Jesus (1lV1JIlOVEUELv; cf. Luke 6.30). The elders are
not to follow their own ideas. but to implement fully in their lives the teaching of the
Lord Jesus with whom they aligned themselves as Christians and whose authority they
accept. This reminder of his Lordship divests this command of any optional character.
That 'it is more blessed to .give than to receive' is the opposite of the attitude elsewhere
ascribed to or displayed by Gentiles prior to faith. Jesus' words directly counter this
Gentile agenda (cf. IV.3.3.1.).
Luke does not indicate here how Gentiles usually treated the poor. That
they are specifically mentioned may imply that Gentile elders, following
the patterns of their society, were in danger of misusing them (in creating a
156 Schneider n, 299; Weiser. 321: 'Anspruchslosigkeit im Umgang mit materiellem Besitz und ein hohes MaB sozialer Verantwortung geh6ren nach Lukas zum Leben der
Christen. Dieses luk. Anliegen durchzieht sein ganzes Doppelwerk. Auch an der UneigennUtzigkeit der Boten Jesu und der Trilger von Dienstlimtern in den Gemeinden ist
ihm sehr gelegen' (vg\. Lk 12.41-46; 17.7-10). Pesch 11. 205f comments: 'Offenbar liegt
hier ein wichtiges Unterscheidungsmerkmal gegenUber den von auBen eindringenden
Irrlehrem ... wie auch gegenUber den innerkirchlichen Falschlehrern ... fUr die "eigensUchtiges Gewinnstreben als charakteristisch gilt". Cf. Roloff's treatment ('Themen.
513-16) and illuminating reference to Luke 16.1-8; cf. pp. 520-24 for the relevance of
Luke 12.35-38.42-47; 22.24-27 for church leaders.
IS7The Gentiles' material preoccupation is a recurring Lukan theme; cf. Luke 12.29f;
17.27f; Acts 16.19; 24.26. It is therefore not surprising that a Gospel directed to Gentile
Christians should address this concern repeatedly. Fiizmyer. 247. notes (cf. pp. 247-51):
'No other NT writer ... speaks out as emphatically as does Luke about the Christian disciple's use of material possessions, wealth and money.... Obviously. he is not satisfied
with what he has seen of the Christian use of wealth in his ecclesial community and
makes use of sayings of Jesus to correct attitudes within it'.
158 Cf. Schneider 11. 299, n. 72: 'wohl (vornehmlich) als sozial "Schwache" verstanden,
als BedUrftige'; Weiser, 321: 'sozial Benachteiligte'; Zahn, 726; WB, 231 lists Acts 20.35
under 'wirtschaftlich schwach, unverm6gend. bedUrftig sein' and 'Ubertragen von der religiosen und sittlichen Schwliche.
358
1V. Luke's portrall of Gentile Christians
clientele rather than providing genuine charity), overlooking or deliberately neglecting the weak as or when they were no use to them. l59 The
Christian task is genuine aVt:LAafl~civO{}at (cf. Luke 1.54).
O{hOl~ xomiiJvw~ was previously defined as Paul's manual labour: at
XETQE~ aUwL. 160 This emphasis in Acts 20.34 and the previous reference to
Paul's work and trade ( ... ~Qycil;E'tO. ~aav yaQ aXTjvo3tOloL 'tfj 'tEXVU) in
Acts 18.3161 implicitly criticises Graeco-Roman evaluation of manual labour
and economic structure: 'Greek culture had a deep routed scorn for any occupation ... which involved working with the hands .. .'.162 The Gentile elders were not to follow the values of their own society and despise manual
labour, but Paul's example embodying and expressing different values. He
did not exploit the flock but worked to provide for himself and for others. 163
These five areas (2a-e) can be seen to contain Luke's re-definition of
leadership against the background of Gentile concepts. Notions prevalent
in Gentile society were not to be continued or introduced into the church.
The patterns of Gentile society and the values they reflect were unsuitable
and indicative of moral-ethical failure. In this regard Gentiles prior to faith
159 An example is the treatment of the prodigal son by his Gentile 'employer' (Luke
15.16; cf. IY.3.4.2.). Cf. the different picture in Acts 10.2 and also Luke's criticism of the
greed of the Jewish leadership (Luke 11.37-41; 20.47).
160 Bruce, 436 comments: 'These words occupy an emphatic position at the end of the
sentence; they would be accompanied by the appropriate gesture'.
161 Cf. Bruce, 391f. L.c.A. Alexander, 'Luke's Preface in the Context of Greek Preface
Writing',NT28, 1986, (48-74) 70 notes that 'this attitude was not shared by the scientific
writers, who though not craftsmen themselves, speak of the techni/ai with deep respect'.
As Alexander sees Luke in this scientific tradition, our conclusion should not be overvalued. Ct. the studies of R. Hock mentioned by Alexander, p. 70, n. 73j AJ. Matti11, M.A.
Mattil1, A Classified Bibliography of Literature on the Acts of the Apostles, NITS 7
(Leiden, New York, Cologne: EJ. Brill, 1966), nos. 1899-1902; Siegert, Kommentar, 316.
162 Alexander, 'Preface', 70. Cf. Strelan, Paul, 135f on the assessment of manual labour
in Ephesus; F. Hauck, 'Arbeit.A.Nichtchristlich', RAC I, (585-90) 585-88; K.H. Schelkle,
'Arbeit.III.NT', TRE Ill, 622-24. E.g. Cicero's description of vulgar tasks includes manuallabour and work by artisans in workshops (De Officiis I (42) 150): 'llliberales autem
et sordidi quaestus mercennariorum omnium, quorum operae, non quorum artes emuntur; est enim in ilJis ipsa merces auctoramentum servitutis. '" Opificesque omnes in sordida arte versanturj nec enim quicquam ingenuum habere potest officina'. ('Unbecom
ing to a gentleman, too, and vulgar are the means of livelihood of all hired workmen
whom we pay for mere casual labour, not for artistic skill; for in their case the very wages
they receive is a pledge of their slavery.... And workers/artisans are engaged in vulgar
trades; for no workshop can have anything honourable about if). Another pertinent example is Plutarch's Vi/a Periclis 2.
163 Cf. Barrett, Church, 53: 'They would do well to follow Paul's example and work for
their living, in order that, far from receiving payment for their work, they may be in a position to give money away to those who are in need'. For the Jewish evaluation of work
cf. H.D. Preuss, 'Arbeit. 1. AT. 4', TRE Ill, 615-18; M. Brocke, 'Arbeit. H. Judentum 1-2',
TRE Ill, 618f; Roloff, 'Themen', 514.
3. A.cls
359
have little suitable to offer for the kingdom. Their insights and capacities in
other areas are not to be overestimated.
This picture is confirmed by Luke's several direct critical references to Gentile leadership practices and misuse of power (Luke 3. 19fj 7.257; 22.25; 23; Acts 12.1,21,23; 16.22-24;
etc.). Paul spoke to Felix about righteousness and self-control, suggesting Felix's misuse
of authority in these areas (Acts 24.25j cf.1I1.2.2.13.). Paul addressed what was needed to
overcome this failure. The majority of Luke's references to Gentiles in authority is negative. Of the exceptions (e.g. Luke 2.1;3.1jActs 25.8,10-12,21,25fj26.32j 27.3,24;28.7-9,1719) most only mention a Gentile ruler without any further comments.
3. The reason for the elders' alertness (Acts 20.31: ()LO YQT]YOQEt'tE) enforces
the urgency of their task: in addition to detrimental outside influences l64 ,
even from within the group of elders some will distort the truth l65 - which
Paul carefully taught and which was authenticated by God (19.11f) - in order to gain a following of their own (20.30).
3a) Such distortion and ambitious vainglory would occur even among the
elders. Even the structures established to continue Paul's ministry are threatened by the human nature of those appointed to this office. The motivation
for such a drastic step was to gain eminence in the new community (and over
fellow-elders) through Wtoumlv 'tOu~ llu'fiT]'ta~ 01tLOW Ulrtwv. This motivation again reflects Gentile notions of leadership and gaining personal status
through gathering a clientele who in turn would support and enhance their
patron-elder (cf. 2b above). This concept was still so engraved in the elders
that in order to achieve it, some would not even shrink from distorting the
truth they had received. Again the deep entrenchment and longevity of Gentile concepts becomes apparent. If even elders would sacrifice truth for personal promotion according to Gentile schemes, distortion of the truth influenced by sinful ambition or on its own also applies to Gentiles prior to faith.
Their appreciation and grasp of such truth should not be overestimated.
Luke's description of pagan religion indicates to what extent truth was distorted. Some Gentiles wilfully rejected what was known or made known to
them (cf. e.g. Luke 3.19f; 17.27f!; Acts 4.25f, IT.3.7.).
164 'Savage wolves' fromoutside will come into the church, not sparing the flock (Acts
20.29). As their appearance is linked to Paul's departure, this is probably not a reference
to Gentile persecution (cf. IV.3.3.3.4.: Gentile persecution is not linked to the presence
or absence of Paul, it rather arose through Paul's presence and ministry), but refers to
false teachers. They will not treatthe flock as Paul did. The identity of these false teachers
is not indicatedj cf. Zmijewski, 744f; Schneider n, 297; Pesch n, 205, the extensive discussion of Lampe, 'Wolves' and G. Bornkamm, ThWNT lV, (309-13) 312.2-8. Acts 15.1;
21.21? could suggest Jewish origin.
165 The Ephesian believers gave Apollos a letter of recommendation (cf. Schille, 375)
for the disciples in Achaia (Acts 18.27). This suggests awareness of the possibility and
danger of false teaching and concern about it.
360
rv.
3b) The real danger of such endeavours lies in the fact that other Gentile
Christians will follow such elders and their distortion of the truth. 166 Even
after the prolonged time of Paul's ceaseless ministry to everyone, apparently their understanding of Christian doctrine was either still insufficient
to recognise these /)LECTtQUIlIlEVU as such, or their appreciation and commitment to recognised truth was wanting. The first option discourages overestimating the intellectual capacities and ensuing positive consequences of
Gentiles prior to faith. For others the distorted truth, probably less demanding or offensive, was more attractive than the 'orthodox teaching.
They will follow elders who teach according to their taste and identify with
them to the extent of becoming their particular following, no longer following the 'Way'. Faith and commitment can be a thin veneer. Both prospects
explain Paul's previous intensive ministry and the elders' commission to
personal alertness and over the flock. They also impinge on the appreciation of and commitment to truth on the part of Gentiles prior to faith.
4. Not surprising in the light of the previous charges and predictions, the elders are not
referred back to themselves and their natural capacities, but commeiIded to God and the
message of his grace (Acts 20.32).167 This commendation renounces their natural faculties. God's grace accomplishes what tbey themselves cannot achieve: it can build them up
(oLx050flElIJ; cf. 9.31) and give them an inheritance among all those who are sanctified by
grace and not through their own efforts. For sanctification and perseverance the elders
were dependent on God. Despite all of Paul's teaching, preparation for their task and
pastoral care, the grace of God was still the determining factor. The presence and need of
such divine grace for Gentile Christians suggests its presence and need in their previous
appropriation of salvation and depreciates the human capacities of Gentiles prior to
faith.
Though the Ephesian elders and the Christians under their care enjoyed all
benefits of salvation (e.g. the presence of the empowering Spirit) and had
received much instruction and pastoral care, their Christian existence was
not to be taken for granted but threatened by adaptation to their pagan environment. Even under faith their position is endangered and possible only
by God's gracious intervention. All of what is said here about the Gentile
Christian leaders and their flock and previously in Luke's descriptions of
the ministry to Gentile Christians - its intensity and apparent necessity, the
dangers to be addressed, the obstacles to be overcome and the frailty of
their new existence - indirectly suggests an estimate of Gentiles prior to
faith that hardly commends them and their natural faculties.
166 This observation agrees with Luke's characterisation of Gentile crowds (lll.2.2.
8.2.) and explains Peter's strong reaction against Simon's request in Acts 820-23 (cf.
IV.3.4.1.).
167 cr. Dupont, Discours; 326-42.
3. Acts
361
3.4. Luke's sketches of Gentile Christians
Initially this last section was meant to contain Luke's description of the
moral-ethical change displayed in Gentile Christians in order possibly to
conclude its opposite for Gentiles prior to faith. Yet upon closer scrutiny a
certain 'lack of interest in moral conversion' became apparent. Barrett observes for Acts 18:
We hear nothing in ch. 18 of any ethical change in those Corinthians who became
Christians; yet they were those to whom Paul wrote: 'fornicators, idolaters, catamites,
sodomites, thieves, rapacious, drunkards, abusive, highwaymen ... and such were some
of you; but you were washed, sanctified, justified .. .' (1 Cor 6.9-11 ).'68
However, Luke provides some incidental glimpses of the life of Gentile

Christians. They are not reported for their own sake but in connection with
the expansion of the gospel. Luke's purposes explain the lack identified
above (Luke 1.4). As in previous considerations, we have to remember that
in these passing descriptions Luke may not imply deliberate contrasts to
the lives of Gentiles prior to faith (ct. IY.1.1.). Nevertheless some of these
glimpses are suggestive of Luke's estimate of them.
3.4.1. A non-Jewish Christian and sin (Acts 8.18-24)
Simon's request of Acts 8.19 is Luke's only mention of the sin of a Gentile
Christian. We already encountered Simon in the examination of Gentile religiosity in Samaria prior to the arrival of the Christian mission and of what
his contact with and response to salvation adds to Luke's portrait of Gentiles
prior to faith (II.3.4.,III.2.2.2.). What are the indications from his failure?
The evidence available suggests that Luke considered Simon a believer (Acts 8.18).
Luke reports of him that he believed, was baptised and constantly stayed with Philip
(8.13); there is no hint that Simon was not a genuine convert. He is counted among the
other Samaritan converts, and' ... we are not told of any defect in the Samaritans' faith
which needed to be supplied before they could receive the Spirit'. IS Simon became a real
Christian who subsequently backslid. However, Marshall reminds us:
The passage is not concerned to speculate about whether Simon was, in later theological language, 'regenerate'. What is emphasised is his sinful desire to have spiritual
power for the wrong reasons and to gain that power by the wrong method. l70
168 Barrett, 'Imitatio', 253, also
previous quotation. The note that Paul taught the word of
God (Acts 18.11) allows some indication of the Corinthians' 'then' (1 Cor 6.11: xat "taii"tO:
"tLVE~ ~"tE). The nature and amount of paraenesis in the Gospel suggests such interest.
169 Marshall, 158; cf. MarshaU's treatment in Power, 97f.
170 Marshal!, 158. The only reason to question his conversion is Simon's request and the
scolding he received. But such a sinful act is conceivable for a believer as ' ... Luke is
aware that backsliding is part of the experience of the church as a whole (as in the cases
of Judas and Ananias and Sapphira, and Luke's version of the Parable of the Sower,
1V. Luke's pOri/all
oI Cenllie C'JIris/tans
1. Simon was unwilling to surrender his former position of influence, gained

and sustained through his magic. Simon's offer expresses his effort to regain his former position:l7l he wanted the ability to do something impressive which even Philip - though mighty in signs and miracles (Acts 8.6f) was unable to do.
Peter's charge that Simon's 'heart was not right with God' (Acts 8.21; v. 22: xaxLa) excludes noble motives such as wanting this ability in order to bless others. Barrett rightly
suggests: 'Simon's readiness to pay for the right to confer the Spirit presumably implies
tbat he would charge for the gift as he bestowed it'.m According to the mind-set to which
this intention points, the practice of religion or magic was to provide enhancement of social status and material needs rather than or in addition to an altruistic offer of genuine
worship or alleviation of human need. l7l
The emphasis proposed by Marshall points to several pagan misconceptions still firmly with Simon. As elsewhere, such misunderstanding and ignorance were not overlooked, but treated with great seriousness (cf. also
IV.3.3.1.-2.)P4 Peter's response exposed Simon's mistaken notions: ' ...
coming straight out of paganism as he did, he could easily misunderstand
the new religion which had attracted him'Ps His 'total misunderstanding
of the nature of God and his gifts'176 concerned a) the power and purpose
of XQ~fla1:a in the Christian life;177 b) the character of the apostles, namely
their being willing or able to turn their spiritual commission and privileges
into cash (cf. Acts 5.1-11); c) the mode of bestowal and acquisition of the
Spirit. Simon wanted to obtain what was a divine enabling (transferring the
Spirit) and as such beyond human reach. The eX-flaYEUOJV thought this ability to be like a magic power or recipe which can' be transferred or purwhich has verbal parallels with Acts 8)" Travis, 'Review', 283; cf. also K. Berger, 'Propaganda und Gegenpropaganda im frUhen Christentum: Simon Magus als Gestalt des
samaritanischen Christen turns' ,in Bormann, Propaganda, 313-17.
171 Ct Bowman, Problem, 86f: ' ... Simon wanted to be reinstated, and he demanded
tbat the Apostles transfer the full power of the Spirit to him'.
172 Barrett 1,413; et Luke's other links between paganism and material gain.
173 Compare our considerations on the priest(s) of Lystra (Acts 14.13) and the motivation of Demetrius in Acts 19.24-27. The Philippian slave owners were not concerned
about the defeat of the TI"i}wv as such. For an instructive example from the imperial cult
of Ancyra see Mitchell,Anatolia, 109-12.
174 The expression el CiQa (cf. Marshall, 159; Barrett 1,416) and Peter's indictment show
the severity of Simon's sin. Forgiveness was not to be taken for granted.
175 Marshall, 159; cf. BC lV, 94: 'A new convert can never have been expected to be
fully aware of his responsibilities at this early stage'.
176 MarshaIJ,l 59. Against Barrett 1,413 who argues that Simon's 'behaviour is not consistent with possession of the Spirit' and proposes 'a logical oversight on Luke's part as
he constructs his story'.
171E:QT)!1a'ta are not to be used for oneself or to enhance one's own status but are to
meet the needs of the kingdom and of otbers; ct e.g. Luke 8.3; 18.22; Beck, Character, 2854; Weiser, 122; Fitzmyer, 247-51.
3. Acts
363
chasedP8 d) Simon also failed to recognise and acknowledge divine sovereignty: 'Simon is attempting to cheat God, to infringe the divine prerogative of bestowing the Spirit in accordance with his own will' .179
Though a Christian, Simon understood the events (Acts 8.15-17) fully in
pagan moral-ethical and magical categories and made his plans accordingly, thus demonstrating how natural and deeply entrenched these notions
were. If Luke records such serious misconception and sinful desires of a
Gentile Christian, the spiritual capacities of Gentiles prior to faith should
not be overestimated.
Curiously Simon's failure and Peter's response occur at the very moment when the first
non-Jews become Christians.1SO They demonstrate that - in addition to salvation - Gentiles need correction as the paradigms of their previous life were prone to surface again
and interfere. Lllning rightly observes that the 'von Lukas herausgearbeitete Pointierung
richtet sich genereII gegen Relikte hellenistischer Vulgii"eligiositlJt innerhalb der christlichen Gemeinde'.l8I Systematic instruction was mandatory to overcome this fierce residue. Lake and Cadbury explicitly conclude: 'One of the "morals" of the tale is the need
for a catechumenate'.1S2 Luke's report of the continuous catechesis and pastoral care of
Gentile Christians (IV.3.3.) shows that and how this need was met.
2. Peter's response is likewise revealing:

a) As they required forgiveness (cupE-ftTjaE"tul) Simon's desire and various pagan misconceptions (~ ETtLVOlU "tfj!; xUQatU!;) were sinfuI.183 The only
actual sin of a Gentile Christian which Luke records is not moral-ethical
but 'intellectual', namely thinking according to a pagan mind-set (lhL ...
EVOflLOU!;). Also in other instances pagan concepts or their practical outworking were exposed in their sinfulness and corrected: oux oqJELAoflEv
178 Pesch 1,275: 'im magischen Denken befangen bleibt'; cf. Acts 19.18f. Luke emphasises the character ofthe Spirit as a gift,Acts 2.38; 10.45; 11.17; cf. Weiser, 122.
179 Barrett I, 415. In response Simon was explicitly denied J.tEQ~ ouc'\e x)..iiQo~ EV 1:0
Mycp 1:01i"tcp. This does not mean 'no place within the Christian movement', Barrett I,
414; ct. the discussion on pp. 414f. i\6yo~ more naturally refers to the ability to bestow
the Spirit. Barrett's suggestion is difficult to reconcile with the positive portrayal of Simon
prior to v. 18. In light of this previous picture Weiser, 122 is correct only concerning the second element: 'daB er keinen Anteil habe am Geist Gottes und dessen Weitergabe'.
180 The first recorded sin of Jewish Christians was also related to the Spirit, Acts 5.3f.
Ananias assumed to be lying only to people. Ananias and Simon both misconceived and
underestimated the Spirit and its close relation to God.
181 According to Weiser, 122; K. Lllning, 'Lukas - Theologe der von Gott gefilhrten
Heilsgeschichte (Lk,Apg)', Gestalt undAnspruch des Neuen Testaments, eds.l Schreiner,
G. Dautzenberg (Wilrzburg: Echter, 1969), (200-28) 205-09 (italics mine). I could not ascertain the quotation on the pages indicated by Weiser.
182 BC lV,94.
183 On .Tj btlVOLCl 1:ii~ xClQlItCl~ Grabbe, Judaism, 518 writes that this expression is
'unique in the New Testament but an important technical term in the later Simonian systern', with reference to G. LUdemann, 'The Acts of the Apostles and the Beginning of Simonian Gnosis', NTS 33, 1987, (420-26) 424f.
364
Iv. Luke's portrait of Gentile Christians
VOI-l[~ELV
... I-lE"tUVOELV (Acts 17.29f),184 This characterisation as sin requiring forgiveness would also apply to the intellectual failure of Gentiles prior
to faith. Pagan categories are forcefully dismissed (8.20: ELT] E~ a:7tWAELuV).
b) Such sin is said to originate in the human heart (Acts 8.2lf: ~ YUQ
"aedia oou OU'K E01'LV EMELa ... tfi~ 'KaQMu~; cf. e.g. Mark 7.2lf).185 This
source and the nature of its product caution against ascribing insight and
appropriation of salvation to the natural capacities ('hearts') of Gentiles
prior to faith.
c) Such sin could not be removed by Simon himself, or the missionaries,
or through a generous dose of correction and instruction. Though both occur and have to follow, Simon's sin affected his relationship with God (8.21:
EVaV1:L "tou itEOU) and required his forgiveness ("tau 'KUQLOU ... U<pE'fhlOE"taL). The call to Simon was I-lE"taVOT]Oov o~v U:7tO 'Ku'K[a~ oou 'ta1j'tT]~ 'Kat
aE~it1]"tL (8.22). Likewise, Gentiles prior to faith first and foremost need
God's forgiveness of their various failures (= salvation, according to Luke
1.77), which is to be followed by correction and instruction. Their response
is to be f.l,E'tcXvOLa and MTJOL~. Without divine forgiveness/salvation and repentance, Gentiles remain separated from God, their hearts are not EUitELU
EVUV't"L'tOU itEOU; 'KU'KLU is not removed.l 86
184 This exposure does not occur with the actions of Gentiles. Sinful behaviour is mentioned but usually not specifically identified as such or addressed with corrective intent;
cf. Luke 3.19; 12.30; 17.2628; Acts 18.17.
18S ' evidently here regarded as the seat of thought where purposes are entertained and
plans made', Barrett 1,416. Taeger's word study of xaQllla deals far too briefly with Acts
8.21 (Mensch, 22-24). It is mentioned as an exception to Luke's other statements about the
condition of the hearts of believers (p. 23). Taeger's conclusion ('das Herz ist Ausdruck fUr
die Orien tierung des Menschen', p. 23) needs to be applied to Acts 8.21 as well (cf. his note
78 and the negative references to the hearts of Jews in Acts 7.51, see 1.2.2.3.2.1.b.; Acts
28.27).
186 We observed in 1.2.2.3.2.1. that based on his study of the occurrences of CxfLaQ,la, H.
Conzelmann ascribed a moral-ethical understanding of sin to Luke (Milte, 212f; cf. our
refutation in 1.2.2.3.2.1.b. of his conclusion for ,a{rtl]v ti)v CxfLaQ,tav in Acts 7.60). We
noted in our assessment of his proposal (cf. 1.2.2.3.2.1.) that, based on comparisons of
Luke to Paul, Conzelmann is only concerned with Luke's references to CxfLaQ,la, and
therefore misses indications of Luke's understanding of sin expressed in different terminology. In Acts 8.22 Simon's sin is called 'tij~ xaxla~ eou ,a{ml~' The nature of this xaxla
was far from merely moral-ethical; cf. our previous conclusions on its character. Cf. the
usage of xaxla in Rom 1.29; 1 Cor 5.8; 14.20; Eph 4.31; Col 3.8; Tit 3.3; Jas 1.21; 1 Pet
2.1,16 and W. Grundmann, ThWNT Ill, (470-87) 483-85. Grundmann's definition 'Sonst
hat xaxla stets ethische Bedeutung. Es ist sowohl eine ganz bestimmte Einzelschlechtigkeit, so das gewinnsuchtige Verlangen des Simon Magus .. .' (pp. 53-55) captures only one aspect of Simon's more complex failure. Can Grundmann's definition of
xaxla as 'gemeinschaftszerstorende Macht' (p. 485.1,14) be limited to inter-human relationships? Cf. also Siegert, 'Heiden', 55.
3. Acts
365
d) The seriousness and character of such sin is emphasised: It brought Simon into OUV()E0I10V a5LxLac;. 187 1hls expression also suggests that sin is not
only a moral-ethical trespass on the human level and an offence to God.
From a spiritual perspective (Acts 8.23: oQw OE DV-tu), sin also affects the
state of the offenders by bringing them into bondage from which they cannot escape. This bondage can only be ended through God's forgiveness (see
c). This link between sin and bondage suggests that, apart from forgiveness,
Gentiles prior to faith are in such bondage from which they need salvation
(ct. Luke 11.14-28). Though Simon is not explicitly said to be in Satanic
bondage or under his influence (ct. Acts 5.3),188 cniv()E0I10C; recalls the
EouoLa mu om:avu of Acts 26.18.
Simon is also EtC; ... XOA~V ltLxQLac;. This charge recalls Deut 29.17, which
compares apostasy from God to serve pagan gods to a root sprouting poisonous and bitter growth (cpuouoa Ev XOAfj xat ltLKQL(l). Barrett concludes:
Simon 'is in effect going after false gods because his proposal manifests a
false understanding of the God Peter proclaims'.189 Through this allusion
Simon's sin is identified with the characteristic idolatry of Gentiles. Returning to the paganism deeply entrenched in him, Simon was potential 'poison' for himself and others. Catechesis and pastoral care have to counter
this continuing pagan impact on Gentile Christians.
Though Simon may be a particularly striking example and pagan notions
may not be as prevalent in other Gentiles, the sinful desire and various misunderstandings betrayed even by this Gentile Christian also cast a dark
shadow on Gentiles prior to faith and their capacities for adequate insight
and understanding. The same chord is struck in Luke's direct statements on
J87 Barrett I, 417 translates: 'bondage to unrighteousness'. The same genitive apposition occurs in Luke 16.8f; 18.6; Acts 1.18. G. Schrenk, ThWNT /, (150-63), 155.39f deals
with Acts 8.23 under the heading 'Die Bestimmung der UCiLxLa als SUnde gegen
Gott' (italics mine). Again, this is far removed from the notion suggested by Conzelmann.
On pp. 156f (156.40-42) Schrenk notes: 'In Ag 8.23 ... liegt ausgesprochen, daB sie Bande
schlingt, was die sUndige Verstrickung charakterisiert'; cf. p. 154.39f for Isa 58.6! WB,
32f.2. note: 'Im weiteren Sinne kann ltIlLXla Prinzip der bilsen Welt sein ... der Genitiv
bezeichnet dann die Zugehilrigkeit zu ihr'. Sin establishes relationship with this principle
and world. Is aliLxLa perhaps an indirect reference to Satan? In Luke 16.8 the otxov6Jlo~
~fj~ aliLx[a~ belongs to the vLoL "tou a[wvos "tOl!"tOV who are contrasted with the vlouS
~ou qJOJ"toS; cf. Acts 26.18.
188 The plan and agreement of Ananias and Sapphira had Satanic origin, Acts 5.3. Nevertheless Peter held Ananias accountable for what he 'contrived in his heart' (v. 4) and
reasoned with him. Ananias was apparently not a helpless victim of Satanic input. Both
explanations of the origin of this first Christian sin stand side by side. For Luke these divergil)g explanations did not seem to contradict each other.
J8g Barrett 1,417. He continues: ' ... the phrase seems metaphorical of a person whose
idolatry and godlessness lead to bitter results for himself and the people whom he deceives'; cf. Marshall, 159.
366
IV. Luke's portrail of Gentile Christians
the world view of Gentiles and in their encounter with salvation: as Gentiles
lacked it and were unable to attain it, the truth about God, themselves and
the world had to be proclaimed to them. These observations support our thesis that for Luke, Gentiles are not able to overcome this state on their own
but need salvation, accompanied and followed by ample correction.
3.4.2. Antioch (Acts 11.2Bf)
During the world-wide famine which was predicted by the Spirit, the disciples of Antioch determined that according to their ability, each would
(Ku{hb~ EunoQEh'o "tL~, wQLauv e"aaTo~ av-rcvv) send relief to the believers
of Judaea.l 9o B.W Winter notes the decided difference between this response and famine relief according to secular patterns: of the Christians
each contributed according to their ability, the task was not relegated to the
rich of the church who could help without personal renunciation. All these
Christians did good.l 91
Though not within the scope of the actual narrative another Lukan reference to Gentile
treatment of Jews during a famine is instructive (cf. H.3.1., IY.3.4.6.). The Gentile stockfarmer of Luke 15.16f would not extend hospitality or help to the foreign Jewish prodigal
in personal need (flaltaviJoavro~ flE alJl:o'D mivra) and during a severe famine (eyf:vE'to
}.l(lO~ LCl)(1JQrl ... 'Kat aiJl;o~ iiQsm:o UCTteQEtO'fral).'92 Though initially ready to or pretending to help in exchange for service ofthe meanest kind (En:E(l'IjJEV ... j300'KElV xoiQo1J~), he
still would not give even his pigs' fodder to his famished worker (Eltdh!J.lEL XOQ'tao{jfjval
... ov!5i, Efliflou ain:<i> ... 'eyw oe ... c'mo}.Au(laL).1" By exploiting the desperate foreign
Jew, this Gentile leaves no doubt about his priorities.
In contrast to this striking picture the Antiochene Christians shared sacrificially with unknown Jewish fellow believers without any obligation (cf.
190 On the visit of the prophets from Jerusalem cf. HengellSchwemer, Paul, 231-39; for
the nature and occasion of the famine - or the 'price increase' as the authors suggest - ct.
pp. 240f.
19! 'Food Shortages', 75f; for secular patterns ct. pp. 72-75. This well explains Luke's
wording of this note; cf. the different procedure in Acts 4.34-37; Capper, 'Context'. Cf.
also Winter, Welfare and R.I.Pervo, 'Panta Koina: The Feeding Stories in Light of Economic Data and Social Practice', in Bormann,Propaganda, (163-94) 184-87.
192 Bailey, POet,170 notes the significance of the emphatic pronoun: "'He began to be
in want". He more than others was in need'. Acts 7.11 links }.1(l6~ with {}At'IjJl~ (lEyaA1];cf.
Rius-Camps, 178f. I have not seen W. Pohlmann, Der verlorene Sohn und das Haus,
WUNT 68 (TUbingen: lC.B. Mohr, 1993).
193 Against Fitzmyer, 1088; et. Nolland, 783f and the detailed discussion of Bailey, Poet,
170-73. In his distress the prodigal remembers the generous treatment which the hired
servants of his Jewish father receive: ltEQLOoEuov'tal aQ'twv, Luke 15.17. Cf. the oppressive treatment of the Israelite strangers in Egypt in Acts 7.
J.
Acls
:JOI
return. 194
Acts 28.9f), compulsion or expectation in

This adds to the positive picture Luke paints of the Antiochene church.
In this provision the Gentiles among the disciples of Antioch, themselves
affected by famine, renounced the preoccupation with their own sustenance (Luke 12.29f: Lau-ca ya.Q :n;a.VtCl La. E-/}vT] taU XOOllOl! E:rtL~T]LOiiOlV;
17.27f) and the anti-ludaism elsewhere ascribed to Gentiles prior to faith.
They also abandoned the secular Gentile pattern of response in such a situation: all took action according to their ability. Personal responsibility for
the welfare of others emerges. The values and patterns of Gentiles prior to
faith that emerge from this contrast were rejected.
3.4.3. Ephesus (Acts 19.18f)
Some (Jews and) Gentiles became believers. Many of them confessed and
disclosed their deeds.1 95 Among these converts were former magicians (La.
J"tEQLEQya J"tQUOOELV),196 who publicly destroyed their highly valuable tools
of the trade. 197 Trebi1co observes:
... in this case the books were not forcibly seized by others as occurred in virtually all
of the accounts from the Graeco-Roman period, but rather were voluntarily burnt by
their owners, and at great personal loss. By burning their own books themselves and
by doing so in public (Evmmov miv"Coov), the new believers in Ephesus openly repudiated their own previous involvement in magic.'"
Their action testifies to the impact oftheir new faith and the enlightenment it
wrought. In spiritual blindness these magicians once paid large sums for such
194 Luke does not clarify the relation between the prediction of the famine and the
help extended upon its arrival. Their donations are a reversal of the situation in Luke
4.25f: in a time of general famine Gentiles now help Jews.
m As Luke mentions the occasion and precise moment of these conversions, a link to
previously-mentioned sinful deeds is likely; cf. the discussion in Zmijewski, 694. Following the close escape of the SODS of Sceva, other more fortunate exorcists (Acts 19.13)
who had previously employed the name of Jesus would understandably confess their
misdeeds.
196 As magicians have not been mentioned in the previous context and Jews and Gentiles are mentioned together (19.10,17), it is best to see representatives of both behind
the lxavol in v. 19; cf. Acts 8.9,11; 13.6,8. Luke does not associate them with the demonic,
whose presence appears in the context, 19.10,13,15f. Neither are they said to have made
claims similar to those of Simon, Acts 8.9. For the background see Garrett, Demise, 1136; for the variety and extent of magic T. Hopfner, 'MaYELa', RE XIV, 301-93; cf. Arnold,
Ephesians, 5-40; Kee, Medicine, 95-121. F. Kuhnert, "E<jlEma YQuIJ-IJ-a"Ca', RE V, 2772.5761 speaks of 'ein bllihendes Zauberwesen in Ephesus'. For epigraphic evidence on magicians and curses in Ephesus see 'Ifebilco, 'Asia', 314.
197 For the burning of books and its significance in antiquity cf. Trebilco, 'Asia', 315; for
their likely content cf. p. 314.
19S 'Asia', 315; similarly Weiser, 296.
368
works.199 Now what these books contained and what these Gentiles had
practised and greatly valued prior to faith was recognised as at the best useless and at the worst harmful and misleading. Thus the equipment was destroyed rather than turned into cash.200 Their recognition of their previous
blindness and failure is evident. This repudiation of their former trade and
treasures indicates that they did not consider their pagan heritage worth
keeping or as a valuable contribution to or preparation for their new faith.
Rather they perceived a full antithesis. In contrast, Gentiles prior to faith valued and used such books to consult or gain a living through them.
There is an element of irony probably not lost on Luke's readers: in precisely the city which gave its name to the popular magical formula of the
'EcpEO'La yga!lf.La'ta (cf. III.2.2.12.3.), books containing such formulas were
burnt as a much more powerful name was revealed and accepted.
There is an interesting alternative to the above understanding of the beginning of v. 18 which follows the NRSV's: 'many of those who became believers'.201 It translates more literally: 'many of those who had (previously)
become Christians' ('twv 1tE:7tL<TtE'lJXo'twv,perfect tense: had believed in tile
past and were Christians now; ct: BDR 340) only now confessed and/or
made a complete break with their former practice in view of the striking
events of Acts 19.13-17 (ct. III.2.2.12.5.). If this is the case,confessio~ and/or
a clear break of Christians with their past had not occurred previously. It is
not clear whether the deeds ('ta~ 1tgaEL~202) are seen as committed prior to
or after their conversion.203
In this understanding their confession and break was not procured
through the prolonged ministry of Paul (Acts 19.8-12; 20.18-20,31), but trig-
199 For extant magical papyri see Hopfner, 'Ma.yLa', 301f. Schille, 381 notes: 'Der hohe
Betrag, den man fUr Zauberpapyri zahlte, steht in keinem Verhiiltnis zu den Herstellungskosten (etwa zwanzig Pfennig pro Bogen)" (with reference to a study from 1904).
This is another pointer to the SUbstantial material resources involved in paganism; cf.
Acts 14.13; 16.16; 19.25.
200 Cf. Luke 12.33; 18.22, 8.32f. See Garrett, Demise, 95 for links to Paul's previous proclamation. Cf. Pereira, Ephesus, 187f.
201 This is the view of Strelan, Paul, 263. His treatment is all too brief.
202 Klauck, Magie, 116: 'Zu den Praktiken muB man wissen, daB praxis eine stehende
Bezeichnung fUr eine Zauberhandlung ist'; cf. WB, 1398f.4.b.
203 Cf. the excellent discussion of Klauck, Magie, 116. Klauck notes: 'Die Frage kann
nur sein, auf welchen Zeitpunkt sich dieses magische Tun bezieht. Die eine Moglichkeit
wltre, es in jener Lebensphase anzusiedeln, die der Hinwendung zum Glauben vorausliegt. Dann hlttten diese Glilubiggewordenen plOtzlich das Gefiihl, daB sie damals etwas
verschwiegen hatten, und das wollen sie jetzt richtigstellen. Die Alternative besteht darin, daB sie wie Simon Magus als Christen in magische Praktiken zurl1ckfielen und das
jetzt durch ein rl1ckhalt\oses Bekenntnis wieder abstellen wollen. Die zweite Mllglichkeit wird man zumindest offen halten mussen, und es scheint fast, als habe Lukas sich
bewuBt nicht prllziser ltuBern wollen'.
3. Acts
369
gered by the forceful demonstration of the powers and dangers involved in

such practices. Fear of similar personal negative consequences, more than
insight or rather than insight into the nature of their misdeeds may have
been the leading motivation. Even then confession and repudiation was a
slow process. Strelan rightly notes:
The resulting confession and disclosure of (secret) acts on the part of the believers
was on-going rather than a once-only effect of the power of God. That is the force of
iiQ;ovto. The same is true with the subsequent burning of books and amulets (v. 19).
The imperfect xa"txaLov ('they kept on burning', or 'they began to bum') implies
that there was more than one bonfire.204
This alternative understanding agrees with Luke's other references to the

endangered existence of Gentile Christians. It indicates the entrenchment
and longevity of pagan notions so amply perceptible elsewhere in Luke's
Ephesian account. If this is Luke's estimate for Gentile Christians, Gentiles
prior to faith need to be assessed accordingly.205
3.4.4. The hallmark ofjoy
Though not absent among Jews206 joy and rejoicing are a Lukan hallmark
of Gentile Christians. They are among the few characteristics Luke mentions. The Ethiopian went on his way rejoicing (XaLQwv, Acts 8.39). In con-
2D4 Paul,
263[
Acts 20.1-7 offers a strong contrast to the Ephesian events of the previous chapter.
The church of Troas, including Gentile Christians, met to break bread. For details of the
occasion of their meeting see Schneider 11, 285f; Pesch 11, 190f; M.M.B. Thrner, 'The Sabbath, Sunday, and the Law in Luke/Acts', in D.A. Carson (ed.), From Sabbath to Lords
Day: A Biblical, Historical and Theological Investigation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1982), (99-157) 128-33. a) They did so in obedience to the instructions of Jesus (Luke
22.19; cf. Acts 2.42,46). In contrast to Gentiles prior to faith, they knew of God's will and
followed it. b) In further contrast to the Gentiles who rejected and killed Jesus or those
who were indifferent to him (cf. Acts 4.25f) , these Gentiles met on the weekly recurrence
of the day of his resurrection to remember and worship the risen Jesus; cf. A.T. Lincoln,
'From Sabbath to Lord's Day: A Biblical and Theological Perspective', in Carson, Sabbath, (343-412) 384 and R.J. Bauckham, 'The Lord's Day', in Carson, Sabbath, (221-50),
236. c) While the Ephesians guarded and worshipped Artemis' image fallen from heaven
(19.35), which made no difference to the sick and possessed of the city (19.11f), the
Christians of Troas witnessed God's presence among them in the raising of Eutychus.
Not even death needed to be occasion for alarm among them (.Li] tJ-oQlJ~ELo{tE; cf. auu"tQo!P~, 19.40; MQlJ~o<;, 20.1). Only Gentile Christians experienced such reality and comfort. d) Acts 20.8 mentions that the meeting place was well lit by Aall'taliE<; Lxavai. Does
this incidental note point to Lukan apology (cf. Acts 26.26: ou yaQ EU"tLV EV yOlV[~
ltEltQay(.Lvov "to1i"to)? Would the Gentiles otherwise have considered the meeting a secretive orgy or akin to the gathering of a mystery religion (cf. ~wv auol"tw<; in Luke
15.13)?
2D6 E.g. Luke 2.20; 6.23; 10.17,20; 19.6,37; 24.41,52; Acts 2.46;5.41; 11.23; 12.14; 15.3.
2DS
370
trast to many Jews of Pisidian Antioch, the Gentile Christians rejoiced

