TITLE PAGE

STUDENT ID: 10014453

UNIT: BS321 – New Testament Three

QUESTION NO. Four

QUESTION: How does Jerusalem function in Luke-Acts?

NO. OF WORDS: 3289

DATE DUE: 5th August 2009

DATE SUBMITTED: 5th August 2009

Student Number: 10014453 Page 1 of 18

Synopsis

Within Luke-Acts the city of Jerusalem plays a key role in achieving Luke’s purpose of

assuring Theophilus of what he has been taught about God’s work through Jesus. The

role of Jerusalem is multifaceted. Jerusalem functions structurally as the narrative is

driven forward by Jesus journey’s to the city and ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ progression out

from it to the ends of the earth. Jerusalem also functions symbolically as it typifies the

expectations and the rejection of Jesus and his witnesses. Finally, Jerusalem functions

theologically as Luke demonstrates that the city is replaced by Jesus as the source and

location of God’s blessing to his people and all nations.

Student Number: 10014453 Page 2 of 18

When studying Luke it is unmistakable that ‘The city of Jerusalem haunts his Gospel’.1

This becomes even clearer when compared to the other two synoptic gospels.2 The

city of Jerusalem is a central figure in both Luke’s Gospel and also in the Acts of the

Apostles. Due to Jerusalem’s obvious significance for Luke, it is essential to

understand how it functions of within Luke-Acts. In doing so this will further

elucidate Luke’s purpose of assuring Theophilus of what he has been taught about the

Lord Jesus. As Hastings notes, ‘Once we have grasped the fact of Luke’s preoccupation

with Jesus’ going up to Jerusalem we have to ask the reason for it, the significance of it,

and hence too the significance of Jerusalem.’3 The function of Jerusalem in achieving

this purpose of the narrative is multifaceted. Jerusalem functions structurally in the

narrative, it functions symbolically, and finally it functions theologically.

Purpose

The purpose of Luke-Acts as a whole can only be spoken of if the deliberate unity and

intentionality of the narrative can first be established.4 Despite the challenge of

Parsons and Pervo, the scholarly consensus has continued to assert the conclusion

that Luke-Acts is a two-part work.5 It seems clear from the texts, particularly the

prologues, that as Luke composed his Gospel and Acts they were to be two distinct but

1
W. D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine (Los
Angeles: University of California Press, 1974). 253.
2
Of the two words for Jerusalem ( Ἰερουσαλήμ and Ἱεροσόλυμα ) they occur fifty-four times in the
synoptic gospels and thirty-one of those are in Luke’s Gospel.
3
Adrian Hastings, Prophet and Witness in Jerusalem (Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1958), 103.
4
R. Maddox, The Purpose of Luke-Acts (Edinburgh: Clark, 1982), 4.
5
Mikeal C. Parson and Richard I. Pervo, Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress,
1993); Luke Timothy Johnson, ‘Luke-Acts, Book of’ Pages 403-20 in vol. 4 of The Anchor Bible
Dictionary (eds. David Noel Freedman; 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992), 404.

Student Number: 10014453 Page 3 of 18

closely connected works.6 This essay will proceed on that assumption. Luke-Acts is a

two-part work with the Gospel ‘written with at least one eye already on the sequel.’7

Any consideration of the purpose of Luke-Acts must begin with the prologue in Luke

1:1-4 and take into account the obvious pastoral motivation of assurance. Luke was

writing so that Theophilus will realise τὴν ἀσφάλειαν (‘stability of an idea, certainty,

truth’) of what he has been taught.8 Bock believes the certainty that Luke is assuring

Theophilus of is, ‘how God worked to legitimise Jesus and how Jesus proclaimed

hope.’9 And by this ‘Luke also wishes to defend God’s faithfulness to Israel and his

promises, despite the rejection of the promise by many in the nation.’10 Jerusalem will

play a vital role, structurally, symbolically, and theologically, for Luke to achieve his

purpose of assuring Theophilus.