(EXaLQOV) and praised the Lord (13.48). The disciples were filled with joy
(e:rtAT)Qoiivto XUQU\;, 13.52). The Antiochene Christians rejoiced (exuQT)uav) at the exhortation they received from Jerusalem (15.31). Philippi's
jailer and his entire household rejoiced because they had come to believe in
God (~yaAAluua'to, 16.34). The discovery and appreciation of their new
knowledge of God and of their faith in him lead to rejoicing. 207
For these Gentiles their previous preoccupations and concerns (cf. Luke
12.30; 17.27f) have given way to a joy and rejoicing unknown and never ascribed to Gentiles prior to faith. The jailer's and his household's personal
rejoicing over salvation stands in marked contrast to the detached perception of religion as 'customs' previously displayed by local Gentiles prior to
faith and to the reaction of some Gentiles over their material loss (Acts
16.19,21; cf. III.2.2.10.3.).
Acts 2.28 which describes gladness as a divine gift confirms that such joy
is unknown to Gentiles prior to faith. It is people like David (2.25; 7.45f;
13.22f) who experience and confess that God reveals the ways of life and
fills with gladness in his presence (:rtAT)QWUEl\; !-LE E\J(PQouuvT)\;): 'that joy
arises ... out of living in the presence, before the face, of God'.lOB Such
EUqJQouuvT) is unknown where God's presence is not recognised and acknowledged and where God does not reveal the way of life (eyvwQlUU\; !-Lot
Mov\; !;wij\;; cf. 7.38: )..QYlU !;WYt(1).209 Acts 13.52 mentions Christian joy together with the Spirit (XC1QU\; Xal1tvEu!-LC1'tO\; UYlO1!; cf. IV.3.2.,Luke 1.41-44;
10.21!). 'E:rtAT)Qoiiv'to is apassivum divinum: as the Spirit is clearly a gift of
God (cf. Acts 2.38; 10.45; 11.17) so is this joy. Gentiles prior to faith could
and did have neither this joy nor Spirit.
207 Rather than being punished by a vindictive God, the jailer had been saved; cf.
III.2.2.10.4. ~yaU[am~ is the human response to God's action, Luke 1.14; Mary rejoiced
(ijya}..AlaoEv, 1.47; cf.1.44) in God her saviour; Jesus rejoiced over the outworking of the
plan of God (ijya}..Au:i.oa'to, Luke 10.21; cf. Acts 2.26,46). Cf. Acts 11.28 D: ~v 6E ltOAAiJ
ayaU[am~ (in Antioch); cf. Gulin, Freude, 132, n.1; Barrett I, 564. Cf. Gulin, Freude, 12123,132. These references from Acts do not occur in H. Conzelmann, ThWNT IX, 357-59
or O. Michel, 'Freude. B. Christlich. I. NT. a-c', RAC VIII, (348-418) 390-400; for pagan
notions see Michel, cols. 350-71.
208 Barrett 1,146 (italics mine); cf. the description in Acts 2.25f; Zmijewski, 139-43. For
Luke 12.19; 15.23,29,32; 16.19; Acts 2.26,28; 7.41 cf. R. Bultmann, ThWNT 11, (770-73)
772f.
209 Those who are not walking on David's God-revealed Oboil; l;wij~ or on the 'Way'
(cf. IV.3.1.3.) follow 'ta~ Obo~ a.imuv, Acts 14.16.
3. Acts
371
The two cases in which joy is associated with Gentiles prior to faith and apart from the
full benefits of salvationno reveal a different type of joy from the Gentile Christians' joy
of salvation.l1I
1. Seeing Jesus, Herod ~XCtQT] I..lav (Luke 23.8). His joy is disqualified by the previous references to him and the following account (see III.2.1.2.3.).212 Herod was glad because his
desire, i.e. hoping to see Jesus perform some sign, was fulfilled unexpectedly and without
effort. Such hope was condemned previously (Luke 11.16,29) as indicative of unbelief
and evil.
2. The e1HPQOcrUVT] ascribed to Gentiles prior to faith in Acts 14.17 appears parallel to
God's material providential care (EfJJtI.1tI..WV "tQO<Jlfj~ Kat EU<JlQocrUVT]~ "tCl~ KaQ&[a~
Ufl(JlV). Though related to the material provision of "tQo<JlTt, the emotional provision of
EU<JlQOcruvT] also comes oUQav6{h;;v.213
3.4.5. Worship o/the Lord Jesus
Gentile Christians knew, trusted and worshipped the one true X;UQlO~.214
Referring to Acts, Strecker's comparison of Christians and pagans indicates
the contrasting commitment of Gentiles prior to faith:
Wie die Taten des antiken Kyrios preisend verkUndigt werden, so verkUndigt die
christliche Gemeinde ihren Kyrios Jesus (Apg 11.20). Und wie der antike Kyrios den
Glauben seiner Anhiinger fordert, so richtet sich der Glaube der christlichen Gemeinde aut den Kyrios Jesus (Apg 11.17; 16.31;20.21). Richtet sich im Heidentum das Gebet an die Kyrioi, so in der christlichen Gemeinde an den Kyrios Jesus (Apg 7.59f).2IS
While they knew of and worshipped many lords, they did not know, acknowledge or believe in the Lord, though he is :7t(XVtu)v XUQlO~ (Acts 10.36).216
210 Samaria was filled with great joy following Philip's miracles, Acts 8.8. The Samaritans' coming to faith is only reported in 8.12. Barrett, I, 404 rightly notes that 'the joy in
the city should be thought of as due to the cure of the sick and possessed'. Luke cautions
that reception of the word flE"tCl XaQo,,; does not guarantee spiritual maturity, Luke 8.13;
cf. IV.3.3.3.1. Me"tCl XaQo,,; recaIls the joy of salvation displayed by Gentiles.
211 A.B. du Toit, 'Freude. I. NT', TRE Xl, (584-86) 585.30-32 observes: 'Nicht nur im
Evangelium, sondern auch in der Apostelgeschichte ... hat die Freude ofter eine soteriologiSche Spitze (Lk 10.20; 15.5,7,10,24,32; 19.6ff; Act 839; 11.23; 153; 16.34' (italics
mine). I have not seen PJ. Bemadicou, 'The Lucan Theology of Joy', SeEs 25, 1973,77-89;
idem, 'The Lucan Theology of Joy (revisited)', ScEs 30,1978,57-80 (references from du
Toit, p. 586) and w.G. Morrice, Joy in the New Testament (1984; cf. W. Popkes, ThLZ 112,
1987,595f).
212 Cf. Brown, Death, 769f: 'All this background should make readers of Luke uneasy
when they read ... that Herod is rejoicing to have seen Jesus at last. This is something he
has been trying to do with malicious intent, and now it has been accomplished without
any cost to him'; cf. the joy (EXCtQT]crav) of Jesus' Jewish enemies in Luke 22.5.
213 Cf. Schneider n, 161, n. 65j Pesch II, 59; III.2.2.9.3.
2H His identity was firmly established in Luke's Gospel; cf. WB, 933f.2.c.~.
21S The%gie, 424 (italics mine)j cf. WB, 933.2.b.
216 Cf. III.2.2.4.3.1.1. This contrast is made explicit in 1 Cor 8.4-6: {h;;ot :n;OI..AOt Kat
UVetDt 1to)J..oi ... Kat El.,; KUQLO"; 'IT]croii~ XQl<J"tO";; cf. WB, 935.2.e.~.
372
3.4.6. Hospitality
While inviting Jesus into his home to eat, Simon the Pharisee did not provide
his guest with any extra tokens of hospitality or appreciation (Luke 7.36,4446).217 These were provided by the woman, who was a sinner and whose
many sins had been forgiven. Her actions express her gratitude and love after
her saving encounter with Jesus. 21B What can be learnt from this moving
scene for Luke's references to the hospitality of Gentile Christians?
The offer and provision of hospitality is a recurrent feature following the
conversion of Gentiles. 219 The new Caesarean believers urged Peter (and
the brothers of Acts 10.23?) E:TtL!.u;;tVaL ~!lEQa~ LLV6.~ (10.48; cf. our n. 229).
Upon her conversion Lydia insisted on offering hospitality and provided
for the missionaries brl .7t"o).).a~ ~!leQa~ (16.15,18).220 The dangers involved
in such hospitality become evident from the fate of PaUl's Thessalonian
host. Jason was dragged before the authorities, publicly maligned and accused of entertaining insurgents and released only on paying bail (17.59).221 The risk for a non-native business woman (3toQCP1JQ63tO>AL~ 3t6Aeo>~
91J!l1;eLQO>v) would not have been less.
The conversion of the Philippian jailer was followed by immediate ethical consequences in his provision of medical care (eA01JUeV U3tO Lmv
3tAl1ywV)222, of his home (uvuyaywv Le uu"tOu~ el~ "tov oIxov223 ) and of a
217 Cf. the discussion in Nolland, 357 (' ... itis precisely in that"which goes beyond the
polite demands of respectability that the true attitude comes to expression'); similarly
SchUrmann I, 435f.
218 Against Taeger, Mensch, 188-99.
219 For Jewish examples see Acts 9.43; 10.23.
220' dem Berichterstatter erscheint als die Hauptsache, daB das Haus der Lydia
durch deren Einladung zum StUtzpunkt der Mission ... wurde', Pesch II,105; cf. Luke 8.2.
For Lydia and the woman of Luke 7 cf. JM. Arlandson, Women, Class and Society in
Early Christianity: Models from Luke-Acts (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997).
221 Cf. Pesch II,123f; Bruce, 370-72; Zahn, 588-92; Zmijewski, 623-25 ('Jason hat sich,
indem er solch gefilhrliche subversive Elemente aufgenommen hat, der Beg1lnstigung
schuldig gemacht und ist als KollaboTateuT anzusehen!', p. 624). It is not clear whether
Jason was Jewish or Gentile. The name itself (cf. WE, 749f; against Pesch H, 123; BDR
53.3.d.) and the report of the result of the ministry (Acts 17.4) would allow for both.
Schneider, 11, 224,n. 30 and p. 225 and Weiser,250 take Jason to be Jewish. This is probably
right as the Jewish opponents, supported by Gentile ruffians, would have been more likely
to attack the house of a fellow Jew than of a Gentile and take him to the authorities (cf.
18.12-17). For Jason's Christian identity see 17.6 and Schneider's n. 32; against BC lV,205.
222 Cf. Rapske, Paul, 125. Luke's only other instance of a similar service are the actions
of the Samaritan in Luke 10.34: xQ1;eBTjoev ,a 'QauJ.tma a-u,oii mLxe!llv EAaLov xal
oIvov. The Samaritan also provided hospilality by commissioning the innkeeper,10.34f;
cf. Fitzmyer, 887f.
223 On the significance of houses see Rapske, Paul, 365-67 and the literature in his
n.313.
3. Acts
373
proper meal for his former prisoners (nuQf:thp{'EV .QrmE~uv, 16.33). The
contrast to the treatment the missionaries received previously from the cities' slave owners, crowds and magistrates (16.19-23) and the jailer himself
(16.24) is decided. 224 For no other Gentile is the contrast between prior to
and under faith more striking. Says Rapske:
When Luke notes that in the very hour of his conversion about midnight ... , the jailer
'set a meal before them' ... , the reader should be astonished at the generosity arid
timing of the repast. A jailer would never have fed his prisoners out of his own larder,
much less at such an hour. Once during the day and only for needy prisoners was the
usual pattern of distribution and the ration would certainly have been simpler and
less substantial if given at all.225
Rapske also argues that the jailer took great personal risks and acted illegally in his new treatment of his prisoners. 226 Against the earlier instructions and procedure of Acts 16.23f, he abandoned their confinement,
though 'Laxness in the method of constraint, especially if prisoners escaped
as a result, was punishable'.227 His prisoners were 'no longer in the expected or required confinement from the magistrates' perspective' (391).
The jailer dared do this for Jews the night after a passionate outburst of
anti-ludaism by the local elite and crowds. Provision of food and sharing table fellowship was likewise risky:
Whatever the purpose of the meal, dining with a prisoner is clearly indicated as a
separate offence. When the jailer offers his prisoners hospitality, he certainly does
something that is very unusual. It may also ... constitute a chargeable offence,
whether capital or otherwise (392).
Rapske concludes:
The jailer's actions are illegal, or grossly improper at the very least. ... The jailer before his conversion shows an overweaned sense of responsibility in being prepared to
take his own life because of the apparent escape of his prisoners; as a Christian, he
casts caution and concern for legal niceties aside in his zeal to help the prisoners who
have converted him (392).
Sitnilar to the GalileaQ. woman of Luke 7.36-50, the actions of the Gentile
Christian jailer transcended the requirements of hospitality. The actions of
both people express their gratitude and love following their salvation. Thus
they are of a different kind.
cr. Rapske, Paul, 123-27.

Cf. Rapske, Paul, 214; against Schille, 348.
Paul, 390-92; against Bruce and Ramsay.
227 Paul, 390, with quotations from ancient legal writers. Rapske also compares Luke's
account with that of 10sephus (ant. ludo XVIII.6.10 233) of the Roman imprisonment
of Agrippa in 37 A.D.
224
22S
226
374
As in the Gospel's paraenesis, the discipleship of Gentile Christians is

closely linked with their proper use of material possessions and to service.
Similar and corresponding to the corporate action of the Antiochene disciples (Acts 11.28f), these sketches of individual Gentile Christians and their
hospitality can be related to Luke's depiction of Gentiles prior to faith. Previously only concerned about their own material well-being (what they
were to eat and to drink, Luke 12.30), they now share what they had
bought, planted and built (~y6QC1~OV, E.cp{rtEUOV, 4JxoMf!ouv, 17.28f) and
what they had to eat and drink. The hospitality extended to Jews indicates
a relationship diametrically opposed to the anti-ludaism elsewhere noted
for Gentiles prior to faith (see IV.3.1.4.). D. Gorce's conclusions also apply
to our references: 'Diese wenigen Streiflichter eroffnen den Blick auf die
warme Atmosphare der Briiderlichkeit, in der die Gastfreundschaft eine
der wichtigsten Formen der Agape darstellt'.228
Perhaps with the exception of Acts 10.48, the hospitality displayed by these Gentile
Christians far surpasses the usual Graeco-Roman notions of hospitality.m In its intensity,
length and readiness for personal risk it also surpasses the hospitality of Gentiles prior to
faith mentioned on Luke's' pages, namely the friendly reception by the Maltese islanders
and the hospitality of Publius: avaoE!;aIlEvo~ ~Ila~ "tQeT~ ~IlEQa~ q:>LAOq:>QOVOl~ E!;eVLIJEV
(Acts 28.2,7). Luke notes that the former was unusual (ou "t~v "tuxoulJav cpLAav"frQOlltLUV)
and the latter limited to 'die klassische Periode antiker Gastfreundschaft'.230 The islanders brought the provisions for the journey as an expression of gratitude in return for
Paul's previous healings (28.10; ct. III.2.2.15.1.). These incidents appear in the context of
spiritual failure. Luke also notes the refusal of hospitality by some Samaritans (Luke
9.53: OUK Eoel;uv-.:o uu"tov; et. III.2.l.1.4.) and the Gentile stock-farm er's inhospitable
treatment of the young Jewish prodigal (Luke 15.l5f; cf. IY.3.4.2., II.3.1.).
Conclusion
Despite the nature of this diverse material and of the conclusions it allows,
this venue provides some clues to Luke's estimate of Gentiles prior to faith.
These sketches of Gentile Christians indicate how deeply pagan notions
were entrenched and natural for Gentiles and how thoroughly these could
determine their understanding and interpretation of events and actions.
These notions are seen as sinful and needing forgiveness, originating in the
human heart and leading to bondage. Luke's description of Simon's alto228 'Gastfreundschaft. C. Christlich. 1. NT', RAC VIII, (1103-20), 1107; on the hospitality of Acts cf. cols. 1l06f, also cols. 1103-05.
229 ct. O. Hiltbrunner, 'Gastfreundschaft. B. Y. a.1-8', RAC VIIf, 1082-92. Luke's other
occurrences of EltLllEVOl with a specific number of days (Acts 28.12: three days; 28.14:
eight days) may suggest that the EltLllETvm ~IlEQU~ nvcl'; of Acts 10.48 was beyond a
number usually counted and thus similar to the mi ;7t'olla.; ~IlEQa~ of 16.18 or the
~IlEQa~ rldov.; of 21.10.
230 Pesch H, 299; cf. Zahn, 844-46.
4. Conclusion
375
gether pagan failure confirms the conclusions drawn from the necessity of
the ministry to Gentile Christians. 1his entrenchment and the continuance
of its impact even among Gentile Christians forbids overestimation of the
Gentiles' natural spiritual capacities.
Luke's portrayal of the changed new life of Gentile Christians may imply
by way of contrast that Gentiles prior to faith lack a detached attitude to
material wealth expressing itself a) in the personal concern and altruistic
generosity of every individual and b) in hospitality that is ready to use its
resources and stretch beyond what is customary and comfortable. By implication they also may lack c) the cordial relation with Jews expressed by
both (a, b; exc. God-fearers) and d) the God-given joy which derives from
finding and believing in God. e) They did not know and/or acknowledge
the Lord Jesus.
However, the conclusions from these few scenes correspond with our
previous conclusions from Luke's direct evidence in this and in preceding
sections. This result affirms Luke's consistency and our contention that all
available material needs to be considered to understand Lukan theology.
4. Conclusion
In this section our approach was mostly indirect. Nevertheless, a portrait
emerged which coincides with and supplements Luke's direct evidence.
Like our conclusions to section II and Ill, these clues are not flattering.
Luke's designations of Gentile Christians carry implications. Other Gentiles are not holy, righteous, believing, following God's course and his appointed leader to life. They are on their own ways, at odds with God's purposes and not members of God's people (IV.3.1.).
Other Gentiles lack the Spirit and everything associated with him and
his ministry (IY.3.2.). The spiritual, intellectual and moral consequences of
this want are amply illustrated in Luke's direct references.
Luke's descriptions of the ministry to Gentile Christians also carry implications for other Gentiles (IV.3.3.). This ministry and the pitfalls it addresses and seeks to prevent indicate the extent and intensity with which
Gentiles need correction and instruction. The pagan life, so natural and
deeply entrenched, is not a preparatio evangelica but determined by notions and values that need to be eradicated. The fact that even Gentile
Christians, following their salvation and endowment with the Spirit, need
continuous correction, instruction, exhortation and encouragement and
still will sin, has negative implications for the capacities of Gentiles prior to
faith. The impact of paganism in spiritual, intellectual and moral issues and
consequently Luke's strong emphasis on correction including all the meas-
376
ures to ensure its continuity and effectiveness, implies the need of God's
saving intervention. The capacities of a pagan mind-set so deep and thoroughly in need of correction should not be overestimated in the appropriation of salvation. This picture is affirmed by Luke's few sketches of Gentile
Christians. '
It remains for a last section to summarise Luke's estimate from his portrait
of Gentiles prior to faith, of their encounter with Christian salvation and of
Gentile Christians and to consider the significance ofthese conclusions.
V. Conclusion
In this part we shall draw conclusions from the various approaches we took
in parts II to IV in order to ascertain comprehensively Luke's view of Gentiles prior to faith (V.l.). We also shall revisit some of the proposals introduced and partly examined in our survey of research or actual study. We
shall consider the bearing of our results on previous proposals concerning
the Gentiles in Luke-Acts, Lukan anthropology and on other theological or
methodological issues related to our quest or the material we studied.
Before we do so, it is worth pointing out one significant aspect of these
results, which is not mentioned later. Luke's portrayal of the state of Gentiles prior to faith establishes and illuminates the backdrop to God's salvation which is a major Lukan theme. Ktimmel describes the benefit of understanding this backdrop:
Biblical theology needs to have a clear picture of man as depicted or presupposed in
the NT, primarily because such a picture necessarily lies behind the proclamation of
God's saving acts directed towards man. Only through an insight into this basic conception of man can the NT message of salvation be really made comprehensible.'
With Kiimmel, we asked how Luke sees the Gentile 'to whom the message
of Jesus Christ comes'. Kiimmel describes the benefits of the answer to this
question: 'If we can find the answer to this question, we can also conclude
what kind of salvation it must be which will save such a man, and also how
he can lay hold of it'.2 In order to answer the first question, which is our
concern, we studied the kind of salvation which saves such people and how
they laid hold of it in order to draw conclusions as to their state. Kiimmel
noted that
Up till now, this important task has only been taken in hand seriously in the area of
Pauline anthropology. Paul, of course, offers the most relevant material. But Paul's
1 Man, 14 (italics mine); cf. the different christological emphasis in Schnelle, Anthropologie, 6. This background of the condition addressed by the Christian proclamation is
easily dismissed by an approach to anthropology based on christology, which believes
that study of anthropology needs to focus on the presentation of Jesus as the perfect human being. Though contrasts and similarities with this ideal provide some conclusions,
this indirect approach neglects material directly describing people, in particular Gentiles
(Jesus being Jewish), in their natural state and 'otherness'. It impoverishes soteriology.
2 Man,16f.
378
V. ConclusIOn
message is only one part of the NT, and presents so many unresolved problems precisely in its anthropology that we must place it alongside the anthropological statements of the rest of the NT.3
We have addressed the question of the people 'depicted and presupposed'

(Ktimmel) to a limited extent for Luke-Acts. 4 The backdrop we were led to
affirm is darker than that suggested by some previous research. Against this
backdrop the salvation, which Luke describes, emerges with clearer contours. The proposals we had reason to question also suffer from the drawback that the human plight they suggest does not correspond with the nature of the solution which Luke describes, namely God's salvation. This solution suggests a different plight.
1. Luke's comprehensive portrait of Gentiles prior to faith
From Luke's direct statements on Gentiles prior to faith and bis narrative
depiction of them (H.) and our two indirect approaches, that is clues from
the Gentile encounter with salvation and from Gentile Christians, HI.-IV., a
multi-faceted, yet unified portrait has emerged. We shall begin with our
conclusions regarding the state of Gentiles prior to faith, drawing on previous conclusions (cf. H.4., HI.2.2.17., III.4., IV.4.).
For convenience of presentation we have arranged Luke's incidental, yet
interrelated references under several headings in a certain sequence,
though Luke does not systematically interrelate these characteristics.s
Though Luke 's portra~t is more comprehensive and coherent than is often
noted or granted, he does not present a systematic theology of the Gentiles.
As a result of bis choice of subject, purpose and genre, Luke is less systematic than e.g. Paul in his portrayal of Gentiles prior to faith in Romans 1.
Nevertheless, the agreement and often accidental interrelation of various
perspectives and references testify to Luke's high level of reflection and
firm views on this subject.
Luke's indications concerning the Gentile condition prior to faith can be
arranged in seven categories (Y.1.1.-7.). Y.1.B. treats the exceptional Gentiles, the God-fearers and proselytes.
3 Man, 14f. In the foreword to the English edition of 1961, KUmmel affirmed the results of the German first edition of 1948.
4 Compare Marshall's brief summary of 'the people to whom the witness is offered',
NT-Guide,59f.
5
E.g. in cause and effect; c[ 1I.3.3.2.2. on Acts 7.39-43.
1. LUKe j por/ra,l 0/ (JenlLies prIOr 10 JaLlh
37<)
1.1. Ignorance
Luke's comprehensive portrayal of the Gentiles prior to faith pictures

them in a dire state. Gentiles fail to recognise of themselves God and his
revelation in nature. They do not share the Jewish privilege of special revelation. Consequently, they are in blindness and darkness concerning God,
his character and proper worship and concerning their own state. They do
not, and can not, compensate for these failures through their own intellectual capacities.
This ignorance is expressed in, contributes to, or accounts for the Gentiles' idolatry, rejection of God's purpose and revelation in history as well
as their materialism and moral-ethical sins (V.1.2.-S.). Though mentioning
both, Luke does not clarify the relation between mere ignorance and rejection of who or what was known to the Gentiles. This ignorance with its expressions and consequences, while mostly overlooked in the past, is sinful
and, without repentance, results in judgement.
Commendable response to God by Gentiles past and present is always
linked with God's revelation either directly to them (e.g. through the prophet
Jonah or the Christian mission) or mediated through Judaism (CL V.I-B.).
1.2. Rejection o/God's purpose and revelation in history
God's purpose includes the election and special position of Israel (Acts 7.3;
13.17; Luke passim) and the mission of his agent. In the past, however, Gentiles proudly raged, imagined vain things, and their rulers gathered against
God and his Messiah (Ps 2.lf in Acts 4.2Sf). Their disregard of this election,
position and person indicates their ignorance of God. It also shows their
alienation from God, their inability to understand his purpose, and also
suggests deliberate rejection.
In addition to the axiomatic statement of Acts 4.2Sf and some past
events (Acts 7.19,24,34), Luke reports several incidents which illustrate
how the Gentiles despise and resist the people whom God had chosen and
authenticated (ct 7.36). This anti-Judaism, displayed by all types of Gentiles (e.g. from the excited crowds of Ephesus to the proconsul of Achaia),
indicates the Gentile blindness to or rejection of God's purposes and revelation in history. The fact that Gentiles could at the same time quickly overcome this antipathy to join Jews against the Jewish Christian missionaries,
people fully aligned with the purpose of God, simply underscores their
blindness and fickleness.
As indicated in the application of Ps 2.lf to present events, the Gentiles'
failure to recognise and conform to the purpose of God or their deliberate
rejection also manifests itself in their treatment and rejection of Jesus and
380
V. Conclusion
of the Christian mission. Except for the Gentiles who become partisans of
God's Christ (Acts 11.26), the correction and salvation extended to them is
refused. While in the past their guilt may have been alleviated by ignorance,
this does not apply to the present rejection of salvation and its agents (cf.
Y.2.4. for the Gentile rejection of correction).
1.3. Idolatry
Gentile ignorance surfaces in the Gentile lack of, or denial of, recognition
and worship of the one, true and living God. Despite his revelation in nature, God remains unrecognised. Instead, Gentiles are dedicated worshippers of a plurality of deities. Not knowing true deity, they make little distinction between divine and human, thus readily acknowledging and worshipping humans as divine, and they adopt new deities. They are also involved in magic, sorcery and illicit dealings with the supernatural. Though
personal interests of individual Gentiles are intertwined with all of these
aspects of pagan religiosity, Gentiles usually are religious people.6
This idolatry and these related pagan notions are deeply entrenched and
fiercely defended when challenged. Gentiles naturally interpret events according to this frame cif reference. Of their own accord, Gentiles fail to realise the futility of these deities and of their worship of them. Luke's portrayal of Gentile Christians testifies to the deep mooring and persistency of
this paradigm.
1.4. Materialism
Related to the Gentiles' rejection of God or their failure to recognise and

acknowledge his true nature (including his providential care), is their preoccupation with the material necessities of their subsistence to the point of
spiritual detriment (Luke 12.29f; 17.26-28). This materialistic preoccupation appears to be the cause behind the cases of purely Gentile resistance to
the Christian mission and sparks their actions (Acts 16.16-19?; 19.24-27).
Materialistic concerns also appear in the context of idolatry or magic, etc.
Luke's portrayal of Gentile Christians and his emphasis in paraenetic sections testify to the deep entrenchment and continuance of this pagan concern (Luke 8.14; Acts 8.191; 20.33-35).
6 In the respective cont~xts Luke is careful to prevent any positive assessment of pagan religiosity. When directly addressed, its expression and underlying ideology is severely criticised.
1. Luke's portrait of Gentiles prior to faith
381
1.5. Moral-ethical sins
The Gentiles' spiritual failure is probably also related to their moral-ethical

sins.? Caution in correlating these two is necessary, as Luke reports only a
few incidents in passing and does not directly address the moral failure of
Gentiles as he does address their spiritual failure (for conclusions from this
observation see Y.2.2.). These sins are usually related to the main story line,
being directed against John, Jesus or Paul. Thus, they are not only moralethical sins but also expressions of a spiritual state (i.e. failure to appreciate
the purpose of God). The treatment of Jesus is interpreted as rebellion
against God and his Messiah, not as a mere miscarriage of justice or judicial
murder. Neat distinction between 'spiritual' and 'moral-ethical' sin, or confinement to the moral-ethical, is mostly impossible. Luke's portrayal of
Gentile Christians also suggests the entrenchment and persistence of pagan
moral-ethical notions. 8
The Gentiles' bleak spiritual condition does not necessarily impinge on their actions.
Within the Gentile treatment of Paul, Luke mentions commendable actions of Gentiles
prior to faith. E.g., a Roman officer treats Paul kindly (Acts 27.3). Luke mentions the
hospitality of Publius, the unusual friendliness of the Maltese islanders and their arrangement of provisions." Nevertheless, these notes appear in the context of spiritual
andlor moral-ethical failure of the same Gentiles. IO
1.6. Under the power of Satan
The world the Gentiles live in is under Satan's dominion and at his disposal
(Luke 4.5f). It is therefore not surprising that in addition to the above indications of their state, Gentiles prior to faith are not on neutral ground.
Rather they are characterised as under the power of Satan (Acts 26.18; cf.
our previous summaries in I1I.2.2.6., ill.2.2.17.2., III.3.3.2.4.).
As this statement occurs close to statements of the Gentiles' spiritual
blindness and state of darkness, a connection is likely, though the two as-
7 Cf. H.-J. Findeis, 'Heiden. H. NT', LThK IV' (1995), (1253f) 1254: 'FUr Heiden sind
entsprechend den jUdischen Beurteilungsmustern insbesondere Nicht-Anerkennen des
einen Gottes und korrespondierende Amoralitlit sowie Nicht-Anteilhabe an den Privilegien Israels kennzeichnend'.
8 This is most evident in Acts 20.18-35; cf. IV.3.3.5. Neat distinction is impossible:
moral-ethical failure of the elders is simultaneously failure against their commission and
against God's precious flock (Acts 20.28) and thus also spiritual failure.
9 For Julius cf. III.2.2.14.5.1.; for Acts 28.2,7,10 cf. II.3.11.1.c., I1I.2.2.15.1. Klauck,
Magie, 136 notes: 'Humanes Ethos wird in der Schlu13passage auch Barbaren und Ramem zugestanden, ohne da/3 irgendeine Bekehrung zum Christentum in Sicht k!ime ....
Ganz so negativ kann das Menschenbild des Lukas nach allem nicht ausgesehen haben'.
ID Cf. Acts 19.31; cf. Zmijewski, 712.
382
V.
COnciUolWIl
pects are not systematically related (i.e. blindness and darkness caused by
Satan's dominion or the fonner bringing under the latter). Neither are the
Gentiles' spiritual and moral-ethical failures (in statements or in narrative)
explicitly linked or explained with reference to Satan (e.g. it is not Satan or
a demon that sparks the Ephesian riot; cf. Luke 22.3f). Luke does not clarify the bearing of Satan's dominion on human responsibility.
Not all Gentiles are under manifest Satanic influence. Yet whenever perceptible demonic possession occurs, Gentiles are unable to help themselves
or others.
1.7. Under judgement
The Gentiles' various failures have consequences. Their gravity becomes

apparent in that all Gentiles come under eschatological judgement in which
they will not be acquitted. The temporal divine judgement over Gentiles of
the past underscores the certainty of the future jUdgement and indicates its
outcome. Repentance and God's salvation is the only escape. No pagan response will obtain acquittal. The repentance of Nineveh demonstrates that
judgement can be averted; while the dire fate of Lot's and Noah's contemporaries indicates the consequences of failure to prepare.
1.8. The God-fearers: Exceptional Gentiles?
Within this dark picture Luke notes some Gentileswho are attracted to or
have some perception of God. Luke mentions many Gentile God-fearers
associated with Judaism and thus with God's revelation to Israel. Much of
what is said about other Gentiles is not, or only partially, applicable to
them. How much they understand and adopt varies)! Luke mentions them
without accounting for their existence. 12 These spiritually commendable
Gentiles are not devout pagans but associated with Judaism. Accepting
what other Gentiles reject (V1.2.), they know and fear God through the
mediation of the Jewish communities among them, not in response to some
recognition of God apart from this source.13
11 Full proselytes are only mentioned in Acts 2.11; 6.5; 13.43. The extended argument
from Scripture, also presented before the Godfearers of Pisidian Antioch (13.16) sug
gests their acquaintance with Scripture.
12 Be it e.g. by providing the familiar reasons of why Gentiles felt attracted to ludaism
or by indicating divine activity behind their attraction; c[ our discussion in III.3.3.3.3.
Luke notes that not all Gentiles exposed to Iudaism become Godfearers: ludaism is not
the selfevident or obvious choice. Acts 19 is a fine illustration.
13 Similarly Nineveh repented upon the preaching of lonah the Jewish prophet, not
upon its own recognition of its failure and premonition of judgement, Luke 11.3032.
Luke suggests that the Jewish witness was occasionally ambiguous, Acts 13.6; 19.1316.
Y.2. The theological significance
383
'Genuine' Gentile reasoning about deity is mentioned only to be exposed as mistaken

and to be corrected: OUK l)(PELA.ollv vOJ.Lt~eLV (Acts 17.29). When addressing 'genuine'
Gentiles, the point of departure was proclamation of the gospel (14.7-9; 17.18) and where
this was not understood, proclamation of the Creator God and his revelation in nature,
not positive reference to their own recognition or religious notions. Luke's missionaries
never encounter people like Melchizedek or Job who knew of God apart from his revelation to Abraham's lineage.
I.
These Gentile God-fearers and associates of ludaism need the proclamation of salvation as much as Jews or other Gentiles. Well prepared for this
proclamation, they are the Gentiles among whom the gospel makes its
greatest inroads. ls
2. The theological significance of Luke's comprehensive portrait

of Gentiles prior to faith
In this section we relate our conclusions to some of the issues raised previously. Our survey of research indicated that conclusions, beyond the strict
realm of Lukan theology or anthropology, are often drawn from the material we studied. These issues are also closely interrelated and we separate
them only for the sake of convenience.
2.1. The Gentile need ofsalvation
Luke indicates that Gentiles do not recognise andlor change their plight,
nor are they able to do so themselves. This is not surprising in the light of
the above portrayal of their state. Unable to alter their condition, they need
God's saving intervention to change their plight. In addition to Luke's description of their past and present condition, the indications of divine activity in their salvation also suggest that they cannot alter their state themselves but need God's salvation (cf.. our extensive discussion in III.3.3.; we
return to the nature of this salvation below; cf. V2.4.). We affirm Marshall's
conclusion:
It is fair to conclude from this that Luke regards all people, both Jews and Gentiles, as
in need of salvation that comes only through Jesus. Piety, such as that shown by CorneIius the Roman centurion (Acts 10.2), is an indication of readiness to accept the
14 Cr. the discussion in Widbin, 'Salvation' and TIenou, 'Eternity'.