Jerusalem functions structurally

According to Conzelmann ‘Luke employs geographical factors for the purpose of

setting out his fundamental conception’.11 Jerusalem forms a key structural element to

the narrative of Luke-Acts. ‘The structure of this two-volume work centres on

Jerusalem, with the city acting as the pivot around which the narrative turns.’12 It is

clear that within the Gospel the narrative is driven forward by the expectations

6
I. H. Marshall, ‘Acts and the “Former Treatise”’, in B. W. Winter and A. D. Clarke (eds.), The book of
Acts in Its First-Century Setting, Vol. 1: Ancient Literary Setting (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 163-
82; David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 6-8.
7
Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1998), 8.
8
BDAG, 147.
9
Darrell L. Bock, Luke 1:1-9:50 (2 vols. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1994), 15.
10
Bock, Luke 1:1-9:50, 15.
11
Hans Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke (trans. Geoffrey Buswell, New York: Harper and Row
Publishers, 1961), 27.
12
Walker, Jesus and the Holy City: New Testament Perspectives on Jerusalem. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1996), 58.

Student Number: 10014453 Page 4 of 18

surrounding Jerusalem and by Jesus journey to Jerusalem. Within Acts, Jerusalem

functions as ‘home-base’ for the witnesses as the news about Jesus spreads to the ends

of the earth. Despite this it could be argued that Jerusalem’s place within the narrative

structure is more about the drive away from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth.

‘Unlike the compositions of the other evangelists, the Lucan Gospel begins and ends

in Jerusalem’.13 Almost from the outset of his Gospel, Luke sets up expectations

surrounding Jerusalem and the role that it will play in the fulfilment of God’s plans.

The narrative opens within Jerusalem as Zechariah is told about the birth of John

while ministering in the temple (1:5-25). Expectations are heightened further when

Jesus is presented at the temple as a baby. Simeon prophesies that Jesus will ‘cause the

falling and rising of many in Israel’ (2:34) and at the same moment the prophetess

Anna speaks about Jesus as the child who is expected to bring the ‘redemption of

Jerusalem’ (2:38). Luke is unique among the gospel writers as he uses these

trustworthy characters to set up the expectation that the future of Jerusalem, Israel

and the young Jesus are inextricably linked.14 However, Tannehill notes that ‘Anna’s

expectation is expressed in a way that will make its later negation sharp and clear.’15

The anticipation of how this boy might redeem Jerusalem urges the narrative forward.

13
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Luke (The Anchor Bible; New York: Doubleday, 1981), 165. The beginning and
end location of the Gospel is nuanced by some authors who place them specifically within the temple
itself.
14
Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 150; Walker, Jesus and
the Holy City, 58.
15
Robert C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, A Literary Interpretation, Vol. 1: The Gospel
According to Luke. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 35. Tannehill see this negated by the perceived
failure of Jesus to bring about the redemption of Jerusalem in line with the expectations expressed by
Anna.

Student Number: 10014453 Page 5 of 18

The major movement of Luke’s Gospel is Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem which begins at

the key turning point in 9:51 as Jesus ‘set his face to go to Jerusalem.’16 This travel

narrative occupies the central chapters of the Gospel (9:51-19:44) as Jesus journeys to

his climactic moment in the Holy City. Robert and Feuillet note that Luke ‘de-

emphasizes all topographical data except those relating to Jerusalem, and the result is

striking.’17 Luke builds the tension and anticipation through the narrative with

‘repeated references to journeying, sometimes with a reminder that Jerusalem is the

goal (9:53; 13:22, 33; 17:11; 18:31; 19:11, 28), and repeated references to the rejection,

death, and resurrection that will happen there (12:49-50; 13:34-33; 16:31; 17:25; 18:31-

33; 19:14).’18 According to Tannehill this gives ‘a sense of narrative movement and

tension to a long section of Luke’s Gospel that otherwise would become a static

collection of teachings.’19

Jerusalem also serves as the climactic setting of the Gospel as Jesus’ arrival in the city

is the ‘bringing together (of) the two participants in the drama of the passion, Jesus

and Jerusalem’.20 This has been expected throughout the travel narrative (9:51-19:44)

and the sense of anticipation is heightened as Jesus approaches the city. Once the

reader arrives in Jerusalem with Jesus, this becomes the setting for the rest of the

Gospel. With the exception of Jesus arrest at the Mount of Olives (22:39-53) and his

resurrection appearance on the road to Emmaus (24:13-35) the final scene of the

16
There are brief mentions of Jerusalem between Luke 3:1-9:51. Jesus’ temptation by Satan (4:9-12); the
visitors from Jerusalem making up part of the crowds coming to see or hear Jesus (5:17; 6:17); and in
the conversation between Moses, Elijah and Jesus about what is to be fulfilled in Jerusalem (9:31).
17
A. Robert and A. Feuillet, Introduction to the New Testament, trans. P. W. Skehan et. al. (New York:
Desclée, 1965), 230.
18
Tannehill, Narrative Unity: Luke, 229.
19
Tannehill, Narrative Unity: Luke, 229.
20
Hastings, Prophet and Witness in Jerusalem, 120.

Student Number: 10014453 Page 6 of 18

Gospel is set within or around the Holy City. Unlike Matthew, Jesus does not appear

to the disciples in Galilee but near Jerusalem and under Jesus instructions the disciples

remain in there as they anticipate the coming of the Holy Spirit (24:49). ‘The sense of

closure is supported by reminders of the birth stories with which the gospel began, for

a return to initial themes is a way of rounding off a story. Jesus’ disciples ‘returned to

Jerusalem with great joy, and were continually in the temple blessing God’ (24:52-

53).21

Acts picks up where the Gospel left off ‘as focus on Jerusalem and the Temple

continues’.22 However, as the Gospel’s narrative thrust was Jesus’ journey to

Jerusalem, in Acts the narrative thrust will be the spread of ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ from

Jerusalem. Acts 1:8 outlines the programme for this spread that structures the book as

ὁ λόγος spreads from Jerusalem, to all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the

earth. ‘Here the mission to all nations is developed as a geographical sequence which

partly anticipated the course of the story which follows.’23

As Acts develops the followers of Jesus remain in Jerusalem as his witnesses until the

persecution following the death of Stephen causes them to be scattered throughout

Judea and Samaria (8:1). This begins the journey of ὁ λόγος out from Jerusalem,

although Jerusalem is never abandoned of all the witnesses and the narrative

frequently returns to the city.24 Chance rejects the notion that Luke is ‘portraying

Christianity as a religion straining to sever its ties with Jerusalem’ by asserting that

21
Tannehill, Narrative Unity: Luke, 300-01.
22
Walker, Jesus and the Holy City, 58.
23
Tannehill, Narrative Unity: Luke, 296-97.
24
Acts 8:25; 9:26; 11:2, 22, 30; 15:2; 18:22; 19:21; 21:17.

Student Number: 10014453 Page 7 of 18

‘Luke is continually bringing the Church back to Jerusalem.’25 However he does

qualify this view, ‘While there is no doubt that the Gentile mission moves

centrifugally from Jerusalem, it is doubtful that Luke saw the church as severing its

ties with this hub.’26 As the message goes out, although Jerusalem is the origin, it is no

longer the goal and is not the place to which narrative is driving.

The function of Jerusalem within the narrative structure aids Luke in achieving the

purpose of his narrative. As Carson and Moo note,

Luke-Acts together shows how God has acted in history to fulfil his promises

to Israel and to create a world-wide body of believers drawn from both Jews

and Gentiles. The focus on Jerusalem in both Luke and Acts conveys this

movement. As Luke emphasizes (more than any other gospel) the movement

toward Jerusalem (e.g. 9:51; 13:33; 17:11), the book of Acts describes a

movement away from Jerusalem.27

Walker also agrees, ‘The structure of Luke’s two volume work shows how salvation-

history has moved towards and then from Jerusalem.’28 This movement assures the

reader of the legitimate Jewish roots of the hope in Jesus as well as it now being made

available to the nations via his authorised witnesses.