IS O. Betz, 'Mission. III NT', TRE XX/lT, (23-31) 26.23-25 notes: ' ... dabei konnten vor
allem die der Synagoge nahe stehenden "GottesfUrchtigen" das Evangelium verstehen
und glauben'.
384
V. Conclusion
message, and is pleasing to God (Acts 10.31), but is no substitute for actually responding to the gospel, which brings salvation (Acts 11.14,18).1.
Rather than showing in a pragmatic way, as Wilson argued (ct: 1.2.2.3.3.),

that Gentiles prior to faith are not that bad after all and deserve salvation
just as much as the Jews, Luke's intentions are better expressed otherwise.
If Luke employs parallels - and parallels in the portrayal of both groups repeatedly surface - the parallel between Jews and Gentiles lies rather in
Luke's conviction that the Gentiles are as much in need of salvation as the
Jews. This common need unites both groups vis-a.-vis God's saving intention and intervention.
While Luke may not present a developed 'theology of the Gentiles', the
comprehensive, unified and networked picture of Gentiles, past and present, prior to, in encounter with and following salvation which is discernible
throughout Luke-Acts suggests that such demonstration is not simply for
'pragmatic' reasons but based on reflection. Luke's picture of the Gentiles
is beyond mere pragmatic concerns.
2.2. Luke's understanding of sin
In addition to our critical observations on Conzelmann's identification of

Luke's understanding of sin as moral-ethical (ct: 1.2.2.3.2.)17, further issues
need to be addressed regarding this proposal and Luke's portrayal of Gentiles.
While moral-ethical sins of Gentiles appear only rarely and then usually
have a spiritual dimension (V.1.S.), their spiritual failure (ct: Y.1.l.-4.) and
its consequences are amply described and addressed. Contrary to Conzelmann's proposal, the repentance required of Gentiles is not linked with individual moral-ethical sins but with their spiritual failure (cf. e.g. Acts 8.22;
17.30). Conzelmann's proposal needs reconsideration in the light of Luke's
references to Gentiles prior to faith. A definition of Luke's understanding
of sin, too narrow to cater for these preponderant references to spiritual
failure, is insufficient.
Luke usually notes moral-ethical and spiritual failure of Gentiles without specifically identifying them as sin. Readers are expected to identify for
themselves sin of whatever kind. Luke's exceptions to this observation,
namely when Gentile failure is designated (e.g. Luke 3.19: Herod's adulter16 NT-Guide, 60. Lategan argues that 'biblical writings accept the basic equality of people - the one in the universal destiny of all humans, the other in the universal need of salvation', 'Perspectives',88.
17 Cf. Taeger's discussion, Mensch, 31-44. On p. 42, n.157 Taeger defends this notion despite the criticism levelled against Conzelmann; cf. Wiefel, 'Review', 273.
V.2. The theological significance
385
ous relationship and :1tEQi. :1tCLVl;WV (hv e:1tOLTjOEV 1COV7JeWV; Acts 8.22f: "mda,
X0.A./j, dOt,,{a; cf. IV.3.4.1.2.d.), indicate that Conzelmann's proposal is too
narrowly focused on Ct(lUQ"tLU and its occurrences. Whether identified and
however designated or whether simply reported, all such failures together
indicate Luke's understanding of sin.
Salvation from sins consists in their forgiveness (Luke 1.77), not in correction and moral amendment apart from salvation. Our conclusions also
bear on Conzelmann's understanding of conversion in Luke-Acts. If the
Gentiles' sins transcend moral-ethical shortcomings, and Luke preponderantly describes spiritual failure, their own contribution to their conversion
needs to be assessed more cautiously.
2.3. The state of Gentiles prior to faith - further justification for the Gentile
mission and admission to the church
In our survey of recent work on the Gentiles in Luke-Acts (I.2.1.2.) we
came across studies suggesting strategies that Luke employed to explain,
justify and defend the Gentile mission and, in its wake, the Gentiles' admission into the church. To these suggestions, we wish to add an item neglected
so far. Previous studies do not sufficiently address the essential necessity of
the Gentile mission. Yet Luke's description of the Gentiles' condition prior
to faith demonstrates their plight and need of salvation, to which the Gentile mission and its proclamation of salvation are the solution. Their very
need requires the Gentile mission, as Gentiles are in a state which only the
mission can address, alter and ameliorate.
Luke uses the strategies mentioned previously to show that the church
not only can, but should pursue this task, and does so with full divine approval. The Gentiles' state and need lie beneath other justifications of the
Gentile mission and admission. Both are and had to be part of the plan of
God because of the Gentiles' state prior to faith. It recalls that mission and
salvation are not optional, but necessary.
While not denying difficulties and reverses, Luke shows that due to
God's eternal intention and its present outworking in salvation, the mission
has begun and has some measure of success. This success, and Luke's positive portraits of Gentile Christians, further legitimise the mission.
2.4. Correction rather than salvation? Rather salvation and correction?
What is necessary to alter the Gentiles' plight (cf. 1.2.3.3.)? This question of
soteriology bears on the state of Gentiles prior to faith as the solution
points to the plight it addresses. In addition, Luke's assessment of the Gentiles' own activity in appropriating salvation also bears on his estimate of
386
V. Conclusion
Gentiles prior to faith. To return to our initial question: Do Gentiles need

salvation or correction? Can each be set against the other? Do they not
complement each other? With these questions in mind we relate our conclusions to Taeger's proposal. He suggests that for Luke people need correction rather than salvation. IS
Against Taeger, Luke's comprehensive portrait of Gentiles prior to faith
attests their need of salvation (V.2.1.). What then about correction? Correction is undoubtedly a Lukan concept with regard to the Gentiles. The various misconceptions of Gentiles need to be exposed, corrected and replaced. The speeches directly addressing Gentiles prior to faith contain
such correction, e.g. the Athenians were called to change their thinking
(flE1:a-vm:tv, Acts 17.30). Once Christians, Gentiles continue to receive further correction, instruction and exhortation.
1. While affirming Taeger's emphasis on correction, we must keep in mind
the following observations:
la) Luke notes how Gentiles received manifold correction/instruction
through God's providential care, Judaism and the Christian mission (e.g.
Luke 3. 19f; Acts 14.15-20; 17.32-34; 19.26-41). Their reactions, ranging from
Herod's murder of his 'corrector' to some conversions in Athens, indicate
at best a meagre appeal of correction to Gentiles prior to faith. Acceptance
and implementation of correction is not the Gentiles' natural or obvious
response: it is often ignored, misunderstood according to their own paradigm or wilfully rejected.
1b) Correction does not replace but rather accompany and follow salvation. The majority of Luke's references to systematic instruction concern
Gentile Christians, people already on an essentially different road. An intensive ministry follows salvation in order to replace the former pagan
paradigm and to counteract its continuance and revival. Then correction
and instruction are received and make their impact on Gentiles (cf. Acts
8.24; l1.28f; 20.7-12; 19.18f).
However, even when filled with the Spirit, when well instructed and exhorted and set in structures to ensure continuance, the Gentiles' Christian
existence remains threatened. The spiritual capacities of Gentiles prior to
all such benefits and their activity in appropriating salvation have to be assessed accordingly.
1c) Gentiles do not recognise and alter their state themselves. The initiative comes ab extra. Even their response and conversion are often attri-
18 In searching for answers in this complex area it is wise to remember Conzelmann's

dictum on Acts: 'Endlich gibt es keine theoretische Anthropologie, keine Reflexion liber
Fatum und WiIlensfreiheit ... ', Apostelgeschichte, 12.
V.2. lhe Iheologlcai significance
387
buted to divine activity (III.3.3.2.). The very change of mind that leads to
life is called a divine gift (Acts 11.18; III.2.2.4.3.3.). This observation agrees
with the portrayal of Gentiles prior to faith.
Taeger overestimates the human capacity and contribution in the appropriation of salvation because the limits of correction are not regarded sufficiently. While rightly noting Luke's 'an der individuellen Lebensgestaltung
orientierte Sicht des Menschen'19, he does not give sufficient attention to
the common spiritual state of people prior to and after the encounter with
salvation. At the same time Taeger underestimates the work of God in the
Gentiles' salvation. Obviously, both estimates are closely related. Only
once the Gentiles' state and capacities prior to faith are fully appreciated,
can their contribution (its probability and extent) be assessed properly and
the necessity and extent of God's work emerges more clearly and in closer
confonnity with Luke's soteriology. However, it remains difficult to discern
Luke's view of the extent and limits of what correction can achieve.
2. In considering the relationship between correction and salvation it is crucial to note that the Gentiles' salvation contains several components that
are beyond the reach of correction and that Gentiles cannot themselves
procure but only receive. Luke's portrait of Gentiles prior to faith suggests
that salvation needs to be more comprehensive than what correction could
ever achieve. Accordingly, Luke's portrayal of salvation shows that its
scope is much more comprehensive than what correction and amendment
of ignorance, however well received, could accomplish. Some examples suffice. a) Though correction may expose present failure and ideally prevent
its future recurrence, correction cannot alter past and present failure. No
amount of correction can remove sin (salvation consists of forgiveness of
sins, Luke 1.77, not only of its recognition and determination for moral
amendment). Correction, repentance, prayer and forgiveness are combined
in Acts 8.22t. b) Correction cannot obtain release from the power of Satan
(Y.1.6.). c) For Luke, the church, including its Gentiles, is purchased by the
blood of God's son (ct. Acts 20.28; 4.12) not created by correction and its
acceptance. Even the Gentile associates of ludaism who already received
correction of pagan misconceptions still need salvation.
We suggested that according to Luke's comprehensive portrayal of Gentiles, Taeger's proposal should be modified to read: Gentiles need salvation
and correction. Rather than directly refuting his proposal for Lukan anthropology point by point, our study of different and more material puts
Taeger's thesis in a larger framework. Taeger's results should be assessed
within and from this larger context. Taeger rightly observed the need for
19
Mensch, 30.
388
V. Conclusion
correction. However, this correction cannot be set against or replace salvation but needs to accompany and follow it. As there is more to salvation
than what Taeger's thesis allows for and includes, it fails to do full justice to
Luke's soteriology. Thus, the Gentiles' state prior to and under faith and the
nature of their salvation has to be considered to a much greater extent in
assessing what has been called Luke's 'synergism'.20 Taeger's procedure
and conclusions suffer from neglect of the comprehensive Lukan portrayal
of Gentiles prior to faith. The role ascribed to them in salvation needs to be
assessed against what is said of their condition prior to and after salvation.
3. Some methodological implications of Luke's comprehensive portrait

of Gentiles prior to faith
3.1. The vindication of a comprehensive approach: Luke's 'rhetoric' and narrative anthropology
Where scholarship recognised Lukan anthropology, attention was often focused on the speeches in Acts, thought to present the ipsissima vox of Luke.
While we found in these, and their respective contexts, rich contributions,
Luke has more to offer. Luke's narrative sections, though often neglected,
have proved to be a valuable source for his anthropology and view of the
Gentiles. The portrayal in the narrative sections agrees with, complements
and illustrates that of the speeches and direct statements. The latter explain
and comment upon the former. Gentiles practise what is said about them.
1. These observations lead to obvious conclusions: Luke's anthropology, including his view of Gentiles, can be adequately described only when its examination is based on all the evidence of both volumes. When Lukan anthropology was studied previously only fractions of the available material
were usually considered. This limitation led to serious misconceptions
which the present study seeks to correct. In the following sections we relate
Luke's comprehensive picture to some of these misconceptions.
2. Luke's narrative sections have proved to be a fruitful venue for investigating Lukan anthropology. The 6Ll]YT]aL~ itself is of importance. Proper investigation cannot afford neglect. Though perhaps not as fruitful elsewhere,
our conclusions suggest that other areas of Lukan theology, where similar
selectivity may have influenced conclusions, should be reconsidered in light
20 Wiefel, 'Review', 273 asks concerning Taeger's study: 'Das alte Lied vom "Synergismus" des Lukas?'.
3. Some methodological implications
389
of Luke's comprehensive 'rhetoric' and narrative theology. Possibly this approach sheds light on deadlocks comparable to those of the interpretation
of Acts 17 or Luke's natural theology.
3.2. The significance of Luke's anthropology
Luke-Acts offers unique opportunities to assess the NT estimate of Gentiles. Though other NT writings also contain statements on Gentiles prior to
faith (e.g. Rom 1.21-32; Titus 1.12-14), it is only in Luke's contributions that
the portrait of Gentiles prior to faith, past and present, can be assessed, using such material and the narrative portrayal. 21 In addition to direct evidence (CL our part n.), Luke-Acts allows further complementary indirect
conclusions (CL our parts n.-IlL). Also, Luke's wealth of material regarding
Gentiles is unequalled. The neglect of large portions of Luke-Acts by previous students of NT anthropology may account for the widespread absence of the Gentiles and their condition prior to faith from the study of
NT theology.22
3.3. The Areopagus speech
The Areopagus speech is the text in our material which has received most
attention in past scholarship (CL 1.2.2.2. and conclusion to Ill.2.2.11.). We
saw previously that, due to various presuppositions, two diverging traditions of its interpretation continue to exist side by side without reconciliation. This cautioned against making this passage our point of departure.
Though not consistently interacting with both positions in our treatment of
the speech and its narrative context, which was limited to anthropological
issues, we came down on one side of the debate. The conclusions on this
side agree more with the natural sequence of reading Luke-Acts, with the
immediately preceding and following contexts, and fit well in Luke's comprehensive picture of Gentiles prior to faith displayed elsewhere in both
volumes. For these reasons the interpretation represented by Gartner is to
be preferred against that of Dibelius and his predecessors and followers.
We affirm against Kiimmel's thesis, that Acts 17.28, and far less 17.16-34,
is not 'completely strange within the context of the other expressions of the
21 Matthew, Mark and John offer opportunities similar to Luke's Gospt!l.

22 This neglect is based on the assumption that Luke-Acts does not offer a significant
contribution of its own and agrees with the picture derived from the so-called 'main' witnesses; cf. Kilmmel, Hegermann, SchneUe, 1.2.2.1., 1.2.2.3.5. and the studies of Donaldson,
Paul and Dabelstein, Beurleilung (cf. our p. 6, n. 30).
390
V. Conclusion
New Testament concerning man'23 or in Luke's volumes. This passage does

not need to be ignored as an uneasy bedfellow, but, interpreted rightly, it
supplements and enriches Lukan anthropology. In the light of its character,
importance and history of interpretation, its frequent neglect or undervaluation in discussion ofNT anthropology, is impermissible. The speech and its
context do not indicate Luke's pragmatic positive approach as Wilson suggests. The attempts of Taeger and Parsons and Pervo to see the anthropology of this speech, according to the interpretive tradition of Dibelius, reflected elsewhere in Luke-Acts, do not stand up to scrutiny.
3.4. On the 'Paulinism' of Acts

1. A corollary of the previous point is that aspects of Luke's natural theology and anthropology should be used more cautiously in considering the
authorship of Luke-Acts (cf.1.2.2.3.1.). Both areas are probably not the divisive issues between Luke and Paul that they have been made out to be. 24
Conclusions based on Acts 17.22-31 alone (often uncritically adopting the
interpretive tradition which we found severely wanting), should be used
more carefully in assessing the author's exposure to or acceptance of
Pauline theology and whether the author could have been Paul's one-time
travel companion as tradition claims.25 Luke's comprehensive estimate of
Gentiles prior to faith, not caricatures derived from limited evidence,
should be considered when this aspect of his natural theology and anthropology is compared to that of other authors and before far-reaching conclusions are drawn. Vielhauer's procedure and proposal is exemplary in its deficiencies.
Such caution is not new. Several scholars have pointed out that only in a partiCUlar interpretation does Acts 17 conflict with Paul's statements in Rom 1.26 These passages are not
23 Man, (87-95) 88.

lA Cf. Vielhauer, 'Paulinism', 34-37, 48f and many commentaries and NT introductions.
Kilmmel, Introduction, 182f is a fine example: 'Even if we were to concede that Paul, in
missionary preaching to the pagans, linked up with their conceptual world, it would still
be unthinkable that in place of the eschatological message of redemption that was fundamental for him he would have placed a Stoic doctrine of the kinship of men to the divine.
And it is equally unthinkable that a missionary companion of Paul could have attributed
to him these radically different views of salvation and of God'.
2S Cf. Fitzmyer, 35-53; Schulz, HerkunJt, 243-90; Thornton, Zeuge.
26 In addition, Wilckens, 'Interpreting', 77 notes that the Paul whom Luke was often
compared to in such discussions was not necessarily a valid point of comparison: 'It is
Paul, interpreted existentially, who is so sharply set against Luke as the great but dangerous corrupter of the Pauline gospel. But the existentially interpreted Paul is not the historical Paul. And the essential points of theological criticism levelled against Luke are
gained not 50 much from early Christian tradition itself as from the motifs of a certain
3. Some methodological implicatlOfIS
391
so contradictory once Luke's statements are interpreted adequately and the contexts
and situations in both Luke and Paul, their choices of genre, audiences and purposes are
given due weight.27 To their arguments we may add the additional weight of Luke's comprehensive portrayal of Gentiles prior to faith.
2. A second corollary of the previous point is that aspects of Luke's anthropology should be used more cautiously in considering the theological unity
of Luke-Acts. Parsons and Pervo used Luke's anthropology as a test case
for the theological unity of Luke and Acts (cf. 1.2.2.3.6.). In addition to our
previous critical observations, we found in both Lukan volumes a unified
portrayal of Gentiles prior to faith. Though Gentiles and references to
them are scarce in the Gospel, the more elaborate presentation in Acts
agrees with the clues of the first volume. As the authors mainly refer to
Gentiles or adduce general references to humanity, we may conclude that
for Luke's anthropology they have not proved their case. It is legitimate to
speak of the anthropology of Luke-Acts.
Kiimmel argues that apart from two exceptions, the NT presents a unified anthropology.28 However, we saw that Kiimme\'s Lukan exception is
not really an exception but can satisfactorily and legitimately be explained
in agreement with Luke's comprehensive picture. Further work is necessary to compare Luke's comprehensive portrait of Gentiles prior to faith to
that of other NT authors. From the evidence we surveyed briefly, it would
appear that in their portrayal of Gentiles (and Jews) prior to faith LukeActs, either in parts or as a whole, contributes a distinct voice, but not that
of an outsider. Comparison of Luke's portrait of Gentiles in Acts with that
of later apocryphal acts would likewise be instructive.
3.5. Gentiles prior to faith and Luke's alleged anti-ludaism
1. Our previous treatment of the Jewish response to correction suggests
that the modification of Taeger's thesis we propose for the Gentiles also applies to Luke's portrait of the Jews. 29 We concluded that it was precisely the
modern school of theology which disregards or misinterprets essential aspects of early

Christian thought'.
27 Cf. e.g. Marshall, NT-Guide, 96f and Acts, 282f; KUlling, Geheimnis, 170-72; Bruce,
Paul, 235-47 and 'Speeches 30', 64f; C.H. Gempf, 'Athens, Paul at', DPL, 51-54, p. 53 for 1
Thess 1.9f. On p. 54 Gempf notes similarities between Paul's style of argument in 1
Corinthians and that of the Areopagus speech. Ct. also Gasque's criticism of Vielhauer in
History, 284-91.
2lI Kllmmel otherwise affirms the 'uniform picture of man in the NT', Man, 93. Kllmmel's second exception is 2 Pet 1.4; cf. Man, 88,92i.
29 Stenschke, 'Bedeutung',140-42. MarshaIl does not mention this venue for assessing
Taeger's thesis but gathers other Lukan material on the Jews that renders Taeger's suggestion questionable; cr. NT-Guide, 59t.
392
V. Conclusion
Jewish rejection of correction through the prophetic ministry of the past

that required God's encompassing saving intervention.
Before definite conclusions on the anthropological issues raised by
Taeger and others can be drawn, other aspects of Luke's portrait of Jews
prior to faith need examination. Luke offers abundant material for this
comprehensive picture. The significance of such study for Luke's soteriology, pneumatology and ecclesiology has become apparent. Our study and
such further enquiry would contribute to the still missing 'neues Gesamtbild der lukanischen Theologie'.3o
Luke's picture of Gentile moral-ethical and spiritual failure made us question Conzelmann's unduly limited understanding of Luke's notion of sin. As many references for
this subject appear in Jewish settings, study of Luke's portrait of the Jews, including their
failures, would also serve to assess our conclusions on Luke's hamartiology. Such study
would include Luke's references to the 'sinners' and recent discussion of them, including
both the more general suggestions of E.P. Sanders'! and their particular application to
Luke by D.A. Neale.32
2. From Luke's portrayal of the Jews some students have deduced an antiJewish stance. However these claims will have to be assessed in detail concerning the presentation of Jews, Luke's portrayal of Gentiles prior to faith
would imply a similar anti-Gentile stance. In the discussion of this alleged
anti-Judaism Luke's portrayal of the Gentiles also needs to be considered
as it provides a 'control-group'. Though Luke knows of individual Gentiles
with positive assets, on the whole he paints a dark picture of Gentiles prior
to faith that often surpasses that of the Jews. Luke's 1!-nflattering portrait of
the Gentiles also contains many elements indirectly commending Jews. His
portrait of Gentile God-fearers is a strong recommendation of Judaism.
Expecting a negative answer, J.T. Sanders asks: ' ... whereas Luke regularly condemns "the Jews" for killing Christ and for various other things,
does he ever equally condemn any other non-ChristiansT.33 In view of our
conclusions his question has to be answered positively: Luke equally or
even to a greater extent condemns non-Christian Gentiles. I have summa'rised the material, argued the point and its implications at greater length
elsewhere, and concluded on this issue:
Diese Beobachtungen mUBten VOT der Anklage und Verurteilung eines 'antisemitischen Lukas' stllrker berUcksichtigt werden. Vielleicht darf man aus dieser Perspektive an Sanders und andere Verfechter dieser These einmal die Frage rich ten, aufgrund
Wiefel, 'Review', 273.

Jesus, 174-21l.
Sinners.
33 Jews, xvii. In Luke's presentation of the Gentile mission, ludaism is the preparatio
evangelica per se. A high valuation is given to ludaism when its Gentile associates appear
as well prepared for Christian salvation; c( III.3.3.3.3.
3D
3!
32
3. Some methodological implications
393
welcher Voraussetzungen und Motive dieser, von exegetischer Redlichkeit nicht notwendig geforderte antisemitische Vorwurf ins lukanische Stammbuch geschrieben
wird. 1st es denkbar, daB Lukas mit seinen Aussagen Uber den jUdischen und den
heidnischen Menschen, mit seiner Sicht eines nur wenig korrekturfahigen und gottIicher Erl1lsung bedUrfenden Menschen (ohne RUcksicht auf dessen ethnischen oder
religiosen Hintergrund) nicht in das heute glingige Menschenbild und Selbstverstlindnis zu passen scheint und deshaIb disqualifiziert wird? Sanders appelliert im SchluBvotum seiner 'Anklageschrift': 'Der heutige Leser des lukanischen Doppelwerkes
mUBte nun fragen, ob nicht die Polemik des Lukas gegen "1uden" innerhaIb des Christentums (und der westIichen Welt) zu einem Sauerteig geworden ist, vor dem wir aIle
auf der Hut sein mUBten'.3~ So sehr seinem Aufruf, aIlen Formen antijUdischer Polemik EinhaIt zu gebieten, beizupflichten ist, wird man die zu Lukas geschlagene Briikke zurUckweisen und anmerken waIl en, daB unter Umstanden das Menschenbild von
Humanismus und Aufklarung zu einem maBgebenden Sauerteig geworden ist, an
dem nun das Menschenverstandnis biblischer Autoren gepriift, gewogen, und wo zu
schwer befunden, gegebenenfaIls mit Schlagwortern belegt und verworfen wird.'s
Das jUdisch-christIiche Verhaltnis ware weniger belastet, der notwendige und zu begrUBende Dialog eher vorangebracht und dem BemUhen urn lukanische Theologie
mehr gedient, wenn, statt einseitig die negativen Aussagen i1ber 1uden heranzuziehen,
das gesamte lukanische Menschenbild berUcksichtigt wilrde. WUrde man dieses MenschenbiId dann als 'antihumanistisch' oder aIs dem heutigen entgegengesetzt bezeichnen, bliebe es immer noch einzelnen Uberlassen, inwieweit sie sich in ihrem Selbstund Menschenverstlindnis vom der lukanischen Sicht bestimmen lassen oder in Widerspruch zu ihr treten mochten.36
Jews, 317; German according to Rese, '1uden', 69.

'Slander', 421 speaks of a kind of censure which .... is frequently based on
the premise that texts should reflect our liberated self-understanding and practice. If
they offend our sensibilities, they are dispensable. Either we cut them out of the canon,
or we modify the translation. Censorship can apply itself not only to anti-1ewish but also
to sexist, racist and agist texts .... The premise that sacred texts must always confirm and
never challenge contemporary ideology is perhaps the most problematic aspect of this
approach'.
36 'Bedeutung',145f.
34
3S Johnson,
394
/lppeudu
Appendix: The portrayal of Gentiles prior to faith in Luke-Acts and in the

pseudo-Philonic sermons De Iona and De Sampsone
On several occasions, we have referred to the pseudo-Philonic sermons De

Iona and De Sampsone.1 Both sermons from the first century offer striking
similarities and contrasts to Luke. 2 The scope of the present study does not
allow detailed comparison of the theology of both authors, which would be
a promising venture. Only such detailed study would allow conclusions
concerning the identity of the author of Luke-Acts and his conceptual
world.
In this appendix we gather some presentations and comparisons of these
sermons with similar material in Luke-Acts, which are too long to be included in the main body. Our references to De Iona follow the italicised
numbers on the margin in Siegert's translation. All our references to these
sermons are accessible through our index.
1. The sins of the Gentiles
1. In De Iona 'Die Verfehlungen der Niniviten werden ausftlhrlich dargestellt,ja erweitert, und zwar sowohl in dem Auftrag Gottes an Jona ( 1019) als auch in dessen Ausftihrung ( 103-107),.3 While such material and
detail is not to be expected in Luke's reference to the Ninevites with its different thrust (Luke 11.30,32; cf. II.2.2.2.) and in the overall outline of
Luke's work, this presentation still invites comparison with Luke's characterisation of the Gentiles.
2. God's generous provisions (lOt) were met by ignorance of him and ingratitude towards him (cf. the detailed treatment of this aspect in 3.2.-3.,4.2):
Aber sie sind dermaBen undankbar geworden, daB sie's nicht nur am Dank fehlen lassen; sie wissen nicht einmal mehr, wer ihr Wohltliter ist (12) .... Mit Augen, die zur Erkenntnis des Baumeisters der Welt gegeben sind, sehen sie nicht, und ihre Ohren haben sie vor frommer Ermahnung verschlossen. Ihre Zunge hingegen blieb beweglich
ZUT boswilligen Nennung meiner Gottheit (14).'
In Siegert, Predigten and Kommentar; cf. also his study 'Heiden'.

questions of authorship and date cf. Siegert, Predigten, 1-8 and P. Borgen, 'Philo
of Alexandria', Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Phi/o, Josephus, ed. M.E. Stone, CRINT II.2 (Assen:
Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), (233-82) 246; for an assessment cf. Hengell
Schwemer, Paul, 73f.
J Siegert, 'Heiden', 55. The scarcity of references to the sins of Nineveh in Jonah
(Jonah 1.2; 3.10) is also explicable through the book's different purpose.
4 1 Clem. 7.7 says of the Ninevites: cu..AcrcQLoL "toii {}eoii ovtE~; cr. Acts 7.6; Siegert, Kommentar, 301. Neither Luke nor De Jona mention any idolatry of the Ninevites or demonI
2 For
Appendix
395
In addition to failure coram Deo, their sins against each other are also addressed: 'Hatten sie wenigstens die Bosheit mir gegenliber durch Wohltaten untereinander wettgemacht, ware sie ihnen noch zu verzeihen. Doch ist
ihre Schuld gegenuber den Menschen noch groBer als die gegenliber Gott'
(15). 16f contain a catalogue of vices:
Wie das menschliche Leben in verschiedene Lebensalter eingeteilt ist, das der Greise,
der Mlinner und der Kinder, so verteilen sich auf ihre Lebensalter ihre SUnden. Ihre
Jugend jagt nach den Freuden des Fleisches; die flihigsten ihrer erwachsenen Mlinner
gebrauchen ihre Krlifte zur Rliuberei, und die Frauen ... schmllcken sich wie mit
Schlingen. Doch was die Grauhaarigen tun, ist, dam it verglichen nicht ertrliglicher.
Weil das Alter ihnen zwar die Krlifte erschilpfte und die Anmut raubte, aber als Ersatz fIIr das Verlorene den Verstand verlieh, nlihren und pflegen sie ebendiesen zum
Schaden. Sie bewaffnen sich zu gegenseitigem Ubervorteilen.
3. Following the announcement of impending doom (104), Jonah presents

to the Ninevites a list of sins comprising both aspects:
Ihr kennt Gott nicht. Ihr stattet keinen Dank ab fUr Gottes Gaben. Versprechen millachtet ihr, das Recht kauft ihr, die Richter bestecht ihr mit Geschenken. Die Armen
demlltigt ihr, ehrt aber diejenigen, die mit Betrug reich geworden sind. Ihr jagt nach
gesetzeswidriger Sinnenlust, zerstort Ehen, macht die Schtinheit der Mlidchen zu
Schande, versucht Mlinnern das Aussehen van Frauen zu geben, wechselt Verlobungen und raubt Brliute anderer. Ihr haltet euch fUr Lehrer der RechtmaBigkeit, und in
euch brennt das Gelllst nach dem IIlegalen. Ob ihr die Lebenden unterdrllckt od er
die Toten ausraubt, anvertrautes Gut veruntreut oder van anderen verlangt, denen ihr
gar nichts anvertraut habt - ehe ihr dem ersten sein Recht widerfahren laBt, bereitet
ihr schon die rechtswidrigen Strafen der n!!chsten Angeklagten vor, und nichts wird
von euer Seite aus ohne Bosheit geplant: Was ihr redet od er tut oder Andere lehrt, es
geschieht aus Bosheit!' (105f).
The author concludes: 'Wenn sie nun weder mir gegenliber zu Dank bereit
sind, noch sich untereinander etwas gonnen, sind sie selbst den Elementen
eine Last, von denen ihr sinnloses Leben sich bisher niihrte' (18; for judgement on the Ninevites see below 3.3.).
4. De Iona calls Nineveh 'eine Stadt von liblem Lebenswandel' (5,101;
'Ubel', 101) and describes its sins. At the same time Nineveh is seen as suffering like from a disease (5; 'an ihrem Lebenswandel krank lagen', 9).5 Accordingly, God is 'der Erloser Aller, der durch seine arztliche Kunst die
strate the vanity of idols and the futility of their worship which occurs in early Jewish
writings. In this both works follow the Book of Jonah. Cf. Siegert, 'Heiden', 54.
5 'Und wie ein tllchtiger Arzt suchte er [God] ein passendes Heilmittel fIIr das Leiden
der Stadt. Er woIlte die Ausbreitung der Krankheit verhindern .. .' (5). Jonah is to join
this divine medical corps: 'So vertraute er [God] ihm allein das Heil der Seelen an; und
den Menschen, den er zur Rettung der Menschen schickte, heilte er zuerst; er erzog sich
seinen Arzt' (9); cf. also Siegert, Predigten, 26, n. 190. 'Die philosophisch-theologische
Bewertung der xax[a Ninives (Jona 1,2 LXX) ist jedoch die eines Leidens, einer Krankheit; und Gatt ist der Arzt( 5)"Siegert, 'Heiden',55.
396
Appendix
Niniviten vor dem Tod gerettet hatte' (182; Jonah's failure after the repentance of the city is likewise called a disease, 182). Compare Luke's emphasis on salvation and the close connection between forgiveness of sins/salvation and physical healing in his volumes (e.g. Luke 5.17-24; 9.2; Acts 10.38;
28.27; cf. III.3.3.2.1.3.2.).
5. One of the purposes of De Sampsone is 'um die Heiden anzuklagen und
die Heimtilcke ihres Wollens bloBzulegen' (35).6 This is achieved through
the characterisation of the Gentile protagonists:
5.1. Samson's Gentile bride spoke 'mit listigen, zarten, verfuhrerischen
Worten ... , drang sie roit den Zwangmitteln der Triebe dem jungen Mann
bis ins Innerste' (1). She is shameless (1). 33 says of her:
Sie verwickelte den lager in sein eigenes Netz; und denen, die er jagte, zerriB sie die
Stricke und befreite sie aus der lagd. So ist die Fremde, Simson: Zur Gemeinschaft der
Korper ist sie allemal bereit und gewllhrt dir treulich, was nach Liebe aussieht; in ihrer Seele jedoch bekiimpft sie den,mit dem sie in korperlicher Gemeinschaft zusammenlebt, und verteilt bereits ihr Erbe unter die Heiden.
She is credited with a 'verschlagene Gesinnung' (34; 'raffiniert und verschlagen', 39; 'hinterlistig', 45).
The author claims and demonstrates:
Nicht unter Zwang, sondern vielmehr von NaJur aus verUbte sie ihr Werk [cf. the conclusion at the end of 39] ... das boswillige, trtlgerische Verhalten der Frau die
Bezeichnung 'Raub' erhalten; denn das war es jedenfa\ls ... machte sie das MaB der
Bosheit voll- die List durchzuftlhren, Simson zu betrtlgen und die Unbeschnittenen
mit dem Sieg zu kronen (38,italics mine).
.
She is addressed as 'abscheuliche, niedertrachtige Frau' (40). Her deed is

equated with adultery:
Das Festmahl ist noch nicht zu Ende, da hast du die Ehe schon aufgelost; ehe du die
Krone abgesetzt hast, h"ast du den Mann schon verraten .... Darum hast du ... nicht,
wie es sich f(lr eine Verheiratete gehort, das Ehebett gewahrt, sondem die Ehegemeinschaft aufgelost und zersprengt (40).7
5.2. The Gentile wedding guests resort to 'schamlose Bettelei urn einen unfairen Sieg' (36). Their goal is: 'wir mussen den Fremden ausstechen' (36).
They pressurise Samson's wife by threatening: 'wir werden den Wettpreis
aus deinem elterlichen Besitz bezahlen, von dir aber als Preis fUr deine
Widersetzlichkeit den Tod fordern' (37; cf. also 43). The guests are called
'Falschspieler' and 'Betrilger'. The sermon's last phrase draws the conclu6 Cf. Siegert, Predigten, 7.
7 At one point the author'S estimation becomes more general: 'Grausam, Simson, und
unberechenbar ist das weibliche Geschlecht' (34). However, the digression about the
wickedness of women is summarised as 'Betrachtung des Zaubers der heidnischen Frau'
(35, italics mine).
Appendix
397
sion: 'wie sehr auch alle diese Heiden von Natur schnode und undankbar
sind .. .' (46, italics mine; ct. below 3.2.).
6. Both pseudo-Philonic sermons go to some lengths to demonstrate the
Gentiles' failures or wickedness. In contrast, Luke does not do so either in
his reference to the Ninevites or in references to or addresses of other Gentiles. Some moral-ethical failures are mentioned in passing (et. \1.1.5.), failure coram Deo is directly addressed, though far briefer than in De Iona.
2. Knowledge of the living God
1. In contrast to Acts 14.15-17 or 17.22-31 (while known to Luke's readers,
God is still introduced to the Gentile audiences of both speeches), De Iona
does not introduce God, his nature and works, to the Ninevites. God is
merely called 'der Herr der Welt' (104). The following charge of ingratitude
implies that this God has bestowed gifts on humanity (105; see below 3.2.).
2. After stating their ignorance of God ('Ihr kennt Gott nicht' , 105) and the
corresponding lack of gratitude ('Ihr stattet keinen Dank ab fUr Gottes Gaben', 105; on the relationship between both see below 3.2., 3.5.), indictment
of various moral-ethical sins follows (105-07, see above 1.2.-3.).8 It is thus
surprising that - without instruction through the prophet - the Ninevites
later address God in prayer as 'Herrn des Universums [recalling Jonah's
'der Herr der Welt', 104] ... den Herrn des Gesetzes' (115). They offer 'ein
Bittgebet an den AIlrnachtigen' (137).9 Their following speech credits them
with significant insights (see below 4.).10
3.How is this observation to be evaluated? Both passages in Acts take their
point of departure from objects or actions indicative of Gentile idolatry
(14.11-13; 17.16,22f) which necessitates correction through the proclamation of the true God. Knowledge of and submission to this true God demands different forms of veneration. Who God is, and what he does must
not be ascribed to idols. These occasions explain the emphasis of Luke's
speeches.
8 While the author generously expands the Book of Jonah regarding the sins of the
Ninevites (cf. above 1.), in this lack of introduction of the true God who announces his
judgement, he follows the Book of Jonah.
9 In his indictment Jonah charges the Ninevites with 'gesetzeswidriger Sinnenlust'
(106). Is this designation comprehensible to the audience? 107 speaks of'rechtswidrige
Strafen'.
10 On their reasoning in 116f cL Luke 7.8. The question of the Ninevites in 118,
'Nun laBt uns Uberlegen, wegen welcher Taten wir nach dem Willen Gottes verworfen
werden', comes unexpectedly, as Jonah had just enumerated their failures (105-07; see
above 1.3.).
398
AppeJlJu.
Following the Book of Jonah De Jona does not mention the Ninevites'
idolatry and deities. Thus the occasion for the type of introduction of God
found in Acts is not given. However, at the end of De Jona the object of the
Ninevites' previous veneration is identified: ' ... die Ehre, die dem Sch6pfer
gebiihrt, erwiesen sie dieser Weir. Aber jetzt geben sie nicht mehr der Natur
den Dank fUr ihre Friichte und halten der wiirmenden Kraft der Elemente
keinen Gottesdienst mehr' (216f, italics mine).
While Luke dethrones pagan idols and their worship by introducing the
living God, De Jona emphasises God as the creator and generous provider
of humanity. As such, God is to be acknowledged, thanked and venerated
accordingly, not his creation. Luke deals with pagan deities, De Jona with
the veneration of nature (CL Rom 1.18-25). Both aspects are characteristic
of ancient paganismll and are intimately related,just as many pagan deities
are closely associated with nature, natural phenomena, fertility, etc. U
Does the difference between both authors run deeper? For Luke, God is
an 'unknown' God to the Gentiles. He needs to be proclaimed as they
failed to recognise him through his creation. Some statements in De Jona
seem to assume that the Gentiles already know God; other references
claim the contrary (see above 2.2.; below 4.2.).
3. God's provision for the Gentiles and the appropriate response
There are similarities between Paul's address in Lystra (Acts 14.15-17) and
De Jona. Paul proclaims to his Gentile audience how God has provided a
witness to himself in doing good. He gave rains from heaven and fruitful
seasons, and filled the Gentiles with food and their hearts with joy (14.17).
1. In De Jona God extensively recounts to Jonah the blessings he bestowed
on the Ninevites:
Alles, was zum GlUck ihrer Bewohner dient, hat sie von mir reichlich erhalten. Siehst
Du die prachtige Ahre, das Land, schoner bewachsen als jedes andere Land, die Milde
und Lieblichkeit der Luft, die sie umgibt, wodurch sie sich hoher Fruchtbarkeit erfreut? Keine frostklirrende Luft, keine hllufigen RegengUsse, keine Sonne, die heiBer
wlire als natUrlich, kann man an ihr aussetzen (I Of).
2. At the end of this list of gracious provision, there is an indication of what

the Ninevites' response should have been: 'Warum aber verweigern mir die
Niniviten den Dank, den sie mir schuldig waren? ... sie sind dermaBen un-
Cf. e.g. Nilsson, Geschichte I, 839-43; II, 507-19.

Cf. Nilsson, Geschichte I, 383-603 et passim. An instructive example is Demeter/Ge,
pp.456-81.
11
12
Appendix
399
dankbar geworden, daB sie's nicht nur am Dank fehlen lassen .. .' (12).
'Wenn sie nUD weder mir gegentiber zu Dank bereit sind, ... ' (18).
The ingratitude of the Ninevites is a recurring theme: Jonah accuses
them: 'lhr stattet keinen Dank ab flir Gottes Gaben' (104). The Ninevites
confess: 'Wie dieses [unvernilnftiges Vieh] gerade nur sein Futter kennt
und sich urn seinen Ernahrer nicht kilmmert [ct. lsa 1.3], so geniefien auch
wir die Frtichte des Landes, ohne an den zu den ken, der die Fruchte hervorbringt' (120, italics mine). They confess concrete examples of their neglect
of God (in terms recalling Luke 17.27f):
Welcher Vater seit unseren Vorvatern hat seine Sahne unterwiesen? Welche Hochzeitsgesellschaft hat am Hochzeitstag eine Danksagung abgehalten? Bei welcher Geburt wurde dem Schopfer dafUr gedankt, daB das Kind wohlgestaltet ist? Und IIber
welchem TIsch wurde Gott gepriesen? (124).
3. This ingratitude brings God's judgement over the Ninevites:

Wozu soli nun noch der Himmel tlber ihnen hell werden, soli en die Wolken regnen,
die Erde wen Ertrag bringen, der Mond sein Licht scheinen lassen und die Sonne undankbare Seelen mit ihren Strahlen bescheinen? (13). Jonah is charged: 'Verkllndige
dieser Stadt den Untergang, daB ein qualvoller Tod tlber sie kommen wird. Sie sollen
die Zwischenzeit nicht in Freude verleben, nicht in Hoffnung auf irgendwelche Zukunft' (19).13
4. Some of these references claim that this ingratitude occurred neither out
of simple carelessness nor ignorance of whom to render their gratitude.
Rather it was a case of deliberate refusal: 'Warum aber verweigem mir die
Niniviten den Dank, den sie mir schuldig waren?' (12); 'Wenn sie nUD
weder mir gegenuber zu Dank bereit sind, ... ' (18); ' ... sie sich erst geweigert hatten, den wahren Retter zu ehren' (214). 15 speaks of their 'Bosheit
mir [God] gegenuber'.
5. De Iona also claims,. that in addition to procuring judgement, this persistent lack of/refusal of gratitude eventually leads to ignorance of God: 'Ab er
sie sind dermaBen undankbar geworden, daB sie's nicht nur am Dank fehlen lass en; sie wissen nicht einmal mehr, wer ihr Wohltiiter ist' (12, italics
mine). Thus Jonah says to the Ninevites: '!hr kennt Gott nicht' (104).
The fust passage ( 12) suggests that at one point in the past the
Ninevites knew God as the giver of these provisions. Their lack of appropriate response affected their ability to recognise God:
Mit Augen, die zur Erkenntnis des Baumeisters der Welt gegeben sind, sehen sie
nicht1., und ihre Ohren haben sie vor frommer Ermahnung verschlossen. Ihre Zunge
hingegen blieb bewegJich zur bOswilligen Nennung meiner Gottheit (14).
et Luke 1623f;1727,29;Acts 14.17.

14 o. 'Trotzdem hat er uns Augen gegeben, damit wir ihn sehen' (126).
13
400
Appendix
This quote raises a number of issues. The reference to the eyes unable to
see recalls Acts 26.18.15 The purpose assigned to the human eyes calls to
mind the description of the purpose for humanity in Acts 17.27. While their
inability to see properly is simply stated, the closing of their ears is seen as
a deliberate act of refusal ('haben sie ... verschlossen'; cf. 3.4. and Luke
8.10). The nature of 'fromme Ermahnung' is not indicated. Is it a reference
to God's continued provision or other natural revelation which served as a
permanent reminder of God or perhaps referring to special revelation, e.g.
through prophets (cf. Luke 11.50f)? 198 claims that such pious instruction
- while not defining its nature - is the basis of a life pleasing to God (' ... aus
frommer Ermahnung zehrend, entfalten auch die Menschen gottgefiilliges
Leben'; cf. Luke 8.15). While the Ninevites no longer recognised God and
refused to listen, they still remembered God's name in deliberate blasphemy.16
6. Following their repentance and salvation the Ninevites express their
gratitude to God (151; cf. below 4.3.). The elders were commissioned with a
speech of thanksgiving (152) in which they display spiritual insight (e.g. 153:
' ... daB wir demjenigen, von dem wir das Leben als einen Teil seiner Gnade
erhalten haben17, durch dieses unser Leben den Dank abstatten', indicating
how gratitude towards God is to be expressed).
On their previous life they comment: 'Denn wenn er uns zur Zeit des
Ungehorsams und der mangelnden Erkenntnis seiner schon so groBartig
und fiirsorgend emiihrt hat .. .'; their present life. is summarised: Omit
wieviel Gtitem wird er uns jetzt, nachdem wir gehorsam geworden sind und
ihn bekennen, nicht ehren"} (156, italics mine; on God's provision cf. 3.1.).
Their statements combine the two strands observed above (3.4.-5.): deliberate refusal (Ungehorsam,gehol'sam geworden) and ignorance (mangelnde
Erkennblis, ihn bekennen).
At the end of their speech the author comments: 'Sie waren fest und ehrlich entschlossen, durch Gottesfurcht sich fUr die empfangenen Wohltaten
erkenntlich zu zeigen' (157). De lona concludes with a contrast between
then and now:
Auch die Niniviten waren einst oh ne FrUchte der Fromrnigkeit. Sie kannten nicht die
Frucht der gottIichen Gerechtigkeit, und die Ehre, die dem Schopfer gebUhrt, erwiesen sie dies er Welt. Aber jetzt geben sie nicht mehr der Natur den Dank fUr ihre
FrUchte und halten dei wiirmenden Kraft der Elemente keinen Gottesdienst mehr,
IS The eyes of the Gentiles need to be opened to that they may turn from darkness to
light (III.3.2.1.2.1.; cf. Luke 4.18). Would Luke have defined 'light' as 'Erkenntnis des
Baumeisters der Welt'?
16 There are no comparable statements in Luke-Acts.
17 Cf. e.g. Acts 17.24,26,28; Luke 3.38.
Appendix
401
sondem sie bekennen sich dazu, den Geber der Frllchte fUr die Frllchte zu ehren, und
sie haben sich verpfJichtet, statt dieser Welt ihren Baumeister anzubeten" B
7. According to Acts, the Gentile failure is not ingratitude but rather failure
to seek and to find God and worship him accordingly (ct. above 2.3.). Thus,
the Athenians are called to turn from their ignorance (Acts 17.30), the
Lystrans should turn from the worthless objects of their worship (14.15).
Though Luke leaves no doubt that judgement will come upon the Gentiles
(ct. Y.1.7.), he does not give details of its nature (d 3.3.).
Luke's direct statements about Gentiles prior to faith do not speak oftheir
deliberate refusal of recognition or gratitude (3.4.). Yet Luke-Acts contains
several reports of Gentiles refusing to accept or act upon the proclamation
presented to them. An instructive example is Acts 19.23-41. While Luke does
not include statements of Gentiles about their previous lives, his description
of Gentiles Christians (cf. IV) amply evidences change.
4. Spiritual perception of the Ninevites
1. In addition to the remarks critical of the Ninevites observed above De

Jona also credits the Ninevites with substantial spiritual insight (d 3.6.).
Following and responding to Jonah's proclamation they ask: 'Wie aber konnen wir wissen, welches Leben Gott gefallen batte?' (118). An answer does
not need to be given by the prophet, as they claim: 'Wir brauchen uns nur
anzusehen, was bei uns vorgeht, und wir werden erkennen, wonach wir
suchen.... Was flir eine Ermutigung fUr unser Vorhaben konnte es aber geben ... als daB wir die Wahrheit finden?':19
Zunlichst und vor allem haben wir dieses Geschenk von Gott empfangen, daB wir
Menschen sind.'" ledoch gleich nach der Geburt haben wir den wilden TIeren nachgeeifert und sind, verniinftig erschaffen, auf die Stufe des unvemUnftigeo Viehs abgesunken. Wie dieses gerade nur sein Futter kennt und sich urn seinen Ern!lhrer nicht
kUmmert, so genieBen auch wir die Friichte des Landes, ohoe an den zu denken, der
die Frllchte hervorbringt. Der aber schenkt uns mit volIen Hlinden nicht nur, was zur
Ernlihrung gehort, sondern auch was zur UnterhaItung und Freude dient", und hat
nichts von uns gefordert, sondern uns bis heute sorglos gelassen (120f).22 ... Er aber,
der uns nicht nur das Geschenk der Nahrung, sondem liberhaupt das Leben gonnt,
hat bis zum heutigen Tage unsere Stadt unterhalten, die ihm keinen Ertrag gebracht
hat (123).
18 216f; cf. IV.l. Luke also speaks of God as the creator.

19 216f. 10nah's previous proclamation (105-07) actually provides the answer to
their question. The opposite of what they have been charged with is required: a life of
gratitude towards God and righteous behaviour toward each other (cf. Luke 10.27).
20 Cf. Acts 17.26; Luke 3.38.
21 Cf. Acts 14.17.
22 Cf. the contrary assessment of Luke 12.30.
402
Appendu
They emphasise that God can be recognised because God reveals himself:
Am wenigsten kann man hier einwenden, Gott sei unerkennbar und es sei nicht moglich, mit verg!!nglichen Augen den Unverg!!nglichen zu sehen, da die Herrlichkeit des
Unsichtbaren unsichtbar sein mUsse. Denn zum einen dUrfte er uns unsere Schw!!che
nachsehen; zum anderen schenkt er uns selbst die schone Erkenntnis seiner (l25f, italics mine).
This recognition of God is possible through observing the world:

Trotzdem hat er uns Aligen gegeben, darnit wir ihn sehen [cf. 14,3.5. above]. Er gab
uns die Elemente der Erde, den Himmel, die Sterne, den Mond, den Morgenstem und
die Harmonie der vielen Ubrigen Sterne. Wenn wir schon den Baumeister selbst nicht
sehen, so konnen wir ihn doch aus dem, was er mit Geschick erbaut hat, erkennen
(126).
The same argument is repeated and enlarged in 127-34, concluding:

'Zeigt dies nicht den Herrn aller Dinge?'.
2. What has become of this revelation of God in nature? The Ninevites acknowledge that they have received 'die Gabe des Denkens' ( 204 calls the
Ninevites 'vernunftbegabte Menschen'). However, they admit: ' ... diese
Auszeichnung vom Herrn haben wir zur Beschiimung gemacht', thus: 'Den
Weltschopfer haben wir, so sehr wir die Welt betrachten konnen, nicht
erkannt und den Steuermann, so sehr wir den vielfiiltigen Inhalt des Schiffes mustem konnen, nicht bemerkt (135, italics mine; cf. the different statements above 3.4.). They were ignorant and ungrateful worshippers of the
creation, rather than the creator (cf. 216f, 2.3. above, Romans 1.25).
Siegert rightly concludes:
Eine ganz starke natilrliche Theologie wird in diesem Zusammenhang vorgetragen:
Es sei schuldhaft, wenn Menschen aUs all den Wundem und der Ordnung der Natur,
auch aus ihrem eigenen BewuBtsein des Guten, Gott nicht erkennen.2'
Recognition of God, of their own failure and of impending judgement

came only through the proclamation of God's prophet Jonah (ct Luke
11.30-32).
Luke also speaks of God's revelation in nature ('he has not left himself
without a witness in doing good', Acts 14.17) and also concludes that the
Gentiles have failed before this revelation. While they were meant to seek
God - who indeed was not far from each one of them (Acts 17.27) - they
failed to find him and drew wrong conclusions about the nature of God and
how he is to be worshipped (Acts 14.11-15; 17.24f,29; Luke 12.30). In their
devout idolatry these wrong conclusions were put into practice.
23
'Heiden', 55; cf. Acts 17.31.
Appendix
403
3. After acknowledging their failure to recognise God, the Ninevites are

keen to amend their ways: 'Wenn wir nun Gottes Menschenliebe erfahren
haben, dann laBt uns wenigstens jetzt eingestehen, daj3 wir ihn kennen,
damit wir von eben dies er Menschenliebe Gottes geschont und gerettet
werden' (136, italics mine).24 In order to obtain this, they pledge 'von Herzen den rechten Dank uben, den der BuBe' (136; for ingratitude see above
3.2.). Their following declaration again credits them with understanding of
the nature of God (137f; cf. above 2.2.). The origin of this correct understanding is not indicated. They agree to ask Jonah to intercede for them and
present a moving pledge to the prophet (139f).
Following the assembly (reported in 110-40), the Ninevites humble
themselves ('jeder einzelne dampfte den Stolz seines Herzens', 141). A detailed description follows of their self-humiliation and of the signs of repentance which were displayed (142-44,147; cf. also the description of their repentance in 162 and Luke 11.30,32).
Their procedure is commented upon: 'Sie erniedrigten sich aber dermafien und ubten schriftgemiij3 solche Selbstbeherrschung ... (145, italics
mine). Are the Ninevites following and expanding upon the brief charge of
the prophet Jonah25 or do they somehow practice 'by nature' (et. Rom 2.14)
what the Scriptures would require of them (cf. the positive estimate of the
animals of Nineveh in 145f)? Following their own acknowledgement of
their failure to recognise God and Jonah's short proclamation (103-07),
their insights and exemplary repentance are surprising (et. Luke 10.13!).26
24 Contrary to their confession, the expression eingeslehen suggests that though they
also knew God previously, they refused to admit to it and act accordingly (cf. the assertions of the Ninevites' refusal of gratitude, above 3.4.).
25 Ct 103f: 'rhr Einwohner dieses Ortes, Ilffnet die Vorhilnge eurer Hochzeitsgemacherl Zieht den Brllutigamen ihren Feststaat aus [cf. Luke 17.27; 5.34f] , werft alien
Schmuck weg! Beklagt keine Toten, sondem Lebende [cf. Luke 9.59f]! Die Tage eures
Lebens hat euch der Herr "der Welt verktlrzt. Eure Zeit ist begrenzt: Diese Stadt hat nur
noch drei Tage!'.
26 After announcing the impending judgement and before proceeding to list their sins,
Jonah charges his audience: 'Was der Grund daftlr ist, wiGt ihr sehr woh!. Euch isl bekannt, was ich euch jetzt predigen werde' (104, italics mine). Does ]onah's claim merely
mean: 'you know fine well that the accusations about to be presented are true to fact' or
does Jonah claim that the Ninevites knew before his arrival of the nature of their deeds
and that they would bring divine judgement upon them?
VI.
Bibliography
1. Commentaries on Luke's Gospel and the Book ofActs
Barrett, CK., A Critical and fuegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles I: Preliminary Introduction and Commentary on Acts I-XIV, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1994).
Bauemfeind, 0., Die Apostelgeschichte, ThHK V (Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1939) = Kommentar und Studien zu Apostelgeschichte, ed. V. Metelmann, WUNT 22 (TUbingen: J.C.B.
Mohr,1980).
Bengel, J.A., Gnomon of the New Testament ... , ed. A.R. Fausset (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1857-58).
Beyer, H.W., Die Apostelgeschichte, 8. ed., NTD 5 (Berlin: EVA, 1959).
Blass, E,Acta apostolorum sive Lucae ad Theophilum liber alter: Editio philologi.ca, apparatu critico, commentario perpetuo, indice verborum illustrata (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1895).
Bovon, E, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Lk 1.1-9.50), EKK III.1 (ZUrich, Einsiedeln, Cologne: Benzinger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: N eukirchener, 1989).
Brown, R.E., The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the
Gospels of Matthew and Luke, rev. ed.,AncBRL (London: G. Chapman, 1993).
Brown, R.E., The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary
on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels, AncBRL (London: G. Chapman,
1994; vol.I,pp.1-877;voI. II,pp. 879-1608).
Bruce, EE, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary,
3. ed. (Leicester: Apollos; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990).
Calvin, J., The Acts of the Apostles 1-13, eds. D.W. Torrance, T.E Torrance, Calvin's Commentaries (Edinburgh, London: Oliver & Boyd, 1965; trad. J.w. Fraser, w.J.G.
McDonald).
Calvin,J., The Acts of the Apostles 14-28, eds. D.W. Torrance, T.F. Torrance, Calvin's Commentaries (Edinburgh, London: Oliver and Boyd, 1966; trad.J.W. Fraser).
Chrysostom,John,Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans,ed.
G.B. Stevens, NPNF 9 (1889; repr."Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Edinburgh: T.&T.
Clark,1989).
Conzelmann, H., Die Apostelgeschichie, 2. ed., HNT 7 (TUbingen: J.CB. Mohr, 1972).
Dunn, 1.D.G., The Acts of the Apostles, Epworth Commentaries (Peterborough: Epworth,
1996).
Ellis, E.E., The Gospel of Luke, rev. ed., NCBC (1974; repr. London: Marshall, Morgan &
Scott; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987).
Ernst, J., Das Evangelium nach Lukas, 2. ed., RNT (Ratisbon: F. Pustet, 1993).
Evans, CF., Saint Luke, Trinity Press International New Testament Commentaries (London: SCM; Philadelphia: TPI, 1990).
406
VI. Bibliography
Farrar, F.W., The Gospel According to St. Luke, with Maps, Notes and Introduction,
CGTSC (Cambridge: CUp, 1893).
Fitzmyer, lA., The Gospel According to Luke (I-IX): Introduction, Translation, and
Notes, 2. ed.,AncB 28 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1986; pp. 1-837).
Fitzmyer, lA., The Gospel According 10 Luke (X-XXIV): Introduction, Translation, and
Notes,AncB 28 A (Garden City: Doubleday, 1986;pp. 841-1642).
Godet, F., Das Evangelium des Lukas, 2. ed. (1890; repr. GieBen, Basle: Bronnen, 1986).
Grundmann, w., Das Evangelium nach Lukas, 5. ed., ThHK III (Berlin: EVA, 1969).
Haenchen, E., The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (Oxford: B. Blackwell, 1971) =
Die Apostelgeschichte, 13. ed., KEK III (Gllttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1961).
Hanson, R.P'C., The Acts in the Revised Standard Version: With Introduction and Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon,1967).
Holtzmann, H.I, Die Apostelgeschichte, 2. ed., HC 1 (Freiburg: IC.B. Mohr, 1892).
Lake, K., HJ. Cadbury, The Beginnings of Christianity: Part I: The Acts of the Apostles IV:
English Translation and Commenlary (1933; repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1965).
Leaney, A.R.C.,A Commentary on the Gospel According to Luke,2. ed., BNTC (1966;
repr. London: A. & c. Black, 1985).
Marshall, I.H., The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (1978;
repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986).
Marshall, I.H., The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary, TNTC (1980;
repr. Leicester: IVP; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987).
Meyer, H.A.W., Kritisch exegetisches Handbuch aber die Apostelgeschichte, 2. ed., KEK
III (Gllttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1854).
Meyer, H.A.W., Krilisch exegelisches Handbuch aber die Evangelien des Markus und
Lukas, 4. ed., KEK 1.2 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1860).
MuBner, F.,Apostelgeschichte, NEB.NT 5 (WUrzburg: Echter, 1984).
Nolland,I, Luke 1-9:20, WBC 35A (Dallas: Word, 1989;pp.1-454).
Nolland, I, Luke 9:21-18:34, WBC 35B (Dallas: Word, 1993; pp.457-896).
Nolland, J., Luke 18:35-24:53, WBC 35C (Dallas: Word, 1993; pp. 897-1293).
Pesch, R., Die Apostelgeschichte (Apg 1-12), EKK V.l (ZUrich, Einsiedeln, Cologne:
Benzinger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1986).
Pesch, R., Die Apostelgeschichte (Apg 13-28), EKK V.2 (ZUrich, Einsiedeln, Cologne:
Benzinger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1986).
Plummer,A.,A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to SL Luke,
5. ed., ICC (1896; repr. Edinburgh: T. &T. Clark, 1981).
Rackham, R.B., The Acts oflhe Apostles, 14. ed., WC (1951; repr. Grand Rapids: Baker,
1964).
Rius-Camps, I, De lerusalen a Antioquia: Genesis de la 19lesia Cristiana (Commentario
lingafstico y exegetico a Hch 1-12) (Cordoba: Ediciones El Almendro,1989).
Roloff,I, DieApostelgeschichle,NTD 5 (Berlin: EVA, 1988 = Gllttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1981). Pagination identical.
Schille, G.,Die Apostelgeschichte des Lukas,2. ed., ThHK V (Berlin: EVA, 1984).
Schlatter, A., Das Evangelium des Lukas aus seinen Que/len erkliirt, 3. ed. (Stuttgart:
Ca\wer, 1975).
Schneider, G., Das Evangelium nach Lukas: Kapitell-lO, 2. ed., OTBK 1Il.1 (GTBS 500)
(GUters\oh: G. Mohn; WUrzburg: Echter, 1984).
Schneider, G., Die Apostelgeschichte, I. Teil: Einleitung, Kommentar zu Kap. 1.1 - 8.40,
HThK V.l (Freiburg, Basle, Vienna: Herder, 1980).
2. Other commentaries, monographs and articles
407
Schneider, G., Die Apostelgeschichte, ll. Teil: Kommentar zu Kap. 9.1-28.31, HThK Y.2
(Freiburg, Basle, Vienna: Herder, 1982).
SchUrmann, H., Das Lukasevangelium, I. Teil: Kommentar zu Kapitel1.1 - 9.50,4. ed.,
HThK III.1 (Freiburg, Basle, Vienna: Herder, 1990).
SchUrmann, H., Das Lukasevangelium, 11. Teil: Erste Folge: Kommenlar zu Kapitel9.51 11.54, HThK 111.2.1 (Freiburg, Basle, Vienna: Herder, 1994).
Talbert, C.H., Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel (New York: Crossroad, 1989).
Tannehill, R.c., The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation. Volume
One: The Gospel according to Luke (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986).
Tannehill, RC., The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acls:A Literary Interpretation. Volume Two:
The Acts of the Apostles (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990).
Weiser, A., Die Apostelgeschichte: (Leipzig: St. Benno, 1989) = Die Apostelgeschichte:
Kapitell-12, OTBK Y.1 (GTBS 507) (GUtersloh: G. Mohn; Wurzburg: Echter, 1981);
Die Apostelgeschichte: Kapitel13-28, OTBK V.2 (GTBS 508) (GUtersloh: G. Mohn;
WUrzburg: Echter, 1985). Pagination diverging.
Weiss, B., Kritisch exegetisches Handbuch aber die Evangelien des Markus und Lukas,7.
ed., KEK 1.2 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,1885).
Wesley, 1., Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament (1755; repr. London: Epworth,
1976).
WeUe, W.M.L. de, Kurze Erkliirung der Apostelgeschichte, 3. ed., KurzgefaBtes exegetisches Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 1.4 (Leipzig: Weidmann, 1848).
Wiefel, W., Das Evangelium nach Lukas, ThHK III (Berlin: EVA, 1988).
Wikenhauser, A, Die Apostelgeschichte: Oberselzt und erkliJrt, RNT (Ratisbon: F. Pustet,
1961).
Zahn, Th., Das Evangelium des Lucas, 3. ed., KNT III (Leipzig, Erlangen: A Deichert,
1920; repr. WuppertaI: R. Brockhaus, 1988).
Zahn, Th., Die Apostelgeschichte des Lucas: Erste Hiilfie: Kap. 1-12,3. ed., KNT V.1
(Leipzig, Erlangen: A. Deichert, 1922; pp. 1-394).
Zahn, Tb., Die Apostelgeschichte des Lucas: Zweile Halfie: Kap.13-28, KNT V.2 (Leipzig,
Erlangen: A Deichert, 1921; pp. 395-884).
Zmijewski, 1., Die Apostelgeschichte: Obersetzt und erkliirt, RNT (Ratisbon: F. Pustet,
1994).'

Aland, B., K. Aland,J. Karavidopoulos (eds.), Novum Testamentum Graece,27. ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgese\1schaft, 1993).
Aland, K., M. Black, C.M. Martini (eds.), The Greek New Testament, 3. ed. (United Bible
Societies, 1983).
AlderIink, L.J., 'The Eleusinian Mysteries in Roman Imperial Times', ANRW 11.18.2
(1989),1457-98.
Alt, A., 'Die Stlltten des Wirkens Jesu in Galiliia territorialgeschichtlich betrachtet',
J I do not always indicate when my quotations from this volume include one or several
of Zmijewski's manifold quotations of other commentators; cf. my review in European
Journal of Theology 6, 1997,83-85.
408
VI. Bibliography
BBLAK =ZDPV 68, 1949-51,51-72 =Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes IsraelI!, 2. ed. (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1959),436-55.
Altaner, B., Patrology (Freiburg, Basle, Vienna: Herder; Edinburgh, London: Nelson, 1960).
Arnold, C.E., Ephesians: Power and Magic: The Concept of Power in Ephesians in Light
of its Historical Setting, MSSNTS 63 (Cambridge: CUp, 1989).
Baer, H. von, Der heilige Geist in den Lukasschriften, BWANT 39 (Stuttgart, Berlin, Cologne: W. Kohlhammer, 1926).
Bailey, K.E., Poet and Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes: A Literary-Cultural Approach
to the Parables in Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990).
Balz, H., G. Schneider (eds:), Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1990-93) = EWNT.
Bammel, E. (ed.), The Trial ofJesus: Cambridge Studies in Honour of C.F.D. Moule, SBT
II.13 (London:SCM, 1970).
Bammel, E., 'Crucifixion as a Punishment in Palestine', in Bammel, Trial,162-65.
Barr, J., Biblical Faith and Natural Theology: The Gifford Lectures for 1991 Delivered in
the University of Edinburgh (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993).
Barrett, C.K.,Luke the Historian in Recent Study (London: Epworth, 1961).
Barrett, C.K., 'Light on the Holy Spirit from Simon Magus (Acts 8.4-25)', in Kremer,
Actes, 281-95.
Barrett, C.K., 'Theologia Crucis - in Acts?', Theologia Crucis - Signum Crucis. FS E.
Dinkler, eds. C. Andresen, G. Klein (TUbingen: lC.B. Mohr, 1979),73-84.
Barrett, c.K., Church, Ministry and Sacraments in the New Testament, The 1983 Didsbury
Lectures (Exeter: Paternoster, 1985).
Barrett, C.K., Das Evangelium nach Johannes, KEK Sonderband (Gottingen: Van denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990; trad. H. Bald) = The Gospel According to SL John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text,2. ed. (London: SPCK,
1978).
Barrett, c.K., 'Irnitatio Christi in Acts', in Green,Jesus, 251-62..
Bauckham, RJ.,Jude, 2 Peter, WBC 50 (Waco: Word, 1983).
Bauckham, RJ. (ed.), The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting,A1CS IV (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995).
Bauer, W., Griechisch-deutsches Wi:irterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und
der frUhchristlichen Literatur, eds. K. Aland, B. Aland, 6. ed. (Berlin, New York: W. de
Gruyter, 1988).
Bauernfeind, 0., 'Zur Frage nach der Entscheidung zwischen Paulus und Lukas', ZSTh
23, 1954,59-88 = Apostelgeschichte, 353-82.
Bauernfeind, 0., 'Thadition und Komposition in dem Apokatastasisspruch Apostelgeschichte 3,20r, Abraham unser Vater: Juden und Christen im Gesprtlch aber die
Bibel. FS O. Michel, eds. o. Betz, M. Hengel, P. Schmidt (Leiden, New York, Cologne:
E.J. Brill, 1963),13-23 = Apostelgeschichte, 473-83.
Baumbach, G., Das Verstlindnis des Bi:isen in den synoptischen Evangelien, ThA 19 (Berlin: EVA, 1963).
Bayer, H.P., 'Christ-Centered Eschatology in Acts 3.17-26', in Green,Jesus, 236-50.
Beck, RE., Christian Character ill the Gospel of Luke (London: Epworth, 1989).
Benoit, P., 'Les Origines de I'Episcopat dans le Nouveau Testament', idem, Exegese et
Thologie I! (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1961),232-46.
Berger, K., 'Zur Geschichte der Einieitungsformel "Amen, ich sage euch''', ZNW 63,
1972,45-75.
Berger, K., 'Volksversammlung und Gemeinde Gottes: Zu den Anfangen der christlichen Verwendung von "ekklesia"', ZThK 73,1976,167-207.
409
Berger, K., ~lmosen filr Israel: Zum historischen Kontext der pauIinischen Kollekte',
NTS 23, 1977,180-204.
Berger, K., 'Das Canticum Simeonis (Lk 2.29-32)', NT27,1985,27-39.
Best, E., Fol/owillg Jesus: Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark, JSNT.S 4 (Sheffield: JSOT,
1981).
Betz, H.D., Lukian von Samosata und das Neue Testam~t: Religionsgeschichtliche und
pariinetische Parallelen. Ein Beitrag zum Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti, TU
76 (Berlin: Akademie,1961).
Betz, 0., 'Probleme des Prozesses Jesu' ,ANRW 11.25.1 (1982),565-647.
Birt, Th., ":AYVWO"tOL {}eoL und die Areopagrede des Apostels Paulus', RMP 1914,342-92.
BIass,F.,A.Debrunner,F. Rehkopf, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, 16. ed.
(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984).
Blinzler,I., 'Eine Bemerkung zum Geschichtsrahmen des Johannesevangeliums', Bib. 36,
1955,20-35.
BlinzIer,J., 'Die Niedermetzelung von Galililern durch Pilatus',NT2,1957/58,24-49.
Blinzler,J., Der Prozep Jesu,4. ed. (Ratisbon: F. Pustet, 1969).
Blomberg, c.L., 'The Law in Luke-Acts' ,JSNT 22,1984, 53-80.
Blue, B., 'Acts and the HOI.\se Church',in A1CS II, 119-222.
Bock, D.L., ProclimuJtion from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology,
JSNT.S 12 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1987).
Bock, D.L., 'Athenians Who Have Never Heard', in Crockett, Fault, 117-24.
Bolkestein, H., Wohltlltigkeit und Armenpflege im vorchristlichen Altertum: Ein Beitrag
zum Problem 'Moral und Gesellschaft' (Utrecht: A. Oosthoeck,1939).
Borger, R., 'Amos 5.26,Apostelgeschichte 7.43 und Surpu II, 180',ZAW 100,1988, 70-81.
Bormann, L., K. del Tredici, A. Standhartinger (eds. ),Religious Propaganda and Missionary Competition in the New Testament World. FS D. Georgi, NT.S 74 (Leiden, New
York, Cologne: EJ. Brill,1994).
Bousset, W., Kyrios Christos: Geschichte des Christusglaubens von den Anfiingen des
Christentums bis Irenaeus, 5. ed. (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,1965).
Bovon, F., Luc le theologien: Vmgt-cinq ans de recherches (1950-1975) (Neuchatel-Paris:
Delachaux & Niestie, 1978) = Luke the Theologian: Thirty-three Years of Research
(1950-1983), PThMS 12 (Allison Park: Pickwick, 1987; trad. K. McKinney).
Bovon, F., Lukas in neuer Sicht: Gesammelte AuJsi1lze, BThSt 8 (Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener, 1985).
Bowman, J., The Samaritan Problem: Studies in the Relationships of Samaritanism, Judaism, and Early Christianity, PThMS 4 (Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1975) = Samaritanische
Probleme: Studien zum Verhllltnis von Samaritertum, Judentum und Urchristentum,
FDV 1959 (Stuttgart, Berlin, Cologne: W. Kohlhammer, 1967).
Braumann, G., Das Lukas-Evangelium: Die redaktions- und kompositionsgeschichtliche
Forschung, WdF 253 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1974).
Braumann, G., 'Einftihrung', in Braumann, Lukas-Evangelium, XII-XXIV:
Breytenbach, c., 'Zeus und der lebendige Gott: Anmerkungen zu Apg 14.11-17',NTS39,
1993,396-413.
Breytenbach, c., Paulus und Barnabas in der Provinz Galatien: Studien zu Apostelgeschichte 13f; 16.6; 18.3 und den Adressaten des Galaterbriefes, AGJU 38 (Leiden,
New York, Cologne: E.J. Brill, 1996).
Briggs, C.A., E.G. Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms,
ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1906).
Brown, S., Apostasy and Perseverance in the Theology of Luke, AnBib 36 (Rome: PBI,
1969).
410
V1. BlbliugJaphy
Bruce, EE, 'The Speeches in Acts - Thirty Years After', Reconciliation and Hope: New
Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology. FS L.L. Morris, ed. R. Banks (Exeter: Paternoster; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974),53-68.
Bruce, EP., Paul: Apostle of the Free Spirit, 2. ed. (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1980).
Bruce,F.F., 'The Acts of the Apostles',ANRW IL25.3 (1988),2567-603.
Bruners, W., Die Reinigung der zehn AussiJtzigen und die Heilung des Samariters Lk
17.11-19. Ein Bei/rag zur lukanischen Interpretation der Reinigung vom AussiJtzigen,
fzb 23 (Stuttgart: KBW, 1977).
Buckwalter, H.D., The Character and Purpose of Luke's Christology, MSSNTS 89 (Cambridge: CUp, 1995).
Burchard, C., 'Review of Bovon, Luc', ThLZ 106, 1981,37-39.
Burchard, c., 'Zu Matthllus 8,5-13', ZNW 84,1993, 278-8B.
Bussmann, c., W. Radl (eds.), Der Treue Gottes Trauen: Beitrage zurn Werk des Lukas. FS
G. Schneider (Preiburg, Basle, Vienna: Herder, 1991).
Butterfield, H., Christianily and History (London: G. Bell, 1949).
Buzzard,A., 'Acts 1.6 and the Eclipse of the Biblical Kingdom',EvQ 66,1994,197-215.
Cadbury, H.J., The Making of Luke-Acts (London: Macmillan, 1927).
Cadbury, H.!., 'Appendix C: Commentary on the Preface of Luke', BC Il,489-510.
Cadbury, H.!., 'Note XXIV: Dust and Garments',BC V,269-77.
Cadbury, H.J., 'Note XXIX: The TItles of Jesus in Acts', BC V,354-75.
Cadbury, HJ., 'Note XXX: Names for Christians and Christianity in Acts', BC V, 375-92.
Cadbury, H.!., 'Note XXXII: The Speeches in Acts', BC V, 402-27.
Cadbury, HJ., 'Note XXXVII: Lucius of Cyrene', BC V,489-95.
Cadbury, H.l, 'Review of Dibelius, Pauf,lE L 59, 1940, 70f.
Capper, B., 'The Palestinian Cultural Context of Earliest Christian Community of
Goods', in A1CS IV, 3~-56.
Catchpole. D.R., The Trial of Jesus: A Study in the Gospels and Jewish Historiography
from 1770 to the Present Day, StPB 18 (Leiden, New York, Cologne: E.!. Brill, 1971).
Catchpole, D.R., 'The Centurion's Faith and its Function in Q', The Four Gospels.FS E
Neirynck, eds. E van Segbroeck, C.M. Thckett, G. van Belle, BEThL 100 (Leuven:
LUP, Peeters, 1992), I, 517-40.
Clarke, A.D., Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth: A Socio-Historical and exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 1-6, AGJU 18 (Leiden, New York, Cologne: EJ. Brill,
1993).
Clemen, c., Religionsgeschichtliche Erkliirung des Neuen Testaments: Die Abhangigkeit
des /liteslen Christentums von nichtjUdischen Religionen und philosophischen Systemen, 2. ed. (GieBen: A. Topelmann, 1924).
Coggins, R.l, Samaritans and Jews: The Origins of Samaritanisrn Reconsidered, Growing
Points in Theology (Oxford: B. Blackwell, 1975).
Coggins, R.l, 'The Samaritans and Acts', NTS 28, 1982,423-34.
Conzelmann, H., Die Mitte der Zeit: Sludien zur Theologie des Lukas, 5. ed., BHTh 17
(Tllbingen: lC.B. Mohr, 1964).
Conzelmann, H., Heiden - Juden - Christen: Auseinandersetzungen in der Literatur der
hellenistisch-romischen Zeit, BHTh 62 (Tiibingen: lC.B. Mohr, 1981).
Cook, IG., 'Hellenistic Responses to the Gospels and Gospel 'fraditions', ZNW 84,1993,
233-54.
Craigie, P.c., Psalms 1-50, WBC 19 (Waco: Word, 1983).
Cram er, lA. (ed.), Catena in Acta Ss. Apostolorurn, Catenae Graecorum Patrum in Novum Testamentum III (1838; repr. Hildesheim: G. alms, 1967).
2. Oliler commell/al ies, monographs alld artIcle,'
411
Crockett, W.Y.,J.G. Sigountos (eds.), Through No Fault of Their Own: The Fate of Those
Who Have Never Heard, 2. ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993).
CulImann, 0., 'Samarien und die Anflinge der christlichen Mission', Vortrage und Aufsatze, ed. K. Frohlich (Tiibingen: 1.C.B. Mohr; ZUrich: Zwingli, 1966),232-40.
Dahl, N.A., '''A People for His Name" (Acts XV.14)', NTS 4, 1957/58,319-27.
Dah), N.A., 'The Story of Abraham in Luke-Acts', in Keck, Studies, 139-58.
Danker, F.W., Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testament SeI1Ulntic Field (St. Louis: Clayton, 1982).
Darr, lA., On Building Character: The Reader and the Rhetoric of Characterization in
Luke-Acts, Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation (Louisville: Westminsterl
John Knox, 1992).
Dautzenberg, G., Sein Leben bewahren: 'PVX~ in den Herrenworten der Evangelien,
StANT 14 (Munich: Kosel, 1966).
Davies, RW., 'The Daily Life of the Roman Soldier under the Principate',ANRW n.1
(1974),299-338 = Service in the Roman Army, eds. D. Breeze, Y.A. Maxfield (Edinburgh: EUP, 1989).
Dawsey, J.M., The Lukan Voice: Confusion and Irony in the Gospel of Luke (Macon:
Mercer Up, 1986).
Denaux, A., 'I.:hypocrisie des Pharisiens et le dessein de Dieu. Anaylse de Le. XIU.3133', L'Evanglie de Luc: The Gospel of Luke, ed. F. Neirynck, 2. ed., BEThL 32 (Leuyen: LUp, Peeters, 1989), 155-95,316-23.
Deissmann, A., Licht vom Osten: Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der
hellenistisch-riJmischen Welt, 4. ed. (TUbingen: lC.B. Mohr, 1923).
Delling, G., Der Kreuzestod Jesu in der urchristlichen Verkiindigung (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972).
Delling, G., 'Die lesusgeschichte in Acta', NTS 19, 1973,373-89.
Dibelius, M., Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, ed. H. Greeven (London: SCM, 1956; trad.
M. Ling) == Aufsiitze zur Apostelgeschichte, ed. H. Greeven, 4. ed., FRLANT NF 42
(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961).
Dibelius, M., 'Style-Criticism of the Book of Acts', in Studies,1-25 == 'Stilkritisches zur
Apostelgeschichte', Eucharisterion fUr H. Gunkel (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,1923), U,27-49 == Aufsatze, 9-28.
Dibelius, M., 'Paul on the Areopagus', in Studies, 26-77 = 'Paulus auf dem Areopag',
SHAw'PH 1939 (Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1939) = Aufsiitze, 29-70.
Dibelius, M., 'The Speeches in Acts and Ancient Historiography', in Studies, 138-85 =
'Die Reden der Apostelgeschichte und die antike Geschichtsschreibung', SHAw'PH
1949 (Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1949) == Aufsiitze, 120-62.
Dietrich, W, Das Petrusbild der lukanischen Schriften, BWANT 94 (Stuttgart, Berlin, Cologne: W Kohlhammer, 1972).
Doble, P., 'Luke 23.47 - The Problem of Dikaios', BiTr 44,1993,320-31.
Doble, P., The Paradox of Salvation: Luke's Theology of the Cross, MSSNTS 87 (Cambridge: CUp, 1996).
DobschUtz, E. von, Christusbilder: Untersuchungen zur christlichen Legende, TU NF 3
(18) (Leipzig: lC. Hinrich, 1899).
Dodd, C.R., The Apostolic Preaching and its Development: Three Lectures at King's College, London 1935 (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1936).
Donaldson, T.L., Paul and the Gentiles: Remapping the Apostle's Convictional World
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997).
Downing, G., 'Freedom from the Law in Luke-Acts',JSNT26, 1986,49-52.
Dunn, J.D.G., Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-Examination of the New Testament Teach-
412
VI. Bibliography
ing on the Gift of the Spirit in Relation to Pentecostalism Today, 2. ed., SBT II.l5
(London: SCM, 1973).
Dupont, J., Les problemes du Livre des Actes d'apres les travaux recents, ALBO II.17
(Louvain: Publications Universitaires de Louvain, 1950) = 'Les problemes du Livre
des Actes entre 1940 et 1950', in Dupont, Etudes, 11-124.
Dupont,J., Etudes sur les Actes des Apotres, LeDiv 45 (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf,1967).
Dupont, J., 'Le discours devant I'Areopage et la revelation naturelle', in Etudes, 157-60.
Dupont,J., "'AAm: EE EeNQN" (Acts 15.14)"NTS 3,1956157,47-50 = Etudes,361-65.
Dupont, J., 'Repentir et conversion d'apr~s les Actes des Apotres', in Etudes ,421-57.
Dupont, J., 'Conversion in the Acts of the Apostles', in Dupont, Salvation, 61-84 = 'La
conversion dans les Actes des Apotres' ,in Etudes, 459-76.
Dupont, J., 'The Salvation of the Gentiles and the Theological Significance of Acts', in
Dupont, Salvation, 11-33 = 'Le salut des Gentils et la signification theologique du
Livre des Actes',NTS 6, 1959160, 132-55 = Etudes, 393-415.
Dupont, 1., The Salvation of the Gentiles: Essays on the Acts of the Apostles (New York,
Ramsay, Toronto: Paulist, 1979; trad. J. Keating).
Dupont, 1., Le discours de Milet: Testament pastoral de Saint Paul (Acts 20,18-36), LeDiv
32 (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf,1962).
Dupont, J., 'La parabole ciu semeur dans la version de Luc', Apophoreta. FS E. Haenchen, eds. W. EItester,F.H. Kettler, BZNW 30 (Berlin: T6pelmann, 1964),97-108.
Ego, B., '''Denn die Heiden sind der Umkehr nahe": Rabbinische Interpretationen zur
BuJ3e der Leute von Ninive', Die Heiden: Juden, Christen und das Problem des
Fremden, eds. R. Feldmeier, U. Heckel, WUNT 70 (TUbingen: IC.B. Mohr, 1994),
158-76.
Ehrenberg, V., A.H.M. Jones (eds.), Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and
Tiberius, 2. ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1955).
Elliger, w., Paulus in Griechenland: Philippi, Thessaloniki, Athen, Korinth, SBS 92193
(Stuttgart: KBW, 1978).
Ellingworth, P., The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster, 1993).
Ellis, E.E., 'Die Funktion der Eschatologie im Lukasevangelium', ZThK 66,1969,378402 = Braumann, Lukas-Evangelium, 378-97.
Eltester, W., 'Gott und die Natur in der Areopagrede', Neutestamentliche Studien tar R.
Bultmann, ed. W. Eltester, BZNW 21 (Berlin: A. T6pelmann, 1954),202-27.
Eltester, W., 'Sch6pfungsoffenbarung und natiirliche Theologie im frOhen Christentum',
NTS 3, 1956157, 93-114.
Esler, P.F., Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of
Lukan Theology, MSSNTS 57 (Cambridge: CUp, 1987).
Estrada-Barbier, B., El Sembrador: Perspectivas filol6gico-hermeneuticas de una parabola, Bibliotheca Salamanticensis Estudios 165 (Salamanca: Publicaciones Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca,1994).
Farris, S., The Hymns of Luke'! Infancy Narratives: Their Origin, Meaning and Significance, JSNT.S 9 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1985).
Fascher, E., Das Menschenbild in biblischer Sicht, AVTRW 24 (Berlin: EVA, 1962).
Ferguson, E., Backgrounds to Early Christianity, 2. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993).
Finley, M.l., 'Introduction', in Thucydides, Peloponnesian War, 9-32.
Fisher, E.J. (ed.), Interwoven Destinies: Jews and Christians Through the Ages, SJC: Exploration of Issues in the Contemporary Dialogue Between Christians and Jews
(New York, Mahwah: Paulist, 1993).
413
Fitzmyer, lA., Luke the Theologian: Aspects of His Teaching (New York, Mahwah:
Paulist, 1989).
Fitzmyer, lA., "~ certain ~ceva, a Jew, a chief priest" (Acts 19.14)" in Bussmann, Treue,
299-305.
Fiender, H., HeiJ und Geschichte in der Theologie des Lukas, BEvTh 41 (Munich: ChI.
Kaiser, 1965).
Foakes Jackson, FJ., K. Lake (eds.), The Beginnings of Christianity: Part I: The Acts of the
Apostles 11: Prolegomena 11, Criticism (London: Macmillan, 1922).
Ford, R.C., 'St. Luke and Lucius of Cyrene',ET32, 1920/21,219[
Foster,I, 'Was Sergius Paulus Converted?', ET 60, 1948149, 354[
Freedman, D.N. (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York, London, Toronto: Doubleday, 1992).
Frein, B.C., 'Narrative Predictions, Old Testament Prophecies and Luke's Sense of FulfilIment', NTS 40, 1994,22-37.
Friedlander, L., Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms in der Zeit von Augustus bis
zum Ausgang der Antonine I, ed. G. Wissowa, 10. ed. (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1922).
Gartner, B., The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation, ASNU 21 (Lund: CW.K.
Gleerup; Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard, 1955).
Garrett, S.R, The Demise of the Devil: Magic and the Demonic in Luke-Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989).
Gasque, W.w., 'The Speeches of Acts: Dibelius Reconsidered', New Dimensions in New
Testament Studies, eds. RI. Longenecker, M.C. Tenney (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1974),232-50.
Gasque, w.w., History of the Criticism of the Acts of the Apostles, BGBE 17 (TUbingen:
ICB. Mohr, 1975).
Gasque, W.W., ~ Fruitful Field: Recent Study of the Acts of the Apostles', Interp. 42,
1988,117-31Gaventa, B.R., 'The Peril of Modernizing Henry Joel Cadbury', in Parsons, Cadbury, 726.
Gempf, CH., Historical and Literary Appropriateness in the Mission Speeches in Acts
(Diss. Aberdeen, 1988).
Gempf, CH., 'Appendix 2: "The God-Fearers"', in Hemer, Setting, 444-47.
Gewiess, I, Die urapostolische Heil.rverkDndigung nach der Apostelgeschichte, BSHT NS
5 (Breslau: MUlier & Seiffert, 1939).
Gill, D.W.I, CH. Gempf (eds.), The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman Setting, in A1CS
II (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster, 1994).
GiII,D.WJ., 'Achaia',A1CS n,433-53.
GiIl,D.WJ.,B.W. Winter, 'Acts and Roman Religion', in A1CS n,79-103.
Gispen, W.H., Exodus, Bible Student's Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan;
SLCathrines: Paideia, 1982).
Glockner, R, Die VerkUndigung des Heils beim Evangelisten Lukas, WSAMA. T 9
(Mainz: M. GrUnewald, 1976).
Glombitza, 0., 'Der Schritt nach Europa: Erwagungen zu Act 16.9-15', ZNW 53,1962,7782.
Goodrick, A.T.S., The Book of Wisdom with Introduction and Notes, The Oxford Church
Bible Commentary (London: Rivingtons, 1913).
Goppelt, L., Theologie des Neuen Testaments: Herausgegeben von Jflrgen Roloff, 3. ed.,
UTB.W 850 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991).
Grabbe, L.L., Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (London: SCM, 1994).
414
\/1. Bibliography
Grllsser, E., 'Die Apostelgeschichte in der Forschung der Gegenwart', ThR 26,1960,93167.
Grllsser, E., 'Acta-Forschung seit 1960', ThR 41, 1976,141-94,259-90; ThR 42,1977, 1-68.
Green, IB., S. McKnight, I.H. Marshall (eds.), Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels
(Downers Grove, Leicester: IVP, 1992).
Green,IB.,M. Turner (eds.),Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ: Essays on the Historical
Jesus and New Testament Christology. FS I.H. Marshall (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans;
Carlisle: Paternoster,1994).
Green, lB., The Theology of the Gospel of Luke, NTTh (Cambridge: CUp, 1995).
Gulin, E.G., Die Freude im Neuen Testament: 1. Teil Jesus, Urgemeinde, Paulus,AASF.B 26
(Helsinki,1932).
Guthrie, W.K.C., The Greeks and Their Gods (London: Methuen, 1950).
Haenchen, E., "ITadition und Komposition in der Apostelgeschichte', ZThK 52,1955,
205-25.
Hahn, F., Mission in the New Testament, SBT 47 (London: SCM, 1965; trad. F. Clarke) =
Das Verstiindnis der Mission im Neuen Testament, 2. ed., WMANT 13 (NeukirchenVluyn: N eukirchener ,1965).
Hahn, F., 'Der gegenwllrtige Stand der Erforschung der Apostelgeschichte: Kommentare
und Aufsatzbllnde 1980-1985', ThRv 82,1986, 117-90.
Hansen,G.W., 'Galatia',in A1CS 11,377-95.
Harnack, A. van, '1st die Rede des Paulus in Athen ein ursprtlnglicher Bestandteil der
Apostelgeschichte?', TU m, 9 (39), (Leipzig: J.e. Hinrich,1913), 1-46.
Harnack, A. von, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten: 1. Die Mission in Wart und Tat, 4. ed. (Leipzig:J.e. Hinrich, 1924).
Hawthorne, G.F., R.P. Martin (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove,
Leicester: IVP,1993).
Heiler, E, Prayer: A Study in the History and Psychology of Religion (London: Oxford
Up, 1932).
Hemer, C.J., 'The Speeches of Acts: 11. The Areopagus Address', TynB 40, 1989,239-59.
Hemer, C.J., The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, ed. e.H. Gempf,
WUNT 49 (TUbingen:le.B. Mohr, 1989; repr. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,1990).
Hengel, M., Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross
(London: SCM, 1977; trad. J. Bowden) = The Cross of the Son of God: Containing
The Son of God, Crucifixion, The Atonement (London: SCM,1986), 93-185 = 'Mors
turpissima crucis: Die Kreuzigung in der antiken Welt und die "Torheit" des "Wortes vom Kreuz"', Rechtfertigung. FS E. Kasemann, eds. J. Friedrich, W. Pohimann, P.
Stuhlmacher (TUbingen: J.C.B. Mohr; Gtlttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976).
Hengel, M., 'The Geography of Palestine in Acts', in A1CS IV, 27-78 = 'Luke the Historian and the Geography of Palestine in the Acts of the Apostles', Between Jesus and
Paul: Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity (London: SCM,1983; trad. I Bowden), 97-128 = 'Der Historiker Lukas und die Geographie Paliistinas in der Apostelgeschichte', ZDPV 98,1983,147-83.
Henge], M., A.M. Schwemer, Paul Between Damascus and Antioch (London: SCM, 1997;
trad. J. Bowden) = Paulus zwischen Damaskus und Antiochien, WUNT 108 (Tllbingen: J.e.B. Mohr, 1998).
Hirzel, R., Die Strafe der Steinigung, ASGW.PH 27, 1909. non vidi (cf. I. Ptatt, 'Lapidatio',
RE XII, (775f) 775.37-39).
Hirzel, R., Themis, Dike und Verwandtes: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Rechlsidee bei
den Griechen (Leipzig: S. Hirzel,1907).
Hoehner, H.W., 'Why did Pilate hand Jesus over to Antipas?', in Bammel, Trial,84-90.
2. Other commentarIes, monographs and articles
415
Hoehner, H.W., Herod Antipas, MSSNTS 17 (Cambridge: CUp, 1972).