25
J. Bradley Chance, Jerusalem, the Temple and the New Age in Luke-Acts (Macon, Georgia: Mercer
University Press, 1988), 101.
26
Chance, Jerusalem, the Temple and the New Age, 101.
27
D. A. Carson & Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (2nd ed. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2005), 202.
28
Walker, Jesus and the Holy City, 57.

Student Number: 10014453 Page 8 of 18

Jerusalem functions symbolically

As well as functioning structurally for the narrative, Jerusalem also functions

symbolically. Jerusalem begins as a symbol for the hopes and expectations that God

will redeem his people. As the opposition increases, Jerusalem increasingly becomes a

symbol of opposition to God and his Messiah. It is the place where Jesus must go to

die. It begins to represent the rejection of Israel as Jerusalem rejects God’s Messiah

and then his witnesses. This continues through and increases throughout Acts as

Jerusalem becomes increasingly hostile to the witnesses of Jesus.

Luke-Acts begins with high expectations for Jerusalem with its anticipation and

acceptance of Jesus as a baby. This is exemplified by Zechariah, Elizabeth, Simeon and

Anna who ‘are modelled after great figures of old Testament piety.’29 The birth and

infancy narratives (Luke 1-2) exhibit a city and its people who are willing to embrace

Jesus as the redeemer of Jerusalem and of Israel from the subjugation of Rome. As

Hastings remarks, ‘We find Jerusalem and the temple faithfully accepting its new-

born Lord. […] In the temple Simeon takes Jesus in his arms, Anna gives thanks, the

learned doctors listen with amazement to the answers of Jesus. […] This is how

Jerusalem should have received its Lord.’30

Indications of the coming conflict with Jerusalem are anticipated as those from

Jerusalem appear within the crowds that oppose Jesus (5:17).31 Block argues that the

phrase τὸ πρόσωπον ἐστήρισεν τοῦ πορεύεσθαι is a Hebrew idiom that ‘indicates a

determination to accomplish a task’ anticipating opposition much like the prophets of

29
Chance, Jerusalem, the Temple and the New Age, 48.
30
Hastings, Prophet and Witness in Jerusalem, 120-21.
31
Walker, Jesus and the Holy City, 69.

Student Number: 10014453 Page 9 of 18

old.32 Luke is already pre-empting the opposition that awaits Jesus in Jerusalem. The

first explicit mention of the hostility that awaits Jesus in Jerusalem occurs in his

lament for the children of the city in Luke 13:32-35. Jesus identifies with God’s desire

to care for and protect the city and it’s people but the city was not willing to accept

him.33 As a result, Jerusalem will live up to its reputation as the city that kills the

messengers of God and will be left desolate as a consequence. 34

From this point Jerusalem takes the lead in the opposition and rejection of Jesus as he

travels towards his inevitable death. Upon approaching Jerusalem, Jesus shares the

Parable of the Ten Minas anticipating his rejection (19:11-27). The poignant

condemnation comes as Jesus concludes in the words of the King, ‘But those enemies

of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in

front of me’ (19:27). Now is the time when Jesus will come as King. God will see what

his servants have done with what he has given them as in the parable. Immediately

following this Jesus enters Jerusalem and as Tannehill points out,

Luke, in contrast to Matthew and Mark, specifies that it is the “multitude of

disciples” who rejoice at Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem and say, “Blessed is the

one who comes in the name of the Lord.” […] Jerusalem does not join in this

and so does not “see” Jesus in the crucial sense. The disciples also proclaim

32
Darrell L. Bock, Luke 9:51-24:53 (2 vols. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1996), 968.
33
David W. Pao and Eckhard J. Schnabel, ‘Luke’, Pages 251-414 in Commentary on the New Testament
Use of the Old Testament. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson eds. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007, p.
336.
34
Bock, Luke 9:51-24:53, 1249.