Horsley, G.H.R., New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. A Review of the Greek
Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1976 (North Ryde: The Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, Macquarie University, 1981).
Horst, 1., Proskynein: Zur Anbetung im Urchristentum nach ihrer religionsgeschichtlichen
Eigenart, NTF Reihe 3: Beitrllge zur Sprache und Geschichte der urchristlichen
Frtlmmigkeit 2 (Gutersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1932).
Horst, P.W. van der, Aelius Aristides and the New Testament, SCHNT 6 (Leiden, New
York, Cologne: E.J. Brill, 1980).
Horst, P.W. van der, 'The Altar of the "Unknown God" in Athens (Acts 17:23) and the
Cult of "Unknown Gods" in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods', ANRW 1I.18.2
(1989),1426-56.
Hort, F.J.A., The Christian Ecclesia:A Course ot Lectures on the Early History and Early
Conceptions ot the Ecclesia, 4. ed. (London: MacmilIan, 1908).
Hull,1.M., Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic Tradition, SBT 11.28 (London: SCM, 1974).
Jaisle, K., Die Dioskuren als Retter zu See bei Griechen und Romem und iIlr Fortleben in
den christlichen Legenden (Diss. Tlibingen, 1907). non vidi (cf. W. Kraus, 'Dioskuren',
RAC Ill, (1122-38) 1138).
Jeremias, 1., 'Paarweise Sendung im Neuen Testament',Abba: Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie und Zeitgeschichte (Gtlttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966),
132-39.
Jeremias, 1., Jesus' Promise to the Nations, SBT 24 (London: SCM, 1958) = Jesu VerheijJung fUr die Viilker, FDV 1953 (Stuttgart, Berlin, Cologne: W. Kohlhammer,
1956).
Jervell, 1., Luke and the People ot God: A New Look at Luke-Acts (Minneapolis:
Augsburg, 1972).
Jervell,J., 'The Divided People of God', in Luke,41-74.
JerveU, 1., 'The Lost Sheep of the House of Israel: The Understanding of the Samaritans
in Luke-Acts', in Luke, 113-32.
JerveU,J., 'The Law in Luke-Acts',in Luke, 133-151.
Jervell,1., 'Paul: The Teacher ofIsrael:The Apologetic Speeches of Paul in Acts', in Luke,
153-83.
Jervell,J., The Theology of the Acts of the Apostles, NTTh (Cambridge: CUp, 1996).
Johnson, L.T., 'The New Testament's Anti-Jewish Slander and the Conventions of Ancient Polemic',JBL 108,1989,419-41.
Johnson, M.D., The Purpose of Biblical Genealogies, MSSNTS 8 (Cambridge: CUP,
1969).
Jones, D.L., 'The Legacy of Henry Joel Cadbury: Or What He Learned That We Ought To
Know', in Parsons, Cadbury, 27-36.
JUthner, 1., Hellenen und Barbaren, Erbe der Alten Welt 9 (Leipzig, 1923). non vidi (cf.
Schille, 471, n. 83).
Kearsley, R.A., 'The Asiarchs', in Al CS n, 363-76.
Keck,L.E.,1.L. Martyn (eds.),Sludies in Luke-Acts.FS. P.Schubert (NashvilIe:Abingdon,
1966).
Kee, H.C., Medicine, Miracle and Magic in New Testament Times, MSSNTS 55 (Cambridge: Cup, 1986).
Kee, H.c., Good News 10 the Ends of the Earth: The Theology of Acts (London: SCM,
1990).
Keith, G., 'Issues in Religious Toleration from the Reformation to the Present Day', EQ
66,1994,307-29.
416
VI. Bibliography
Kerenyi, c., Dionysos: Archetypal Image of Indestructible Life (London: RoutJedge &
Kegan Paul, 1976; trad. R. Manheim).
Kertelge, K. (ed.), Der Prozej3 gegen Jesus: Historische Rilckfrage und theologische Deutung, 2. ed., QD 112 (Freiburg, Basle, Vienna: Herder, 1989).
Kilpatrick, G.D., 'A Theme of the Lucan Passion Story and Luke xxiii.47' ,JThS 43, 1942,
34-36.
Kilpatrick, G.D., 'MOl at Luke 11.32 and Acts IV.25,27',JThS NS 16,1965,127.
Kilpatrick, G.D., 'btdhJeLv and btLXQLVELV in the Greek Bible', ZNW 74, 1983,151-53.
King, N.Q., 'The "Universalism" of the Third Gospel', TU 73,1959,199-205.
Kirchschlllger, W., 'Fieberheilung in Apg 28 und Lk 4', in Kremer,Actes, 509-2l.
Klauck,H.-I,Hausgemeinde und Hauskirche imfrUhen Christentum,SBS 103 (Stuttgart:
KBW,1981).
Klauck, H.-I., Die religiIJse Umwelt des Urchristentums. I: Stadt- und Hausreligion, Mysterienkulle, Volksglaube; 11: Herrscher- und Kaiserkult, Philosophie, Gnosis, KStTh 9.12 (Stuttgart, Berlin, Cologne: W. Kohlhammer, 1995196).
Klauck, H.-I, Magie und Heidentum in der Apostelgeschichte des Lukas, SBS 167
(Stuttgart: KBW, 1996).
Kliesch, K., Das heilsgeschichtliche Credo in den Reden der Apostelgeschichte, BBB 44
(KlIln, Bonn: P. Hanstein, 1975).
Kodell, 1., '''The Word of God grew": The Ecclesial Tendency of >"oyol;; in Acts 6.7; 12.24;
19.20', Bib. 55,1974,505-19.
KlIster, H., Einfilhrung in das Neue Testament im Rahmen der Religionsgeschichte und
Kulturgeschichte der hellenistischen und romischen Zeit, GLB (Berlin, New York: W.
de Gruyter, 1980).
Kraeling, C.H., 'The Jewish Community at Antioch',JBL 51,1932,130-60.
Kraus, H.-J., Psalmen, BK XV (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1960).
Kremer, I. (ed.), Les Actes des Ap{jtres: Traditions, redaction, theologie, BEThL 48 (Gembloux: I Duculot; Leuven: LUP, 1979).
KUlling, H., Geoffenbartes. Geheimnis: Eine Auslegung von 'Apostelgeschichte 17,16-34,
AThANT 79 (ZUrich: TVZ, 1993).
KUmmel, W.G., Man in the New Testament (London: Epworth, 1963; trad. 1.J. Vincent) =
Das Bild des Menschen im Neuen Testament, AThANT 13 (ZUrich: Zwingli, 1948) =
Romer 7 und das Bild des Menschen im Neuen Testament: Zwei Studien, TB (NT) 53
(Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1974), 163-214.2
KUmmel, W.G., Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments nach seinen Hauptzeugen: Jesus Palllus - Johannes, NTD GNT 3 (Berlin: EVA, 1971 = Giittingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1969).
KUmmel, W.G., 'Lukas in der Anklage der heutigen Theologie', ZNW 63, 1972, 149-65 =
Braumann, Lukas-Evangelium, 416-36.
KUmmel, W.G., Introduction to the New Testament, rev. ed., NTLi (London: SCM, 1975;
trad. H.C. Kee) = Einleilung in das Neue Testament, 17. ed. (Heidelberg: QueUe &
Meyer, 1973).
Kuhn, H.-W., 'Die Kreuzesstrafe wahrend der frUhen Kaiserzeit: Ihre Wirklichkeit und
Wertung in der Umwelt des Urchristentums',ANRW 1l.25.1 (1982),648-793.
2 The English edition already includes the 'Ergllnzungen zu den Anmerkungen in der
zweiten Auflage von "Das Bild des Menschen im Neuen Testament"', added to this edition on pp. 217-23; cf. KUmmel's Vorwort, p. vii.
r
417
Kurz, W.S., 'Luke 3.23-38 and Greco-Roman and Biblical Genealogies', Luke-Acts: New
Perspectives from the SBL Seminar, ed. C.H. Talbert (New York: Crossroad,1984),
169-187.
Ladouceur, D., 'Hellenistic Preconceptions of Shipwreck and Pollution as a Context for
Acts 27-28', HThR 73, 1980,435-49.
Lagercrantz, 0., 'Act 14.17', ZNW 31,1932, 86f.
Lake, K., H.I Cadbury (eds.), The Beginnings of Christianity: Part I: The Acts of the Apostles V: Additional Notes to the Commentary (1933; repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1966).
Lake, K., 'Note VIII: Proselytes and God-fearers', BC V,74-96.
Lake, K., 'Note XVIII: Paul's Route in Asia Minor', BC V, 224-40.
Lampe, G. W.H., "'Grievous wolves" (Acts 20.29)', Christ and Spirit in the New Testament.
FS C.F.D. Moule, eds. B. Lindars, S.S. Smalley (Cambridge: CUp, 1973),263-68.
Lane, E.N., 'Men: A Neglected Cult of Roman Asia Minor' ,ANRW ll.18.3 (1990),216174.
Lane Fox, R., Pagans and Christians (Harmondsworth: Viking, 1986).
Lategan, B., 'New Testament Anthropological Perspective in a TIme of Reconstruction'
Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 76, 1991, 86-94.
Latte, K., Heiliges Recht: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der sakralen Rechtsformen in
Griechenland (Ttlbingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1920).
Latte, K., R(jmische Religionsgeschichte, 2. ed., HAW Y.4 (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1976).
Lehmann, G.A., 'Arbeitspapier Ill', Die Datierung der Evangelien: Symposion des Institutes for wissenschaftstheoretische Grundlagenforschung vom 20.-23. Mai 1982 in Paderbom (Tonbandnachschrift) , ed. R. Wegner,3. ed. (Paderborn: Deutsches Institut
fUr Bildung und Wissen, 1986),305-13.
Lerle, E., 'Die Predigt in Lystra (Acta XIY.15-18)', NTS 7, 1960/61,46-55.
Levine, L.I., Caesarea under Roman Rule,SJLA 7 (Leiden,New York, Cologne: E.I Brill,
1975).
Levine, L.I., Roman Caesarea: An Archaeological-Topographical Study, Qedem 2 (Jerusalem: 'The Institute of Archaeology (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem), 1975).
LiddeJl, H.G., R. Scott, H.S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon: With a Supplement 1968 (9.
ed., 1940; repr. Oxford: Clarendon, 1977).
Liechtenhan, R., Die urchristliche Mission: Voraussetzung, Motive, Methoden, AThANT 9
(ZUrich: Zwingli, 1946).
Lieu,IM., 'Do God-Fearers Make Good Christians?', Crossing the Boundaries: Essays in
Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael D. Goulder, eds. S.E. Porter, P. Joyce,
D.E. Orton, Biblical Interpretation Series 8 (Leiden, New York, Cologne: EJ. Brill,
1994),329-45.
Lindemann, A., 'Literaturbericht zu den Synoptischen Evangelien 1978-83', ThR 49,
1984,223-76,311-71.
Lindemann, A., H. Paulsen (eds.), Die Apostolischen Vitter: griechisch-deutsche Parallelausgabe auf der Grundlage der Ausgaben von Franz-Xaver FunklKarl Bihlmeyer
und Molly Whittaker mit Oberset'lungen von M. Dibelius und D.-A. Koch (Ttlbingen:
IC.B. Mohr, 1992).
Lindijer, C.H., 'Two Creative Encounters in the Work of Luke: Luke 24.13-35 and Acts
8.26-40', Miscellanea Neotestamenlica 11, eds. T. Baarda,A.F.I Klijn, W.C. van Unnik,
NT.S 48 (Leiden, New York, Cologne: E.J. Brill, 1978),77-85.
Loening, K., 'Das Evangelium und die Kulturen: Heilsgeschichtliche und kulturelle Aspekte kirchlicher Realit!lt in der Apostelgeschichte' ,ANRW ll.25.3 (1985),2604-46.
Lohse, E., 'Lukas als Theologe der Heilsgeschichte', EvTh 14,1954,256-75 = Braumann,
Lukas-Evangelium, 64-90.
418
VI. Bibliography
Lohse, E., Miirtyrer und Gottesknecht: Untersuchungen zur urchristlichen Verkiindigung

vom Sahnetod Jesu Christi,2. ed., FRLANT 64 (Gtlttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963).
Louw, lP., E.A. Nida (eds.), Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Society, 1988).
Llldemann, G., 'Das ludenedikt des Claudius (Apg 18,2)', in Bussmann, Treue, 289-98.
Ltlhrmann, D., Die Redaktion der Lagienquelle: Anhang: Zur weiteren Oberlieferung der
Logienquelle, WMANT 33 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1969).
Macdonald, 1., The Theology of the Samaritans, NTLi (London: SCM, 1964).
MacMuIlen, R., Paganism in the Roman Empire (New Haven: Yale Up, 1981).
Maddox, R., The Purpose of Luke-Acts, FRLANT 126 (Gtlttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1982).
Marz, C.-P., Vas Wort Gottes bei Lukas: Die lukanische Worltheologie als Frage an die
neuere Lukasforschung, EThS 11 (Leipzig: St. Benno, 1974).
Malina, B.1.,IH. Neyrey, 'Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts: Pivotal Values ofthe Mediterranean World', in Neyrey, Social World, 25-65.
Marquardt, 1., Das Privatleben der Romer I, Handbuch der riimischen Altertiimer VII.1
(Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1879).
MarshalI, I.H., 'The Resurrection in the Acts of the Apostles' ,Apostolic History and the
Gospel: Biblical and Hi~torical Essays. FS EE Bruce, eds. W.W. Gasque, R.P. Martin
(Exeter: Paternoster, 1970), 92-107.
Marshall, I.H., Kept by the Power of God: A Study of Perseverance and Falling Away, 3.
ed., Biblical and Theological Classics Library (1969; repr. Carlisle: Paternoster,
1995).
Marshall, I.H., Luke: Historian and Theologian, 3. ed. (Exeter: Paternoster, 1988).
MarshalI, I.H., 'Luke's view of Pa ul', SWJT 33, 1990, 41-5l.
MarshalI, l.H., The Acts of the Apostles, New Testament Guides (Sheffield: IS0T, 1992).
MarshalI, I.H., 'Acts and the "Former Treatise"', in A1CS 1,163-82.
MarshalI, LH., D. Peterson (eds.), Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts (Grand
Rapids, Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, 1998).
Matera, El., 'The Death of Jesus according to Luke: A Question of Sources', CBQ 47,
1985,469-85.
May, H.G., R.W. Hamilton, G.N.S. Hunt (eds.), Oxford Bible Atlas (London: Oxford Up,
1962).
Meeks, W.A., R.L. Wilken,Jews and Christians in Antioch in the First Four Centuries of
the Common Era, SBL: Sources for Biblical Study 13 (Missoula: Scholars Press,
1978).
Merkelbach, R., Roman und Mysterium in der Antike (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1962). non
vidi (et 1. Leipoldt, ThLZ 89, 1964, 16f).
Metzger, B.M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (third edition) (London,
New York: United Bible Societies, 1971).
Miles, G.B., G. Trompf, 'Luke and Antiphon: The Theology of Acts 27-28 in the Light of
Pagan Beliefs about Divine Retribution, Pollution and Shipwreck', HThR 69,1976,
259-67.
Minear, P.S., 'Luke's Use of the Birth Stories',in Keck,Studies, 111-30.
Mitchell, S.,Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor: Volume I' The Celts and the
Impact of Roman Rule (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993).
Moscato, M.A., 'Current Theories Regarding the Audience of Luke-Acts', Currents in
Theology and Missio/1 3, 1976, 355-61.
2. Vther commentaries, monographs and articles
419
Motyer, lA, The Message of Amos: The Day of the Lion, 8. ed., The Bible Speaks Today
(Leicester, Downers Grove: IVP, 1993).
Moule, C.ED., 'The Christology of Acts', in Keck, Studies, 159-85.
Moxnes, H., 'Patron-Client Relations and the New Community in Luke-Acts', in Neyrey,
Social World, 241-68.
Moxnes, H., "'He saw that the city was full of idols" (Acts 17.16): Visualizing the World of
the FIrSt Christians', Mighty Minorities? Minorities in Early Christianity - Positions
and Strategies: Essays in Honour of Jacob Jervell on his 70th Birthday 21 May 1995,
eds. D. Hellholm, H. Moxnes, T. Karlsen Seim (Oslo, Copenhagen, Stockholm: Scandinavian University Press (Universitetsforlaget AS 1995),107-31.
MUlier, P., 'Verstehst du auch, was du liest?': Lesen und Verstehen Un Neuen Testament
(Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1994).
MUri, W., 'Beitrag zum Verstllndnis des Thukydides', MH 4, 1947, 251-75 = Thukydides,
ed. H. Herter, WdF 98 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschafl, 1968), 13570.
Mylonas, G.E., Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries (Princeton: PUP; London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul,1962).
Neale, D.A, None but the Sinners: Religious Categories in the Gospel of Luke, JSNT.S 58
(Sheffield: JSOT, 1991).
Nellessen, E., 'Die Einsetzung von Presbytem durch Bamabas und Paulus (Apg 14.23)"
Begegnung mit dem Wort. FS H. Zimmermann, eds. 1. Zmijewski, E. Nellessen, BBB
53 (Bonn: P. Hanstein, 1980).
Neyrey, 1.H., The Passion According to Luke: A Redaction Study of Luke's Soteriology,
Theological Inquiries: Studies in Contemporary Biblical and Theological Problems
(New York, Mahwah: Paulist, 1985).
Neyrey,1.H. (ed.), The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation (Peabody:
Hendrickson, 1991).
Niebuhr, H. Richard, Radical Monotheism and Western Culture (London: Faber & Faber,
1961).
Nilsson, M.P., Geschichte der griechischen Religion: Bis zur griechischen Weltherrschaft,
HAW V.2.1 (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1941).
Nilsson, M.P., Geschichte der griechischen Religion: Die hellenistische und romische Zeit,
4. ed., HAW V.2.2 (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1988).
Nobbs, A., 'Cyprus', in A1CS 11,279-89.
Nock,A.D., 'Note XIV: Paul and the Magus', BC V, 164-88.
Nock, AD., 'The Book of Acts' (= review of Dibelius,Aufsatze), Gnomon 25, 1953,497506 = Essays on Religion and the Ancient World, ed. Z. Stewart (Oxford: Clarendon,
1972), n, 821-32.
Nolland, 1., Lukes Readers: A Study of Luke 4.22-8; Acts 13.46; 18.6; 28.28 and Luke 21.536 (Diss. Cambridge, 1977).
Nolland,l, 'Luke's Use ofXAPU:',NTS 32, 1986,614-20.
Norden, E.,Agnoslos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religioser Rede, 4. ed.
(Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1956).
Ogilvie, RM., The Romans and their Gods in the Age of Augustus (London: Chatto &
Windus, 1969).
aster, RE., 'The Ephesian Artemis as an Opponent of Early Christianity',JAC 19,1976,
2444.
.
aster, RE., 'Ephesus as a Religious Centre Under the Principate, I. Pagani~m before
Constantine',ANRW I1.1B.3 (1990),1661-1728.
O'Rourke,J.J., 'The Military in the NT', CBQ 32, 1970,227-36.
420
VI. Bibliography
Otte, G., 'Neues zum ProzeB gegen Jesus? Die "Schuldfrage" vor dem Hintergrund der
christlich-jUdischen Beziehungen', Neue luristische Wochenschrift 1992.16, 1019-26.
Parsons, M.C., R.I. Pervo, Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress,
1993).
Parsons, M.C, J.B. Tyson (eds.), Cadbury, KnoJC, and Talbert: American Contributions to
the Study of Acts, SBL: Biblical Scholarship in North America (Atlanta: Scholars,
1991).
Pereira, E, Ephesus: Climax of Universalism in Luke-Acts: A Redaction-Critical Study of
Paul's Ephesian Ministry (Acts 18.23-20.1), Jesuit Theological Forum Studies 1
(Anand, India: Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, 1983).
Pervo, R.I., Profit With Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress,1987) ..
Pervo, R.I., "'On Perilous Things": A Response to Beverly R. Gaventa', in Parsons, Cadbury, 37-43.
Pesch, R., R. Kratz, Wundergeschichten Teil II: Rettungswunder, Geschenkwunder, Normenwunder, Femheilungen, So liest man synoptisch: Anleitung und Kommentar zum
Studium der synoptischen Evangelien 3 (Frankfurt am Main: 1. Knecht, 1976).
Peterlin, D., Paul's Letter to the Philippians in the Light ofDisunity in the Church, NT.S 79
(Leiden, New York, Cologne: E.J. Brill, 1995).
Pilhofer, P.,Philippi: Band I.' Die erste christliche Gemeinde Europas, WUNT 87 (TUbingen: lC.B. Mohr, 1995).
Pinnock, c., 'Acts 4.12 - No Other Name under Heaven', in Crockett,Fault,107-15.
PIUmacher, E., 'Acta-Forschung 1974-1982', ThR 48, 1983, 1-56; ThR 49, 1984, 105-69.
Pobee,l, 'The Cry of the Centurion - A Cry of Defeat', in Bammel, Trial, 91-102.
Pohlenz, M., 'Paulus und die Stoa', ZNW 42,1949,69-104.
Pokorny, P., 'Die Romfahrt des Paulus und der antike Roman', ZNW 64,1973, 233-44.
Praeder, S.M., 'Acts 27.1-28.16: Sea Voyages in Ancient Literature and the Theology of
Luke-Acts', CBQ 46,1984,683-706.
.
Radl, W., 'SonderUberlieferungen bei Lukas? uaditionsgeschichtIiche Fragen zu Lk
22.67f; 23.2 und 23.6-12', in Kertelge, Prozejl, 131-47.
Radl, w., Dos Lukas-Evangelium, EdF 261 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche BuchgeseIlschaft,1988).
Ramsay, W.M., The Cities of St. Paul: Their lnfluence on His Life and Thought: The Cities
of Eastern Asia Minor (London: Hodder & Stoughton,1907).
Ramsay, W.M., St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen, 10. ed. (London: Hodder &
Stoughton, 1908).
Rapske, B.M., Paul in Ro';an Custody, in A1CS III (Carlisle: Paternoster; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1994).
Rapske, B.M., 'Acts, Travel and Shipwreck', A1CS II,l-47.
Rasco, E., La theolog(a de Lucas: Origen, desarrollo, orientaciones, AnGr A 21 (Rome:
Universita Gregoriana Editrice, 1976).
Reese,JM., Hellenistic Influence oTlthe Book of Wisdom and its Consequences, AnBib 41
(Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970).
Reicke, B.I., The Gospel of Luke (Richmond: John Knox, 1964; trad. R. Mackenzie)
Lukosevangeliet (Stockholm: Diakonistyrelsens Bokftirlag, 1962).
Reinbold, w., Der alteste Bericht aber den Tod lesu. Literarische Analyse und historische
Kritik der Passionsdarstellungen der Evangelien, BZNW 69 (Berlin, New York: W. de
Gruyter, 1993).
Reinhardt, w., Dos Wacllstum des Gottesvolkes: Untersuchungen zum Gemeindewaclls-
421
tum im lukanischen Doppelwerk aUf dem Hintergrund des Allen Testaments (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995).
Rese, M., 'Neuere Lukas-Arbeiten: Bemerkungen zur gegenwllrtigen Forschungslage',
ThLZ 106,1981,225-37.
Rese,M., 'Das Lukas-Evangelium. Ein Forschungsbericht' ,ANRW II.253 (1985),2258-328.
Rese, M., "'Die Juden" im lukanischen Doppelwerk: Ein Bericht Uber eine Ulngst notige
"neuere" Diskussion', in Bussmann, Treue, 61-79.
Richard, E., 'The Divine Purpose: The Jews and the Gentile Mission (Acts 15)" LukeActs: New Perspectives from the SBL Seminar, ed. C.H. Talbert (New York: Crossroad,1984),188-209.
Richter Reimer, I., Women in the Acts of the Apostles: A Feminist Liberation Perspective
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995; trad. L.M. Maloney) = Frauen in der Apostelgeschichte
des Lukas: Eine feministisch-theologische Exegese (GUtersloh: GUtersloher Verlagshaus, 1992).
Riesner, R., Die FrUhzeit des Apostels Paulus: Studien zur Chronologie, Missionsstrategie
und Theologie, WUNT 71 (TUbingen: IC.B. Mohr, 1994).
Robbins, Y.K., 'The We-Passages in Acts and Ancient Sea Voyages', BR 20, 1975,5-18.
Robbins, Y.K., 'By Land and By Sea: The We-Passages and Ancient Sea Voyages', Perspectives on Luke-Acts, ed. C.H. Talbert (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,1978), 215-42.
Roloff,J., 'Themen und Traditionen urchristlicher Amtstrllgerparllnese',Neues Testament
und Ethik. FS R. Schnackenburg, ed. H. Merklein (Freiburg, Basle, Vienna: Herder,
1989),507-26.
Roloff, 1, Die Kirche im Neuen Testament, GNT 10 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993).
Rosner, B.S., 'Acts and Biblical History', in A1CS 1,65-82.
Safrai, S., 'Religion in Everyday Life', The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical
Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions Il,
eds. S. Safrai,M. Stem, CRINT 1.2 (Assen, Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, 1976),793-833.
Sanders, E.P.,Jesus and Judaism (London: SCM,1985).
Sanders, IT., The Jews in Luke-Acts (London: SCM,1987).
Sawyer, J.F.A., 'Why is a Solar Eclipse Mentioned in the Passion Narrative (Luke
XXIII.44-45)?, ,lThS NS 23, 1972,124-28.
Schalit, A., KiJnig Herodes: Der Mann und sein Werk, SJ 4 (Berlin, New York: W. de
Gruyter, 1969).
Schelkle, K.H., Theology of the New Testament I: Creation: World-Time-Man (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1971; trad. W.A. Jurgens) = Theologie des Neuen Testaments I: SchiJpfung: Welt - Zeit - Mensch, KBANT (DUsseldorf: Patmos,1968).
Schenk, w., 'Glaube im lukanischen Doppelwerk', Glaube im Neuen Testament. FS H.
Binder, eds. F. Hahn, H. Klein, BThSt 7 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1982),
69-92.
Schlosser, 1., 'Les jours de Noe et de Lot A propos de Luc, XVII,26-30', RB 80,1973,13-36.
Schmid, W., 'Die Rede des Apostels Paulus vor den Philosophen und Areopagiten in
Athen', Philologus 95,1942143,79-120.
Schnackenburg, R., 'Episkopos und Hirtenamt (zu Apg 20.28)" Episkopus: Studien aber
das Bischofsamt. FS M. von Faulhaber (Ratisbon: F. Pustet, 1949) = Schriften zum
Neuen Testament: Exegese in Fortschritt und Wandel (Munich: Kllsel,1971), 247-67.
Schnackenburg, R., 'Lk 13.31-33: Eine Studie zur lukanischen Redaktion und Theologie',
in Bussmann, Treue, 229-41.
Schneider, G., 'Das Verfahren gegen Jesus in der Sicht des dritten Evangeliums (Lk 22.542325): Redaktionskritik und historische Rilckfrage', in Kertelge,ProzefJ,111-30.
422
VI. Bibliography
Schnelle, u., Neutestamentliche Anthropologie: Jesus - Paulus - Johannes, BThSt 18

(Neukirchen-Vluyn:Neukirchener,1991).
SchneUe, u., Einleitung in das Neue Testament. UTB.W: Theologie 1830 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994).
SchneUe, u., 'Neutestamentliche Anthropologie: Ein Forschungsbericht',ANRW 11.26.3.3
Schreckenberg, H., Die christlichen Adversus-!udaeos-Texte und ihr literarisches und historisches Umfeld (1.-11. !h.), 3. ed., EHS.T 172 (Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Berne:
P. Lang, 1995).
Schrenk, G., 'Urchristliche Missionspredigt im ersten lahrhundert', Auf dem Grunde der
Apostel und Propheten. FS Th. Wurm, ed. M. Loeser (Stuttgart: Quell, 1948),51-66 =
Studien zu Paulus, AThANT 26 (ZUrich: Zwingli, 1954), 131-48.
SchUrer, E., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B. C - A.D.
135), eds. G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Black, rev. ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973-87).
SchUrmann, H., 'Gemeinde als Bruderschaft', Ursprung und Gestalt: EriJrterungen und
Besinnungen zum Neuen Testament, KBANT (DUsseldorf: Patmos, 1970), 61-73.
SchUrmann, H., ..' ... und Lehrer": Die geistliche Eigenart des Lehrdienstes und sein Verhiiltnis zu anderen geistlichen Diensten irn neutestamentlichen Zeitalter', Orientierungen am Neuen Testament: Exegetische GespriJchsbeitriJge, KBANT (DUsseldorf: Patmos, 1978), 116-56.
SchUtz, F., Der leidende Christus: Die angefochtene Gemeinde und dos Christuskerygma der
lukanischen Schriften, BWANT 89 (Stuttgart, Berlin, Cologne: W. Kohlliammer, 1969).
Schulz, HJ., Die apostolische Herkunft der Evangelien: Mit einem Vorwort von Rudolf
Schnackenburg, 2. ed., QD 145 (Freiburg, Basle, Vienna: Herder, 1995).
Schwank, B., 'Und so kamen wir nach Rom (Apg 28.14): Reisenotizen zu den letzten
beiden Kapiteln der Apostelgeschichte', EuA 36,1960,169-92.
Schwartz,l, 'Peter and Ben Stada in Lydda', in A1CS IY,391-414.
Schweitzer, A., Geschichte der paulinischen Forschung (TUbingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1911).
Schweitzer,A., The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, 2. ed. (Londpn: A. & c. Black, 1953) =
Die Mystik des Aposteis Paulus (TUbingen: lC.B. Mohr, 1930).
Scott,J.M., 'Luke's Geographical Horizon', in A1CS Il,483-544.
Seccombe, D.P., 'Luke and Isaiah', NTS 27, 1981, 252-59.
Selwyn, E.G., The First Epistle of St. Peter: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes and
Essays, 2. ed. (1947; repr. London: Macmillan, 1958).
Siegert, E,Drei hel/enistisch-jildische Predigten: Ps.-Philon, "Ober !ona", "Ober Simson"
und "Ober die Gottesbezeichnung 'wohltiltig verzehrendes Feuer''': Obersetzung aus
dem Armenischen und sprachliche ErliJuterungen, WUNT 20 (TUbingen: IC.B.
Mohr, 1980) (= Predigten).
Siegert, F., Drei hellenistisch-jUdische Predigten: Ps.Philon, "Ober Jona", "Ober !ona"
(Fragment) und "Ober Simson": Kommentar nebst Beobachtungen zur hellenistischen Vorgeschichte der Bibelhermeneutik, WUNT 61 (TUbingen: IC.B. Mohr, 1992)
(= Kommentar).
Siegert, E, 'Die !ieiden in der pseudo-philonischen Predigt De Jona', Die Heiden: Juden,
Christen und das Problem des Fremden, eds. R. Feldmeier, U. Heckel, WUNT 70
(TUbingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1994), 52-58.
Sigountos,J.G., 'Did Early Christians Believe Pagan Religions Could Save?', in Crockett,
Fault,229-41.
Smith, I, The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul: With Dissertations on the Life and Writ-
Forthcoming, kindly made available to me by the author.
2. Other commelllanes, monographs and articles
423
ings of St. Luke and Ships and Navigation of the Ancients,3. ed. (London: Longmans,
Green & Co., 1866).
Souter,A.,A Pocket Lexicon to the Greek New Testament (1916;repr. Oxford: Clarendon,
1946).
Spicq, C., Dieu et r homme selon le Nouveau Testament, LeDiv 29 (Paris: Les :Editions du
Cerf, 1961).
Spicq, C., Theological Lexicon of the New Testament (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994; trad.
1.0. Emest) = Notes de lexicographie Neo-Testamentaire, OBO 22.1-3 (Freiburg, CH:
Universitiltsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,1978-82).'
Squires, IT., The Plan of God in Luke-Acts, MSSNTS 76 (Cambridge: CUp, 1993).
Stahl, H.-P., Thukydides: Die Stellung des Menschen im geschichtlichen ProloejJ, Zetemata
40 (Munich: C.H. Beck,1966).
Stegemann, W., "'Licht der. Volker" bei Lukas', in Bussmann, Treue, 81-97.
Stengel, P., Die griechischen Kultusaltertamer, 3. ed., HAW Y.3 (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1920).
Stenschke, C.w., 'Die Bedeutung der Propheten und des Prophetenwortes der Vergangenheit fUr das lukanische Menschenbild',lETh 10,1996,123-48.
Stenschke, C.W., 'The Need for Salvation', in MarshaIl, Witness, 125-44.
Stern, M., 'The Reign of Herod and the Herodian Dynasty' in S. Safrai, M. Stern (eds.),
The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions, eds. S. Safrai, M. Stern, 2. ed.,
CRINT I.1 (Assen: van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 216-307.
Stonehouse, N.B., The Areopagus Address, The Tyndale NT Lecture for 1949 (London:
Tyndale, 1949) = Paul Before the Areopagus and Other New Testament Studies (London: 'JYndale, 1957), 1-40.
Strecker, G., Theologie des Neuen Testaments: Bearbeitel, ergiinzt und herausgegeben von
Friedrich Wilhelm Horn, GLB (Berlin, New York: W. de Gruyter,1996).
Strelan, R., Paul, Artemis, and the Jews in Ephesus, BZNW 80 (Berlin, New York: W. de
Gruyter, 1996).
Stuhlmacher, P., Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments l. Grundlegung: Von Jesus zu
Paulus (Gtlttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992).
Sylva, D.D., 'The Temple Curtain and Jesus' Death in the Gospel of Luke',JBL 105,1986,
239-50.
Tachau, P., 'Einsl' und 'Jetzt' im Neuen Testament: Beobachtungen zu einem urdlristlichen
Predigtschema in der neutestamentlichen Briefliteralur und zu seiner Vorgeschichte,
FRLANT 105 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,1972).
Theger, J.-W., 'Paulus und Lukas Ober den Menschen', ZNW 71, 1980, 96-108.
Taeger, 1.-w., Der Mensch und sein Heil: Studien zurn BUd des Menschen und lour Sicht
der Bekehrung bei Lukas, StNT 14 (Gtltersloh: G. Mohn, 1982).
Tajra, H.W., The Trial of St: PauL A Juridical Exegesis of the Second Half of the Acts of the
Apostles, WUNT 11.35 (Ttlbingen: IC.B. Mohr, 1989).
Talbert, C.H., Luke and the Gnostics: An Examination of the Lukan Purpose (Nashville:
Abingdon, 1966; cf. idem, 'An Anti-Gnostic Tendency in Lukan Christology', NTS 14,
1967/68,259-71).
Talbert, C.H., 'Shifting Sands: The Recent Study of the Gospel of Luke', Interp. 30,1976,
381-95.
TheiBen, G., Urchristliche Wundergeschichten: Ein Beitrag zur formgeschichtlichen Erforschung der synoptischen Evangelien, StNT 8 (GUtersloh: G. Mohn, 1974).
Diverging pagination between both editions, we follow the English edition.
424
VI. Bibliography
TheiBen, G., Lokalkolorit und Zeitgeschichte in den Evangelien: Ein Beitrag ,ur Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, NTOA 8 (Freiburg, CH: Universitl1tsverlag;
GllUingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989).
Thornton, e.-I., Der Zeuge des Zeugen: Lukas als Historiker der Paulusreisen, WUNT 56
(TUbingen: I.C.R Mohr, 1991).
Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, Penguin Classics (1954; repr. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1982; trad. R. Warner).
Thyen, H. Studien zur SUndenvergebung im Neuen Testament und seinen alllestamentlichen und jpUdischen Vorausset,ungen, FRLANT 96 (Gllttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1970).
Tienou, T., 'Eternity in Their Hearts?', in Crockett, Fault, 209-15.
Thorn, K. van der, R Becking, P.W. van der Horst (eds.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Leiden, New York, Cologne: E.l Brill, 1995).
Torrance, T.E, 'Phusikos kai Theologikos Logos: St Paul and Athenagoras at Athens',
SJTh 41, 1988, 11-26.
']}avis, S., 'Review ofES. Spencer, The Portrait of Philip in Acts: A Study of Roles and Relations,ISNT.s 67 (Sheffield: ISOT, 1992)" EQ 66,1994, 282f.
Trebilco, P.R., 'Paul and Silas - "Servants of the Most High God" (Acts 16.16-18)'JSNT
36,1989,51-73.
']}ebilco, P.R.,lewish Communities in Asia Minor, MSSNTS 69 (Cambridge: CUp, 1991).
']}eblico, P.R., 'Asia', in AICS n,291-362.
']}emel, R, 'A propos d' Actes 20.7-12: Puissance du thaumaturge ou du temoin?', RThPh
112,1980,359-69.
Thrner, N., A Grammar of New Testament Greek by James Hope Moul/on: Volume III
Syntax (Edinburgh:T.& T. Clark, 1988).
Unnik, W.e. van, 'Luke-Acts, a Storm-Center in Contemporary Scholarship', in Keck,
Studies, 15-32.
Vielhauer,Ph., 'On the "Paulinism" of Acts', The Perkins School of Theology Journal 17,
1963,5-17 (trad. W.C. Robinson, Y.P. Furnish) =Keck,Studies, 33-50 ='Zum "Paulinismus" der Apostelgeschichte', EvTh 10,1950151,1-15 = Aufsi1lze zum Neuen Testament, TB (NT) 31 (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1965), 9-27.
Vielhauer,Ph., Geschichte der urchristlichen LUeratur: Einleitung in das Neue Testament, die
Apokryphen und die Apostolischen Vltter, GLB (Berlin, New York: W. de Gruyter,
1975).
Vielhauer, Ph., Oikodome: Aufsi1lze zurn Neuen Testament Band 11, ed. G. Klein, TB (NT)
65 (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1979).
Vogt, E., "'Pax hominibus bonae voluntatis" (Lc 2.14)" Bib. 34,1953,427-29 = '''Peace
among Men of God's Good Pleasure" Lk 2.14', The Scrolls and the New Testament,
ed. K. Stendahl (New York: Harper, 1957), 114-17.
Voss, G., Die Christologie der lukanischen Schriften in GrundzUgen, SN 2 (paris, Bruges:
Desclee de Brouwer, 1965).
Walaskay, P.W., ~nd so we Came to Rome': The Political Perspective of St. Luke,
MSSNTS 49 (Cambridge: CUp, 1983).
Walker, P.W.L.,lesus and the Holy City: New Testament Perspectives on Jerusalem (Grand
Rapids, Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, 1996).
Weatherly, lA., Jewish Responsibility for the Death of Jesus in Luke-Acts, JSNT.S 106
(Sheffield: SAP, 1994).
Wegner, u., Der Rauptmann von Kafarnaum (Mt 7.28a; 8,5-10.13 par Lk ZI-IO): Ein
Beitrag zur Q-Forschung, WUNT 11.14 (TUbingen: le.B. Mohr, 1985).
425
Weiser, A., Die Knechtsgleichnisse in den synoptischen Evangelien, StANT 29 (Munich:

Kiisel,1971).
WeiB, B., Lehrbuch der Biblischen Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 2. ed. (Berlin: W.
Hertz, 1873).
Wendland, P., Die hellenistisch-riimische Kultur in ihren Beziehungen zum Judentum und
Christentum, 4. ed., HNT 2 (TUbingen: lC.B. Mohr, 1972).
Wheeler Robinson, H., The Christian Doctrine of Man, 3. ed. (1926; repr. Edinburgh: T.&
T. Clark, 1947).
Widbin, B.R., 'Salvation for People Outside Israel's Covenant', in Crockett, Fault, 73-83.
Wiefel, W., 'Review of Taeger, Mensch', ThLZ 114,1989,272t.
Wieser,F.E., Die Abrahamsvorstellungen im Neuen Testament, EHS.T 317 (Berne, Frankfurt am Main, New York: P. Lang, 1987).
Wilckens, U, 'Interpreting Luke-Acts in a Period of Existentialist Theology', in Keck,
Studies, 60-83 = 'Lukas und Paulus unter dem Aspekt dialektisch-theologisch beeinfluBter Exegese', Rechtfertigung als Freiheit: Paulusstudien (Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener,1974),l71-202.
Wilckens, U, Die Missionsreden der Aposlelgeschichte: Form- und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, 3. ed., WMANT 5 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: N eukirchener, 1974).
Williger, E., Hagios: Untersuchungen zur Terminologie des H eiligen in den hellenisch-hellenistischen Religionen, RVV XIX. 1 (GieBen: A. Topelmann, 1922).
Wilson, S.G.,The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts, MSSNTS 23 (Cambridge: CUp, 1973).
Wilson, S.G., Luke and the Law, MSSNTS 50 (Cambridge: CUp, 1983).
Winston, D., The Wisdom of Solomon. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AncB 43 (Garden City: Doubleday,1979).
Winter,B.W., 'The Imperial CUlt',in A1CS Il,93-103.
Winter, B. w., 'Acts and Food Shortages', in Al CS n,59-78.
Winter, B.W., Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians as Benefactors and Citizens, First
Century Christians in the Graeco-Roman World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster,1994).
Winter, B.W., 'On Introducing Gods to Athens: An Alternative Reading of Acts 17.1820', TynB 47, 1996,71-90.
Winter,P., On the Trial ofJesus,eds. T.A. Burkill, G. Vermes,2.ed.,Sl 1 (Berlin, New York:
w. de Gruyter,1974).
Witherington IlI,B., 'Not so Idle Thoughts about Eidolothuton', TynB 44, 1993,237-54.
Witherington Ill, B., Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster,1994).
Wurm, K., Rechtfertigung und Heil. Eine Untersuchung zur Theologie des Lukas unter dem
Aspekt 'Lukas und Paulus' (Diss. Heidelberg, 1978). lion vidi (ct. Radl, Ertrage, 106).
Wycherley, R.R., 'St. Paul at Athens' ,JThS NS 19,1968,619.
Xenophon of Ephesus, 'An Ephesian Tale', Collected Ancient Greek Novels, ed. B.P. Reardon (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1989; trad. G.
Anderson).
Zimmermann, A.E., Die urchristlichen Lehrer: Studien zum Tradentenkreis der .3t.3aO'"aAOt imfri1hen Urchristentum, WUNT 11.12 (TUbingen: l.C.B. Mohr,1984).
Zingg, P., Das Wachsen der Kirche: Beitrage zur Frage der lukanischen Redaktion und
Theologie, OBO 3 (Freiburg, CH: Universit!ltsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht,1974).
Index of References
1. Old Testament
Genesis
1.1,7,16,21,25,27 289
4.8-10 57
6.5f,l1-13 58
9.4 76
11.4,8 215
15.16 287
18.20 56,58
19.4-9,14 56,58
Ch34 65
48.16 313
50.24f 290
19.15 111
21.17 61
24.15 61
Ch28 189
28.9f 313
28.28 262
29.17 365
30.19 93
31.28 93
32.1 93
32.17 192
33.3f 261
Exodus
Joshua
3.16 290
4.11 262
17.15 207
19.5 290
19.18 201
20.11 186
32.10 17
24.14 62
LevUicus
17.7 192
Ch 18 75
18.16 127
18.24 287
19.12 61
20.21 127
26.41 305
27.30 269
Numbers
8.6 290
Deuteronomy
4.26 93
10.16 305
Ch 11 189
14.2 290
17.6 111
18.15 109
19.14 17
Psalms
2.lf 61,128, 14lf, 379
2.2 136
2.10 61
14.lfLXX 153
18.16 92
37 72
69.21 LXX 115
72.10f,17 269
87 269
104.7 92
106.9 92
106.19-23 17
106.37 192
107.23-32 92
146.6 186
Ruth
Ch2 61
1 Samuel
16.9LXX 276
I Kings
8.16LXX 276
8.43 313
17.1,12 265
17.14-16 184
18.7 151
2 Kings
1.13 151
2.15 151
5.15-18 320
5.18 55
12.14f 61
Ch 17 64f
2 Chronicles
11.15 186
Esther
4.17pLXX 186
Isaiah
1.2 93
L3 49,399
2.2-4 269
2.3 320
2.20 186
4.1 313
6.4 201
6.9f 252,261
6.10 179
19.18-25 269
29.18f 262
31.5 296
31.6 264
35.5f 262
37.12 171,262
37.16-29 187
Ch 40-48 171,262
40.3-5 261
40.5 277
40.18-20 263
41.4 171,262
42.2 269
42.5f 262
42.6 171,246, 262f, 277
42.7 171,262f
427
Index of References
42.8 262
42.16 252,262
42.17 171,262f
42.18-21 262
43.8 262
43.21 296
44.8-20 263
45.20 263f
45.22,24f 264
46.lf 171,262,264
46.6-8 264
49.6 171,261,263,277
49.8 274
49.9 171,246
49.12 320
49.24f 263
52.7 271
52.10 277
53.7f 261
53.12 140,261
55.3 261
56.7 261
57.19 271
58.6 365
59.10 262
Ch 60 269
61.1 f 262f, 274
61.1-11 262
66.1f 261
Jeremiah
1.5-8 262
2.5 186
4.4 305
5.14 49
7.10 313
8.19 186
9.26LXX 305
12.14-17 277
15.16 313
22.12 61
23.1-4 355
27.1-11 265
31.7 262
Ezekiel
20.13 17
23.3 62
23.38f 89
28.1,12,2lf 265
Ch 34 355
44.6f LXX 305
Hosea
9.12 313
Jonah
1.2 56,278, 394f

1.3-6,9f,14 92
1.16 9lf
3.1-4 56
3.2 278
3.5,8 57
3.10 57,394
Micah
3.1-3 355
4.lf 320
6.lf 93
6.5 269
Nahum
1.4 92
Zechariah
Ch 11 355
14.4 262
5.11 186
Maleachi
Amos
2.11 290
5.26 63
Ch9 291
1.11 269
3.5 61
3.17 296
3.23 LXX 270
2. New Testament
Matthew
Mark
1.2 277
Ch 2 129
2.1-12 232
10.5 66
12.5 89
17.18 241
20.1-15 61
23.15 313
27.5 200
27.15 125
27.24 122
27.34 115
27.50f 201
28.2 201
28.19 306
6.14-29 128f
7.2lf 364
7.24-30 9
10.17-19,23-27 43
14.41 139
15.6 125
15.23,35f 115
Luke
1.1-4 343f
1.4 341,361
1.5 128
1.6 149,269
1.12 202
1.14 370
1.15 323
1.15-53 281
1.16 251
1.18 150
1.19 267
1.20 150
1.29 202
1.35,41 323
1.41-43 334,370
1.44 370
1.47 279f,370
1.54 358
1.67 323,334
1.68 290
1.69 279
1.70 56,323
1.71 279
1.72 323
428
1.73 296
1.77 31,161,253,267,
271,279, 296f, 364, 385,
387
1.77f 290
1.77-79 149
1.78f 247,271
1.79 31,272
2.1 359
2.lf 58,130
2.10 271,281
2.11 179,279,331
2.14 271,280f
2.20 137,369
2.22-24 269
2.23 323
2.25 31,149,334,345
2.25f 323
2.26 331
2.28f 137
2.29 271
2.30 31,279,281
2.30-32 104,149,246,261,
263,277
2.32 130,171,250,313
2.39 269
2.40,52 57
Index of References
4.4 59
4.5f 133,168,303,381
4.5-7 242
4.5-8 249f,304
4.12 170
4.14 104,109
4.15 280
4.17 56
4.18 267,274,400
4.18f 262f
4.22 295
4.23 105,128,241
4.24 56
4.25 296,334
4.25f 367
4.25-27 265
4.26 98, 184, 277,329
4.26f 55,320
4.27 56,111,127,278
4.29f 107,223
4.3lf 280
4.31-41 105
4.33 241,273
4.33-37 107
4.34 108,323
4.36 108
4.37 109
4.39f 106
4.40-42 199
4.41 107,263,331
4.42 108
4.43 267,271
3.1 127f, 130,359

3.1f 117f
3.3 31,161,255,257
3.3-6 129
3.4 56
3.4-6 131,261
3.6 253,277,279
3.7 256
3.10-14 228,256,335
3.14 256f
3.15 331
3.16 323
3.18 228,267
3.19 127f, 254, 364, 384
3.19f 30, 126, 129, 13lf,
230,249,253,257,266,
359,386
3.22 46,86,281,323
3.23-38 46,277,303
3.38 46f,400f
5.1 104
5.1-11 308
5.3 280
5.8 31,139
5.10 108
5.11 325
5.15 108f
5.17 280
5.17-24 396
5.25f 137
5.26 108,134
5.27 108,287,325
5.30ff 29,139
5.31 241
5.32 255
5.34f 403
4.1-13 250
4.2 170
6.1-11 269
6.6 280
6.9 278
6.12-16 287
6.12-19 354
6.12-49 326
6.17 109,112,145f,256,
281,329
6.17-19 104f
6.17-49 105
6.21 348
6.23 29,369
6.25 348
6.30 357
6.37 266
6.38 296
6.40 325
6.42 252
6.45,47 105
7.1 105
7.1-10 34f, 104,106,139,
149,153
7.2-10 112
7.4f,7f 106
7.8 397
7.11-17 130,191
7.15 112
7.16 108f,134,290
7.17 109
7.18-23 133
7.21 297
7.22 262
7.24-28 129
7.25 117,186,219,348,
359
7.29 256
7.29f 128f
7.34 29
7.35 57
7.36 372
7.36-50 41,373
7.38 321
7.40 280
7.42f 297
7.44 321
7.44-46 372
7.50 111,180,271,278
7.51 105
8.1
8.lf
8.2
8.3
267
170
108,235,372
128,362
Index of References
8.4-8 59
8.10 163,245,261,287,
292,296,400
8.11-15 168
8.1H 250
8.12 48,169-71,180,195,
240,278,292,347
8.12-15 59,170
8.13 170,351,371
8.13-15 347-49
8.14 170,380
8.15 169f, 274, 400
8.18 296f
8.19,21 329
8.24 92
8.25 108
8.26-39 101,106,145,256
8.27-30 240
8.28 108,321
8.32f 61,76,199,368
8.35 105,139,306,308,
325
8.35-39 321
8.36 112,278
8.37 105,112,236
8.38 139,306,308,325
8.39 108,112,306,308
8.40-42 130
8.43 241
8.47 202
8.48 180,271,278
8.49 280
8.49-56 130
8.50 180,278
9.1 110,250, 296f
9.2 235,396
9.5 285,336
9.6 235,250,267
9.7 128,131,133
9.8 69
9.7-9 126,130-32,134,
228,249,259
9.9 127,132f
9.19 69
9.20 131,331
9.22 110,113
9.23 327
9.23-27 325
9.24 278
9.26 323
9.28-36 130
9.31 110
9.33 110,114
9.37-43 199
9.38 280
9.41 324
9.43 108
9.44 110,113,139
9.45 110,114
9.51 107
9.52 68
9.52f 236
9.52-56 77,109,146
9.53 68,11lf,374
9.57 325
9.57-62 327
9.59 252,325,348,403
9.61 252,325,348
10.1 110
10.3 110,245,351
10.5-8 110
10.7 61
10.9 235
10.11 110,336
10.12-14 56,101
10.13 164,255,403
ID.13f 104,265,329
10.13-15 188
10.14 266
10.17 108,250,369
10.18 108,304
10.19 296f
10.20 369,371
10.21 187,280f,296,370
10.22 287,296
10.25 280
10.25-35 68
10.27 401
10.27f 342
10.29-37 59,110,254
10.33-35 109
10.34 372
10.39 321
11.1 280
11.4 170
11.5-8 254
11.9 296
11.13 296f,323
11.14-23 108
11.14-28 365
11.16 128,134,371
429
11.18 250
11.19 241
11.21 252,271
11.2lf 249,263,303
11.24-26 108
11.29 128,296,371
11.29-32 112,134
11.30 56,98,101,105,
139,265,278,382,394,
403
11.30-32 402
11.31 57,98,104,172,
266,307,382
11.32 47,56,98,101,105,
139,146,164,172,255,
265f,269,278,311, 320,
382,394,403
11.33 250,307
11.33-36 38
11.37-41 358
11.37-54 274
11.38 252
11.40 187
11.42 269
11.45 280
11.47-52 29
11.49 57
11.50 56,98
l1.50f 269,400
1l.53f 132
12.1 252,355
12.5 272
12.11f 348
12.12 275
12.13 280
12.13-21 59
12.16-21 254
12.19 348,370
12.22 57
12.29f 57f, 97,254,324,
357,367,380
12.30 7,93,98,247,256,
327,334,348,364,370,
374,40lf
12.32 281,296f
12.33 368
12.35-38 353,357
12.39f 353
12.41-46 357
12.42 324
12.42-48 353,357
4JU
12.45f 324
12.45-48 254
12.47f 266
12.48 296
12.5lf 348
12.54-59 38,221
12.58 122
13.1 117-20,135,249
13.2 29
13.2-5 31
13.3 163
13.3-5 95,266
13.4 29
13.5 163
13.10 280
13.11 241
13.13 137
13.16 263
13.22 107,280
13.23 278
13.26 280
13.28 172,329
13.29 172,320
13.31 128
13.3lf 126,132
13.31-33 107
13.32 110
13.34 133
13.35 133,266
14.1 141
14.7-14 254
14.13,21 262
14.25-35 327
14.26f 348
14.28,31 252
14.32 271
14.33 348
15.1f 31
15.3ff 30
15.5 371
15.7 29,255,371
15.10 255,371
15.11-32 46,59,254
15.12 61
15.13 348,369
15.13-20 61
15.14 296
15.15 77,105,293
15.15f 62,76,374
index oj Rejerence.l
15.16 358,366
15.17 366
15.17-20 47
15.18 29,138
15.20 41
15.21 138
15.23 61,370
15.24 371
15.26 29
15.29 370
15.30 185,348
15.32 29,370f
16.1-9 59,254,357
16.8 247
16.8f 365
16.15 274
16.16 27,267
16.18 128
16.19 370
16.19-31 59,254,348
16.23f 399
17.3 355
17.7-10 353,356f
17.10 354
17.11 107,146
17.11-16 109
17.11-19 67f, 111, 145.
149,153
17.12-19 112
17.13-15 146
17.15 137
17.15-19 139
17.17 110
17.18 93
17.19 180,278
17.26f 159
17.26-29 58,80,265,324,
327,334,364,380
17.27 247,399,403
17.27f 195,247,266,348,
357,359,367,370,399
17.27-29 188
17.27-33 254
17.28f 374
17.29 101,399
17.33 59
18.1-8 134,219,254
18.3 29
18.6 365
18.9-14 59,105
18.11 185
18.12 285
18.13 31, 138f
18.15f 62
18.18-26 43,230
18.19 280
18.22 285,325.327.362,
368
18.22-24 348
18.26 278
18.28 325
18.28-30 327
18.32 113f, 134, 139, 143,
175
] 8.32f 113,330
18.34 110,114
18.35-43 262
18.42 180,278
18.43 137,325,327
19.6 369,371
19.8 138,371
19.9 279
19.10 278,304
19.11-27 254,266,353
19.26 296f
19.27 272
19.37 369
19.39 280
19.42-44 59,266
19.44 290
19.46 261
19.47 122,280
20.1 267,280
20.9-19 254
20.20 117,122f
20.20-26 118
20.21 280
20.27 128, 130
20.28 280
20.34-36 247
20.39 280
20.46 355
20.47 266,358
21.4 348
21.7 280
21.8 343
21.12-19 348
21.15 57,295-97
1lltJe~ Of J-I.ejerences
21.22 143
21.24 214
21.24-26 143
21.24-28 59,100
21.25 232
21.34 59,355
21.34-36 348
21.37 280
21.37f 336
221 296
22.2 122
22.3 177,192,242,247,
249,250
22.3f 304
22.3-5 170
22.4 122
22.5 247,304,371
22.6 122
22.11 280
22.14 247
22.19 369
22.22 331
22.24-27 354,357
22.25 73,117,128,135,
144,219,242,249,355,
359
22.25f 129,348
22.31 242,250,304, 345
22.32 250,345
22.37 140,261
22.39 325
22.43f 130
22.45 108
22.47,52 114
22.53 242,248,304
22.54 325
22.59 118
22.61 130
22.62 138
22.63 121
22.63-70 128
22.64 116
22.66 118
23.1 249
23.1-7 117f
23.1-25 90,114, 122f,219,
249
23.2 120f, 134
23.2f 133
23.3 120,382
23.4 120f,382
23.5 118-20,280
23.6 119
23.6-11 135
23.6-12 128,133,330
23.6-16 125
23.7 127f
23.7-12 126,129,133,142
23.7-15 132
23.8 104, 131,228,371
23.9 119
23.11 116,120f
23.12 120
23.12-25 117
23.13 140f
23.13-17 120
23.13-35 141
23.14 119-21
23.15 128,134f
23.16 121
23.17 125
23.18 121,125
23.18-25 121
23.19 97,122,125
23.23 140
23.23-25 73
23.24 122
23.25 97,122,125
23.26 113-16,330
23.26-52 114
. 23.27-31 117,143
23.33 330
23.33f 113f
23.34 117,136, 143f
23.35 116f, 128, 141, 278
23.36f 121,144
23.36-38 113-15,330
23.37 117,278
23.39 128,278
23.39-43 136
23.40 266
23.43 272
23.44 248
23.44-47 105
23.46 136f
23.47 115f, 136, 144, 236
23.48 138
23.50 137,149
23.50-56 138
23.52 116f, 123, 139
23.52f 191
23.53 141
23.56 191
24.1 191
24.5 202,228
24.7 60, 139f, 143f
24.14f 341
24.16 258
24.19 238
24.20 139-41,266
24.25-27 110,114,147
24.26 331
24.27 238,258
24.31f 246,258
24.35 258
24.37 202,228
24.41 108, 369
24.44-47 5,110,114,147
24.45 246,258
24.46 331
24.47 156,161, 163f, 254f,
277
24.52 369
John
1.28 257
3.23 257
4.4-42 109
4.9 66
4.25 145
4.29,39 308
8.48 66
10.16 355
11.5lf 355
12.31 249
12.20f 355
13.26f,30 247
14.30 249
16.11 249
18.3,12 114
18.33-19.12 125
19.13 122
19.28-30 115
21.16 356
Acts
1.1 343
1.1-3 1
1.3 258
1.6 269
1.7 214
1.8 68,144,168,242,269,
278
432
U5! 328
1.16 61,330
1.16-20 258
1.18 72,200,365
Ch2 48
2.2-4 252
2.3f 333
2.4 67,296f
2.5 269
2.11 311,382
2.14 60,334
2.17! 333
2.19 296
2.21 111,278,282
2.22 60, 140,289
2.23 60,76,98, 139f, 143,
253,255,269,321,331,
336
2.24 255,272
2.25 328,370
2.26 370
2.27 296f,323
2.28 61,272,370
2.29 328,330
230f 61
2.31 331
2.33 328,333
2.36 140,252,289,331
2.36-40 143
2.37 223,259,330
2.38 12,47,139,161,255,
297,323,363,370
239 285,328
2.40 153,190,223,278,
282,345
2.41 252,282
2.42 329,335,338,369
2.42-47 328
2.44 329
2.46 334, 369f
2.47 278,282
3.1 150
3.2 180
3.2-8 96
3.4-7 151
3.6 72,236,275
3.7 346
3.8-10 108
3.11-16 45
3.12 186
Index of References
3.12-16 72
3.13 140
3.13-15 143,255
3.14 137,140,297,323
3.15 140,272
3.16 45,194,275,346
3.17 140f,328,330
3.17-19 143
3.18 331
3.19 12,253,255,267
3.20 331
3.21 47,269f,323
3.22 109,285,328
3.26 143, 252f, 267,270
4.1 128
4.2 336
45 141,353
4.5-12 161
4.6 285
4.7 275
4.8 141,295,334,353
4.9 241,278
4.10 275
4.10-12 236
4.12 7,154,179,205,238,
. 275,278f,296f,329,387
4.13 334
4.17 185
4.18 336
4.21 137
4.23 353
4.24 186f,201,234,269,
277,289
4.24-30 142
4.25f 4,61,80,97,99,
128,133,215,237,249,
272,278,326,330,359,
369,379
4.25-27 139f, 143f, 174
4.26 187,331
4.27 99,128,135, 14lf,323
4.28 143,308
4.29 296
4.30 236,308,323
4.31 48,295,334
4.32 48,201,329
4.32-37 192,328,334
4.32-5.11 335
4.33 295
4.34-37 366
4.36 285
436f 345
5.1-11 48,192,362
'5.3 170,365
53f 250,363
5.4 11
5.6,10 191
5.11 331
5.12-14 108
5.12-16 151
5.13 293
5.15 224
5.19 130,263
5.20 272
5.21 336
5.22-25 73
5.25,28 336
5.29 160
5.30 161
5.31 12,156,160-62,179,
255, 267f, 275,279,297
5.32 160
5.34-39 88
5.36 69
5.38f 84
539 272,331
5.41 369
5.42 178f, 267, 335f, 344
6.1f 325
6.1-6 353
6.3 57,291,328,330
6.5 267,311,382
6.7 258,292,325
6.8 236,295
6.10 57,295,334
6.10-7.58 82
6.12 353
6.13 87,323
6.14 198
7.2 57,287,303,328
7.2-5 328
7.2-53 337
7.3 79,379
7.5 296,298
7.6 73,93,394
7.6f 62,100,266
7.7 101
7.8 296
7.9 29,334
7.10 57,295f,351
433
Index of References
7.11 334,366
7.12f 252
7.17 328
7.19 62,73,379
7.22 57,62,98,104
7.23 290,328,345
7.24 379
7.24-28 62
7.25 29,279,287,296,328
7.26 202,271,328
7.27 29
7.30-34 62,287
7.33 323
7.34 266,379
7.35 29,62
7.36 379
7.36-38 62
7.37 109,328
7.38 61,80,269,296,313,
331,370
7.39-41 29
7.39-43 17,62,98,101,378
7040-43 204,266, 323
7.41 99,370
7042 232,251,253
7043 98f,232,251,264
7.44 313
7045 266
7A5f 370
7.47 29
7.47-50 83
7.48 63,86,213,234
7A8f 99
7048-50 186f
7A9f 261
7.50 289,308
7.51 304,364
7.51-53 29
7.52 137
7.53 61,269
7.54-59 223
7.55 295,334
7.59f 154,371
7.60 29,47,364
8.1 331
8.1-3 351
8.3 331
804 178f,267f
804-13 145
8.4-40 267
8.5 331
8.5-7 146
8.5-8 108
8.5-14 56
8.5-25 53,68
8.6 305
8.6f 70,235
8.6-8 64
8.6-10 95,104f
8.6-12 187
8.6f 362
8.7 99,101,225,240,242,
273,315
8.7f 236
8.7-11 55,145
8.8 371
8.9 73,321,367
8.9f 151
8.9-11 64,99,139,145f,
166,174
8.11 70,147,367
8.12 146, 178f, 236f, 267,
305,371
8.12f 64,145,306-08,323
8.13 146,361
8.14 268
8.15 146
8.15-17 363
8.17 67
8.18 361
8.18f 108, 296f
8.18-24 145,342,361-66
8.19 380
8.20 236,297,323,348
8.20-23 30,360
8.22 164,384
8.22f 352,385,387
8.24 386
8.25 178, 267f
8.26-28 314
8.26-40 41,68,147-49,
153,313
8.32f 261
8.34-38 305
8.35 178f, 267,337,344
8.37 306f,323
8.39 369,371
8040 178,267
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.6
325,327
68,327
250
275
9.8 245
9.10 325
9.12 236
9.13 285,322
9.13f 150
9.15 269,287
9.17 236,328
9.19 325
9.20 68
9.20-22 342
9.22 237,331
9.25f 325
9.26 293
9.29 342
9.30 328
9.31 67,146,292,294,
33lf, 345, 360
9.32 322
9.33f 151
9.34 45,236
9.35 146
9.36 106,321
9.37 191
9.38 325
9.39 106,285,321
9.40 151,236
9041 322
9.43 372
Ch 10f 68,110
10.1f 35,137,314
10.1-11.18 34f, 147f, 158,
163,165,228,285
10.2 104f, 148-53, 313,
323,329,333,358,383
10.3 314
lOA 150,153,228
10.6 275
10.7 151,323
10.7f 150
10.9-23 313
10.13f 202
10.22 105, 148f, 153,323,
329
10.23 328,372
10.24 323
10.25 151,184,186
10.26 45,151,186,202
10.28 273
10.31 153,324,384
10.33 150
10.34 26,34,151-53
434
10.34-43 4,179
10.35 7, 25f, 47, 149f, 152,
277,329
10.36 107,154,267,270,
277,371
10.36-43 154,205
10.38 107,117,241,249,
396
10.39 107
10.40 296f
10.41 287
10.42 154f, 172, 238, 254,
266,277,299,331
l0A3 12,155,241,254,
267,323
10.43-46 252
10.44 67,162,268,305
10.44-46 329
10.44-48 155,333
10.45 285,297,363,370
10.46 149,334
10.48 338,372,374
11.1 268,328
lLl-18 155
11.2 344
11.12 328
11.14 153-55,162,278,
324,384
11.15 162,333
11.17 154,162,202,297,
323, 330,363, 370f
11.18 11,13,72,137,156,.
158, 160-65,252,254,
272,282,285,296,324,
384,387
11.19 164,351
11.19-26 68,164,278
1l.19f 227
11.20 154,165, 178f, 205,
225,238,267,337,344,
350,371
11.21 165,239,252,282,
29B, 306-0B, 323, 337
11.21-23 194
11.22 331
11.22-30 345
11.23 165,282,298,338,
340, 349f, 369, 371
11.23-26 344
11.24 164f, 282, 298
11.24-26 338
11.25f 165
11.26 80,325,328,330f,
339,380
11.28 296,329,334,344,
366,370,374,386
11.29 325,328,366,374,
386
11.30 353
12.1 128,331,359
12.1-4 73
12.3 129
12.5 331
12.11 73
12.14 108,369
12.17 263,328
12.19 200,234
12.19-21 73
12.20 135,271
12.20-23 71,99,249
12.21 186,348,359
12.21-23 45
12.22 36,69,97,180,186,
330,333
12.22f 151,184,186
12.23 129,321,354,359
12.24 258,292,294
Ch 13 4
13.1 128,331,338,344f
13.1f 278
13.1-3 47,339
13.2 168,314,338
13.2f 175
13.4 168
13.4-12 195
13.5 167,178,336,345
13.6 68f, 71, 107, 134, 178,
342,367,382
13.6-8 139,173
13.6-12 52,166,178
13.7 268,336,342,345
13.7-12 41
13.8 71,169,229,323,367
13.8-11 170,242, 304
13.8-12 173,240
13.9 295
13.9-11 45,224
13.10 169
13.10-12 168
13.11 183,248,308
13.12 183,236,285,30508,323,336
13.14 175,178,204
13.14-52 171
13.15 328,345,353
13.16 149,283f, 310,382
13.16-41 178,221,337
13.17 57,79,263,290,
303, 328, 379
13.17-19 287
13.17-25 246
13.19 266
13.20-22 287,296
13.22f 370
13.23 179,269,275,279,
328
13.26 149,202,269,279,
328
13.27 141,143
13.28 60, 140f
13.28f 141
13.32 178,267,328
13.34 261
13.38 12, 156,267,328
13.38f 141,298
13.39 149,202,269,323,
351
13.40 269,328
13.42 210
i3.43 171,211,282,284,
296,298, 306f, 310f, 325,
328,334,345,350,382
13.44 173,204,268, 283f,
286,310
13.45 173,176,284,288,
346,351
13.46 169,172,204,252,
269,272,284,345
13.46f 246,283
13.47 4,250,254,261,
263,269,279,283,314
13.48 172, 194f, 223,268,
272,276,283-88,291,
293,298, 306f, 310, 323,
333,370
13.49 258,285,292
13.50 172f, 182, 194,211,
285f, 312, 346, 351
13.51 336,346
13.52 325,334,370
14.1 174f,178-80,194,
index of References
204,305-07,310,323,
340,345
14.1-6 173
14.2 310,328,330,340,
346
14.2-4 284
14.3 45,178,224,236,
240,269,294, 296f, 299,
308,340,345,351
14.4 185,330
14.5 175,182,346
14.6 175,346
14.6-18 45,48
14.7 19Of, 205, 210, 244,
267,324,345
14.7-10 178-80,383
14.7-20 178,193
14.8 104,183f,205,240,
308,315
14.8-10 69
14.8-13 55,71
14.8-18 18,52
14.9 184,278,305,315,
323
14.9f 224,233
14.10f 97,100,236
14.11 7lf, 108, 131, 139,
146,151,179,291
14.11-13 36,58,180-85,
214,330,397
14.11-15 402
14.11-19 202
14.12 74
14.13 75,362,368
14.14 45,97
14.14-17 185-90
14.14-18 72
14.15 11,97,164,192,
196,232-34,243,251,
267,269,277,289,306,
308,328,401
14.15-17 7,15,18, 34f, 63,
148,237,301,324,397f
14.15-20 386
14.16 26,328,370
14.17 49,55,58,74,99,
181,213-16,233,277,
291,296,313,335,342,
348,371, 398~ 40lf
14.18 75
14.18f 36,190-92
14.19 48,176,298,308,
330, 346,351
14.20 48, 179~ 191,325
14.21 165, 175, 286~ 305f,
308,311,325,345
14.21-23 179
14.22 323,325,334,340,
344-47,351
14.23 323,331,334,342,
353
14.25 268,345
14.26 298
14.27 258,276,288,323,
331
14.28 325
Ch 15 3,68
15.1 198,278,328,339,
351,359
15.2 345,353
15.3 251,288[,328,331,
345,369,371
15.4 258,288f, 331, 353
15.5 351
15.6 353
15.7 273,276,323,328
15.8 274, 296~ 323, 333
15.8f 273,289
15.9 34,323f
15.10 76,298,325
15.11 180,202,273,278,
290, 298,300, 350f
15.12 289
15.13 328
15.14 277,289-93,299
15.16 291
15.17 277,289,291,313
15.19 186,306f
15.20 74, 99f, 251
15.21 77,336,350
15.22 331,339
15.22f 328,353
15.22-29 339
15.23 340
15.26f 345
15.29 74,76,100,350
15.31 339,350,370
15.32 339,344f
15.32f 328
1535 267~ 339, 345
15.36 268,278,290,328,
339
435
15.39 204
15.40 298
15.40-16.4 340
15.41 331,344f
16.1 178,325
16.1-3 127,179
16.2 328
16.4 353
16.5 292,294,323,331,
340,346
16.6 269
16.6-10 193,278
16.9f 274,314
16.10 267
16.11-40 193-203
16.13f 172,193-95
16.13-15 41,310
16.14 211,223,246,258,
276, 29lf, 294, 308
16.15 306f,372
16.16 70,82,225,240,
242,368
16.16-18 52,101,195-97,
304
16.16-19 82,380
16.16-21 100
16.17 78,108,242,279,
327
16.18 45,224,236,315,
372,374
16.19 84,108,236,327,
348,357,370
16.19-22 330
16.19-24 173,197-200,
309,346,351,373
16.20 78,84
16.20f 176,193
16.20-24 77,80,219
16.21 90,370
16.22 176,359
16.23f 73,319,359
16.25 201
16.25-34 41
16.26 200f
16.26-30 97
16.28-34 200
16.29 95,108,184,199,
308
16.30 131,139,151,153,
184, 202,275,278,306
1630-34 305
436
16.31 154,164,180,186,
202,278,308,323,371
16.32 269
16.33 319,373
16.34 319,323, 370f
16.35-37 219
16.35-39 203
16.40 328, 346f
17.2 204,341
17.24 301
17.3 237,246
17.4 172,194,211,293,
305,307,310,312,337,
372
17.5 176,191
17.5-9 351,372
17.6 191,328,352
17.10 204,328
17.11 210,287,337
17.12 172,305-07,310,
312,323
17.13 176
17.14 328
17.16 15,19,203,212,
255,397
17.16-21 18,203-10
17.16-22 27
17.16-29 219
17.16-34 52,203-24,389
17.17 204,211,307,310,
336,341
17.18 25,48,57,62,93,95,
128,131,145,175,179,
185, 191, 205,208, 219f,
222,225,228,244,267,
309,324,336,341,383
17.18-34 82
17.19 222, 335f
17.19-21 151,208-10
17.20 131
17.21 93,222
17.22 17,19,185,202,
323,328
17.22-31 7, 34f, 38,42,45,
148,210-20,301,390,397
17.23 16f,150f,209,212f,
234
17.24 83,212,234,237,
289,400
17.24f 15,22,63,77,86,
99,186,213,402
Index of References
17.24-26 216
17.24-29 217,262,324
17.25 75,84,214,296
17.25-29 26
17.26 17,187,214,237,
263, 289, 400f
17.26f 14,17f
17.26-28 46,277
17.26-29 79
17.27 15, 216f, 219, 291,
400,402
17.27f 21,215,218,221
17.27-29 11
17.28 12f, 21f, 33, 389, 400
17.29 22,63,77,81,86,99,
217f,364,383,402
17.30 122, 160, 163f,212,
217-19,222,229,243,
255, 265f, 299, 306, 336,
364,384,386,401
17.30f 56,220,237,254
17.31 22,38,48,131, 154f,
172,207,215,219,223,
229,238,244,266,331,
402
17.32 128,131,175,259,
309,324,337
17.32-34 19,27,222f,386
17.34 223,293,305-08,
310,323
18.2 77f
18.3 358
18.3f 205,210
18.4 293,307,310,337,
341
18.5 223,237,307,310,
340
18.7 211,294
18.8 293f,305-07,310,
323,340,353
18.9 294
18.10 293
18.11 269,294,340,361
18.12 294
18.12-17 124,173,177,
249,310,354;372
18.13 211
18.14 330
18.14-17 77f
18.17 80,330,353,364
18.18 328,340
18.19 204,310,341
18.22 331
18.23 325,344,346
18.24-26 295
18.25 238,327,341,344
18.26 327
18.27 294f, 299f, 322f, 325,
328,346,359
18.28 237
19.1 325,346
19.8 204,237,307,337,
341
19.8f 205,310
19.8-12 368
19.9 79,82,108,173,224,
304,325,327,335, 340f
19.9-12 178
19.9-20 85,224-27
19.10 108,227,309,311,
341,367
19.11 236,289,341
19.11f 55,69,87,95,104,
184,235,309,359,369
19.11-13 71
19.11-16 187
19.11-20 80,195,236
19.12 99,240,315
19.12-16 243
'19.13 99,107,367
19.13f 68,167
19.13-16 101,241,309,382
19.13-17 368
19.14 70
19.15 71,108,367
19.16 71,87,106,138,367
19.17 108,138,164,30609,333,367
19.17-20 87,139,305
19.18 138,239,306-08,
323,342,368
19.18f 363,367,386
19.19 71,342,356,369
19.20 258,292
19.21-40 195,233
19.23 81,327,332
19.23-28 309
19.23-37 98
19.23-41 36,52,80,210,
332,346,401
19.24 81,348
19.24-28 99f, 362, 380
437
Index of References
19.24-37 64,323
19.25 81f,368
19.25-27 108,327,356
19.25-29 330
19.26 82,86,88,100,197,
224,255,307,337,341
19.26f 81,84,90,199
19.26-41 386
19.27 71,83,86,89,101,
150f,211
19.27-37 214
19.28f 176
19.28-34 84
19.28-35 55
19.28-41 122
19.29 87,351
19.30 325
19.31 85,88,173,381
19.32 79,82,332
19.33 79,225
19.33f 77, 79f, 100, 177,
187,191,314
19.34 100f, 233, 333
19.34-37 99
19.35 71,82,84,86,330,
369
19.35-37 89,100
19.35-41 85
19.36 87,88
19.37 87,90
19.38 81,84,86
19.39f 332
19.40 369
20.1 325, 346f, 353
20.1-7 369
20.2 346
20.7 341
20.7-12 88,332,342,386
20.8 369
20.9 341
20.9-11 96,320
20.11 341
20.1lf 11,13
20.17 353
20.17-35 354-60,381
20.17-38 332
20.18 341
20.18-20 368
20.19 170
20.20 341
20.21 154,164,237,299,
307,323,341,371
20.23 351
20.24 237,267,294f,299,
307
20.25 237
20.27 341
20.28 280,295,345,387
20.29 110,343
20.30 325,342f,351
20.31 205,340,368
20.32 261,294-96, 298f,
322
20.33f 348
20.33-35 327,380
20.34 358
20.35 336
21.4 325
21.7 328
21.8 267
21.8f 228
21.10 374
21.16 325
21.17 328
21.18 353
21.20 137,224,228,328
21.19 288f
21.21 198,341,359
21.24 341
21.25 74,306,323
21.26 90
21.27-30 87
21.28 88,274,323
21.28f 68
21.30-36 89
21.31 119
21.31-23.35 88
21.39 123
22.1 328
22.4 327
22.5 328
22.6 250
22.9 228,250
22.10 287
22.11 250
22.13 328
22.14 137
22.14f 287
22.16 267
22.21 287
22.22f 223
22.24-29 123
23.1,5f 328
23.6-10 128
23.11 95,238,307
23.12-35 124
23.14 353
23.21 308
23.23f 119
23.26-30 86
23.27 90
23.33f 119
24.1 353
24.1-22 118,124
24.2 272
24.2-8 86
245 89
24.6 87-90
24.8 89
24.10 119
24.12 341
24.14 327
24.14-16 88,90
24.15 228f, 266
24.16 228f
24.17 329
24.18 90
24.19f 84
24.22 124,327
24.22f 119
24.22-27 227-30
24.24 323
24.24f 90
24.24-26 301
24.25 30,76,238, 256f,
266,341,359
24.25-27 135,266,301
24.26 123,260,341,357
24.27 73,123,129,230,
260
Ch25 118
25.1-4 260
25.1-12 234
25.7 260
25.8 359
25.9 73,123,129,135,260
25.10 260
25.10-12 359
25.11,13-27 124
438
25.13-26.32 124
25.15 260,353
25.16 119,158
25.17-19 260
25.19 259
25.20 131
25.21 359
25.22f 260
25.23-27 72,244
25.23-26.32 90
25.25 260
25.25f 359
25.26f 260
26.2-29 301
26.3 72,198
26.6 328
26.8 130
26.10 322
26.12-15 131,261
26.13 250
26.15-17 244
26.16-18 287
26.16-23 53
26.16-29 244-61
26.17 245f,259
26.18 2,4,12,27,30,42,
45,48,84,106,168f,l71,
187, 192,242, 26lf, 264,
267,288,296,303,315,
321-23,365,381,400
26.19 287
26.19-29 255
26.20 164
26.22f 72
26.23 131,141,330f
26.23f 128
26.24 131,309
26.24f 321, 337
26.24-29 53
26.26 369
26.26-28 72
26.27 331
26.28 307, 330f, 337
26.32 359
27.3 234f, 324, 359, 381
27.9f 231
27.9-11 95
27.9-44 230,233
27.10 185,202,328
27.11 235,308,330
Index of References
27.17 274
27.20 99,232,278
27.21 185,202,328
27.21-26 95,235
27.23 233f,237
27.23-25 232,234
27.24 94f,297,359
27.25 185,328
27.29 91f, 233
27.30 254
27.30-32 235
27.30-36 234
27.31 278
27.33 96
27.33-36 94,235
27.42f 234
27.44 95
28.2 93,95,100,] 10,235,
320,324,374,381
28.4 93,207,272
28.4-6 36,72,94,99,108,
139,151,20lf
28.4-9 187
28.5f 100
28.6 45,71,74,131, 236f
28.6-8 184
28.7 96,320,324,374,381
28.7-9 359
28.7-10 96,235-37
28.8f 96,104,240,315
28.9 97,108,367
28.10 107,367,374,381
28.11 92f,23Of
28.11-13 233
28.12 374
28.13 232
28.14f 328,374
28.16 234
28.17 198,328
28.17-19 359
28.21 328
28.23 237,341,344
28.23f 301
28.26f 261,292
28.27 179,252,364,396
28.28 237, 278f, 285, 307
28.30f 237
28.31 341,344
Romans
Ch 1 21,25,378,390
1.18-25 398
1.21 248
1.21-32 389
1.25 402
1.29 364
2.14 403
5.1 271
5.10 272
11.30 3]9
13.1 286
15.23f,28 235
1 Corinthians
Chs 1-6 356
2.2f 223
2.6,8 249
5.1 75
5.8 364
6.9-11 361
8.4-6 371
10.11 280
10.20 192
10.20f 211
11.21 324
11.28 272
14.20 364
2 Corinthians
4.4. 249,324
6.14f 324
8.18 344
Galalians
1.13-17,23 319
4.8f,29 319
Ephesians
1.14 291
2.1 11
2.1-7 319
2.2 249
2.3,5 11
2.11-13 319
2.14-17 271
4.l7f 11
4.17-19 248
4.17-24 319
4.19 348
4.31 364
5.8 319
6.4 280
6.12 11
Index of References
Colossians
1.12 255,261
1.21 272
1.2lf 319
3.7f 319
3.8 364
1 Thessalonians
1.9 187,223,391
I Tunothy
5.8 324
2 Timothy
2.17f,25 156
3.16 280
4.10 11
Titus
1.12-14 389
1.15 11,324
2.12 11
2.14 296
3.3 364
3.3-5 319
Philemon
11 319
Hebrlm's
2.14f lOf
5.6,10 269
6.2 11
6.4-6 10
6.16f 11
6.20 269
7.1 269
7.8 11
7.10f,15,17 269
8.2 11
10.22 11
11.36 121
125,7f,11 280
12.17 159
lames
1.13-15 10
1.21 364
4.4 272
5.9 11
1 Peter
2.1 364
439
2.9 296
2.10 319
2.16 364
2.23 136
3.19f 10
3.21 11
4.2 11
4.3 348
2 Peter
1.4 11, 13,391
1.21 11
25 265
2.9 11
2.13 348
2.15 269
3.7 11
lude
11 269
Revelation
2.14 76,269
2.20 76
2.21 159
9.20 192
3. Early Christian Literature