Student Number: 10014453 Page 10 of 18

 Jesus as “the king” in 19:38. Jerusalem […] does not join in this

proclamation.35

Jerusalem has not recognised Jesus’ coming to them as king. ‘In 1:78-79 Zechariah

prophesied that “a dawning from on high will visit (ἐπισκέψεται) us […] to guide our

feet into a way of peace.” But now Jerusalem fails to recognise the crucial time of

“visitation” or the things that lead to “peace”.’36 Jerusalem’s failure to recognise Jesus

turns into overt rejection. This leads to clearer announcements of judgement and

condemnation upon Jerusalem (Luke 21:20-24; 23:27-31) as it grows into its role as a

symbol of Jewish rejection of God’s Messiah. ‘Jerusalem turns Jezabel [sic] and the

central theme of the third gospel is the clash of Jesus and Jerusalem.’37 As Brawley

concludes,

Jesus’ entrance into Jerusalem leads up to one of the most negative

characterisations of God in connection with the Jewish people (Luke 19:42-

44). With antecedents in 13:35 and elaborations in 21:20-24, Jesus announces

the devastation of Jerusalem and its populace as a consequence of the city’s

failure to recognize the things that make for peace. The crowds on the

descent from the Mount of Olives recognize Jesus as God’s ἐπισκοπή

35
Tannehill, Narrative Unity: Luke, 158-59.
36
Tannehill, Narrative Unity: Luke, 159.
37
Hastings, Prophet and Witness in Jerusalem, 98.

Student Number: 10014453 Page 11 of 18

 (“visitation”). Who then does not recognise Jerusalem’s ἐπισκοπή? It is

possible for Jerusalem to stand synecdochically for Israel as a whole.38

According to Tannehill, ‘the ending of Luke left another unresolved issue: the

rejection of Jesus by the people of Jerusalem and their leaders.’39 Despite the call to

repent throughout the speeches in Jerusalem (Acts 2:31-40; 3:19-23; 4:10-12; 5:30-32;

7:51-53; 22:14-16), their rejection of God’s Messiah continues throughout Acts as

Luke portrays Jerusalem’s hostility to the message and witnesses of Jesus (Acts 6:9;

7:54-8:3; 9:2; 12:1-10). As Walker notes,

From the time of Stephen, Jerusalem becomes a perilous place for Jesus'

followers […]. When Paul is arrested in Acts 21 it is clear that, despite the

valiant presence of the Jerusalem church, Jerusalem as a whole wants nothing

further to do with this new ‘way’: ‘all the city’ was ‘aroused . . . and dragged

him out of the Temple’; ‘all Jerusalem was in an uproar’ (21:30-31; cf. Luke

23:1, 18, 25). Effectively Jesus had been rejected once again by Jerusalem.40

The on going rejection of Jerusalem is well illustrated by the way that Paul’s journey to

Jerusalem (Acts 19:21-21-16) echoes Jesus journey in the Gospel (Luke 9:51-19:44).41

Paul must endure the rejection of Jerusalem as the city becomes a symbol of the

38
Robert L. Brawley, ‘The God of Promises and the Jews in Luke-Acts’, pages 279-296 in Literary
Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays in Honour of Joseph B. Tyson. (eds. Richard P. Thompson and Thomas E.
Phillips. Marcon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1998), 285.
39
Robert C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, A Literary Interpretation: Vol. 2: The Acts of
the Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1994), 6.
40
Walker, Jesus and the Holy City, 90.
41
David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles (The Pillar New Testament Commentary, Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2009), 543.

Student Number: 10014453 Page 12 of 18

ongoing rejection of the Messiah.42 The place that Jerusalem plays in its rejection of

Jesus and his messengers functions in Luke-Acts as an apologetic to achieve Luke’s

purpose. It validates the witnesses as true followers of Jesus as they experience the

same rejection as Jesus. It also vindicates God’s judgement on Israel and his

faithfulness to his promises as it is Jerusalem who have rejected Jesus and his

messengers rather than God abandoning his people.