Bamabas
16.9 157
I Clement
5.6f 235
7.4 159,163
7.5-7 159
7.7 93,394
1,1 1 334
4,31 185
33,208 77
38,233 207
42,258 81,83
42,259 85
53,316 94
53,317 94,235
54,321 95f
Hermas
Sim.8.6.1f 163
VIS.4.2.4 275
Justin Martyr,] Apology

26 70
John Chrysostom,
Homilies on the Acts of
the Apostles
Lactantius,
Institutiones Divinae
4.27.12 225
1,1 = Homily 1, page 1 in the edition cited; cf. p. 405.
Origen,
In Lucam Homiliae
1.6 344
Polycarp,
Epislle 10 the Philippians
11 58
11.2 157
11.4 156
12.2 261
TertulIian, Apologelicum
39 96
440
Index of References
4. Early Jewish Literature

Apocalypse ofAbraham
31.1f,6 160
31.8 293
2 Apocalypse of Baruch
85.12 160
Baruch
4.7 192
Epistle of Aristeas
152 75
4Ezra
6.15,29 201
7.72 57
9.11f 160
Genesis Rabbah
12 270
Joseph and Aseneth
12.13 207
15.7 207
17.6 207
19.5,8 207
Josephus,
Antiquitales Judaicae
8 331 151
9 209-12 92
9 212 96
9 288-91 65
11 19-29 65
11 84-103 65
11 114-19, 174f 65
11 291,302 66
11 306-12 65
11 318-24 65
11 340-47 65f
12 10,257-64 65
12 259-61 65
13 74-79 65
13 255-57 66
13 257f 127
14 9 126
14 283 127
2
Cf. p. 394.
15 267-76 126
15 353 257
15 380-425 126
17 44 126
17 19Bf 257
18 36-3B 128
18 38 127
18 30 66
18 109-112 128
18 109-19 127
18 117-19 128f
18 122,136 127
18 233 373
19 274-356 73
19 293-97 72
19 301,331 72
20 118,121-36 66
20 173 127
De bello Judaico
1 123 126
1 562 127
1 672f 257
2 44 126
2 232-44 66
2 266 127
2 417 68
3 127f 159
556287
6 339 159
7 203 116
Vita Josephi
65.67.277 127
Jubilees
30 65
2 Maccabees
3.35 296
4.33 349
6.lf 65
9.5,7-11,28 72
3 Maccabees
6.11 186
Philo
Abr 133-36 75
A1l3.106 159
Flacc 29,33f 176
Flacc 33-38 115
Flacc 36-38 135
Flacc36-41 176
Flacc39 73
Flacc24 78
LegGai261-80 73
LegGai 299-305 120,127
LegGai 30lt 125
SpecLeg 1.58 159
SpecLeg 3.37-45 75
SpecLeg 3.100f 70
SpecLeg4.155 232
VitMos 2.44 198
Pseudo-Philo, De Jona
52 395
6-9 307
9 395
10-19 394
10f 398
12f 399
14 217,399,402
15 395,399
16f 75,395
1B 215,395,399
19 399
24 92
28-54 92
35,41,44,46 93
48,50-52 93
62 307
97f 162
101 395
102 92
103 58
103-07 394,403
104 215,395,397,399
105 76,397
105f 395
105-07 397,401
108f 308
110-40 403
115-17 397
441
Index of References
118 397,401
120 162,399
120f,123 401
124 58,399
125f 402
126 399
127-35 402
134 232
137 397
137-47 403
148 76
ISH 400
153 58,400
154 162,295
156f 400
162 403
174,180 217
182 396
189 307
196 308
198 400
204 402
214 399
216f 162,319,398,40H
Sirach
50.25f 64
DeSampsone
1 76,396
3,6 162
10 217
22f 76
23 217
24-26 162
33-35 76,396
36-39 396
40 76,396
43,45 396
46 397
Psalms of Solomon
8.23 110
Sibylline Oracles
2.73 75
2.280-82 75
3.185,548-54 75
3.595-600 75
3.605f,764f 75
4.162-69 158
5.166,387-93,430 75
7.43-45 75
Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs
Testament of Levi
5-7 65
Qumran Writings
1 QH l1.11f 261
1QS2.25 158
1QS 3.1 158
lQS 11.7f 261
Wisdom
4.18f 72
5.1-8 261
12.10-22 157-60
5. Graeco-Roman Literature
Aelius Aristides, Orationes
48.62 92
Scriptores HistoriaeAugusli1e
Avidius Cassius
5.5 350
Chariton,
Chaereas and Callirhoe
1.14 45
Dionysius Halicamassensis,
Antiquitates Romanae
57.14.2 198
57.18.52 198
65.9.2 198
Lucian
Dialogi Deorum
26.2 232
De Sacrificiis
9,13,15 77
Navigium
Homer, Odyssey
3.158f,178 93
4.360-66,473-80 93
9.142f 93
13.50-55 93
Cicero, De Officiis
1 (42) 150 358
Hymni Homerici
In Verrem
33 232
9 231
Ovid, Metamorphoses
8.617-724 184
Plutarch, Vitae
Alexander 11.4 159
Pericles 2 358
V.66,169f 116
Dio Chrysostom, Euboica
Oratio 7.2-10 96
Libanius, Orationes
11.115 349
Polybius, Histories
6.56 71,177,211
16.12.3-11 211
Livy
Diodorus Siculus,
Bibliotheke
1.55.5 198
40.3.1-8 198
24.26.15 159
44.10.3 159
Quintus Curtius, De Rebus Gestis Alexandri

Magni
4.8.9-11 65
442
Statyllius Flaccus (AGr Il,
1951)
VIl.290 95
Strabo, Geography
2.5.24-26 194
16.2.6 349
inda of References
Suetonius,
De Vita Caesarum
Caligula
32.2 116
Claudius
25 18
Tacitus, Annales
12.54 66
Thucydides,History of the
Peloponnesian War
1.41-55 111
3.69-85 111
Xenophon Ephesius,
Ephesian Tale
1.11 84
6. Inscriptions
CIJII.1531 91
OGlS416 121
OGlS411 121
OGlS 458 268
OGlS 598 68
Index of Authors
Abrahamsen, V.A. 193
Alderlink, LJ. 207
Alexander, L.e.A. 65,70,79,82,84,358
AlIen,O.W. 71
Alien, W.C. 269
Alt,A. 106
Altaner, B. 157
Alzinger,W. 84
Anderson, R.T. 109
Andres, F. 212,234
Andresen, C. 196,279
Arlandson,1.M. 372
Arnold, C.E. 367
Bach,R. 109
Baer, H. von 28
Bailey,KE. 77,366
Balz, H. 94,152,186,255, 322f
Bammel, E. U5f
Bamett, P.W. 339
Barr,1. 42
Barrett, e.K 24,54,60,62, 66f, 69-74, 80,
82,107,123, 127f, 136, 141, 143, 145f,
149,151,153-55,161,164-66,168,17173,175, 179f, 185-87, 191, 194, 199f,204,
252f, 269-73, 275, 277f, 282, 284, 286-89,
292,295, 297-99,303f, 306, 311f, 322-24,
327-30,333-36,338-41,344-46, 348f, 351,
353,358,361-65,370f
Barth, G. 131
Barth,K. 42
Bartlett,1.R 6
Bauckham, RJ. 265f,369
Bauernfeind, O. 12,51,70,73, 79,81f, 86,
91,96, 146f, 166f, 186, 197, 199,230,234,
236,270,295,298,330
Baumbach, G. 54,170,192,241,244,24750,253, 258f, 263
Bayer, RE 269f,331
Beck,B.E. 327,362
Becker,1. 61,123f
Behm,1. 22,161
Beker,lC. 344
Bengel, lA. 194,206,260,286,288,294
Benoit, P. 356
Benzinger,1. 71,150,164, 349f
Berger, R 194
Berger, K 212,246,263,329,331,362
Bernadicou, P.1. 371
Berneker,E. 95
Bertram,G. 175,201,207
Best,E. 321
Bethe, E. 93,23U
Betz,H.D. 8,45,231
Betz, O. 2,109,113,383
Beutler,J. 328
Beyer, H.W. 12,78,87,219,290
Beyerhaus, P. 2
Birt, T. 16,22
Blackburn, B.L. 45
Blass,F. 149
Blinzler,1. 115,118-20,124,130,133-37,
140,142
Blomberg, C.L. 54,61,80
Blue, B. 149f
Bock, D.L. 4,7,34,61,140,155,261,270,
275,277,295,329
Blicher,o. 241
Blihm, M. 69,109
Bolkestein, R 150
Borgen, P. 394
Borger, R. 63
Bormann, L. 131,193,362,366
Bornkamm, G. 110,356,359
Botermann, H. 78,330
Bousset, W. 154
Bovon, E 10,24,39,41,51,105,279
Bowman,J. 67,69,362
Brandis, e.G. 85,88
Braumann, G. 33
Braun, H. 289
Breytenbach, C. 2,167, 180-82, 186f, 189,
196,207, 346
Briggs, C.A. 61
Brocke, M. 358
Brown, RE. 54, 57f, 113-17, 125, 135,
137f, 143f, 149, 247f, 250, 261, 263, 268,
277,281,290,355,371
Brown,S. 169,327,347
Browning, R 231
Bruce, EE 23,26,61, 71f, 74-76, 79, 81,
444
Index of Authors
84,89-94,157, 166f, 182, 185, 188, 190,

201,203,217,227,230,237,282,295,
298,314,338,340, 344, 358, 372f, 391
Bruners, W. 111
Brunner,E. 99
Buckwalter, H.D. 3f, 6, 44, 47, 249, 279,
302,343f
BUchsel,F. 274
BUrchner,L. 83f,225,355
Bultrnann,R. 26,149,272,370
Burchard, C. 1,24,104
Burke, D.O. 61
Butterfield, H. 177
Buzzard,A. 269
Byrskog, S. 280
Cadbury, HJ. 14,26,67,110,135,190,
325-28, 33lf, 336, 343f, 363
Calvin, J. 54,286
CampbeU, W.S. 339
CapelJe, W. 201
Capper, B. 48,366
Caragounis, C.C. 256
Carson,D.A. 369
Catchpole, D.R. 104f,113
Clarke, A.D. 355f
Clernen, C. 14,22
Coggins, R.J., 67,69
Collins, JJ. 75,158
Colpe, C. 109,212
Conybeare, w.J. 232
Conzelrnann, H. 3,14,20,27-33,4042,
44, 46f, 78, 129f, 150, 156f, 159-63, 165,
201,219,228,231,248, 253f, 271f,295f,
301,329, 364f, 370, 384-86, 392
Cook, J.O. 287
Craigie, P.c. 61
Croon,J.H. 180
Cullmann, O. 67
Curnont, F. 196
Cunningharn, S. 351
Dabelstein, R. 6,389
Dahl, N.A. 104,290,293, 302f
Danker, F.w. 150,355
Darr, J.A. 50,54,84,132-35,178
Dautzenberg,O. 272,363
Davies, R.W. 105
Dawsey,J.M. 24
Deissmann, A. 180
Delling, O. 60, 69f, 155, 248f, 271f, 290
Denaux,A. 132
Detschew, D. 81
Dexinger, F. 65
Dibelius, M. 12-20, 22f, 25-28, 31, 33, 37,

40, 135,215, 264, 389f
Dietrich, W. 29
Dietzfelbinger, C. 247,329
Doble,P. 137f
DobschUtz, E. von 87
Dodd, C.H. 28
Donaldson, T.L. 6,57,149,160,389
Dowden, K. 231
Downing, O. 211f
Dunn,J.D.O. 145f, 153, 252,329
Dupont, J. 4,20,155,162-65,167, 169f,
174,254,256,259,262,272,290,292,
294, 298f, 322, 345, 355f, 360
Edwards, W.M. 231
Egger,R. 65
Ego,B. 56
Ehrenberg, V. 68
Elliger,W. 78
Ellingworth, P. 121,160
Ellis, E.E. 33,67,139,264
Eltester, W. 14,181
Epp,E.J. 51
Emst,!. 104,108,111, 115,117f,129-31,
133,138,169,228,290,320,324,327,
329, 335f, 338, 34345, 347-49, 353f
Esler,P.F. 3
Estrada-Barbier,B. 169,347f
Evans, C.F. 58,104, 110f, 114, 119, 132,
139,254
Farrar,F.W. 108
Farris, S. 246, 263,271
Fascher, E. 12
Fauth, W. 76,173,201
Fergusou, E. 64-67,72, 127f
Fiedler, P. 29f, 151
Findeis,H.-J. 7,381
Finley,M.l. 177
Fisher, E.J. 8
Fitzrnyer,J.A. 1,4f, 8,34,47,54,57, 80,
104, 106,110f, 113, 115-19, 125,127,129,
131-33,13540, 143f, 149, 154, 163,205,
226,235,241, 247,254,266,27lf, 279-81,
290,296,304,323-29,331,334,34345,
347,353-55,357,362,366,372,390
Flender, H. 278f
Foakes Jackson, FJ.
Foerster, W. 149,151,154, 196f,202,212,
225,267, 271f, 279, 293
Fohrer, O. 279
Foumier, M. 178
Ford, R.C. 344
Index of Authors
Foster,1. 151
Frankemolle, H. 104
Fredouille,1.-C. 7
Frein, B.C. 114
Friedlander, L. 355
Friedrieh, G. 56,268
Gartner, B. 12,14,18,20-23,26,44, 206f,
215,264,389
Gilrtner,H. 92,231
Garrett,S.R. 54, 166-70,224,226f,241,
367f
Gasque, W.W. 2,10,12,14,16, 19f, 23-26,
40,391
Gaventa, B.R. 26
Geisau, H. von 93,231f
Gempf, CH. 23,149,179-83,185, 187f,
190-92,206,391
Gensichen, H.-W. 1,7
George,A. 279
Gewiess, 1. 28,279
Gill,D.W.1. 78,81,171,173,180-83,186,
203f, 212f, 217f,310, 330
Gispen, W.H. 62
Glare, P.G.w. 54
Gllickner, R. 29,279
Glombitza, O. 274
Godet, E 139
Gliber, W. 212
Goodrick,A.T.S. 158
Goppelt, L. 9,217
Goree,D. 374
Gossen, H. 94,96
Grabbe, L.L. 64f, 72, 126f, 363
Grasser, E. 24
Grayston,K. 210f
Green,E.M.B. 279
Green, J.B. 3, 23f, 43f, 113,139,279
Greeven, H. 91
Grundmann, W. 138,234,271,330,364
GUnther, M. 80
Gulin, E.G. 370
Gutbrod, W. 60
Guthrie, W.K.C. 81
Haekenberg, W. 263
Haenehen,E. 14,20,71,85,166, 178f,
183,222, 234f, 295, 320
Hahn,E 2f,24,67,110
Hahn,J. 7
Hanell,K. 86
Hansen, G.W. 180
Hanson, R.P.C. 12,20,92
Harder, G. 344
445
Harland, p.A. 80
Harnaek,A. 205,322,329-31
Hartmann, L. 110,269
Hauck, E 75f, 88-90, 273, 329,358
Hausmaninger, H. 355
Hegermann,H. 10,43,389
Heider, G.C. 63
Heidland,H.W. 115,256
Heiler,E 91
Heinemann,l. 65,77-79,311
Hemer,CJ. 2,23,233
Hengel, M. 2,106, 116f, 330
Hengel, M., A.M. Schwemer 72f, 75, 91,
115,127,147,162,164,167,172,181,
196,198,202,207,213,310-12,327,330,
338,344,349,366,394
Henten,1.W. van 154
Herter, H. 75
Herzog, R. 180,225
Hiltbrunner, O. 374
Hirschfeld, G. 171
Hirzel,R. 95,175
Hitzig, H.E 116,136
Hock,R. 358
Hoehner, H. W. 72f, 119f, 124, 126f, 135,
142
Holtz,G. 90
Holtz, T. 261
Holtzmann,HJ. 14,231,293
Hopfner, T. 69,367f
Horsley, G.H.R. 196
Horst, 1. 111,149, 151f, 333
Horst, P.w. van der 92,95, 212f, 233
Hort, E1.A. 322,331,336,338,340,353
Howson,1.S. 232
Huffmann,D.S. 47
Hull,1.M. 69
Hurtado, L.w. 202
Jaisle, K. 93,231
Jeremias,J. 67,69,106,110-12,205,257,
288,355
Jervell, J. Sf, 67-69, 80, 165,224,249, 302f,
312,317,326f
Jessen, O. 81,84,86,209,212,350
Johnson, L.T. 393
Johnson, M.D. 46
Jones, D.L. 26, 154
JoUon,P. 257
Jilthner, J. 94,96
Kearsley, R.A. 85
Kee, H.C. 51,172,180,205-07,334,367
Keener, C. 252
446
Index of Authors
Keith, G. 83,85
Kerenyi, C 207
Kilpatrick, G.D. 137,182,246
King,N.Q. 104
Kirchschlllger, W. 236
Klauck, H.-I 7f, 70~ 79, 84, 154,207,268,
314,335,368,381
Kleinknecht, H. 217
Kliesch, K 211
Klijn,A.F.l 160
Knibbe, D. 81,225,355
Koch,C 272
Kodell,J. 282
Koster, H. 64, 66, 72~ 126-28
Kotting, B. 355
Kollwitz,l 164,349
Kraeling, CH. 164
Kraus, H.-J. 61
Kraus, W. 93,231f
Kretschmar, G. 343
Kretzer,A. 290
Kroll, W. 9lf,95,231
Kudlien, F. 180
Kiilling,H. 12,14f, 18,23,42, 205f, 21416, 264f, 276, 305, 391
KUmmel, w.G. 1,10-14,20,23,27,30,33,
37,40, 43f, 319, 343, 377f, 389-91
Kuhli,H. 311
Kuhn, H.-W. 116,136
Kuhn, KG. 149,311
Kuhnert, F. 226,367
Kurz, WS. 46
Lacey, D.R. de 9
Ladouceur, D. 92,233
Lagercrantz,o. 188
Lake,K 181,311,363
Lambert,J.C 270
Lampe, G.WH. 359
Lane, E.N. 173
Lane Fox, R. 182-84
Lange, N.R.M. de 77
Larsson, E. 267,278
Lategan, B. 384
Latte, K 87,95,175
Leaney,A.R.C. 139
Ugasse, S. 118
Lehmann, G.A. 223
Leipoldt,1. 77-79
Lerle, E. 185f
Lesky,A. 173
Lesky, E. 248,262
Levine, L.I. 150
Liechtenhan, R., 12,20

Lieu,1.M. 152, 166, 311f
Lincoln,A.T. 369
Lindernann,A. 40f,157
Lindijer, C.H. 147f
Loning, K. 363
Loftus, F. 118
Lohse, E. 213, 278f, 295
Liidemann, G. 2,78, 363
LUhrmann, D. 265
Luschnat, O. 54, 177
Luz, U 325,327
Macdonald,1. 145
MacMullen, R. 75,77
MacRae,G.W 51
Maddox, R. 3, Sf, 8, 302, 353
MlIrz, C-P. 259,269,292
Malina, BJ. 115
Marcus, R. 65f, 92
Marquardt,J. 355
Marshall, LH. 2-6,8,23,25,40,42,44,
5lf,58, 80, 91,104f, 110f, 114-18,130-32,
135, 137~ 142, 145, 179[, 184f, 190f, 194,
200,205,212,221,241,257, 270f, 278~
281,283-85, 287,292-94, 311~324,345,
347,354, 361f, 365,378, 383, 391
Matera, FJ. 137f
Matthews, CR. 44
Mattill, A.J. 358.
Maurer, C 282
McKnight, E. V. 51
McKnight, S. 329
Meeks, WA. 164
Meinold, P. 157
Merkelbach, R. 92,207,233
Metzger, B.M. 66,79,89,125,160,164,
217, 237f, 241,306, 323,344
Meyer,HAW 74,91,94,139,181,187,
224,229,234,273,293,296
Michaelis, W 175,185,327
Michel,O. 81,91,268,370
Michl,J. 93
Miles, G.B. 92,233
Miltner,F. 92
Minear, P.S. 27f
Mitchell, S. 362
Morrice, WG. 371
Moscato, M.A. 326
Motyer,lA. 313
Moule, C.F.D. 295
Moxnes, H. 204,348,355
MUller, UB. 241
Index of Authors
Muller, P'-G. 270

Muller,P. 147f
MUri,W. 177
Mussies,G. 81,293
MuBner, F. 248
Mylonas, G.E. 207
Navone,l 155
Neale, D.A. 139,392
Nellessen, E. 353,356
Nepper-Christensen, P. 325
Neuhiiusler, E. 7
Neyrey,IH. 47,113,115
Niebuhr, H. R. 99
Nilsson, M.P. 95,212,398
Nobbs,A. 166
Nock,A.D. 15,20,69f
NoJland,1. 54,57,61, 110f, 114, 118, 124,
129,132-38, 142f, 187,235,241,246-48,
263,266,279,290,294, 298f, 304, 324,
326,329,343,347,355,366,372
Norden, E. 14,96,205,210,219
Oehler,1. 355
Oepke,A. 246,270
Ogilvie, R.M. 77
Olivar,A. 153
Opelt,1. 94
Orr,1. 269
Orth, F. 356
Oster, RE. 80f,233
O'Rourke, J.1. 105
O'Toole, R.F. 195
Otte, G. 113,124
Parsons, M.C. 44, 49f, 178, 390f
Penny,1.M. 252
Pereira, F. 224f, 368
Pervo, R.I. 26,44,49f, 178, 184, 189-91,
366,390f
Pesch,R 19f,54,63, 72-74, 78f, 91, 94f,
97, 145f, 149f, 162, 165-67, 171-73, 197,
200-02,224,228,232,234,236,238,248,
252,260, 269f, 272, 274, 277, 282, 284f,
287f, 293, 295, 327f, 336, 357, 359, 363,
369, 371~ 374
Peterlin,D. 193,195,200
Pfaff,1. 87,89,117,175
Pfaffenroth, K. 67
Pfister, E. 97,20lf,23lf
Pilhofer, P. 193,196-98
Pinnock, C. 7,275,329
Pliimacher, E. 14,24,26,40
Plummer,A. 58,114,120, 134f, 137f, 219,
2,54,257
447
Pobee,J. 136
Pohlmann, W. 366
Potscher, W. 272
Pohlenz, M. 14,22,26
Pokorny, P. 92,233,279
Popkes, W. 65,275,297,302,329,371
Praeder, S.M. 233
Preisker, H. 198
Premerstein, A. von 355
Preuss, H.D. 358
Price, RM. 55
Procksch, O. 255,322f
Rackham, RB. 71,91,193,203,277,289,
293-95
Radl, W. 24,39,59,124,127,279
Rahner,K. 7
Ramsay, W.M. 85-88,97,167,171-75,178,
181f, 184, 204, 206, 208f, 223, 340, 373
Rapske, B.M. 73, 77f, 88-92, 94f, 115, 121,
134,175,196-200,203,228-30,232-36,
260,372f
Rasco,E. 24
Ravens,D. 67
Reardon,B.P. 45,84
RebeU, W. 213
Reese,lM. 158
Reicke, B.I. 344
Reinbold, W. 115,119,125
Reinhardt, W., 259,282,335,338,340,
344-46
Rengstorf,K.H. 287,326
Repo,E. 327
Rese,M. 8,10,13, 24f, 28, 30,33, 44, 51,
113,261,393
Reumann,J. 193
Richard, E. 291
Richardson, P. 126
Richter, W. 110
Richter Reimer, 1. 193,195
Riesner, R. 2,178,334,340,346
Rius-Camps, J. 24,282, 304, 366
Robbins, Y.K. 92,96
Rohde,J. 345
Rohden, P. von 228
Roloff, J. 72f, 77f, 166, 199, 236,270,288,
295, 331f, 334, 354, 356-58
Rose,HJ. 219,272
Rosner, B.S. 92
Ruge,W. 94
Sachers, E. 355
Sachot,M. 341
Safrai, S. 150
448
Index ofAuthors
Sanders, E.P. 392

Sanders, IT. 8,60, 113f, 116, 125, 139-43,
393
Sawyer,IF.A. 136
Schalit,A. 126
Schelkle, K.H. 12,23,171,279,328,358
Schenk, W. 324
Schille, G. 23, 71f, 75, 96,158,199, 201f,
223f, 230-32, 234, 236, 259f, 272, 346,
351,359,368,373
Schlatter,A. 31
Schlosser, I 58,265
Schmid, W. 12,20,26
Schmidt,l 198
Schmidt, L. 269
Schmitz, O. 344
Schnabel, EJ. 2
Schnackenburg, R. 107,111,132,296
Schneider, G. 20, 23f, 54, 62, 69, 71, 74, 7679,85, 90f, 120, 123, 128, 131, 133, 149,
152,157, 160f, 174,203,224, 227f, 234f,
237f, 270, 274f, 285f, 288, 291, 293f, 296,
298,314,320,322,327-29,338,343,346,
349,351,353,355,357,359,369,37lf
Schnelle, U. 10f, 24, 39, 41,43,157,187,
297,377,389
Schottroff, L. 272
Schrage, W. 248,262
Schreckenberg, H. 8
Schrenk, G. 20,87,95,365
SchUrer, E. 72f, 77f, 109, 126-30, 132,
149f, 164, 175,228,311
SchUrmann, H. 46,54,57,68,92, 104f,
109f, 129f, 170, 180, 187,246, 249, 271,
273,281,290, 328f, 339f, 343, 347f, 372
SchUtz, F. 144
SchultheB, O. 86
Schulz, HJ. 24,343,353,390
Schulz, S. 75f
Schwank, B. 236,342
Schwartz, D.R. 115,147
Schwartz,l 146
Schweitzer,A. 14
Schweizer, E. 194
Scott,IM. 177,211,215
Seccombe, D.P. 261
Seeck, o. 207
Selwyn, E.G. 348
Settgast,A.-C. 232
Severus, E. von 91-93
Shatzman, I. 257
Siegert, F. 26,45,49,58,75, 92f, 162, 198,
206,211,217-19,235,277,279,295,303,
319,358,364,394-96,402
Sievers,l 7
Sigountos, J.G. 329
Simon,M. 311
Smend, R. 269
Smith,l 91,94
Snyder, G.F. 193
Souter,A. 216,260,348
Spencer,S. 122
Speyer, W. 94
Spicq,C. 12,37,89,110,154,171,206,
296,344
Squires, J.T. 4f,302
SUihlin, G. 166,235,241,319
Stahl, H.-P. 177
Stegemann, H. 149,311
Stegemann, W. 171f,299
Steier, A. 94,96
Stengel, P. 77,91
Stenschke,C.W. 8,36,41,57,128,189,
230,253,255,269,324,352
Stevens, G.B. 77
Stem,M. 72f, 126-28
Stol,M. 63
Stonehouse, N.B. 12,20
Strecker, G. 154,171,268,371
Strelan, R. 80,84,224,233,309,312,314,
358,368f
Stritzky, M.B. von 76
Stuerenberg,P.F. 311
Stuhlmacher, P. 9,344
Sylva, D.D. 137
Tachau,P. 319
Taeger, J.-W. 24, 29f, 35-45, 47,51,145-50,
168-70,188,192,194,203,210,214-17,
220f, 223,241, 245, 255f, 258-60, 292f,
298-304,306,310,318,335,352,364,
372,384,386-88,390-92
Tajra, H. W. 88-90,197-99, 259f
Talbert, C.H. 33,44,118,343
Tannehill, R.C. 24,105-07,110,112,321
Thalheim,T. 87,89
TheiBen, G. 207,241
Thiede, c.P. 344
Thiessen, W. 80
Thoma,C. 77
Thomas, J. 344,346
Thompson,A.A. 54
Thornton, C.-J. 1, 343f, 390
Thraemer, E. 180
Throckmorton, B.H. 279
Index ofAuthors
Thyen, H. 161,273
TIenou, T. 383
Toit, A.B. du 371
Torrance, T.p. 42
'Iravis,S. 362
'Irebilco, P.R. 80,173,195-97, 224f, 367
'Ireidler,H. 194
lfemel, B. 320
Trompf,G. 92,233
Thmer,M.M.B. 252,369
Thrner,N. 288
Unnik, w.e. van 24,33,279
UntergaBmair,F.G. 133,338,353
Vielhauer, P. 13f, 25-28, 40, 51, 390f
Violet, B. 160
Vogel,A. 7
Vogt,E. 281
Voss,G. 205
Wachsmuth, D. 212
Walaskay, P.w. 78, 104f, 116, 118-21, 12325,135f, 139,141f, 249
Walker, P.W.L. 59,110
Warner,R. 177,231
Waser,O. 95
Weatherly,J.A. 8, 113f, 122f, 139,141,143
Wegenast, K. 268
Wegner, U. 104f
Weippert, M. 7
Weiser,A. 91f, 131, 150, 152-54, 194,213,
229f, 236f, 266, 271,274, 276f, 283, 29092,294,296,320,322,324,329,334,345,
354-57, 362f, 367,372
WeiB, B. 9f,139
Weiss,E. 96
Wellmann, M. 132
Wendel, U. 282
Wendland, P. 180,268
Weok,M. 252
Wemicke, K. 81,87
Wesley,1. 161,284,288
Wette, W.M.L. 293
Wheeler Robinson, H. 10f, 13,43
449
Wickert, U. 183
Widbin, B.R. 383
Wiefel, W. 40f,51, 135,271,327,384,388,
392
Wieser, F.E. 303
Wikenhauser,A. 79
WiJckens, U. 30,33,52,60,113,116, 140f,
157,160,270,299,301,390
Wilcox,M. 261,311
WilIiamson, H.G.M. 64-66
WiIIiger, E. 90, 154
WiIlis,IR. 329
Wilpert, P. 262
Wilson,S.G. 8,34-36,67, 74f, 77,198,302,
384,390
Winston, D. 158, 232f, 261
Winter, B.W. 81,171,173,180-83,186,
203,207-10,330,334,355,366
Winter, P. 113
WiBmann, H. 207
Witherington Ill, B. 279
Wolff, H.W. 93
Wiist, E. 201,219
Wurm,K. 29
Wycherley, R.R. 203
Yonge, C.D. 54
Youngblood, R.E. 61
Zahn, T. 54,63,72,89,91,136,173,175,
178, 180f, 184f, 189, 191,200-02,224,
234,238,275,285-87,291,303,322,344,
346,357,372,374
Zeller, D. 154
Zimmermann,A.F. 338
Zingg,P. 282
Zintzen, C. 212
Zmijewski,1. 62, 72f, 78f, 124, 131,166f,
169, 173f, 180,194,196f,200f,205-07,
21 Of, 213-18, 222,225-27,233-35,237,
248,260, 272f, 275, 282, 288f, 292f, 299,
303,322,329,341,345,359,367,370,
372,381
Index of Subjects
Abel 57
Abraham 57,193,277,290,296,298,303,
383
Acclamation 71-74,79,82,84,86,97,109,
146,151,180,185,202,253
Adam 46-48,277
Adultery 75f, 128f, 396
Agrippa 71-73,115,124,126, 128f, 151,
176,244,260,262,307,330,337,348,373
Altar 212f
Ananias (Acts 5.1-10) 170,191,361,363,
365
Ananias (Acts 9.10-17) 150
Angel(s) 93,130,139,150,202,232,234,
271,280,323,334,392
Anthropology H, 4, 9-15, 20-25, 27f, 33f,
36f, 40, 42-45,47-51,53, 99, 136, 156,
177, 192, 206, 264, 267,302,335, 377f,
383,387-91
Anti-Judaism 8, 77f, 80,85, 100, 104, 109,
117t, 126, 173, 176f, 197, 199,225,227,
274,328, 367, 373f, 379, 39lf
Antioch (Syria) 164,178, 267f, 278, 283,
298,305, 3Ilf, 330-32, 334, 338-40, 342,
344-46, 349f, 366f, 370, 374
Antipater 126f
Apollos 294f,299,341,346,359
Apostasy 101,169,294,327,347,349,
351,365
Appropriation of salvation 32,53,103,
145,156,164,201,243,252,257,275t,
278,280,289,296-306,312,314-18,360,
364,376,387
Aratus 21,216
Areopagites 220,310,312
Areopagus 203, 208f, 214, 219, 259
Areopagus speech 12,14-19,2lf,24-28,
34,40-43,178,186,189,210-22,242,264,
389,391
Artemis 16,79-84, 86f, 101, 187,193,225,
233,253,332,350,369
Ascension 205
AscIepius 225
Asia 80f,86,88, 97, 167, 184, 224f, 269,
310,341,367
Asiarchs 85
Athens 17-20,23,30,33,40,86,95,145,
175,177,179,190,203-10,214,218,221,
223, 238f,263, 267,308-10,312,318,337,
341,386,391
Athenian(s) 7,15, 18f,22f,27,37,45,57,
131,204,207,209-12, 214f, 218-23, 259,
275,301,306-08,310,329,336,386,401
Atonement 276,296
Balaam 269
Barabbas 119,121,123-26
Barnabas 88,164,173,178, 180f, 185,210,
282,325,336, 338f, 345, 349, 353
Benefactor 150,180,191,311,355
Believer(s) 3,41, 155f, ]58, 164,173,176,
179,193,202,250,276,278, 282f, 285f,
288,292-94,297-300,306,308,310,315,
319, 322f, 325, 330, 332-35, 340, 344-47,
349-51,359,361,364,366-69,372
Beroea 176,223,306,310,312
Blasphemy 87,89, 184f, 337, 400
Blastus 71
.
Blindness 45,71,167,169,177,187,191,
198,214,237,246,248,250,257,262,
303,315-17, 367f, 379,38lf
Bribery 71
Caesarea 71-73,124,126,150,176,228,
372
Canaan 93,157,287
Capernaum 105,107,112,139,263
Catechesis 326,335,337-40,342-44,347,
352f, 363, 365
Centurion 34, 104f, 112, 136-39,234,383
Charity 150,153,329,358
ChrisVMessiah 1, 3f,10, 12,21,32,34,39,
47f, 6H, 72, 78, 86, 122, 128,131,145-47,
171, 191-93, 198,200, 208, 211,217,219f,
222-24, 227f, 237f, 244, 247,250, 256f,
259,270-72,291, 293,301,312,320,323f,
328, 330f, 333, 339-41, 343, 360, 377, 37981, 392f
Christian mission 4,7,41,53,55,57,70,
80,85,99, 104,108,142, 174-77, 196f,
199,204,210,225,239,243,252,254,
Index of Subjects
261,284,287,294, 304, 313f, 325,329,
361,379f,386
Christianity 2, 6f, 26, 83, 147, 151, 154,
177,183,199, 212f, 229, 242, 249, 302,
309f, 312, 314, 319, 337, 345, 353, 372
Christians 3,6,8,16,41,47-49,53, 72f,
75f, 85, 96, 138, 161,165,168,170,173,
188, 194, 235f, 242, 255, 257,260,267,
275,282-84,286,289,292-94,301,305,
308,310, 316f, 319-32, 334-58, 360-66,
368-72,374-76,378, 380f,385f, 392, 401
Christology 4,25,33, 47f, 295, 377
Church( es) 2f, 6, 9f, 34-36, 67, 73, 87, 111,
120, 123f, 140f, 159,201,205, 280,282,
292, 295f, 300, 302, 317, 328f, 331f, 334,
338-40,342,344-46,350,352-59,361,
366f, 369, 385, 387
Claudius 78,86,330
Condemnation 22,30, 100f, 155, 219,229,
266, 273f, 281
Conversion(s) 22,28,37f,41f,47,127,
138, 145f, 148, 155, 159, 162f, 165-69,
174,191,193,197,200,209, 223f, 229,
236,239,256,258,273,283,285,287-89,
292,294,298-300,303-09, 311f, 315, 320,
324,329,335,337,342,361, 367f, 372f,
385f
Convert(s) 36,85,171-73,175,180, 198f,
207,239,256, 259f, 283, 285f, 305, 308,
310f, 336, 338, 346, 350, 361f, 367, 373
Coponius 66
CorinthlCorinthian(s) 78, 269, 293f, 306f,
310,340,356,361
Cornelius 34,41f,47, 104f, 148-53,155,
159, 164f, 167,178, 229, 239, 273, 278,
283,314,324,329,333,338,383
Correction 31,37,42,80-82, 84f, 87, 97,
100f, 108, 112, 129-32, 136, 145, 147, 152,
154f, 175, 183, 185f, 189f, 192f, 199,203,
209-11,218-20,222-24,226-29, 239f, 245,
267f, 270, 272, 280, 308, 312, 316, 318,
326f, 329, 333, 335-37,342,346,352,
363f, 366, 375f, 380, 385-88, 391f, 397
Corruption 230,260,297
Creation 10,14, 21,45f, 51, 187,216,238,
270,289,398,402
Creator 21, 63f,142,163, 186-89, 213f,
219,262,277,383,398,40lf
Crowd(s) 35,71,73, 78f, 82, 84-86, 88,
104,109, 117,12lf, 138f,141,145,173,
175-77,179-81, 184f, 190f,245, 280,308f,
314, 330, 336f, 342, 360, 373, 379
451
Crucifixion 115-17,121, 123f,136, 139,