Jerusalem functions theologically

The final function of Jerusalem within Luke-Acts is theological. The theological

function of Jerusalem is clearly the most controversial amongst scholars and typically

reveals their prior theological convictions about how God has been, or will be, faithful

to his promises to the nation of Israel and the city of Jerusalem. Although the future of

Jerusalem as a city seems clear in the destruction prophesied by Jesus, Luke alludes to

the hopes of Jerusalem being fulfilled in Jesus himself. As Wright suggests, ‘when

Jesus came to Jerusalem he came embodying a counter-system. He and the city were

both making claims to be the place where the living God, Israel’s God, was at work to

heal, restore and regroup his people.’43

As has been demonstrated, Luke’s Gospel begins with great hopes that through Jesus

God will bring about the fulfilment of his promises and save his people Israel and

restore Jerusalem (Luke 1:32-33, 46-55, 67-79; 2:11, 28-33, 38, 52). This optimism

anticipates that Jesus’ ministry will be the city’s finest hour and will result in blessing

42
Tannehill, Narrative Unity: Acts, 240.
43
Tom Wright, ‘Jerusalem in the New Testament’, Pages 53-77 in Jerusalem: Past and Present in the
Purposes of God (P. W. L. Walker eds. Cambridge: Tyndale House, 1992), 59.

Student Number: 10014453 Page 13 of 18

going to the nations.44 That said, the Gospel ends with Jerusalem seemingly

unchanged and no great outpouring of blessings to nations. However, Jerusalem’s

place in salvation-history has shifted considerably. Jerusalem has rejected God’s

Messiah and therefore rejected God (Luke 13:34-35; 19:44). As a consequence, God

has passed judgement on the city (Luke 21:20-24; 23:27-31) and the only hope of

restoration will be spiritual through repentance and trust in Jesus (Acts 2:38-39; 3:19-

21; 4:12; 5:30-32; 7:51-53; 22:14-16). This is articulated most clearly in Stephen’s

speech as he clarifies the place of the temple in the purposes and presence of God.45

This speech begins a discernible shift in Acts away from the temple and Jerusalem

with it no longer featuring significantly in the narrative until Paul arrives in Acts

21:26.46

Jerusalem is no longer the gathering point for those who want to be in the presence of

God or experience his salvation. The preaching of the disciples throughout Acts calls

people to come to Jesus, not to Jerusalem (Acts 2:38-39; 3:19-21; 4:12; 5:30-32; 7:51-

53; 22:14-16). As Wright acknowledges, ‘His death would therefore be the means of

drawing to its climax the wrath of God against the nation, forging a way through that

wrath and out the other side; as a result, all who wanted to do so could follow his way,

be joined to his people, and find rescue from the great imminent disaster’.47

44
Walker, Jesus and the Holy City, 77; Ron C. Fay. ‘The Narrative Function of the Temple in Luke-
Acts’. Trinity Journal. 27.2, (2006) 255-270. 261.
45
Peterson, Acts, 262.
46
Although Jerusalem and the Temple are not synonymous in Luke-Acts it can be argued that there is
a particularly tight connection between them in the opening sections Acts. See Fay. ‘Narrative Function
of the Temple’, 268.
47
Wright, ‘Jerusalem in the New Testament’, 63.

Student Number: 10014453 Page 14 of 18

Luke’s theological presentation of Jerusalem is that of a place that is embodied and

replaced by Jesus himself. Hastings remarks that the concept of Jerusalem as a place

where humans can meet God is now ‘realized not in a place but in a person, the Lord

Jesus […]. There is a new Jerusalem not made by hands, and within it Jesus is the

temple.’48 Jesus is now the place where salvation is found. Jesus’ own body was the

place where judgement was exercised and God’s wrath poured out. Through

repentance and trust in Jesus all people, Jews and Gentiles can experience the

salvation and blessing of God.

Not all observers share this optimistic theological assessment of Jesus fulfilling the

hopes and expectations of the city. Tannehill concludes,

‘That the close of Acts is not a triumphant but tragic and anguished in tone

becomes clear when we compare this scene with the purposes of God

announced earlier in Luke-Acts. […] God’s purposes have been blocked by

human resistance, at least temporarily. Paul’s commission indicates that he

shares in the failure. He was sent to both the Jews and Gentiles “to open their

eyes” so that they might share in the “light” that the Messiah brings (Acts

26:17-18, 23). Now he must confirm that the people have closed their eyes.

To this extent his mission is a failure. […] the chief emphasis of the end of

Acts is on the unresolved problem of Jewish rejection.’49

48
Hastings, Prophet and Witness in Jerusalem, 179.
49
Tannehill, Narrative Unity: Acts, 348-49.

Student Number: 10014453 Page 15 of 18

It is difficult to agree with Tannehill’s assessment of the tone at the conclusion of Acts.

Despite the ongoing rejection and opposition to Jesus and his followers symbolised by

Jerusalem, the concluding note of Acts is positive. Jesus has achieved his purpose of

sending his witnesses to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8). Now away from Jerusalem

Paul was able to preach ‘the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ—

with all boldness and without hindrance’ (Acts 28:31). Jesus has fulfilled the hopes

and expectations established at the beginning of the gospel. Luke communicates this

theological by establishing that Jesus has replaced Jerusalem as the source of God’s

blessing to the nations.

‘Luke’s plot centres on Jerusalem not Galilee, and far from giving a still picture it

presents us with a powerful and tragic drama.’50 As has been demonstrated,

Jerusalem’s function in Luke-Acts is multifaceted. Luke employs the Holy City as a

narrative device to structure his presentation of Jesus’ fulfilment of the hopes of the

city. Jerusalem also functions as a symbol of the hope but also rejection of Jesus and

his messengers. Finally, the city functions theologically as Luke demonstrates that

Jesus fulfils the hope and expectations of Jerusalem and replaces it as the source of

salvation and blessing. These three functions of Jerusalem all serve Luke’s purpose of

assuring his reader of the certainty of what had been taught about how God brought

salvation through Jesus.

50
Hastings, Prophet and Witness in Jerusalem, 98.

Student Number: 10014453 Page 16 of 18

Bibliography of Sources Cited

Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature, (BDAG). Third Edition. Edited and revised by Frederick
William Danker. Chicago; University of Chicago Press, 2001.

Bock, Darrell L. Luke 1:1-9:50. 2 vols. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1994.

_____. Luke 9:51-24:53. 2 vols. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1996.

_____. Acts. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing, 2007.

Carson, D. A. and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. Second

Edition. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.

Chance, J. Bradley. Jerusalem, the Temple and the New Age in Luke-Acts. Macon,
Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1988.

Conzelmann, Hans. The Theology of St. Luke. Translated by Geoffrey Buswell. New
York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1961.

Davies, W. D. The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial
Doctrine. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1974.

Fay, Ron C. ‘The Narrative Function of the Temple in Luke-Acts’. Trinity Journal.
27.2, (2006) 255-270.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Luke. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1981.

Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

Hastings, Adrian. Prophet and Witness in Jerusalem. Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1958.

Johnson, Luke Timothy. ‘Luke-Acts, Book of’. Pages 403-20 in Vol. 4 of The Anchor
Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York:
Doubleday, 1992.

Maddox, R. The Purpose of Luke-Acts. Edinburgh: Clark, 1982.

Student Number: 10014453 Page 17 of 18

Marshall, I. H. ‘Acts and the “Former Treatise” ’. Pages 163-82 in The Book of Acts in
Its First-Century Setting, Vol. 1: Ancient Literary Setting. Edited by B. W.
Winter and A. D. Clarke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

Pao, David W. and Eckhard J. Schnabel. ‘Luke’, Pages 251-414 in Commentary on the
New Testament Use of the Old Testament. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson eds.
Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007,

Parson, Mikeal C., and Richard I. Pervo. Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.

Peterson, David G. The Acts of the Apostles. The Pillar New Testament Commentary.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.

Robert, A., and A. Feuillet. Introduction to the New Testament. Translated by P. W.

Skehan et. al. New York: Desclée, 1965.

Tannehill. Robert C. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, A Literary Interpretation, Vol.

1: The Gospel According to Luke. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986.

_____. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, A Literary Interpretation: Vol. 2: The Acts of
the Apostles. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1994.

Walker, P. W. L. Jesus and the Holy City: New Testament Perspectives on Jerusalem.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

Witherington III, Ben. The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary.

Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

Student Number: 10014453 Page 18 of 18