143
Cumanus 66
Cyprus 68,166,304
Darkness 84, 136f, 167-73, 187,241,24548,250-53,257,261-64,271,274,303,
315-17,321,379,38lf,400
David 61,141,278,287,291,370
Death of Jesus 113f, 135, 139-41,143f,
242,249,254,329,332
Decapolis 107
Deity(-ies)/pagan gods 23,48,55,63f,74,
77,81, 83f, 87, 89, 92-95, 98f,131, 154,
173,175,180-84, 186f, 191, 196, 198,200,
202, 204,206f, 209, 211-15,217, 219f,
226, 232f, 238, 350, 365, 380, 383, 398
Deliverance 55, 107f,145, 199,225,235,
248,250,252,263,266,290,315,317,321
Demetrius 81-86,88,197,309,337,362
Demon(s)/( evil) spirits 48,66,70,101,
104,106-08, 145f, 170, 187, 190, 195-97,
200,211,216,220,225-27,233,235,24042,248,250, 258f, 266, 273f, 299, 302,
313,315,317,321,329,333,363,382,
385,397
Demonic 41, 70f, 82,101,104,108,145,
166,168-70,173,177,195-97,199,227,
229,235,240, 242f, 248, 263, 273,303-05,
307,310,317,321,345,367
(Demonic) Possession 48,66, 70f, 101,
106f, 145, 170, 195,225-27,235, 24lf,
248,250,254,274,296, 315,348,362,382
Derbe 175,178,286,306,311
Devil (cf.Satan) 41,48,52f,82, 101, 145,
157,166,168-70,179,195,227,229,24043,247-50, 303f, 315
Devotion 36,79,81-83,101,146,153,
183,187,193,225,324, 349f, 356
Diaspora 61,77,235,353
Dike 95-97,114,138,153,156,190,233,
250
Dioscuri 93,231-33
Disease(s)/sickness 55,68, 70f, 95f,104,
108, lllf, 145f,170, 180,224f,227,235,
240f, 248,315, 317, 395f
Disciple(s) 58-60,85,110,114,131,138,
140,144,147,170,175,180, 19lf, 245-47,
250,258,267,278,280, 286f, 292, 294,
296f, 306, 32lf, 323, 325-27, 330f, 334,
336,341-43,345-47,351, 353f, 357, 359,
366f, 370,374
Discipleship 59,106,321,325-27,348,374
452
Index of Subjects
Divine gift(s) 47,161,163,273,295-98,

323,333,370,387
Divination 195
Divinity 97,184,217,246
Earth 57,133,144,171, 186f,205,213-15,
218,221,234,246,249,262,264,269,
271, 279f, 283
Earthquake 200f
Ecc1esiology 6,53,333,335,392
Egypt 57,62,73,77,100,263,266,334,
351,366
Elder(s) 104,113,299,336,342,353-60,
381,400
Election 80,276,285,287,295-97,301,
303,305,379
Elijab 48,55,98,130,151,265,277,313
Elisha 48,56,278
Elymas (Bar-Jesus) 68,71,134,166-69,
196,242,245,248,283,288
Encouragement 234, 339f, 344-46, 375
Enlightenment 14,25,192,257,259,261,
267,280,367
Enmity 135, 270f, 274,317
Ephesus80f, 84, 86-88,138, 178,187,22427,233,237,240-42,309,318,332,34042,346,350,355, 357f, 367f, 379
Ephesian(s) 79-81, 84f, 87f, 122,176,22527,234,245,299, 306f, 310, 314, 332, 336,
353-56, 359f, 367,369,382
Epictetus 154,233
Eschatology 25,28,155,229, 269f, 279,
331
Eternallife 43,162,172,266,272-74,276,
283-85,298,300
Ethics 25,43,153,256,311,313
Ethiopian 147,239,267,278,306,337,369
Europe 194,242,278,293,304
Evangelist 68,146,227,335,339,345,347
Execution 115-17, 122f,l25, 128, 135,
137f,140,142,144,167
Exhortation 12,22,171,185,190,228,
282, 334f, 339,344-46,348-50, 354f, 370,
375,386
Exorcism(s) 48,106f,195,197,199,225f,
235,241,250,263
Exorcists 68,107,184,187,224-26,241,
367
Faith 1-9,11,13,18,20,23-25,27-29,32,
35f, 38, 41f, 50-56, 58-60, 62, 64, 66, 6872,74,76-80,82,84-86,88,90,92,94,96100,103-06,111[, 126f,131, 138,141,14446,149,155, 160f,163,167[, 172f,175,
178-80, 183, 193f, 202-04, 208, 210, 215f,

222-24, 228f, 234, 238, 240, 242-45, 247,
249-53,255-59,261,263-65,267,269,
271-77,279,281, 2B3-85, 287-B9, 291-95,
297-301,303,305-09,311-30,332-42,
345-52,354[,357,359-61,363-65,367-71,
373-79, 3B1, 3B3-92, 394, 401
Famine 53,334, 366f
Felix 66,73, B8-90, 123f, 168, 210,227-30,
245, 256f, 260, 266, 309, 341, 359
Festus 53,72f, 90, 123[, 131,141,168,230,
244f,259f
Fickleness 173,191,379
Forgiveness (of sins) llf, 25,30-32, 136,
143f, 153, 155, 158, 160-62,245,253-56,
261,264, 267f, 271, 279f, 296-98, 316f,
362-65,374,385,387,396
Fornication 76f, 100,159, 251, 350
Galilee/Galileans 67f, 106f, 109,111-13,
116,118f, 127, 159
Gallio 78f, 123,168,294,310
Gamaliel 84
Genre 23, 33, 44f, 54, 263, 378, 391
Gentile associates l,l72f,17B,194,204f,
223,312,350,387,392
Gentile Christian(s) 41,49,53,75,165,
188,255,257, 310, 316f, 319f, 322-32,
331f, 334-54, 356-58, 360-66, 363, 368-72,
374-76,378; 380f, 3B5f
Gentile mission 1-5, 8f, 34-36, 42, 46, 67f,
103,153,163,169,229,242,248,256,
276-7B, 2B5, 289, 302f, 306, 313, 317,337,
339,385,392
Gentile religiosity 70,200,313,361
Gerasene demoniac 48,106-09,139,195,
226, 240f, 321
Gerasenes 61,106-0B,l1lf,199,240,321
Gerizim 65f, 109
God's activity 157,159,163,165,172,
193f, 243, 252, 258, 270,274-76, 2BO,
282f, 289-91, 293, 296, 300-03, 305-10,
312-16, 382f, 3B7
God's intervention 55,59,68,165,172,
188,194,203, 218f, 233, 239, 246,251,
258,264,271,274,276-80, 2B3, 2B7f, 29092, 303f, 315f, 318
Goddess 79,81-84, B6-88, 94-96,201,
206f, 222, 234, 314
God-fearer(s)/God-fearing 1,47, 7B, 100,
104-06,137,147-49, 152f, 166,l72f, 175,
194,213,217,221,245,251,265,273,
Index of Subjects
283f, 286, 291f, 305-08, 310-14, 317, 320,
326,329,337,350,375, 382f, 392
Gomorra 265
Good news/gospel If, 5, 9-11,20, 26, 35f,
41-44, 50f, 55, 57, 59, 67, 82, 103f, 136f,
144-46, 148f, 153, 164f, 175,178-80,183,
186-88,190-94,204-06,210,219,225,
228,230,239,248,252, 267f, 270,274,
277-79,283,288,292,297,299,306,312,
315f, 320f, 323-27, 335-37, 341, 343f, 35355,357, 361,371,374,383f,389-91
Grace/mercy 6,31,84,99,111,137, 158f,
164f,174f, 194,209,233,267,269,28183,288, 294f, 297-300,308,322,351,354,
360
Gratitude 58,91,107,109, 111, 219,235f,
372-74,394,397,399-401,403
Greed/greediness 85,100,108,199,227,
230,247,274,358
Greeks 68,81,85,88,175,194,223f,255,
293, 306f, 310, 312, 341
Hamartiology 33,47,253,392
Healing 45,60, 96f, 106-08, 111f, 145, 17880, 182,186, 189,224f,234-36,241,271,
324,374,396
Heilsgut 32,156,158,160-65,271,282,
296f
HellenismlHellenistic 12,14-17,21,27,
45,69,72,106, 127f, 130,151,180,207,
213,220, 257, 264,287,325f
Hellenists 164,298
.
Hermes 78,181,184,189,330
Herod the Great 126, 128,257
Herod Agrippa I 71-74,115,126, 128f,
151,176,253,348,373,
Herod Agrippa II 72, 124,126,244, 259f,
262,307,330,337
Herod Antipas 72f, 110, 116, 119-22, 12436,139, 141f, 144,230,253,257,259,266,
309,371,386
Herodias 127f
History 5,8,14,17,21,24-28,35,57,59,
62f, 65, 71-73, 77f, 8~, 100,109,126-30,
132,149,163,177,189,211, 215f, 222,
228,269,279,287,289,311,317,379,
390f
Hist.ory .of Salvation 246, 278t, 333
Historiography 33
Holy Spirit 29,34,46-49,61,67,141,145,
153, 155f, 159-63, 168f,239,250,252,
258,268,278,289,290,295,297,323,
453
329, 331f, 334f,342,345f, 349,352,355,

360-63,366,370,375,386
H.omer 93,201,232
Hospitali ty 96, 109f, 235f, 292, 320, 366,
372-75,381
Human activity 32,103,164,243,287,
289,302,306,310,316
Humanity 1,15,21,37,40,46-49,57,97,
151,163,177,185,214f,217-20,241,291,
296,391, 397f, 400
Hyrcanus 66,257
Iconium 173,176,178,180,190,310,330,
340,346
Ideology 77,85,214,217,380,393
Idolatry, idolater( s), idolatrious 17,2123,58, 61-64,74f, 77, 82f, 85, 95, 97-101,
122,145, 170f,175f, 181, 183f, 187f, 19093, 204f, 211, 213, 224, 227, 239, 241f,
246,251,262-64,266,273, 309f, 330, 332,
350,352,361, 365,379f, 394, 397f, 402
Idols 17,19,22,58,63, 74f, 77, 82f, 98f,
164,187-91, 203f, 209, 21lf, 215, 217-19,
223,251,253,255,262,264,267,309,
323, 333,350, 395,397f
Idumean(s) 66,126f
Ignorance 15f, 21,25,45, 64, 76f, 84, 98100, 110,122, 143f, 188,201f, 212, 218f,
224,239, 242f, 248,255,317, 329, 333,
336f, 342, 362, 379f, 387,394,397,399401
Immorality 75f
Imperial cult 157,226,362
Imprisonment 78,129,133,310,373
Infancy narrative 28,31, 46f, 137
Ingratitude 394,397,401,403
Inheritance 46,61, 254f, 274, 287, 296-99,
317,322,360
Instructi.on(s) 27,54,79,87,108,110-12,
129,186,189,221,228,256f,267,280,
294f, 32Of, 326f, 333,335-43,346, 348,
353-55,360, 363f, 369, 373, 375, 386,397,
400
IsaiahlIsaianic 171,250,252,261-64,277,
313
Isis 207,233,350
Israel,Israelite(s) 3-8,12,29,44,55-57,
61-64,66-68,73,77,80,98, 100f, 104,
106,108-10, 127f, 133,137,141,154,158,
161,165,171,182,186,189,204,209,
212,232,246, 251f, 262-66, 269f, 279-81,
284,287, 290f, 295-97, 310, 312-14, 320,
331f, 366, 379,381f
454
Index of Subjects
Jailer 73,95,139,151,164,197,199-03,
240, 269,310,312,370, 372t
Jason 351,372
Jerusalem 9,48,59,64-68,72-74,83, 88f,
100,104,107, 109f, 112-14, 117, 119f,
123f, 126f, 132, 139-41, 143,147,156,
162f, 201, 228, 269, 277, 289, 309, 320,
327,331,336, 338f, 345,366, 370
Jesus 1, 4f, 7,9-11,25,34,41-43,46-49,53,
57,59-61,66,70,77,84,90,99,103-28,
130-48,153-55,159,161-66,168,170-72,
174-76, 179f, 187, 191, 195,198,200-02,
204-07,209,211,219-22, 225f, 228t, 237t,
241-52, 254-59,262f, 266-73, 275, 277-80,
287,290,296-99, 309,316f,321,323, 32527,329-32,334-37,339,341-45,348,354,
357,367,369-72,375,377,379,381,383,
392
Jew(s), Jewish 1,3-6,8,15,21,27,30,3436,40-42,46-48,55,57-69, 72f, 75-80,
83f, 86f, 89-93, 99, 103-31, 133-36, 13843,146-53,155,157-59,161,164, 167f,
172-80,185,187, 190f, 193, 196-99,20lf,
204f, 207, 210, 213, 220f, 223-26, 228-30,
234f, 237-39, 24lf, 245, 247, 252-57, 259f,
264,266,269-73,275,283-88, 290f, 29398, 30lf, 305, 308-14, 322-30, 335-38,
34lf, 345f, 348,350-54,356, 358f, 361,
363f, 366f, 369-75, 377,379,382-84,39195
Jewish instigation 168, 173f, 176,245,351
John, Gospel of 12,43,66,109, 114f, 122,
125,145,247-49,297,308,355f
John the Baptist 103,128-34,144,228,
230,251,253,255-57,266,348,381
Jonah 47,56-58,91-93,96,98, 100f, 112,
139,159,255,265,278,296, 307f, 313,
379,382,394-96, 398f, 401-03
Josephus 65f, 68, 71, 89, 91f, 96, 126-29,
159,257,373,394
Joy 128,145,188,202,287,347,369-71,
375,398
Judaea 67t, 104, 109, 115, 117f,339,366
Judaism 1,6-8,21,33,56,64-66,69,72f,
77-80,83,85,90, 99f, 104, 106, 109, 112f,
1l7f, 126f, 148-50, 152f, 155, 159, 164f,
171-73,175-77,180, 193f, 196-99,207,
213,223,225, 227f, 234, 239, 245, 259,
274,280,284,286,302,307,309-14,317,
328,330,335,337,350,353,363,367,
373f, 379, 382f, 386f, 39lf
Judas Iscariot 72,170,200,242,247,250,

304,361
Judgement 11,13, 19,30f,33,46,56-60,
63,90,94f, 101, 111, 121, 123, 130, 143,
155,159,172, 188f,204f,215, 218-22,
224,228-30,239,265-67, 273f, 280, 287,
318,379,382,395,397,399,401-03
Julius 234f,381
Kinship to God Ilf,21,25-27,390
Law Sf, 20, 25,29,35,54,57, 60f, 74, 77,
80, 89f, 98, 107, 115, 127, 149, 159, 177,
182,197-99,253f,269,273,296,298,369,
392
Laws 24,66,127,177,198,231
Leadership 124,140,161,338,348,35456,358f
Life 2, llf, 15,43,46,48,57f,60, 79, 90,
96,98,105,110,112,130,154,156,159,
162,172,177,179,183,187,198,200,
204f, 212-15,217,228,230,232,234,239,
252,262,266,272-74,276,282-85,288,
296-98,300,309,311, 320f, 328, 334, 338,
340,343-45,347-52,361-63,370,373,
375,387,400f
Light 8f, 13,20f,45,48,50-52, 70, 74,82,
85,91,97,103,108,115, 120f, 130, 132,
153,157,166-68, 17lf, 182, 192, 196,200,
207,211,221,223,226,229,231,234,
245-48,251-53,259,261,263,268,271,
281,283,296, 313f, 317, 320, 324, 330,
334,336, 339t, 343, 346, 356, 359t, 363,
366, 383f, 388-90, 400
Living God 150,186-91,193,198,202,
204,217,238,251,255,267,269,380,
397t
Lord 4,61,92,131,146, 164f, 167-69,
171f, 174, 179, 187f, 193,20lf, 213, 218,
224, 226f, 237f, 251, 256, 258, 267-71, 27678, 282f, 290-95, 298-300, 306, 309, 311,
320,323,327,331-33,336-39, 341f, 344,
346,349,354,357,369-71,375
Lot 100f,265,313,382
Lucian 70,77, 23lf
Lycaonia(n) 173,175,178,180,207,267
Lydia 193-95,203,258,276, 291f, 306,
310,320,346,372
Lysias 86, 89f, 227, 230
Lystra(n) 18,48,151,176,178-81,183-87,
189-93,195, 203f, 207,210, 216, 234,
238f, 251, 255, 263, 269, 288, 298, 308f,
312,318,337,346,350,362,398,401
Macedonia 194,267,346
Index of Subjects
Magic 69f, 99, 134, 139, 146f, 166f, 183,

225-27,239,242,309, 362f, 367f, 380
Magician(s) 70f, 99, 107, 128, 134, 166f,
176,224,226,241[,310,367
MaltaJMaltese 94,100,110,151,176,23537,309,318,342,374,381
Manuallabour 210, 357f
Material possessions 59,108,335,357,
374
Materialism 266,379f
Ministry 46,80,85, 87f, 96, 104,106-09,
111,119,128,134,136,143,145,147,
164,167,174,179, 193f, 197,203-05,22326,235-37, 241f, 244f,250, 255, 257-59,
262,267,287-89, 293f, 304, 307, 309f, 33542,344-48,350,352-55,357, 359f, 368,
372,375,386,392
Miracle(s) 34,48,72,84,87,97,100,105,
108,112, 130f, 133f, 136, 146, 151, 166f,
172,174,179-84,189-91,197,199,205,
224f, 227,234-37, 240f, 255,265,274,
288f, 305-09, 320, 337, 362, 371
Mission 6-8,12,18, 20, 41;52t, 55,57,62,
80,85,99,101, 103f, 108, 110f, 117, 125f,
131,134,140-42, 144f, 148, 164f, 167-70,
173-77,191,193-97,202f,210,220,224,
227,235, 239f, 243f, 250f, 254, 258, 26163,266-68, 270f, 280, 284-87,292,294,
298,304,308-14, 321f, 325, 329-31, 33840,342,348,361,372,379-81,383,386
Missionary(-ies) 2,21, 25t, 45, 49, 57, 68,
70,78,82,97,110,112,145,151,164-67,
171,173-76,178-86, 19Of, 193-204,221,
225,228,235,237, 239,241f, 246, 251f,
258,263, 267f, 274,278,286, 288f, 292,
297f, 300, 304, 306-10, 312, 314f, 318,
334, 336f, 340, 342, 346, 351, 364, 372f,
379,383,390
Mockery 115-17,121,134-36,138,144
Money 70, 81f, 84, 166, 170, 195, 229f,
256,304,348,356-58
Monotheism 99,155,191,350
Moral-ethical 29,41,52,56,85,90,96,
13lf, 135f, 139, 144, 153, 165, 169, 177,
235,256,260,274,316,320,324,361,
363-65,385,392
Moral-ethical failure(s)/sin(s) 30-32,58,
62,71, 76f, 80, 88f, 100,110, 117f, 126,
129,134, 142f, 168, 188,200,230,240,
242,253-55,264,312,318,359,379,38lf,
384,397
455
Moses 48,62,72,80,130,198,287,290,
296
Most High God 107
Mystery religions 207
Naaman 56,111,278,320
Narrative 9,13, 18f, 21, 23f, 27f, 30f, 36,
41,45-47,49f,53-56, 71,85, 95, 103, 108,
113, 115f, 122, 124f, 137, 14lf, 155, 164,
167,175,178,180,203,208,210,214,
220,233,235,238, 242f, 248,254, 264,
274,305,313, 315f, 319, 327, 352, 366,
378,382,388f
Nation(s) 3,6,15,30,57-59,63-66,97-99,
104, 110f, 114,122,128,134,139, 143f,
149,158,164,171, 187f, 198,204, 214f,
223, 246,254f, 257,160,262,266,269,
277, 287, 290f, 295, 303, 313, 320, 332,
352,375,379,392
Natural capacities/faculties 61,71,85,97,
101,144,188,208,218,221,300,312,
314f, 347, 349, 352, 360, 364
Natural Knowledge 21,25,213
Natural Revelation 20f, 188f, 348, 400
Natural Theology 9,21,25f,42,208,222f,
313,389f
Need of salvation 6,36,149,153,201,
240,245,254, 274f, 333, 383-86
NinevehlNinevites 47,56-58, 92f, 100f,
112,139,146,159,215,255,265,278,
295, 307f, 313, 319f, 382, 394f, 397-403
Noah 58, 100f, 159, 265f, 313,382
Opportunity for repentance 32,156-63,
165,296
Old Testament 4-7,14-18,21,27,33f,5557,65,93,128,148,158,186, 188f, 214f,
246,248,261,264,269,271,277,283,
290f, 296,325,329,331,337
Pagan/Paganism 4, 25f, 36, 45,48,55,64,
70,74-77,79,81,83,85-88, 9lf, 95-97,
105,108,122,126,131,134,136, ISO-55,
164,166,171, 173f, 179-84,187,193,19604,206-09, 213f, 216-20, 222, 224f, 227,
231-35,237-40,242,251, 254f, 257, 264,
267,272, 274f, 304, 307, 309,312, 314,
318,324,332,335,337,346, 349f, 355f,
359f, 362-65, 368-71, 374-76, 380-82,
386f, 390, 398
Palestine 68,109,331,345
Paraenesis 144,221,348,353,361,374
Passion narrative 53,113, 115f, 124f,
141f, 175
456
Index of Subjects
Passion prediction(s) 110,113,116,125,

139,142f
Passover 118, 124l, 127
Pastoral care 335, 337f, 344,352-54,360,
363,365
Patron 86,311,348,355,359
Paul 2,4-7,9-12, 14-19,21-23,25,27,29l,
32f,37,40-44,47f,50,53,57,69f, 72f, 75,
77-79,81-92,94-97,100,115,121,123l,
127, 130f,134, 140f, 147, 149f, 160, 162,
164,166-69, 172l, 175l, 178l, 181, 185,
187, 1901, 193-200,202-12,215-20,22238, 241l, 244-47, 249-52, 255-62, 266f,
269, 278f, 284f. 287-89,292-94,299,301,
306f, 309-12, 314, 320, 325-30, 336-46,
349,351,353-61,364,366, 368f, 372f,
377f, 381, 389-91, 394, 398
Peace 31,107,203,267,270-72,274,280,
292,332
Pentecost 60,147,252,335
Persecution 128,170,173,176,178,224,
304,346-49, 35lf, 359
Perseverance 170,179,298,334,345,34749,351-53,360
Perversion 270,336
Peter 9f, 31, 48, 60, 68,73,146,148,15055, 160-62,178f, 186,202,258,263,269l,
273,276,282,314,344l,360,362f,365,
372
Pharisees 107,132
Philemon and Baucis 181,184
Philip, the evangelist 64, 68l, 145-48,267,
278,306,337, 361f. 371
PhilippiIPhilippian(s) 73,78,82,95,123,
139,164,168,176,193-200, 202l, 240-42,
293,310,312,346,362,370,372
Philo 27,45,54,58,70,73,75,78,92,115,
120,125,127,135,159, 162f, 176, 198,
232,235,277,394
Philosopher(s)/philosophical, philosophy
12, 14-18, 2lf, 42, 46, 48, 167,204-06,
208f, 214, 216, 222f, 264, 310
Phrygia 184,346
Piety 15l, 35, 85, 105, 149l, 152, 198,204,
210-12,214,218,224,229,324,383
Pilate 60,73,114,116-28, 132f, 135, 137,
139-42,144,168,249
Pisidian Antioch 140l, 171-73, 176,178,
190,194,258,267,272,283,285,288,
305f, 310, 312, 325, 334, 340, 346, 350,
370,382
Plan of God 3,5,8,138,143,228,255,

300, 302f, 331, 370, 385
Pneumatology 47,53,252,331,333,335,
392
Polycarp 157
Polytheism 99,184,192,223
Power of Satan 168,192,241,245,248,
25lf, 257, 263, 274, 321, 381, 387
Prayer(s) 91-94,117, 136f,142!, 145,149f,
184,187,193,197,201,231-33,239,310,
345,387,397
Predestination 143,172,195,283-87,298
Preparatio evangelica 223,312,375,392
Proclamation 2,4,11,19,21,27,29,32,
40,52,58,62,64,80-88,90,101,103,10608,112, 131,l44-49,153-56,159f, 16471,173,175,178-80,183,187f,190-97,
199,206-13,215, 218!, 222-25, 227-29,
236-39,242,244, 246f, 250, 254-59, 265,
267-69,274-76,280, 292l, 299-301, 304,
306-14, 316f, 326, 335-37, 341l, 344, 347,
350f, 353, 368, 377,383,385,397,401-03
Prodigal 46f, 59, 61l, 105,358,366,374
Prophecy 5,34,231,235,277
Prophet(s) 29,46,55-57, 61,67l, 70, 72,
82,90, 98f, 109,127f,130, 141, 147, 151,
166f, Do!, 235, 260, 265, 269, 287, 290,
308,320,323,328,334,338, 344l, 348,
352,366,379,382,392,397,400-03
Proselyte(s) 52,149,284,311,314,328,
378,382
Providential care 55,58,60, 98f,187,
189f, 193,216,238,324,335,342,348,
371,380,386
Pseudo Philo, De Iona 27,45,49,58, 75f,
92,162,215,217-19,232,235,277,295,
303,307,319, 394f, 397-401
Pseudo-Philo, De Sampsone 45,162,217,
219,303,394,396
Publius 97,235f,374,381
Punishment 63, 72f,101, 116f, 121, 135f,
144,175,177, 183l, 202, 211, 234, 248,
266,324
Python 195f,200,241
Rebellion 29,61,80,142,144,177,215,
237,240,251,264,272,317,323,326,
330,381
Reconciliation 271,306,330,389
Redaction 24,26,28,49,51
Redemption 3,59f,390
Rejection 4,29,52,57,61,63,77, 79f,87f,
99l, 107, 110,112, 129, 140-42,145,151,
Index of Subjects
176f, 179, 184,203,230, 239f, 242, 245,
252-54,283f, 288, 293, 306, 309, 314,318,
337,342,346,352, 379f, 392
Religiosity 22,35,70,200,313,361,380
Repentance 16,25,30-33, 46f, 56f, 60,
101,112,131,134, 138f, 141, 143f, 146,
155-65,169, 21S-20, 222, 224, 252, 25457, 265f, 272, 276, 282,296-300, 306,
308f, 313, 319f, 326, 337, 34lf, 354, 364,
379,382,384,387,396,400,403
Resistance 62,80,82, 8B, 108, 128, 142,
166,168,174-77,197,199,215,225,242,
245,250,259,288,294,304,309,340,
351,380
Responsibility for the death of Jesus
113, 135,140f
Restoration 5,46,48,67,105, 108f, 111,
250,252,262,269-71,274,291,317,321
Resurrection 25,56,72,114,128,130-32,
134,138,172,174,179,204-07,211,219f,
222f, 229, 242, 259f, 266-68, 337,341,369
Revelation 35,63,98,137,198,209,212,
216f, 240, 244-47, 263, 267,274,281,283,
296, 317,320,336, 342,347-49, 379, 382f
Revelation in nature/natural revelation
21,188,215,217,336,342,348,379f,383,
400,402
Roman empire 168,237
Roman law 115,199
Romans 78, 113, 115f, 119, 124,139-42,
144,175,198,211
Rome 78,90,95, 104f, 116, 118-21, 12325, 135f, 139, 141f, 155,211,237,249,341
Ruler cult 154,186
Sabbath 79,172,205,210,284,369
Sacrifice(s) 22,74-77, 9lf,118, 147, 151,
181f, 186,190,209,232,239,308, 337,359
Sacrilege 87, 89f, 175
Sadducees 128
Sailors 91-94,96,100, 232f, 235
Salvation 1,3-6,8,13,21,25,28, 3lf, 3537,41-43,47,52f, 55, 80, 98, 100f, 103233,235-318,320,322-26, 329, 332f, 337,
342,346-49,352, 360f, 363-66, 370f, 373,
375-78,380,382-88,390,392,396,400
Salvation history 63,80,222,289
Samaria 56,67-69,107,109, 111f, 145f,
151,224,242, 267f, 283, 311,328, 361, 371
Samaritan(s) 1,4,64-69, 7lf, 77,104,107,
109-12, 126f, 139,145-47,166,176,240f,
305f, 309, 321, 361, 371f, 374
Samson 76,396
457
Sanctity 88-90
Satan/satanic (cf. Devil) 38f,41,48,106,
168-70,192,241,243,245,247-54,257f,
261, 263f, 274, 302-05, 315, 318, 321,323,
345,347,365, 38lf, 387
Saviour 100,103,105,131,161,180,257,
260,279,321,370,401
Sceva 226,241,367
Scripture(s) 3-5,12, 147f, 152,205,222f,
239,246,258,269,295,301,331,337,
382,403
Seafaring 92,231
Septuagint (LXX) 15,18, 92f, 115, 151,
153,157,186,201,213,217,262,270,276,
282, 289f, 295,297,322, 332,345,395
Sergius 134,151,166-68,183,240,242,
245,268,283,288, 305f, 336
Shame 115,121,125,144,262,396
Shechem 65f
Shepherds 279,354
Shipwreck 9lf, 94-96,231,233,235
Sidon 56,65,71,100,104,109,255,265,
328f
Silas 88,200,269,293,310,340,345
Simeon 31,149,246,261,279
Simon Magus 64,68-71,73,104,145-47,
151,164,176,240-42,245,306,360-65,
367f,374
Sin(s) 3,12,16,25,28-32,46-48,51,58,
73,76,89,100,114,129,132,134,138-40,
144, 152f, 155,158-62,185,191,201,229,
245,248,251-57,264, 266f, 271, 273f,
279f, 296-98, 305, 308f, 315-18,361-65,
367,372, 374f, 379, 381,384f, 387, 392,
394-97,403
Sinfulness l1,30f, 139, 155, 253f, 363
Sinner(s) 11f,29,31, 46, 68, 111, 138-40,
155,253, 255f, 261, 332, 372, 392f
Sodom 56,58,75,265
Soldier(s) 96,105,114-17,121,134,136,
138,144, 150f, 234f, 256f
Solomon 57,63,83,98,100,162,307,313
Sorcery 166,176,183,226,380
Soteriology 33,42,53,144,200,243,279,
295,302,377,385, 387f, 392
Special Revelation 27, 56,60, 62f, 76f, 80,
90,98,100,148,187,198,209,212,269,
283,296, 312f,320, 336, 348f, 379, 382,
400
Spiritual capacities 32,38,41,101,204,
363,375,386
Spiritual failure(s) 30,62,75,77,80, 95f,
458
Index of Subjects
100,110,112,131,135,139,142,144,
165, 176, 192,214, 230, 235f,240, 242,
254,260,309,374,381, 384f, 392
Stephen 29, 62f, 67, 83, 213, 287,295,304,
334,344,351
Stoic 12,14,16,18,21,42,205,390
Superstition/superstitious 130,166,204,
210f, 213, 239
Synagogue(s) 68, 78f,105,107, 149,164,
167,171-75,178,180,190,195, 204f, 207,
224f, 227,269, 283f, 293f, 304, 307,30912,314,337, 340f, 353
Syncretism 181,183,196f,234
Temple (Jerusalem) 59,63, 65f, 68, 83,
88f,118f,126, 147, 187, 323, 336
Temple(s), pagan 22, 65f, 75, 81, 83, 87f,
181,185-87,225,349
TertuUus 86,89,210,272
Thessalonica 176,223,293,307,310,312
Thucydides 54,177
Tradition 9,17,21, 27f, 30, 35, 37f, 42, 44,
5lf,55, 71, 85, 87, 93,120,127,133,149,
156-58,160-63, 180f, 184, 186, 194,201,
203,209,222,226,231,236,259,266,
270,300,329,335,338,343,353,355,
358,389-91
'frial of Jesus 90,113,118-26,128,133-35
Trial of Paul 88-90, 123f, 197-200, 227-30,
259f
Troas 88,332,341,369
Tyre 56,71,100,104,109,255,265
Unbelief 112,169,207,229,305,315,324,
371
Understanding of sin 28[, 32,56,139f,
219,251,253, 274,364, 384f
Universe 98,213
Veneration 64,74, 83f, 87, 97, 147, 181,
185f, 211f, 214,220,233,255, 397f
Vespasian 159
Violence 13,66,85,89,100,106,176
Ways of the Gentiles (Acts 14.16) 188,
327f,370
Way (as a designation of Christianity)
173,295,327f,341,370
Wayfarers 188,325,327[,343
Wisdom 57,60,62,98,104,158,162,208,
232f,261,295-97,307
Word of God/the Lord 104,146,155,
169, 171f, 174, 194,202,224,227,240,
258,267-69, 283f, 292, 294, 299,306, 309,
320,329,336, 339f,341f, 347-49, 361
Worship/worshippers 21,25,62-64,68,
74-77,79-87,90,97-99,109,147,151,
170, 173,180f,184-90, 193f, 198,204,20709,211-18,224, 232,238f, 241, 251, 253,
262,264,269,284,292,309-11,321,324,
349f, 362, 369, 371, 379f, 393, 395, 398,
40lf I
Wrath 17, 201,25~
Zeus 2,65, 86f, 180-82,184, 186f, 189,
196,207
Why did the Gentiles need salvation?

What was wrong with them before they encountered
the Christian mission? Christoph W. Stenschke offers
a comprehensive study of Luke)s view of the Gentiles
and uncovers the'reason for Christian mission.
ISBN 3-16-147139-3
Mohr Siebeck

Christoph W. Stenschke Lukes Portrait of Gentiles Prior To Their Coming To Faith 1999 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Christoph W. Stenschke Lukes Portrait of Gentiles Prior To Their Coming To Faith 1999 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHRISTOPH W.

Luke's Portrait of Gentiles

Luke's Portrait of Gentiles

Die Deutschen Bibliothek - CIP-Einheilsarifnahme

The Gentiles in Luke-Acts ........................... .

Il. Gentiles prior to faith . ................................ .

2. The Gospel 0/ Luke . ..................................... .

Luke 4.26f. ........................................ .

3. The Acts of the Apostles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Acts 2.23 ...........................................

Ill. The Gentile encounter with salvation ..................

1. Introduction . ......................................... , . "

2. The Gentile encounter with salvation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Herod Antipas (Luke 3.19f; 9.7-9; 13.3lf;23.7-12) . . . . . . .

3. The state and salvation of Gentiles prior to faith. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The subsequent context (Acts 26.19-29) ............. .

Iv. Clues from Luke's portrait of Gentile Christians to

4. Conclusion . ...... , ............. '" .... , . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. .

1. Luke's comprehensive portrait of Gentiles prior to faith. . . . . . . . .

2. The theological significance of Luke's comprehensive portrait

2.1. The Gentile need of salvation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. Some methodological implications of Luke's comprehensive

3.1. The vindication of a comprehensive approach: Luke's

Appendix: The portrayal of Gentiles prior to faith in Luke-Acts and

1. Commentaries on Luke's Gospel and the Book of Acts.. . .. . . . . .

2. Other commentaries, monographs and articles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Index of Subjects . .... : .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . .. .. . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . .

The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting

Paulys Real-Encyclopiidie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, G. Wissowa, W. Kroll, K. Mittelhaus,

4 Cf. e.g. Gasque, History, 107-200.

From a different point of departure D.L. Bock concludes that

sistent manner to justify' the Gentile mission:

The necessity and legitimacy of the Gentile mission is established through

This is achieved through Jesus' predictions concerning the mission to the

Plan, (103-20) 116-20.

To conclude our survey of studies touching on Luke's references to the

H.-W. Gensichen's entry 'Heidentum. 1. BiblischlKirchenmissionsgeschichtlich' in the

sights, often deriving from his thorough grasp of background knowledge. 37

We now turn to some studies of NT and Lukan anthropology. This is the

from Luke-Acts are not considered to be of great interest or to raise great

As in Wheeler Robinson's treatment Luke's anthropology is either not

Other interpretations of the expression are dismissed. 56 For Ktimmel the

Kummel concludes: 'The stoic-pantheistic understanding of man in Acts

Kiimmel rejects this reinterpretation of the exceptional texts in the light of

2.2.2. The Areopagus speech afld Lukan anthropology

In his influential essay 'Paul on the Areopagus', M. Dibelius summed up

64 Man, 95; i.e. criticism beyond that mentioned by KUmmel in n.l00.

Dibelius answers his question by contrasting the significance of ~'l"tEtV

In contrast to Paul, 'the speaker on the Areopagus turns to non-Christians

This conclusion is followed by further material on people's relationship

P. 60f; cf. Gasque, History, 211 also n. 28.

method. 70 The author inserted speeches into an existing itinerary (70) to

As we shall be turning next to a study which challenged Dibelius' thesis of

72 Dibelius thinks it 'impossible to interpret individual expressions eclectically, that is

This procedure is unfortunate because Dibelius notes that

While Dibelius argues that the difference should not be exaggerated,16 he

most prolific exponents of two opposing approaches and methods, it is

On all these points Gartner refutes the Stoic-Hellenistic interpretation and

understood in a way that explains the conclusions drawn from it in Acts

Luke's theology with his renowned contribution 'On the "Paulinism" of

Some observations are in order. Vielhauer follows Dibelius with regard to

In two areas Conzelmann proposes unique features also relevant for